KS Denarda Holdings Inc. and KS Denarda Street Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2024 CanLII 72562

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

July 26, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-001088

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

KS Denarda Holdings Inc. and KS Denarda Street Inc.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description:

To permit the development of a 43-storey residential building comprised of a 37-storey tower with a six-storey base including 561 dwelling units

Reference Number:

23 174306 WET 05 OZ

Property Address:

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Denarda Street

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000362

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001088

OLT Case Name:

KS Denarda Holdings Inc. and KS Denarda Street Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

KS Denarda Holdings Inc. and KS Denarda Street Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description:

To permit the development of a 43-storey residential building comprised of a 37-storey tower with a six-storey base including 561 dwelling units

Reference Number:

23 174306 WET 05 OZ

Property Address:

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Denarda Street

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000363

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001088

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A

Appellant:

KS Denarda Holdings Inc. and KS Denarda Street Inc.

Subject:

Site Plan

Description:

To permit the development of a 43-storey residential building comprised of a 37-storey tower with a six-storey base including 561 dwelling units

Reference Number:

23 174316 WET 05 SA

Property Address:

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Denarda Street

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-001088

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-001088

Heard:

June 25, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

KS Denarda Holdings Inc. and KS Denarda Street Inc. (KingSett)

Anne Benedetti

City of Toronto

Ray Kallio, Jamie Dexter (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER ON JUNE 25, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) concerning the appeals by KS Denarda Holdings Inc. and KS Denarda Street Inc. (KingSett) (“Appellants”) under s. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act and s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act due to the City of Toronto Council’s decision to not approve the Applications.

2The purpose of the applications is to redevelop the land assembly properties known as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Denarda Street in the City of Toronto (“Subject Lands”). The original applications would permit the construction of a new 43-storey residential building comprising of a 37-storey tower and a six-storey base podium containing 561 dwelling units with a proposed gross floor area of approximately 34,026 square metres (“sq m”).

3The Tribunal marked the Affidavit of Service by Linda Roberts, dated May 10, 2024, as Exhibit 1 to the Hearing.

PARTY OR PARTICIPANT REQUESTS

4The Tribunal canvassed the other persons who attended the Hearing if anyone was requesting either Party or Participant status. No persons made such a request. Since there were no further status requests, the Parties requested that the CMC be turned into a Settlement Hearing. The Tribunal ruled that this was appropriate and that the Tribunal would now hear the proposed Settlement before it.

5The Parties stated that the Settlement presented is revised from the original application, and the Tribunal ruled that the application before it would not require any further notice to be provided. The Parties requested that the site plan application be adjourned sine die, but both Parties agreed that the site plan application could be brought back to the Tribunal if needed at a future date. The Tribunal ruled that this was acceptable and that the site plan application would not be heard at this Hearing event.

DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDING AREA

6The Subject Lands have an area of approximately 2,686 sq m. They are irregular in shape, with a frontage of approximately 64.0 metres (“m”) along Denarda Street and approximately 3.0 m along Ray Avenue to the north. The average depth of the Subject Lands is approximately 40 m. An approximate 3.1 m strip of land extends from the north lot line, providing a connection to Ray Avenue.

7The Subject Lands currently exist with eight detached residential dwellings that are currently vacant. For reference purposes, the municipal addresses of these vacant dwellings are 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 and 16 Denarda Street. As noted above, these properties are now a part of what is considered to be a land assembly pertaining to these applications.

8The Subject Lands are located within the Mount Dennis neighbourhood. The major street intersections in this area are Eglinton Avenue West and Weston Road, as well as Eglinton Avenue West and Jane Street.

9The Mount Dennis area is currently receiving an influx of public transit infrastructure, including the Mount Dennis Station, which is a part of the new Eglinton Crosstown LRT. The Mount Dennis Station will also provide a new station stop along the UP Express, providing rapid transit to both Pearson Airport and Union Station. The area has a new GO Station stop along the Kitchener GO Rail Line.

