First Baymac Developments Limited & Canadian Property Holdings (Ontario) Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City), 2023 CanLII 103203

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 01, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004270

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

Applicant and Appellant: First Baymac Developments Limited & Canadian Property Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c.o.b. SmartCentres REIT

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit a retirement residence of 8 and 9 storeys with 242 units

Reference Number: D01-21001

Property Address: 1070 Major Mackenzie Drive East

Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004270

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004270

OLT Case Name: First Baymac Developments Limited & Canadian Property Holdings (Ontario) 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: First Baymac Developments Limited & Canadian Property Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c.o.b. SmartCentres REIT

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a retirement residence of 8 and 9 storeys with 242 units

Reference Number: D02-21002

Property Address: 1070 Major Mackenzie Drive East

Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004271

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004270

Heard: July 4, 5, 6, 10, 2023, by Video Hearing August 15, 2023 in Writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

First Baymac Developments Limited & Canadian Property Holdings (Ontario) Inc. c.o.b. as SmartCentres REIT (“Applicant/Appellant”)

Jason Park Olivia Rasekhi

City of Richmond Hill (“Respondent/City”)

Carlton Thorne Patty Castellano (Law Clerk)

DECISION DELIVERED BY ROBERT G. ACKERMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This is a Hearing on the Merits of an Appeal filed by First Baymac Developments Limited and Canadian Property Holdings (Ontario) Inc., c.o.b. as SmartCentres REIT (“Applicant/Appellant”) against the City of Richmond Hill (“Respondent”) regarding Council’s Decision to refuse a request to approve an Application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) with respect to the property municipally known as 1070 Major Mackenzie Drive (“Subject Property”).

2The Subject Property is located at the northeast corner of Bayview Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive East and comprises the western end of the Appellant’s larger landholding, which has a total lot area of 9.879 hectares ("ha”) (24.41 acres ["ac”]), and which is improved with a retail plaza known as a Power Centre, tenanted by Walmart Supercentre, Food Basics Supermarket and Pharmacy, Shoppers Drug Mart, BMO Bank and other retail, service and restaurant businesses. The Subject Property comprises 0.649 ha (1.61 ac) and is improved with a one-storey, freestanding retail commercial building, containing six retail units, together with surface parking. The Subject Property is located within an area designated as the Bayview Local Development Area (“Bayview LDA”) on Land Use Schedule A2 of the City’s Official Plan (“RHOP”) and is zoned Community Commercial (“CC”).

3The purpose and effect of the OPA Application is to amend the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) to increase the permitted building height, Floor Space Index (“FSI”) and floorplate size to facilitate a nine-storey retirement residence comprised of 242 units and with a FSI of 2.95 and a Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 19,200 square meters (206,667.1 square feet).

4The purpose and effect of the ZBA application is to amend Zoning By-law No. 38-95, by rezoning the Subject Property from the CC Zone to “Multiple Residential Ten (RM10) Zone” with site specific provisions to facilitate the development of a Seniors’ Residence on the Subject Property (“the Proposal”).

ISSUES

5A Procedural Order (“PO”) had been established on Consent on November 24, 2022, which included an Issues List (“IL”) as follows:

THE HEARING

6The Hearing of this Appeal proceeded over a four-day period: July 4, 5, 6, 10, 2023. In addition, the Parties filed Written Submissions which were completed on August 15, 2023.

7The Tribunal heard from three Witnesses:

• For the Appellant: Nancy Wilson, Architect Michael Goldberg, Professional Planner;

• for the Respondent: Allan Ramsey, Professional Planner.

8The following documents were entered as Exhibits:

Exhibit 1 – Witness Statement of Nancy Wilson;

Exhibit 2A – Joint Document Book, Volume 1;

Exhibit 2B – Joint Document Book, Volume 2;

Exhibit 3 – Visual Evidence Book of the Appellant;

Exhibit 4 – Witness Statement of Michael Goldberg;

Exhibit 5 – Reply Witness Statement of Michael Goldberg;

Exhibit 6 – Joint Statement of Agreed Facts & Issues of Planning and Urban Design Experts;

Exhibit 7 – Google Streetview Image – Avalon Place Apartments, NE corner of Elmwood Avenue & Cobourne Avenue;

Exhibit 8 – Witness Statement of Allan Ramsay;

Exhibit 9 – Visual Evidence Book of the Respondent;

Exhibit 10 – Photobook of the Respondent;

Exhibit 11 – Page 21 of Exhibit 3, as hi-lited by Mr. Ramsay;

Exhibit 12 – Page 28 of Exhibit 9 as hi-lited by Mr. Ramsay;

Exhibit 13 – Photo of 145 Essex Avenue;

Exhibit 14 – Photo of 326 Major Mackenzie Drive East;

Exhibit 15 – Staff Report – 10684/10692 Yonge Street;

Exhibit 16 – Staff Report – 8905 Bathurst Street;

Exhibit 17 – Annotated Perspective and Urban Design Guidelines excerpts prepared by Nancy Wilson.

