Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 27, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004824, OLT-22-002785 (Formerly PL140743)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of 18-storey and 20-storey residential buildings with a ground floor community facility and/or ground floor retail space on the West Parcel and a 17-storey residential building with ground floor retail on the East Parcel for a total of 661 residential units in both parcels Reference Number: PLAN 20 127887 Property Address: East and west sides of Circa Drive, north of Highway 7 East and legally described as Part of Lot 11, Concession 4 and Part of Block 3 of 65M-2503 Municipality/UT: City of Markham/ Regional Municipality of York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004824 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004824 OLT Case Name: Dorsay Development Corporation v. Markham (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of 18-storey and 20-storey residential buildings with a ground floor community facility and/or ground floor retail space on the West Parcel and a 17-storey residential building with ground floor retail on the East Parcel for a total of 661 residential units in both parcels Reference Number: PLAN 22 260438 Property Address: East and west sides of Circa Drive, north of Highway 7 East and legally described as Part of Lot 11, Concession 4 and Part of Block 3 of 65M-2503 Municipality/UT: City of Markham/ Regional Municipality of York OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000151 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004824

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Referred by: Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc. Subject: Site Plan Description: To permit the development of 18-storey and 20-storey residential buildings with a ground floor community facility and/or ground floor retail space on the West Parcel and a 17-storey residential building with ground floor retail on the East Parcel for a total of 661 residential units in both parcels Reference Number: SPC 23-121041 Property Address: East and west sides of Circa Drive, north of Highway 7 East and legally described as Part of Lot 11, Concession 4 and Part of Block 3 of 65M-2503 Municipality/UT: City of Markham/ Regional Municipality of York OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000889 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004824

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant (jointly): Angus Glen Holdings Inc., Angus Glen North West Inc. & North Markham Landowners Group Appellant (jointly): Beechgrove Estates Inc., Minotar Holdings Inc., Cor-Lots Developments, Cherokee Holdings & Halvan 5.5 Investments Ltd. Appellant (jointly): Brentwood Estates Inc., Colebay Investments Inc., Highcove Investments Inc., Firewood Holdings Inc., Major McCowan Developments Ltd. & Summerlane Realty Corp. Appellant: And others (see attached Schedule 1) Subject: Proposed New Official Plan – Part 1 (December 2013) – for the City of Markham Municipality: City of Markham OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002785 Legacy Case No.: PL140743 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002785 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL140743 OLT Case Name: Angus Glen Holdings Inc. v. Markham (City)

Heard: November 29, 2023 by Video Hearing ("VH")

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc. ("Applicant/Appellant")	Meaghan McDermid Susan Rosenthal (in absentia)
City of Markham ("City")	Maggie Cheung-Madar

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ASTRID J. CLOS ON NOVEMBER 29, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This was the second Case Management Conference ("CMC") convened for appeals brought by Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc. ("Applicant/Appellant") pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended ("Act") for an Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") and s. 34(11) of the Act for a Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA") due to the failure of council of the City of Markham ("City") to make a decision within the statutory timeframe related to the parcels legally described as Part of Lot 11, Concession 4 and Part of Block 3 of 65M-2503 ("Subject Property") located in the City.

2The Subject Property consist of two parcels of land. The west parcel is located to the west of Circa Drive with an area of approximately 0.72 hectares ("ha"). The east parcel is located to the east of Circa Drive has an area of approximately 0.33 ha. The total area of both parcels is approximately 1.05 ha.

3On October 1, 2020, the Applicant/Appellant submitted an application for an OPA to the City to amend the Markham Centre Secondary Plan. The OPA application was deemed complete by the City on November 2, 2020. A resubmission of the revised OPA Application was filed with the City on March 29, 2022. The revised OPA was subsequently appealed by the Applicant/Appellant.

4On September 30, 2022, the Applicant/Appellant submitted an application for a ZBA to the City. The ZBA application was deemed complete by the City on November 17, 2022. The ZBA was subsequently appealed by the Applicant/Appellant.

[5] The original submission proposed the development of:

West parcel - two 24-storey residential towers, with 559 residential units and approximately 770 square metres ("m²") of ground floor retail area; and,
East parcel - a four-storey building of approximately 6,740 m² of office space and 1,238 m² of ground floor retail.

