Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 21, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001221

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

Applicant and Appellant: 919819 Ontario Ltd. and 1891445 Ontario Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: “Low-Rise Residential”

Proposed Designation: “Mid-Rise Residential” on the north portion of the subject lands north of the new property line

Purpose: To permit the development of a 12-storey residential building consisting of 166 units, 13,352 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA) and a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 4.1

Property Address/Description: 5217 & 5225 Highway 7 and 26 & 32 Hawman Avenue

Municipality: City of Vaughan

City of Vaughan File No.: OP.18.008

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001221

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001221

OLT Case Name: 919819 Ontario Ltd. v. Vaughan (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 919819 Ontario Ltd. and 1891445 Ontario Inc

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88, as amended – Neglect of application by the City of Vaughan

Existing Zoning: “R2 Residential Zone”

Proposed Zoning: “RA3(H) Apartment Residential Zone” with the Holding Symbol “(H)” on the north portion of the subject lands north of the new property line

Purpose: To permit the development of a 12-storey residential building consisting of 166 units, 13,352 square metres of Gross Floor Area (GFA) and a Floor Space Index (FSI) of 4.1

Property Address/Description: 5217 & 5225 Highway 7 and 26 & 32 Hawman Avenue

Municipality: City of Vaughan

City of Vaughan File No.: Z.18.013

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001221

OLT File No.: OLT-21-001222

Heard: January 19, 2023, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
919819 Ontario Ltd. and 1891445 Ontario Inc.	Samantha Lampert
City of Vaughan	Marc Kemerer, Candace Tashos

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN ON JANUARY 19, 2023, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This matter involves two appeals filed by 919819 Ontario Ltd. and 1891445 Ontario Inc. (the “Appellant”) against the City of Vaughan (the “City”) for its failure to make a decision in respect of an application to Amend the Official Plan (the “OPA”) and an application to amend the Zoning By-law (the “ZBA”) within the timeframes prescribed by the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 (the “Act”). The applications affect the lands known municipally as 5217 and 5335 Highway 7, and 26 and 32 Hawman Avenue (the “Application Lands”).

2The OPA and ZBA were submitted to facilitate the redevelopment of the Application Lands with a 12-storey residential building proposing a gross floor area of 13,352 square metres (m²) containing 166 residential units and proposing a total of 186 parking spaces with access to the Application Lands provided from Highway 7.

3The OPA and ZBA were filed with the City on April 6, 2018, and the applications were deemed complete by the City on April 26, 2018. The City held a statutory public meeting on June 4, 2019, and on May 12, 2021, the OPA and ZBA were considered at a meeting of City Council accompanied by a City Staff Report recommending approval of the applications. City Council deferred the applications at the May 12, 2021, meeting and the Appellant appealed the OPA and ZBA to the Tribunal on June 21, 2021.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

4Prior to this hearing event, the Tribunal was advised by the Parties, namely the City and the Appellant, that a Settlement has been reached between the Parties and they requested that the hearing be converted to a Settlement hearing to consider the Settlement.

5The Tribunal convened these proceedings as a Settlement hearing pursuant to Rule 12.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Policy and Procedure (the “Rules”).

6At the Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on February 22, 2022, the Tribunal granted Party Status to Salvatore and Rosina Petrolo (the “Pertolos”). The Tribunal received correspondence dated August 31, 2022, from Counsel for the Pertolos withdrawing as a Party from the proceedings and requesting that their status be converted to Participant.

7The Tribunal granted Participant Status to the Pertolos as requested and without objection from the Parties.

8The Tribunal received a request for Party Status from Rosina D’Alimonte and Teresa Paglioroli on behalf of a residents group referred to as the South Kipling Residents Association (the “SKRA”) prior to the commencement of the proceedings. It was confirmed to the Tribunal that the SKRA is not incorporated and as such the Tribunal advised that it does not recognize the group as a legal entity to which status may be granted in a proceeding before the Tribunal.

