Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 05, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002415 (Formerly PL171151)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Jane Teston Holdings 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 Designated: Mid-Rise Residential
Purpose: To permit the development of an 11-storey residential building containing 176 units
Property Address/Description: 2975, 2985 & 2993 Teston Road
Municipality: City of Vaughan
Approval Authority File No.: OP.17.002
OLT Case No.: PL171151
OLT File No.: PL171151
OLT Case Name: Jane Teston Holdings Inc. v. Vaughan (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 11990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Jane Teston Holdings Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88, as amended - Neglect of the City of Vaughan to make a decision
Existing Zoning: An Agricultural Zone & R4 Residential Zone, subject to Exception 9(1100)
Proposed Zoning: RA3 Apartment Residential Zone, with site-specific zoning exceptions; and to permit an Independent Living Facility, Long Term Care Facility and a Supportive Living Facility as additional permitted uses in the RA3 Residential Zone
Purpose: To permit the development of an 11-storey residential building containing 176 units
Property Address/Description: 2975, 2985 & 2993 Teston Road
Municipality: City of Vaughan
Municipality File No.: Z.17.003
Heard: September 19-29, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Jane Teston Holding Inc. | Patrick Harrington John Pappas |
| City of Vaughan | Raj Kehar |
| Regional Municipality of York | Mercedes Mueller |
DECISION DELIVERED BY Jatinder Bhullar AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This hearing was conducted to address appeals made by Jane Teston Holdings Inc. (“Applicant”) as a result of the failure of the City of Vaughan’s (“City”) to make a decision for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) pursuant to s. 22 (7) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pursuant to s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act (“Act”). The Applicant property is known municipally as 2975, 2985 and 2993 Teston Road (“Subject Lands”).
2The effect of the OPA and ZBA is to facilitate the development of an 11-storey residential building with a total of 176 residential units.
ISSUES LIST REVISION AND REGION ISSUES RESOLUTION
3The Parties on consent requested the narrowing and reduction in the number of issues to be addressed at the hearing. They informed that given the time between the issuance of the Procedural Order (PO) and the hearing, the witnesses for all Parties have been engaged and as a result have resolved some of the issues and have also been able to narrow down others.
4The Tribunal accepted the request and a new Issues List was created from the original Issues List in the Tribunal approved PO.
5During the hearing the Tribunal was also informed that the Region and the Appellant have also been working to resolve the Region’s issue. This led to a successful conclusion between the Region and the Appellant. The agreement was presented for City’s review and comment by the Parties. The City had some concerns, but these were resolved between the City, the Region and the Appellant.
6Once all Parties had agreed on the resolution of the Region’s issues between themselves, the Region formally requested that their issues be removed from the Issues List. With consent of all the Parties, the Tribunal allowed this request.
7The Tribunal sought from the Region that they keep their witness available should the Tribunal need assistance with matters of traffic engineering and operations. The Region so agreed with the Tribunal’s request.
WITNESSES
8All witnesses were affirmed or sworn, acknowledged their duties as an expert, and were duly qualified after review of their credentials.
9The Appellant called two witnesses as follows:
a. Martin Quarcoopome was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning; and,
b. Alexander Fleming was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of transportation planning and engineering.
10The City called the following two witnesses:
a. Ted Davidson was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning; and,
b. Wai Lam Tang was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of transportation engineering and planning.
EVIDENCE
11There were two key areas of evidence. The evidence of Transportation and Traffic planning addressed the issues from the issues list as well as informed witnesses who provided expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
12Mr. Fleming reviewed the evolution of possible access arrangements as have been reviewed with the Region and the City. The traffic and transportation engineering evidence is documented first as this was depended upon by the planning witnesses in their interpretation of applicable land use planning aspects.
TRAFFIC
13Mr. Fleming stated that the basis for evidence on traffic and transportation aspects of the proposal involves a traffic arrangement where the traffic is allowed through a right turn into the Subject Lands. There is a connection with Giotto Crescent and thereof to a signalized intersection for egressing of traffic on Jane Street.
14In review of the Teston Road ingressing connection, Mr. Fleming provided the following information as in his witness statement:
- … The primary revisions are that the driveway entrance from Teston Road has been reduced in width and redesigned so as to act as a right-in inbound only access, and to reinstate an access connection to Giotto Crescent, which was originally proposed in the 2016 concept plan.
- The accesses are intended to be used only by the future residents and their visitors. As such the internal layout has been designed to dissuade cut-through traffic. The design incorporates signage and drive aisle geometrics to achieve this intention. The inbound drive aisle from Teston Road is signed with “Do Not Enter” signs at the first internal intersection. A “No Left Turn” sign is placed in the southbound direction of the inbound drive aisle from Teston Road, as only cut-through traffic would make this turn. Lastly, the access to Giotto Crescent has been curved south at the property line so that any southbound to eastbound movement in violation of the “No Left Turn” prohibition would be at an acute angle and thus discouraged.