[6] The revised proposal, which is the subject of these appeals, proposes the development of 661 residential units,

West parcel - a 20-storey residential tower, with a ground floor community facility and/or ground floor retail space, and an 18-storey residential tower with ground floor retail space; and,
East parcel - a 17-storey residential tower with ground floor retail space.

PARTICIPANT STATUS

7In response to the notice, a request for Participant status was received from Wai Che Regina Chan prior to the first CMC but had not been circulated to the Parties.

8The Tribunal directed that the Participant status request from Wai Che Regina Chan be considered at the second CMC to allow this request to be reviewed by the Parties.

9The Participant status request from Wai Che Regina Chan was circulated and received by the Parties and there were no objections from the Parties to this status request. The Tribunal found that this request demonstrated an interest in this matter and with no opposition from the Parties granted Participant status to Wai Che Regina Chan.

MARKHAM OFFICIAL PLAN APPEAL OLT-22-002785 (PL140743)

10Ms. McDermid advised that her client, Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc. ("Dorsay") is an Appellant in a related outstanding matter before the OLT regarding the Markham Official Plan ("Markham OP appeal") Legacy Case No. PL140743, now OLT-22-002785. Ms. McDermid submitted that her client seeks that a portion of the OLT-22-002785 appeal be heard together with the current OPA and ZBA matters.

[11] Ms. McDermid clarified that portions of the Dorsay Markham OP appeal which are proposed to be heard together with the OPA and ZBA appeals are with respect to:

The designation of the Dorsay Lands on the Maps within the Markham Official Plan 2014 (Issues 271, 273 and 278), and
The policies within section 8.3.4 pertaining to the Mixed Use High Rise designation which are proposed to be modified or amended on a site-specific basis as they pertain to the Dorsay Lands (Issues 138, 139).

12Ms. McDermid submitted that the separation of portions of the Dorsay Markham OP appeal to be heard together with the site specific OPA and ZBA appeals will provide for a fair and efficient determination of the matters, given that the issues to be dealt with and evidence to be provided will be the same or similar in both proceedings. She stated that the matters are strictly of a site-specific nature and are focused on the land use designation and development permissions for the Dorsay lands, and further that there is no prejudice to the other Markham OP appeal Parties caused by the request. Ms. McDermid indicated that the remaining policies and issues outstanding in the Dorsay appeal are intended to remain with the broader Markham Official Plan 2014 proceedings.

13In accordance with the Tribunal direction provided at the first CMC, Ms. McDermid provided notice to the Parties of the Markham OP appeal, and she confirmed to the Tribunal that no objections to the request had been received. In addition, no one appeared at the CMC to object to this request.

14Ms. Cheung-Madar advised that her instructions from Council are to support the request to hear the Dorsay Markham OP appeal together with the OPA and ZBA.

15The Tribunal has considered the request to hear the Dorsay Markham OP appeal matters as outlined in paragraph 11 together with the site specific OPA and ZBA appeals. In accordance with Rule 16 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal finds that there will be similar evidence provided for these matters and approves this request.

SITE PLAN APPEAL OLT-23-000889

16Ms. McDermid stated that her client has also appealed the Site Plan ("SP") application for the Subject Property to the Tribunal and requested that this appeal be administratively consolidated and heard together with the OPA and ZBA appeals under the Lead Case No. OLT-22-004824.

17The Tribunal granted this administrative request.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

18The Procedural Order filed by the Parties and appended as Schedule 2 has been reviewed by the Tribunal and is approved.

MERIT HEARING

19The Tribunal canvassed the Parties with respect the number of days required for the Merit Hearing and the availability of the Parties. The Tribunal then scheduled a ten-day Merit Hearing to commence at 10 a.m. by video on Monday, July 15, 2024, to July 26, 2024.

[20] Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections: GoTo Meeting: https://meet.goto.com/943363669 Access code: 943-363-669

21Parties 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

22Persons 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 943-363-669.

23Individuals 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.

