Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
August 23, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002486
(Formerly PL171136)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
2466571 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation:
Low-Rise Residential
Proposed Designated:
Mid-Rise Residential
Purpose:
To permit the proposed development of the subject lands with a 9-storey apartment building
Property Address/Description:
31 and 55 Mounsey Street
Municipality:
City of Vaughan
Approval Authority File No.:
OP.16.012
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002486
Legacy Case No.:
PL171136
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002486
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171136
OLT Case Name:
2466571 Ontario Inc. v. Vaughan (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
2466571 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88 - Refusal or neglect of City of Vaughan to make a decision
Existing Zoning:
R2 Residential Zone
Proposed Zoning:
RA2 Apartment Residential Zone
Purpose:
To permit the proposed development of the subject lands with a 9-storey apartment building
Property Address/Description:
31 and 55 Mounsey Street
Municipality:
City of Vaughan
Municipality File No.:
Z.16.051
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002487
Legacy Case No.:
PL171137
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002486
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171136
Heard:
July 18, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
2466571 Ontario Inc. (“Applicant”)
Meaghan McDermid
City of Vaughan (“City”)
Effie Lidakis
Toronto & Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”)
Tim Duncan
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This hearing was scheduled as the third Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for appeals related to zoning by-law amendment and official plan amendment applications for properties located at 31 and 55 Mounsey Street.
2The applications relate to a proposal for a nine storey apartment building of 192 units on a 1.64 hectares site. The proposal engages natural heritage matters, noting that the majority of lands are within the Natural Heritage Network and contain a Significant Bio-forest.
3At the outset, the Tribunal was informed that the parties had entered into an agreement to resolve the appeal and at the request of the parties, the CMC was converted to a settlement hearing.
4The discussions involve community benefits charges, leading to the parties’ desire to seek the Tribunal’s Decision on the settlement before amendments to the Planning Act take effect in September 2022.
Site and Proposed Development
5The Subject Lands consist of two parcels of land (31 and 55 Mounsey Street) which are a combined total of 1.64 hectares in size. The Subject Lands are located on the south side and at the terminus of Mounsey Street, east of Clarence Street. The Subject Lands contain an existing and occupied single detached dwelling with a driveway accessed from Mounsey Street and a woodlot located at the rear of the property.
6Immediately west of the Subject Lands is a Place of Worship, known as the Rock Community Church. To the north of the Subject Lands, across Mounsey Street, and extending to the east of Mounsey Street is the Country Club Golf Course (formerly known as the Board of Trade Golf Course).
REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
7The Tribunal was advised that through settlement discussions with the City and the TRCA, the Applicant has revised the Applications to now propose a 6-storey residential apartment building containing 183 units and an overall Net Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 3.19 on the Subject Lands (the “Proposed Development”).
8The Proposed Development includes a total Gross Floor Area of 15,893.4 square metres, 57 % Building Coverage, 223 Underground Parking Spaces (186 Resident Parking Spaces and 37 Visitor Parking Spaces), and approximately 1,316 square metres of Landscape Area and a total of 5,431.80 square metres of indoor and outdoor amenity areas.
9The Tribunal marked the following documents as Exhibits:
Exhibit 1 - Affidavit of Maurizio Rogato.
Exhibit 2 - Draft Order and Schedules – 31 & 55 Mounsey Street, City of Vaughan.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
10The Tribunal heard uncontested expert opinion evidence in support of the settlement from Maurizio Rogato, a registered professional planner and a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, who was duly qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of land use planning. Mr. Rogato provided a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale to support the settlement.
[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
11Section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.13 (the “Planning Act”) sets out matters of provincial interest for which planning authorities shall have regard to, among other matters, in carrying out their responsibilities to the legislation.
12Mr. Rogato opined the Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) satisfies all legislative tests under the Planning Act and represents good planning in the public interest. It was his opinion that the OPA and ZBLA as set out in Exhibits H, I and J within his Affidavit and report will have regard to all matters of provincial interest found in Section 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular:
(a) the appropriate protection of ecological systems including natural areas, features.
(h) the appropriate protection of ecological systems including natural areas, features the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development; and
(r) the promotion of built form that is well designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.
13The Tribunal heard that the Proposed Development provides for orderly development within a settlement area that will contribute to a full range of housing by means of providing Apartment Dwelling Units to the neighbourhood at an appropriate location.
