Ontario Land Tribunal Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: June 21, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004531
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Blue Water Ranch Developments Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of two 29-storey residential towers on 12-storey podiums
Reference Number: OP.21.017
Property Address: Lands north of 784 Centre Street at the Southeast corner of Gatineau Drive and New Westminster Drive
Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004531
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004531
OLT Case Name: Blue Water Ranch Developments Inc. v. Vaughan (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Blue Water Ranch Developments Inc.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of two 29-storey residential towers on 12-storey podiums
Reference Number: Z.21.032
Property Address: Lands north of 784 Centre Street at the Southeast corner of Gatineau Drive and New Westminster Drive
Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004532
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004531
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Blue Water Ranch Developments Inc.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: To permit the development of two 29-storey residential towers on 12-storey podiums
Reference Number: DA.21.041
Property Address: Lands north of 784 Centre Street at the Southeast corner of Gatineau Drive and New Westminster Drive
Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004533
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004531
Heard: June 2, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Blue Water Ranch Developments Inc. ("Applicant") | Christopher Tanzola Natalie Ast |
| City of Vaughan ("City") | Bruce Engell Zaynab Al-waadh |
DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal are appeals by the Applicant pursuant to subsections 22(7), 34(11) and 41(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) due to the failure of City Council to make a decision within the applicable statutory timeline. The Applicant is seeking an amendment to the City’s Official Plan (“OPA”), a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) (together the “Applications”) to facilitate the development of vacant lands generally northeast of New Westminster Drive and Centre Street in the City (“Subject Lands”). The Applicant initially proposed to construct two residential towers of 26 and 35 storeys (“Initial Proposal”).
2By decision dated March 21, 2022, the Tribunal set down the matter for a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to set dates for the hearing on the merits and present the Tribunal with a draft Procedural Order and Issues List. However, the second CMC was converted into a Settlement Hearing on June 2, 2023, when the Parties came to an agreement on all outstanding issues (“Proposed Settlement”). Those elements of the Proposed Settlement that are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal are now before the Tribunal for approval.
3The uncontested and extensive evidence in support of the Proposed Settlement was provided by David A. McKay, retained by the Applicant, who was qualified as an expert on land use planning. Mr. McKay’s written evidence, in the form of an Affidavit sworn on May 29, 2023, including various attachments, was marked as Exhibit 2. The Tribunal notes in particular Exhibit “L” to that Affidavit which is a revised set of plans submitted to the City in April 2023 (“Revised Proposal”). On May 9, 2023, the Committee of the Whole approved a City staff report which recommended approval of the revised Applications in accordance with the settlement offer. On May 16, 2023, City Council adopted the Committee of the Whole recommendation to approve the Staff Report.
4The Revised Proposal includes the following revisions to the Initial Proposal:
a. The height of Building A remained the same at 26 storeys and the height of Building B was reduced to 29 storeys;
b. The building gross floor area has been reduced to 52,075 square metres (6.6 Floor Space Index);
c. A total of 594 units of which 44% are one-bedroom units, 51% two-bedroom units and 5% three-bedroom units;
d. 1,190 square metres of indoor amenity space and 1,190 square metres of outdoor amenity space being provided (2 square metres per unit);
e. A total of 523 vehicle parking spaces and 60 short-term spaces, and 358 long-term bicycle parking spaces; and,
f. The setbacks and stepbacks have been revised as follows:
i. West setback from the building wall to the property line of Building A has been increased from 5.3 metres to 20 metres to accommodate additional landscaped open space;
ii. East setback from the building face to the property line has been increased to 2.5 metres from the Future New Road;
iii. North setback from Building A to the property line along Gatineau Drive has been increased from 0.8 metres to 1.5 metres. With respect to Building B, the north setback has remained unchanged at 1.5 metres; and,
iv. South setback from Building A has been increased from 8 metres to 10 metres to accommodate grade-related outdoor amenity space. Further, the south setback from Building B has increased from 1.7 metres to 7 metres.
SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDINGS
5The Subject Lands are approximately 0.68 hectares and occupy approximately 65 metres of frontage (west) along New Westminster Drive, with 140 metres of frontage along Gatineau Drive. They are in the Thornhill district that is characterized by low rise commercial, retail, service uses, apartment buildings, and residential neighbourhoods that branch off major streets, including Dufferin Street, Centre Street and Clark Avenue West. The Subject Lands’ immediate surroundings consist of a range of built forms and uses, including high rise residential uses to the north, low-rise commercial uses to the east, a mix of low-rise commercial and residential uses to the west, and low-rise institutional and low-, mid- and high-rise residential uses to the south. The surroundings are experiencing infill and redevelopment interest in recent years.