9The Tribunal confirmed that Ms. D’Alimonte wished to continue to pursue Party Status in her personal capacity as it is the contention of her and her neighbours that the concerns raised by the neighbours have not been properly considered by the City and the Appellant. She explained that the neighbours were only informed of the Settlement Agreement between the City and the Appellant late in December of 2022. She advised that as a result of the Christmas holiday break, the neighbours have not been able to respond to the Settlement Agreement and the neighbours feel that the City has left them out of the process. Ms. D’Alimonte acknowledged that many of the neighbours were granted Participant Status by the Tribunal and have filed Participant Statements. Ms. D’Alimonte requested status as a Party so that she might address the Tribunal with the concerns and objections of her and her neighbours. Ms. D’Alimonte further requested that the Tribunal attend at the property to view the Subject Lands and the neighbouring community prior to rendering its decision.

10Ms. D’Alimonte was advised of the expectations of a Party as detailed in the Rules and Ms. D’Alimonte reiterated that she and her neighbours feel that they have been left out of this process by the City and want to ensure that their concerns are considered by the Tribunal.

11The Appellant’s Counsel, Ms. Lampert, responded to Ms. D’Alimonte’s request for Party Status stating that the request was filed with the Tribunal on January 15, 2023, and referenced the Tribunal’s guidelines noting that requests for Party Status are to be filed with the Tribunal a minimum of ten (10) days prior to a CMC. Ms. Lampert advised that the CMC for this matter was held on February 22, 2022.

12Ms. Lampert advised that the Participants were notified of the Settlement Agreement reached with the City on December 20, 2022, and that the development proposal has not substantially changed from the latest revision filed with the City. Ms. Lampert continued that Ms. D’Alimonte has not included sufficient grounds to meet the threshold for consideration for Party Status and is not proposing to present any new evidence to the Tribunal. Ms. Lampert referenced Rule 1.6 of the Rules and asked the Tribunal to refuse the request at this late stage as it will not provide for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the matter. Ms. Lampert advised that her client is opposed to the request for status filed by Ms. D’Alimonte.

13Mr. Kemerer, Counsel to the City, advised that the City is not opposed to the request and acknowledged that the timing of the Settlement Agreement and the notification of same were very close to the Christmas holiday break and that this impacted the ability of the neighbours to organize and respond to the Settlement Agreement between the Appellant and the City.

14Ms. D’Alimonte, in response, reiterated that she and her neighbours feel that they have been mislead by the City through this process and she would like to draw this to the Tribunal’s attention.

15In consideration of the request from Ms. D’Alimonte, the Tribunal referenced the Rules and in particular Rule 1.6 which states:

The Tribunal may grant all necessary exceptions from these Rules or from any procedural order, or grant other relief as it considers necessary and appropriate, to ensure that the real questions in issue are determined in a fair, just, expeditious and cost-effective manner.

16And Rule 8.2 which states:

The Tribunal may add or substitute a party to a proceeding when that person satisfies any applicable legislative tests necessary to be a party and their interest may be transferred or transmitted to another party to be added or substituted provided their presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding.

17The Tribunal acknowledges that the neighbours may not possess the familiarity or experience with the development approval process that would permit them to participate in the manner that they desire. Notwithstanding, the Tribunal notes that considerable time has lapsed since the initial CMC was convened in respect of this matter and the residents have had ample time to organize and provide input into the process through City Council and City staff. The Tribunal further notes that seven Participant Statements have been filed with the Tribunal for consideration in respect of the appeals.

18The Tribunal, having reviewed the request and considered the submissions from Ms. D’Alimonte, finds that the request for Party Status will not result in any new evidence being presented to the Tribunal that will assist the Tribunal in adjudicating effectively and completely the issues in this proceeding.

19The Tribunal concludes that granting the request for Party Status at this late stage of the proceedings adversely impacts a fair, just, and expeditious determination of the issues in this proceeding noting that this consideration must balance the interests of the residents, the City and the Appellant.

20Accordingly, the Tribunal denied the request from Ms. D’Alimonte for Party Status in this matter.