PPS 2020
14The Tribunal heard that the proposal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and is consistent with the PPS, as it is an efficient use of land and infrastructure which contributes to an affordable and range of housing in the area, the appropriate protection of ecological systems including natural areas, promotion of built form that are:
i. is well designed,
ii. encourages a sense of place; and
iii. provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant.
15Mr. Rogato referred the Tribunal to the following policies stating that the OPA and ZBA is consistent with the PPS, including but not limited to policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.1, 2.1, 2.6 and 3.0.
16Mr. Rogato opined that the Proposed Development would permit efficient use, regeneration, and redevelopment of the Subject Lands to introduce an intensified form of residential use on an already developed portion of the Subject Lands, which does not impact any natural heritage features. The proposal will provide for the redevelopment of the Subject Lands from their existing use as one single family dwelling on a very large site, with a compatible form of intensification through the proposed 6-storey apartment building. This he opined would be an efficient use of the Subject Lands and would align with the direction of the PPS.
The Growth Plan
17Mr. Rogato opined that the proposal conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), as the lands are within the Delineated Built-up Area which seek to achieve complete communities, in part by identifying a diverse range and mix of housing options within a municipality, focusing intensification within built-up areas and achieving minimum intensification targets of the Growth Plan.
18The proposed 6-storey apartment building will include a mix of one bedroom and two-bedroom unit types along with available options to add dens to each unit type category. The mix of unit types will provide housing options within the Secondary Planning Area and Woodbridge community, which is currently made up of predominantly ground related housing stock including single detached dwellings, semi detached dwelling and townhouse dwellings.
19Mr. Rogato stated that the Proposed Development conforms to the housing policies of the Growth Plan, as it will contribute to a complete community by making housing stock available which adds to the diversification of housing types and will provide for an appropriate form of intensification of underutilized lands with existing services and road infrastructure. The Subject Lands are located within an urban area with an abundance of existing community facilities and a transportation network which has capacity to accommodate the proposal through road connectivity to the regional transportation network.
20Mr. Rogato referred the Tribunal to the following policies stating that the OPA and ZBA conform to the Growth Plan, including but not limited to policies: 2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.6, and 2.2.6.3.
The YROP
21The Subject Lands are designated in the York Region Official Plan (“YROP”) as part of the ‘Urban Area’ and ‘Regional Greenlands System’ per the Regional Structure Map 1 of the YROP. A minor portion of the Subject Lands is also identified as ‘Woodlands’ on Map 5 and within the conceptual ‘Greenlands System Vision’ corridor.
22Mr. Rogato referred the Tribunal to the following policies stating that the OPA and ZBA conform to the YROP, including but not limited to policy 2.1, which outlines the Region’s policy direction for the Regional Greenland’s System, deferring specific identification of the same to the local official plans and secondary plans. The YROP directs that natural features are to be integrated into the community design, with encouragement of enhancement opportunities.
The VOP
23The Subject Lands are designated Vaughan Official Plan (“VOP”) as ‘Natural Areas’ on Schedule 13 Land Use of the VOP. They are further identified as ‘Core Features’ on Schedule 2 Natural Heritage Network with a portion identified as an ‘Unapproved’ Natural Area being the portion of the lands containing the existing single detached dwelling. The Core Feature on the Subject Lands is the existing woodland, located on the southern section of the Subject Lands.
24The Tribunal heard that polices in section 3.2.3 prohibit development and site alteration in Core Features and adjacent to Core Features unless it has been demonstrated through an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) that development and site alteration will not result in a negative impact on the feature. Policy 3.2.3.11 permits minor refinements to the boundaries and alignment of Core Features.
25Mr. Rogato stated the EIS confirmed the limits of the natural heritage features on the Subject Lands and recommended appropriate Vegetation Protection Zones. The EIS included an impact assessment, which concluded that the Proposed Development will be located outside of the Core Features (Significant Woodland) and will not result in any negative impacts on the feature or its functions. Further, the area proposed for development does not contain Significant Valleyland and will not result in negative impacts on the adjacent slope forest. In addition, the Proposed Development includes a Woodland Compensation and Restoration Plan which will not only protect but replace, restore, and enhance the Significant Woodland and its function.
26The VOP recognizes stable neighbourhoods through its Community Areas and policies 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.3 and 2.2.3.4. Policy 2.2.3 of the VOP seeks to allocate most of the low-density housing stock within Community Areas, recognizing such areas as stable areas, not intended to experience significant physical change, which would alter the general character of the established neighbourhoods within such areas.
