Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 23, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002276 (Formerly PL171353)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: “Town Centre Commercial/Retail Core” with a “Special Policy Area” overlay in OPA 671, and “High-Rise Mixed-Use” with a “Special Policy Area” overlay in the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 (VOP 2010) Proposed Designation: To amend OPA 671 and the VOP 2010 by adding site specific provisions to permit a maximum density of 4.7 FSI, maximum building height of 27 storeys as well as to allow for changes to policies relating to built form, urban design and connectivity Purpose: To permit the development of a phased high-density project consisting of seven (7) mixed-use 27-storey towers contemplating approximately 1,800 residential units with at-grade commercial uses and 2,400 underground parking spaces, as well as two (2) low-rise commercial buildings, an above grade parking structure, three (3) levels of underground parking and a number of community and resident amenity areas Property Address/Description: 7700 Bathurst Street Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York Approval Authority File No.: OP.16.006 OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002276 Legacy Case No.: PL171353 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002276 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171353 OLT Case Name: 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) 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: 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a phased high-density project consisting of seven (7) mixed-use 27-storey towers contemplating approximately 1,800 residential units with at-grade commercial uses and 2,400 underground parking spaces, as well as two (2) low-rise commercial buildings, an above grade parking structure, three (3) levels of underground parking and a number of community and resident amenity areas Reference Number: Z.20.019 Property Address: 7700 Bathurst Street Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003057 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002276

Heard: September 6, 2022 by video hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
1529749 Ontario Inc. (The Torgan Group) (“Appellant/Applicant”)	Mary Flynn-Guglietti
City of Vaughan (“City”)	Effie Lidakis
Promenade Limited Partnership	Joe Hoffman

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON SEPTMBER 6, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the sixth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) application to permit the development of a phased high-density project consisting of 7 mixed-use 27-storey towers located at 7700 Bathurst Street in the City of Vaughan. It is also the first CMC concerning a related Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) application involving the same project.

2A Tribunal decision of this matter, issued April 28, 2022, set out the following agenda for the present CMC:

1. Consider a party status request submitted by Promenade Limited Partnership (“Promenade”);
2. Consider a motion to consolidate the OPA and ZBA appeals; and
3. Consider a Draft Procedural Order and List of Issues for the contemplated consolidated appeals.

3In addition, since the last CMC, the Tribunal received a party status request form from the Brownridge Ratepayers’ Association, as represented by Mario Racco, Counsel for the Association. This request is therefore added to the agenda.

4The Tribunal further notes that, since the last CMC, the subject OPA and ZBA appeals have already been administratively consolidated, so the present CMC’s agenda is limited to Items 1 and 3 listed above, plus the party status request from the Brownridge Ratepayers’ Association.

Requests for Status

5Promenade owns land (a shopping centre) immediately adjacent to the proposed development. Counsel for Promenade explained that the company has a direct interest in the matter insofar as it takes the position that a “cost sharing agreement”, with implications affecting Promenade, should be a condition of the proposed development in accordance with Official Plan policies. It also has concerns respecting vehicular access which affects its property and other details contained in the proposed Issues List.

6On consent of the parties, the Tribunal granted party status to Promenade, finding that it did indeed have sufficient direct interest in the matter and is expected to make meaningful contributions to the hearing of the matter. The Tribunal notes that Promenade has already been involved in developing the draft Procedural Order and Issues List.

7As it relates to the request by the Brownridge Ratepayers’ Association, Mr. Racco’s involvement in the proceedings on behalf of his client got off on the wrong foot. He called into the proceedings by telephone, rather than by video as previously directed by the Tribunal, and he further failed to identify himself as the caller when he called in. Without knowing who the caller was, the Tribunal was obliged to mute Mr. Racco’s phone connection because it disrupted the proceedings with loud background noise. Consequently, the proceedings continued with Mr. Rocco being muted and the Tribunal not knowing who was on the phone line.

8Eventually, in an effort to locate Mr. Racco, his phone connection was unmuted and the Tribunal learned that Mr. Racco was on the line. At this point, Mr. Racco was notably upset and expressed frustration with the Tribunal for being muted. However, he did not provide an explanation for calling in rather than attending by video, and he confirmed that he did not contact the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator when he discovered that he could not be heard over the phone.

9The Tribunal notes the following directions contained in the decision of the last CMC regarding attendance at the present hearing:

[5] The Tribunal sets a one-day CMC hearing for Tuesday, September 6, 2022 commencing at 10 a.m. by VH.

