du territoire
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
ISSUE DATE: January 22, 2026
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000292
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Bayview Ridge Residences Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To facilitate the development of 50 townhomes
Reference Number: 24 235666 NNY 18 OZ
Property Address: 3386-3398 Bayview Avenue and 32 Brenham Crescent
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-25-000292
OLT Case Name: Bayview Ridge Residence Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: January 20, 2026, In Writing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Bayview Ridge Residences Inc. | Grace O’Brien, John Alati |
| City of Toronto | Horatio Waller, Sarah Barnett |
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN ON JANUARY 22, 2026, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from a settlement hearing involving an appeal under 34(11) of the Planning Act, R. S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, regarding the City of Toronto’s (City) failure to issue a decision within the statutory prescribed timeline with respect to an application for a Zoning By-Law Amendment (ZBA) concerning the lands located at 3386-3398 Bayview Avenue and 32 Brenham Crescent (Subject Lands).
2As a result of successful discussions, the Parties proffered, on consent, planning instruments for the Tribunal’s consideration at the written hearing.
SITE CONTEXT AND HISTORY
3The Subject Lands are located on the arterial edge of the Bayview Avenue corridor, with approximately 166 metres (“m”) of frontage on Bayview Avenue and 46 m of frontage on Brenham Crescent. The site is comprised of 7,074 square meters (“m²”).
4The Bayview Avenue corridor context including the Subject Lands form part of the arterial edge that has been evolving with a mix of land uses, lot/block sizes, and built forms, distinct from the single detached lots in the interior of the adjacent Neighbourhoods area. The arterial edge properties are also distinct from the interior lots due to their direct exposure to traffic activity existing during most hours of the day along Bayview Avenue.
5The lands immediately surrounding the Subject Lands contain a mix of residential building types, including apartments and townhouses, institutional and open space land uses. There is also a wide variety of small and large block/lot sizes fronting onto Bayview Avenue.
6Bayview Avenue is a 36 m wide Major Street in the City OP and is a principal commuter route to/from North York and York Region. Bayview Avenue also includes Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) surface transit routes that travel to and from subway stations on the Yonge Street and the Sheppard Avenue subway lines.
7A portion of the Subject Site (3390-3398 Bayview Avenue) was subject to a previously approved ZBA application for the redevelopment of the lands for 24 four-storey, back-to-back townhouses arranged in 2 blocks with 50 underground parking spaces. The ZBA was required to amend former City of North York Zoning By-law 7625 and City By-law 569-2013 to permit the residential development and establish appropriate performance standards. Since then, eight single detached residential lots fronting onto Bayview Avenue with flankages on the Brenham Crescent have been acquired.
8In October 2024, a new ZBA application was filed to amend the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 569–2013, which proposes to rezone the Subject Lands to include the additional lands to facilitate 50 four-storey townhomes on a private laneway/driveway.
9The ZBA application was deemed complete by the City as of December 16, 2024. A Rental Housing Demolition Application was filed on February 21, 2025.
10A virtual community consultation meeting was held on February 10, 2025. City Staff prepared a Staff Report dated April 9, 2025, which recommended that City Council refuse the ZBA application. The Applicant filed an appeal of the ZBA application on April 11, 2025.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
11The Settlement increases the number of units at a higher density, in a more modern built form that includes site-specific standards relating to setbacks, maximum gross floor area, building height, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, and permitted projections compared to the Prior Proposal.
12The proposed development includes 11,415 m² of residential GFA, with a density of 1.61 FSI, and a building coverage of approximately 41%. The east row of townhouses will be designed to front and face onto Bayview Avenue with a pedestrian entrance. Rear entrances and rear integral garages will be accessed from the private driveway.
13The east townhouse blocks will provide a consistent front yard setback of 2.0 m, noting that the wide boulevard provides a condition where all units will be located in excess of 10 m from the existing street curb along Bayview Avenue.
14The west townhouse blocks have been located 6.6 m from the west property line to provide a private mews/walkway, upon which the front entrance of each unit will face. This 6.6 m setback will include a 1.5 m storm swale along the property line and a 1.8 m publicly accessible sidewalk.
