Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 12, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004644, OLT-23-000133

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

Applicant/Appellant: RML 619 Yonge Street Ltd., RML 625 Yonge Street Ltd., and RML 9 Isabella Street Ltd. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit construction of a 606 unit, mixed use building. Reference Number: 21 234490 STE 13 OZ Property Address: 619-637 Yonge Street and 1-9 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004644 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004644 OLT Case Name: RML 619 Yonge Street Ltd. et al. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: RML 619 Yonge Street Ltd., RML 625 Yonge Street Ltd., and RML 9 Isabella Street Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit construction of a 606 unit, mixed use building. Reference Number: 21 234490 STE 13 OZ Property Address: 619-637 Yonge Street and 1-9 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004645 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004644

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

Applicant/Appellant: RML 619 Yonge Street Ltd., RML 625 Yonge Street Ltd., and RML 9 Isabella Street Ltd. Subject: City of Toronto Site Plan Approval Description: To permit construction of a 606 unit, mixed use building. Reference Number: 22 132974 STE 13 SA Property Address: 619-637 Yonge Street and 1-9 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004646 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004644

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: RML 619 Yonge Street Ltd., RML 625 Yonge Street Ltd., and RML 9 Isabella Street Ltd. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit construction of a 606 unit, mixed use building. Reference Number: 21 234491 STE 13 SB Property Address: 619-637 Yonge Street and 1-9 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004647 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004644

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18

Applicant/Appellant: RML 619 Yonge Street Ltd., RML 625 Yonge Street Ltd., and RML 9 Isabella Street Ltd. Subject: Passing of By-law to designate a property of cultural heritage value or interest Description: To permit construction of a 606 unit, mixed use building. Reference Number: Heritage BL 70-2023 Property Address: 625 Yonge Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000133

Heard: August 16, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
RML 619 Yonge Street Ltd., RML 625 Yonge Street Ltd., and RML 9 Isabella Street Ltd.	Adrian Frank, Ira Kagan
City of Toronto	Jamie Dexter, Sarah O’Connor (in absentia)
8 Gloucester Ltd.	Alexander Suriano, Matthew Helfand (in absentia)
Oberon Development Corporation	Samantha Lampert

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN ON AUGUST 16, 2024 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns Appeals filed by RML 619 Yonge Street Ltd., RML 625 Yonge Street Ltd., and RML 9 Isabella Street Ltd. (“Appellants”) against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision within the timeframes prescribed in the Planning Act, R.S.O., c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), for an Application to Amend the Official Plan (“OPA”), pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Act, an Application to Amend the Zoning By-law (“ZBA”), pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act, an Application for a Plan of Subdivision (“SUB”), pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Act, an Application for Site Plan Approval (“SPA”), pursuant to s. 114(5) of the City of Toronto Act, S.O. 2006, c. 11 Sched. A. The Appellants have also filed an Appeal pursuant to s. 29(11) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. c. O. 18. (“OHA”), against Heritage By-law No. 70-2023 (“Heritage Appeal”), which designated a portion of the Appellants’ lands (625 Yonge Street) under Part IV of the OHA.

2The lands which are the subject of the Appeals are known municipally as 619 through 637 Yonge Street and 1 through 9 Isabella Street (“Subject Lands”). The Appellants propose to develop the Subject Lands with a 70-storey, mixed-use building comprised of 803 residential units and 2,473.4 square metres (“m²”) of retail floor space on the ground and second floor of a three-storey podium.

3A part of the Subject Lands was approved for redevelopment by a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) in 2015, permitting a 46-storey mixed-use building with a total Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 27,200 m² including 350 m² of retail GFA.

4The Appellants acquired additional lands known as 619-623 Yonge Street in 2018, and a revised development proposal was prepared. The OPA, ZBA, and SUB were submitted to the City in November 2021, proposing a 57-storey mixed-use building with a GFA of 49,247.87 m², including 3,130 m² of retail GFA.

5The Applications were deemed complete by the City on December 14, 2021. The SPA was filed on April 12, 2022.

6The Applications were appealed on September 23, 2022.