27It was his opinion that while the Proposed Development is not considered low-rise it will not destabilize or alter the Community Area and neighbourhood character, as it will not create any shadow, overlook, or built form impacts on the existing residential area.
28He informed the Tribunal that VOP Policy 3.6.4.4 prohibits intensification within flood vulnerable areas unless it has been demonstrated through an appropriate comprehensive study that the flood risk has been reduced through flood remediation, flood proofing, flood warning and emergency response measures, to the satisfaction of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
29To address potential flooding conditions on portions of Clarence Street during the Regional storm, he stated an Emergency Access will be constructed through the lands to be acquired by the City to the north of Mounsey Street, which will be funded through the section 37 contribution. An Emergency Management Plan and warning clauses to ensure that future residents are aware of the potential flooding risks and will be prepared for a potential flood event will also be required and will be implemented through the site plan approval process.
Secondary Plan
30The Subject Lands are also within the Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan, forming part of the ‘Stable Residential Neighbourhoods’ and are designated ‘Low Rise Residential’ with a maximum height of 2-Storeys. Within the Secondary Plan, the Subject Lands are not shown to be part of the ‘Valley Lands and Neighbouring Parks’ designation.
31It was explained that the Secondary Plan identifies the Subject Lands within the Stable Residential Neighbourhoods Character Area noting that the developable area of the Subject Lands is well removed from the existing residential neighbourhood to the south by distance, topography (being beyond the toe of slope) and the intervening woodland. The only other use on Mounsey Street is the existing church located to the east of the Subject Lands. He highlighted development applications which have been submitted and approved for the redevelopment of the Country Club golf course to the north of the Subject Lands including 662 new residential units.
32He opined that the proposed will contribute to the mix of residential building forms, achieve a high-quality built form, protect the natural heritage and environmental features, and in conformity with the principles and objectives of the Secondary Plan. Section 3.3 of the Secondary Plan outlines a vision for Stable Residential Neighbourhoods which will respect and conserve the adjacent heritage fabric and landscapes, improve the ‘green’ character of the neighbourhood, protect significant views and connections to open spaces and respect distinct setbacks, heritage styles and natural topography of the neighbourhoods.
33He stated, Low-Rise Residential designation allows for housing forms no greater than 5-storeys having a numeric symbol of ‘2’ being 2-storeys as the permitted maximum height. The proposed OPA seeks to re-designate the Subject Lands from the ‘Low-Rise Residential’ designation to a ‘Mid-Rise Residential’ designation which would permit the proposed ‘6’-storey apartment building.
34It was explained that the Subject Lands are located sufficiently away from existing Single Detached or Semi-Detached dwellings and are located adjacent to an institutional use being a community church. As such, there are no issues of compatibility or impacts to existing land uses generated by the Proposed Development. The design is representative of a terraced or staggered building with amenity areas and no shadow impacts or overlook impacts are expected onto adjacent dwellings.
35The OPA proposes to amend the VOP and Secondary Plan to remove the developable portion from the Unapproved Natural Heritage Network of the VOP and redesignate the Subject Lands from “Low Rise Residential” to “Mid Rise-Residential” with a site-specific exception to permit a maximum height of 6-storeys and Floor Space Index (FSI) of 3.19 to facilitate the development of a 6-storey apartment building on the Subject Lands.
Zoning By-law
36The 1-88 ZBLA proposes to rezone the Subject Lands from a R2 Residential Zone to RA2(H)-Apartment Residential Zone with the Holding Symbol “(H)”, OS4 Open Space Woodlot Zone and OS4 (H)-Open Space Woodlot Zone with the Holding Symbol “(H)”, along with site specific provisions pertaining to definition of a parking space, Front Yard Setback, Interior Side Yard Setbacks, permitted Balcony Encroachments, parking requirements, location of a required Loading Space, Minimum Landscape Strip along Mounsey Street, Minimum Amenity Area and to permit a portion of the proposed Underground Structure within the proposed OS4 Zone.
37The Comprehensive Zoning By-law(“CZBL”) ZBLA proposes to rezone the Subject Lands from a R2A (EN)Second Density Residential Zone-Established Neighbourhood to RM2(H) Multiple Unit Residential Zone with Holding Symbol “(H)”, EP Environmental Protection Zone (“EP zone”) and EP(H) Environmental Protection Zone with Holding Symbol “(H)”, along with site specific provisions pertaining to Mechanical Penthouse Height Exemption, Landscape Strip requirements, access width requirements, access requirements for proposed bicycle parking, Interior Side Yard Setbacks, removal of Angular Plane, Podium and Tower requirements and to permit a portion of the proposed Underground Structure within the proposed EP Zone.
