Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 14, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002104

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

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Appellant: 1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd. and others Subject: Zoning By-law Description: New City-wide comprehensive zoning by-law Reference Number: By-law 001-2021 Property Address: City Wide Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-002104 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002104 OLT Case Name: D'Aversa v. Vaughan (City)

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

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Appellant: 1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd. and others Subject: Zoning By-law Description: Transitional by-law Reference Number: By-law 039-2022 Property Address: City Wide Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-003554 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002104

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by Genazzano Highrises Inc. and Granerola Residences Ltd. (Appeal No. 002719 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by 7800 Jane Street Inc. and Metrus (Terra) Properties Inc. (Appeal No. 002734 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004776 to Transition By-law 039-2022)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by Madison VIVA Bathurst Holdings Ltd. (Appeal No. 002853 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by A.G.A. Holdings Inc. (Appeal No. 002746 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by Condor Properties Ltd. (Appeal No. 002773 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004792 to Transition By-law 039-2022)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by Home Depot of Canada Inc. (Appeal No. 002796 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by Home Depot (Appeal No. 002914 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: City of Vaughan Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by ZZEN Group of Companies Limited (Appeal No. 002765 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004767 to Transition By-law 039-2022)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request by: Promenade Limited Partnership (Appeal No. 002789 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021) Request for: Request for Directions pertaining to settlement involving the appeal by Promenade Limited Partnership (Appeal No. 002789 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021)

Heard: September 15, 2023, by video hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

(City of Vaughan) Pitman Patterson Candace Tashos Piper Morley Lee English

(2735447 Ontario Inc., 8940 Bathurst Street, Wedgewood Columbus Limited, 1150 Centre Street GP Inc., Blue Water Ranch Developments Inc., Highview Building Corp Inc., Di Poce Real Estate Holdings Limited, D’Aversani Holdings Inc., Marina Shcolyar, D’Or Developments Inc., Liberata D’Aversa) Justine Reyes Christopher Tanzola (in absentia) Natalie Ast (in absentia)

(Lionston Developments Inc) Justine Reyes Brad Teichman (in absentia)

(VMC Condos Limited Partnership and Graywood Acquisitions Limited, Doughton Residences Corp., and Yonge & Steeles Developments Inc.) Justine Reyes Daniel Artenosi (in absentia) Natalie Ast (in absentia)

(Centra (BT1) Inc.) Justine Reyes Daniel Artenosi (in absentia) Michael Cara (in absentia)

(ZZEN, Armland Management Inc., Mosaik Pinewest Inc., 3911 Teston Road Inc., Rutherford Heights Inc., York Major Holdings Inc., The Q Towers General Partner Inc., and Condor Properties Ltd.) Robert Miller Alex Lusty (in absentia)

(Toromont Industries Ltd.) Jamie Cole Michael Foderick (in absentia)

(Canadian National Railway Company) Max Reedijk Katarzyna Sliwa (in absentia)

(2748355 Canada Inc., RP B3S Holdings Inc., Mobilio Developments Ltd., RP B3N Holdings Inc.) Donya Yarahmadi Patrick Duffy (in absentia) Jonathan Cheng (in absentia)

(1529749 Ontario Limited, Genezzano Highrises Inc. and Granerola Development Inc) Patrick Pinho Mary Flynn-Guglietti (in absentia)

(Danlauton Holdings Ltd. and Sedano Group Corp.) Patrick Pinho Annik Forristal (in absentia)

(CRH Canada, Maple Industrial Landowners Group, GIP, Blair Building Materials, A.G.A. Holdings, Kirbywest, MCN (Pine Valley) Inc., West Rutherford Properties Ltd., Coco Paving Inc) Steven C. Ferri Arti Sanichara Mandy Ng (in absentia) Alexandra Whyte (in absentia)

(Tony Nicoletti) Tony Nicoletti

(Zepco Holdings Inc.) Robert Miller Grace O’Brien

(2708971 Ontario Inc.) Stephanie Fleming Russell Cheeseman (in absentia)

(Tien de Religion Canada) Alan Heisey

(1972380 Ontario Limited and 1219414 Ontario Limited) Alan Heisey

(1163919 Ontario Limited, 1888836 Ontario Limited, 1211612 Ontario Limited) Alan Heisey

(Prima Vista Estates Inc., 840999 Ontario Limited, 281187 Ontario Limited) Devon Goyo Gerard C. Borean (in absentia)

(Promenade Limited Partnership) Joe Hoffman

(1042710 Ontario Limited (The Royal Centre)) Matthew Helfand Andrea Skinner (in absentia)

(Brent Peebles) Matthew Helfand Leo Longo (in absentia)

(7553 Islington Holding Inc.) Matthew Helfand Patrick Harrington (in absentia)

(My Place On 7 Inc.) Matthew Helfand

(Avenue 7 Developments Inc.) Matthew Helfand Eileen Costello (in absentia)

(Jane Teston Holdings Inc.) Matthew Helfand Patrick Harrington (in absentia) John Pappas (in absentia)

(Development Group (100 SAW) Inc.) Matthew Helfand Tom Halinski (in absentia) Sidonia Tomasella (in absentia)

(Home Depot of Canada Inc. and Royal Group Inc.) Jesse White David Tang (in absentia)

(7800 Jane Street Inc. / Metus (Terra) Properties, referred to as Aspen Ridge, Midvale Estates Limited, 2117969 Ontario Inc., 243127 Ontario Limited) Grace O’Brien John Alati (in absentia) Andy Margaritis (in absentia)

(Gatehollow Estates Inc. and Kentview Estates Inc.) Grace O’Brien Meaghan McDermid (in absentia) Andy Margaritis (in absentia)

(Eastwood Holdings Corp) Grace O’Brien Meaghan McDermid (in absentia)

(H & L Tile Inc. and Ledbury Investments Ltd., 2090396 Ontario Limited, and Concen Developments Limited) Grace O’Brien Mark Flowers (in absentia)

(Clubhouse Developments Inc.) Grace O’Brien Mark Flowers (in absentia) Samantha Lampert (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1A summary of the context and prior history of this matter is succinctly set out in a previous Tribunal settlement decision issued August 25, 2023 (D'Aversa v Vaughan (City), 2023 CanLII 78842 (ON LT)). The present hearing is the fifth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) and includes the hearing of similar settlement motions.

2Nine settlements are presently being considered by the Tribunal, with eight settlements being initiated through a City-initiated motion and one other settlement motion being initiated by the Appellant Promenade Limited Partnership (“Promenade”) to specifically deal with its appeal. There is no opposition to any of the proposed settlements and the evidence in support of each motion is uncontested.

3Evidence for the City-initiated motion was provided by Robert Rappolt, while evidence for the Promenade-initiated motion was provided by Daniel Rende. Both were duly qualified by the Tribunal as experts in Land Use Planning.

City-initiated settlement motion

4The following appeals are subject to the City-initiated settlement motion:

1. Appeal No. 002719 to the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 (“CZBL”) by Genazzano Highrises Inc. and Granerola Residences Ltd. (collectively “Genazzano”) in respect of the lands municipally known as 8969 and 9000 Jane Street and 27 Korda Gate (collectively “Genazzano Lands”);

2. Appeal No. 002734 to the CZBL and Appeal No. 004776 to By-law No. 039-2022 (“Transition By-law”) by 7800 Jane Street Inc. and Metrus (Terra) Properties Inc. (“Aspen Ridge”) in respect of the lands municipally known as 7800 Jane Street (“Aspen Ridge Lands”);

3. Appeal No. 002853 to the CZBL by Madison VIVA Bathurst Holdings Ltd. (“Madison”) in respect of the lands municipally known as 9700 and 9800 Bathurst Street (“Madison Lands”);

4. Appeal No. 002746 to the CZBL by A.G.A. Holdings Inc. (“AGA”) in respect of the lands municipally known as 9920 Keele Street (“AGA. Lands”);

5. Appeal No. 002773 to the CZBL and Appeal No. 004792 to the Transition By-law by Condor Properties Ltd. (“Condor”) in respect of the lands municipally known as 341 Millwood Parkway (“Condor Lands”);

6. Appeal No. 002796 to the CZBL by Home Depot of Canada Inc. (“Home Depot”) in respect of the lands municipally known as 140 Northview Boulevard (“140 Northview”);

7. Appeal No. 002914 to the CZBL by Home Depot in respect of the lands municipally known 55 Cityview Boulevard (“55 Cityview”); and

8. Appeal No. 002765 to the CZBL and Appeal No. 004767 to the Transition By-law by ZZEN Group of Companies Limited (“ZZEN”) in respect of the lands municipally known as 250-251 New Enterprise Way (“ZZEN Lands”).