9The Appellants’ Written Submissions and Brief of Authorities were filed on July 24, 2023.

10The Respondent’s Written Submissions and Brief of Authorities were filed on August 8, 2023.

11The Appellants’ Reply Submissions were filed on August 15, 2023.

Evidence for the Appellant

12Ms. Wilson was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence respecting architectural and urban design matters in general, and with respect to the issues in this Appeal in particular. Ms. Wilson’s Witness Statement was marked as Exhibit 1.

13Ms. Wilson testified that she was the Appellants’ Project Architect and has been working on the Proposal since design work began in 2020. She described her involvement in updating the Proposal design to address the City Planning Staff comments made during their review process. She stated that considerable attention and consultation took place between the Appellants, their many experts and various departments of the Respondent City respecting the Proposal. The consultations were lengthy and iterative and related to planning, urban design, architecture, landscape architecture and transportation matters. She stated that the consultations resulted in the full support and agreement of City Staff for the Proposal. This, she stated, was reflected in the Final Report of City Staff to Council concluding and recommending that the OPA and ZBA Applications be approved.

14Ms. Wilson explained that the Proposal is architecturally aligned with the guideline intent to create design excellence with built forms that have good relationships with the ground and the sky, providing activation and transparency at grade, establishing a mid-rise street wall and stepping back to a dynamic and articulated top. The proposed building has two large eight-storey sections and one nine-storey section. The portions of the building facing north and south onto Cassata Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive East will be the eight-storey sections, while the portion facing west onto Bayview Avenue will be the nine-storey section. Ms. Wilson said that the Proposal’s design responds appropriately to its prominent corner location through architectural and landscape treatments that frame the corner, including architectural features, alternative building materials, massing details and colour. She opined that the Proposal’s architecture supports a high-quality public realm, the importance of which is consistently and repeatedly emphasized in the Respondent’s Urban Design Guidelines.

15It was Ms. Wilson’s evidence that the Proposal provides a significant improvement to the current pedestrian realm in the area, not only through its design but also through its use and activation by the residents themselves, who will frequent the adjacent retail and commercial spaces. Moreover, she said that the Proposal supports transit use and pedestrian activity by providing frequent seating areas in the public realm and adjacent to the transit stop.

16Michael Goldberg was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence respecting land use planning matters in general, and with respect to the issues in this Appeal in particular. Mr. Goldberg’s Witness Statement was marked as Exhibit 4 and his Reply Witness Statement was marked as Exhibit 5.

17Mr. Goldberg testified that he was retained by the Appellants in October 2017 to provide land use planning advice and support with respect to the re-development of the Subject Property, which would ultimately become the Proposal as contained in the Appellants’ Applications which are the subject of this Appeal. Mr. Goldberg related that the Appellants’ Applications for an OPA and ZBA were filed with the City on January 12, 2021, but that the City deemed the Applications incomplete as hard copies of some materials were required, as well as a fee calculation, an Angular Plane Analysis and digital copies of all materials. He stated that these were subsequently provided and that the Applications were deemed complete on February 8, 2021.

18Mr. Goldberg testified that a Planning Staff Report dated May 5, 2021, was prepared and that a virtual public meeting was held that same day, at which public comments on the Applications were received and directed to be considered by the Respondent’s Planning Staff before the preparation of a final Planning Staff Report to Council. Mr. Goldberg testified that he attended the virtual public meeting and observed that it was well attended by the public. He stated that many comments were provided at the public meeting, many of which were unsupportive of the Applications’ approval.

19Mr. Goldberg described how the Appellants received comments on the original submission, which were addressed through a resubmission of the Applications filed in December 2021, at which time, a Site Plan Application was also filed.

20Mr. Goldberg stated that the Appellants received further comments in response to the December 2021 resubmission, which were then addressed in a further resubmission made in April 2022.