38Mr. Rogato informed the Tribunal that on October 20, 2021, the City enacted the new CZBL which applies to the Subject Lands. On November 11, 2021, the Applicant appealed the City’s decision to enact the CZBL to the Tribunal, which appeal is assigned OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 Appeal No. 002677 (the “CZBL Appeal” and collectively with the Site-Specific Appeals, the “Appeals”).
39He opined the proposed OPA and ZBLAs are consistent with the PPS, conform to and do not conflict with the Growth Plan, conform to the YROP, VOP and Secondary Plan and represent good planning and in the interest of the public.
ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION
40The Tribunal accepts the uncontested evidence of the Mr. Rogato in its entirety and finds the proposed instruments as put forward in the Proposed Settlement meet all the relevant policy tests of the Planning Act, PPS 2020, the Growth Plan and all relevant foundational policies of the VOP. It represents good planning and is in the public interest including, but not limited to, policies which speak to efficient development which provides for a range of housing.
41The Tribunal finds that the City has well established planning policy for the area surrounding the Subject Site and has followed a careful, complete, and comprehensive planning review of the revised proposal. The Proposed Settlement aligns with established principles of both provincial and VOP policy, making it an appropriate location for the proposed development.
42The Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development maintains the privacy and daylight/sunlight conditions of the nearby residential areas due to the site’s unique location at the terminus of Mounsey Street and the presence of the existing woodlot which buffers and screens the proposed building from the nearby residential dwellings.
43The Tribunal is satisfied that with the setback from Mounsey Street, sufficiency of underground parking space provides for sufficient parking in compliance with the more current CZBL zoning requirements.
44The Tribunal finds the Proposed Development will make use of available water, storm, and sewer services with necessary connection upgrades.
45The Tribunal finds that the implementing ZBLAs are appropriate with the addition of an H provision to ensure servicing capacity, execution of a Section 37 Agreement, confirmation of a Development Agreement with the City, a letter of reliance for the completed Environmental Assessment, and confirmation of appropriate engineering plans to be submitted to be approved by the City.
46The Tribunal notes that the proposed development will be subject to Site Plan Control to ensure its design and features are consistent with the urban design guidelines of the City.
INTERIM ORDER
47THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and that Official Plan 2010 for the City of Vaughan is modified as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, and as modified is approved.
48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against By-law No. 1-88 of the City of Vaughan is allowed in part, and the Tribunal directs the municipality to amend By-law No.1-88 as set out in Attachment 1 to this order. In all other respects, the Tribunal Orders the appeal is dismissed.
49THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 of the City of Vaughan is allowed in part, and the Tribunal directs the municipality to amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 as set out in Attachment 1 to this order. In all other respects, the Tribunal Orders the appeal is dismissed.
50THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that in accordance with subsections 17(50) and 34(26) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”):
(a) That the appeals to amend the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 and Zoning By-law No. 1-88 and of the passing of the CZBL are allowed, in part;
(b) That the City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010 Volume 1 and Volume 2, Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan 11.11, are hereby modified for the lands at 31 and 55 Mounsey Street in accordance with Schedule “A” to this Order;
(c) That the City of Vaughan Zoning By-law No. 1-88 is hereby amended for the lands at 31 and 55 Mounsey Street in accordance with Schedule “B” to this Order;
(d) That the CZBL is hereby amended by adding a new Section 14 Zone Exception in the form attached to this Order as Schedule “C” for the lands at 31 and 55 Mounsey Street and is approved as amended.
(e) That the City of Vaughan Official Plan 2010 Volume 1 and Volume 2, Woodbridge Centre Secondary Plan 11.11, are hereby modified for the lands at 31 and 55 Mounsey Street in accordance with Schedule “A” to this Order;
(f) That the City of Vaughan Zoning By-law No. 1-88 is hereby amended for the lands at 31 and 55 Mounsey Street in accordance with Schedule “B” to this Order;
(g) That the CZBL is hereby amended by adding a new Section 14 Zone Exception in the form attached to this Order as Schedule “C” for the lands at 31 and 55 Mounsey Street and is approved as amended;
(h) That the appeal against the Comprehensive Zoning By-law is resolved in full and the balance of the appeal is hereby dismissed; and
(i) That approval of portions of the CZBL as attached hereto in Schedule “C” is without prejudice to the disposition of any other appeal of the CZBL.
“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 1