Ontario Land Tribunal / Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 26, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000714
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Alovera Properties Inc. & Roselawn Duplex Ltd
Subject: By-law No. 553-2023
Description: to amend the Zoning By-law to implement the policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan
Reference Number: 18 244598 CPS 00 OZ (By-law No. 553-2023)
Property Address: 47 & 49 Roselawn Avenue
Municipality/UT: City of Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000714
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000714
OLT Case Name: Alovera Properties Inc & Roselawn Duplex Ltd v. Toronto (City)
Heard: July 23, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Roselawn Duplex Ltd. and Alovera Properties Limited | Rowan Barron, Christopher Tanzola |
| City of Toronto | Gabe Szobel, Jessica Braun (in absentia) |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA ON JULY 23, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding an Appeal filed by Roselawn Duplex Ltd. and Alovera Properties Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act regarding the City of Toronto’s (“City”) adoption of Zoning By-law Amendment No. 553-2023 (“ZBA”) related to the properties municipally known as 47 and 49 Roselawn Avenue (“Subject Property”).
2The Subject Property is located on the south side of Roselawn Avenue with Duplex Avenue to the west and Yonge Street to the east. Currently thereon are two two-storey, detached house-form buildings, which each have the characteristics of commercial properties.
3The ZBA, passed by City Council on June 18, 2023, is to implement the policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment 405) for the areas specified.
UPDATE
4Counsel for the Parties confirmed that discussions had been ongoing between the Appellant and the City. Ms. Barron advised that the Appellant would soon be applying to the City for a Minor Variance (“MV”) to allow office permissions on the Subject Property. If approved, the Appellant might then withdraw the current Appeal. If the MV were denied and the Appellant opted to appeal that decision to the Tribunal, it could make sense to hear the matters together. To allow the MV process to play out, the Appellant requested that the current Appeal be adjourned sine die.
5The City agreed with the proposal to allow the MV process to unfold and also with the proposal to adjourn sine die. Mr. Szobel highlighted that the City would be bringing forward a motion to the Tribunal for partial approval of the portions of the by-law not under Appeal, to which the Appellant had no objections. Mr. Szobel indicated that he would submit the required motion materials to the Case Coordinator along with a request that the motion be heard in writing.
6Upon consideration, the Tribunal agreed with the proposed path forward and directed the Parties to provide a written status update on or before Monday, December 2, 2024.
ORDER
7The Tribunal Orders that the matter is adjourned sine die.
“S. Bobka”
S. BOBKA
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.