10Immediately to the north of the Subject Lands on Ray Avenue are low-rise residential forms of two to two-and-a-half-storey apartment buildings and detached and semi-detached dwellings. Immediately to the east is a 15-storey independent living facility with a daycare facility. Further east is the CNR/CPR rail corridor. Immediately to the south, to the adjacent side of Denarda Street, are six detached residential dwellings, which are a part of a separate application and land assembly. These adjacent lands have a proposal similar to the proposal before the Tribunal, consisting of 43 storeys and a proposed total of 531 dwelling units. Further south on Oxford Drive is the recent OLT-approved residential tower at 1-9 Oxford Drive. To the west of the Subject Lands is a shared driveway approximately 10 m in width, which provides access to three-storey townhouses with frontage on West Road.

APPLICATION HISTORY

11Following pre-application consultations with the City, the original application was submitted on July 20, 2023, and was deemed complete on October 12, 2023. On October 26, 2023, City Staff submitted a Refusal Report to the Etobicoke York Community Council (“EYCC”) with respect to the applications. The EYCC adopted the Refusal Report on November 13, 2023. A public community meeting was held on November 27, 2023, and a Supplementary Report was then prepared, providing public feedback. On December 13, 2023, City Council accepted and adopted the Refusal Report and the Supplementary Report.

12After the Applications were refused by City Council, the City directed City staff to use sections 22(8.1) and 34(11.0.01) of the Planning Act to start a mediation process with the Appellant. The City and the Appellant participated in private mediation sessions in January 2024 to address the City’s concerns about the applications.

13The mediation sessions resulted in revisions to the applications, and the Appellant submitted a new “With Prejudice Settlement Proposal” to the City on May 7, 2024. On May 22, 2024, City Council accepted the Settlement offer as presented.

DAY OF HEARING

14The Appellant, on consent with the City, presented Courtney Heron-Monk to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to the applications before the Tribunal. Ms. Heron-Monk’s Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 2 to the Hearing.

Settlement Proposal

15Ms. Heron-Monk took the Tribunal through the revised proposal that is before the Tribunal. The proposal includes the following revisions:

(i) reduction of total storeys from 43 to 39;

(ii) a 3.0 m stepback above the base building facing Denarda Street at floors five and six without a balcony encroachment;

(iii) the floor plate at the 39th floor was reduced to 696 sq m;

(iv) a new overall Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 11.5

(v) removal of balconies from the sixth floor facing Denarda Street;

(vi) restrictions on the location of projecting balconies facing Denarda Street from floors seven to 39; and

(vii) four accessible parking spaces were added.

16The overall height of the residential tower is 136.2 sq m and includes the mechanical penthouse. A summary of the changes between the original proposal and the agreed-upon proposal before the Tribunal can be seen below:

Original Proposal (July 2023)

Settlement Proposal (May 2024)

Site Area

2,686 square metres

2,686 square metres

Building Height

Storeys

43 storeys

39 storeys

Metres (Top of Roof)

139.7 metres

128.2 metres

Metres (Top of MPH)

147.7 metres

136.2 metres

Gross Floor Area Residential

34,026 square metres

30,887 square metres

Density

12.7 FSI

11.5 FSI

Unit Mix

Studio

41 (7%)

81 (15%)

One-bedroom

355 (63%)

268 (50%)

Two-bedroom

106 (19%)

111 (21%)

Three-bedroom

59 (11%)

71 (13%)

Total Units

561 (100%)

531 (100%)

Amenity Space

Indoor Amenity

1,082 sq. m (1.9 sq. m. / unit)

1,041 sq. m (2.0 sq. m. / unit)

Outdoor Amenity

1,176 sq. m (2.1 sq. m. / unit)

1,181 sq. m (2.2 sq. m. / unit)

Total Amenity

2,258 sq. m (4.0 sq. m. / unit)

2222 sq. m (4.2 sq. m. / unit)

