Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
February 07, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000091
OLT-22-004346
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant:
Revenue Properties Company Ltd. and Morguard Investments Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To establish a Site and Area Specific Policy to guide the future development of the Centrepoint Mall proposed mixed-use development
Reference Number:
21 246686 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address:
6212-6600 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-000091
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-000091
OLT Case Name:
Revenue Properties Company Ltd v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant
1018429 Ontario Inc.,
Appellant
480 Steeles West Limited et al,
Appellant
6200 Yonge GP Inc.,
Appellant
Augend Investment Ltd.,
and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description:
To guide future growth along the Yonge Street corridor in the area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Willowdale Avenue, Cummer and Drewry Avenues, and Lariviere Road
Reference Number:
OPA 615
Property Address:
Area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Willowdale Avenue, Cummer and Drewry Avenues, and Lariviere Road
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-22-004346
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-22-004346
OLT Case Name:
Augend Investment Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
Heard:
January 13, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Revenue Properties Company Ltd. and Morguard Investments Limited
J. Shapira
City of Toronto
R. Kallio J. Braun (in absentia)
Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc.
J. Park S. Kagan (in absentia) I. Kagan (in absentia)
Toronto Catholic District School Board
B. Davis J. Lesage (in absentia) A. Baker (in absentia)
Development Group (100 SAW) Inc.
No one attended
1306497 Ontario Inc.
M. Rutledge J. Farber (in absentia)
Longevity Properties Limited
J. Cheng C. Lantz (in absentia)
City of Vaughan
B. Engell C. Dougherty (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. Sauve ON January 13, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) before the Tribunal with respect to an appeal under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act by Revenue Properties Company Ltd. and Morguard Investments Limited (“Applicant”) from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within the statutory timeframes on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) with respect to lands located at 6212-6600 Yonge Street, in Toronto (“Subject Property”).
2The purpose of the OPA is to establish a Site and Area Specific Policy (“SASP”) to guide the future development of a proposed development that would contain 18 tall buildings, four mid-rise buildings, and 11 townhouse blocks, totaling about 8,235 dwelling units and approximately 635,766 square metres of residential gross floor area, with a density of 4.57 times the area of the lot. A 22,757 square metre City-owned park is proposed in the centre of the site. A new street pattern would include a new public street connecting Steeles Avenue and Yonge Street, and five new private streets.
3In July 2022, the City adopted the City-initiated Official Plan Amendment 615 (“OPA 615”) for the area referred to as the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, wherein the Subject Property is located, as well as its surrounding area. OPA 615 has been appealed by a number of Parties, including the Applicant, and is currently a matter before the Tribunal, namely Case No. OLT-22-004346 (“OPA 615 Appeal”).
PARTY STATUS
4At the previous CMC of this matter, the Tribunal granted Party Status to seven entities and one Participant Status request was granted. Since then, two of the Parties have withdrawn their appeals; W Mandel Developments Limited and Mandross Holdings Inc., and Augend Investment Ltd.
5The City of Vaughan (“Vaughan”), who is a Party to the OPA 615 Appeal, sought Party Status for this matter as well, as they have a concern regarding the traffic pattern that will be generated. Vaughan was granted Party Status with no objections.
6It should be noted that no one from or representing Development Group (100 SAW) Inc., a party to this matter, attended this CMC and no reason has been provided.
NEXT STEPS
7The Tribunal informed the Parties of the availability of Tribunal led Mediation, however, the Parties wished to schedule a Merit Hearing.
8The Applicant sought to make minor corrections to a previous Order, however, the draft language they were proposing was not yet complete. The Tribunal advised the Applicant to contact the Case Coordinator to make arrangements for the minor correction request.
9A draft Procedural Order (“PO”) was circulated and discussed. The Parties agreed to finalize the PO and submit a copy to the Tribunal. Prior to this Decision being completed, the Parties submitted the draft PO, which is attached as Appendix 1 to this Decision. The PO is acceptable and will govern the Merit Hearing of this matter.