5Mr. Rappolt testified that all of the appeals proposed to be resolved through the present City-initiated motion involve an appeal on the basis that the CZBL, as adopted, fails to recognize previous approvals for the respective appellants’ sites, such as Zoning By-law Amendments (“ZBA”) to City ZBL 1-88 (the former comprehensive zoning by-law) that were either not continued in the new CZBL at all or were carried into the CZBL in a Chapter 14 Exception that requires further amendment(s) to properly reflect the previous approval. Respecting the ZZEN and Condor appeals, the proposed settlements address only one of the sites under appeal by these Appellants. In the case of Condor, the only requested change to the CZBL relates to the Schedule A mapping applicable to the Condor lands (a new or revised Chapter 14 Exception is not required).

Context of Each City-initiated Settlement

Genazzano (Appeal No. 002719)

6Mr. Rappolt testified that, on September 17, 2018, the Tribunal issued a decision and Order that, among other things, approved in principle a ZBA to permit the development of the Genazzano Lands, which was assigned By-law 033-2019 on March 19, 2019.

7Mr. Rappolt testified that By-law 033-2019 amends ZBL 1-88 to rezone the Genazzano Lands from “C1 (H) Restricted Commercial Zone” with a holding provision to “RA3(H) – Apartment Residential Zone” with a holding provision and “OS2 Open Space Park Zone” to facilitate the development of mixed-use residential towers on the Genazzano Lands.

8Mr. Rappolt further testified that, on December 16, 2020, City Council enacted By-law 182-2020, which removed the holding symbol from a portion of the Genazzano Lands. On January 24, 2023, City Council enacted By-law 005-2023, which removed the holding symbol from another portion of the Genazzano Lands.

9Mr. Rappolt explained that the development standards for the Genazzano Lands established by By-laws 003-2019, 182-2020 and 005-2023 are not currently reflected in the CZBL as enacted. As a result, the settlement parties propose to add a new exception in Chapter 14 of the CZBL to apply to the Genazzano Lands. The proposed exception includes a new figure and a consequential amendment to Map 110 in Schedule A of the CZBL. Mr. Rappolt confirmed that, if approved by the Tribunal, the Proposed Genazzano Amendment will resolve Appeal No. 002719.

Aspen Ridge (Appeal Nos. 002734 and 004776)

10Mr. Rappolt testified that, on June 28, 2022, the City enacted By-law 153-2022 with respect to the Aspen Ridge Lands. By-law 153-2022 amends ZBL 1-88 to rezone the Aspen Ridge Lands from “C7 Service Commercial Zone” to “C9(H) Corporate Centre Zone”, together with a holding symbol, and permitted site-specific exceptions to allow the development of mixed-use residential towers. Aspen Ridge also appeals the Transition By-law.

11Mr. Rappolt further testified that the approval granted under By-law 153-2022 was not carried forward into the CZBL. As a result, a new exception for the Aspen Ridge Lands has been prepared for inclusion in Chapter 14 of the CZBL. The exception will include a new figure and a consequential amendment to Map 51 in Schedule A of the CZBL (“Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment”). Mr. Rappolt confirmed that, if approved by the Tribunal, the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment will resolve Appeal Nos. 002734 and 004776.

Madison (Appeal No. 002853)

12This appeal also concerns site-specific development standards and mapping, specifically as it relates to Section 14.964 in Chapter 14 of the CZBL, which the appellant submits erroneously includes site-specific development standards that do not reflect the existing zoning for the Madison Lands.

13Mr. Rappolt testified that, in 2009, City Council enacted By-law 260-2009 to rezone the Madison Lands from “A Agricultural Zone” to “RA3 Residential Apartment Zone” and “RA3(H) Residential Apartment Zone” with the addition of the holding symbol to permit the redevelopment of rental apartment buildings for assisted living seniors’ retirement residences on the Madison Lands. Furthermore, on September 25, 2012, the City enacted By-law 137-2012, to remove the holding symbol l from the Madison Lands and, on July 9, 2020, the COA approved a minor variance application to permit the construction of a proposed 15-storey seniors’ rental apartment building (second phase of the VIVA Thornhill Woods Retirement Community) and to facilitate a related site plan application.

14Mr. Rappolt testified that the settlement parties are seeking appropriate corrections to the site-specific development standards and mapping of the CZBL to accurately reflect the intended zoning applicable to the Madison Lands as previously approved. Specifically, Section 14.964 as adopted is to be deleted and replaced with a new Section 14.964 (“Proposed Madison Amendment”). Mr. Rappolt opined that, if approved by the Tribunal, the Proposed Madison Amendment will resolve Appeal No. 002853.

AGA (Appeal No. 002746)

15This appeal also concerns site-specific development standards and mapping, specifically as it relates to Section 14.534 in Chapter 14 of the CZBL, which the appellant submits erroneously includes site-specific development standards that do not reflect the existing zoning for the AGA Lands.

16Mr. Rappolt testified that, on June 21, 1993, the City passed By-law 191-93, which rezoned the AGA Lands from “R1V Old Village Residential Zone” to “RM2 Multiple Residential Zone”.

17Mr. Rappolt testified that the settlement parties are seeking appropriate corrections to the site-specific development standards and mapping of the CZBL to accurately reflect the intended zoning applicable to the AGA Lands as previously approved. Specifically, Section 14.534 is to be deleted and replaced with a new Section 14.534 (“Proposed AGA Amendment”). Mr. Rappolt opined that, if approved by the Tribunal, the Proposed AGA Amendment will resolve Appeal No. 002853.

Condor (Appeal Nos. 002773 and 004792)

18This appeal concerns Section 14.444 in Chapter 14 and Map 162 in Schedule A of the CZBL. The Appellant submits that Map 162 in Schedule A of the CZBL incorrectly makes reference to a site-specific exception (Section 14.444) on mapping applicable to the Condor Lands. Condor also appeals the Transition By-law.

19Mr. Rappolt testified that the settlement parties are seeking an amendment to Map 162 to remove the reference to the site-specific exception (“Proposed Condor Amendment”). Mr. Rappolt opined that, if approved by the Tribunal, the Proposed Condor Amendment will resolve Appeal Nos. 002773 and 004792, for the lands known as 341 Millwood Parkway, but the balance of Condor’s appeals which are not specific to those lands are not to be dismissed.

Home Depot (Appeal No. 002796)

20This appeal concerns site-specific development standards and mapping, specifically associated with Section 14.674 in Chapter 14 of the CZBL, which the appellant submits erroneously includes site-specific development standards that do not reflect the existing zoning of 140 Northview.

21Mr. Rappolt testified that, on February 23, 1998, City Council enacted By-law 062-98, which amended ZBL 1-88 to create a site-specific exception for 140 Northview that permits eating establishments and establishes parking requirements. He further testified that, on June 22, 1998, City Council enacted By-law 203-98, to amend ZBL 1-88 to permit an equipment sales / rental establishment, establish size limits on the large equipment storage area, and set minimum parking requirements for the lands. He further testified that, on July 31, 2015, the Tribunal issued a decision and Order approving site-specific amendments to the City of Vaughan Official Plan (“VOP 2010”) regarding 140 Northview (Duca v. Vaughan (City), 2015 CanLII 47113 (ON LPAT)).

22Mr. Rappolt testified that the settlement parties are seeking appropriate corrections to the site-specific development standards and mapping of the CZBL to accurately reflect the intended zoning applicable to 140 Northview as previously approved. Specifically, Section 14.674 as adopted is to be deleted and replaced with a new Section 14.674 (“Proposed 140 Northview Amendment”). Mr. Rappolt opined that, if approved by the Tribunal, the Proposed 140 Northview Amendment will resolve Appeal No. 002796.

Home Depot (Appeal No. 002914)

23Similar to the other Home Depot appeal, this appeal also concerns site-specific development standards and mapping, this time associated with Section 14.865 in Chapter 14 of the CZBL which the appellant submits erroneously includes site-specific development standards that do not reflect the existing zoning of 55 Cityview.

24Mr. Rappolt testified that, on January 28, 2014, the Tribunal approved a site-specific amendment to the VOP 2010 to recognize Home Depot’s permitted uses on 55 Cityview (1042710 Ontario Ltd. v. Vaughan (City), [2014] O.M.B.D. No. 25). He further testified that, on April 10, 2014, and April 16, 2015, the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) approved minor variances to permit site-specific standards for matters including outdoor display and storage, loading and unloading, building heights and parking rates, and to permit outdoor storage of gas bottle racks within the existing parking area.

25Mr. Rappolt testified that the settlement parties are seeking appropriate corrections to the site-specific development standards and mapping of the CZBL to accurately reflect the intended zoning applicable to 55 Cityview as previously approved. Specifically, Section 14.865 as adopted is to be deleted and replaced with a new Section 14.865 (“Proposed 55 Cityview Amendment”). Consequential amendments to Maps 164 and 183 in Schedule A of the CZBL are also required. Mr. Rappolt opined that, if approved by the Tribunal, the Proposed 55 Cityview Amendment will resolve Appeal No. 002914.

