Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

December 28, 2023

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-002104

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

Appellant

1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre)

Appellant

1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch

Appellant

1150 Centre Street GP Inc.

Appellant

1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd.

and others

Subject:

Zoning By-law

Description:

New City-wide comprehensive zoning by-law

Reference Number:

By-law 001-2021

Property Address:

City Wide

Municipality/UT:

Vaughan/York

OLT Case No:

OLT-22-002104

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-22-002104

OLT Case Name:

D'Aversa v. Vaughan (City)

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

Appellant

1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre)

Appellant

1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch

Appellant

1150 Centre Street GP Inc.

Appellant

1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd.

and others

Subject:

Zoning By-law

Description:

Transitional by-law

Reference Number:

By-law 039-2022

Property Address:

City Wide

Municipality/UT:

Vaughan/York

OLT Case No:

OLT-22-003554

OLT Lead Case No:

OLT-22-002104

Heard:

September 26, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

City of Vaughan

Pitman Patterson Candace Tashos Lee English Robert Rappolt (land use planner with WSP)

Tien de Religion Canada 1972380 Ontario Limited and 1219414 Ontario Limited (Awin West) 1163919 Ontario Limited; 1888836 Ontario Limited; and 1211612 Ontario Limited (Awin) 228 Steeles West Limited

Alan Heisey

Pristine Homes (Pine Grove) Inc. Hollywood Princess Convention and Banquet Centre Inc. Mizrahi Constantine (180 SAW) Inc. 785343 Ontario Ltd. and I & M Pandolfo Holdings Inc. Rutherford Land Development Corp. Royal 7 Developments Ltd. 2678462 Ontario Ltd. (previously 1834375 Ontario Inc. (Liberty Development Corporation)) Cortel Group Inc. Lormel Developments Ltd. 2097500 Ontario Limited Ozner Corporation (South) West Rutherford Properties Ltd. MCN (Pine Valley) Inc. Kirbywest Ltd.

Brendan Ruddick

72 Steeles Holdings Limited; 7040 Yonge Holdings Limited (Humbold Properties) Anland Developments Inc.

Chris Barnett

2735447 Ontario Inc. 8940 Bathurst Street Wedgewood Columbus Limited 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Blue Water Ranch Developments Inc. Highview Building Corp Inc. Di Poce Real Estate Holdings Limited D’Aversani Holdings Inc. Marina Shcolyar 9773 Keele Street Inc. (previously 9773 Keele Development Inc.) D’Or Developments Inc. Liberata D’Aversa Lorwood Holdings Inc.; Fleur de Cap Development Inc.; and Cuenca Development Inc.

Chris Tanzola

Royal Group Inc. (NAPCO-Royal Building Products) Home Depot of Canada Inc. Home Depot of Canada Inc. Royal Group Inc. (NAPCO-Royal Pipe & Fittings)

David Tang Jesse White

Prima Vista Estates Inc. 840999 Ontario Limited 281187 Ontario Limited

Gerard Borean

Zepco Holdings Inc. Laurier Harbour (Keele) Inc. Laurier Harbour (Keele) Inc. Sharewell Investments Inc.

Grace O’Brien

Unknown (Planner with KLM Planning Partners Inc.)

Grant Uyeyama

Unknown (Articling Student with Davies Howe LLP)

Hannah Ruby

Morguard Properties (non-party)

Johanna Shapira

Promenade Limited Partnership (Promenade Shopping Centre)

Joe Hoffman

Unknown

John Macintyre

Margaret Hills Angela Tomasone A.G.A Holdings Inc. Blair Building Materials Inc. Coco Paving Inc. CRH Canada Group Inc. Maple Industrial Landowners Group Inc.

Mandy Ng Steven C. Ferri

Market Lane Holdings Inc. ALM Property Management Inc. 2058258 Ontario Limited Portside Developments (Kipling) Inc. Isadan Holdings Limited TDC Medical Properties Valley Major Developments Limited

Marcus Martins

Vaughan NW Residences Inc. Nashville Major Developments Inc.; Nashville Developments (South) Inc.; Nashville Developments Inc.; Nashville (Barons) Developments Inc.; and Nashville 10 Acres Developments Inc. Block 41 Landowners Group Inc.

Mark Flowers

1529749 Ontario Limited Genazzano Highrises Inc. and Granerola Residences Ltd. Greenpark Homes and Intergreen Development Inc. (Green Park)

Mary Flynn-Guglietti Patrick Pinho

1042710 Ontario Limited (The Royal Centre) Toromont Industries Ltd. G Group Major Mackenzie Inc. 7553 Islington Holding Inc. My Place On 7 Inc.