10The Tribunal directs as follows:
a. The City of Vaughan is a Party to this matter;
b. A 10-day Merit Hearing will be heard at 10 a.m. on Monday, April 14, 2025, to Tuesday, April 29, 2025, by Video Hearing. The Tribunal will not be sitting Friday, April 18, 2025 (Good Friday) and Monday, April 21, 2025 (Easter Monday).
11Parties 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.
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541
Access code: 638-422-541
12Parties 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 GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.
13Individuals 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 638-422-541.
14Individuals 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 hearing 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
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS its directions in this Decision.
16The Member is not seized but may be spoken to if there are difficulties satisfying its direction in this Decision.
“A. Sauve”
A. SAUVE
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.
Appendix 1
Draft Procedural Order
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000091 (Heard together with OLT-22-004346)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant
Revenue Properties Company Ltd. and Morguard Investments Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To establish a Site and Area Specific Policy to guide the future development of the Centrepoint Mall proposed mixed-use development
Reference Number:
21 246686 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address:
6212-6600 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT:
Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-000091
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-000091
OLT Case Name:
Revenue Properties Company Ltd v. Toronto (City)
- The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.
Organization of the Hearing
The hearing will begin on April 14, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. by video hearing. The Tribunal will not sit on April 18, 2025 or April 21, 2025.
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.
The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Hearing Together with OPA 615
The within appeal proceeding (the “SASP Hearing”) is being heard together with the appeals of OPA 615, which were the subject of a hearing starting on October 23, 2024.
The SASP document supported by Morguard at the SASP Hearing may contain maps and policies that amend policies and maps contained in OPA 615 which have been approved by the OLT at the OPA 615 Hearing, but only to the extent that the amendments (1) are limited in their effect to the Centerpoint Site, and (2) relate to the following OPA 615 policies and maps (version endorsed by Council at meeting on 24 July 2024) which were not pursued by Morguard at the OPA 615 hearing:
a. Policy 2.2;
b. Policy 2.7 – First Sentence;
c. Policy 3.22;
d. Policy 3.24;
e. Policy 3.36;
f. Policy 3.37;
g. Policy 5.6;
h. Policy 5.8;
i. Policy 5.9;
j. Policy 8.18 only as it relates to minimum base building heights on Centerpoint’s proposed block C and/or D fronting Yonge Street, where the bus terminal may be located;
k. Policy 9.10;
l. Map 49‐3;
m. Map 49‐8; or
to a subject matter that is not addressed in OPA 615 or that further particularizes OPA 615.
- At the SASP Hearing, the City and any other party shall not argue that the OLT does not have the jurisdiction to consider and grant an amendment of the type described in the preceding paragraph to a map or policy of OPA 615 set out at paragraph 10 above because Morguard ought to have sought such amendment at the OPA 615 Hearing. For greater certainty, approval of the OPA 615 policies/maps identified above is without prejudice to their application to the Centerpoint site, which application will be addressed at the SASP Hearing.
Requirements Before the Hearing
If the appellants intend to rely on and present a revised SASP for approval at the SASP Hearing, the appellants will circulate the revised SASP to the parties and OLT on or before February 18, 2025. Following the circulation of the revised SASP, parties may revise their issues list on or before February 25, 2025.
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before February 4, 2025. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before February 20, 2025.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before February 28, 2025 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts' meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing with the Tribunal's case coordinator on or before March 7, 2025.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 17 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 17 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 17 below.
On or before March 12, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 26 below.
On before March 12, 2025, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 26 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before March 18, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before April 1, 2025, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 26 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before March 28, 2025 in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before April 9, 2025.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before April 9, 2025, with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing
plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.
All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.
This Member is not seized. So orders the Tribunal.
BEFORE:
Names of Members:
Date:
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF DATES
DATE
EVENT
February 4, 2025
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
February 18, 2025
Appellant may provide revised SASP
February 25, 2025
If a revised SASP is provided, parties to provide revised issues list.