6The Subject Lands have good transit accessibility, being situated approximately 50 metres north of the Centre Street/New Westminster Drive rapid transit bus stop, which is serviced by the York Region Transit “VIVA” 3 – Thornhill Bus Route and the 77 – Highway 7 Bus Route, generally operating in an east-west direction connecting west to TTC Line 1 in the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and east to the Richmond Hill Centre Terminal. Furthermore, the Subject Lands are located within walking proximity to two major intersections at Bathurst Street and Centre Street, as well as Bathurst Street and New Westminster Drive, which both feature an abundance of bus transit stops. Given this level of transit accessibility, the Subject Lands and surrounding area are a Major Transit Station Area.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
7Although this was a Settlement Hearing, the Tribunal must nevertheless be satisfied that the revised Applications meets all legislative tests. In particular, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Revised Proposal:
a. Has regard to matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act;
b. Is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS 2020”);
c. Conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”);
d. Conforms to the 2010 York Region Official Plan (“Region OP”);
e. Conforms to the City’s Official Plan (“City’s OP”);
f. Conforms to the Bathurst and Centre Street: Thornhill Town Centre Area Specific Policies; and,
g. Has regard to the 2022 York Region Official Plan (“YROP 2022”).
8Mr. McKay testified that, in his professional opinion, the revised Applications, to permit the development of the Subject Lands in accordance with the Proposed Settlement, represent an appropriate form of land use planning and are in the public interest and meet all the legislative tests.
9Based on Mr. McKay’s testimony, several common themes are implemented by the OPA, the ZBA, the SPA and the resulting Proposed Development, including:
The Subject Lands are well suited for intensification as they are in proximity to existing rapid bus transit, thus optimizing and fully utilizing transit investments being made in the area;
The Subject Lands are designated High Rise Residential, which are intended to provide for high density residential intensification opportunities;
The Subject Lands represent a desirable intensification opportunity for underutilized lands, thus supporting the housing, in a compact built form;
The Proposed Development achieves a reduced vehicular parking requirement while exceeding the bike parking standard, and contributes to reducing single-occupancy automobile uses;
The Proposed Development represents a high-quality addition to the established and planned character of the High-Rise Residential area and will contribute to the vibrant mixed-use and transit-supportive area;
The Proposed Development utilizes existing amenities and infrastructure, and is pedestrian friendly;
The Proposed Development will generate a significant number of new residential units, will contribute to a range of housing, and will contribute to achieving density goals; and,
The building design addresses issues of views, privacy, and visual interest, and provides for appropriate setbacks, tower separation, orientation, podiums, and landscaping.
CONCLUSION
10Based on the foregoing uncontested evidence, the Tribunal accepts Mr. MacKay’s evidence and finds that the revised Proposed Development meets all the legislative tests, namely that it (i) has regard to matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act; (ii) is consistent with the PPS 2020; (iii) conforms to the Growth Plan; (iv) conforms to the City’s OP; (v) conforms to the Region OP; (v) conforms to the Bathurst and Centre Street: Thornhill Town Centre Area Specific Policies; and (vi) has regard to the YROP 2022.
11Furthermore, considering the settlement having been endorsed by the City, the Tribunal makes its findings while exercising regard for the decision of the City pursuant to s. 2.1(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal further finds that the Revised Proposal is in the public interest and constitutes good planning.
12The Proposed Settlement contemplates that the Tribunal should withhold its Final Order until certain conditions have been met. The Tribunal has considered this request and finds it reasonable in the circumstances.
ORDER
13THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
a. The Appeal pursuant to subsections 22(7), 34(11) and 41(12) of the Act are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [13] b, and the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment appended as Attachments A and B respectively, and the Site Plan to facilitate the proposed development of the Subject Lands, in accordance with the revised plans, attached as Exhibit “L” to the Affidavit of David A. McKay, marked by the Tribunal as Exhibit 2, are approved in principle.
b. The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the following pre-requisite matters:
i. The Tribunal has received and approved the Official Plan Amendment, in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor;
ii. The Tribunal has received and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment, in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and,
iii. The Tribunal has received the Site Plan, in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor.
c. If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment, the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Site Plan, and do not provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [13] b have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Monday, December 4, 2023, then the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Official Plan Amendment, the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and the draft Site Plan and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal does not receive the required status report, or in the event the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or, by such other deadline, as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.
d. The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment, the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Site Plan, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, or the issuance of the Final Order.
e. The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final Official Plan Amendment, the Zoning By-law Amendment and the Site Plan and the issuance of the Final Order.
f. The Tribunal may be spoken to if there are difficulties in satisfying the above conditions for the issuance of the Tribunal's Final Order.
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS 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.
g