Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 24, 2021 CASE NOS.: PL110189 PL170598 PL170770 PL180073

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 10870 Yonge Street Limited Appellant: Saad Askandar Appellant: Dogliola Developments Inc. Appellant: Richmond Hill Retirement Inc. et al; and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 8 Municipality: Town of Richmond Hill OMB Case No.: PL180073 OMB File No.: PL180073 OMB Case Name: Askander v. Richmond Hill (Town)

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

Appellant: 10870 Yonge Street Limited Appellant: Saad Askandar Appellant: Dogliola Developments Inc. Appellant: Richmond Hill Retirement Inc. et al; and others Subject: By-law No. 1117-17 Municipality: Town of Richmond Hill OMB Case No.: PL180073 OMB File No.: PL180074

Proceeding commenced under subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellants: Amir-Hessam Limited & 668152 Ontario Limited 583753 Ontario Limited Yonge Bayview Holdings Inc. K.J. Beamish Holdings Limited Signature Developments Inc. TSMJC Properties Inc. Haulover Investments Limited New Era Developments (2011) Inc. Rice Commercial Group and Major Mac Realty Inc. Loblaw Properties Limited E. Manson Investments North Leslie Residential Landowners Group Inc. Montanaro Estates Limited and William & Yvonne Worden Baif Developments Limited Arten Developments Inc. Stonecourt Construction Inc. P. Campagna Investments Ltd., P.A. Campagna and 1480420 Ontario Ltd. Ram Nischal, Rekha Nischal, Neelam Narula and Raj Kumar Angelo, Louise and Josephine Cimetta and Shiplake Developments Ltd. Great Land (Westwood) Inc. 775377 Ontario Ltd. (Belmont) Robert Salna and Robert Salna Holdings Inc. AME-SON Holdings Ltd. Corsica Development Inc. Elginbay Corporation Sitzer Group Holdings No. 1 Limited, Grall Corporation Limited, Natweiss Investments Limited, 967933 Ontario Limited & Loblaws Inc. (owners of the Richmond Heights Shopping Centre) Dickson 48 Property Inc., Sedgewick Property Inc., Long Body Homes Inc., & 1419079 Ontario 1191621 Ontario Inc. 1835942 Ontario Inc. 1122270 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Failure of the Regional Municipality of York to announce a decision respecting the proposed new Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill Municipality: City of Richmond Hill OMB Case No.: PL110189 OMB File No.: PL110189 OMB Case Name: Cimetta v. Richmond Hill (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: TSMJC Properties Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Richmond Hill to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: Yonge-Bernard Key Development Area Proposed Designation: To amend the public street access, height and built form policies to facilitate the proposed development Purpose: To permit the development of a 16-storey residential building located mid-block and a row of 3-storey back-to-back townhouses with frontage on Yorkland Street for a total of 338 dwelling units Property Address/Description: 10909 Yonge Street/ Block 29, Plan 65M-2819 Municipality: City of Richmond Hill Approval Authority File No.: D01-16003 OMB Case No.: PL110189 OMB File No.: PL170598

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

Applicant and Appellant: TSMJC Properties Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 184-87, as amended – Neglect of application by the City of Richmond Hill Existing Zoning: “CC – Community Commercial” Proposed Zoning: “RM2 – Residential Multiple Family Two” Purpose: To permit the development of a 16-storey residential building located mid-block and a row of 3-storey back-to-back townhouses with frontage on Yorkland Street for a total of 338 dwelling units Property Address/Description: 10909 Yonge Street/ Block 29, Plan 65M-2819 Municipality: City of Richmond Hill Municipal File No.: D02-16018 OMB Case No.: PL110189 OMB File No.: PL170599

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Yonge MCD Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Richmond Hill to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: “Key Development Area” and “Neighbourhood” Proposed Designated: “Key Development Area” and “Neighbourhood” with amended policies Purpose: To permit a mixed use commercial/residential high rise building, 3 high rise residential buildings, 22 street townhouse dwelling units, 160 condominium townhouse dwelling units, 8 single detached dwellings, and a public park Property Address/Description: Various Addresses Municipality: City of Richmond Hill Approval Authority File No.: D01-16002 OMB Case No.: PL170770 OMB File No.: PL170770 OMB Case Name: Yonge MCD Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Yonge MCD Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 2523 and By-law 190-87 - Refusal or neglect of City of Richmond Hill to make a decision Existing Zoning: Flood (F) Zone and Rural Residential (RR) Zone under By-law No. 2523 and Residential Single Family Six (R6) Zone under By-law No. 190-87 Proposed Zoning: Multiple Family One (RM1) Zone, Multiple Family Two (RM2) Zone, Open Space (OS) Zone and Park (P) Zone with site-specific development standards Purpose: To permit a mixed use commercial/residential high rise building, 3 high rise residential buildings, 22 street townhouse dwelling units, 160 condominium townhouse dwelling units, 8 single detached dwellings, and a public park Property Address/Description: Various Addresses Municipality: City of Richmond Hill Municipality File No.: D-02-16012 OMB Case No.: PL170770 OMB File No.: PL170771