15Vehicular parking for the units is provided at 2 parking spaces per unit, accessed from the private driveway, with seven visitor/pick-up/drop-off spaces off of the main driveway.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
16The Tribunal received and considered the uncontradicted written evidence of Michael S. Goldberg, a Registered Professional Planner, a member of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and Canadian Institute of Planners. Mr. Goldberg has appeared before the Tribunal on many occasions. The Tribunal qualifies Mr. Michael S. Goldberg to provide his written opinion evidence in land use planning.
17Mr. Goldberg’s written submission emphasized that the proposed settlement and revised instruments giving effect thereto, have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Planning Act and in particular, by optimizing the use of existing land and infrastructure within a settlement area. The proposed settlement contributes to the orderly and efficient use of the existing and planned public transit network and other infrastructure and provides for a complete and safe community while the Natural heritage areas in the northwest corner are respected and protected.
18The proposed settlement is consistent with the policies and directives in the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024, by supporting intensification on an underutilized site that is well served by municipal infrastructure. The proposed settlement will provide for housing that supports active transportation and prioritizes intensification in proximity to transit.
19In his opinion the proposed settlement conforms with the City’s OP and supports policies that create complete communities and ensures growth is logical and sustainable that aids in achieving growth targets.
20Mr. Goldberg through his written submission explained that the proposed instruments conform with the City’s OP by providing an increase to the housing stock in a built form which provides for more efficient use of municipally serviced land. The proposed townhomes provide for an augmentation and variety of residential unit types along an arterial edge corridor and edge.
21The proposed development is in conformity with the City OP, particularly when considering OPA 727 and OPA 778 as this is a low-rise townhouse form proposed along a busy commuter corridor recently identified as an Avenue where intensified developments already exist and are permitted by the City OP. In his written evidence the proposal fits in with, will be compatible with, and respects and reinforces the existing physical character of the area.
22In Mr. Goldberg’s opinion, the proposed development represents additional housing to complement a complete community that represents good planning that is in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
23Having accepted the uncontradicted written evidence of Michael S. Goldberg, the Tribunal finds that the proposed ZBA is consistent with, conforms to, and is in keeping with applicable policies and guidelines of the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto, including:
- the Planning Act;
- the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;
- the City of Toronto Official Plan.
24Based on evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the planning instruments, as revised pursuant to the settlement agreement, meet the required legislative tests, represent good planning, are in the public interest, and warrant approval subject to the conditions agreed to by the Parties as set out in the Order below.
ORDER
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment to the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, is approved, in principle, generally in accordance with Attachment “A” to this Order.
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Final Order is withheld until the City of Toronto and the Applicant have notified the Tribunal that the following conditions have been satisfied:
a) The Zoning By-law Amendment instruments are submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City of Toronto’s solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review;
b) the owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report ("Engineering Reports") to demonstrate that the existing sanitary sewer system and watermain and any required improvements to them, have adequate capacity and supply to accommodate the development of the lands and addressed outstanding issues in the Development Engineering memo dated January 24, 2025, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water and the Director, Engineering Review;
i. If the Engineering Reports are accepted and are satisfactory and should they identify any new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development, then either:
the owner or applicant has secured the design, construction, and provision of financial securities for any new municipal infrastructure, or any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, in a financial secured agreement, all to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review in consultation with the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; or,
the required new municipal infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal infrastructure to support the development in the accepted and satisfactory Engineering Reports in (i) above are constructed and operational, all to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering review in consultation with the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
c) Ensure that implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-law or that any required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-law to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding ("H") By-law symbol regarding any new municipal servicing infrastructure or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure, as may be required;
d) The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning has approved a Rental Housing Demolition Application to permit the demolition of the existing rental housing and the owner has entered into and registered on title one or more agreements to secure an acceptable tenant assistance plan, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
e) The owner has submitted a scoped Transportation Impact Study Addendum, including an assessment of the impacts of the newly proposed Bayview access on a major arterial road and approximately 30 metres from a new intersection proposed by the site across the street (3377 Bayview Avenue Tyndale); the assessment shall include an analysis of the queues and operation safety to confirm whether a right-in-right-out driveway is required all to the satisfaction of Executive Director, Development Review and the General Manager, Transportation Services.
27If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Monday, November 30, 2026, the Applicant 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 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 as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Video Case Management Conference Hearing to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.
28The Tribunal may be spoken to with respect to the implementation of this Interim Order, including any difficulties that may arise with respect to the satisfaction of the above conditions.
“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
Attachment A