[6] Parties 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:

[7] Parties and participants are asked 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 a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

[8] Persons 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) 497-9391. The access code is 442-599-157.

[9] Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the CMC by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case. [emphasis added]

10In response to Mr. Racco’s expressed frustration, the Tribunal finds that he was not prejudiced by being muted, given that he was eventually heard by the Tribunal. It was also necessary for the Tribunal to mute him because his connection was disrupting the proceedings. In addition, Mr. Racco’s failure to comply with the directions of the Tribunal, and failing to connect by video as set out above in particular, caused his difficulties with initially not being heard. Mr. Racco should have first taken steps to connect by video, he should have alternatively requested permission to connect by telephone or, at minimum, he should have notified the Tribunal of his intention to connect by telephone. Finally, when he was experiencing technical difficulties by phone, he should have promptly contacted the case coordinator to let the Tribunal know that he was having difficulties being heard.

11Despite Mr. Racco’s initial connection issues, the Tribunal heard his submissions requesting party status.

12Mr. Racco and his client have a long history of seeking party status in these proceedings. At the first CMC in 2018, the Brownridge Ratepayers’ Association, as represented by Mr. Racco, sought and received party status. However, party status was revoked by the Tribunal and converted to participant status following the Association’s/ Mr. Racco’s failure to attend a CMC on September 6, 2019 without prior notice or sufficient explanation.

13Mr. Racco then attempted to reinstate his client’s party status by way of a motion, without notice, at the CMC of this matter on September 10, 2021. The Tribunal rejected this motion, denying party status again and affirming the Association’s participant status.

14Prior to the present hearing, Mr. Racco has again attempted to regain party status for his client, this time by way of submitting a new party status request form in relation to the Applicant’s more recent ZBA application (which has since been consolidated with the earlier OPA application).

15The Tribunal heard submissions from Mr. Racco and the parties respecting this most recent request. Mr. Racco explained that his client wanted party status so they could have “a voice” in the proceedings. The City did not oppose the request, and counsel for Promenade took no position. Counsel for the Applicant, however, opposed the request, citing the Association’s history of failing to fulfill its obligations as a party and subsequently being denied such status on multiple occasions.

16The Tribunal asked Mr. Racco to explain what his client would contribute to the proceedings if he was granted party status. He responded by simply stating again that his client wanted/deserved “a voice” in the proceedings. To avoid any misunderstandings, the Tribunal asked him again to confirm what his client would contribute beyond simply stating its concerns, noting that this could be achieved by way of a participant statement. Mr. Racco did not provide a meaningful response beyond repeating that his client wanted/deserved “a voice” in the proceedings.

17Given that the Brownridge Ratepayers’ Association has not proposed to contribute anything to the proceedings beyond what can be achieved through a participant statement, the Tribunal again denies its request for party status. The Tribunal finds that this fact is reason enough to deny party status. In addition or in the alternative, however, the Tribunal also finds that the Association’s previous failures to meet its obligations as a party is another reason to deny it such status.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

18The Tribunal explored the possibility of mediation and settlement with the parties. The parties explained that they are very close to a settlement, but the “cost sharing agreement” issue remains contentious. Settlement is therefore not imminent, but the parties promise to work on it independently.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

19The Tribunal received and reviewed a draft Procedural Order from the parties. The Tribunal finds it acceptable and the proceedings shall be governed by it (see Schedule 1).

MOTION AND HEARING

20The parties requested that a motion date be set in advance of the hearing to determine the admissibility/relevance of confidential Minutes of Settlement previously entered into between the Applicant and the City. The question is whether the document should be included in the Joint Document Brief of the parties, and/or referred to in the parties’ witness statements. The Applicant proposes that it be included, while the City opposes its inclusion.

21The Tribunal questioned the parties about the necessity of having a separate hearing to deal with the issue. The City and the Applicant confirmed their preference to have it dealt with in advance, so the Joint Document Brief can be completed in advance of the hearing (with it either included or not), and witness statements can either make reference to the document or not. The Tribunal queried whether the document could be dealt with separately at the merit-hearing in a password protected form, which could then be opened only if the motion to include it (heard at the time of the hearing) was successful. In response, counsel for Promenade pointed out that it would be left at a potential disadvantage if the issue was not dealt with in advance because they would be the only party not privy to the contents of the document in advance of the hearing.

22Upon considering the submissions of the parties, and Promenade’s point in particular, the Tribunal finds that the issue should be dealt with in advance and a separate motion date is to be scheduled.