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Yonge MCD Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of City of Richmond Hill to make a decision Purpose: To permit a mixed use commercial/residential high rise building, 3 high rise residential buildings, 22 street townhouse dwelling units, 160 condominium townhouse dwelling units, 8 single detached dwellings, and a public park Property Address/Description: Various Addresses Municipality: City of Richmond Hill Municipality File No.: D-03-16006 OMB Case No.: PL170770 OMB File No.: PL170772

Heard: June 15, 2021 via video conference

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative*
City of Richmond Hill	Raj Kehar
Yonge-Bernard Residents’ Association	Jason Cherniak
Dogliola Developments Inc.	Ira T. Kagan
10870 Yonge Street Limited	Sarah J. Turney, did not appear
North Elgin Centre Inc.	Jeffrey Streisfield
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority	Barbara Montgomery
Richmond Hill Retirement Inc. and Oakridge Gardens Retirement Partnership	Mark Flowers and Robert Miller
TSMJC Properties Inc.	Quinto M. Annibale and Brendan Ruddick
Regional Municipality of York	Bola Ogunmefun
Yonge MCD Inc.	Patrick Harrington
Frank DiPede	Amber Stewart, did not appear
Saad Askandar	*Self-represented, did not appear

DECISION DELIVERED BY D. COLBOURNE AND G. BURTON AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal held a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on June 15, 2021, by video conference, to settle the Issues and Procedural Order for Phase 2 of the Hearing, scheduled to begin on Monday, July 12, 2021 for a three-week period, until July 30, 2021.

REVISED FORMAT FOR HEARING

2This Decision will determine the matters considered at this CMC. However, in order to provide urgent additional information, the Tribunal notes that on June 16, 2021, at 10.44 am., notice was sent to the Parties and Participants that the Hearing has been converted from a hybrid appearance and recording version, to one held by video conference call. A YouTube version will still be available for public viewing (notice will follow). The Appointment for Hearing with the GoToMeeting details is set out at the end of this Decision.

3This decision was reached because of the Tribunal’s continuing inability to schedule in-person hearings due to the pandemic closures. These have not yet been lifted. Personal attendance is still discouraged.

SETTLEMENTS NOTED

4Mr. Kehar noted that the City of Richmond Hill has reached settlements with two of the landowner Parties. Both of these matters will be addressed and considered in the Hearing.

5Richmond Hill Retirement Inc. (“RHR”) has resolved issues with the City, and also with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”). These concern the Greenway designation and related policies for 70 Bernard Avenue in the northeast quadrant. The settlement will be considered in Phase 2C, the Greenway designation. It would be strictly without prejudice to the position of North Elgin Centre (“NEC”) in the Hearing.

6The Tribunal in its decision of April 17, 2020 had approved three zoning amendments sought by RHR, but omitted a fourth minor amendment, also required. Both the City and appellant had overlooked this amendment. It will be considered and evidence in support will be provided at the Hearing. The Tribunal has determined that it has jurisdiction under section 23 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021 to correct a minor omission in the amendments to Zoning By-law No. 111-17 previously authorized.

7The second settlement was with TSMJC, located in the southeast quadrant. The City filed a draft Agreed Statement of Facts respecting Phase 2A. This indicates that the Parties will request modifications to the KDA Secondary Plan and the Zoning By-law, which if accepted by the Tribunal would resolve all issues raised by TSMJC in these Appeals.

HEARING PLAN

8Because of the settlements, and revisions to the Issues List considered by the City (attached to Procedural Order, appended as Schedule 1), the City has devised a Hearing Plan for Phase 2. This covers both the subject matter and the time allocated to each segment of the Phase 2 Hearing. As set out in Schedule 1, these are the subject matter divisions and times allocated:

a. The total length of the Phase 2 Hearing will be up to fifteen (15) days, and the hearing will proceed in sub-phases as follows:

b. Sub-Phase 2A – will be up to two (2) days, and pertains to all quadrant and/or site-specific issues related to lands within the southeast quadrant that remain to be adjudicated.

c. Sub-Phase 2B – will be up to six (6) days and pertains to all quadrant and/or site-specific issues related to lands within the northeast quadrant that remain to be adjudicated, other than those listed in sub-phase 2C.

d. Sub-Phase 2C – will be up to five (5) days and pertains solely to all quadrant and/or site-specific issues related to the Greenway System.

e. Sub-Phase 2D – will be up to two (2) days and pertains solely to site-specific issues raised by Frank Di Pede.

9The Parties involved in each sub-Phase are also listed in Schedule 1. The Tribunal notes that the times assigned are subject to adjustment, but that any requests for alteration must be made only with clear cause.

10NEC objected to the order of sub-Phases 2b and 2C, believing that the Greenway issues affecting its land should be determined in advance of its site-specific development issues. It argued that determining the boundary of the Greenway designation would affect what could be built in the northeast quadrant. It also questioned who would monitor, as mentioned in the Plan. It urged the panel to conduct a site visit to assess NEC’s arguments about the boundary. This will be determined by the panel at a later date.