15Mr. Fleming addressed the traffic connection to Giotto Crescent and also addressed the grade difference that exists today between the Subject Lands and Giotto Crescent:
- Currently, a retaining wall of approximately 0.85 metres height separates the subject site and the terminus of Giotto Crescent. This grade differential is not an impediment to a site access connection to Giotto Crescent. The Functional Servicing and Preliminary Stormwater Management Report (Crozier, November 2016) was prepared on the basis of the original concept plan that included a vehicular connection to Giotto Crescent. Figure 3 of the report, the Preliminary Grading Plan, demonstrates that the site can be graded to achieve the Giotto Crescent vehicular access.
16Mr. Fleming addressed five issues of the Region as the Region’s issues were still live when he presented his evidence; whereas these issues were later settled prior to the commencement of the evidence by the Region on their Traffic issues. These were,
Issue #1: Is the Private Transportation Study appropriate and consistent with the Region Transportation Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Application (November 2016)?
Issue #2: Does the Private Transportation Study appropriately address the operational and safety concerns related to the proposed development accesses?
Issue #3: Does the proposed development provide an interconnection with Giotto Crescent?
Issue #4: Does the proposed development access arrangement meet the recommendations of the Access Guidelines for Regional Roads (November 2020) and Policy 7.2.53 of the York Region Official Plan 2010 (“YROP”)?
Issue #5: Has the proposed development provided sufficient right-of-way requirements as per Map 12 of the YROP for Teston Road and Jane Street, as well as an adequate daylight triangle at the south-east corner of the Jane Street and Teston Road intersection?
17Mr. Fleming provided the testimony at the hearing in line with his witness statement. In referring to details thereof he summarized that:
A Transportation Mobility Plan (TMP) dated May 2022 was prepared to support the development application, along with a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) and a Parking Justification Study (PS), both also dated May 2022.
It is my opinion that the May 2022 TMP prepared is appropriate and consistent with the Region of York Transportation Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Application.
It is my opinion that the May 2022 TMP in conjunction with the revised August 2022 concept plan and the additional information in this witness statement adequately addresses any operational and safety concerns associated with access to the site. As indicated above, any desired formal updates to C.F. Crozier & Associates’ reports can be provided as a condition of this development’s approval.
With the connection to Giotto Crescent that same driver would instead initially access Giotto Crescent then Ashton Drive (both local roadways), then Brandon Gate (a minor collector roadway), then Jane Street to Major MacKenzie Drive (both major arterial roadways), then the Highway 400 interchange at Major Mackenzie Drive. This route does not involve traffic infiltration as the route involves using sequentially higher order roads.
As such, it is my opinion that the access to Giotto Crescent, combined with the right-in only access to Teston Road, is a preferable access configuration. I do not believe that the Giotto Crescent connection will result in unacceptable traffic increases or impacts within the adjoining neighbourhood.
The Teston Road right-in only access will balance the traffic volumes generated by the site, so that vehicles are not wholly concentrated at the Giotto Crescent access. This will be more prevalent in the p.m. peak hour when the predominant direction of travel is inbound to the site.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1141 identifies that a residential area with between 101 and 600 units should have two access routes, though one may be restricted to emergency use only. As the development is to consist of 250 residential units, the provision of two accesses, one from Teston Road and the other to Giotto Crescent is appropriate and in keeping with the NFPA Standard 1141.
A 7 metre by 7 metre daylight triangle at the northwest corner of the subject site is proposed to be dedicated. The drawing included as Attachment E illustrates the required 15 metre by 15 metre daylight triangle when located at the ultimate right-of-way. It can be seen that it is wholly contained within the existing right-of-way and the proposed 7 metre by 7 metre daylight triangle. Accordingly, the proposed daylight triangle illustrated on the August 2022 concept plan is adequate and exceeds the requirements of the Region of York.
18Ms. Tang in her evidence opined that the local traffic levels on Giotto Crescent and further City roads connecting to Giotto Crescent will be negatively impacted by the proposed development.
19Ms. Tang depended heavily upon information contained in the Transportation Association of Canada Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads (“TAC Guide”). Ms. Tang stated that the TAC Guide provides for the daily maximum capacity of 1,000 vehicle trips per day for local roads. When questioned and taken to the TAC Guide for confirmation she admitted that the reference in the TAC Guide was for “typical” number of vehicular trips per day and not maximum trips per day for a local road.