23Upon request of the parties, the Tribunal set a Motion Hearing commencing on Monday, November 14, 2022 at 10 a.m. by VH. No further Notice is required for the hearing.

24Upon request of the parties, the Tribunal set a 10-day hearing commencing on Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10 a.m. by VH. No further Notice is required for the hearing.

25The hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

Monday, November 14, 2022 at 10 a.m. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885 Access code: 344-779-885 Audio-only telephone line: (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 344-779-885

Monday, July 10, 2023 at 10 a.m. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013 Access code: 660-145-013 Audio-only line: (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 660-145-013

26Parties 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.

27Parties and participants are asked 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 a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

28Persons 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.

29Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

30The Tribunal Orders that:

1. The date and particulars of the Motion and Hearing on the Merits are set out above;
2. The Procedural Order appended as Schedule 1 shall govern the proceedings;
3. Promenade Limited Partnership is granted Party status;
4. The Member is not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS 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.

SCHEDULE 1

ISSUE DATE: September 23, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002276 & OLT-22-003057

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

Applicant and Appellant: 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: “Town Centre Commercial/Retail Core” with a “Special Policy Area” overlay in OPA 671, and “High-Rise Mixed-Use” with a “Special Policy Area” overlay in the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 (VOP 2010) Proposed Designation: To amend OPA 671 and the VOP 2010 by adding site specific provisions to permit a maximum density of 4.7 FSI, maximum building height of 27 storeys as well as to allow for changes to policies relating to built form, urban design and connectivity Purpose: To permit the development of a phased high-density project consisting of seven (7) mixed-use 27-storey towers contemplating approximately 1,800 residential units with at-grade commercial uses and 2,400 underground parking spaces, as well as two (2) low-rise commercial buildings, an above grade parking structure, three (3) levels of underground parking and a number of community and resident amenity areas Property Address/Description: 7700 Bathurst Street Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York Approval Authority File No.: OP.16.006 OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002276 Legacy Case No.: PL171353 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002276 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL171353 OLT Case Name: 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) 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: 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a phased high-density project consisting of seven (7) mixed-use 27-storey towers contemplating approximately 1,800 residential units with at-grade commercial uses and 2,400 underground parking spaces, as well as two (2) low-rise commercial buildings, an above grade parking structure, three (3) levels of underground parking and a number of community and resident amenity areas Reference Number: Z.20.019 Property Address: 7700 Bathurst Street Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003057 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002276

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the Parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The hearing will begin on Monday, July 10th, 2023 at 10:00 a.m at the City of Vaughan Municipal Building, 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive unless directed to proceed electronically.

3. The Parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 days. The Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The Parties and Participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1.

5. The preliminary issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. The Parties will attempt to narrow or resolve the issues which may result in issues being revised or removed from the Issues List. The finalization of the issues list will be provided to the Tribunal within 2 days after the December 2022 Council meeting of the City of Vaughan

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the Parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.(https://olt.gov.on.ca/appeals-process/video-hearing)

9. If the Applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings, proposed instruments, supporting documents and reports, to the other Parties on or before Monday, February 27, 2023. The Applicant acknowledges that any substantial revisions to the proposal after that date, without the consent of the Parties, may be grounds for a request to adjourn the hearing.

Requirements Before the Hearing

10. A Party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Monday, March 13, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A Party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

11. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before 30 days prior to the hearing date

12. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Tuesday, April 11, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the Parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator Monday, May 1, 2023.

13. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 23 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

14. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the Party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 23 below. A Party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before Thursday, May 11, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other Parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

16. On or before Thursday, May 11, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before Monday, June 12, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. On or before June 12, 2023, the parties may provide to all other parties a written response to any written evidence received and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

19. The Parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator Monday, June 12, 2023. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in an accessible electron format in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

21. A Party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The Parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal Monday, June 26, 2023 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the Parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The Parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by Rule 7.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

Attachment “1”

Parties

1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan) Mary Flynn-Guglietti* McMillan LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 Email: Mary.flynn@mcmillan.ca Tel: 416-865-7292

City of Vaughan Effie Lidakis* Legal Department 300 City Centre Drive – 4th Floor Mississauga, ON L5B 1M7 Email: Effie.Lidakis@vaughan.ca Tel: 905-832-8585, Ext. 8851

-and-

Bruce Engell* WeirFoulds LLP 66 Wellington Street West, Suite 4100 TD Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 Email: bengell@weirfoulds.com Tel: 416-947-5081

Promenade Limited Partnership Joe Hoffman* Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7 Email: jhoffman@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.597.5168

PARTICIPANTS

Brownridge Ratepayers Association Mario Racco Racco Legal Services Professional Corporation 21 Checker Court Thornhill, ON L4J 5X4 Email: LegalSPC@RaccoGroup.com Tel: 416-419-3017

*Barrister and Solicitor

Attachment “2”

PARTIES ISSUES LISTS

The identification of an issue does not mean that all Parties agree that such issues, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

Issues List of the City of Vaughan

Policy

1. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA) and Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA) consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including but not limited to Sections 1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4.3 b), c), d) and f), and the applicable definitions therein?