Matthew Helfand

Langvalley Holdings and K&K Holdings Limited

Nicholas Macos

2748355 Canada Inc. RP B3S Holdings Inc. Mobilio Developments Ltd. RP B3N Holdings Inc.

Patrick Duffy

Unknown

Peter Chee

Vaughan NW Residences Inc. Betovan Construction Limited Nashville Major Developments Inc.; Nashville Developments (South) Inc.; Nashville Developments Inc.; Nashville (Barons) Developments Inc.; and Nashville 10 Acres Developments Inc. Block 41 Landowners Group Inc.

Sarah Kagan

Canadian National Railway (CN)

Katarzyna Sliwa Katryna Vergis-Mayo

Anatolia Block 59 Developments Limited 2708971 Ontario Inc.

Stephanie Fleming

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

Tim Duncan

Arbor Memorial Inc.

Tom Barlow

Tony Nicoletti

Tony Nicoletti

Zepco Holdings Inc. Lindvest Properties (Pine Valley) Limited; Lindvest Properties (Pine Valley RB) Limited; 1387700 Ontario Limited; and Roybridge Holdings Limited (ZZEN)

Robert Miller

Dufferin Vistas Ltd.

Matthew Di Vona

MM 27 Ltd.

Rizmi Holdings Ltd; Lucia Milani; & Lucia Milani, in Trust

Stellex Properties Inc. et al

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

1The Tribunal conducted a second CMC at which administrative matters were resolved related to Appeals of the City of Vaughan’s (“City”) Comprehensive By-law 001-2021(CZBL) and Transitional By-law 039-2022. Several Motions by the City and a Motion by Condor Properties Limited were considered.

2The Tribunal noted withdrawal of the Appeals of Lormel Developments Limited (Nos. 4884, 8977 and 6946). Respecting Appeal 2687, originally challenged as an invalid appeal, there will be a motion to shelter at the next CMC. For Appellant Morguard Properties, its Party status is unresolved, but its counsel Johanna Shapira stated that it does not now require Party status.

3Many Appeals have been resolved by mediation, others by Council amendments (Nos. 2669, 2846, and 2745.) As set out in the previous CMC decision, many properties have changed ownership. The City has no issue with successors in title continuing the Appeals, provided there are no additional issues. Brendan Ruddick pointed out that the Tribunal’s previous decision did not state that his client 2678462 Ontario Limited was granted permission to assume the Appeal filed by Liberty Development Corporation for lands at 1890 Highway 7 (No. 2808.). The Tribunal adds this change in the Appellants list.

4A new By-law 169-2022 was enacted on June 28, 2022, to resolve certain issues raised in discussions of the CZBL. There were only three site-specific Appeals to this By-law, all the owners represented by Matthew Di Vona. The City requested consolidation of these with these Appellants’ earlier Appeals to the CZBL (Nos. 2715, 2739, 2740, 2742, 2744). This Motion proceeded on consent and was unopposed.

5The City also requested an order that By-law 169-2022 be deemed in force, except for the three Appeals to it (Exhibit 9).

6The Tribunal then heard Motions for settlements for six of the appeals (Exhibit 13). It also considered separate Motions by Condor Development Ltd. (discussed later). Settlements considered in this CMC were either corrected errors or advance exceptions. These were supported by the affidavit of Robert Rappolt, who is the expert planner involved in preparation of the Zoning By-laws (Exhibit 13, Tab 2).

Motions for Settlements for Appeals seeking amendments to the CZBL:

1. 1264564 Ontario Ltd (Appeal No. 002665)

71264564 Ontario Ltd (“1264564”) appealed the CZBL respecting the permitted uses for the land at 9770 Highway 27, City of Vaughan, associated with Zone Exceptions 139 and 175 of the CZBL. The 1264564 land is currently used as a hotel.

8The requested approval will amend the site-specific exception in the CZBL to accurately reflect the existing use.

9Exceptions 139 and 175 in the CZBL that wrongly included site-specific development standards which do not reflect minor variances have already been granted by the Committee of Adjustment.

10New Exception 139 will consolidate Exceptions 139 and 175. The latter will be marked as “deleted” and will be maintained in the CZBL for the sole purpose of preserving the numbering of the exceptions.

11Map 138 of CZBL Schedule A is amended to remove reference to Exception 175. The reference to Exception 139 will remain.