20This matter of 1000 vehicular trips per day on a local road was further addressed by Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming in his reply witness statement stated and opined the following:
The TAC Guide does not describe the typical 1,000 vehicles per day as a capacity or maximum. Traffic congestion would not occur should vehicles volumes exceed 1,000 vehicles per day, nor does a local road lose its designation should traffic volumes exceed 1,000 vehicles per day. Therefore, a local road designation does not impose a “hard cap” on traffic volumes.
If the typical traffic volumes described in the TAC Guide were strictly interpreted as a “hard cap”, as Ms. Tang suggests, conflict between Region of York Policies to reduce entrances to Regional arterial roads would occur, as well as Region of York and City of Vaughan goals for transit orientated development.
21As noted above, the Region informed the Tribunal after the evidence presented by Mr. Fleming and Ms. Tang that it has reached a settlement with the Applicant/Appellant on all of Region’s issues. The settlement was further shared and reviewed with the City. All Parties subsequently agreed to the content of the settlement reached on the Region’s traffic issues, and minor adjustments to the agreed to settlement wording and content were agreed to between the Parties.
22As a follow-up to the settlement, the Region further informed that their previously scheduled witness, Carl Wong, would not be called to provide traffic engineering evidence. The Tribunal requested that Mr. Wong assist the Tribunal in providing non-opinion descriptions as to how typically signalized intersections on regional roads are adjusted to respond to changing traffic volumes. The Region agreed and Mr. Wong answered some of Tribunal’s queries once he was affirmed. Mr. Wong provided general descriptions on tools and methods available for adjusting intersection control parameters for ingressing and egressing traffic at intersections. There was no further questioning of Mr. Wong by any of the Parties based on his evidence given at the hearing.
Analysis and Findings: Traffic
23The Tribunal notes that the Region withdrew their issues which were the majority of key traffic considerations for the traffic flows into and from the proposed development to Jane Street and Teston Road. The Parties agreed to work together to make necessary intersection adjustments to manage this traffic. The final quantification of these was agreed to be determined through updated modeling data and final access arrangements. The Region did not raise any specific concerns as these relate to a local road, Giotto Crescent.
24The City through Ms. Tang submitted that Giotto Crescent and its interconnecting local streets or roads could be adversely and severely affected due to the traffic volumes generated by the proposed development. The key premise of Ms. Tang’s assertion in this respect related to her interpretation that 1000 vehicular trips per day on a local road was a maximum design threshold for local roads. This was successfully challenged by Mr. Fleming. He showed that a typical number taken from the TAC Guide does not represent an appropriate detailed level target or proper specification to make determination of traffic modelling and analysis on local roads. Mr. Fleming showed through his analysis of traffic on Giotto Crescent and the connections to Ashton Drive, Brandon Gate and thereof with Jane Street, that the incremental traffic levels can be suitably handled at each interconnecting point.
25Ms. Tang did not contest the methodology used by Mr. Fleming but rather continued to press 1000 vehicular trips per day as a maximum capacity for any of the local roads based on the TAC Guide. Mr. Fleming submitted that there is a possibility that traffic on Giotto Crescent or Brandon Gate could exceed 1000 vehicular trips per day, but he stressed that it would still be within the permitted design and capacities for such roads.
26The Tribunal has reviewed the evidence presented by Ms. Tang and Mr. Fleming. The Tribunal finds that Mr. Fleming has successfully and appropriately carried out his modelling and his conclusions withstood testing at the hearing. On the contrary, Ms. Tang’s testimony was narrow focused and did not use the TAC Guide information in an appropriate way to substantiate the City’s evidence on impacts of the proposed development on local roads. Ms. Tang used a typical number for local roads to create a design maximum for local roads. Mr. Fleming successfully challenged it based on his testimony which remained unfettered during cross examination.
PROVINCIAL INTEREST
27Mr. Quarcoopome addressed s. 2 of the Act through identified Issue 1 on the Issues list (“IL”). He highlighted the following subsections of s. 2 of the Act relating to the matters of provincial interest concerning:
(h) orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;
(q) promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and oriented to pedestrians; and,
(r) the promotion of built form that;
i) is well-designed.
28Mr. Quarcoopome opined that the proposal represents an orderly extension of the neighbourhood, increases the range of local housing options, and provides for housing in the area of possible expansion of York Region Transit (“YRT”). He said the proposal has been significantly revised from its original concept to address urban design principles, increased setbacks, landscape treatments and the use of angular planes. He concluded that the proposal thus has regard for the matters of provincial interest.
29Mr. Davidson opined that:
The proposal does not provide for affordable housing, represents an overdevelopment of the subject lands and is not an appropriate location of growth and development at the built form and level of development proposed.