ZZEN (Appeal Nos. 002765 and 004767)

26This appeal also concerns site-specific development standards and mapping, specifically as it relates to with Section 14.1021 in Chapter 14 of the CZBL which the appellant submits erroneously includes site-specific development standards that do not reflect the existing zoning for the ZZEN Lands. ZZEN also appeals the Transition By-law.

27Mr. Rappolt testified that, on June 25, 2013, the City enacted By-law 101-2013 which rezoned the lands from “A Agricultural Zone” to “C5 Community Commercial Zone” and permitted site specific exceptions to allow for additional commercial uses on the ZZEN Lands. Furthermore, on June 23, 2015, the City enacted By-law 109-2015 to permit site specific exceptions to allow for a gas station accessory to a permitted retail use, an automobile service station, and an automotive retail store as accessory uses on the ZZEN Lands.

28Mr. Rappolt testified that the settlement parties are seeking appropriate corrections to the site-specific development standards and mapping of the CZBL to accurately reflect the intended zoning applicable to the ZZEN Lands as previously approved. Specifically, Section 14.1021 is to be deleted and replaced with a new Section 14.1021 (“Proposed ZZEN Amendment”). Mr. Rappolt opined that, if approved by the Tribunal, the Proposed ZZEN Amendment will resolve Appeal Nos. 002765 and 004767, for the lands known as 250-251 New Enterprise Way, but the balance of ZZEN’s appeals which are not specific to those lands are not to be dismissed.

Planning Justification of City-initiated Settlements

Regard for Matters of Provincial Interest Under Section 2 of the Planning Act

29Mr. Rappolt opined that all eight of the City-initiated settlements have sufficient regard to s. 2 of the Planning Act, and he identified s. 2(h), (m) and (n) as being relevant to all eight proposed Amendments, plus s. 2(j) being relevant to the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA and Condor Amendments, 2(k) being relevant to the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments, s. 2(q) being furthermore relevant to the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment, and s. 2(a) being additionally relevant to the Proposed Condor Amendment.

30Regarding all eight proposed amendments, Mr. Rappolt specifically opined that the objective of the amendments has regard for the provincial interest of orderly development of safe and healthy communities (s.2(h)). Furthermore, by correcting the existing use permissions for the respective parties’ lands, and consequently resolving the corresponding appeals, he opined that the proposed amendments have regard for the provincial interest of resolving planning conflicts between public and private interests (s.2(m) and (n)).

31Mr. Rappolt further opined that the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA and Condor Amendments facilitate residential oriented land uses on the corresponding lands and, as such, have regard for the provincial interest in providing an adequate provision of a full range of housing (s.2(j)).

32Regarding the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments, Mr. Rappolt opined that the amendments serve to permit a range of commercial and employment-oriented uses and therefore have regard for the provincial interest of providing an adequate provision of employment opportunities (s. 2(k)).

33Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment furthermore deals with a location within the vicinity of the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Station, providing access to the Toronto Transit Commission’s subway Line 1 Yonge-University, as well as access to other regional and inter-regional transit connections. As such, he opined that the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment has regard for matters of provincial interest associated with encouraging development that supports public transit (s.2(q)).

34Lastly, with regards to s. 2 of the Planning Act, Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Condor Amendment recognizes natural heritage areas and consequently has regard for the provincial interest of protecting ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions (s. 2(a)).

Consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

35Mr. Rappolt testified that, in his opinion, all eight proposed amendments respecting the various settlements are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”). He specifically identified PPS policy 1.2.1 as being applicable to all eight proposals, policy 1.1.3.2 as being applicable to the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, and AGA Amendments, policies 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.3 as being applicable to the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA, and Condor Amendments, policies 1.3.1, and 1.3.2.1 as being relevant to the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview, and ZZEN Amendments, and policy 2.1.1 as being additionally relevant to the Proposed Condor Amendment.

36Mr. Rappolt opined that the objective of correcting the use permissions for the respective parties’ lands and/or site-specific mapping of the CZBL, to reflect the existing zoning permissions for those lands, is consistent with the PPS objective of providing a coordinated approach to dealing with planning matters pursuant to policy 1.2.1.

37Mr. Rappolt further opined that, as it relates to the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, and AGA Amendments, the settlements are consistent with the PPS insofar as the PPS provides direction to achieve land use patterns within settlement areas that shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which, among other matters, are appropriate for and efficiently use infrastructure and public service facilities, and are transit supportive (1.1.3.2b), 1.1.3.2f)).

38As it relates to PPS policies that direct municipalities to provide a range of housing options while promoting development standards that facilitate intensification, redevelopment, and compact form (1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.3), Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA, and Condor Amendments are consistent with these policies.

39Regarding the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview, and ZZEN Amendments, Mr. Rappolt opined that these settlements are consistent with the PPS policies that direct municipalities to promote economic development and competitiveness while planning for, protecting, and preserving employment areas for future uses (1.3.1, 1.3.2.1).

40Finally, as it relates to the PPS, given that the Proposed Condor Amendment identifies key natural heritage features and zones a portion of the Condor Lands as Environmental Protection (EP), Mr. Rappolt opined that this settlement is consistent with PPS policy 2.1.1 insofar as it directs the long-term protection of natural features.

Conforms with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

41Mr. Rappolt testified that, in his opinion, all eight proposed amendments respecting the various settlements conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”). He specifically identified Growth Plan policies 2.2.1.4, 5.2.3.1, and 5.2.3.3 as being applicable to each of the proposed settlements, policy 2.2.6.1 as being applicable to the proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA, and Condor settlements, policy 2.2.5.1 as being relevant to the proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview, and ZZEN settlements, and policy 4.2.2.6 as being additionally relevant to the Proposed Condor Amendment.

42Mr. Rappolt testified that the Growth Plan directs that land use planning matters, including infrastructure investment and transportation planning, are co-ordinated. He drew the Tribunal’s attention to Growth Plan policy 5.2.3.1, which requires a co-ordinated approach to implementing the Growth Plan. He also drew the Tribunal’s attention to policy 5.2.3.3, which encourages municipalities to engage the public and stakeholders in local efforts to implement the Growth Plan. Regarding these policies, Mr. Rappolt opined that the settlements conform with the Growth Plan by correcting the discrepancy between previous approvals and the CZBL, as enacted, at the same time as engaging with the appellants to seek resolution of their respective appeals.

43Mr. Rappolt testified that Policy 2.2.1.4(a) directs municipalities to implement the policies of the Growth Plan in order to achieve complete communities that include a diverse mix of land uses, including residential and employment uses and convenient access to local services and stores. He opined that all of the proposed settlement amendments, which reflect previous permissions for residential and/or commercial uses on the subject Lands, conform with the policies of the Growth Plan in this regard.

44Mr. Rappolt further opined that the proposed amendments conform to the Growth Plan by achieving the formation of complete communities through the improvement of social equity and overall quality of life for people of all ages, abilities and incomes (2.2.1.4(b)) and providing a diverse range and mix of housing options to accommodate people at all stages of life (2.2.1.4(c)).

45As it relates to Policy 2.2.6.1 of the Growth Plan, Mr. Rappolt testified that the policy directs upper-tier and lower-tier municipalities to plan for a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents. He opined that the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA and Condor Amendments conform to the Growth Plan in this regard by permitting residential oriented land uses on the respective parties’ Lands.

46Mr. Rappolt further opined that the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments conform with the Growth Plan policy direction to promote economic development and competitiveness within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including making efficient use of existing employment areas and vacant and underutilized employment lands and increasing employment densities (2.2.5.1(a)). He further opined that the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments conform to the Growth Plan by contributing to ensure the availability of sufficient land in an appropriate location for a variety of employment uses to accommodate employment densities (2.2.5.1(b)) and integrate and align land use planning with economic development goals and strategies (2.2.5.1(d)).

47Finally, as it relates to the Growth Plan, Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Condor Amendment identifies key natural heritage features and zones a portion of the Condor Lands as Environmental Protection (“EP”) and, as such, he opined that it conforms with the Growth Plan policy 4.2.2.6 direction to continue to protect natural heritage features and areas in a manner consistent with the PPS.

Conforms with the Region of York Official Plan 2010

48Mr. Rappolt testified that, in his opinion, all eight settlement proposals conform with the Region of York Official Plan 2010 (“Region OP 2010”). He further identified policies 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 as being applicable to all eight proposed amendments, policy 3.5.4 as being applicable to the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA and Condor Amendments, policies 4.1.5, 4.3.3, 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 as being applicable to the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments, and policy 2.2.4 as being additionally applicable to the Proposed Condor Amendment.

49Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 8.3.1 of the Region OP 2010 directs the co-ordination of planning review processes and the resolution of conflicts, while policy 8.3.2 directs local zoning by-laws to be brought into conformity with the York Region Official Plan in a timely manner. He opined that the respective amendments designed to correct the zoning permissions and corresponding discrepancies between previous approvals and the CZBL, as enacted, thereby resolving these appeals, conforms to these policies.