2. Are the proposed OPA and ZBA in conformity with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, including but not limited to Sections 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4 a), c) and e), 2.2.2.1 a), 2.2.6.1 a), 2.2.3.2 c) and d), 3.2.3.1. 3.2.3.2 a), b), c) and g) and the applicable definitions therein?

3. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA conform with the York Region Official Plan 2010, including but not limited to, Sections 3 and 5?

4. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA conform with the Vaughan Official Plan 2010, Volume 1 (VOP2010), including, but not limited to Sections 2.2, 4.2, 4.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.2, 9.1.2, 9.2.2, 9.2.3 and 10.1.2?

5. Does the proposed OPA and ZBA have appropriate regard for the Council adopted Promenade Centre Secondary Plan (Parks and Transportation Network discussed further below)?

Site Layout

6. Does the proposed ZBA incorporate appropriate building setbacks to existing roads and to the Transportation Network identified in the Council adopted Promenade Centre Secondary Plan?

Parks and Community Facilities

7. Does the proposed OPA and ZBA have appropriate regard for the Park Network requirements being developed through the Promenade Centre Secondary Plan?

Transportation

8. Does the proposed OPA and ZBA have appropriate regard for the required multi-modal transportation network, and have appropriate regard for the Transportation Network requirements in the Council adopted Promenade Centre Secondary Plan including but not limited to:

   1. A future right of way through Phase 1 & 2 lands to Centre Street
   2. The future of North Promenade public right-of-way, especially the intersection right-of-way design requirements.
   3. A future Shared-Use Pathway on the Phase 1 lands

9. Does the Development of Phase 1 ensure the orderly development of the subject lands, including the provision of cost-sharing with the adjacent landowner for transportation infrastructure?

10. Does the proposed development provide adequate parking, including visitor parking for residential users and commercial users?

11. Are appropriate arrangements in place to allow for the proposed driveway access to the current Promenade Circle for the Phase 1 development proposal? If not, is there any appropriate alternative available?

12. Does the current proposal for Phase 1 demonstrate that the balance of parking supply for the existing use on the lands to the east of Phase 1 (also known as Phase 2 lands) satisfies the minimum parking requirements for Phase 2 lands?

Servicing

13. Is the proposed sanitary servicing solution viable and appropriate?

14. Does the proposed Development of the Phase 1 lands propose appropriate and adequate storm water discharge and emergency overland drainage to the adjoining private property?

15. Does the Development of Phase 1 ensure the orderly development of the subject lands, including the provision of cost-sharing with the adjacent land owner for servicing infrastructure?

16. Are the Phase 1 lands proposed to be severed from Phase 2 lands? If yes,

    a. How will the Phase 1 lands function from site access and site servicing perspectives if they are severed from the remainder of 7700 Bathurst Street? b. Is it feasible to service the severed Phase 1 lands with a site access (driveway) to a municipal road? c. Is it feasible to service the severed Phase 1 lands with a set of direct, separate municipal servicing connections from a municipal frontage i.e. water - domestic supply and fire, sanitary service and storm service? d. How will stormwater management controls of the retained lands of 7700 Bathurst Street function after the proposed severance? What grading and/or servicing modifications, including but not limited to additional stormwater quantity storage and relocation of existing storm sewer system, are required to maintain the same level of stormwater management controls on the retained lands?

Conditions of Approval

17. If the Development is approved by the OLT, what conditions, including Holding conditions, of approval are required to fully address all matters with respect to the appropriate development of the subject lands?

Issues List of 1529749 Ontario Inc. (“Torgan”)

18. Is paragraph 4 of Official Plan Amendment No. 75 (“OPA 75”) adding paragraph 13.65.15 to the Vaughan Official Plan, volume 2 (“VOP”) consistent with the development principles for the Phase I development agreed to between the Parties in the Minutes of Settlement executed between 1529749 Ontario Inc. and the City of Vaughan, dated February 25, 2020?