Vehicle Parking Residential Visitors

0 parking spaces 30 parking spaces 30 parking spaces

0 parking spaces 30 parking spaces

• Including 4 accessible spaces* 30 parking spaces

Total Vehicle Parking

Bicycle Parking

Long-Term

506 spaces

478 spaces

Short-Term

58 spaces

72 spaces

Total Bicycle Parking

564 spaces

550 spaces

Loading

1 Type ‘C’ 1 Type ‘G’

1 Type ‘C’ 1 Type ‘G’

Planning Analysis

Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”)

17Ms. Heron-Monk gave the opinion that the proposed planning instruments are consistent with the PPS, specifically Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.3, 1.6.3, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1, 1.8.1 and 4.6. These policies speak to residential intensification and the efficient use of land and infrastructure. Ms. Huron-Monk opined that the proposed instruments are consistent with the PPS.

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019, as amended) (“GGH”)

18It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that the planning instruments, as proposed, conform with the GGH, specifically the Guiding Principles of the GGH and the policies which allow for the optimized use of lands and infrastructure. The proposed instruments conform to the policies that encourage intensification in “strategic growth areas” and “major transit station areas.” The location of the Subject Lands is within an area of strategic growth and is near a major transit station. In her opinion, the instruments conform to the GGH.

City of Toronto Official Plan (“COP”)

19It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that the Subject Lands are currently underutilized, and the redesignation from “Neighbourhoods” to “Mixed Use” allows for an appropriate amount of intensification to occur. This redevelopment will allow the Mount Dennis neighbourhood to continue its transition to a transit-supportive complete community.

20Ms. Heron-Monk gave the opinion that the proposed instruments conform with the COP policy Chapter 2 concerning the growth management strategy of the City. The City’s growth strategy states that it is forecasted to grow by a minimum of over half a million people by the year 2031. The policies within the COP focus on growth and intensification within Transit Priority Segments of the City. Due to the Subject Lands’ location near the Eglinton Crosstown LRT and its proximity to the Kitchener GO Rail Line, the Subject Lands do meet the requirements for intensification. The Subject Lands are also located near two Transit Priority Roadways, those being Eglinton Avenue West and Weston Road. Ms. Heron-Monk opined that the redesignation as proposed would allow for an appropriate level of intensification to occur in an area that is in need of intensification for the projected growth of the City.

Site and Area Specific Policies 39 and 53 (“SASP 39” and “SASP 53”)

21Ms. Heron-Monk gave the opinion that the Subject Lands are within the SASP 39 designated area. SASP 39 allows for low to medium-rise residential buildings to occur subject to “suitable land assembly.” However, since the proposed instruments are more intense and higher than what is allowed in SASP 39, then the new land use designation is necessary. Thus, the new designation of a “Mixed Use Area” would delete the Subject Lands from SASP 39 and allow for the proposed redevelopment. It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that this redesignation is appropriate to allow for the proposed development to occur.

22Concerning SASP 53, it was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that SASP 53 states that a development concept plan for an entire redevelopment block – or, in this particular case, a land assembly – and the proposed land instruments meet the intent of SASP 53 and are appropriate for the Subject Lands.

Official Plan Amendment 571 (“Mount Dennis Secondary Plan”) (“OPA 571”)

23On July 22, 2022, the City adopted OPA 571. However, OPA 571 is not in effect until the instrument has been approved by the OLT. Ms. Heron-Monk opined that the lands adjacent to the north of the Subject Lands are to be changed to the “Mixed Use Areas” designation to support the planned growth of the area. OPA 571 would eliminate SASP 39, which limits development to “low to medium-rise buildings.” It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that the redesignation of the Subject Lands has regard for OPA 571 and will conform to OPA 571 when it is approved and goes into effect.