50Regarding Policy 3.5.4 of the Region OP 2010, Mr. Rappolt testified that this policy contemplates that local zoning by-laws should permit a mix and range of housing types, lot configurations and tenures. He opined that the Proposed Genazzano and Madison Amendments will establish a high-rise mixed-use zone that permits residential oriented uses, the Proposed Aspen Ridge and Condor Amendments will permit a residential oriented zone that contributes to a mix of housing typologies and lot configurations, and the Proposed AGA Amendment will establish a mixed-use zone that also permits residential oriented uses, all of which contribute to a mix of housing options within the City and thereby conforms to the Region OP 2010.

51Mr. Rappolt further testified that Policy 4.1.5 of the Region OP 2010 contemplates that local municipalities should create a business-friendly environment that includes a diverse range, size and mix of available employment lands (4.1.5(a)). He opined that the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments will establish such a range of commercial and employment-oriented uses on the subject Lands, thereby conforming to the Region OP 2010.

52As it relates to Policy 4.3.3 of the Region OP 2010, Mr. Rappolt testified that this policy contemplates that employment lands are of strategic significance to the Regional economy and are major drivers of economic activity, and Policy 4.3.5 therefore directs local municipalities to protect, maintain and enhance the long-term viability of all employment lands designated in local municipal official plans for employment land uses. He opined that the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments implement these policies and thereby realize the intent of the Region OP 2010 to recognize the strategic significance of employment lands and plan for the long-term protection of said lands. Consequently, he opined that these amendments conform to the Region OP 2010.

53Lastly, as it relates to the Region OP 2010, Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Condor Amendment identifies key natural heritage features and zones a portion of the Condor Lands as EP in accordance with Region OP 2010 policy 2.2.9. He further testified that the EP zoning for the Condor Lands will prohibit development and site alteration within key natural heritage features and, consequently, he opined that this amendment conforms with Region OP 2010.

Conforms with the York Region Official Plan 2022

54Mr. Rappolt testified that, in his opinion, all eight settlement proposals conform with the Region of York Official Plan 2022 (“Region OP 2022”). He further identified policies 7.1.1, 7.1.3 and 7.3.3 as being applicable to all eight proposed amendments, policies 2.3.39 and 2.3.44 as being applicable to the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA and Condor Amendments, policies 4.1.1 and 4.2.2 as being applicable to the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison and AGA Amendments, policies 2.3.1, 2.3.46, 2.3.48 and 4.3.5 as being applicable to the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments, and policies 3.1.1, 3.4.5 as being additionally applicable to the Proposed Condor Amendment.

55Mr. Rappolt testified that all eight Proposed Amendments demonstrate engagement between the public, stakeholders and governments to achieve coordination through the planning review process, including those requiring conflict resolution. Consequently, he opined, each of the respective settlements specifically conform to the Region OP 2022 policies 7.1.1, 7.1.3 and 7.3.3.

56Mr. Rappolt further testified that the Proposed Genazzano Amendment will establish a high-rise mixed-use zone, the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment will establish a mixed-use zone that includes residential land uses, the Proposed Madison Amendment will establish a high-rise residential zone, the Proposed AGA Amendment will establish a mixed-use zone that includes residential land uses, and the Proposed Condor Amendment will establish residential zones, all of which permits residential oriented uses. He therefore opined that each of these proposed amendments conform to the Region OP 2022 policy 2.3.39 by providing a range and mix of housing options and contributes to the provision of housing suitable for all ages, household sizes and abilities.

57Additionally, Mr. Rappolt testified that the residential oriented land uses facilitated by the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA and Condor Amendments will establish a mixed-use zone that includes various housing options, unit sizes and tenures. In doing so, he opined, the proposed amendments facilitate the appropriate distribution of housing options throughout communities within York Region in conformity with Region OP 2022 policy 2.3.44.

58Continuing, Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison and AGA Amendments will establish a development-oriented zone that permits residential and commercial uses on lands designated for such uses. In this case, the subject Lands are designated Community Area as shown on Schedule 1A Land Use Designations, where residential, population-related employment and community services are directed to accommodate concentrations of existing and future population and employment growth. As such, he opined, the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison and AGA Amendments conform to Policy 4.1.1, which directs the location for growth and development within York Region to appropriately designated lands.

59Regarding Policy 4.2.2 of the Region OP 2022, Mr. Rappolt testified that it directs local municipalities to permit a wide range and mix of housing types, sizes and tenures to appropriately designated lands. He confirmed that the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison and AGA Amendments will establish mixed-use zones that permit residential oriented land uses on lands designated for such uses, and the subject Lands are designated Community Area where residential, population-related employment and community services are directed. As such, he opined, the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison and AGA Amendments conform to Policy 4.2.2 by promoting a range and mix of housing types, sizes and tenures.

60As it relates to Policy 2.3.1 of the Region OP 2022, Mr. Rappolt testified that this policy encourages communities to be planned and designed as sustainable, healthy and vibrant complete communities, and walkable to most local amenities. Mr. Rappolt opined that, by permitting commercial and employment-oriented uses on the subject Lands, the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments conform to this policy.

61Concerning Policy 2.3.46 of the Region OP 2022, Mr. Rappolt testified that this policy contemplates that land use planning will be integrated and aligned with economic development goals and strategies to retain and attract investment. At the same time, Policy 2.3.48 of the Region OP 2022 encourages municipalities to foster an economic environment that supports economic growth. He opined that the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments will permit a range of commercial and employment-oriented uses, and, as such, the settlements conform to policies 2.3.46 and 2.3.48 by supporting economic development goals and objectives through land use planning.

62Mr. Rappolt further testified that Policy 4.3.5 of the Region OP 2022 directs that local municipalities will protect, maintain and enhance the long-term supply and viability of all employment lands designated in local municipal official plans. He opined that the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments will permit a range of commercial and employment-oriented uses and, as a result, these settlements conform to this policy.

63Finally, Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Condor Amendment identifies key natural heritage features and zones a portion of the Condor Lands as EP in conformity with Region OP 2022 policy 3.1.1. Given that the EP zoning for the Proposed Condor Amendment will prohibit development and site alteration within key natural heritage features, he opined that it conforms with policy 3.4.5.

Conforms with the City of Vaughan Official Plan

64Mr. Rappolt opined that all eight proposed settlements conform with the VOP 2010.

65More particularly, he testified that the Proposed Genazzano Amendment is subject to the Vaughan Mills Centre Secondary Plan (“Vaughan Mills SP”), with the Genazzano Lands being designated High-Rise Mixed-Use, as shown on Schedule C Land Use Designation. Meanwhile, the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment is subject to the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre Secondary Plan (“Vaughan Metropolitan SP”) with the Aspen Ridge Lands being designated Station Precinct, as shown in Schedule F Land Use Precincts.

66Mr. Rappolt testified that, in Schedule 13 Land Use of the VOP 2010, the Madison Lands are designated High Rise Residential, while the AGA and Condor Lands are designated Low-Rise Residential, and part of the Condor Lands are additionally designated Natural Area.

67Meanwhile, the 140 Northview Lands are designated Prestige Employment in Schedule 13 Land Use of the VOP 2010. The 55 Cityview Lands are designated Employment Commercial Mixed-Use in Schedule 13 Land Use of the VOP 2010 and subject to site-specific policy 13.27 as established under Volume 2 Policy 13 of the VOP 2010. The ZZEN Lands are designated Employment Commercial Mixed-Use, General Employment and Infrastructure and Utilities in Schedule 13 Land Use of the VOP 2010. The ZZEN Lands are also subject to the Huntington Business Park Area Specific Policy 12.12.

68Mr. Rappolt opined that a decision to approve all eight proposed amendments conform to VOP 2010 policies 10.1.2.1, 10.1.2.2 and 10.1.2.3 by accurately reflecting the previously approved zoning applicable to these Lands.

69Mr. Rappolt testified that Policy 3.6.1.2 of the Vaughan Mills SP defers to Policy 9.2.2.6 of the VOP 2010 for permitted uses, while also permitting a range of non-residential, commercial oriented uses. He confirmed that the Proposed Genazzano Amendment will permit a mix of residential and commercial oriented land uses which, in his opinion, conforms to these policies.

70Regarding the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment, Mr. Rappolt testified that Policy 8.2.2 of the Vaughan Metropolitan SP permits a broad range of residential, commercial, and institutional land uses. He confirmed that the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment would permit a mix of residential, commercial, and institutional oriented uses and, in his opinion, conforms to these policies.

71Pursuant to Policy 8.7, Mr. Rappolt testified that the Vaughan Metropolitan SP also establishes a broad range of policies that contemplate intended built form for each of the various precincts, including building typology and articulation, setbacks, height, and massing. He opined that the site-specific develop standards of the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment, when implemented in conjunction with the CZBL, generally meets the intended built form outcomes as contemplated by the Vaughan Metropolitan SP.