12These site-specific amendments to the CZBL correct the discrepancy between the existing use permissions and the CZBL as enacted. They resolve Appeal No. 002665.

2. 9773 Keele Development Inc. (Appeals No. 002712 and 004799)

139773 Keele Development Inc. (“9773”) appealed the CZBL on the grounds that it also failed to carry forward an earlier permission. 9773 had obtained a site-specific by-law for the “9773 Keele Lands”, in Zoning By-law No. 047-2021, enacted April 20, 2021. This was an amendment to the old Zoning By-law 1-88. It permitted development on a private road of 11 three-storey townhouse units, and relocation of a heritage house. 9773 had appealed the CZBL as it failed to recognize this site-specific amendment.

14Site-specific by-law 047-2021 had rezoned the 9773 Keele Lands from “R1 Residential Zone” to “RT1 Residential Townhouse Zone” and had also included a number of site-specific exceptions to the RT1 Zone standards.

15A new Exception for the 9773 Keele Lands is included in Chapter 14 of the CZBL, as a new numbered exception (number to be determined). This Exception will include a new Figure E-1646. The proposed Exception and Figure E-1646 are found in Exhibit O of Mr. Rappolt’s Affidavit (Exhibit 13, Tab 2). A consequential amendment to Map 148 of Schedule A of the CZBL is also approved.

16This 9773 Keele Amendment was prepared by consensus. It assigns the appropriate zoning category under the CZBL (now RT2) and brings forward zoning standards and other site-specific provisions to coincide with the earlier By-law 047-2021. Finally, the 9773 Keele Amendment expressly permits the heritage house in the RT2 Zone.

3. A.G.A Holdings Inc. (Appeal No. 002746)

17A.G.A. Holdings Inc. (“A.G.A.”) appealed the City’s CZBL on a site-specific basis, respecting 10150 Keele Street and 9920 Keele Street. For 10150 Keele Street, A.G.A was concerned about the reference to the former site-specific Zone Exception 412 in the CZBL Schedule A mapping. This Exception had been deleted from the CZBL following discussions with A.G.A., but the “412 Exception” in Schedule A of the CZBL remained.

18This settlement corrects a map wrongly included in the CZBL, and accurately reflects the zoning for 10150 Keele Street. Map 167 is deleted and replaced with a new Map 167 (attached to Mr. Rappolt’s Affidavit, Exhibit 13, Tab 2, called therein Exhibit Q). New Map 167 omits the incorrect reference to site-specific Zone Exception 412 in Map 167 of the CZBL.

19This A.G.A. Amendment will resolve A.G.A.’s appeal of the CZBL for its lands at 10150 Keele Street. This is a partial settlement of A.G.A.’s appeal. The balance of A.G.A.’s appeal is limited to its lands at 9920 Keele Street.

4. Betovan Construction Limited (Appeal No. 002668)

20Betovan Construction Limited (“Betovan”) appealed the CZBL on a site-specific basis for its lands at 520 Worth Boulevard. (“Betovan lands”). Betovan raised concerns that site-specific By-law 079-2021 was not carried forward nor recognized in the CZBL. This had amended By-law 1-98 to permit six street townhouses and two semi-detached units on the Betovan Lands.

21The consensus was that a site-specific amendment to the CZBL (attached to Mr. Rappolt’s Affidavit, Exhibit 13, Tab 2, called therein Exhibit Y) would correct the discrepancy between By-law 079-2021 and the CZBL. This amends the CZBL by introducing a new Section 14 Zone Exception for the Betovan Lands. In addition, Schedule A, Map 78 of the CZBL is amended to reflect the new site-specific exception (“Betovan Amendment”).

22The Betovan Amendment and consequential amendment to Map 78 of Schedule A wholly resolve Betovan’s appeal of the CZBL.

5. Valley Major Developments Limited (Appeal No. 002854)

23Valley Major Developments Limited (“Valley Major”) appealed the CZBL on a site-specific basis for its lands at 4433, 4455 and 4477 Major Mackenzie Drive (“Valley Major lands”). It raised concerns with the site-specific development standards and mapping associated with Zone Exception 1113 of the CZBL.

24Valley Major had submitted applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and had appealed the City’s failure to make decisions. (File No. PL171046.) The Tribunal Decision and Order of Nov. 25, 2019, allowed the appeals in part. The approved By-law amendment was By-law 079-2020. This amends By-law 1-88 to permit a common element condominium townhouse development on the Valley Major lands.