21Mr. Goldberg described how meetings took place between the Planning, Urban Design and Transportation staff of the Respondent and the Applicant’s team of the architects and consultants as a means to eliminate and address all issues and concerns of City staff and members of the public. This process took place over the course of the winter and spring of 2022, and, in addition to the architectural plans prepared by Ms. Wilson, the following reports were prepared and filed with City Planning Staff:

• Shadow Study, Kasian Architecture Ontario Incorporated;
• Landscape Plans, MHBC;
• Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Stantec;
• Traffic Impact and Parking Demand Study, WSP;
• Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, EXP;
• Hydrogeological Study, EXP;
• Phase 1 and 2 ESA, EXP;
• Noise Impact Study, Aercoustics;
• Arborist Report, MHBC.

22Mr. Goldberg testified that. as a result, City Planning Staff prepared their Final Report dated July 6, 2022, recommending approval of the Applications, which was produced and filed as Exhibit 2B, Tab 61 (“Final Planning Staff Report”). Mr. Goldberg described how the Applications came before Council that same day and that he attended the Council meeting. Mr. Goldberg testified that, despite the recommendation for Approval by City Planning Staff, and despite the fact that that City Planning Staff had comprehensively reviewed and addressed all important elements of the Application, as well as the comments received during the May 5, 2021, public meeting, a Councillor tabled a Motion to refuse the Applications, which Council voted on and approved.

23Mr. Goldberg identified the following key conclusions in the Final Staff Report dated July 6, 2022, which he adopted as his own evidence:

a. York Region Official Plan

“York Region has advised that they have no objections to the proposed development and in accordance with ROP Policy 8.3.8, the proposed Official Plan Amendment does not adversely affect Regional planning policies or interests. Accordingly, the Region has exempted the proposed Official Plan Amendment from Regional approval. Given all of the above, staff is of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment application conforms to the ROP.” (Exhibit 2B, Tab 61, pgs. 574-575)

b. City of Richmond Hill Official Plan

“The subject applications seek Council’s approval to permit increases to both the permitted building height within the Bayview LDA designation from 6 storeys to 9 storeys and density from 1.5 FSI to 3.06 FSI on the subject lands. The applicant’s draft Official Plan Amendment is included as Appendix “B” to this report. In terms of the proposed use, the retirement residence can be considered a residential use in accordance with the uses permitted within the Local Development Area designation. In terms of height, the proposed nine storey retirement residence is located at the intersection of Bayview Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive East, being two major arterial streets that act as physical buffers to existing development to the west and south. Furthermore, the subject lands are adjacent to Cassata Avenue, which provides a physical buffer to existing development to the north. In this regard, existing commercial uses to the east, west and south and an existing institutional use to the north acts as a further buffer from exiting residential uses. For the reasons listed above, the proposed increase in building height is considered to be appropriate for the subject lands.

In terms of density, Section 4.5.1.7 of the Plan states that the maximum density of a Development Block within the Bayview LDA shall be 1.5 FSI. The subject lands and the owner’s entire landholdings (the plaza lands) are considered a development block in accordance with the Plan. The applicant has proposed a site specific FSI of 3.06 on the subject lands; however, in consideration of the maximum density in relation to the overall development block, the addition of the gross floor area of the proposed retirement residence to the existing density of the development block would result in an overall site density of only 0.45 FSI. Therefore, the proposed development complies with the density provisions of the Bayview LDA designation.” (Exhibit 2B, Tab 61, pg. 575)

“Section 4.5.1.10 of the Plan requires a maximum building height of 3 storeys where development abuts a Neighbourhood designation, with such development being subject to the angular plane policies of the Plan. In this regard, the proposed 9 storey building does not comply with the 45 degree angular plane as the subject lands are adjacent to a Neighbourhood designation. The intent of the angular plane provisions of the Plan are to ensure compatibility and transition of building heights with adjacent low or medium density residential uses. In this regard, the Neighbourhood designation to the north contains an existing two storey secondary school, which is buffered from the subject lands by Cassata Avenue. It is also noted that the nearest Neighbourhood designation containing residential uses is located approximately 74 metres (242.78 feet) to the northeast of the proposed retirement residence which would meet the angular plane policies of the Plan, and is buffered by existing commercial uses and Bayview Avenue. As there are no existing residential uses to the north, staff can support that the proposed building height and therefore the angular plane provisions of the Plan are considered not to apply to the proposed development. On the basis of the preceding, staff is of the opinion that the proposal has appropriate regard for and is consistent with the principles and broader policy direction in the Plan and represents good planning.” (Exhibit 2B, Tab 61, pg. 576)

c. Zoning By-law Amendment

“…staff is of the opinion that the subject Zoning By-law Amendment application implements the proposed development proposal, conforms with the applicable policies of the Plan, and represents good planning.” (Exhibit 2B, Tab 61, pg. 577)

d. Recommendation:

“Planning staff has undertaken a comprehensive review and evaluation of the subject Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications and are in support of same, for the following principle reasons:

• the proposed residential land use is permitted within the Urban Area land use designation in accordance with the in-force ROP;
• the proposed retirement residence meets the intent of creating a mixed-use node in accordance with the Bayview LDA;
• the proposed increase in building height is appropriate in the context of the Bayview LDA and will not result in negative impacts to adjacent uses or lands designated Neighbourhood;
• the proposed development has demonstrated conformity with the City’s Urban MESP;
• a Consent application will be required to sever the subject lands from the existing plaza lands. Furthermore, private reciprocal easements will be required for shared access between subject lands and the plaza lands to the east;
• the applicant will be required to address all comments received to date regarding the related Site Plan application;
• a Site Plan Amendment application has been submitted to facilitate changes to the balance of the plaza lands to remove the subject lands; however, the application remains incomplete at this time. The applicant will be required to submit the required materials in order to deem this application complete and begin the Site Plan review process;
• if applicable, the proposed development will be subject to the City’s Community Benefits Charge By-law; and,
• the comments received from Council and members of the public to date have been satisfactorily addressed; and,
• the applicant has satisfactorily addressed all City Department and external agency comments as it relates to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. The remaining technical matters will be required to be addressed as part of the related Site Plan approval process to the satisfaction of the City and relevant external agencies.

On the basis of the preceding, it is recommended that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications be approved.” (Exhibit 2B, Tab 61, pg. 580-581).

24Mr. Goldberg testified, and Mr. Ramsay for the Respondent later confirmed, that the Final Planning Staff Report was the only professional planning advice that was available to Council at the time of its decision to refuse the OPA and ZBA applications.

25Mr. Goldberg testified that while the Final Planning Staff Report acknowledged that there were issues raised by members of the community in opposition to approval of the Applications, the Report outlined how each of those issues had been satisfactorily addressed, which included the issues of:

• Proposed height and density;
• Location and compatibility with surrounding uses;
• Traffic and parking;
• Noise of construction;
• Loss of commercial space.

26Mr. Goldberg pointed out that City Planning Staff had agreed that while the Proposal and ZBA Application provide for a site specific FSI of 3.06 on the Subject Property, it is considered to be a part of the Appellants’ lands comprising the development block which is improved with the Power Centre plaza and that, in consideration of the maximum density in relation to the overall development block, the addition of the gross floor area of the proposed retirement residence to the existing density of the development block would result in an overall site density of only 0.45 FSI. City Planning Staff therefore concluded, and stated in the Final Planning Staff Report, that the Proposal complies with the density provisions of the Bayview LDA designation.

27The Final Planning Staff Report also noted that the Appellant’s larger landholdings contain approximately 25 commercial units which will maintain the important Bayview-Major Mackenzie commercial node for the local neighbourhood. Mr. Ramsay, under cross examination, acknowledged that there were also a number of retail units in nearby plazas at both the northwest corner and the southeast corner of Bayview Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive East.

28Mr. Goldberg summarized his planning opinion and conclusions as:

a. The proposed OPA and ZBA applications are consistent with and advance the policy themes expressed in the PPS 2020.

b. The Development Proposal is in conformity with and advances the strategic policy themes of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020.

c. The Development Proposal is in conformity with and advances the policy themes of the York Region Official Plan, 2010 (“2010 YROP”). He stated that he had reviewed and assessed the proposed York Region Official Plan, 2022 (“2022 YROP”), although excluded from application by the Clergy Principle, but nevertheless he is of the opinion that the Proposal is in conformity with the 2022 YROP as well.

d. The Subject Property is located within a LDA and on an Intensification Corridor, areas expected to accommodate re-urbanization and intensification that is compact and transit supportive.

e. The Subject Property is located in close proximity to existing public transit routes and stops that feed directly into the existing Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) routes to the west along Yonge Street and to the Go Transit stations to the west on Major Mackenzie Drive and the southwest in Richmond Hill Centre. The Subject Site is also on a Future Rapid Transit Corridor, planned to accommodate a BRT route and stations along Major Mackenzie Drive. It is expected that a BRT station will be located at the intersection of Major Mackenzie Drive and Bayview Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Subject Site. As such, the Subject Site is well supported by, and within, a comfortable walking distance of, existing and planned public transit, including planned rapid transit.