72It is further Mr. Rappolt’s opinion that the Proposed Aspen Ridge Amendment conforms to Policy 10.4.2 of the Vaughan Metropolitan SP that contemplates the enactment of a holding symbol to ensure that development proceeds in an orderly manner. He stated that this policy contemplates that a holding symbol may be enacted to manage development approvals that may otherwise be deemed pre-mature by requiring additional study, development of public infrastructure and community facilities, or requiring further applications made under the Planning Act. In his opinion, this settlement conforms to this policy.

73Mr. Rappolt testified that Policy 9.2.2.5 to the VOP 2010 permits residential oriented land uses and high-rise building typologies in the High Rise Residential land use designation. He opined that the site-specific development standards that will be established by the Proposed Madison Amendment, in conjunction with the Multiple Unit Residential (RM2) Zone of the CZBL, conforms to this policy’s land use designation regarding permitted uses and intended built form outcome.

74Mr. Rappolt further testified that part of the AGA Lands are subject to Area Specific Policy 12.1 Heritage Conservation Districts and are additionally subject to the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District Plan, as shown on Map 12.2.A Heritage Conservation Districts. Relatedly, Policy 12.2.1.1 of the VOP 2010 establishes that land use planning decisions within the areas identified as Heritage Conservation Districts, which includes the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District, shall conform to the requirements of the applicable Heritage Conservation District Plan. He opined that the Proposed AGA Amendment, in conjunction with the Main Street Mixed-Use - Maple (MMS) Zone of the CZBL, conforms to Policy 12.2.1.1 by appropriately implementing the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District Plan.

75Mr. Rappolt further opined that the Proposed AGA Amendment, in conjunction with the Main Street Mixed-Use – Maple (MMS) Zone, satisfies the overall intent of the Village of Maple Heritage Conservation District Plan with regards to the stated objective of the Heritage Conservation District Plan, which is to retain and conserve the District’s heritage resources and heritage character while guiding change so that it contributes to the District’s architectural, historical, and contextual character (Policy 2.4.1).

76Additionally, Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed AGA Amendment also satisfies the intent of the Low-Rise Mixed-Use land use designation, specifically policy 9.2.2.2 regarding permitted uses and permitted building typologies, thereby conforming to the VOP 2010.

77Mr. Rappolt testified that the VOP 2010 designates a portion of the Condor Lands Low-Rise Residential as shown on Schedule 13, while Policy 9.2.2.1 of the VOP 2010 permits a range of low rise residential oriented uses in the Low-Rise Designation. He therefore opined that the Proposed Condor Amendment conforms to this policy.

78Furthermore, Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Condor Amendment also conforms to VOP 2010 policy 2.2.2.1 by zoning a portion of the Condor Lands as EP, recognizing the ecological function of those lands as contemplated by the policy and the Natural Area designation as shown on Schedule 13. He confirmed that the intent of the EP Zone is to provide for the conservation of environmentally sensitive lands or features and to restrict development on those lands.

79Mr. Rappolt testified that Policy 9.2.2.7.e. of the VOP 2010 permits a range of building typologies in the Employment Commercial Mixed-Use designation, including low-rise buildings, mid-rise buildings, public and private institutional buildings, and gas stations. He confirmed that the Proposed 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments will permit a range of commercial and employment-oriented uses and provides zoning standards related to matters such as building heights, thus conforming to this policy.

80Mr. Rappolt testified that Policy 9.2.2.11.c. of the VOP 2010 permits a range of employment uses, including manufacturing, warehousing, processing, and distribution in the Prestige Employment Designation and employment and retail uses in the Employment Commercial Mixed-Use designation. Accessory office and retail, as well as ancillary retail uses, are also permitted subject to certain conditions. He opined, therefore, that the Proposed 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments conform to this policy.

81Mr. Rappolt further testified that Policy 9.2.2.10.b. of the VOP 2010 permits a broad range of employment uses including manufacturing, warehousing, processing, transportation, and distribution, as well as outdoor storage in the General Employment land use designation. Accessory office and retail uses may also be permitted subject to certain conditions. Meanwhile, Policy 9.2.2.10.f. permits a range of building typologies in the General Employment land use designation, including employment and industrial buildings, low-rise buildings, and mid-rise buildings. He concluded that the Proposed ZZEN Amendment thereby conforms to these policies.

82Regarding Policy 9.2.2.11.f. of the VOP 2010, Mr. Rappolt testified that it permits a range of building typologies in the Prestige Employment land use designation, including employment and industrial buildings, low-rise buildings, and mid-rise buildings. Correspondingly, he opined that the Proposed 140 Northview Amendment conforms to this policy.

83Focusing on the Proposed 55 Cityview Amendment, Mr. Rappolt testified that the site-specific policy 13.27.1.1 of the VOP 2010 further establishes site-specific development standards for the 55 Cityview Lands, including permitted uses, area, height, and regulations associated with outdoor storage, among other standards. He opined that the Proposed 55 Cityview Amendment conforms with this policy based on the development standards proposed by the site-specific zoning and those standards established under the parent Employment Commercial Mixed-Use of the CZBL.

84Finally, as it relates to the VOP 2010, Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed ZZEN Amendment conforms to the Huntington Business Park Area Specific Policy, in particular Map 12.12.A, which designates the ZZEN Lands General Employment and Employment Commercial Mixed Use, whereby the land use designations of the Area Specific Policy are subject to the land use designation policies of the parent VOP 2010.

Summary and Tribunal’s Findings Regarding City-initiated Settlement Motion

85In summary, Mr. Rappolt opined that each of the proposed amendments has regard to matters of Provincial interest pursuant to Section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, the Region OP 2010, the Region OP 2022, and the VOP 2010, and generally represents good planning.

86The Tribunal accepts Mr. Rappolt’s evidence and opinions and finds the same, approving the Proposed Genazzano, Aspen Ridge, Madison, AGA, Condor, 140 Northview, 55 Cityview and ZZEN Amendments pursuant to the Order below.

Promenade-initiated settlement motion

87Promenade’s motion proposes to resolve aspects of its appeal of the CZBL (Appeal No. 002789) in respect of the lands municipally known as 1 Promenade Circle and 180 Promenade Circle (“Promenade Lands”). Mr. Rende testified that the settlement between the City and Promenade proposes the following amendment to the CZBL (“Proposed Promenade Amendment”):

1. Delete Section 14.281 and replace it with a new Section 14.281 which removes the Promenade Lands from the application of Section 14.281;

2. Add a new Section 14 Zone which will apply to the Promenade Lands only, save and except for Section 14.xxx.3(2)(a)(ii) of the new Section 14 Zone Exception, which shall remain under appeal through Appeal No. 002789; and

3. Amend Maps 37, 38 and 57 in Schedule A of the CZBL to reflect the High-Rise Mixed-Use Zone (HMU) and Public Open Space Zone (OS1) categories on the Promenade Lands.

Context of Promenade-initiated Settlement

The Promenade Lands

88Mr. Rende testified that the Promenade Lands are approximately 51 hectares ("ha”) in size and include the Promenade Shopping Centre, which features approximately 150 retail stores, office uses, a number of fast-food restaurants, and a movie theatre. The Promenade Shopping Centre is surrounded by large surface parking lots that serve visitors to the shopping centre.

89Mr. Rende testified that the Promenade Lands are bounded by Centre Street to the north, Bathurst Street to the east, Clark Avenue West to the south, and New Westminster Drive to the west (this area is generally referred to as “Promenade Centre”). Access to the Promenade Lands is through a private ring road system owned by Promenade (“Promenade Circle”). Promenade Circle provides access to the Promenade Shopping Centre and other parcels of land within Promenade Centre and has a series of gateway roads connecting to Centre Street to the north, Bathurst Street to the east, New Westminster Drive to the west and Clark Avenue to the south. All of these gateway intersections are signalized when intersected with these arterial and collector roads with the exception of the northern intersection from Promenade Circle to Bathurst Street which has a right-in-right-out movement.

90Mr. Rende testified that, beyond the Promenade Lands, there are a variety of apartment residential, institutional, low rise residential, and transit uses in the area. To the northeast of the Promenade Lands, located on the south side of Centre Street, at the southwest corner of Centre Street and Bathurst Street, within Promenade Centre, is a one-storey retail commercial plaza and surface parking lots that serve the tenants of the existing buildings. These lands are approximately 3.39 ha in size, with frontage of approximately 210 metres ("m”) on Centre Street and approximately 168 m along Bathurst Street.

91Mr. Rende further testified that apartment towers and townhouses are also located to the southeast and northwest of the Promenade Shopping Centre. Additionally, Bathurst Clark public library, Pierre Elliot Trudeau Park, and St. Elizabeth Catholic High School are located to the southwest of the shopping centre, and Promenade Transit Terminal is located to the north of the shopping centre along Centre Street.