24The Tribunal requested that the Parties advise the Case Coordinator as soon as it is known if issues have been scoped or a settlement has been reached to allow any adjustments to be made to the Tribunal calendar. Hearing dates are a scarce resource that must be used effectively by the Tribunal.

25The Parties were reminded that Tribunal-led mediation is available at their convenience by contacting the Case Coordinator.

ORDER

[26] The Tribunal orders that: a. Participant status is granted to Wai Che Regina Chan. b. The appeals shall be consolidated and heard together as directed within this decision in accordance with Rule 16.1 of the Ontario Land Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure. c. The Procedural Order appended as Schedule 2 is approved. d. A ten-day Merit Hearing is scheduled for Monday July 15, 2024, at 10 a.m. by Video Hearing.

27The Member is not seized.

28No further notice will be provided.

"Astrid J. Clos"

ASTRID J. CLOS 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.

Schedule 1

List of Appellants

North Markham Landowners Group, Angus Glen Northwest Inc., and Angus Glen Holdings Berczy Glen Landowners Group Inc. First Elgin Mills Developments Ltd. Romandale Farms Ltd. Minotar Holdings Inc., Cor-lots Developments, Cherokee Holdings, Halvan 5.5 Investments Ltd., and Beechgrove Estates Inc. Colebay Investments Inc., Highcove Investments Inc., Firwood Holdings Inc., Major McCowan Developments Limited , Summerlane Realty Corp., and Brentwood Estates Inc. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. Honda Canada Inc. Markham Woodmills Development Inc. Cathedral Town Ltd. Times Group Corporation Box Grove Hill Developments Inc. Neamsby Investments Inc., Rosina Mauro and Fulton Homes Ltd. Lindvest Properties (Cornell) Ltd. CF/OT Buttonville Properties LP and Armadale Co. Ltd. IBM Canada Ltd. Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc. Pacific Mall Development Ltd. and York Region Condominium Corporation No. 890 King David Inc. Atlas Shouldice Healthcare Ltd. Maylar Construction Ltd. E. Manson Investments Ltd. Arbor Memorial Inc.

Schedule 2

LEAD CASE NO.: OLT-22-004824

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

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Procedural Order

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

Organization of the Hearing

The [video] hearing will begin on Monday July 15, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at the following video link: https://meet.goto.com/943363669
The length of the hearing will be ten (10) days. The Parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.
The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. With the exception of the resolution of issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a Party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence is set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on consent, subject to the Tribunal's approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative's name, address, email address and the phone number.
If the hearing is to proceed electronically, any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including Parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal's Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal's website (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

A Party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Friday March 15, 2024. A Party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness' curriculum vitae and identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.
Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting on or before Tuesday April 16, 2024 to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing and the Parties shall file this with the Tribunal on or before Wednesday May 1, 2024.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 14. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert's testimony. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Participants must provide a copy of their written Participant statement to the Parties and the Tribunal on or before Thursday May 16, 2024. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the Party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert's evidence, as in Section 14.
The Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements to the other Parties and the Tribunal on or before Thursday May 16, 2024.
On or before Wednesday June 5, 2024, the Parties shall advise the Tribunal of whether any hearings dates scheduled for this matter may be released from the Tribunal's calendar. This request may only be made on consent of all of the Parties. If no hearing dates are intended to be released from the Tribunal's calendar, no Party is required to advise the Tribunal anything further in that regard.
On or before Monday June 17, 2024, the Parties may provide a written response to any written evidence to the Parties and the Tribunal.
On or before Thursday June 27, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties and the Tribunal. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal's Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A Party who provides a witness' written evidence to the other Parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The Parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be filed with the Tribunal on or before Friday July 5, 2024.
On or before Monday July 8, 2024, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the "Hearing Plan"). The Hearing Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Hearing Plan throughout the Hearing Event. In the event of a disagreement between the Parties about the Hearing Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal and the Parties. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents email shall be governed by the Rule 7. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal's Video Hearing Guide, dated June 29, 2021, or as may be amended.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal's Rule 17 applies to such requests.
The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
Friday March 15, 2024	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Tuesday April 16, 2024	Experts meeting prior to this date
Wednesday May 1, 2024	Agreed Statement of Facts filed with Tribunal
Thursday May 16, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, and Participant Statements
Monday June 17, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
Thursday June 27, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence
Friday July 5, 2024	File Joint Document Book
Monday July 8, 2024	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
Monday July 15, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Parties

Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc. (Dorsay Development Corporation) Susan Rosenthal and Meaghan McDermid Davies Howe LLP 425 Adelaide Street West, 10th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 susanr@davieshowe.com meaghanm@davieshowe.com Tel: (416) 977-7088
City of Markham Maggie Cheung-Madar Assistant City Solicitor City of Markham 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham, ON L3R 9W3 mcheung-madar@markham.ca Tel: (905) 447-7000 ext.3583

Participants

Patricia Lee patlee77@rogers.com
Kelvin Shao kelvinshao@gmail.com
Connie Chan conniechan27@yahoo.com
Aamir Jeewa axjeewa@gmail.com
Wai Che Regina Chan reginachn@hotmail.com

ATTACHMENT 3

ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

City of Markham Issues

Planning

Does the Proposed Development have regard for matters of Provincial Interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to: (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; (k) the adequate provision of employment opportunities; (p) the appropriate location of growth and development; (q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; (r) the promotion of built form that: (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.
Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, as required by Section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, including the following Sections:

1.1.1 and 1.1.3 (Managing and Directing Land Use);
1.4.1 and 1.4.3 (Housing);
1.6.1, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.2 and 1.6.6.7 (Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities);
1.6.7 (Transportation System).

Does the Proposed Development conform with and not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as required by Section 3(5)(b) of the Planning Act, including the following Sections:

2.2.1 (Managing Growth);
2.2.4 (Transit Corridor and Station Areas);
2.2.5.15 (Complete Communities);
2.2.6 (Housing);
3.2.1 to 3.2.23 (Integrated Planning);
3.2.6 to 3.2.8 (Infrastructures and Public Service Facilities);
4.2.5 (Public Open Space).

Does the Proposed Development conform to the Regional Municipality of York Official Plan, 2010, in particular policies:

5.6.4, 5.6.5, 5.6.6 and 5.6.7 (Complete Communities);
3.5.4, 3.5.6, 3.5.8, 3.5.9, 3.5.10 (Affordable Housing);
7.3.2, 7.3.3, 7.3.4 (Water and Wastewater Servicing).

Does the Proposed Development conform to the 2014 Markham Official Plan policies which are not under appeal or proposed to be amended, including but not limited to Sections:

2.0 Sustainable Growth, and more specifically 2.2.2 Building Complete Communities;
4.0 Healthy Neighbourhoods and Communities, and more specifically 4.1, 4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 4.1.2 Housing;
6.1.6 Parks, and more specifically 6.1.6.1, 6.1.6.2, 6.1.6.4.

Does the Proposed Development generally conform to the 1987 Markham Official Plan, in particular, Official Plan Amendment 21 (Markham Centre Secondary Plan) and Official Plan Amendment 96, except as proposed to be amended?
Are the heights of the proposed buildings, including heights of the podiums, and the density of the Proposed Development appropriate and compatible, given the established residential communities surrounding the subject lands?
Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately address issues of use, massing, density, location, size, setbacks, character, commercial and office floor areas and other matters pertaining to site configuration, functionality, and operation, including compatibility with adjacent uses?
Does the Proposed Development have appropriate regard for the "Markham Built Form, Height and Massing Study Built Form Principles" with respect to Tall Buildings?
Does the Proposed Development address issues of an appropriate built form for this section of the Markham Centre Secondary Plan area, and has sufficient information been provided to address compatibility with adjacent established residential communities as it relates, but not limited to, the following: a. Heights and density of the proposed buildings; b. Appropriate transitions; c. Scale and Massing; d. Shadow impacts and sun access; e. Impacts on the public ream; f. Setbacks (both above and below grade); g. Confirmation of building separation distances and impacts to adjacent properties; h. Unencumbered landscape buffers; i. Community amenities to support the proposed density including, but not limited to, accessible communal open spaces, outdoor amenity areas, parks, soft green space and landscape buffers to create and mitigate views; j. Creation of a strong and active street frontage?
Is the Proposed Development required to include affordable housing? If so, does the Proposed Development include an appropriate amount of affordable housing?
Does the Proposed Development include an appropriate amount of and mix of residential and non-residential uses?
Does the Proposed Development provide sufficient parkland dedication?
Does the Proposed Development represent good planning in the public interest?