f. The Development Proposal conforms with and advances the policy themes of the RHOP. An OPA is only required to increase the height from six storeys to eight and nine storeys, which is moderate, fitting and compatible with the surrounding area context. The Proposal is therefore properly justified, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

g. The proposed specialized residential use of the Subject Site is for a seniors’ retirement residence which is a permitted use in this LDA, it will contribute to broadening the housing options for the seniors’ segment of the population and it will contribute to satisfying the projected minimum population growth of the Region and City.

h. The Subject Property has excellent accessibility and connectivity to existing and planned transit, shopping, services and community services.

i. The Subject Property can be adequately serviced, once service allocation is made available by Richmond Hill Council, which is the normal protocol.

j. Considerable attention and consultation took place between the Applicant, its many experts and various departments of Richmond Hill. This consultation was time consuming and iterative, which resulted in full agreement with Richmond Hill staff, as reflected in its July 6, 2022, staff report concluding and recommending that the OPA and ZBA applications be approved. This consultation related to planning, urban design, architecture, landscape architecture and transportation.

k. The Subject Site and Development Proposal are well integrated with the remainder of the development block to the east. Future redevelopment within the remaining block has been considered and all vehicle movements have been evaluated and have been determined to function acceptably.

l. All indoor and outdoor amenity areas have been located and sized appropriately to support the overall development. These elements can be finalized at the Site Plan stage.

m. Shadow implications have been considered and evaluated and no adverse planning impact arises from the Development Proposal on any nearby and adjacent property.

29In view of the above, it was Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the Proposal satisfies Provincial, Regional and City policies, is premised on a sound and reasonable planning analysis, represents good planning and is in the public interest. He therefore recommended that the Tribunal approve the Proposal in principle, subject to the conditions set out in Exhibit 6 as Issue 11.

Evidence for the Respondent

30Allan Ramsay was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence respecting land use planning matters in general, and with respect to the issues in this Appeal in particular. Mr. Ramsay had authored a Witness Statement which was marked as Exhibit 8.

31Mr. Ramsay testified that he was retained by the Respondent in January 2022, to review and provide an independent professional planning opinion with respect to the Appellants’ Applications, Council’s refusal to approve the Applications and this Appeal. He stated that he was asked to evaluate and provide a professional planning opinion on whether or not the Applications could be supported.

32Mr. Ramsay’s opinion, as stated both in his testimony and his Witness Statement, was that the Applications to permit a nine-storey retirement residence, with a density of 3.06 FSI, would permit an overdevelopment of the site, are not in keeping with the character of the area and will be incompatible with the existing and planned uses located adjacent to the site.

33Mr. Ramsay stated his opinion that the Applications do not have sufficient regard for matters of Provincial Interest as set out in in Section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“the Act”) and are not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020.

34Mr. Ramsay stated that the Applications do not conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, nor the 2010 YROP. Furthermore, he said that the proposed rezoning to a RM6 (modified) zone would authorize a form of development on the Subject Property that does not maintain the intent and principles of the RHOP, nor does it conform with either the intent and principles of, nor the policies of, the RHOP dealing with urban structure, urban design and Local Development Areas.

35In conclusion Mr. Ramsay stated his opinion that the proposed re-designation and rezoning of the Subject Property does not represent good land use planning, is not in the public interest and should not be approved. He recommended that the Appeal be dismissed.

Analysis and Findings

36The Tribunal, after carefully reviewing the evidence, the testimony of the experts, together with the Written Submissions made by Counsel for the Parties, makes the findings and determinations hereinafter set out.

37With respect to the 2010 YROP, the Region exempted the proposed OPA from Regional approval as it will not adversely affect the Region’s planning policies or interests. The Tribunal therefore finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA conform with the 2010 YROP. Although excluded from consideration by the Clergy Principle, the Tribunal also finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA conform with the 2022 YROP.

38With respect to the RHOP, the Tribunal observes that City Planning Staff undertook a comprehensive review and evaluation of the proposed OPA and ZBA Applications and supported both in their Final Planning Staff Report to Council. Staff had concluded that the Proposal will have a development block density of 0.45 FSI, which complies with the density provisions of the Bayview LDA designation. Staff also concluded that the proposed increase in building height is appropriate for the Subject Property, and that as there are no existing residential uses to the north of the Subject Property, the angular plane provisions of the RHOP do not to apply to the Proposal. The Tribunal heard evidence that the proposed development would nevertheless generally comply with the angular plane provisions. City Planning Staff concluded that the proposal has appropriate regard for and is consistent with the principles and broader policy direction in the RHOP, represents good planning and is in the public interest. The Tribunal finds that it prefers the evidence of Mr. Goldberg and the recommendation of City Staff in their Final Planning Staff Report to Council.

