Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal D'appel De L'aménagement

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local ISSUE DATE: May 08, 2019 CASE NO(S).: PL180632 The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Applicant: Woodbine Entertainment Group Appellant: Fareida Ram Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision Property Address/Description: 555 Rexdale Boulevard Municipality: City of Toronto Municipal File No.: 17 158705 WET 02 SB LPAT Case No.: PL180632 LPAT File No.: PL180632 LPAT Case Name: Ram v. Toronto (City) Heard: March 13, 2019 in Toronto, Ontario APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Fareida Ram (“Appellant”) Self-represented Woodbine Entertainment Group Mark Flowers (“Applicant”) City of Toronto (“City”) Mark Piel MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY PAULA BOUTIS ON MARCH 13, 2019 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL 2 PL180632 INTRODUCTION [1] The sole matter on appeal was the approval of a draft plan of subdivision (“Draft Plan”) for the Subject Property, located at 555 Rexdale Boulevard, where the Woodbine Racetrack is located. The Draft Plan affects a portion of the lands and is subject to 137 conditions of approval. [2] The City of Toronto (“City”) approved the Draft Plan on June 14, 2018. [3] The Appellant, Fareida Ram, is a nearby resident living on Hullrick Drive. Hullrick Drive is located north of Rexdale Boulevard, near the northwest portion of the Subject Property lands that are encompassed by the Draft Plan. Ms. Ram gave her own statement. She did not call any witnesses, though she questioned all the witnesses called by the Applicant and the City. [4] On behalf of the Applicant, the following experts testified: Robert Dragicevic, qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning; and Anthony Yates, qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the area of transportation planning and engineering. [5] On behalf of the City, two witnesses were originally intended to testify: Kathryn Thom, the land use planner on the file for the City; and Luigi Nicolucci, a transportation planner. [6] Unfortunately, following the first day of hearing, Ms. Thom was unavailable due to medical reasons. As all parties consented to continuing the hearing without her evidence, and since the Tribunal otherwise had planning evidence, the Tribunal concluded it did not need to adjourn the matter pending her availability. [7] Mr. Nicolucci testified and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the area of transportation planning and engineering. [8] Following the conclusion of the evidence, the Tribunal issued an oral decision 3 PL180632 dismissing the appeal and approving the Draft Plan, in accordance with Exhibit 4. The Tribunal’s detailed reasons now follow. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS Planning Act Obligations and Issues [9] The Planning Act (“Act”) places several obligations on the Tribunal when it makes a decision. [10] The Act requires that every decision of the Tribunal be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 ("PPS"). In this instance, it also requires that every decision of the Tribunal conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 (“2017 Growth Plan”). [11] Under s. 2, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest, including the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the adequate provision of employment opportunities, the protection of the financial and economic well-being of the Province and its municipalities, and the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests. [12] Regarding the Draft Plan, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposal has regard to s. 51(24) of the Act, which requires regard to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality, with reference to numerous other items, including s. 2 matters, conformity to the Official Plan, and the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided. [13] Following a telephone conference call with the Tribunal, differently constituted, on January 7, 2019, the following issues list was established. [14] The issues are the following: 1. Has adequate transportation analysis been undertaken to support the approval of the draft plan of subdivision, including appropriate consideration 4 PL180632 of: a. Accident data; b. Traffic counts and existing conditions at study area intersections; c. City requirements for traffic impact studies; d. Growth rates for traffic volumes on the road network and other potential developments in the study area; e. Potential or required improvements to the surrounding road network; f. Availability or required improvements to the surrounding road network; g. Availability of public transit; and h. Trip generation rates. 2. Is the approval of the draft plan of subdivision consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3.2? 