92Mr. Rende testified that, over the past 37 years, the Promenade Shopping Centre has served retail and broader social and entertainment needs of the community. More recently, however, the Promenade Shopping Centre has been in decline. In 2017, Sears Canada, a major tenant, declared bankruptcy and in early 2018 the Sears Canada store, which occupied over 16,500 square metres of retail space within the Promenade Shopping Centre, closed.

93Consequently, Mr. Rende testified that Promenade plans to redevelop the Promenade Lands. He explained that the surface parking lots surrounding the Promenade Shopping Centre are planned to be developed into a high-density mixed use urban development, transforming Promenade Centre into a complete community over multiple phases.

94Mr. Rende confirmed that, in June 2018, Promenade submitted a redevelopment application for Phase 1 of the Promenade Lands, respecting lands that are located to the southeast of the Promenade Shopping Centre. Phase 1 was approved by City Council on June 12, 2019, and is currently under construction. It comprises of 30- and 35-storey towers, connected by a seven-storey podium, and expands the Promenade Shopping Centre by adding two levels of new retail space.

95Mr. Rende testified that, in July 2022, Promenade submitted a redevelopment application for a six-storey office building with grade-related retail and a public park between High Street and Promenade Circle to the east of the existing shopping centre. He confirmed that, on June 20, 2023, City Council approved the rezoning application and implementing amending Zoning By-laws 095-2023 and 096-2023 to amend the CZBL and City of Vaughan Zoning By-law No. 1-88, respectively, for the proposal. He further explained that the Site Plan application is currently in progress and under review by City staff.

96Mr. Rende further testified that, in July 2022, Promenade submitted an additional Site Plan Approval application for the redevelopment of the existing main retail entrance of the shopping centre. This Site Plan application is also currently in progress and under review by City staff.

97Pursuant to the above noted planning applications, Mr. Rende testified that Promenade Centre is a focal point of growth in the City of Vaughan and is envisioned to develop as a new mixed-use community with a range of land uses that support existing and planned transit. He generally opined that the redevelopment of Promenade Centre supports several key policy directions, which promote mixed-use intensification and transit supportive development.

98Through its redevelopment over time, Mr. Rende opined that Promenade Centre will become a thriving community that provides for a range of new housing opportunities in a high density built form with a variety of non-residential uses that will serve the surrounding community and new residents. The mixed-use neighbourhood will be supported by a system of new public parks and open spaces and public and private streets that will link to existing parks and community facilities in the surrounding area and provide opportunities for vehicular, pedestrian and cycling connectivity.

99Mr. Rende further generally opined that Promenade Centre will develop as a transit supportive community and leverage its location in proximity to existing transit opportunities, including York Region Transit’s Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) Station at the Disera-Promenade Terminal which provides connections to local bus routes and York Region Transit VIVA bus routes, providing connections to the City of Toronto, other York Region municipalities and beyond.

Proposed Modifications to the CZBL

100Mr. Rende testified that, since Promenade’s appeal of the CZBL, discussions have occurred between the City and Promenade resulting in the agreement to settle Promenade’s appeal in part (“Promenade Settlement”). He confirmed that the Promenade Settlement was endorsed by the City on June 20, 2023.

101Mr. Rende testified that the Proposed Promenade Amendment, as set out in the Promenade Settlement, will allow for the comprehensive development of the Promenade Lands in a consistent manner, particularly for future phases, and has been structured to include provisions that reflect the existing approvals for Phase 1 and the six-storey office building, in addition to provisions that pertain to the balance of the Promenade Lands.

102Mr. Rende testified that the intent of the Proposed Promenade Amendment is to ensure the zoning aligns with the High-Rise Mixed-Use designation of the VOP 2010 as identified on Schedule 13 (Land Use). A new Exception also includes development standards that align with the Promenade Centre Secondary Plan (“PCSP”) and those that relate to permitted building height in particular (reflected both in storeys and in metric height).

103Mr. Rende explained that the purpose of the Proposed Promenade Amendment is threefold. Firstly, the amendment proposes to rezone the Promenade Lands in their entirety to a High-Rise Mixed-Use Zone (HMU), with the exception of a strata park block that is located to the east of the existing Shopping Centre, which is proposed to be rezoned Public Open Space (OS1). This would be reflected in a modified ‘Schedule A’ on Maps 37, 38 and 57 of the CZBL.

104Secondly, the amendment proposes to replace existing Exception 281, as adopted by Council, with a new Exception 281 that would remove the area of the Promenade Lands from Exception 281. Exception 281 would then only apply to the adjacent lands.

105Lastly, a new Exception would be added to the CZBL for the Promenade Lands only. The new Exception is proposed to create three distinct areas, identified as “Area A”, “Area B” and “Area C”. “Area B” would comprise the area of the approved Phase 1 lands, “Area C” would comprise the area of the approved office development and its adjacent park, and “Area A” would comprise the remainder of the Promenade Lands, including the Shopping Centre. These Areas are reflected in Figure E-XXXXA of the Proposed Promenade Amendment, in addition to the identification of the proposed zones (HMU and OS1).

106The proposed Figure E-XXXXB illustrates the area of “Area B” and includes a plan of the approved Phase 1 development with the tower and podium locations and the relationship to the portion of the adjacent street (Upper Mall Way). The proposed Figure E-XXXXC meanwhile illustrates the area of “Area C” and includes a plan of the approved six-storey office development and adjacent park as well as their proposed zones. Additionally, the proposed Figure E-XXXXD outlines the proposed maximum heights in storeys and metres that pertain to “Area A” only. Mr. Rende confirmed that the maximum heights are consistent with the proposed maximum heights in the Council adopted PCSP.

107Mr. Rende went on to testify that, as it relates to the future phases of development of the Promenade Lands, it is intended that they will be subject to the permissions contained in the parent CZBL as well as the Exceptions applicable to “Area A”. He further explained that, should additional amendments be required, they can be added to the new Exception and reflected through the addition of “Area D”, “Area E” and so on.

108Mr. Rende confirmed that the Promenade Settlement resolves Promenade’s appeal, except as it relates to a portion of the Promenade Lands associated with the residential visitor parking rate, which will remain under appeal. Mr. Rende explained that, due to a lack of agreement with respect to this issue, his recommended Section 14.xxx.3(2)(a)(ii) of the new Exception, associated with the residential visitor parking rate, would not be brought into effect pursuant to the Promenade Settlement. He confirmed that, until this particular aspect of the appeal is resolved, a 0.25 residential visitor parking rate will continue to apply to the Promenade Lands, as required by Zoning By-law 1-88. He further confirmed that Promenade and the City will continue to discuss this issue with a view to settle it (and therefore fully resolve Promenade’s Appeal), or have the issue determined later by the Tribunal.

Planning Justification of Promenade-initiated Settlement

Regard for Matters of Provincial Interest Section 2 of the Planning Act

109Mr. Rende opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment has regard for matters of provincial interest as identified at Section 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular sections 2(h), 2(i), 2(j), 2(k), 2(p), 2(q), and 2(r).

110Specifically, Mr. Rende opined, the Proposed Promenade Amendment has regard for the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the adequate provision of a full range of housing and employment opportunities, the appropriate location of growth and development, the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and oriented to pedestrians and 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.

Consistent with Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

111Mr. Rende testified that one of the key policy directions expressed in the PPS is to build strong communities by promoting efficient land use and development patterns. To that end, the PPS contains a number of policies that promote intensification, redevelopment and compact built form, particularly in areas well-served by public transit.

112Mr. Rende specifically identified the following policies of the PPS as being relevant to the present matter and opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment is consistent with each: Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.5, 1.3.1, 1.4.3, 1.5.1, 1.6.3, 1.6.6.2, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1, 1.8.1 and 4.6. To that end, he emphasized that the Proposed Promenade Amendment promotes intensification and the efficient use of land and infrastructure that supports densities and a mix of land uses that are transit-supportive.

Conforms with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

113Mr. Rende testified that the general framework in the Growth Plan seeks to reinforce the importance of integrating transportation and land use planning to achieve broader intensification objectives. He further testified that the Promenade Lands are located in Promenade Centre which is planned to develop as a new mixed-use community with a range of land uses that promote growth and intensification in a compact built form that will support existing transit infrastructure in accordance with the policy direction in the Growth Plan.

114He further confirmed that the Promenade Lands are considered part of a “strategic growth area” pursuant to the Growth Plan (i.e., a focus for accommodating intensification and a higher density mix of uses in a more compact built form) given their location within a major transit station area.