19. Is it appropriate to request a cost sharing provision at paragraph 4 in OPA 75, which adds paragraph 13.65.1.5 to the VOP that makes reference to a Secondary Plan that has not been approved by the Region of York, being the approval authority?

20. Is it appropriate to request a cost sharing provision at paragraph 4 in OPA 75 by adding paragraph 13.65.1.5 to the VOP for all roads and municipal services that have not yet been identified and approved nor contained in a Secondary Plan that has been approved by the Region of York?

21. Is it appropriate to request that the Phase I lands be responsible for cost sharing of “all roads and municipal services within the Promenade Secondary Plan Area” when it has not been demonstrated that its development requires access to all of the roads and municipal services within the unapproved Promenade Secondary Plan Area?

22. Does the Interpretation provision in OPA 75 at paragraph (V) provide sufficient clarity that the site-specific policies in OPA 75 prevail to the extent of any conflict with Volume 1 or Volume 2 of the VOP, including any future Promenade Secondary Plan?

Issues List of Promenade Limited Partnership

23. Should a cost sharing agreement as a condition of the development be required to ensure that new development in Promenade Centre is coordinated and that the costs of the municipal and community infrastructure, land and/or facilities needed to realize the buildout of Promenade Centre, including the subject lands proposed for development, are secured and/or in place so that these costs are fairly and equitably shared among landowners?

24. Is it appropriate for the development to provide interim vehicular access off of Promenade Circle, a private road owned by Promenade Limited Partnership (PLP), absent an agreement with PLP to allow for increased vehicular traffic on Promenade Circle resulting from the development?

25. Should the interim access arrangement for the development be reconfigured so it does not rely on Promenade Circle for access?

26. As a condition of development, should the ultimate vehicular condition for the development envisioned by the draft Promenade Centre Secondary Plan requiring the construction of a new north-south street on lands owned by both PLP and the applicant, connecting to Promenade Circle, as proposed to be reconfigured in the draft Promenade Centre Secondary Plan, be secured?

27. Alternatively, if access is provided off of Promenade Circle and there is no agreement in place to secure the construction of a new north-south street to connect to the reconfigured Promenade Circle, should the development be reconfigured to allow for the widening of Promenade Circle on the applicant’s lands?

28. Does the development have appropriate regard for the road widening of the future North Promenade public right-of-way envisioned in the draft Promenade Centre Secondary Plan?

29. Are the proposed tower setbacks from the property line sufficient and do they allow for appropriate tower separation distances in relation to PLP lands?

30. Is the location of the proposed public park appropriate and would it limit the development potential of adjacent PLP lands? Should the proposed public park have regard to the Park Network shown in the draft Promenade Centre Secondary Plan?

31. Does the proposed development propose appropriate and adequate storm water discharge and emergency overland drainage to adjoining PLP lands?

32. If the development is approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal, what conditions, including Holding conditions, of approval are required to fully address all matters with respect to the appropriate development of the subject lands?

PLP reserves the right to adopt any issues submitted by other appellants/parties to this proceeding, and to add any additional issues arising as a result of issues submitted by other appellants/parties to this proceeding.

Issues List of the Participant Brownridge Ratepayers Association

1. Removing/reducing the commercial/retail component because: • It removes services that the community is using & needs. • It eliminates jobs in the area. • It will reduce net revenue to the City, the Region & the School Board.
2. The road not being public owned, therefore not maintained to the City’s standards.
3. The development not being pedestrian friendly.
4. Not enough park land dedicated to keep the present standard
5. The height of the proposed building is higher than the existing one & That will reduce the enjoyment of the existing residents.
6. The applicant has not kept the community informed of its plan.
7. The density proposed is much more then what is allowed or what was built in the area already.

Attachment “3”

Order of Evidence

1. 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan);
2. City of Vaughan;
3. Promenade Limited Partnership; and,
4. Reply by 1529749 Ontario Inc. (Torgan), if any

Attachment “4”

SUMMARY OF DATES

Monday, March 13, 2023 List of Witnesses

Thursday, May 11, 2023 Witness and Expert Witness Statements

Thursday, May 11, 2023 Participant Statements

Tuesday, April 11, 2023 Expert Witness Meeting

Monday, May 1, 2023 Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues

Monday, June 12, 2023 Visual Evidence

Monday, June 12, 2023 Joint Document Book

Monday, June 26, 2023 Preliminary Hearing Plan

Monday, June 26, 2023 Documents which may be used by a Party in cross-examination of an opposing Party’s witness

July 10, 2023 – July 21, 2023 Hearing (10 Days)