3. In considering the draft plan of subdivision, has regard been had to the health, safety and welfare of present and future inhabitants per s. 51(24) of the Act? 4. Is the location of the proposed intersection of Street A and Rexdale Boulevard, opposite Humberwood Boulevard, appropriate? 5. Has adequate transportation analysis been undertaken to assess the potential impact of the location of Street A on Humberwood Boulevard and the Humberwood neighbourhood? 5 PL180632 Site and Area Context [15] The Subject Property, as a whole, is about 277 hectares (“ha”) in size. It is generally bounded by Rexdale Boulevard to the north, Highway 27 to the east, Highway 427 to the west and the Metrolinx rail corridor to the south. It is in northwest Toronto in the former City of Etobicoke. [16] Access to the Subject Property is through Grandstand Entrance Road from Rexdale Boulevard and Highway 27, as well as through additional right-in, right-out access driveways from Rexdale Boulevard, Carlingview Drive and Goreway Drive/Club House Road. There is an existing network of private roads on the site, including a private road that connects to Rexdale Boulevard through an underpass loop (“Woodbine Loop”). [17] Directly south of the Subject Property is the rail line that carries the GO Kitchener Line and the UP Express. The Finch West LRT line is being extended to Humber College, three kilometres (“km”) to the north. Just prior to the appeal hearing, GO Transit announced it will be relocating the Etobicoke North station to Woodbine. [18] The area is characterized by a mix of industrial, commercial and residential uses, which uses are in low-, mid- and high-rise forms. The Pearson International Airport (“Airport”) is approximately four km away. Application Background and Planning Context [19] While the only matter on appeal is the Draft Plan, to fully understand the Draft Plan, it is necessary to review the historical planning framework as well as the approval of two recent zoning by-law amendments (“2018 ZBLAs”, specifically Zoning By-Law No. 1260-2018 and Zoning By-Law No. 1261-2018) passed on July 17, 2018. [20] In 1998, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing allowed for the operation of slot machines and electronic table games at the Subject Property through a Minister’s Zoning Order. It did not include permissions for live gaming. Live gaming, includes, for example, a person presenting cards or a roulette table. 6 PL180632 [21] The 2018 ZBLAs allow for live gaming as a permitted use in addition to those already permitted in the Gaming District and Grandstand at the Subject Property. The 2018 ZBLAs were not appealed. Live gaming has been occurring at the Subject Property since the fall of 2018. [22] In 2007, City Council approved Official Plan Amendment 30 (“OPA 30”) and Zoning By-law No. 864-2007 (“ZBL 864”), and authorized the Chief Planner to approval a draft plan of subdivision for the Subject Property, to implement a concept known as “Woodbine Live!”. This proposal included entertainment, retail, hotel, restaurant, office and gaming uses in addition to the racetrack. [23] ZBL 864 built on the existing permitted uses under the former City of Etobicoke Zoning Code, including restaurants, banquet halls, bowling alleys and hotels, and added retail, business and professional offices along with site-specific standards for parking supply, gross floor area and setbacks for the development of a large portion of the Subject Property as a mixed use entertainment and retail centre. [24] OPA 30 is Site and Area Specific Policy 296 (“SASP 296”) in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) applicable to the Subject Property. It indicates that the development on the lands is to “sustain and build on the existing horse racetrack and associated entertainment uses to create a prominent, active, pedestrian-friendly commercial retail and entertainment centre and residential neighbourhood …”. [25] The Tribunal understood that SASP 296 is to be read with SASP 29, which applied limitations to the use of the Subject Property related to the need to protect the operations of the Airport. SASP 29 indicates that new residential or other sensitive land uses may be permitted on the racetrack lands provided that at the time of draft plan of subdivision and final approval and/or site rezoning no new residential or other sensitive land uses are located within the Transport Canada approved 30 Noise Exposure Protection/Noise Exposure Forecast Composite Noise Contour. [26] A 2007 draft plan of subdivision provided for municipal roads, including an extension of Humberwood Boulevard south of Rexdale Boulevard, which is in issue in 7 PL180632 this appeal. This same extension of Humberwood Boulevard is anticipated in this proposal, and is referred to as Street A in the issues list, noted above.

Load more