115Mr. Rende specifically identified the following policies of the Growth Plan as being relevant to the present matter and opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment conforms with each: the Guiding Principles in Section 1.2.1 and Policies 2.2.1(2)(c), 2.2.1(3)(c), 2.2.1(4), 2.2.2(1)(a), 2.2.2(3), 2.2.4, and 2.2.6. To that end, he opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment encourages growth within an existing built-up area and a strategic growth area in a location with existing transit and existing public service facilities.

116He further opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment will allow for the optimization of infrastructure along transit corridors to support the achievement of complete communities with a compact built form that provides for a diverse mix of land uses and housing options which will assist in meeting intensification targets in a strategic growth area and major transit station area.

Conforms with the York Region Official Plan 2022

117Mr. Rende testified that Promenade Centre, where the Promenade Lands are located, is identified within the Urban Area of the Region and along a Regional Corridor (Centre Street) as demonstrated on Map 1 – Regional Structure of the Region OP 2022. He further confirmed that the Promenade Lands are designated Community Area as demonstrated on Map 1A – Land Use Designations and are located within the Built Up Area and a Protected Major Transit Station Area as demonstrated on Map 1B – Urban system Overlays of the Region OP 2022.

118Mr. Rende further testified that the growth management policies of the Region OP 2022 directs growth to the Urban System, which is planned to accommodate the majority of new growth to 2051 and which is the primary location for growth and development within York Region. The Urban System is comprised of a hierarchy of areas which includes Urban Area, Towns and Villages, Centres and Corridors, and Community Area and Employment Area land use designations, as well as a series of land use overlays, as shown on Map 1B of the Region OP 2022.

119Mr. Rende went on to testify that intensification policies of the Region OP 2022 provide that intensification be directed in accordance with the Regional hierarchy with the highest level of intensification in Regional Centres followed by Major Transit Station Areas (subway station) and Major Transit Station Areas (other), etc. To this end, he confirmed that the Promenade Lands are located within the Disera-Promenade BRT Station Protected Major Transit Station Area, which is classified as a Major Transit Station Areas (other) in the Regional hierarchy for growth and intensification. He further explained that this Protected Major Transit Station Area is focused around the BRT Station on Centre Street, which is located at the north end of the Promenade Lands, and is planned for a minimum density of 200 people and jobs per hectare.

120Mr. Rende further testified that Community Areas are areas in the Region where the majority of residents, personal services, retail, arts, culture, recreational facilities and human services needs will be located. Employment opportunities are encouraged within Community Areas. The Region OP 2022 requires that local municipal official plans implement a wide range and mix of housing types, sizes, and tenures consistent with intensification and density targets and the objectives of the Region OP 2022.

121Upon considering the above policies, Mr. Rende opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment conforms with the policies of Region OP 2022, in particular the policies pertaining to complete communities (Section 2.2) growth management (Section 4.1), community areas (Section 4.2) and intensification (Section 4.4). Specifically, he opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment conforms to these policies by promoting sustainable, orderly growth through the creation of a complete community that is developed in a comprehensive and coordinated manner, optimizing infrastructure with a compact, mixed-use, pedestrian friendly and transit-supportive built form with an appropriate range and mix of housing.

122Mr. Rende further opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment will allow for the optimization of infrastructure in a strategic growth area. Furthermore, he confirmed that the Promenade Lands are located within the Urban Area along a Regional Corridor and are identified as a major transit station area given their location within the Disera-Promenade BRT Station major transit station area. He additionally confirmed that the Region OP 2022 delineates the Disera-Promenade BRT Station as a Protected Major Transit Station Area.

Conforms with the City of Vaughan Official Plan

123Being located within Promenade Centre, Mr. Rende testified that the Promenade Lands are within an Intensification Area as demonstrated on Schedule 1 (Urban Structure) of the VOP 2010. He explained that Intensification Areas consist of a hierarchy of mixed-use centres, and the Promenade Lands are identified as a Primary Centre as demonstrated on Schedule 1 (Urban Structure), while Centre Street is identified as a Regional Intensification Corridor on Schedule 1 (Urban Structure) and is also identified as a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor on Schedule 10 (Major Transit Network). The Promenade Lands are additionally designated High-Rise Mixed-Use as demonstrated on Land Use Schedule 13 of the VOP 2010.

124Mr. Rende testified that Intensification Areas are considered key development areas in the City and are located on Regional Corridors which are meant to complement and connect to Primary Centres and Local Centres. Intensification Areas are also meant to make efficient use of underutilized sites served with a high-level of existing or planned transit and be developed with a mix of uses and appropriate densities to support transit use, walking and cycling.

125Mr. Rende further testified that Mixed-Use centres are intended to contain compact built form at appropriate transit-supportive densities and should promote an appropriate mix of land uses along transit routes, particularly in proximity to VIVA stations and future rapid transit stations, and encourage diverse housing opportunities in terms of tenure, affordability, size and form.

126He went on to confirm that Primary Centres are focal points for growth, containing the greatest mix of land uses, building heights and densities in the urban area and will include a mix of housing types and non-residential uses, be designed to be transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly, and developed with densities to support planned public transit.

127Mr. Rende further testified that the High-Rise Mixed-Use designation permits a range of residential, retail, office, community, open space and institutional uses in mid to high rise buildings with building heights and densities as established through Secondary Plans or Area Specific Policies (unless otherwise identified in the VOP 2010).

128Mr. Rende further confirmed that, within the Implementation section of the VOP 2010, Policy 10.1.2.1 provides that zoning by-laws shall be used to implement the policies of VOP 2010 by regulating the use of land, buildings or structures pursuant to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act.

129Mr. Rende specifically identified the following policies of the VOP 2010 as being relevant to the present matter and opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment conforms with each: policies pertaining to Growth Management (Policies 2.1.3.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.5 and 2.2.5.6), Land Use (Policies 9.1.2.7, 9.1.2.9, 9.2.1.7, 9.2.2.6, and 9.2.3), Parks (Policy 7.3) and Implementation (Policies 10.1.1 and 10.1.2).

130More specifically, Mr. Rende opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment will allow for the efficient use of an underutilized site served by a high-level of existing transit. He further opined that the Promenade Lands are poised to develop in a compact built form at appropriate transit-supportive densities with a mix of uses, given its location within an Intensification Area and Mixed-Use Centre and identification as a Primary Centre, which is a focal point for growth containing the greatest mix of land uses, building heights and densities in the urban area.

131Mr. Rende pointed out that the Promenade Lands are designated High-Rise Mixed-Use and, considering this, he opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment will better reflect the intent of this designation through the provision of a range of land uses including residential, retail, office, community, open space and institutional uses in mid to high rise buildings.

Conforms with the Promenade Centre Secondary Plan

132Mr. Rende testified that the PCSP was adopted by City Council in September 2022 and approved by the Region of York in November 2022. The PCSP is meant to apply to the whole of Promenade Centre, which includes the Promenade Lands as well as additional lands of adjacent landowners. However, the PCSP was appealed to the Tribunal and is currently not in force.

133Nevertheless, Mr. Rende provided his opinion on conformity of the Proposed Promenade Amendment with the not-yet-in-force PCSP. He testified that the PCSP is intended to provide a policy framework to guide the continued evolution of the area and anticipated growth and development within this distinct urban centre. The PCSP is guided by a series of key principles that will ensure it develops as a complete community which is transit-supportive, vibrant, inclusive, healthy, sustainable and diverse. The PCSP sets out a number of matters to guide development including land use designations, height and density limits and policies pertaining to a future open space system and transportation network to service growth in Promenade Centre.

134Mr. Rende explained that the PCSP provides that Promenade Centre will be a place for growth that will maintain and enhance its role as an important place for people to gather, socialize, shop, work, learn and live. The policies of the PCSP support the development of a complete community with a mix of uses and a variety of building types at densities that will provide the overall minimum density of 200 people and jobs per hectare for the Disera-Promenade BRT Protected Major Transit Station Area .

135Mr. Rende testified that, in accordance with the Council-approved PCSP, the Promenade Lands feature a range of land use designations including High-Rise Mixed-Use, Mid-Rise Mixed-Use, Community Commercial Mixed-Use, and Parks.

136Mr. Rende confirmed that the High-Rise Mixed-Use designation permits a broad mix of residential, retail, community and institutional uses in mixed use and single use buildings including, but not limited to, high-rise and mid-rise buildings. Heights of up to 35 storeys and densities of up to 6.5 Floor Space Index (“FSI”), which are included on Schedule D of the Secondary Plan, are permitted and supportive of the Transit Terminal and Regional Rapid Transit Corridor along Centre Street.

137Mr. Rende further confirmed that the Mid-Rise Mixed-Use designation similarly permits a broad mix of uses in single use or mixed use buildings at densities that are transit supportive. Heights and densities, included on Schedule D, permit heights of 12 storeys and densities up to 6.5 FSI.