7On December 14, 2022, the City enacted Heritage By-law No. 70-2023, designating the portion of the Subject Lands known as 625 Yonge Street under Part IV of the OHA.

8The Appellants presented a Settlement Offer to the City that was accepted by the City Council on March 20, 2024. Continued negotiations with the remaining Parties resulted in a Settlement based on revised architectural plans prepared by CORE Architects Inc. with a revision date of July 16, 2024. The revised plans were provided to the City for further consideration, and the City endorsed the revisions at their meeting on July 24 and 25, 2024.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

9The Settlement Proposal consists of a 70-storey mixed-use residential building with an overall GFA of 64,631.1 m². The proposed building includes 803 residential units and 2,473.4 m² of retail space located at grade and on Level 2 of a three-storey podium. The overall site density proposed is a Floor Space Index of 26.6. Vehicular parking is provided in four levels of underground parking accessible from Gloucester Lane. A total of 127 parking spaces are provided, 87 for residential use and 40 for commercial use. The proposed building includes 818 bicycle parking spaces, one Type G loading space, and one Type C loading space.

10The Settlement Proposal incorporates a step-back of 5.5 metres (“m”) on the third storey from the south lot line to address impact concerns relating to the existing north-facing windows located in the building at 615-617 Yonge Street and 18 Gloucester Lane. The proposed zoning by-law will prohibit the provision of amenity uses or any other active uses within the 5.5 m setback. Further, the Settlement Proposal provides parapets that are lowered to accommodate the north-facing windows.

11The Settlement includes a consent to the adjournment of the SUB and SPA until after the OPA and ZBA have been finalized with the Tribunal. The Heritage Appeal is to be withdrawn upon issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

12The City, 8 Gloucester Ltd., Eighteen Gloucester Holdings Limited, and Oberon Development Corporation (“Oberon”) attended and confirmed their respective support for the Settlement before the Tribunal.

SUBMISSIONS

13Tyler Grinyer, a Registered Professional Planner, was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning. The Tribunal considered the oral testimony and affidavit evidence of Mr. Grinyer in support of the Settlement and the approval of the OPA and ZBA.

14The Affidavit of Mr. Grinyer was marked as Exhibit 1. The Tribunal marked the Supplementary Document Book filed by the Appellants as Exhibit 2.

15Mr. Grinyer provided a history of the development approvals on the Subject Lands, including an Appeal to the OMB (File No.: PL130718). He proffered that the Subject Lands are located within a tall building context with two- and three-storey main street building typology at the street line along Yonge Street.

16The architectural plans that formed the basis of the Settlement Proposal were included as Exhibit G to Tribunal Exhibit 1. Mr. Grinyer reviewed the plans, noting that the proposed building will comprise of a 70-storey mixed-use tower on a three-storey base building that incorporates the preservation of the heritage property at 625 Yonge Street facade. Step-backs have been incorporated at the south elevation to facilitate light access to the windows on the north elevation of the Oberon building.

17Mr. Grinyer reviewed the elevation and plans describing the proposed amenity spaces, floor plate size and configuration, tower setbacks, including a minimum 10.5 m tower setback to Yonge Street, and the proposed tower separation, which exceeds 25 m to the nearest tower located south of the proposed building.

Land-Use Planning Considerations

18In consideration of the planning policy and regulatory context, Mr. Grinyer opined that the OPA and ZBA proposed to implement the Settlement Proposal represent good planning and are in the public interest.

19Section 2 of the Act requires that the Tribunal have regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in the subsection. Mr. Grinyer proffered that the Settlement Proposal optimizes the use of land and infrastructure in a transit-supportive location that is planned for significant growth with a well-designed residential tower form that encourages a sense of place through public realm enhancements and heritage retention. The Settlement Proposal makes efficient use of existing infrastructure by providing a compact built form in proximity to higher-order transit and limits the supply of vehicle parking, thus promoting active transportation and contributing to reducing automobile dependency, all of which contribute towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

20Mr. Grinyer opined that the OPA and ZBA are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) as the policies promote efficient use of land and infrastructure, support a broader mix of uses to meet long-term needs, promote a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities in a compact form, encourage a sense of place, conserve significant built heritage resources, support the use of active transportation and transit, and reduce greenhouse gases.

