Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 11, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000371
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 86 RVW & 100-108 RVW Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit a 59-storey mixed-use building containing 480 residential units, 7 floors of office space and ground floor retail space
Reference Number: 22 192723 STE 13 OZ
Property Address: 86, 100-108 Lombard Street and 103 Richmond Street East
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000371
OLT Case Name: 86 RVW & 100-108 RVW Inc. v. City of Toronto
Heard: July 9, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative
86 RVW Inc. and 100-108 RVW Inc.
Daniel Artenosi Michael Cara
City of Toronto
Adam Ward Daniel Elmadany (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON JULY 9, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Hearing was the first Case Management Conference ("CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal pursuant to section 34(11) of the Planning Act by 86 RVW Inc. and 100-108 RVW Inc. (“Applicant”) resulting from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframe on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), which relates to lands located at 86 Lombard Street, 100-108 Lombard Street, and 103 Richmond Street East in the City (“Subject Property”). The purpose of the ZBA is to allow for the development of a 59-storey mixed-use building on the Subject Property.
2The Applicant has also submitted a Site Plan Application to the City, which has not been appealed and is not before the Tribunal.
3At the CMC, the Tribunal canvassed Counsel, who confirmed that there was no issue with the service of the Notice of CMC. The Tribunal is in receipt of the Affidavit of Service, sworn by Rowan Barron on June 20, 2024, which was marked as Exhibit 1, and confirms that Notice was adequately provided. As such, no further notice is required.
STATUS REQUESTS
4The Tribunal was tasked with adjudicating a number of status requests.
Party Status Requests
5Party Status requests were received from MTCC 784, Warren Sorensen, and the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association.
6The Tribunal received a Party status request from MTCC 784, the Condominium Board at 82 Lombard Street, whose members collectively raised concerns with the proposal, mainly relating to the proximity of the proposal to the existing structure at 82 Lombard Street (0 lot line setback), the disruption of daylighting corridors (on the northern side of the property), the interruption of privacy for the exclusive and common use patios within the property, and the apparent disregard for the heritage and building height fabric found on Lombard Street. The Tribunal provided the representative of MTCC 784, Joseph Pettipas, with a fulsome explanation of the differences between a Party and a Participant. Moreover, the Applicant’s Counsel confirmed that MTCC 784 would be included in a mediation regardless of their status in this proceeding. After receiving this confirmation, Mr. Pettipas advised that MTCC 784 would revise its status request to a Participant status request instead. The Parties did not object to MTCC 784’s Participant status request. The Tribunal found that MTCC 784 had an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in understanding the potential impacts of the ZBA on the local community. The Tribunal granted Participant status to MTCC 784.
7The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association (“SLNA”) submitted a Party status request, indicating that it did not intend to oppose the development on the Subject Property, but to assist in creating a development that complies with various provincial and municipal planning policies and guidelines. Moreover, its intention was to retain Party status for the sole purpose of mediation, and it intended to be a Participant for the purposes of the Hearing. At the CMC, SNLA reiterated this intention. Once the Applicant’s Counsel confirmed that SNLA would be able to fully participate in an upcoming mediation, regardless of being a Party or not, SNLA’s representative, Suzanne Kavanagh, advised that SNLA would seek Participant status. The Parties did not object to this request. The Tribunal granted Participant status to SNLA for reasons similar to those with respect to MTCC 784.
8Warren Sorensen is an owner and resident of the building adjacent to the Subject Property. He opposed the proposal and raised a number of concerns with it, including that the heritage property should not be relocated, the density and built-form are not appropriate for the area, a number of design-specific critiques of the proposal, the ZBA would be a substantial departure from the City’s Zoning By-law and policies, the impact of this development on surrounding amenities such as roof-top terraces, and the loss of privacy caused by the proposal. The Applicant’s Counsel opposed this Party status request for various reasons, explaining that Mr. Sorenson should more appropriately be granted Participant status. In the alternative, the Applicant’s Counsel submitted, the request should be considered by way of a motion to allow the Tribunal to make an informed decision. The City’s Counsel did not take a position on this. Mr. Sorenson indicated that, for now, he preferred to keep his Party status request but that being involved in an upcoming mediation may influence this position. Subsequent to a mediation, he may decide to proceed as a Participant instead. As explained below, a second CMC has been scheduled. As a result, the Tribunal determined that Mr. Sorensen’s request would be held in abeyance until the second CMC. This would allow Mr. Sorensen time to participate in the mediation and determine whether he wished to proceed as a Party or a Participant. If he decided to seek Party status, he was directed to bring a motion in support of this request, in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to be considered at the second CMC.
Participant Status Requests
9Participant Status requests were received from the following: Colleen Farrell, Eleanor Evans, and Kate Rossi, all residents in the area. They opposed the proposed development and raised concerns with it, including the negative impact of the development on the quality of life in the area, the excessive size and scope of the proposed building, the impact on sunlight and loss of natural light in the nearby park, the lack of conformity of the building with the existing streetscape, traffic and congestion issues, the impact of the development on the heritage-designated former morgue building (proposed to be moved east), and concerns regarding increased density which would negatively impact infrastructure.
10The Applicant’s Counsel consented to these requests, and the City’s Counsel did not object to them.
11The Tribunal determined that these individuals had an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in understanding the potential impacts of the ZBA on the local community. The Tribunal granted Participant status to Colleen Farrell, Eleanor Evans, and Kate Rossi.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
12The Parties did not provide a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) or Issues List (“IL”) prior to the CMC. Rather, the Applicant’s Counsel explained, the Parties are engaged in discussions, with the hopes of a mediation being conducted. As a result, they sought a second CMC for a few months down the line to allow the Parties to continue their discussions, with the inclusion of those who had sought status (noted above in this Decision), and for the City’s Council to make a determination on the City’s position with respect to this proposal. The City’s Counsel agreed with this course of action. The Tribunal agreed as well, and a second CMC has been scheduled to take place, with particulars noted below.
13The Tribunal directed the Parties to provide a draft PO and IL, along with/or a status update, to the Case Coordinator by Friday, November 1, 2024.
MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT
14The Applicant’s Counsel stated that the Applicant has initiated mediation, which is before the City, and intends to engage in same prior to the second CMC. Moreover, the Applicant’s Counsel confirmed that all those who had sought status at the CMC would be included and could participate in the mediation.
15The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal in writing should they reach a Settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the Hearing, and should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services.
SECOND CMC
16A second CMC, to address procedural issues and to consider a potential motion regarding the Party status request of Warren Sorensen, has been scheduled to take place by Video Hearing on Friday, November 8, 2024 at 10 a.m., at the following coordinates:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733
Access Code: 979-388-733
17On that date, the Parties and Participants are asked to log into the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.
18Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373 The Access Code is as indicated above.
19Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting, or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
20Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the CMC by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:
a. The following are now Participants in this proceeding:
i. MTCC 784;
ii. St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association;
iii. Colleen Farrell;
iv. Eleanor Evans; and
v. Kate Rossi.
b. A second Case Management Conference is scheduled as described above in this Decision.
c. The Procedural Order and Issues List, or a status update, is to be provided to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by Friday, November 1, 2024.
22There will be no further notice.
23This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.
“Bita M. Rajaee”
BITA M. RAJAEE
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.