ISSUES LIST

11The Tribunal notes the City’s comments concerning NEC’s proposed alterations to the issues list. In its view, many NEC issues are (as required) site- and/or quadrant specific to the northeast quadrant. However, some stray into the territory of KDA-wide or other-quadrant questions. Some were deleted by the City as inappropriate to be addressed in the phase 2 Hearing. The Tribunal agrees, but also that this does not preclude the City, or any other party, from taking issue with any of NEC’s issues during the Phase 2 Hearing.

12One of these issues is NEC’s continuing concern about the location of the Bernard Bus Terminal in the southeast quadrant. It is not in the northeast where NEC is located. Nevertheless, Mr. Streisfield argued that its future location is important to the entire KDA. All the other Parties and the City pointed out that the Tribunal had addressed this issue in Paragraphs 191 and 192 of its Decision on Phase 1 (February 26, 2021). Mr. Kehar said that the City had attempted to have a meeting of experts on this matter, but had received no response from NEC. The Tribunal agrees that the question of the location of the BBT cannot form part of this Hearing at all, especially since it is ultimately within the Region of York’s control. Ms. Ogenmefun for the Region pointed out that there had in fact been a Regional Transit Planner providing evidence in the Phase 1 hearing, and that this issue could have been clarified then. It will not be considered as an issue in the Phase 2 Hearing.

13Any attempted NEC changes to the Issues List are rejected in general, for the reasons expressed by the City. The Tribunal agrees with its comments, as did all the other Parties.

14Mr. Harrington for Yonge MCD supported the City’s comments, warning about keeping to the agenda and not addressing area-wide issues. Mr. Flowers for RHR at 70 Bernard noted that NEC had taken no part in the earlier Tribunal hearing for its zoning amendments, and that the appeal had concerned only zoning and no Official Plan amendments. The density for the RHR site was fixed by the earlier Decision. Its appeals of the 2010 Official Plan and Secondary Plan remain, as this panel’s earlier decision of May 10, 2021 confirmed (paras. 8 and 9). Mr. Cherniak for the YBRA agreed with the other Parties, and opposed any non-site-specific issues requested by NEC. There should be no significant increases in site-specific densities. The YBRA will not take part in Phase 2A, and will rely on the City there. Mr. Annibale for TSMJC agreed that the BBT issue had been dealt with. Ms. Montgomery for the TRCA argued that NEC’s site-specific appeals should be addressed before the issue of the Greenway is considered.

15The Tribunal can only repeat that this Phase 2 hearing can only consider site-specific issues for NEC, and none with broader application of KDA-wide, such as the desire to revisit the Holding provisions. As one Party put it, if the triggers for lifting the H provisions were altered as NEC requests, NEC could begin to build, and the rest could not. More specifically, the site-specific issues raised by NEC’s proposals should be considered before the issue of the application of the Greenway designation to either the RHR property at 70 Bernard, or to the NEC lands. The City’s view accords with the TRCA’s on this point. The question of the BBT was also dealt with at paragraph 220 of the Tribunal’s decision on the Part 1 Hearing, which noted the agreement of certain Parties about the effect of the BBT on development approvals.

RECUSAL RENEWED AND REPEATED

16Mr. Streisfield again attempted a motion that the panel recuse itself. This issue has been thoroughly canvassed and rejected by the panel itself and by the Chair and delegate, all with extensive reasons. The panel repeats that it will not recuse itself.

INFORMATION FOR JOINING HEARING:

17The Tribunal will conduct a Hearing by Video Conference for the Phase 2 of this Hearing.

18The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Monday, July 12, 2021 at 10 a.m.

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:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/648767525

Access Code: 648-767-525

20The Tribunal has set aside 15 days for this matter.

21The event will be held using https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/648767525. The appellant(s), applicant, municipality or approval authority are asked to log into the video hearing through the link provided above at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections. All persons are expected 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 MSTeams. A web application is also available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html or https://www.microsfot.com/en-ca/microsoft-teams/download-app. A compatible web browser for this service is Chrome.

22Persons 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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll Free): 1 888 299 1889. The access code is 648-767-525.

23Event dates are firm – adjournments will not be granted except in the most serious circumstances, and only in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 17 on adjournments.

24If you do not attend the event, the Tribunal may proceed in your absence and you will not be entitled to any further notice of these proceedings.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

25If a person intends to refer to a document at the hearing that is not in the Tribunal’s case file, the document is expected to be pre-filed electronically with the Tribunal at least 10 days before the date of the hearing, unless another filing date is specified in the Tribunal’s Rules. All pre-filed documents shall be served on the other parties electronically. All contact information is included in the Procedural Order, appended as Schedule 1. Submissions larger than 10MB must be transferred to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator using an electronic file sharing link/service.

26A copy of a decision may also be obtained from the Tribunal’s website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/e-decisions/) by referencing the above case number.

“D. Colbourne”

D. COLBOURNE

MEMBER

“G. Burton”

G. BURTON

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.