Draft Site and Area Specific Policy 671 (“SASP 671”)

24The City’s Planning Division initiated SASP 671 in June 2020, which includes the delineation of approximately 180 potential major transit station areas to meet the provincial minimum intensification requirements. Included in SASP 671 are Protected Major Transit Areas” (“PTMSAs”). Mount Dennis is included as one of the PTMSAs. SASP 671 identifies a minimum population and employment target of 160 residents and jobs per hectare and a minimum density of 3.0 FSI. It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that the proposal takes regard for SASP 671 and that the Subject Lands meet these minimum requirements.

City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as Amended

25Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is a City-wide Zoning By-law. The Subject Lands are currently designated as “Residential Multiple” RM (f12.0; u2; d0.8), which currently permits a building height of 11.0 m and a maximum of three storeys. It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that redesignating the lands to a “Commercial Multiple” designation will permit the proposed development to occur with site-specific performance standards attached to the designation for the Subject Lands. It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law planning instruments would conform to the general intent and purpose of Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

Tall Building Guidelines

26Ms. Heron-Monk gave the opinion that the proposed planning instruments before the Tribunal have due regard for these guidelines, specifically the sections regarding site context, site organization, tall building design and the pedestrian realm. Other items that have been taken into consideration with this proposal are the minimum distance separation requirements, minimum setbacks from the property lines, and the maximum tower floor plate coverage. Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion was that the proposal does meet the general intent of the Tall Building Guidelines.

Overall Opinion

27It was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that the proposed planning instruments before the Tribunal are consistent with the PPS. The draft planning instruments conform to the GGH and the COP. The proposed instruments have appropriate regard for OPA 571, have regard to the SASP 671 and the City’s Tall Building Guidelines. The change in land designation is appropriate and desirable to permit an intensification to an underutilized area. The proposed intensification will be appropriate given the Subject Land’s location to a PTMSA. The proposed height of 39 storeys will provide a built form to transition to higher developments that are proposed in the area that have been previously approved around the Mount Dennis PTMSA. For the reasons stated above, it was Ms. Heron-Monk’s opinion that the proposed instruments before the Tribunal represent good planning and urban design and should be approved in principle with the following conditions attached:

1. The final form and content of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments are satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

2. The Owner has submitted an acceptable Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report and associated plans to the City for review and acceptance to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

a) Should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, a Holding Provision be included in the final form of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendments, as the case may be, not to be lifted until such time as the Owner has made satisfactory arrangements, including entering into appropriate agreement(s) with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure and the provision of financial securities to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or in the alternative, prior to the issuance of a final order, the Owner has entered into an agreement or agreements or otherwise secured for the design, construction, and the provision of financial securities for any required upgrades or improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development as may be identified in the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.

3. The Owner has submitted revised drawings showing compliance with the parking space and drive aisle dimensional requirements of Section 200.5.1.10(2) of Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

4. The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, has approved the Rental Housing Demolition applications (23 177010 WET 05 RH and 23 177051 WET 05 RH) under Chapter 667 Residential Rental Property Demolition and Conversion Control of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, which allows for the demolition of the existing rental units on the sites, and the Owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary;

5. The Owner has provided an updated Pedestrian Level Wind Study, including Wind Tunnel testing, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

6. The drawings submitted by the Owner illustrate that the proposed development will meet the Toronto Green Standard Tier 1 requirements to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, with appropriate variations to address the matters agreed to between the Parties as illustrated in the drawings submitted with the Owners letter to the City dated May 7, 2024;

7. The Owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Metrolinx noted in correspondence dated September 1, 2023, including the need for a technical review, and has made required revisions to the satisfaction of the Manager, Technical Review, Metrolinx;

8. The Owner has submitted a revised Energy Strategy Report to the satisfaction of the Environment and Energy Division;

9. The submitted Noise and Vibration Impact Study, Rail Safety Report, and Compatibility/Migration Study have been peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant retained by the City at the Owner’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, as part of the Zoning Bylaw Amendment application;

10. The Owner agrees to submit an Application to Injure or Remove Trees and to obtain a permit in accordance with the requirements outlined in Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Article II, prior to Site Plan Approval; and

11. The Owner has entered into a Limiting Distance Agreement or other form of legal agreement satisfactory to the City Solicitor confirming that 1 Denarda Street will not be developed for a tall building without the consent of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and that agreement has been registered on title to 1 Denarda Street if required.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

28The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence and testimony in support of the Settlement provided by Ms. Heron-Monk.