The interface between the proposal and the adjacent low-rise residential dwellings is not a “promotion of built form” that, in my opinion, “is well-designed”.
The subject proposal does not have appropriate regard to matters of Provincial interest. In particular, no regard has been given to the lack of regularly scheduled transit in the area and the distance of the lands from any regular transit service provided by the Region of York. As such, conformity with the Growth Plan 2020 remains an issue that has not been fully addressed, as I will outline in further detail under Issue 3 below.
The proposal does not represent the orderly and planned development of this area within the City of Vaughan.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 2020 (“PPS 2020”)
30The PPS 2020 applicable policies identified by the Parties included the following:
Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (“PPS”) and does it comply with section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, for PPS policies including but not limited to:
Section 1.1 Managing and Directing Land Use to Achieve Efficient and Resilient Development and Land Use Patterns Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.7, Coordination, Section 1.2.1 a), 1.2.4, Housing, Section 1.4, Public Spaces Section 1.5.1 a), Implementation and Interpretation, Section 4.0
31Mr. Quarcoopome stated and provided the following evidence as excerpted from his witness statement:
The proposed Development is located in an area of York Region and the City of Vaughan that encourages appropriate forms of intensification through redevelopment of underutilized lands. The proposed Development is designed to avoid public health and safety concerns by providing a compact built-form that provides a range and mix of residential units, efficient land use, and accessibility to servicing and transit;
The proposed Development provides a gentle form of intensification and will contribute to meeting the projected needs of the community over time by introducing a land use, in a form of multi-dwelling units, that add to the range and mix of housing within an area that is suitable for appropriate forms of growth.
In my opinion, the proposed Development proposes a compact form of development, with appropriate development standards that contribute to a range and mix of housing types by introducing intensification on lands that can accommodate redevelopment through apartment residential unit types, that respects the existing and planned built forms of the surrounding area. This further contributes to meeting the growth demand and housing needs for existing and future generations.
Although the Subject Lands are not located within a designated growth area identified within the YROP and VOP [Vaughan Official Plan], it is my opinion that the Subject Lands present an appropriate opportunity for gentle intensification
The proposed Development is consistent with Section 1.2 of the PPS as the proposal has been designed to have consideration for existing infrastructure.
The proposed Development is consistent with Section 1.2.4 of the PPS as it has consideration for Section 1.2.4.d by locating the proposed development in proximity to major transit and transit corridors.
The proposed Development will provide new housing options in an existing settlement area that is well serviced by public transportation and municipal infrastructure, water and sanitary services. The mid-rise built form also provides for a range and mix of housing types at a moderately higher density. The proposal reduces demand for greenfield development and outward expansion by redeveloping underutilized lands within an existing community, which satisfies key development principles of the PPS.
The proposed Development is located close to the Jane Street and Teston Road frontages, enhancing the streetscape and helping to develop a pedestrian oriented environment. The proposed Development creates a connection between the Subject Lands and the public sidewalks, contributing to walkability. Further, the proposed connectively allows for residents to access active transportation and transit facilities.
32Mr. Quarcoopome based on his written and oral opinion evidence concluded that the proposal is consistent with PPS 2020.
33Mr. Davidson noted deficiencies with respect to transit in the context of the proposed development and testified that:
There is no higher order transit within the immediate area;
GO transit service is not within walking distance of the subject lands with the Maple GO station some 4 kilometres from the site;
PPS 2020 does not advocate or suggest that intensification should be considered regardless of local context. The PPS 2020, as does “good planning practice”, is cognizant of the interface between areas of intensification and stable residential neighbourhoods. Proposals for intensification must be carefully considered when adjacent to areas of less density and a less intense form of development. The Municipality has identified “intensification areas” in their Official Plan and this site does not fall within such a designated area;
Vehicular access considerations have not been appropriately considered and the proposal does not provide for any “affordable housing”, which would represent a public benefit; and,
The site does not front an “Intensification Corridor”. Any proposed change of land use to more intensive land use should take into consideration the surrounding low-density land use and planning context.
GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE 2019, AS AMENDED (“GROWTH PLAN”)
34The policies of the Growth Plan appropriate for consideration were identified by the Parties as follows:
Guiding Principles, 1.2.1; Where and How to Grow 2.2; Section 2.2.1.2 (c), 2.2.1.3 (a), 2.2.1.3 (b), 2.2.2.3 (a); 2.2.6.1 and 2.2.6.3.
