Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 07, 2023 CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004346

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: 1018429 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 480 Steeles West Limited et al Appellant: 6200 Yonge GP Inc. Appellant: Augend Investment Ltd. and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: To guide future growth along the Yonge Street corridor in the area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Willowdale Avenue, Cummer and Drewry Avenues, and Lariviere Road Reference Number: OPA 615 Property Address: Area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Willowdale Avenue, Cummer and Drewry Avenues, and Lariviere Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004346 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004346 OLT Case Name: Augend Investment Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: May 31, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
City of Toronto	Ray Kallio, Jessica Braun
CAPREIT Apartments Inc.	Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia)
1018429 Ontario Inc.	Barry Horosko
480 Steeles West Limited, 228 Steeles West Limited, 1163919 Ontario Limited, 1888836 Ontario Limited, and 1211612 Ontario Limited	Alan Heisey (in absentia)
Longevity Properties Limited	Jonathan Cheng
Sky Property Group Inc.	Jennifer Evola, Signe Leisk (in absentia), Christie Gibson (in absentia)
Centre Park Holdings Inc.	Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia)
Ghods Builders Inc. (5959 Yonge Street Limited)	Jason Park (in absentia), Ira Kagan, Sarah Kagan
Augend Investments Ltd.	Mark Flowers, Andrew Valela (in absentia)
W Mandel Developments Limited and Mandross Holdings Inc.	Mark Flowers, Andrew Valela (in absentia)
Connaught Yonge Square Limited and Enderby Developments Limited	Jason Park (in absentia), Ira Kagan, Sarah Kagan, Olivia Rasekhi (in absentia)
6200 Yonge GP Inc.	Jason Park (in absentia), Ira Kagan, Sarah Kagan
Delmar Development Corp. (18 – 28 Athabaska Avenue) Delmar Development Corp. (19 Abitibi Avenue)	Jason Park (in absentia), Ira Kagan, Sarah Kagan Jason Park (in absentia), Ira Kagan, Sarah Kagan
Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc.	Jason Park (in absentia), Ira Kagan, Sarah Kagan
Trolleybus Urban Developments Inc.	Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia)
Streetside Capital Holdings Inc.	Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia)
Revenue Properties Company Ltd. and Morguard Investments Ltd.	Dennis Wood, Johanna Shapira (in absentia)
City of Vaughan	Bruce Engell, Gurnick Perhar, Effie Lidakis (in absentia)
6150 Yonge G.P. Inc.	Jamie Cole (in absentia), John Dawson (in absentia), Matthew Schuman
Yongwood Ltd.	Jamie Cole (in absentia), John Dawson (in absentia), Matthew Schuman
2078004 Ontario Inc. and 24590304 Ontario Ltd.	Jason Park (in absentia), Ira Kagan, Sarah Kagan
Amdev Asset Management	Max Laskin, David Bronskill (in absentia)

Participants	Representative
Badi Investments Inc.	Bruno Battista (in absentia), Roger Battista (in absentia)
Anne Brooke	Self-Represented

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY G.C.P. BISHOP AND G.A. CROSER ON MAY 31, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This is the third Case Management Conference ("CMC") regarding several appeals of the Official Plan Amendment 615 ("OPA 615") that was adopted by the City of Toronto in July 2022.

STATUS UPDATE

2Ray Kallio, counsel for the City of Toronto, provided the Tribunal with a brief update on the status of the appeals. Mr. Kallio stated that there have been some slight modifications to the draft Procedural Order ("PO") and that this most current version was forwarded to the Tribunal's Case Coordinator.

3Mr. Kallio, with agreement of all Parties, has requested the scheduling of a merit hearing requiring 30 days and has also asked for a fourth CMC to be scheduled halfway between today and the commencement of the merit hearing.

4As with most appeals of this nature, there may be site specific appeals as well, and at various stages. Mr. Kallio also indicated that any of the appeals on a site-specific basis may wish to hive off from this comprehensive appeal to advance the timing of their specific appeals but should be barred from then coming back to the main appeal at a future date. None of the Parties spoke in opposition to this approach.

5The Tribunal did remind the Parties about the availability of Tribunal led mediation and to contact the Case Coordinator, if they wish to pursue this avenue.

6To this end the Tribunal scheduled a 30-day hearing and a follow up CMC and provided this information to all present at the CMC.

7The Tribunal was able to secure a CMC date in November 2023, with a 30-day hearing commencing April 29, 2024. However, before this decision was issued, Counsel for the City, with the consent of all Parties, contacted the Case Coordinator and requested that the dates for the CMC and subsequent hearing be pushed back. It is anticipated that this will provide the Parties with sufficient time to work through issues in advance of the hearing and potentially narrow or eliminate some of the issues.

