Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 9, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002912
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Bayview Broadway Developments Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: to permit development of a 25 storey, 288 unit development
Reference Number: 21 233980 NNY 15 OZ
Property Address: 1837-1845 Bayview Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002912
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002912
OLT Case Name: Bayview Broadway Developments Inc. v. Toronto (City.)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, R.S.O. 2006, c. 11, as amended
Subject: Site Plan
Description: to permit development of a 25 storey, 288 unit development
Reference Number: 21 250187 NNY 15 SA
Property Address: 1837-1845 Bayview Avenue
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-22-002913
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002912
Heard: August 12, 2022, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Bayview Broadway Developments Inc.
Marc Flowers and Jamie Cole
City of Toronto
Jessica Jakubowski and Jessica Braun (in absentia)
Bayview Broadway Good Planning Inc.
Lee English and Isaac Tang (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M.A. SILLS ON AUGUST 12, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in the matter of an appeal by Bayview Broadway Developments Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) from the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pertaining to the lands municipally known as 1837 – 1845 Bayview Avenue (collectively, the “subject property”). The Appellant has also appealed from the failure of the City to approve the related Site Plan application.
2The Applicant is proposing to develop a 25-storey residential building with commercial uses at the ground floor level on the subject property. The height of the proposed building is within the range anticipated in the Young Eglinton Secondary Plan and residential and commercial uses are a permitted use of the property.
3The Tribunal received Party Status Request Forms from Bayview Broadway Good Planning Inc. (“BBGP”) and the Leaside Residents Association (“LRA”) in advance of the CMC.
4BBGP is a not-for-profit corporation that was established for the purpose of participating in land use planning matters in the area surrounding the Bayview Avenue and Broadway Avenue intersection. BBGP’s primary interest in the current proposal is related to good land use planning and urban design.
5If granted party status BBGP intends to participate fully in the hearing process. BBGP is represented by legal counsel and intends to call expert witness(es). Without objection, the Tribunal granted party status to BBGP.
6The LRA was represented at the CMC by resident Douglas Obright. According to the commentary provided with the Request Form, the LRA has “major issues with the proposal in its current form”, including scale, built form and massing. Mr. Obright confirmed that the LRA does not intend to retain legal counsel and/or will not be calling any expert evidence or witnesses at the hearing. In the circumstances, Mr. Flowers does not consent to the granting of party status to the LRA.
7When questioned by the Tribunal about why the LRA is seeking party status rather than participant status, particularly given that no expert evidence will be proffered, Mr. Obright indicated he understood the Tribunal typically finds the information provided by resident associations to be helpful in the consideration of development applications.
8Principally, the Tribunal fully appreciates the importance and the benefit of understanding the make-up and community aspects of a residential neighbourhood in proximity to new development. In the same vein, the Tribunal has a keen interest in the views, concerns and opinions of local residents and neighbourhood associations in regard to how they perceive a particular development proposal will fit with and influence the neighbourhood, both from a positive or a negative perspective. That can generally be gleaned from the participant statements.
9Equally so, the Tribunal is required to have regard to the Provincial planning directives and municipal policies that guide development. The determination by the Tribunal of conformance with these directives and policies substantively relies on the evidence of the expert planning and/or technical witnesses presented at the hearing. More importantly, a party to an appeal is expected to fully engage in all aspects of the hearing process, and in particular, be prepared to support the issues and concerns it raises with expert planning or technical evidence.
10Given it was indicated that the LRA will not be retaining legal counsel or calling any witnesses, and such that the Tribunal will have the benefit of the evidence proffered by witnesses called by BBGP, as well as the written participant statements of several local residents, the request by the LRA for party status is denied. Alternatively, the Tribunal will grant participant status and provide an opportunity for the LRA to further refine its’ submission materials accordingly. If the LRA is inclined to do so, it is required to submit the revised submission to the Tribunal and counsel to the other parties in advance of the next CMC.
11The Tribunal also received a number of Requests for Participant Status Forms in advance of the CMC. The following persons were present at the hearing and were granted participant status: 1) Michael Rapson, 2) Grace Saati, 3) Clare Barry, 4) Nancy Parker, 5) Marina Bass, 6) Jill Hamilton, 7) Cathy McKeever, 8) Simon Graham, 9) Alla Prutkin, 10) Edward Quan, 11) Paul Manley, 12) Louise Brisbois, and 13) Chandra Dawn Bethune.
12Subsequent to the CMC the Tribunal was informed that a number of other individuals that had submitted Participant Status Requests Forms were not able to connect to the CMC video link due to a disruption of service experienced by their internet provider. In the circumstances, the Tribunal can be asked at the next CMC to consider Requests for Participant status submitted in advance of the first CMC, but only by those individuals impacted by the service disruption.
13A second CMC is scheduled for Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. by video hearing.
14Parties 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:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157
Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1(888) 455-1389
Access Code: 442-599-157
15Parties 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.
16Persons 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, provided above.
17Individuals 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 video hearing 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.
18The parties are expected to provide a finalized Draft Procedure Order for the review and approval of the Tribunal at this CMC.
19No further notice will be provided.
20This Member is not seized but will continue with the case management of this file for the purpose of the next CMC.
21This is the order of the Tribunal.
m.a. sills
VICE-CHAIR
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.