35Mr. Quarcoopome opined and in part stated that the proposed development provides for:
the achievement of complete communities and encourages development that provides for a range and mix of housing types, as well as attainable housing options including for entry-level housing;
better use of underutilized vacant land;
contributes towards minimum intensification targets for housing in the City and contribute greater than 250 residential dwelling units; and,
the use of existing municipal infrastructure and minimizes possible capital expenses in the building of such infrastructure.
Mr. Quarcoopome concluded that the proposal thus conforms with the applicable policies of the Growth Plan.
36Mr. Davidson testified with respect to the Growth Plan as follows:
The development of the subject lands to the level of intensity proposed is not required to meet the Growth Plan targets set out in the Growth Plan 2020.
The subject lands have not been identified as a location warranting the level of intensification proposed. There are no specific policies within the Growth Plan which propose that the subject lands, or lands which share similarities with the subject lands, must be developed in a form, composition of land use and to a scale contemplated by the proposed development.
The Growth Plan calls for intensification along transit routes which are adequate to support and enhance the provision of transit services. There are currently no plans to increase the level of public transit to the subject lands.
YORK REGION OFFICIAL PLAN 2010 (“YROP”)
37The ROP policies of key focus were the following as agreed to between the parties:
Section 1.2; Section 3.5 – Housing our Residents; Chapter 5 – Forecasting and Phasing Growth; 5.1, Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Communities, 5.2.8 (a)-(g) inclusive; Intensification 5.3.2,5.3.3 (a), (b), (c); 5.3.4, 5.3.5, 5.3.6; 5.3.9; Regional Centres and Corridors 5.4.1, 5.4.2, 5.4.3, 5.4.4; 5.4.20, 5.4.23; 5.4.28, 5.4.29, 5.4.30, 5.4.31; Local Centres and Corridors 5.5; Chapter 7: 7.1.7, 7.1.11, 7.3.2; Chapter 8: Implementation; Relevant Schedules of the York Region Official Plan
38The following are excerpts of opinion evidence provided by Mr. Quarcoopome:
Development provides a mid-rise built form that contributes to the diversity and mixture of housing options in the area, presenting the opportunity for aging in place. The outdoor amenity area at grade also facilitates further landscaping on the site. Landscaping is provided on the site’s remaining unbuilt area in order to improve micro-climatic conditions and provide a comfortable environment for residents;
The surrounding context provides access to community services and facilities with further amenities to be developed through the Highway 400 North Employment Lands Secondary Plan and Block 27 Secondary Plan areas, as discussed in Table 2 (page 29) and Section 6.4 (page 43) of Weston Consulting’s Planning Justification Addendum, dated May, 2022. Bicycle lanes and transit stops on Jane Street and Teston Road also encourage active lifestyles and alternative modes of transportation, reducing vehicular dependence;
The overall housing objective is to promote an appropriate mix and range of housing to meet the needs of residents;
The proposed development will contribute to the character of the area and sense of place by animating the southeast corner of Jane Street and Teston Road;
Although the Subject Lands are not located within an intensification area identified by the YROP of VOP, it is my opinion that the proposed Development provides an appropriate form of gentle infill intensification by providing an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent low-rise residential areas (Section 5.3.6), within close proximity of existing transit stops (Section 5.3.4);
The Subject Lands have access to York Region (YRT) services at the Jane Street and Teston Road intersection. The YRT connects to the GO Transit services at Maple GO Station, located approximately 4.5 kilometers by vehicle from the Subject Lands, allowing for access to most of the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Further, the Subject Lands are approximately a 5-minute drive from the planned Kirby GO Station to the northeast which was the basis of Block 27 Secondary Plan. The proposed development is transit-oriented and has consideration for York Region’s Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines by providing a compact built form that is located within close proximity of transit services; and,
The Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report prepared by Crozier Consulting Engineers identifies that the proposed Development can be achieved on the Subject Lands based on the existing available servicing infrastructure.
39Mr. Quarcoopome summarized and opined that the proposed development conforms with the YROP.
40Mr. Davidson testified that:
This application does not require any amendment to the in-force Official Plan of the Regional Municipality of York.
Although policies of the Regional Official Plan support intensification in a general manner along arterials roads, in consideration of all of the other policies of the Regional Plan, the location of the subject lands, the lack of regular public transit, the established character of the surrounding existing and approved neighbourhoods, it is reasonable to consider the “appropriateness” of the level of intensification, the form of development proposed, and the relative remoteness of the lands from any proximity to any identified intensification areas. Given these concerns, it is my opinion that the proposed development does not conform with many of the policies within the Region’s Official Plan.
A primary concern of the Region of York appears to be access to the project and concerns related to vehicular access to Jane Street North and Teston Road. The recent re-submission illustrates the access concerns of the Region of York. However, the re-submission does not evaluate vehicular impacts on the surrounding local road network serving predominantly single detached low-rise dwellings.