21In consideration of the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended (“Growth Plan”), Mr. Grinyer directed the Tribunal to the numerous applicable policies and notes that the Growth Plan seeks to optimize the use of land and infrastructure and to encourage growth and intensification in “strategic growth areas” including “urban growth centres” and “major transit station areas.”

22The Subject Lands are located within the Downtown Toronto “urban growth centre” and are within a “strategic growth area” as defined by the Growth Plan. The Subject Lands are also within the definition of a “major transit station area” (“MTSA”) due to their proximity to the Wellesley and Bloor/Yonge Subway Stations. The Subject Lands are within the boundaries of two adopted Protected MTSAs (“PMTSA”) included in Official Plan Amendment 524 (“OPA 524”). OPA 524 was adopted by City Council on February 3, 2022, and is currently before the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing awaiting final approval. Although not yet in force, Mr. Grinyer notes that the Council-adopted OPA 524 further supports that the Subject Lands are within multiple MTSAs. Mr. Grinyer opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the Growth Plan that encourages growth and intensification in “strategic growth areas,” which includes “urban growth centres” and “major transit station areas.” The Settlement Proposal supports transit service and active transportation, encourages a diverse range and mix of housing options and land uses in a compact built form while conserving cultural heritage resources, provides for a vibrant public realm, and contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gases and the achievement of complete communities.

23The Subject Lands are located within the Downtown, as identified on Map 2 (Urban Structure) of the City Official Plan (“OP”), which is targeted for a vibrant mix of residential and employment growth. The Subject Lands are designated Mixed Use Areas, as identified on Map 18 (Land Use Plan) of the OP. Mixed Use Areas are one of the land use designations anticipated to accommodate much of the City’s increased growth and intensification.

24Section 4.5 of the OP, the Mixed-Use Areas policies, permits a broad range of commercial, residential, and institutional uses in single-use or mixed-use buildings, as well as parks, open spaces, and utilities. The OP envisions that development in Mixed Use Areas will create a balance of high-quality commercial, residential, institutional, and open space uses that reduce automobile dependency, meet the needs of the local community, and provide new jobs and homes for the City’s growing population on underutilized lands in the Downtown.

25Mr. Grinyer opined that the Subject Lands is well suited to accommodate significant intensification as proposed, given its location within the Downtown and the Mixed Use Areas designations. The Subject Lands are within one of the limited areas within the City where the OP expressly directs residential growth and intensification to occur. Further, the Subject Lands are well served by higher-order transit and situated within an urban context that includes numerous tall buildings. The Settlement Proposal proposes a level of intensification that will support the objectives of the OP’s growth management strategy and will not result in any unacceptable adverse impact on the public realm.

26Mr. Grinyer opined that the proposed OPA and ZBA conform with the Secondary Plan for the Downtown (“Downtown Plan”). The Downtown Plan designates the Subject Lands as Mixed Use Areas 1 – Growth. Section 4.1 of the Downtown Plan encourages growth within the Downtown, in particular on lands designated Mixed Use Areas 1 and states that the highest density of development within the Downtown is to be directed to Mixed Use Areas in proximity to existing or planned transit stations.

27The Settlement Proposal proposes a mixed-use tall building that will appropriately intensify a site that is in proximity to two (2) delineated PMTSAs with a range of residential and non-residential uses that will serve the existing and future residents along Yonge Street. The proposed scale and massing of the base building and tower are compatible with the existing and planned context of the surrounding area and provide appropriate built form compatibility through the provision of separation distances and step-backs. Mr. Grinyer opined that the Settlement Proposal would provide for an appropriate scale of intensification that is compatible with its surrounding built form context and conforms to the Mixed Use Areas 1 policies of the Downtown Plan. The Settlement Proposal appropriately balances the policies of the Downtown Plan in a manner that will achieve heritage conservation, the creation of new jobs and homes in a mixed-use building with access to higher-order transit, the minimum unit mix requirements for larger two-bedroom and three-bedroom units, and will enhance the existing public realm along Yonge Street and Isabella Street through active at-grade uses and new landscaping.