39The Tribunal also concurs with the conclusions of City Staff and finds that the height increase to eight-storeys and nine-storeys is moderate, fitting and compatible with the surrounding area context. The Proposal is therefore properly justified, represents good planning and is in the public interest.

40The evidence indicated that the proposed development will displace six retail units. The Tribunal finds that this is a small amount of retail space relative to the remaining 25 retail units in the balance of the Appellant’s Power Centre plaza, which include a Walmart Supercentre, a Shoppers Drug Mart and Food Basics Supermarket, among over 20 other retail and service establishments. The evidence of Mr. Goldberg was that, in addition, there are a number of retail units in nearby plazas, at both the northwest corner and the southeast corner of Bayview Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive East. This was acknowledged by Mr. Ramsay in his cross-examination.

41The Tribunal notes that the Subject Property is located within the Bayview LDA, on an Intensification Corridor and within a Strategic Growth Area. These are areas which are expected to accommodate re-urbanization and intensification that is compact and transit supportive. The proposed specialized residential use of the Subject Property is for a seniors’ retirement residence, which is a permitted use in the Bayview LDA. The Tribunal finds that the proposed seniors’ residence will contribute to broadening the housing options for this growing segment of the population and will contribute to accommodating the projected minimum population growth for the Region and City.

42The Tribunal finds that, based on all of the evidence and Submissions of the Parties, the proposed development creates no unacceptable adverse impacts and specifically that:

a. The proposed scale, height and massing of the building form are appropriate for a prominent intersection of two arterial roads along a Local Corridor and within a Local Development Area;

b. The architectural treatment of the building creates a human-scale at the building perimeter. Massing, fenestration, materiality and contrast are used to break the scale of the building and to create visual interest and they are compatible with the existing built form context;

c. The development proposal establishes a six-storey street wall where none currently exists, filling in the built fabric between the one-storey bank to the east and the two-storey school to the north;

d. The development proposal is located at a prominent site and responds appropriately by creating a focal point and landmark with siting of the building oriented toward Bayview Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive East and architectural features that serve to frame the corner;

e. The Development Proposal utilizes a connective site design that privileges the pedestrian, screens automobiles and automobile traffic and creates a high-quality pedestrian realm; and

f. Shadow implications have been considered and evaluated and no adverse planning impact arises from the Proposal on any nearby and adjacent property and there has been general adherence to the necessary angular planes.

43The Tribunal therefore finds that the Proposal, and the proposed OPA and ZBA:

a. Is consistent with the PPS and supports and advances the PPS policy direction to optimize the use of the land, resources and the existing and planned infrastructure;

b. Conforms to and implements the policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;

c. Conforms with the 2010 YROP and, should it have been in effect at the time of the subject Applications, would also conform with the approved 2022 YROP;

d. Conforms with the RHOP as proposed to be amended by the OPA; and

e. Has appropriate regard for the City’s Urban Design Guidelines, represents an appropriate level of development on the Subject Property and responds well to the existing and planned context for the surrounding area.

44Section 2 of the Act sets out matters of Provincial interest to which the Tribunal must have regard. The Tribunal has done so and finds that the Proposal has due regard for the relevant matters in Section 2.

ORDER

45THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed and the Appellants’ Applications are Approved in principle. The Tribunal directs that, the final Order for the OPA and ZBA should be withheld until such time as the following conditions have been satisfied as set out in Item 11 of the Issues List, which is Attachment 3 to the PO, and as an appropriate condition to be included in the Tribunal’s Decision, as stated in the Joint Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues filed and marked as Exhibit 6:

a. The Final Order respecting the Official Plan Amendment application be withheld until such time as the City advises the Tribunal that the Official Plan Amendment has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning and Infrastructure; and

b. The Final Order respecting the Zoning By-law Amendment application be withheld until such time as the City advises the Tribunal that the draft Zoning By-law Amendment has been finalized to the satisfaction of the City’s Commissioner of Planning and Infrastructure.

46This member is seized.

47This is the Order of the Tribunal.

“Robert G. Ackerman”

ROBERT G. ACKERMAN

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.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.