21The Tribunal acknowledges that the concerns raised in respect to fairness by the neighbours may stem from the neighbours understanding and participation in the planning approval process. The Tribunal confirmed that it has received and reviewed the Participant Statements and these Statements clearly and passionately articulate the neighbours concerns with the proposed development.

22The request from Ms. D’Alimonte to make oral submissions before the Tribunal is denied. The Tribunal reviewed the role of a Participant in a proceeding and the Tribunal stressed the importance of a Participant Statement to outline the issues and concerns of a Participant fully and clearly. The request for the Tribunal to attend at the Subject Lands is denied and the Tribunal advised that attendance at the Subject Lands after the conclusion of the hearing is not appropriate.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

23The Settlement Proposal expands the Application Lands to include the property at 20 Hawman Avenue, a parcel of land owned by the Appellant and abutting the Application Lands to the west side of 26 Hawman Avenue. The resultant parcel will be referred to as the Subject Lands. It is proposed to redevelop the Subject Lands with a 12-storey residential building having a gross floor area of 13,352 m² and a height of 38.0 metres (“m”). The Settlement Proposal will include 166 residential units comprising of a mix of one, two, and three-bedroom units, 178 parking spaces located within an underground parking structure and 8 surface parking spaces for a total of 186 parking spaces, 121 bicycle parking spaces, and 2,722.7 m² of amenity area. Access to the Subject Lands will be provided by way of a right-in/right-out from Highway 7 and a second access provided to Hawman Avenue. The Settlement Proposal includes the dedication of a road widening across the Highway 7 frontage and provides for the creation of a Privately Owned Public Space (“POPS”) with an area of 1,523.8 m² located on the Hawman Avenue frontage.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

24The Appellant filed an Affidavit sworn by Rosemarie Humphries, dated January 17, 2023, in support of the Settlement Proposal. Ms. Humphries is a Land Use Planner and the Tribunal qualified Ms. Humphries to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. The Tribunal marked the Affidavit as Exhibit 1.

25The Appellant further filed a Document Book that was marked as Exhibit 2.

26Ms. Humphries testified that the surrounding land uses include, to the immediate north, lands designated and approved for mixed use residential uses on the north side of Highway 7. Single detached homes front on McKenzie Street and Hawman Avenue to the east of the Subject Lands. Hawman Avenue is directly south of the Subject Lands extending east from Kipling Avenue and terminating east of the Subject Lands. Hawman Avenue is characterized with single detached homes on the north and south sides of the street. A service station is directly west of the Subject Lands at the south-east corner of Highway 7 and Kipling Avenue. South of the service station are existing single detached homes fronting Kipling Avenue and abutting the Subject Lands along their rear boundaries. On the west side of Kipling Avenue, a mid-rise mixed use building having 12 storeys in height is situated at the southwest corner of Kipling Avenue and Highway 7 with single detached homes directly to the south with frontage on Coles Avenue which extends west from Kipling Avenue.

27Ms. Humphries advised that Highway 7 is a Major (Regional) Arterial Road and a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor with existing bus/transit service under the jurisdiction of the Region of York (the “Region”). Kipling Avenue is a Major Collector Road with a planned right-of-way width of 26 m and Hawman Avenue is classified as a Local Road. Kipling Avenue and Hawman Avenue are under the jurisdiction of the City.

28Ms. Humphries reviewed s. 2 of the Act and proffered that the Settlement Proposal does not impact natural or cultural features, does not impact agricultural resources, efficiently uses infrastructure, incorporates green technology into the design, will improve the range of housing for the area, responds to Highway 7 as an intensification corridor in the City, and will result in a built form that contributes to a sense of place and provides open space for community benefit.