CITY OF VAUGHAN OFFICIAL PLAN (“COP”)
41Except for the requested OPA, Mr. Quarcoopome reviewed the various policies in the COP. These included a large list of policies covered by Issue 5 in the PO.
42Some of the opinion evidence of Mr. Quarcoopome is excerpted below with regard to the COP where he opines that:
Although the Subject Lands are not located in an intensification area or a mixed-use centre, it is my opinion that the proposed Development offers a form of intensification appropriate for lands identified within a Community Area;
The proposed Development ensures that the established character is of existing low-rise residential neighbourhood is maintained concentrating density and height along Jane Street and Teston Road, and transitioning the built form towards the low-rise residential uses;
The proposed Development provides a density that is appropriate when considering that the Subject Lands have access to York Region (YRT) services at the Jane Street and Teston Road intersection;
Section 2.2.1.1d and 2.2.1.2 are not applicable to the Subject Lands as they are not identified within an intensification area shown on Schedule 1 (Urban Structure) of the VOP. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the proposed Development to be assessed on the policy framework that applies to these areas; however, it is my opinion that the proposed development will not be detrimental to the realization of the planning goals and objectives within the various intensification areas of the City;
Section 2.2.3.3 states that limited intensification may be permitted in Community Areas as long as the proposed development is “sensitive to and compatible with the character, form and planned function of the surrounding context.”;
The Development was redesigned to improve compatibility with the adjacent context. As described in Section 2.5, the building’s height was reduced from 11 to 8 storeys, and as such, it better complies with a 45 degree angular plane measured from both the south and east property lines. In addition, enhanced 7.5m and 3m landscape buffers were added to the proposed concept plan as visual buffering for adjacent properties. The garbage collection area was also relocated from the rear of adjacent yards to the side to mitigate potential negative impacts;
The proposed Development is consistent with Section 4.2.1.6 of the VOP, and has regard for Street Network enhancements, as it provides land dedication to meet the required Jane Steet right-of-way width, and proposes sight-triangle at the intersection of Jane Street and Teston Road to improve the efficiency of the intersection, sight distance, access spacing, and vehicle maneuverability;
The proposed Development facilitates appropriate pedestrian connectivity to the existing sidewalks along Jane Street and Teston Road. The Subject Lands also provide direct access to the existing cycling network on Teston Road and the proposed facilities on Jane Street. The proposed Development also provides adequate bicycle parking spaces in accordance with the City of Vaughan Zoning By-law requirements;
The proposed lot pattern, building type, orientation and height has been considered by concentrating density along Jane Street and Teston Road and transitioning the built form and height towards the surrounding low-rise residential uses. Increased setbacks, stepbacks, terracing and enhanced landscape buffers have also been incorporated into the design to provide separation between the existing low-rise and proposed mid-rise built form. Further, the planned context for the lands around the Jane and Teston intersection is changing; new development applications have come forward that are more consistent with higher intensification;
The Development provides for an 8-storey building that designed in a compact form that is human-scaled by mitigating the height and bulk of the building above the fourth storey through stepbacks and terracing. The built form is stepped back 1.5 metres above the fourth storey and 1.5 metres above the sixth storey along both the Jane Street and Teston Road frontages, helping to create a pedestrian scales environment;
It is important to understand the emerging development context as lands designated Low-Rise Mixed-Use at the northeast corner is undergoing redevelopment;
The proposed Development is appropriate given the context of the Subject Lands relative to the Block 27 Secondary Plan (OPA 33). Considering the policies of the Secondary Plan and the active development applications;
The proposed Development is appropriate given the context of the Subject Lands relative to the Highway 400 North Employment Lands Secondary Plan (OPA 637). The Applicant is supportive of the proposed retail/ commercial development as it will provide essential uses (banks, restaurants, retail stores, grocery stores) for the planned residents of the proposed development. Further, the allowable height will help to frame the intersection;
The proposed Development and land use is capable of harmoniously co-existing with the existing land use designations for the adjacent lands;
The proposed Development has regard for the City-Wide Urban Design Guidelines;
The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment sufficiently regulates matters of built form as it contemplates site-specific provisions for density, height and setbacks. The Zoning By-law Amendment will set maximums for building height, density and setbacks. he proposed amenity space is tucked within a courtyard in the rear yard to protect it from potential noise from the street. This amenity area will be setback 10m+ from the rear yards of the adjacent dwellings. The proposed Development and implementing instruments represent good planning and are in the public interest;
The building maintains the existing street edge definition on Teston Road and improves connectivity between the public and private realm on both Jane Street and Teston Road through pedestrian connectivity. The main building entrances are oriented towards and accessed from Teston Road. The project will make contributions to the public realm through high quality design, building entrance design and landscaping, rejuvenating the streetscape along this portion of Teston Road;