CMC AND HEARING DATES

8The Tribunal directs that a fourth CMC (one day) will be held by video hearing commencing on Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10 a.m.

9The Tribunal directs that a 30-day merit hearing will be held by video hearing commencing on Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 10 a.m. and end on Thursday November 28, 2024. The Tribunal will not be sitting on Monday, November 11 and Monday, November 18, 2024.

January 9, 2024 at 10 a.m. (one-day CMC) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365 Access code: 709-076-365 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 709-076-365

October 16, 2024 at 10 a.m. (30-day hearing) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/927921077 Access code: 927-921-077 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 927-921-077

10Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.

11Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

12Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line.

13Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal's Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

14The Tribunal Orders that a fourth CMC will commence by video hearing on Tuesday, January 9, 2024 at 10 a.m.

15The Tribunal Orders that the 30-day merit hearing will commence by video hearing on Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 10 a.m.

16The Tribunal Orders that the merit hearing will be governed by the Procedural Order appended to this Decision as Attachment 1.

17There will be no further notice.

18The Members are not seized.

"G.C.P. Bishop"

G.C.P. BISHOP ALTERNATE CHAIR

"G.A. Croser"

G.A. CROSER 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

Draft Procedural Order

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004346

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: 1018429 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 480 Steeles West Limited et al Appellant: 6200 Yonge GP Inc. Appellant: Augend Investment Ltd. and others Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment Description: To guide future growth along the Yonge Street corridor in the area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Willowdale Avenue, Cummer and Drewry Avenues, and Lariviere Road Reference Number: OPA 615 Property Address: Area bounded by Steeles Avenue, Willowdale Avenue, Cummer and Drewry Avenues, and Lariviere Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004346 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004346 OLT Case Name: Augend Investment Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

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

Organization of the Hearing

2. The hearing will begin on Wednesday, October 16, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. by video hearing.

3. The parties' initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 30 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2.

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties' consent, subject to the Tribunal's approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative's name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal's Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal's website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. The Parties listed in Attachment 2 are consenting to have their issues adjudicated as part of the within proceeding. Any party who intends to proceed instead by way of site specific hearing shall agree to adjourn their appeal under this proceeding sine die and shall provide notice to the City of such adjournment on or before April 19, 2024 (180 days before the hearing is scheduled is to commence).

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before June 18, 2024 (120 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) and in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness' Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal's Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before July 8, 2024 (100 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before July 18, 2024 (90 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts' meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing with the Tribunal's case coordinator on or before July 29, 2024 (80 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert's testimony.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert's evidence as in paragraph 14 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness' evidence, as in paragraph 14 below.

14. On or before August 19, 2024 (60 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On before August 19, 2024 (60 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before September 11, 2024 (35 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

17. On or before October 1, 2024 (15 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

18. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before September 16, 2024 (30 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence) in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before October 7, 2024 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal's Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

21. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before October 9, 2024 (7 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal's Rule 17 applies to such requests.

These Members are not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE: Names of Members: Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE	EVENT
April 19, 2024 (180 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)	Parties to advise whether they are proceeding with main hearing or choosing site specific.
June 18, 2024 (120 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
July 8, 2024 (100 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence).	Last date to challenge witnesses or qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence (if any)
July 18, 2024 (90 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)	Experts meeting prior to this date
July 29, 2024 (80 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)	Statement of Agreed Facts
August 19, 2024 (60 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
September 3. 2024 (15 days after witness statements are submitted)	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
October 1, 2024 (15 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
October 9, 2024 (7 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)	Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal
October 7, 2024 (10 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence)	Finalize Joint Document Book
October 16, 2024	Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS*

*please note as several parties are represented by the same solicitors, for ease of reference, the list is organized by representation with parties identified by representative to avoid unnecessary repetition and the list below is organized by solicitor name. The complete list of Appellants and Added Parities is in Attachment 3a of this Procedural Order.

PARTIES: A) Proponent/Appellants:

*Counsel/Agent	Details

1. City of Toronto | Ray Kallio
   Jessica Braun
   City of Toronto, Legal Services Metro Hall, 26th Floor
   55 John Street
   Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C6
   E-mail: Ray.Kallio@toronto.ca ; Jessica.Braun@toronto.ca
   Tel: 416.397.4063; 416.392.7237
2. Appeal # 2 | Barry Horosko
   Horosko Planning Law
   M028 - 1460 The Queensway
   Etobicoke, ON M8Z 1S4
   E-mail: bhorosko@horoskoplanninglaw.com
   Tel: 416-400-1967
3. Appeal # 3 | Alan Heisey
   Papazian | Heisey | Myers
   121 King Street West, P.O. Box 105 Suite 510 Toronto, Ontario M5H 3T9
   E-mail: heisey@phmlaw.com
   Tel: 416.601.2702
4. Appeal #4 | Jonathan Cheng
   Stikeman Elliott LLP
   5300 Commerce Court West
   199 Bay Street
   Toronto, Ontario M5L 1B9
   E-mail: jcheng@stikeman.com
   Tel: 416.869.6807
5. Appeal #5 | Jennifer Evola
   E-mail: jevola@cassels.com
   Tel: 416.860.6753
   Signe Leisk
   E-mail: sleisk@cassels.com
   Tel: 416.869.5411
   Christie Gibson
   E-mail: cgibson@cassels.com
   Tel: 416.869.5411
   Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
   Scotia Plaza
   40 King Street West, Suite 2100
   Toronto, ON M5H 3C2
6. Appeals #1, 6, 16, 17 | Max Laskin
   E-mail: mlaskin@goodmans.ca
   Tel: 416.849.6938
   David Bronskill
   E-mail: dbronskill@goodmans.ca
   Tel: 416.597.4299
   Goodmans LLP
   Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower
   333 Bay Street, Suite 3400
   Toronto, ON M5H 2S7
7. Appeals #7, 14 | Ira Kagan
   Email: ikagan@ksllp.ca
   Tel: 437.781.9549
   Jason Park
   Email: jpark@ksllp.ca
   Tel: 416.645.4572
   Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP
   188 Avenue Road/250 Yonge St Suite 2302
   Toronto, ON M5R 2J1/M5B 2L7
8. Appeals #8, 9 | Mark Flowers
   Email markf@davieshowe.com Tel: 416-263-4513
   Andrew Valela
   Email andrewv@davieshowe.com
   Tel: 416-263-4513
   Davies Howe LLP
   425 Adelaide Street West, 10th Floor
   Toronto, ON M5V 3C1
9. Appeal #10 | Jason Park
   Email: jpark@ksllp.ca
   Tel: 416.645.4572
   Oliva Rasekhi
   Email: orasekhi@ksllp.ca
   Tel: 416.645-4532
   Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP
   250 Yonge St Suite 2302
   Toronto, ON M5B 2L7
10. Appeals #11, 12, 13 | Jason Park
    Email: jpark@ksllp.ca
    Tel: 416.645.4572
    Oliva Rasekhi
    Email: orasekhi@ksllp.ca
    Tel: 416.645-4532
    Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP
    250 Yonge St Suite 2302
    Toronto, ON M5B 2L7
11. Appeal #18 | Dennis Wood
    E-mail: dwood@woodbull.ca
    Tel: 416.203.7718
    Johanna Shapira
    E-mail: jshapira@woodbull.ca
    Tel: 416.203.5631
    Wood Bull LLP 65 Queen Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2M5

B. Non-Appellants/Added Parties:

*Counsel/Agent	Details
12. #19, 20	Matthew Schuman E-mail: mschuman@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416-601-4319 McCarthy Tétrault LLP Suite 5300, TD Bank Tower Box 48, 66 Wellington Street West Toronto ON M5K 1E6
13. #21	Jason Park Email: jpark@ksllp.ca Tel: 416.645.4572 Oliva Rasekhi Email: orasekhi@ksllp.ca Tel: 416.645-4532 Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP 250 Yonge St Suite 2302 Toronto, ON M5B 2L7
14. #22	Max Laskin E-mail: mlaskin@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.849.6938 David Bronskill E-mail: dbronskill@goodmans.ca Tel: 416.597.4299 Goodmans LLP Bay Adelaide Centre - West Tower 333 Bay Street, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 2S7
15. #23	Effie Lidakis Effie.Lidakis@vaughan.ca TEL Tel: 905-832-8585, Ext. 8851 City of Vaughan l Legal Services2141 Major Mackenzie Dr., Vaughan, ON L6A 1T1

PARTICIPANTS:

1. Anne Brooke
2. Badi Investments Inc.

ATTACHMENT 3

COMBINED ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. The identification of an issue on this list by a party indicates that party's intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the OLT having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the OLT. Notwithstanding the above, nothing about the description of any policy contained within the Issues List is determinative of the interpretation of that policy or restrictive of the ability of the parties to address the policy in full in the context of that issue.