29In response to the issues raised by the City in the Issues List, Ms. Humphries outlined in her Affidavit that the proposed development addresses transportation, sewage and water services, and waste management systems. The Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prepared in support of the OPA and ZBA confirms that adequate sewage and water services are available to support the proposed development. Ms. Humphries noted that waste management will be addressed as part of the Site Plan Approval process. She identified the location of Public Transit stops located at the intersection of Kipling and Highway 7 providing convenient access and efficient use of the transportation system. The City Official Plan (“VOP”) identifies the Subject Lands as a location where additional height and density is anticipated given its location within and adjacent to a Regional Intensification Corridor. The proposal has been reviewed by the City’s Urban Design Review Panel and it was determined that the proposed built form is in keeping with other developments approved in the area to the north and west of the Subject Lands in terms of height and density and that the proposed site layout creates a sense of place.

30In consideration of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”), Ms. Humphries opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS as it proposes a development that is compact, makes efficient use of land and infrastructure including transit, and adds to the range of housing types and building forms available. Ms. Humphries stated that Highway 7 is a Regional Intensification Corridor and has been identified for major high-order transit investment and the Settlement Proposal will support this planned investment.

31Ms. Humphries reviewed A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, (the “Growth Plan”) proffering that the Growth Plan provides direction respecting development and growth and directs intensification to areas served by infrastructure and transit. The Growth Plan provides a framework for prioritizing, guiding, and directing population and employment growth.

32The Growth Plan creates a strategy for the allocation of growth to meet Provincial forecasts through to the year 2051. Ms. Humphries reviewed the City’s Growth Targets and opined that the Settlement Proposal will support the achievement of the City’s Targets.

33Ms. Humphries proffered that this portion of the City is identified as ‘Settlement Area’ within the Growth Plan and the Subject Lands are located within the delineated built boundary. The Subject Lands have direct access to municipal water and wastewater infrastructure and will optimize existing assets including transit. Ms. Humphries opined that the Settlement Proposal contributes to a more complete community with the introduction of a broader range of residential unit types in the community.

34Ms. Humphries addressed the specific sections of the Growth Plan identified in the Issues List within her Witness Statement attached to her Affidavit in detail. She concluded that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the Growth Plan.

35Ms. Humphries addressed the Region of York Official Plan (“ROP”) stating that the Subject Lands are designated Urban Area with frontage on a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor (Highway 7).

36Chapter 3.5 of the ROP promotes meeting the needs of existing and future residents by providing an appropriate range and mix of suitable housing options in optimal locations. Ms. Humphries opined that the Settlement Proposal will provide greater diversity in terms of unit types and dwelling size and will also address affordability, given that apartment units are generally more affordable than grade related housing and, in particular, detached dwelling units.

37Ms. Humphries proffered that the Settlement Proposal addresses the policies within Chapter 5 of the ROP by proposing a redevelopment that makes efficient use of land. The Settlement Proposal has been designed with a density that is transit supportive, while maintaining compatibility with surrounding land uses. Compatibility is achieved through design measures and the implementation of appropriate setbacks along the easterly property line. Further, grade related units oriented towards the east property line address the easterly land uses. The stepping down/terracing of the building at the south elevation respecting a 45-degree angular plane properly addresses the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the south. Further, the building is oriented towards the northerly part of the Subject Property with the greatest height and massing closest to Highway 7 thereby addressing the function of Highway 7 as a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor and intensification corridor. The westerly side of the Subject Lands is adjacent to a gasoline service station use on lands with a mid-rise land use designation and Ms. Humphries opined that compatibility is achieved now and in the future.

38In consideration of chapter 5.4.28 of the ROP, Ms. Humphries proffered that the Settlement Proposal will support the Regional Corridor and planned function of Highway 7 as an urban mainstreet with a development that is animated at grade and located close to Highway 7 including short-term bicycle racks, the main entrance, and indoor amenity space areas. The project is transit oriented by its nature of typology and adjacency to existing transit stops on Highway 7.

39Ms. Humphries opined that the OPA and ZBA conform to the ROP.

40The VOP Urban Structure described on Schedule 1 of the VOP indicates that the Subject Lands are located within the ‘Community Areas’ designation and are located on a ‘Regional Intensification Corridor’ along Highway 7. Schedule 9 classifies Highway 7 as a Regional Major Arterial Road and Schedule 10 further designates Highway 7 as a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor. Schedule 13 designates the Subject Lands as a Low-Rise Residential Land Use.