The proposed Development offers a variety of housing options, offers land uses that are not immediately available, utilizes existing infrastructure, and provides a pedestrian friendly streetscape. It has been designed to fit within the context of the existing low-rise residential neighbourhood and appropriate measures have been implemented to ensure there are no negative impacts in terms of privacy and shadowing. It is also consistent with emerging context of future growth around the Jane Street and Teston Road intersection; and,
The proposed Development is appropriate when considering the site, the policy context, and the character of the surrounding lands. The proposed Development and the Applications represent good planning and are in the public interest
43Mr. Davidson testified regarding the COP as well as the associated issues from the Issues List. Mr. Davidson testified and some of the highlights from his witness statement are excerpted and noted as follows:
This site is not a focus of intensification to the level sought;
The lands are not within or fronting upon any priority intensification areas, regional or local corridors;
The surrounding lands to the east, west and south of the lands are predominantly low-rise and low-density single-detached dwellings. It appears that little consideration has been given to the existing or future development of the surrounding lands and the context within which the proposed development of the subject lands is to be integrated;
The proposed development of the subject lands for a mid-rise apartment complex is in contrast to the surrounding established neighbourhood, the pattern of lots, the size and configuration of lots, and the proposed 8 storey apartment building is in complete contrast to the building types of nearby properties;
The subject lands are not served directly with regularly scheduled higher order transit services, the lands are remote from existing or future GO expansions, remote from the Vaughan Growth Centre, and remote from any Regional Centre. The lands are remote from any Potential Major Transit Station Area in the Region;
There is no overwhelming “public benefit” associated with the proposed development such as “affordable” housing or rental housing;
The subject lands are surrounded by low density detached dwellings on Giotto Crescent and the local streets in the immediate area. The subject lands are not identified as a priority intensification area;
While recognizing that an amendment to the Vaughan Official Plan is sought by the applicant, both the “mid-rise residential” and the “high-rise residential” land use categories restrict uses “within 70 metres of an area designated as “Low-Rise Residential” to townhouses; stacked townhouses and low-rise buildings” (9.2.2.3 d. and 9.2.2.5 d.). This restriction of uses is also applicable where “mid-rise mixed-use” and high-rise mixed -use” are within 70 metres of areas designated low-rise residential”. In brief, no mid-rise residential building is permitted within 70 metres of lands designated low-rise residential;
In considering the proposed use of the Subject Lands relative to the lands situated in the Highway 400 North Employment Lands Secondary Plan (OPA 637); the planned and existing context, residential land use is appropriate for the site. The level of intensity and the built-form of the proposed land use are not appropriate given the site’s location;
The proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site. There is no planning policy context or locational context that supports the level of intensification being sought;
The proposal, in its current built-form, scale, height and density is not appropriate and compatible given the site’s context.
44In consideration of the COP, Mr. Davidson summarizes that:
The lands are not identified as a Regional or Priority Intensification Area nor are the lands located on either a designated Regional Intensification Corridor or a Primary Intensification Corridor, where intensification is to be directed.
The lands are not located within or in close proximity to a Subway Extension or located within proximity to the GO Transit network. The site is not within a “Local Centre” as designated on the Urban Structure Schedule to the City of Vaughan Official Plan;
The proposed use of the subject property, and the proposed form, scale and intensity, fails to appropriately consider the goals and objectives of the City of Vaughan Official Plan. The introduction of a “Medium Density Residential Development”, in the form, scale and intensity proposed, does not, in my opinion, reflect the historic, present and evolving policy framework established for the site and its surrounding area. The proposal lacks appropriate consideration of the neighbouring properties and does not appropriately consider the relationship between the proposed change in land use and the abutting stable residential neighbourhood;
The proposed development does not represent good planning;
With respect to the “Implementation” policies of the Vaughan Official Plan, the imposition of a “holding by-law” (Section 10.1.2.5) would be my recommendation as suggested in the staff reports respecting this matter; and,
If the proposed development is approved, a Community Benefits Charge should be applied, if in effect. Any contributions could be used to improve local parkland, improve pedestrian amenities associated with Jane Street North or Teston Road or other off-site community improvements.
OVERALL ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
45The Tribunal notes that there were no major differences between the planning opinion evidence as it related to actual numerical standards in the policies. The two witnesses, Mr. Quarcoopome and Mr. Davidson in the opinion evidence, contest application and the interpretation of the same.