28Mr. Grinyer reviewed the Site and Area Specific Policies (“SASP”) applying to the Subject Lands and the relevant policies that apply to the Settlement Proposal and the Subject Lands. He concluded that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the applicable SASPs. He noted that SASP 471 applies to the lands bounded by Yonge Street to the west, Isabella Street to the north, Gloucester Lane to the east, and Gloucester Street to the south, which includes the Subject Lands. SASP 471 provides that a maximum of two tall buildings are permitted within these lands covered by SASP 471, and each must provide a minimum tower separation distance of 25 m. Mr. Grinyer reiterated that the Settlement Proposal will conform with SASP with the proposed tower separation in excess of 25 m.

29OPA 524 created SASP 600 (Bloor-Yonge PMTSA) and SASP 602 (Wellesley PMTSA), which included the Subject Lands within their respective boundaries. SASP 600 and 602 establish minimum population and employment targets of residents and jobs combined per hectare together with a minimum density target. Notwithstanding OPA 524 is currently awaiting final approval from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing as set out earlier, Mr. Grinyer opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the policies in OPA 524 as it relates to the minimum required densities and will contribute to the achievement of the planned population and employment targets.

30Mr. Grinyer proffered that the in-force zoning by-law applying to the Subject Lands is the former City Zoning By-law No. 438-86, as amended, with the exception of the portion of the Subject Lands that the OMB previously rezoned as part of the previous development proposal. A new site-specific zoning by-law is proposed to facilitate the Settlement Proposal.

31The Historic Yonge Street Heritage Conservation District Plan (“HYSHCD”) was recently approved by the Tribunal and exempted the Subject Lands. Notwithstanding, Mr. Grinyer noted that the City and the Appellant have settled the Heritage Appeal, and he proffered that the Settlement Proposal implements the policy directions included in the HYSHCD.

32Mr. Grinyer reviewed the Tall Building Design Guidelines (“TBDG”) and the Downtown Tall Building Supplementary Guidelines (“DTBG”). He noted that the TBDG guidelines recommend a minimum tower separation of 25 m, a minimum tower setback of 12.5 m, a maximum tower floor plate of 750 m², and a minimum tower step-back of 3 m from the building face of the base building. The DTBG identify the Subject Lands located on a segment of Yonge Street where both height and tower typology are “to be determined on a site-by-site basis.” Mr. Grinyer opined that the Settlement Proposal meets the intent of the TBDG and the DTBG.

33Mr. Grinyer also reviewed the North Downtown Yonge Urban Design Guidelines and Growing Up Guidelines, concluding that the Settlement Proposal meets the intent of these guideline documents.

34Mr. Grinyer concluded that the Settlement Proposal has regard for relevant matters of provincial interest set out in the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, and the City OP, Downtown Plan, and the SASPs, is in keeping with the guidance provided within the City’s Design Guidelines and implements the Settlement accepted by City.

35Mr. Grinyer recommended that the Tribunal allow the Appeals in part and approve the OPA and ZBA subject to the terms set out in the Settlement Offer contained in Exhibit E of Tribunal Exhibit 1.

36The Appellants and the City have settled the disposition of the Heritage Appeal with a withdrawal of the Appeal subject to the approval of the ZBA and OPA by this Tribunal. The Appellant has filed a letter with the City withdrawing the Heritage Appeal to be filed with the Tribunal upon the issuance of the Tribunal’s Final Order.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

37The Tribunal, having considered the uncontroverted affidavit evidence and testimony of Mr. Grinyer and the support for the Settlement by the Parties, finds that the Appeals of the OPA and ZBA should be allowed, and the OPA and ZBA should be approved to facilitate the implementation of the Settlement Proposal as described in the architectural plans prepared by CORE Architects Inc., Project No. 21-194, dated October 29, 2021 with a revision date of July 16, 2024.

38No submissions were made with respect to the SPA, SUB, or Heritage Appeal, and the Tribunal has made no determination on these matters at this time.