25However, this Exception 1113 in the CZBL wrongly included site-specific development standards that do not reflect the permissions established in By-law 079-2020.

26The Tribunal will approve site-specific amendments to the CZBL to correct the discrepancy between By-law 079-2020 and the CZBL. Zone Exception 1113 will be amended for the Valley Major Lands. As well, CZBL Schedule A Map 161 is amended to reflect the new site-specific exception. A consequential amendment to Map 161 of Schedule A of the CZBL is also approved. These resolve Valley Major’s appeal of the CZBL.

6. Condor Properties Ltd (Appeals 002773 and 004792)

27Condor Properties Limited (“Condor”) had also appealed the CZBL. Among other matters, Condor raised concerns with the site-specific development standards and mapping in Exceptions 850 and 950 in Chapter 14 of the CZBL. It brought Motions supported by the affidavits of professional planners Grant Uyeyama and Mark Yarranton (Exhibit 15). The City had also dealt with these Appeals in Mr. Rappolt’s Affidavit.

CZBL Exception 850

28Exception 850 wrongly included site-specific development standards that do not reflect the existing zoning for Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 2, being southwest of Janessa Court in the City (“Condor 850 Lands”).

29Council had passed By-law 183-2015 for the Condor 850 Lands, rezoning from RVM2(H) Residential Urban Village Multiple Family Zone Two with the Holding Symbol “(H)”, subject to Exception 9(1205), to RVM2 Residential Urban Village Multiple Family Zone Two (six detached dwelling units on a public road), OS2 Open Space Park Zone (open space) and OS5 Open Space Environmental Protection Zone (valley land buffers). By-law 183-2015 had amended City Zoning By-law 1-88.

30The approval sought by Condor corrects the site-specific standards and mapping to accurately reflect the zoning for the Condor 850 Lands. Specifically, Section 14.850 is deleted and replaced with a new Section 14.850, in the form attached to Mr. Rappolt’s Affidavit, Exhibit 13, Tab 2, called therein Exhibit T (“Exception 850 Amendment”).

31This Exception 850 Amendment resolves Condor’s appeals of the CZBL and the Transition By-law with respect to the Condor 850 Lands.

CZBL Exception 950

32Exception 950 of the CZBL wrongly includes site-specific standards that do not reflect the existing zoning for Part of Lot 21, Concession 9, located in the northeast corner of Woodgate Pines Drive and Timber Creek Boulevard in the City (“Condor 950 Lands”).

33The City had passed By-law 109-2020 to facilitate a residential development consisting of 27 lots for detached dwellings and three-part blocks for future detached dwellings, on the Condor 950 Lands.

34The Tribunal approves correction of the site-specific development standards and mapping to accurately reflect the zoning applicable to the Condor 950 Lands. Specifically, Section 14.950 (being Exception 950) as adopted on October 20, 2021, is deleted and replaced with a new Section 14.950 (in the form attached to Mr. Rappolt’s Affidavit, Exhibit 13, Tab 2, called therein Exhibit V - “Exception 950 Amendment”). Consequential amendments to Maps 156 and 157 of Schedule A of the CZBL are also approved.

Additional amendment:

35Condor’s other Motion for Amendment related to Exception 1085, site-specific development standards omitted inadvertently from the CZBL. An earlier permission is to be added to Section 14.1085 of the By-law, as seen in the Order below.

36These three amendments resolve Condor’s appeal of the CZBL and the Transition By-law with respect to the Condor Lands.

Planning opinions on proposed settlements

37Mr. Rappolt’s detailed opinions on these amendments were that the 1264564, A.G.A., 9773 Keele, Condor, Betovan and Valley Major amendments have regard to matters of Provincial interest in accordance with Section 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, the Region OP and the VOP 2010, and represent good planning. Similarly, Messrs Uyeyama and Yarranton opined that the Condor amendments meet all provincial policies. The Tribunal granted all of the motions orally and approved of the amendments to the By-laws for these settlements.

38One hearing day, January 18, 2023, was chosen for another CMC to deal with additional settlements, among other matters.

ORDERS

Substitution of Appellants

39THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that 2678462 Ontario Ltd. be substituted in place and stead of 1834375 Ontario Inc. as the named Appellant in Appeal No. OLT-22-002808 in Tribunal Case File No 22-002104. The Tribunal’s records shall be amended to reflect this substitution for all purposes relating to the continued administration and adjudication of Appeal No. OLT-22-002808.

40THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that 9773 Keele Street Inc. be substituted in place and stead of 9773 Keele Development Inc. as the named Appellant in Appeal No. OLT-22-002712 in Tribunal Case File No. OLT-22-002104 and in Appeal No. OLT-22-004799 in Tribunal Case File No. OLT-22-003554. The Tribunal’s records shall be amended to reflect this substitution for all purposes relating to the continued administration and adjudication of Appeal Nos. OLT-22-002712 and OLT-22-004799.

Motion – 1264564 Ontario Ltd. (Dino Giuliani) – Appeal No. 22-002665

41THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Appeal No. 22-002665 in OLT Case No. 22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal in respect of lands owned by 1264564 Ontario Ltd, is allowed in part, and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

(a) Exception 139 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with new Exception 139 as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;

(b) Exception 175 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 will be marked as “Deleted” but will be maintained for the sole purpose of preserving the numbering of the Exceptions as also set out in Attachment 1 to this Order; and,

(c) Map 138 of Schedule A to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is hereby amended to remove reference to Exception 175, and Exception 139 will remain.

42In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 22-002665 is dismissed.

43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Appeal No. 22-002712 in OLT Case No. 22-002104 appealing Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, and Appeal No. 22-004799 in OLT Case No. 22-003554 appealing By-law No. 039-2022, Transitional Provisions, being appeals in respect of lands municipally known as 9773 Keele Street in the City and owned by the Appellant, are allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

(a) A new Exception for the lands at 9773 Keele Street in the City is added to Chapter 14 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new numbered Exception number inclusive of a new added Figure E-1646 in the form set out in Attachment 2 to this Order; and

(b) Map 148 of Schedule A to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended to reflect this added Exception.

44In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal Nos. 22-002712 and 22-004799 are dismissed.

Motion – A.G.A. Holdings Inc. – Appeal 22-002746

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Appeal No. 22-002746 in OLT Case No. 22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal in respect of lands owned by A.G.A. Holdings Inc, is allowed in part only as it relates to lands municipally known as 10150 Keele Street, City of Vaughan, and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended by deleting and replacing Map 167 in Schedule A to that By-law as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. In all other respects the Appeal as it relates to the lands at 10150 Keele Street, City of Vaughan is dismissed. The balance of the Appeal, as it relates to lands municipally known as 9920 Keele Street, City of Vaughan, is not yet dismissed and is now scoped on a site-specific basis to those lands.

Motion – Betovan Construction Limited – Appeal No. 22-002668

46THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Appeal No. 22-002668 in OLT Case No. 22-002104 appealing Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal in respect of lands municipally known as 520 Worth Boulevard in the City and owned by the Appellant, is allowed in part, and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

(a) A new Exception for the lands at 520 Worth Boulevard in the City is added to Chapter 14 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new numbered Exception number inclusive of a new added Figure E-1649 in the form set out in Attachment 4 to this Order; and

(b) Map 78 of Schedule A to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended to reflect this added Exception.

47In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 22-002668 is dismissed.

Motion – Valley Major Developments Limited – Appeal No. 22-002854

48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Appeal No. 22-002854 in OLT Case No. 22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal in respect of lands owned by Valley Major Developments Limited at 4433, 4455 and 4477 Major Mackenzie Drive, is allowed in part, and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

(a) Exception 1113 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 1113 to correct the discrepancy between By-law 079-2020 and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to reflect the site-specific exceptions and permissions established in By-law 079-2020 as set out in Attachment 5 to this Order; and

(b) Map 161 of Schedule A to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended to reflect this correction/amendment.

49In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 22-002854 is dismissed.

Motions – Condor Properties Ltd. – Appeal Nos. 22-002773 and 22-002104

50THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Appeal No. 22-002773 in OLT Case No. 22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, and Appeal No. 22-004792 in OLT Case No. 22-003554 to By-law No. 039-2022, Transitional Provisions, being appeals in respect of lands managed by Condor Properties Ltd, described as Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 7, Part of Lot 25, Concession 7, Part of Lot 8, All of Lots 9 and 10, Registered Plan 65M-1191, and Block 42, Registered Plan 65M-4149, Part of the east half of Lot 28, Concession 5, All of Block 200, Plan 65M-4383, Block 90, 91 and 92, Plan 65M-4266, are allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

(a) Section 14.850 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 as adopted on October 20, 2021, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 14.850 in the form set out in Attachment 6 to this Order;

(b) Section 14.950 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 as adopted on October 20, 2021, is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Section 14.950 in the form set out in Attachment 7 to this Order;

(c) Exception 1085 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 1085 to correct the discrepancy between By-law 101-2018 (amending Zoning By-law 1-88) and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, and establishing an R5 Zone in place of a former RT1 Zone in a limited area, all as set out in Attachment 8 to this Order;

(d) Schedule A – Maps 156 and 157, are amended in accordance with the amendments contained herein; and,

(e) Schedule A – Maps 179 and 180, are amended in accordance with the amendments contained herein.