29The Tribunal finds that the proposal development is in a form that will allow for the proper redevelopment of the Subject Lands. The proposal will make efficient use of the Subject Lands while ensuring compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposal will help support the achievement of the PPS and GGH policy directions that promote intensification within a built-up area.

30The proposed instruments will allow for a built form and intensification that conforms to the COP and allows for an appropriate intensification to occur near a PTMSA.

31The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal before it is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the GGH, and conforms to the COP. The Tribunal finds that the proposal before it conforms to the general intent and purpose of the City’s Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended.

32The Tribunal finds that the proposed land planning instruments before the Tribunal meet the objectives, principles and vision of the City’s OP and has due regard for the City’s Tall Building Guidelines.

33The Tribunal finds that the proposal represents good land use planning and should be approved in the form as presented with the recommended conditions stated above.

INTERIM ORDER

34THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [36] below and the City of Toronto Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.

35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [36] below and the City of Toronto Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.

36The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order, contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:

1. The final form and content of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments are satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

2. The Owner has submitted an acceptable Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report and associated plans to the City for review and acceptance to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

a) Should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, a Holding Provision be included in the final form of the site-specific Zoning By-law Amendments, as the case may be, not to be lifted until such time as the Owner has made satisfactory arrangements, including entering into appropriate agreement(s) with the City for the design and construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure and the provision of financial securities to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or in the alternative, prior to the issuance of a final order, the Owner has entered into an agreement or agreements or otherwise secured for the design, construction, and the provision of financial securities for any required upgrades or improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development as may be identified in the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.

3. The Owner has submitted revised drawings showing compliance with the parking space and drive aisle dimensional requirements of Section 200.5.1.10(2) of Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

4. The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, has approved the Rental Housing Demolition applications (23 177010 WET 05 RH and 23 177051 WET 05 RH) under Chapter 667 Residential Rental Property Demolition and Conversion Control of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, which allows for the demolition of the existing rental units on the sites, and the Owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, one or more agreements with the City, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, securing all rental housing-related matters necessary;

5. The Owner has provided an updated Pedestrian Level Wind Study, including Wind Tunnel testing, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

6. The drawings submitted by the Owner illustrate that the proposed development will meet the Toronto Green Standard Tier 1 requirements to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, with appropriate variations to address the matters agreed to between the Parties as illustrated in the drawings submitted with the Owners letter to the City dated May 7, 2024;

7. The Owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Metrolinx noted in correspondence dated September 1, 2023, including the need for a technical review, and has made required revisions to the satisfaction of the Manager, Technical Review, Metrolinx;

8. The Owner has submitted a revised Energy Strategy Report to the satisfaction of the Environment and Energy Division;

9. The submitted Noise and Vibration Impact Study, Rail Safety Report, and Compatibility/Migration Study have been peer-reviewed by a third-party consultant retained by the City at the Owner’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, as part of the Zoning By-law Amendment application;

10. The Owner agrees to submit an Application to Injure or Remove Trees and to obtain a permit in accordance with the requirements outlined in Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Article II, prior to Site Plan Approval; and

11. The Owner has entered into a Limiting Distance Agreement or other form of legal agreement satisfactory to the City Solicitor confirming that 1 Denarda Street will not be developed for a tall building without the consent of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and that agreement has been registered on title to 1 Denarda Street if required.

37The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

38If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [36] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, February 28, 2025, the Appellant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

39The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument(s), the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

“S. deBOER”

S. DEBOER

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2