Parkland

Does the Proposed Development on the park block create any adverse impacts, including grading and accessibility issues with the established grades of the existing townhouses located immediately to the north of the subject lands?
Does the proposed park block meet the generally acceptable technical requirements and the City's standards with respect to grading in order to construct a park for public use?
Does the Proposed Development identify connections to the broader parks network, to ensure residents are served efficiently?

Engineering

Are the proposed municipal services, including but not limited to water supply, sanitary, storm, and stormwater management etc., of an appropriately size to support the Proposed Development, and do not have supply or capacity constraints, and do not have adverse impacts?
Are there any additional servicing infrastructure upgrades that are necessary to provide the municipal services to support the Proposed Development?

Transportation

Is the proposed parking supply and arrangement adequate and appropriate to service the Proposed Development?
Does the Transportation Impact Study for the Proposed Development adequately address the traffic impacts and all related transportation matters including but not limited to the following:

Review of driveway location from the operational and safety perspective;
Trip generation assumption;
Signal warrant analysis for the Highway 7 and Circa Drive intersection?

Other Technical Issues

Is it appropriate to apply a Holding Provision to the Zoning By-law Amendment to address matters including but not limited to the following:

Servicing capacity and allocation;
Execution of an agreement with the City to submit and implement a Transportation Demand Management Plan;
Height restrictions imposed by Toronto/Buttonville Airport Zoning Regulations (SOR /88-148) on the subject lands or portions thereof, if applicable?

If the proposed site plan is approved, are the proposed conditions appropriate?
In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, should the Final Order be withheld pending the City Solicitor advising the Tribunal that: a. the final forms of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are received to the satisfaction of the City; and b. the Appellant has entered into any agreements required to secure any required upgrades or improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure should they be required, all to the satisfaction of the City; and c. if required, the City is satisfied with the form and tenure of proposed affordable housing and has entered into any agreements required to secure affordable housing with the appellant.

Dorsay Markham OP 2014 Issues List

Are the policies in Section 8.3.4 and all subsections of the Mixed Use High Rise designation policies, including without limitation, those relating to location, massing, height, built form and site design, reasonable and appropriate and do they represent good planning?
Are the policies in Section 8.3.4, and all subsections, including those relating to location, massing, height, built form and site design, appropriate and suitable, and do they represent good planning for the Dorsay lands? Do these policies provide an appropriate policy framework to guide the development of the Dorsay Lands?
Is the proposed designation of Dorsay's lands for Mixed Use Office Priority on Map 3 appropriate, and does it represent good planning?
What is the appropriate designation to be identified on Map 3 for the Dorsay lands? Is it appropriate and good planning to designate the Dorsay lands for Mixed Use High Rise? Is it appropriate and good planning to designate the Dorsay lands for Mixed Use Mid Rise?
What changes are required to the Maps and Appendices, including Maps 1, 2, 3, and 15 to the Official Plan to reflect changes resulting from the above issues?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc.
City of Markham
Reply by Dorsay (Residential) Developments Inc., if any

ATTACHMENT 5

Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other Parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a Party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a Party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the Party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a Party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the Case Management Conference, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A Participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a Party may do so). Subsection 33.2 of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a Party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a Participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A Participant may also be asked questions by the Parties should the Tribunal direct a Participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A Participant must be identified and be accorded Participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A Participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A Participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a Participant does not have the rights of a Party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a Party intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person's background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the witness will discuss and the witness' opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert's (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness' opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A Participant statement is a short written outline of the person's or group's background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the Participant wishes to address and the submission of the Participant on those issues; and a list of reports, if any, which the Participant wishes to refer to in their statement

Additional Information:

Summons: A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the Parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness' evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

The order of examination of witnesses: is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

direct examination by the Party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any Party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by Parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the Party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.

Dorsay Development Corporation v. Markham (City), 2023 CanLII 123759

Case Summary