Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 15, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL190574
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Metroview Developments (Elmwood) Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Richmond Hill to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Downtown Local Centre
Proposed Designated: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit a 20-storey mixed use building
Property Address/Description: 9929-9939 Yonge St. & 186-188 Church St. S.
Municipality: City of Richmond Hill
Approval Authority File No.: D01-18004
OLT Case No.: PL190574
OLT File No.: PL190574
OLT Case Name: Metroview Developments (Elmwood) 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: Metroview Developments (Elmwood) Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 66-71 - Refusal or neglect of City of Richmond Hill to make a decision
Existing Zoning: General Commercial (GC) and Residential Second Density Zone (R2)
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit a 20-storey mixed use building
Property Address/Description: 9929-9939 Yonge St. & 186-188 Church St. S.
Municipality: City of Richmond Hill
Municipality File No.: D02-18029
OLT Case No.: PL190574
OLT File No.: PL190575
Heard: September 9, 2021 by telephone conference call (“TCC”)
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Metroview Developments (Elmwood) Inc. (“Applicant”) | I Andres/M. Lakatos-Hayward |
| City of Richmond Hill (“City”) | C. Thorne |
| Regional Municipality of York (“Region”) | B. Ogunmefun |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BLAIR S. TAYLOR ON SEPTEMBER 9, 2021 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant had filed a development proposal for the lands known municipally as 9929-9939 Yonge Street and 186-188 Church Street South (“Subject Lands”) seeking to redevelop the site with an 8-storey building fronting onto Yonge Street and Elmwood with 141 units.
2That redevelopment proposal was referred back to City Planning staff to work with the Applicant to revise the development proposal for greater height, density and lower parking standards.
3The Applicant filed a revised application with a 20-storey mixed-use building, and through further public comment and staff consultation it was further refined to a 21 storey building with a tower and podium configuration (Exhibit 1 Tab G).
4This further revised proposal (“Settlement Proposal”) was approved in principle by City Council.
5The parties notified the Tribunal of the settlement of this matter and requested a settlement hearing.
6For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal having considered the land use planning affidavit of Chris Pereira, having heard the viva voce evidence of Mr. Pereira, having heard the submissions of counsel and having considered s. 2.1 of the Planning Act (“PA”), allowed the appeal in part but withheld the Tribunal’s Final Order, all for the reasons set out below.
DECISION
7The Subject Lands are five contiguous parcels with an area of about 0.365 hectares, at a corner location with Elmwood Avenue, and extend to Church Street South. They are within a settlement area and a built-up area of the City.
8The Yonge Street corridor is identified as a Priority Transit Corridor in A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”). The Subject Lands are located within a future Major Transit Station Area, and Subject Lands are on the YRT/VIVA bus rapid transit service along Yonge Street and Major MacKenzie Drive.
9The Region’s Official Plan designates the Subject Lands as Urban Area and along a Regional Corridor.
10The City’s Official Plan designates the Subject Lands as Downtown Local Centre and within the Civic District. The Subject Lands have a split zoning: that portion of the Subject Lands fronting Yonge Street is zoned General Commercial and the remainder is zoned R2 for detached dwellings.
11The maximum Floor Space Index (“FSI”) in the Civic District is 2.5 and the maximum height up to 15 storeys.
12As the Settlement Proposal has a proposed height of 21 storeys and an FSI of 4.9, an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) are required to implement the Settlement Proposal.
13The Settlement Proposal was considered by City Council on February 10, 2021 and the City Council Minutes found at Exhibit 1 Tab H provide City Council’s support for the Settlement Proposal in principle subject to a s. 37 PA Agreement and that the Tribunal be requested to withhold its Final Order until the site plan has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning and Infrastructure.
14At the TCC the Tribunal had before it, the affidavit of land use planner Chris Pereira (Exhibit 1), the draft OPA (Exhibit 2) and the draft ZBA (Exhibit 3).
15The Tribunal also heard the viva voce evidence of Mr. Pereira, heard the submissions of counsel all in support of the Settlement Proposal, and considered s. 2.1 of the PA and the decision of the City Council and the information and materials that it had before it in making that decision.
16The Tribunal found that Settlement Proposal as found in Exhibit 1 Tab G, and in Exhibit 2 and 3:
a. Appropriately considered the Provincial Interests set out in s. 2 of the PA;
b. Was consistent with the PPS as being within a settlement area and being a form of intensification;
c. Conformed to the Growth Plan as being: within a future Major Transit Station Area, on a transit corridor, and a form of intensification in support of and proximate to public transit;
d. Conformed to the Region’s Official Plan;
e. Conformed to the planned function intended by the City’s Official Plan;
f. Implemented the City’s Urban Design Guidelines;
g. Represented good land use planning; and
h. Was in the public interest.
17Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, approved in principle the OPA and ZBA (as found in Exhibits 2 and 3) on the condition that the OPA and ZBA be in general compliance with the plans and drawings as found in Exhibit 1 Tab G, but withheld its Final Order with respect to the OPA and ZBA until such time as the City advises the Tribunal that a Site Plan application for the development has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning and Infrastructure.
18As it is anticipated that the completion of the Site Plan process will take 4-6 months, the Tribunal directs that the counsel for the Applicant shall provide a status update to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator within 6 months of the issuance date of this Decision.
19I remain seized of this matter.
20I may be spoken to with regard to case management.
21This is the Interim Order of the Tribunal.
“Blair S. Taylor”
BLAIR S. TAYLOR 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.