41Ms. Humphries explained that the VOP policies are summarized through eight key themes referred to as goals. She explained that 5 of these goals, Goal 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8, are applicable to the Settlement Proposal.

42Goal 1 addresses strong and diverse communities through the provision of a wide range of housing and well designed development that is context sensitive. The Settlement Proposal will address Highway 7 with an appropriate density and at the same time create a POPS along Hawman Avenue with appropriate transition thereby meeting Goal 1. Goal 5 addresses supporting transit and promoting active transportation. The close proximity of the Subject Lands to the transit stops at Highway 7 and Kipling Avenue provide residents with access to intra-regional transit and the provisions of bicycle parking and pedestrian focus of the development will support active transportation goals. Goal 6 deals with urban design matters. The Settlement Proposal is subject to the City-Wide Urban Design Guidelines and has been reviewed by the City’s Design Review Panel and found to be appropriate. Ms. Humphries opined that the Settlement Proposal will contribute in a positive manner to the existing and evolving streetscape contemplated for Highway 7 given its intensification corridor location and designation. Goal 7 addresses green and sustainability policies. Ms. Humphries proffered that the proposed building has achieved a bronze threshold on the Sustainability Matrix and this may improve through the refinement of the Site Plan Application. Finally, Goal 8 addresses directing growth to appropriate locations. Ms. Humphries directed the Tribunal to the policies preamble which specifically states that a shift in emphasis to the promotion of intensification in areas of the City with the infrastructure capacity and existing or planned transit service to accommodate growth. Ms. Humphries opined that the Settlement Proposal fulfils this direction.

43Ms. Humphries reviewed Section 2.1 of the VOP which outlines policies responding to the challenges of growth. She proffered that the Subject Lands are identified for intensification. The Settlement Proposal respects the existing area character by appropriately transitioning through building design setbacks, step-backs, materials, site organization, and landscaping. The Settlement Proposal is a compact built form that supports the use of transit and active transportation such as walking and cycling with its high-quality public realm and access to Highway 7.

44Section 2.2 of the VOP includes policies addressing and maintaining the stability of low-rise areas and also directs that intensification areas will be the primary focus of growth. Ms. Humphries advised that the VOP contemplates change over time and includes policies to ensure compatibility. Ms. Humphries proffered that intensification is permitted in Community Areas, as are mid-rise buildings. She opined that the Settlement Proposal has considered the surrounding land uses and has been designed in a manner to maintain compatibility. The building height and massing has been directed to the west property line and Highway 7 frontage, which addressed matters of transition in scale, intensity and use as well as noise and traffic through its design.

45Ms. Humphries reviewed the site plan and architectural elevation plans in the context of the Urban Design and Built Form policies contained in Section 9.1.2 of the VOP. She reviewed the site organization, the building heights, step-backs, setbacks, driveway locations, parking areas, and building access points. The location of resident amenity areas proposed, the green roof, and the proposed POPS along Hawman Avenue.

46Section 9.1.2.7 sets out policies for Intensification Areas and, having reviewed the policies in detail, Ms. Humphries opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the policies as the building fronts onto and frames Highway 7 with an appropriate pedestrian scale, transitions to the adjacent lower scale development while fulfilling the intensification objectives, conforms to the angular plane requirements, provides appropriate parkland, does not create an adverse shadow or wind impact, provides adequate amenity space, and provides an interesting and attractive built form.

47Ms. Humphries reviewed the Mid-Rise Residential Policies contained in section 9.2.2.3 of the VOP which are proposed for the Subject Lands as a result of the OPA. She advised that the policies are appropriate for an intensification area and the OPA proposes a height limit of 12 storeys and a density through a Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 3.8 times the lot area. Ms. Humphries proffered that the Settlement Proposal will introduce a Mid-Rise building that conforms to the policies contained with section 9.2.3.5.

48Ms. Humphries concluded that it is her opinion, for the reasons set out in her testimony and her Affidavit, that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the VOP. The OPA is consistent with the goals and objectives of the VOP and the ZBA will implement the VOP and will conform to the OPA.

