Ontario Land Tribunal Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 03, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004328

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

Applicant/Appellant: BV Realty Partners GP Inc. & Trolleybus Urban Developments

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

Description: To permit the development of a 26-storey residential building and a 6-storey base building

Reference Number: 22 114201 WET 05 OZ

Property Address: 1-9 Oxford Drive

Municipality/UT: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004328

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004328

OLT Case Name: BV Realty Partners GP Inc. & Trolleybus Urban Developments v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: BV Realty Partners GP Inc. & Trolleybus Urban Developments

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

Description: To permit the development of a 26-storey residential building and a 6-storey base building

Reference Number: 22 114201 WET 05 OZ

Property Address: 1-9 Oxford Drive

Municipality/UT: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004329

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004328

Heard: November 5, 2024, by telephone conference call

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

BV Realty Partners GP Inc. and Trolleybus Urban Developments Rodney Gill Cristin Hunt (articling student) (in absentia)

City of Toronto Mark Crawford Uttra Gautam

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Interim Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This decision arises from a telephone conference call (“TCC”) for a status update on the fulfilment of the conditions imposed in the Tribunal’s Interim Order issued on June 12, 2024, for the Official Plan amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law amendment (“ZBA”) appeals filed by BV Realty Partners GP Inc. and Trolleybus Urban Developments related to the properties known municipally as 1-9 Oxford Drive, in the City of Toronto (“City”).

2The Tribunal withheld the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation by the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:

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

b. The owner has provided a revised Functional Servicing Report and a revised Stormwater Management Report, such reports to be reviewed to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

c. The owner has provided a revised Transportation Impact Study, to be reviewed to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

d. Should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report and/or the Transportation Impact Study, noted in b. and c. above, a Holding provision (H) is to 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 and General Manager, Transportation Services;

e. The owner has provided a revised Pedestrian Wind Study, such report to be reviewed with recommendations implemented as part of the amending Official Plan policies and Zoning By-laws and/or secured in a Site Plan Agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

f. The owner has provided a revised Noise Impact Study and Vibration Study, such reports to be peer reviewed by a third-party consultant on behalf of the City and at the owner's expense, with recommendations to be implemented as part of the amending Zoning By-laws and/or secured in a Site Plan Agreement, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning; and

g. The owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, provided a revised Tree Preservation Plan and a revised Landscape Concept Plan to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation.

3At the TCC, the City Solicitor confirmed that conditions b., e., and g. are fulfilled.

4With respect to the remaining conditions to be fulfilled, at the TCC the Parties provided an update on each condition and agreed as follows:

a. Form and content of the OPA and ZBA:

Status: The City provided the draft OPA and the draft Diagram 4 to the ZBA (“Diagram 4”) to the Owner on September 27, 2024 and the Owner subsequently provided its response. There was a further exchange between the Parties on November 4, 2024, but the ZBA remained under review by City staff. The Owner had not yet received a draft of the ZBA.

Agreement: The Parties were satisfied with the final form of the OPA. The City endeavoured to verify that Diagram 4 is in final form and to provide the Owner with a copy of the ZBA by end of day, Friday, November 8, 2024. This was so Ordered by the Tribunal in its oral decision.

Update since TCC: The Owner indicated that the City had provided the Owner with a copy of the ZBA but had not verified that Diagram 4 was in final form. Confirmation from the City followed that Diagram 4 included suggested amendments and therefore was not in final form.

Despite subsequent outreach to the Parties, no further update has been provided to the Tribunal. In this respect, the status of Diagram 4 is in the hands of the Parties and if further intervention is required by the Tribunal, the Parties may request a second TCC.

c. Revised Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”):

Status: The City provided comments on September 27, 2024 on the original TIS but did not address the addendum to the TIS that was submitted in July, 2024 addressing the City’s comments. The Owner resubmitted the addendum on September 28, 2024, but the City had not provided additional comments.

Agreement: The Parties agreed to a response by the City on the addendum to the TIS by Friday, December 6, 2024. This was so Ordered by the Tribunal in its oral decision.

Update since TCC: The City advised the Tribunal that a response to the TIS addendum had not been provided to the Owner as of November 26, 2024 and that, if one was not provided by December 6, 2024, the TIS addendum would be deemed acceptable.

No update has been received to date despite outreach to the Parties. In this respect, the status of the TIS is in the hands of the Parties and if further intervention is required by the Tribunal, the Parties may request a second TCC.

d. Infrastructure agreement:

Status: The Parties had exchanged drafts of the agreement and expected resolution of the condition in short order.

Agreement: The Parties agreed that there was no need to require this condition to be subject to a deadline.

f. Revised Noise Impact Study and Vibration Study:

Update: The City had not yet peer-reviewed the combined noise and vibration study (“CNVS”) which was submitted to the City over a year ago. The City noted however, that due to the appeal of the applications, an Order of the Tribunal was required before the City would engage with a peer reviewer. In that respect, the City provided the Owner with a letter for signature on November 4, 2024 to accept the selected peer reviewer and to prepay for the peer review of the study.

Mr. Gill advised that the signature and fee would be provided to the City but wanted assurance from the City on timing for the delivery of the peer review report, and that there may be a need for a further TCC to address this condition. Mr. Crawford indicated that he was not aware if the terms of the contract with the peer reviewer included timing of deliverables.

Agreement: The City agreed to advise the Owner and the Tribunal by end of day, Friday, November 8, 2024 on the timing of the peer review report and, if the contract with the peer reviewer is silent in this respect, the City would request the peer reviewer to prioritize the study. A further TCC may be required to resolve this condition.

Update since TCC: The City advised that the first iteration of comments from the peer reviewer would be requested to be delivered within two weeks of the peer reviewer being under contract, that is, once the City has processed the financial guarantee for the peer review and the contract is signed, which was expected to take up to two weeks, for a total of four weeks. The City noted that it typically takes at least two iterations of comments and responses between the peer reviewer and the Owner’s consultant prior to the release of the peer reviewer’s clearance letter to the City.

The City subsequently advised the Tribunal that, as of November 26, 2024, payment for the peer review of the study had been received and the peer review was underway.

Despite subsequent outreach to the Parties, no further update has been provided to the Tribunal. In this respect, the status of the CNVS is in the hands of the Parties and if further intervention is required by the Tribunal, the Parties may request a second TCC.

INTERIM ORDER

5Further to the oral decision provided at the telephone conference call as summarized above, THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the Parties to provide the following:

a. an update regarding Diagram 4 of the Zoning By-law Amendment, the addendum to the Transportation Impact Study, and the peer review of the combined noise and vibration study by Friday, February 14, 2025; and

b. if the contract for the peer review of the combined noise and vibration study is silent on timing, the City is to request the peer reviewer to prioritize the study by Friday, February 14, 2025.

6The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by telephone conference call to determine additional timelines and deadlines for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

7The Member remains seized for the purposes of resolving the fulfilment of the conditions, reviewing and approving the final form of the draft instruments and the issuance of the Final Order.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI 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.