138Additionally, Mr. Rende testified that the Community Commercial Mixed-Use designation includes the existing Promenade Shopping Centre and Phase 1, which is currently under construction. The designation permits a range of commercial uses in low-rise, mid-rise, and institutional buildings with additional permissions for mixed-use buildings on Phase 1 and the potential for future mid-rise or high-rise buildings at the north end of the Shopping Centre. With the exception of the Phase 1 lands and the potential for a future mixed-use building at the north of the Shopping Centre, heights and densities are limited to a maximum of 2 storeys and 1.5 FSI.

139Mr. Rende explained that the Parks designation includes existing and planned parks within and outside the Promenade Lands within the Secondary Plan area. The size and location of parks are intended to serve the needs of the community and provide parkland within a five-minute walk.

140Mr. Rende further explained that Policy 11.1.2 of the PCSP states that development within the Promenade Centre Secondary Plan Area shall be facilitated by the City through the use of tools identified in Section 10 of VOP 2010 including Zoning By-laws.

141Mr. Rende specifically identified the following policies of the PCSP as being relevant to the present matter and opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment conforms with each (despite these policies not being in force): policies pertaining to General Land Use (Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4), High-Rise Mixed-Use (Policies 3.2.1, 3.2.4), Mid-Rise Mixed-Use (Policies 3.3.1, 3.3.4) and Built Form (Policies 4.2).

142Specifically, he further opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment aligns with the Council adopted PCSP and will allow for the development of a complete community with a mix of land uses, heights and densities which will assist in the achievement of the minimum density target for the Disera-Promenade BRT Major Transit Station Area, given the location of the Promenade Lands in relation to the land use precincts in which height and density are focused.

143Mr. Rende pointed out that, given the existing Phase 1 redevelopment (currently under construction and nearing completion) of the Promenade Lands predates the not-yet-in-force PCSP, an Official Plan amendment was required to permit that redevelopment. He confirmed that Official Plan Amendment No. 46 (“OPA 46”) was approved by City Council on June 12, 2019, and permits the development of three towers with a height up to 35 storeys, with the final development approval comprising two towers of 30 and 35 storeys connected by a common seven-storey podium. As it relates to the PCSP, Mr. Rende confirmed that the PCSP includes policies to reflect this Phase 1 ongoing development, as facilitated by OPA 46. Mr. Rende further confirmed his opinion that the Proposed Promenade Amendment conforms with OPA 46.

Summary and Tribunal’s Findings Regarding Promenade-initiated Settlement Motion

144In summary, Mr. Rende opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment represents good planning, has regard for matters of provincial interest identified in section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the Growth Plan, the Region OP 2022 and the VOP 2010. He further opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment will conform with the Council adopted PCSP, noting that it is not yet in effect. More generally, he opined that the Proposed Promenade Amendment will establish a comprehensive and logical zoning framework for existing approved developments and future development phases within the Promenade Lands of Promenade Centre.

145The Tribunal accepts Mr. Rende’s evidence and opinion and finds the same conclusions (noting that conformity with the PCSP is not required to approve the matter). The Tribunal therefore approves the Proposed Promenade Amendment pursuant to the Order below.

Next written motion and sixth CMC

146Upon request of the parties, the Tribunal set a subsequent written motion to settle various other appeals of this matter, returnable October 31, 2023.

147In addition, also upon request of the parties, the Tribunal set a sixth CMC hearing commencing on Tuesday, February 20, 2024, at 10 a.m. by VH. It is expected that more settlement motions will be heard on this day. No further Notice is required apart from notice of any motions.

148The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video as follows:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165

Access code: 687-587-165

149Parties 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.

150Parties 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

151Persons 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: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.

152Individuals 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.

ORDERS

Fifth CMC

153The Tribunal Orders that the date and particulars of the written motion and subsequent Case Management Conference are as set out in paragraphs 146 to 151 above.

Re: Settlement Orders

154THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. The following Orders recorded in this decision and approval of portions of the CZBL as attached hereto as Attachments 1 through 15 are without prejudice to the disposition of any other appeal of the CZBL and any unapproved portions of the CZBL, such that if those appeals proceed to a subsequent hearing or motion, either on their own or as may be consolidated with other proceedings, the City will not take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve amendments to the CZBL on the basis that such amendments deviate from or are inconsistent with the amendments attached hereto as Attachments 1 through 15 as brought into force by these Orders. However, this does not affect the City’s right to assert that the CZBL as amended by Attachments 1 through 15 hereto, to the extent brought into force by these Orders, should be applied to specific sites or areas without amendments on the basis that doing so is consistent with the Planning Act and provincial policies, conforms to provincial and official plans and/or constitutes good planning;

2. Notwithstanding the Orders, the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to consider and approve amendments to the CZBL as amended herein, as may be appropriate to dispose of any of the outstanding appeals before the Tribunal; and

3. In the event the City requests an appellant to provide an issues list in order to advance the applicable appeal, the appellant shall provide an issues list in a form and with content appropriate for a procedural order within a reasonable period of time and, in any event, no later than 60 days after the request.

City-initiated Motions

Genazzano Highrises Inc. and Granerola Residences Ltd. (Appeal No. 002719)

155THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002719 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by Genazzano Highrises Inc. and Granerola Residences Ltd., is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. A new Exception is added to Chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new Exception number, inclusive of a new Figure, to be assigned a new Figure number, in the form set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;

b. Schedule A – Map 110 is amended in the form set out in Attachment 2 to this Order;

2. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002719 is dismissed.

7800 Jane Street Inc. and Metrus (Terra) Properties Inc. (Appeal Nos. 002734 and 004776)

156THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002734 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004776 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-003554 to By-law No. 039-2022, being appeals by 7800 Jane Street Inc. and Metrus (Terra) Properties Inc., are allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. A new Exception is added to Chapter 14 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new Exception number, inclusive of a new Figure, to be assigned a new Figure number, in the form set out in Attachment 3 to this Order;

b. Schedule A – Map 51 is amended in the form set out in Attachment 4 to this Order;

2. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeals No. 002734 and 004776 are dismissed.

Madison VIVA Bathurst Holdings Ltd. (Appeal No. 002853)

157THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002853 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by Madison VIVA Bathurst Holdings Ltd., is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Exception 14.964 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 14.964 in the form set out in Attachment 8 to this Order;

2. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002853 is dismissed.

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

158THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002746 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by A.G.A. Holdings Inc., is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Exception 14.534 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 14.534 in the form set out in Attachment 9 to this Order;

b. Schedule A – Map 167 is amended in the form set out in Attachment 10 to this Order;

2. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002746 is dismissed.

Condor Properties Ltd. (Appeal Nos. 002773 and 004792)

159THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002773 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004792 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-003554 to By-law No. 039-2022, being appeals by Condor Properties Ltd., are allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Schedule A – Maps 161 and 162 are amended in the form set out in Attachment 12 to this Order;

2. In all other respects, these appeals are dismissed as they relate to the lands municipally known as 341 Millwood Parkway, City of Vaughan, Ontario, but the balance of the appeals which are not specific to those lands are not dismissed.

Home Depot of Canada Inc. (Appeal No. 002796)

160THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002796 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by Home Depot of Canada Inc., is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Exception 14.674 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 14.674 in the form set out in Attachment 5 to this Order;

2. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002796 is dismissed.

Home Depot of Canada Inc. (Appeal No. 002914)

161THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002914 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by Home Depot of Canada Inc., is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Exception 14.865 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 14.865 in the form set out in Attachment 6 to this Order;

b. Schedule A – Maps 164 and 183 are amended in the form set out in Attachment 7 to this Order;

2. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002914 is dismissed.

ZZEN Group of Companies Limited (Appeal Nos. 002765 and 004767)

162THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002765 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004767 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-003554 to By-law No. 039-2022, being appeals by ZZEN Group of Companies Limited, are allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Exception 14.1021 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 14.1021 in the form set out in Attachment 11 to this Order;

2. In all other respects, these appeals are dismissed as they relate to the lands municipally known as 250-251 New Enterprise Way, City of Vaughan, Ontario, but the balance of the appeals which are not specific to those lands are not dismissed.

Promenade-initiated Motion

163THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. Appeal No. 002789 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by Promenade Limited Partnership, is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Exception 14.281 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 14.281 in the form set out in Attachment 13 to this Order;

b. A new Exception is added to Chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new Exception number, inclusive of a new Figure, to be assigned a new Figure number, in the form set out in Attachment 14 to this Order;

c. Schedule A – Maps 37, 38 and 57 are amended in the form set out in Attachment 15 to this Order;

2. The Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002789 is scoped and limited to Section 14.xxx.3(2)(a)(ii) of the new Section 14 Zone Exception.

164The Member is not seized but may be spoken to should assistance be required in implementing any of the above-noted Orders.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS 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.

Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 4 Attachment 5 Attachment 6 Attachment 7 Attachment 8 Attachment 9 Attachment 10 Attachment 11 Attachment 12 Attachment 13 Attachment 14 Attachment 15