49Ms. Humphries advised that the ZBA proposes a zoning designation of RA3 for the Subject Lands with a site specific section to detail setbacks, step-backs and the location of the POPS. She further recommended that the ZBA be subject to a Holding provision to address: the site servicing and a Servicing Agreement including the payment of the required Servicing Contribution, the approval of the Site Plan application and a Site Plan Agreement, and the modifications required by the Region of York to Highway 7.

50Ms. Humphries concluded that it is her professional planning opinion that the proposed OPA and ZBA represent good planning and are in the public interest.

PARTICIPANT STATEMENTS

51The Tribunal received seven Participant Statements and filed them as Exhibits. Ms. Humphries summarized the issues raised within the Participant Statements and responded as follows.

52Ms. Humphries addressed the issue of the area being unique as described in OPA 661 which included the Subject Lands and the residential area surrounding the Subject Lands to the east and the south. Ms. Humphries proffered that OPA 661 was repealed when the current VOP was approved and incorporated the relevant policies of OPA 661 and at the same time the VOP addressed intensification and transit focussed policies. The Proposed Development is to be considered in the context of the current VOP and as set out in her evidence she has concluded that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the VOP.

53Many of the issues raised in the Participant Statements can be summarized as compatibility related. Ms. Humphries opined that the design of the building and the site organization address the relationship to the adjacent lower scale residential uses through the use of the angular plane and setbacks. The building is located towards Highway 7 and the POPS provides a complementary open space along Hawman Avenue. Shadow impact has been reviewed through a Shadow Study and privacy is mitigated through step-backs on the upper floors and recessed balconies. The approval of a landscaping plan and a construction management plan will form part of the Site Plan Approval process. The Settlement Proposal will result in a mid-rise building that is compatible with and respects the surrounding land uses and is appropriately located along an important Regional road.

54Traffic and parking issues have been reviewed by the City and the Region through a Traffic Impact Study. Ms. Humphries stated that the primary access to the Subject Lands is provided from Highway 7 and a second access is provided on Hawman Avenue. Hawman Avenue is a dead-end road and there will be no significant impact generated by the Settlement Proposal. Ms. Humphries confirmed that the Settlement Proposal meets the minimum parking standards of the City.

55The Tribunal considered the Participant Statements and the issues raised therein. The Tribunal accepts the characterization and summarization of the issues by Ms. Humphries and concurs with the responses proffered.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

56The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning opinion evidence of Ms. Humphries in support of the Settlement Proposal.

57The Tribunal considered the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and finds that the Settlement Proposal is in an appropriate location for growth and represents a well-designed built form that creates a sense of place including a high quality public space. The Settlement Proposal makes efficient use of infrastructure and will support public transit and contribute to the orderly development of a safe and healthy community.

58The Settlement Proposal will redevelop and revitalize an underutilized assembly of properties with a compact residential building including below grade parking that supports existing public transit and makes efficient use of the servicing infrastructure. The Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate level of intensification and growth.

59The Tribunal notes that Highway 7 is identified as a Regional Intensification Corridor and has been identified for major high-order transit investment. The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal supports current and future investments in the transit infrastructure.

60The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS as it proposes a development that is compact, makes efficient use of land and infrastructure including transit, and adds to the range of housing types and building forms available in the community.

61The Tribunal concurs with the opinion proffered by Ms. Humphries and finds that the Growth Plan addresses potential barriers to increasing the supply of housing, creating jobs and attracting investment. The Growth Plan prioritizes the better use of land and infrastructure by directing growth through a hierarchy of settlement areas and prioritizing infill opportunities and development to areas based on an evaluation of the appropriateness of their location. The Settlement Proposal recognizes the significant opportunity to optimize existing and planned investment in infrastructure by addressing policies that encourage intensification in underutilized areas, and particularly in areas well served by public transit such as the Subject Lands. The Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA conform with the Growth Plan.