51In all other respects the Appeals as they relate to the lands described as Part of Lots 24 and 25, Concession 2, being Blocks 90, 91 and 92, Plan 65M-4266; Part of Lot 21, Concession 9, being Block 200, Plan 65M-4361; and Part of Lots 23 and 24, Concession 7, municipally known as 10390 Pine Valley Drive, in the City, are dismissed, but the balance of these Appeals which are not specific to those lands are not yet dismissed in their entirety.

Consolidation of Appeals

52THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals of City By-law No 169-2022 brought by Rizmi Holdings Limited, Lucia Milani and, Lucia Milani in Trust, is respect of the lands municipally known as 11333 Dufferin Street, 11641 Dufferin Street, and 11490 Bathurst Street in the City (OLT Case No. OLT-22-004320) are hereby consolidated with the Appeals of the City Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 (OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104) and the City By-law 039-2022 (OLT Case No. OLT-22-003554)

Section 34(31) Order - By-law 169-2022 Deemed in Force Excepting Three Site-Specific Appeals/Lands

53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that By-law 169-2022 of the City is deemed to have come into force on the day it was passed for all areas of the City to which it applies, save and except for those lands municipally known as 11333 Dufferin Street, 11641 Dufferin Street, and 11490 Bathurst Street in the City. The Tribunal makes this Order pursuant to Section 34(31) of the Planning Act.

Section 34(31) Order - Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 Un-appealed Portions Deemed in Force

54THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that save and except where amended by By-law No. 039-2022 and by any other amendment in force and effect on the date of this Order, City of Vaughan Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 set out in Attachment 9 hereto, is deemed to have come into force on the day it was passed for all areas of the City to which it applies, save and except for those lands, areas, and Comprehensive Zoning By-law sections listed in Attachment 10 to this Order under Column 2 (“Subject of Appeal”) and Column 4 (“Subject Lands”). The Tribunal makes this Order pursuant to Section 34(31) of the Planning Act.

55THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that this Order deeming the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 to have come into force on the day it was passed, is without prejudice to the disposition of the Appeals as listed in Attachment 10, such that if those Appeals proceed to a subsequent hearing or motion, either on their own or as may be consolidated with other proceedings, the City will not take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve site-specific or area-specific amendments to By-law 001-2021 on the basis that they deviate from or are inconsistent with Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, as brought into force by this Order. However, this does not affect the City’s right to assert that the Comprehensive Zoning By-law, to the extent brought into force by this Order, should be applied to specific sites or areas without amendment on the basis that doing so is consistent with the Planning Act and provincial policies, conforms to provincial and official plans and/or constitutes good planning.

56Without limiting the operation of the paragraph above, nothing in this Order deeming the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 to have come into force on the day it was passed, shall prevent an Appellant with an Appeal related to its property or properties within the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Secondary Plan area, or the Yonge-Steeles Secondary Plan area, from seeking Tribunal approval of resolution of its Appeal(s) by way of proposed amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, and any such proposed order shall include a without prejudice provision similar to paragraph 55 herein.

57For clarity, notwithstanding this Order deeming the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 to have come into force on the day it was passed, the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to consider and approve amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law as approved herein, as may be appropriate to dispose of any of the outstanding appeals before the Tribunal.

“G. Burton”

G. BURTON

VICE-CHAIR

“D.S. Colbourne”

D.S. COLBOURNE

VICE-CHAIR

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 1

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4

ATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 6

ATTACHMENT 7

ATTACHMENT 8

ATTACHMENT 9

ATTACHMENT 10

Schedule D

Area Specific Appeal 2A Map

Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Secondary Plan Area

Schedule E

Area Specific Appeal 2B Map

Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan Area

Schedule F

Area Specific Appeal 2C Map

Lands within 300 m of the MacMillan Yard

Schedule G

Area Specific Appeal 2D Map

Numerous lands on Keele Street

(Employment Area Triangle)

Schedule H

Area Specific Appeal 2E Map

Greenbelt Fingers within Block 41