Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: October 25, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210295
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Gairloch Developments & Toronto (Bayview and Eglinton) Limited Partnership
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86, as amended, of the former City of Toronto - Neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Residential Districts R4 Z 1.0
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit the development of a 9-storey residential building consisting of 216 residential units including 12 live-work units
Property Address/Description: 1710 - 1736 Bayview Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 20 153356 NNY 15 OZ
OLT Case No.: PL210295
OLT File No.: PL210295
OLT Case Name: Gairloch Developments & Toronto (Bayview and Eglinton) Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Gairloch Developments & Toronto (Bayview and Eglinton) Limited Partnership
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, of the City of Toronto - Neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Residential R (d1.0)(x690)
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit the development of a 9-storey residential building consisting of 216 residential units including 12 live-work units
Property Address/Description: 1710 - 1736 Bayview Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 20 153356 NNY 15 OZ
OLT Case No.: PL210295
OLT File No.: PL210296
Heard: October 5, 2021 via video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel*/Representative |
|---|---|
| Gairloch Developments & Toronto [Bayview & Eglinton] Limited Partnership | Michael Foderick*, Fern Opatowski* |
| City of Toronto | Jessica Braun* |
| South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association | Andy Gort, President |
| Leaside Residents Association | Geoff Kettel, Co-President |
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Gairloch Developments & Toronto [Bayview & Eglinton] Limited Partnership (“Applicant/Appellant”) intends to redevelop its property located at 1710-1736 Bayview Ave. in Toronto (the “subject lands”) to facilitate the development of a 9-storey mixed-use residential building consisting of 216 residential units, including 12 live-work units.
2The Applicant applied for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to By-law No. 438-86 (the existing By-law of the former City of Toronto (“City”)) and also for an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 (the City's current existing parent By-law) to permit the development.
3The City failed to make a decision on the application within the time period specified in the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, at which point the Applicant appealed to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 34(11) of that statute.
4The Tribunal held this first Case Management Conference (“CMC”). Notice for the hearing event and the Affidavit of Service attesting to service were marked as Exhibit 1.
REQUESTS FOR PARTICIPANT STATUS
5The Tribunal received twelve participant status requests from residents who live near the proposed development. The parties raised no concerns with these requests having been provided copies of the submissions.
6Having heard no objection from the Parties, the Tribunal conferred participant status to:
Angela Dornai
Anna Stewart
Colin Mark
Daniela Popovik
Elizabeth Bossick
Florance Shaw
Karen Michelsen
Kiyo Asaoka
Mary Kopman
Rayburn Ho
Robert King
Ralph Gwin
REQUESTS FOR PARTY STATUS
7The Tribunal received three requests for Party Status. Party status was conferred to the Leaside Residents’ Association, an incorporated organization which had submitted written comments to City Council regarding the proposed development. Leaside Residents’ Association has set out five principle concerns in the request for Party status including height and massing of the proposal, traffic and parking, design, community impact and housing mix and affordability.
8Party status was also conferred to the South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association (“SERRA”), an incorporated organization, which has also written comments considered by City Council on this matter. SERRA has set out five principle concerns in the request for Party status including the building height and massing, unit mix & sizes, mixed use designation, urban design and mid-rise performance standards.
9Party status was requested by Mr. M. Berinzon, owner of the abutting property to the north of the subject lands. After having been made fully aware of the obligations of being conferred party status, Mr. Berinzon informed the Tribunal he would provide a written statement and withdraw his request for Party Status. He informed the Tribunal he will seek Participant Status through the Case Coordinator.
10Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant and the City presented no objections.
MEDIATION
11The prospect of the Parties entering into meaningful Tribunal led mediation was favourably received by the Parties, and it was agreed that the option would be fully explored once all Parties have had an opportunity to collectively look at the issues to determine if mediation would benefit discussions.
HEARING, PO & ISSUES LIST
12Mr. Foderick requested 8 – 10-days be sent down to hear the merits of this matter. The Tribunal canvassed the Parties and found that all concurred with the amount of time needed to be set aside based on the number of expert witnesses to be called.
13Mr. Kettel raised concern with Clause 6 of the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) submitted for this CMC by the Applicant. He questioned the 120-day submission date for the PO and the restriction on amending the PO once submitted with an opportunity to have costs awarded against changes to the Issues List.
14Mr. Foderick provided an explanation on the process of a draft PO from early consideration to the final approval. He stated that the cost award clause regarding changes to the Issues List was a direction the Tribunal placed on filing the Issues List to ensure Parties do not simply change direction or their line of questioning based on what was heard during the hearing.
15Mr. Foderick noted that through discussions with Ms. Burns, any further directions from the City could not be obtained until January 2022 as this matter would be before City Council in mid-December, he explained this was the basis for the 120-day submission date of the PO.
16Mr. Kettel, having had his concerns addressed and with the timeline of January 2022 for the City to obtain the direction of Council, on agreement of all Parties, the submission date for the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List for consideration and approval by the Tribunal will be 120 days (Thursday, February 3, 2022) from the date of this CMC.
17The Tribunal requested Counsel to the Applicant/Appellant be assigned the task of providing the draft Procedural Order, on consent of all Parties, to the Tribunal for consideration and approval.
ORDER
18The Tribunal orders as follows:
The Leaside Residents’ Association and SERRA are conferred Party status.
Participant status is conferred as set out in the decision.
Parties are to submit a draft Procedural Order for the consideration and approval of the Tribunal, on or before February 3, 2022, through the Case Coordinator.
The Tribunal orders that a 9-day hearing is scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, July 25, 2022, by video hearing, to hear the merits of this matter.
19Parties and participants 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:
GoToMeeting invite details:
Please join my meeting from your computer, tablet or smartphone. https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/988312253 You can also dial in using your phone. Canada (Toll Free): 1 888 455 1389 Canada: +1 (647) 497-9391 Access Code: 988-312-253
20Parties and participants 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 GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
21Individuals 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.
22No further notice of the CMC is required.
23This member is not seized.
“D. Chipman”
d. chipman
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.