February 20, 2025
Last date to challenge witnesses or qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence (if any)
February 28, 2025
Experts meeting prior to this date
March 7, 2025
Statement of Agreed Facts
March 12, 2025
Exchange of Witness Statements, Expert Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
March 28, 2025
Exchange of Responding Witness Statements (if any)
April 1, 2025
Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
April 9, 2025
Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
April 9, 2025
Finalize Joint Document Book
April 14, 2025
Hearing commences
ATTACHMENT 2
LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS*
PARTIES:
A) Appellants:
Counsel/*Agent
Revenue Properties Limited and Morguard Investments Ltd.
Johanna Shapira
Mithea Murugesu
B) Added Parties:
A
City of Toronto
Jessica Braun
Ray Kallio
B.
Toronto Catholic District School Board
Andrew Baker
Julie Lesage
C.
Development Group (100 SAW) Inc
Naomi Mares
Tom Halinski
Sidonia Tomasella
D.
1306497 Ontario Inc. (Sisley)
Matthew W. Rutledge mrutledge@foglers.com
Joel Farber
E.
Longevity Properties Ltd. (Monitoring only)
Jonathan Cheng
F.
Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc.
Ira Kagan
Jason Park jpark@ksllp.ca
Sarah Kagan
G.
City of Vaughan
Bruce Engell bengell@weirfoulds.com
Effie Lidakis
PARTICIPANTS:
- Medi Shams, Sign & Print Inc.
ATTACHMENT 3
ISSUES LISTS
NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the OLT having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the OLT. Notwithstanding the above, nothing about the description of any policy contained within the Issues List is determinative of the interpretation of that policy or restrictive of the ability of the parties to address the policy in full in the context of that issue.
Notwithstanding the wording of the issues below, none of the issues are intended to, nor do they, derogate from paras 9-11 of this Procedural Order, which are intended to preserve the appellants’ right to challenge portions of, and not be prejudiced by,
OPA 615 in this SASP Hearing.
CITY OF TORONTO
PROVINCIAL STATUTORY & POLICY REQUIREMENTS
Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the purpose of the Planning Act as set out in Section 1.1, including subsection (c)?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest set forth in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), (h.1), (i), (j), (k), (l), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r) and (s)?
Would the approval of the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard for the decisions of City Council as required by Section 2.1 of the Planning Act?
Provincial Planning Statement (2024)
Is the proposed Official Plan Amendment consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement (2024), including, but not limited to, the following sections/policies:
2.1.6
2.2.1
2.3.1.2
2.3.1.3
2.3.1.4
2.3.1.6
2.4.1.2
2.4.1.3
2.4.2.6
2.8.1.4
2.9.1
3.1.1
3.1.5
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.2.3
3.3.1
3.6.1
3.6.8
3.9.1
6.1.11
6.2.1
LOCAL POLICY FRAMEWORK
City of Toronto Official Plan
- Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the policies of the City of Toronto Official Plan, including, but not limited to:
Chapter 2 – Land Use and Transportation
- Section 2.2 - ‘Structuring Growth in the City: Integrating Land Use and Transportation’, including, but not limited to, Policies 2.2(3), 2.2(4), 2.2(5), 2.2(6), 2.2(7e), and 2.2(8); and,
- Section 2.4 - ‘Bringing the City Together: A Progressive Agenda of Transportation Change’, including, but not limited to, Policies 2.4(1), 2.4(4), 2.4(5), 2.4(6), 2.4(10), 2.4(14), 2.4(15), 2.4(17), 2.4(18), 2.4(20), 2.4(22), and 2.4(23);
Chapter 3 – Public Realm, Built Form, Housing and Parks and Open Spaces
- Section 3.1.1 - ‘Public Realm’, including, but not limited to, Policies 3.1.1(2), (3), (6), (8), (9), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (18), (19), (20), and (27);
- Section 3.1.2 - ‘Public Realm – Higher Order Transit’, including, but not limited to, Policies 3.1.2(2), and (3);
- Section 3.1.3 - ‘Built Form’ including, but not limited to, Policies (1) a),b),c),d),f); (2); (3); (4); (5) a),b); (6); (8); (9); (10); (11); and (13);
- Section 3.1.4 - ‘Built Form – Building Types’, including, but not limited to, Policies (1), (4), (5), (6), (9), (10), and (11);
- Section 3.1.5 - ‘Public Art’ Policy (1); and,
- Section 3.5.3 - ‘The Future of Retailing’, including, but not limited to, Policies (3), and (4);
Chapter 4 – Land Use Designations
- Section 4.5- ‘Mixed Use Areas’, including, but not limited to, Policies (2) a),e),f), and h);
Official Plan Maps
- Map 3: ‘Right-of-Way Widths Associated with Existing Major Streets’?