46Mr. Quarcoopome in general approaches his evidence and develops his opinion on the basis of the policies and the emerging context for the area when he states that:
The proposal is an opportunistic intensification at a significant corner in the form of Jane Street and Teston Road;
The intensification is appropriate and represents a proposal which has evolved from an 11 storey original to an eight storey as at the hearing;
The proposal is suitably served by transit and amenable to pedestrian and bicycle uses in the surrounding facilities;
The proposal with appropriate setbacks, the application of 45 degree plane analysis and in consideration of shadow impacts creates minimal impacts;
The proposal avails itself of existing infrastructure and services;
The proposal has desirable features in landscaping, no surface parking, good management of traffic ingress and egress from the proposed development;
The Maple GO station is accessible through YRT as well as an approximate 4.5 minute car ride;
The proposal is just marginally away from a major high intensification areas identified around the future Kirby GO station;
The proposal adds to choice of housing options in the area and will contribute towards meeting planning minimum targets for housing availability per Provincial Goals.
47Mr. Davidson emphasized and developed his opinion evidence on the basis of policy directions and generally a lesser level of development evolution from existing context by stating that:
the Subject Property is not an identified location for intensification;
the proposed development is considered as overdevelopment;
the proposed development does not fit with the existing context of generally low-rise residential dwellings in the neighbourhood including the immediate Giotto Crescent;
it conflicts with existing lotting patterns, the size and configuration of lots;
development to meet housing targets can be achieved through identified intensification areas; and,
mid-rise development is restricted within 70 metres of areas designated as “low-rise residential”.
48The Tribunal based on the evidence before it, both presented at the hearing orally as well as on file, notes that:
There is no prohibition in the planning policies in availing redevelopment with intensification outside of designated intensification areas;
The area around the proposed intersection of Jane Street and Teston Road is at the edge of substantial planned developments which in part already have certain sites designated at a height of eight storeys not only in the possible future Kirby GO MTSA but also along Jane Street north of the Subject Site;
The proposed design has appropriately provided a solution to processing of traffic as noted during the hearing where the Region and the Applicant/Appellant informed the Tribunal that all of the Region’s issues related to traffic have been addressed subject to updating of studies as well as the Applicant/Appellant contributing towards any intersection improvements that may be determined as a result;
The proposed development would allow residents to access YRT conveniently as well as thereafter reach higher order transit available through the GO network for Greater Toronto Area wide mobility; and
There was little evidence provided to implicate the proposed development in issues of overlook, shadows, noise or other possible impacts;
49The City submitted opinion evidence regarding the following aspects of policy direction (repeated paragraph from Mr. Davidson’s evidence):
While recognizing that an amendment to the Vaughan Official Plan is sought by the applicant, both the “mid-rise residential” and the “high-rise residential” land use categories restrict uses “within 70 metres of an area designated as “Low-Rise Residential” to townhouses; stacked townhouses and low-rise buildings.” (9.2.2.3 d. and 9.2.2.5 d.). This restriction of uses is also applicable where “mid-rise mixed-use” and high-rise mixed -use” are within 70 metres of areas designated low-rise residential”. In brief, no mid-rise residential building is permitted within 70 metres of lands designated low-rise residential.
The Tribunal notes that there is nothing that prevents an Applicant/Appellant to seek relief from this based on an appropriate degree of evidence that can show that a proposed development sustains the overall desirability of the policy in terms of good land use planning principles and minimizes possible impacts that underlie consideration for the application of such separation distance guidelines for dissimilar forms of developments. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant/Appellant requests relief from the policies in consideration (9.2.2.3 d. and 9.2.2.5 d.) as part of their proposal and amendment and Mr. Quarcoopome provided the unique aspects of the proposal in terms of its location and orientation from the neighbourhood context.
50The Tribunal thus concludes that the proposed development based on the requested OPA and ZBA has appropriate regard for the Provincial Interest, is consistent with PPS 2020, conforms with the Growth Plan, conforms with the YROP and COP, as well as has appropriate regard for the applicable building guidelines and represents good land use planning.
ORDER
51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed in part and the Official Plan Amendment to the City of Vaughan Planning Area Official Plan, as amended is approved, in principle, as per Attachment 1 to this Order subject to conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.
52THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed in part and the Zoning By-law No. 1-88 of the City of Vaughan is amended is approved, in principle, as per Attachment 2 to this Order.
53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Parties shall update the Tribunal within 60 days of the issuance of this decision regarding the finalization of the draft planning instruments and for final approval by the Tribunal.
54The Tribunal may set up a Case Management Conference on its own initiative to finalize the decision and they may also be spoken to if any difficulties arise in implementing its Decision and Order, including with respect to the above-noted Conditions of Final Order Issuance.
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR
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