|
Four years ago, the City appealed to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice Division Court and won, halting development of an earlier proposal, The general basis of that appeal (and subsequent decision) related to the designated heritage properties of the site. Other faults articulated by the neighbourhood, such as height (as well as subsequent shadowing of the park and school), setbacks, and traffic management), were not addressed by either side. Now a new proposal has been submitted, similar to the previous development applications filed in 2017 and revised in 2019 ... with one striking increase in height from 14 to 17 storeys. The contested heritage issues addressed by the Ontario Superior Court appeal remain unresolved in this new proposal and the City is intending to challenge the development again on that basis. This item will be considered by Toronto and East York Community Council on July 8, 2025. It will be considered by City Council on July 23, 24 and 25, 2025 (subject to the actions of the TEYCC). Read the City's 26-page REPORT FOR ACTION. 
0 Comments
There was so much opposition to this development proposal from so many perspectives that this news raises hopes of a better outcome. Last year the City appealed the LPAT decision to the Ontario Divisional Court following a finding that favoured the developer, Brad Lamb, and his presumed client, Hudson Hotel. We have now received good news from our own GDNA member Dieter Riedel who spearheaded Party Status on behalf of his condo corporation TSCC1984 at 10 Morrison. The Divisional Court has found in the City's favour on the basis of two issues ... one relating to the LPAT consideration and application of the Ontario Heritage Act and one relating to its interpretation of other planning policies. For more specifics, please read the finding HERE. There is speculation but no clear picture of what this means in terms of the future of this site. We can only hope that the next iteration of development will be more suited to its history, its neighbours and the heritage park across the street. A cautionary footnote from Dieter: I just want to temper this a little. Yes, the city won, but it won a judgement for an appeal. That means the appeal is still to be heard - and it doesn’t mean that the judges will rule in favour of the city’s claims.  However the City is seeking to appeal that LPAT decision:
445-451_adelaide_-_legal_letter_against_lpat_apr_28_2020.pdf  Per a request from all concerned, witnesses and Participants now need to have their statements submitted by January 17 rather than January 3rd as set out in the Procedural Order.
Various news agencies applaud the coming of a Hudson Hotel: However their reported enthusiasm strikes fear in the hearts of local residents ... according to Brad Lamb "Our rooftop bar/restaurant overlooks the park and the skyline. It's going to be a hot ticket." ... just what we need adjacent to a quiet park and wall-to-wall residences.
This Procedural Order outlines expectations and players and issues related to the February 18, 2020 hearing which is expected to last four weeks!
A pre-hearing teleconference was scheduled and did occur this past week (April 17th). At that time the appellant disclosed that it would be submitting revised plans within the next few weeks and would be willing to enter into mediation. With so many outstanding issues, those revisions will have to be something spectacular to satisfy the City, the six Parties and 19 Participants!  Details related to this pre-hearing conference event can be found here. The first activity moving towards an OMB (now re-named LPAT – Local Planning Appeal Tribunal) hearing is the pre-hearing. The pre-hearing is a forum at which the duration and date of the eventual hearing is established. Much of that determination depends on what roles the various "players" will play at the hearing. At the pre-hearing, "players" seek status as either a party or a participant. Party status allows one to present witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses called by the other parties at the hearing proper. It also requires a commitment in terms of time (one is required to appear throughout the hearing which may last weeks) and cost (mostly for printed documentation and display boards). Participants need only appear at an agreed date/time and may incur little or no expense. They say their bit and may need to answer questions on cross-examination. Party status obviously allows one to participate more fully in the hearing’s outcome. Issues not raised by the City can be championed and issues dear to the hearts of participants can be supported. At the very least, party status satisfies this maxim … if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu (quote thanks to Chris Glover).
Developers for this proposal have appealed to the OMB ... case # PL171452. To date, no pre-hearing has been scheduled.
However the City did produce a report for the April 4th meeting of the Toronto and East York Community Council outlining the reasons it will contest this proposal at the OMB. Access that "Request for Direction" report here. The GDNA will alert Members and Friends (those on our mailing list) when a pre-hearing date has been scheduled. Plans are also in progress for an "OMB Workshop" at which residents can learn about their options for participating at an OMB hearing. Join the GDNA or subscribe to our mailing list to keep informed regarding this initiative. |
