Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 21, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004285, OLT-22-004174

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: 1500 Bayview Avenue Limited and BHL Properties Ltd. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a nine-storey mixed-use building with 156 rental residential units. Reference Number: 20 210394 NNY 15 OZ Property Address: 1466 -1500 Bayview Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004285 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004285 OLT Case Name: 1500 Bayview Avenue Limited and BHL Properties Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: 1500 Bayview Avenue Limited and BHL Properties Ltd. Subject: Site Plan Reference Number: 20 210395 NNY 15 SA Property Address: 1466-1500 Bayview Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004286 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004285

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited, et al. Subject: By-law No. 595-2022 Description: To permit policies pertaining to Yonge and Eglinton Secondary Plan Reference Number: Zoning By-law No. 595-2022 Property Address: Various Addresses in Toronto Municipality/UT: City of Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004174 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004174 OLT Case Name: CSG Yonge Manor Limited and CSG Hillsdale Limited v. Toronto (City)

Heard: July 10, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
1500 Bayview Avenue Limited and BHL Properties Limited	Johanna Shapira
City of Toronto	Uttra Gautam, Mark Crawford (in absentia)

DECISION DELIVERED BY KURTIS SMITH AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION

1This is a Settlement Hearing with respect to three appeals brought forward by 1500 Bayview Avenue Limited and BHL Properties Limited (“Appellant”) regarding the property municipally known as 1466 and 1500 Bayview Avenue (“Subject Property”) in the City of Toronto (“City”). The three appeals before the Tribunal are: (1) Council’s failure to make a decision related to a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), (2) the associated Site Plan application, and (3) a site-specific appeal regarding the City initiated area-wide Midtown Zoning By-law No. 595-2022. The third appeal was consolidated with the two aforementioned appeals during the February 23, 2023, Case Management Conference.

2The Subject Property is a rectangular-shaped corner lot that has 99 metres of frontage along the west side of Bayview Avenue and 36.6 metres of frontage along the north side of Davisville Avenue. It is currently occupied by a garden centre in the southeast corner, a single-storey grocery store on the northern portion, and 41 surface parking spaces in between.

3The Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal is the result of ongoing positive discussions between the Parties and was submitted to the City on May 31, 2023.

4To support the Settlement Proposal, the sole witness called was Michael Bissett, a land use planner who, upon review of his Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty form, was qualified on consent by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.

THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

5Mr. Bissett provided the Tribunal with a fulsome overview of the Settlement Proposal, which is found in Exhibit 1, page 5.

6The Settlement Proposal will see the redevelopment of the site with an eight-storey rental residential building that has been designed with a 45-degree angular plane, meaning the built form is taller at Bayview Avenue and decreases in height to the west (towards the residential dwellings) and includes at grade retail space fronting along Bayview Avenue. The building will contain a total of 154 rental units, including 86 (55.8%) one-bedroom units, 52 (33.8%) two-bedroom units, and 16 (10.4%) three-bedroom units, and approximately 1,200 square metres of retail space, which the owner of the site endeavours to incorporate a new grocery store. The Settlement Proposal also includes a total of 128 vehicle and 173 bicycle parking spaces.

7Included in the Settlement Proposal is the creation of a six-metre-wide private driveway with a surface easement for public access along the westerly boundary of the Subject Property in a configuration that would not preclude the provision of a public access laneway should laneway access through to Millwood Road become available.

8As mentioned above, the Appellant filed a site-specific appeal regarding the City initiated area-wide Midtown Zoning By-law No. 595-2022. By way of the proposed settlement that has been reached between the Appellant and the City, this appeal is found to be no longer needed, and the City and the Appellant propose that the appeal be withdrawn as part of the conditions of the pending approval of the ZBA and Site Plan applications.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

9Mr. Bissett provided the Tribunal with oral and written evidence (Exhibit 1, pages 8-17) to support his findings that the ZBA and Site Plan represent good planning, having regard to s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), conform to the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), conform to the City of Toronto Official Plan (“TOP”), conform to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (“YESP”), and have appropriate regard for the applicable guidelines, concluding that the Settlement Proposal “represents good planning and is in the public interest”.

10The above-mentioned planning documents relating to the Settlement Proposal have several common elements and are implemented through the ZBA and Site Plan, including:

• Supports mixed-use intensification and promotes residential infill development within built-up areas that are close to adequate public transit.
• Provides a wide range of rental housing options.
• High-quality architectural design that provides a strong public realm and attractive landscaping with extended cut-out spaces, which provide additional space for active street-oriented functions.
• Contributes to the village’s character – massing, scale, and height (angular plane).

FINDINGS

11The Tribunal accepts the uncontested planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Bissett and is satisfied that the ZBA and associated Site Plan represent good planning, having regard for matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, TOP, and YESP, and have appropriate regard for the applicable Guidelines.

ORDER

12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 13 below, the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1, and the Site Plan set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

13The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation by the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:

a. the Tribunal has received and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan approval, which are submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor, and;

b. the Appellant has submitted the final form of the architectural plans, landscape plans, completed Toronto Green Standards documents, Travel Demand Management Plan, servicing plans, reports, and studies, reflecting the proposal as approved in whole or in part, forming the Site Plan approval to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

c. the Appellant has submitted to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services for review and acceptance, a Functional Servicing Report to determine the storm water runoff, sanitary flow, and water supply demand resulting from this development and whether there is adequate capacity in the existing municipal infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development;

d. the Appellant has submitted the final form of the plans, including a functional loading space and vehicle movement diagram, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

e. the Appellant has made satisfactory arrangements for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development as identified in the accepted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering and Construction Services, and,

f. the Appellant has withdrawn its appeal of the Midtown Villages Zoning By-law No. 595-2022, OLT Case No. OLT-22-004174.

14The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment, Site Plan, and the issuance of the Final Order.

15If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order, set out in paragraph 13 above, have been satisfied and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Friday, January 12, 2024, the Appellant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan, and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.

16The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadlines for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.

“Kurtis Smith”

KURTIS SMITH 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2