62Having reviewed the ROP and considered the submission of Ms. Humphries, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the ROP. The ROP provides a broad policy framework addressing, amongst other matters, the accommodation of population and economic growth through intensification, mixing of uses, providing opportunities for choice amongst modes of transportation, and promoting an active public realm. The Tribunal finds that the ROP directs that growth is generally to be accommodated through redevelopment and intensification and is to be compatible with existing land uses. Further, the ROP sets out that when proposing intensification, development is required to be designed to ensure walkability, give priority to pedestrian movement and transit use, and should complement the character of existing areas. The Tribunal concludes that the Settlement Proposal conforms with these policies and implements the ROP.

63The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the VOP as it proposes a design that is compatible with the surrounding land uses while proposing intensification along a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor and Regional Intensification Corridor as envisioned by the VOP.

64The Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the direction provided in the VOP where it contemplates development on lands fronting on to Regional Intensification Corridors that serve to support the transit investments by the City and Region. The Settlement Proposal will support the creation of an urban main street that connects Regional Centres and other Intensification Areas in Vaughan and across York Region.

65The Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the VOP as it represents an appropriate level of intensification while maintaining the stability of the low rise community to the east and south of the Subject Lands by providing an appropriate transition towards the intersection of Kipling Avenue and Highway 7. The Hawman Avenue frontage of the Subject Lands will complement the character of the street with the proposed POPS.

66The proposed built form appropriately addresses transition in scale, intensity, use, and mitigates adverse noise and traffic impacts while fulfilling the intensification objectives of the VOP. The Settlement Proposal proposes a mid-rise building that addresses the policies by directing the building towards the street, providing access that is visible from the public sidewalk, providing active ground floor uses, creating a building that frames the street, appropriately transitions to the areas of lower intensity, limits shadow and wind impact, provides appropriate amenity areas, and proposes an attractive building.

67In consideration of Ms. Humphries viva voce testimony, her Affidavit including her Witness Statement, and for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.

68In consideration of the request to amend the OPA and ZBA to include the lands known as 20 Hawman Avenue, the Tribunal referred to s. 34(26)(b) of the Act which states:

The Tribunal may, on an appeal under subsection (11) or (19), amend the by-law in such a manner as the Tribunal may determine or direct the council of the municipality to amend the by-law in accordance with the Tribunal’s order.

69The Tribunal hereby amends the application to include the lands at 20 Hawman Avenue. The Tribunal notes that the lands known as 20 Hawman Avenue are being used for secondary access to the project and for POPS purposes. The Tribunal further notes that the addition of 20 Hawman Avenue to the Subject Lands would not change notification requirements under the Act.

70Further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the notice of the applications and subsequently the matter before the Tribunal was sufficient such that any person having interest in this matter has identified themselves and has been provided the opportunity to participate in the consideration of the OPA and ZBA.

71The Tribunal allows the appeal and approves the amendment to the Official Plan and the amendment to the Zoning By-law, in principle, in accordance with the Settlement Proposal.

72The Tribunal withholds issuance of its final order in respect to the ZBA to allow the Appellant’s Site Plan Approval application to advance through the City approval process. The final order will be issued when the Applicant has provided the Tribunal with the final form of the ZBA together with confirmation that this final form is acceptable to the City.

73The Tribunal, having been provided a final form of the OPA, has reviewed and approves the amendment as set out in the attachment to this decision.

ORDER

74THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal filed in respect to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed, in part, and the Official Plan for the City of Vaughan is modified as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order, and as modified is approved.

75THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal filed in respect to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed, in part, subject to the Tribunal being provided with the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment and being notified by the Solicitor of the City of Vaughan that the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment is satisfactory.

76THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Parties shall provide a written update to the Tribunal with respect to the status of the Zoning By-law Amendment on or before Thursday, November 30, 2023. Should the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment have not been finalized by this date, the Parties shall provide a further update on the status of the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment on or before Wednesday, January 31, 2024.

77The Tribunal may, as necessary, convene a Telephone Conference Call to address the status of the finalization of this matter.