Yonge Street North Secondary Plan (OPA 615)
- Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including:
Vision and Major Objectives
A. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Vision policies of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. the provision of hard and soft infrastructure and services to create a complete community in the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan and surrounding area, that is supportive of higher-order transit;
b. the advancement of the recommendations of the Yonge Street North Transportation Master Plan (‘TMP’);
c. connecting people to and supporting a multi-modal transportation network through the delivery of complete streets, a parks and open space network, and walking distances to existing and planned transit infrastructure;
d. the development of complete communities through the prioritization of a robust public realm network; a diverse mix of land uses; the provision of community facilities; an attractive and vibrant open space network, including public parks and Privately Owned, Publicly Accessible Spaces (‘POPS’); an inclusive and diverse range of housing opinions, including affordable housing; high-quality built form; designing for climate adaptation and resilience; and taking innovation approach to sustainable design to respond to climate change; and,
e. respecting the stability of Neighbourhoods by introducing compatible intensification?
Area Structure
B. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Area Structure policies outlined in the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. the ‘Steeles Transit Station Area’ and ‘Yonge Main Street’ Character Areas as identified in the Secondary Plan;
b. the provision of non-residential uses, including new and replacement office, new employment and institutional uses, large-format retail, and community services and facilities;
c. built form, and the provision of tall, mid-rise and low-rise buildings on the subject lands, and the transition in height as development moves away from the Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue intersection;
d. minimizing shadow and wind impacts on the public realm, parks and POPS;
e. the street network, made up of new public streets and secondary streets, private roads and laneways, pedestrian mid-block connections, enhanced pedestrian routes, POPS, and below-grade subway connections; and,
f. the delivery of built form that minimizes impacts to the public realm and open space network, including parkland and POPS?
Public Realm
C. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Public Realm policies of Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. public realm and civic improvements, such as:
i. the incorporation of POPS, including pedestrian mid-block connections, open spaces, urban plazas and forecourts;
ii. new parks and POPS with direct pedestrian connections - with appropriate widths - to public streets and higher-order transit infrastructure;
iii. the creation of new public streets to create smaller development blocks, for development and open spaces including public parks and POPS;
iv. comfortable and direct pedestrian and cycling mid-block connections;
v. active uses that front onto POPS;
vi. consolidated access vehicular access points, lanes and shared private driveways to limit vehicular conflicts with pedestrian and cycling networks;
vii. consolidating, minimizing and screening vehicular access, drop-off, loading and servicing areas;
viii. the location and delivery of on-site public art;
ix. the provision of trees and supportive soil volumes;
x. a Green Streets approach for all new and reconstructed streets, and lanes;
xi. restricting surface parking; and,
xii. locations of public utilities;
b. how the proposal fits/interacts with the public realm vision, such as:
i. incorporating active uses, including retail, service commercial and community-related uses, at-grade, within the Prime Pedestrian Area along Yonge Street, Steeles Avenue West and wrapping onto side streets;
ii. incorporating retail, and large format retail in a multiple-storey format in the Steeles Transit Station Area;
iii. setback areas from the street, park or other open space to the public realm;
iv. creating a 10-metre-wide boulevard space between the road curb to the building façade along Yonge Street, Steeles Avenue West and along the Enhanced Pedestrian Routes to Parks as shown on Public Realm Map 49-3;
v. prohibiting the cantilevering of buildings into the setback area;
vi. a minimum 3-metre setback from adjacent streets;
vii. restricting the cantilevering of buildings into setback areas;
viii. coordinating active uses on the ground level with POPS;
ix. the delivery of a direct connection between the future Yonge-Steeles subway station to the future park on the subject lands;
x. the delivery of mid-block connections that are clear to the sky, and include a minimum 5-metre-wide landscape strip on both sides of the trail; and
xi. incorporating low impact measures that support sustainability and climate resilience?