39The Tribunal grants an adjournment of the SPA, SUB, and Heritage Appeal on the understanding that the SPA and SUB will be addressed through the continued review of the Applications and the Heritage Appeal will be withdrawn upon issuance of the Tribunal’s approval of the OPA and ZBA.

40The Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA proposed by the Settlement Proposal optimize the use of land and infrastructure in a transit-supportive location planned for significant growth with a well-designed residential tower form that encourages a sense of place through public realm enhancements and heritage retention. The OPA and ZBA have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act.

41The Settlement Proposal represents an efficient use of land and infrastructure, promotes a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities in a compact form, encourages a sense of place, conserves significant built heritage resources, and supports the use of active transportation and transit. The Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS.

42The Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA conform with the Growth Plan by optimizing the use of land and infrastructure and proposes growth and intensification in a strategic growth area, an urban growth centre and a major transit station area.

43The Settlement Proposal proposes a development that will create a balance of high-quality commercial and residential uses that reduces automobile dependency and meet the needs of the local community and the City’s growing population on underutilized lands in the Downtown. The scale and massing proposed are compatible with the existing and planned context of the area and provide appropriate built form compatibility through tower separation distances and step-backs. The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the OP and Downtown Plan.

44The Tribunal finds that the Subject Lands are an ideal location for significant mixed-use intensification as permitted by the OP, the Downtown Plan, and OPA 183, all of which promote mixed-use intensification on the Subject Lands without height or density limitations. The Settlement Proposal appropriately intensifies an underutilized site within an urban growth centre, which is well served by higher-order transit, contributes to a range of housing choices, jobs and retail opportunities, and conserves on-site heritage resources while contributing to the achievement of complete communities.

45The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal is sensitive to its surrounding context, providing a scale that fits harmoniously within its existing and planned context, provides appropriate setbacks from the street and abutting property lines, activating both street frontages with active at-grade uses, and locating parking, servicing, and loading to the rear of the site and enclosed within the building envelope.

46The Tribunal allows the Appeal of the OPA and the ZBA, in principle, subject to the conditions set out in the endorsement of the Settlement Offer by City Council.

47The SPA, SUB Appeals and the Heritage Appeal are adjourned sine die.

48The Tribunal understands that the Heritage Appeal is to be withdrawn upon issuance of the Tribunal’s Final Order in accordance with the terms of the Settlement and that the Appellants have provided the City with a letter requesting the withdrawal of the Heritage Appeal to be held until that time.

49The Tribunal requests that the Parties provide an update on the status of the outstanding Appeals with respect to this matter within eight months to ensure that the Appeals/Applications continue to be actively pursued.

50The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

ORDER

51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeals, pursuant to subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [52] below and that the Official Plan Amendment, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, and the Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

52The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order approving the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment contingent upon receipt and approval of the Official Plan Amendment in its final form and the Zoning By-law Amendment in its final form and confirmation from the City Solicitor of the following prerequisite matters:

a. The final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment submitted for approval are in a form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

b. The owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report providing confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or determining whether Holding provisions are required in the Zoning By-law Amendment;

c. 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 Amendment, 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, the owner has entered into an agreement or agreements or otherwise secured 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;

d. The owner has provided a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment for the property at 625 Yonge Street dated December 29, 2023, prepared by The Ventin Group Limited Architects, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and

e. The owner has entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 625 Yonge Street substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings prepared by CORE Architects Inc., Project No. 21-194, with a revision date of December 15, 2023, and the required Conservation Plan.

53If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that the contingent prerequisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [52] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Friday, April 25, 2025, the Appellants 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 Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and request for the issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

54The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties to determine the additional timeline for the submission of the final form of the instruments and the satisfaction of the continent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order.

55The Tribunal grants the adjournment of the Appeal of the Plan of Subdivision Application (OLT Case no.: OLT-22-004647), the Appeal of the Site Plan Application (OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004645), and the Appeal of Heritage By-law No. 70-2023 (OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000133) sine die. The Appellant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by Friday, April 25, 2025, updating the Tribunal on the status of the Appeals and the expected timelines for their respective resolution.

56The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

57The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event any matter or matters should arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2