78The Member may be spoken to should there be any issues arising relating to the finalization of the form of the Zoning By-law Amendment.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

AMENDMENT NUMBER 95

TO THE VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN 2010

OF THE VAUGHAN PLANNING AREA

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Amendment to the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 (“VOP 2010”) is to amend the provisions of the Official Plan of the Vaughan Planning Area, specifically, Volume 1, Schedule 13 – Land Use and Schedule 14-C – Areas Subject to Site Specific Policies and Volume 2, Section 13, Site Specific Policies to redesignate the Subject Lands from “Low-Rise Residential” to “Mid-Rise Residential” to permit a mid-rise residential development consisting of 166 dwelling units on the Subject Lands (the “Amendment”) identified as “Lands Subject to Amendment No. 95” on Schedules ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’.

This Amendment will facilitate the following with respect to the Subject Lands identified as, “Area Subject to Amendment No. 95” on Schedule 1 attached hereto:

1. Permit a maximum building height of 12-storeys,
2. Permit a maximum Floor Space Index (‘FSI’) of 3.89 times the area of the lot,
3. Permit amendments to Volume 2, Map 13.70.A on Schedule 3 attached hereto, and
4. Facilitate a Privately Owned Public Space (‘POPS’) fronting Hawman Avenue.

LOCATION

The lands subject to this Amendment, hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Lands”, are located at the south of Highway 7 and east of Kipling Avenue and are municipally known as 5217 & 5225 Highway 7 and 20, 26 & 32 Hawman Avenue, being Part of Lot 5, Concession 7, City of Vaughan, as shown on Schedules ‘1’, ‘2’ and ‘3’ attached hereto as “Lands Subject to Amendment No. 95”.

BASIS

The decision to amend VOP 2010 was approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal on January 19, 2023, pursuant to Ontario Land Tribunal File No. OLT-21-001221.

DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT AND POLICIES RELATIVE THERETO

The Vaughan Official Plan 2010 (VOP 2010) is hereby amended by:

1. Amending Volume 1, Schedule 13 – “Land Use” of VOP 2010, identified on Schedule ‘2’ to this Amendment by redesignating the Subject Lands from “Low- Rise Residential” to “Mid-Rise Residential” with a maximum permitted building height (“H” – Height) of 12-storeys and a maximum permitted density “D” (Floor Space Index) of 3.89 times the area of the Subject Lands.

2. Amending Volume 1, Schedule 14-C – “Areas Subject to Site-Specific Plans” by adding the Subject Lands identified on Schedule “3” to this Amendment as Item #69.

3. Amending Volume 2, Section 13.1 “Areas Subject to Site-Specific Policies” by adding the following policy, to be renumbered in sequential order:

“(OPA #95) 13.1.1.69 The lands known as 5217 & 5225 Highway 7 and 20, 26 & 32 Hawman Avenue are identified on Schedule 14-C as Item #69 and are subject to the policies set out in Section 13.70 of the Plan.”

4. Adding the following policies to Volume 2, Section 13 – “Site Specific Policies”, to be renumbered in sequential order, including a location map of the Subject Lands as per Schedule ‘3’:

“(OPA #95) 13.70 5217 & 5225 Highway 7; 20, 26 & 32 Hawman Avenue

13.70.1 General

13.70.1.1 The following policies shall apply to the lands identified on Map 13.70.A

13.70.1.2 Notwithstanding 9.2.2.3, the Subject Lands identified on Map 13.70.A shall permit a Mid-Rise Residential development consisting of a 12-storey building with 166 residential units, a maximum density of 3.89 FSI and a Privately Owned Public Space fronting Hawman Avenue”

IMPLEMENTATION

It is intended that the policies of the Official Plan of the Vaughan Planning Area pertaining to the Subject Lands shall be implemented by way of an amendment to the City of Vaughan Comprehensive Zoning By-law 1-88, and Site Development Approval, pursuant to the Planning Act.

INTERPRETATION

The provisions of the Official Plan of the Vaughan Planning Area as amended from time to time regarding the interpretation of that Plan shall apply with respect to this Amendment.