Parks and Open Spaces
D. Has a parkland dedication of an appropriate size, location and configuration been proposed under Section 42 of the Planning Act?
E. Does the proposed parkland dedication conform to Chapter 415, Article III of the Toronto Municipal Code; with Policy 3.2.3 of the City of Toronto Official Plan; and with the City of Toronto Parkland Strategy?
F. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Parks and Open Space policies of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. contributing to new pedestrian connections to and between parks;
b. complementing and integrating parkland with adjacent POPS, mid-block connections, and other open spaces;
c. providing an appropriate interface between private development and public parkland;
d. orienting development to parkland to maximize public access and views, providing for casual overlook and increasing passive surveillance;
e. incorporating attractive façades with animated uses at grade into development adjacent to parkland;
f. maximizing sunlight and minimizing shadowing onto parks; and,
g. avoiding loading and servicing areas abutting parkland?
Transportation and Mobility
G. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately address the Transportation and Mobility recommendations in OPA 615 and the associated TMP?
H. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment set an appropriate framework for future development within the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan area, and the potential for resulting capacity constraints for physical infrastructure, including roads and public transportation with the proposed density increase of this application?
I. Are the proposed policies with respect to the integration of planned higher order transit infrastructure appropriate? Do they address the need to enhance connections between planned higher order transit infrastructure and the surrounding community?
J. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately address the planned/proposed right-of-way for existing and new streets as recommended in the Council-adopted Yonge Street North TMP, including but not limited to the right-of-way widths and provision of facilities for pedestrians, bicycles, transit and automobiles?
K. Is the proposed street network appropriate?
Housing
L. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Housing policies of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. providing a minimum of 40 percent of the total number of new units as a combination of two- and three- bedroom units; and,
b. providing residential development that includes a range of unit types, sizes and affordability levels?
Community Services and Facilities
M. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Community Services and Facilities policies of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. the delivery of community services and facilities commensurate with the population growth related to the subject proposal; including:
i. non-profit licensed child-care facilities;
ii. park-based amenities;
iii. public library branches;
iv. non-profit community-based organizations that are eligible for the City’s Community Space Tenancy Policy; and,
v. long-term care facilities;
b. the timing and phasing of development to keep pace with growth;
c. the availability of appropriate school accommodation; and,
d. the incorporation of a new school site for the Toronto Catholic District School Board facility on the subject lands?
Built Form
N. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Built Form policies of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. building heights, wherein tall buildings having the greatest height, scale and intensity are located in the blocks fronting onto Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue West;
b. tall buildings providing a visible transition down in height, of approximately 5-storeys between tall buildings away from the Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue intersection;
c. contextually appropriate built form, including mid-rise and low-rise development, within the Yonge Main Street and portions of the Steeles Transit Station Area on the subject lands;
d. development fitting under a 45-degree angular plane measured from the Neighbourhoods at the boundaries of the Secondary Plan area;
e. base building heights for tall and mid-rise buildings on corner sites that transition down in scale to 80 percent of the adjacent local street right-of-way;
f. the locations of the new tall buildings, so they are aligned, overlapped or staggered in a manner that minimizes the cumulative impacts of shadow, wind, and open views of the sky from the public, particularly on future parkland, POPS, schools and public streets;
g. locations of amenity spaces;
h. mid-rise buildings fitting within a 45-degree angular plane as taken from the height equivalent to 80 percent of the abutting right-of-way at the property line;
i. mid-rise buildings having a setback of 3 metres above the base building height where the building faces a street or park;
j. parking being located underground or behind the building, and not between the building and the street;
k. the grade relationship between main building entrances and the public realm; and,
l. the incorporation of sustainable and climate resilient site design?
O. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Steeles Transit Station Area policies of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. a maximum building height of 50-storeys at the intersection of Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue;
b. a maximum base building height equivalent to 80 percent of the adjacent local street right-of-way, and between 3 to 7 storeys, along Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue West;
c. along Yonge Street, the tower portion of a building having a minimum 10-metre step back from the base building façade;
d. along Steeles Avenue West, the tower portion of a building having a minimum 5-metre setback from the base building façade;
e. mid-rise and low-rise buildings framing the future park;
f. tall buildings to the east of the future park using heights, setbacks, step backs and tower floor plates to minimize shadow impacts on the park; and,
g. the built form creating a well-defined edge, and creating a gradual transition to adjacent Neighbourhoods and Apartment Neighbourhoods outside the Secondary Plan area?
P. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Yonge Main Street Built Form policies of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. mid-rise buildings with heights no greater than the width of the adjacent right-of-way; and,
b. the street wall portion of mid-rise buildings fronting onto the abutting right-of way, and being no higher than 80 percent of the adjacent right-of-way width, between 3 to 7 storeys, and fitting into the area context?
Implementation
Q. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment conform to the Implementation policies of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan, being OPA 615, including, but not limited to:
a. the required transportation network improvements; and,
b. any potential coordination, provision, cost-sharing, front end financing and/or phasing of infrastructure through required to support the development through a landowner agreement?
R. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have consideration for phasing and servicing, including appropriate timing and threshold mechanisms for, but not limited to, the following matters:
a. physical infrastructure improvements, including, but not limited to, the provision of public streets;
b. site-specific transportation demand management (‘TDM’) measures;
c. required community services and facilities, including the timing and delivery at each phase;
d. the conveyance of proposed parkland;
e. the location, size and sequencing of development, including the mix and number of units;
f. servicing capacity to accommodate the proposed population growth;
g. the provision and location of non-residential uses for each phase of development; and,
h. the availability of appropriate school accommodation in lock-step with proposed population growth?
Guidelines
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately address the City-wide Tall Building Design Guidelines, where tall buildings are proposed on the subject lands, including, but not limited to, Section 1.0 ‘Site Context’, Section 2.0 ‘Site Organization’ and Section 4.0 ‘Pedestrian Realm’?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately address the City-wide, Mid-Rise Buildings Performance Standards, where mid-rise buildings are proposed on the subject lands?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately address the City-wide Townhouse and Low-rise Apartment Guidelines, where low-rise forms of development are proposed on the subject lands?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately address the City-wide Retail Design Manual, where ground floor retail spaces are proposed on the subject lands, including, but not limited to Sections 1.5, 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate regard for the Complete Streets Guidelines?
Growing Up Guidelines: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriately address the City-wide Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities guidelines (the ‘Growing Up Guidelines’)?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment adequately support the objectives of the Growing Up Guidelines and support a broad range of households, more specifically, households with children?
Does the proposal meet the neighbourhood, building, and unit objectives outlined in the Growing Up Guidelines?
SITE-SPECIFIC ISSUES
Non-Residential Uses
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment include an appropriate proportion of non-residential gross floor area to serve the existing and future residents of the community?
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment have appropriate consideration for the permitted types of non-residential uses and the location of the non-residential uses?
Planning Instruments
- Is the form of the proposed Official Plan Amendment appropriate?
TORONTO CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
Do the policies regarding new and existing community service facilities have regard for matters of provincial interest under Section 2 of the Planning Act, are they consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, and do they give appropriate effect to the City of Toronto Official Plan policies?
Are the policies in regard to school accommodation appropriate and do they represent good planning?
YONGE STEELES LANDOWNERS GROUP INC.
- Is the proposed road network, including connections to Steeles Avenue West, appropriate?
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
IN CHIEF:
Revenue Properties Limited and Morguard Investments Ltd.
RESPONSE:
City of Toronto
Other parties
REPLY:
Revenue Properties Limited and Morguard Investments Ltd