Planning Act

1. Do the policies and/or maps of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan (also referred to as "the Plan") and implementing by-law, as identified by each Appellant in Attachment 1, have regard for matters of provincial interest section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly subsections: (e) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 21 (f) – Appeal #: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21 (h) – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21 (j) – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21 (m) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 21 (n) – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21 (p) – Appeal #: 4, 5,10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21 (q) – Appeal #: 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 (r) – Appeal #: 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18,19, 20, 21 (s) – Appeal #: 5

Provincial Policy Statement

2. Are the policies and/or maps of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan and implementing by-law, as identified by each Appellant in Attachment 1 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, in particular: 1.1 – Appeal #: 6, 16, 17, 18 1.1.1 – Appeal #: 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 18, 21 1.1.1(a) – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 1.1.1(b) – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 1.1.1(c) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 1.1.1(e) – Appeal #: 3, 4, 5, 10 , 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20 1.1.1 (g) – Appeal #: 3, 14 1.1.2 – Appeal #: 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 1.1.3 – Appeal #: 1, 4, 6, 16, 17, 21 1.1.3.1(a) – Appeal #:4, 5, 21 1.1.3.2 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18,19, 20, 21 1.1.3.2 (b) – Appeal #: 3, 5, 14 1.1.3.2(e) – Appeal #: 5 1.1.3.2(f) – Appeal #: 5 1.1.3.3 – Appeal #: 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18,19, 20, 21 1.1.3.4 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18,19, 20, 21 1.1.3.5 – Appeal #4 1.1.3.6 – Appeal #: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 1.1.3.7 – Appeal #: 3, 14, 19, 20 1.2.1 – Appeal #: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21 1.2.4 – Appeal #4 1.2.5 – Appeal #: 4 1.4 – Appeal #: 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 1.4.1 – Appeal: #4 1.4.3 – Appeal #: 1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 1.4.3(b) – Appeal #: 5 1.4.3(c) – Appeal #: 4, 5 1.4.3(d) – Appeal #: 4, 5 1.4.3(e) – Appeal #: 4, 5 1.5.1 – Appeal #: 18 1.6.3 – Appeal #: 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 1.6.5– Appeal: #4 1.6.6.1 – Appeal #: 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 1.6.7.1 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 1.6.7.2 – Appeal #: 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 1.6.7.4 – Appeal #: 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 1.6.8.1 – Appeal #: 3, 4, 5, 14 1.7.1 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21 1.8.1 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

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

3. Do the policies and/or maps of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan and implementing by-law, as identified by each Appellant in Attachment 1 conform to A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, in particular: 1.2 – Appeal #: 5, 19, 20 1.2.1 – Appeal #: 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 2.1 – Appeal #: 1, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 2.2.1 – Appeal #: 4, 6, 16, 17, 18 2.2.1.2 – Appeal #: 2, 5, 8, 9 2.2.1.2(a) – Appeal #: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.1.2(c) – Appeal #: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 2.2.1.3 – Appeal #:5, 8, 9, 21 2.2.1.3(b) – Appeal #: 3, 14 2.2.1.3 (c) – Appeal #: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 2.2.1.4 – Appeal #: 2, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 2.2.2 – Appeal #: 4, 6, 16, 17, 18 2.2.2.3 – Appeal #: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 2.2.3 – Appeal #: 6, 16, 17 2.2.3.1 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.3.2 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.4 – Appeal #: 4, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 2.2.4.1 – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.4.2 – Appeal #: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.4.3 – Appeal #: 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.4.6 – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.4.8 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.4.9 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.4.10 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 2.2.4.11 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.6 – Appeal #: 4, 6, 16, 17, 18, 21 2.2.6.1 – Appeal #: 8, 9, 18 2.2.6.1(e) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.6.2 – Appeal #: 4, 5, 18 2.2.6.2(c) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.6.2(d) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.6.3 – Appeal #: 18 3.1 – Appeal #: 3, 4, 6, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 3.2.1 – Appeal #: 4, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 20 3.2.1.1 – Appeal #: 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21 3.2.1.2 – Appeal #: 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21 3.2.2 – Appeal #: 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 20 3.2.2.1 – Appeal #: 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 3.2.2.2 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 3.2.3 – Appeal #: 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 3.2.3.2 – Appeal #: 4, 18 3.2.3.2(b) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 3.2.3.2(c) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 4.2.10.1(a) – Appeal #: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 4.2.10.1(b) – Appeal #: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13 5.2.3.1 – Appeal #: 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 5.2.4.5(a) – Appeal #: 3, 14, 18 5.2.5.1 – Appeal #: 4, 18, 21 5.2.5.5 – Appeal #: 4, 18, 21 5.2.5.6 – Appeal: #4

2041 Regional Transportation Plan for the Greater Toronto Area

4. Does the Plan appropriately contribute to the achievement of the goals set out in the 2041 Regional Transportation Plan for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, and in particular, to intensify areas with access to frequent transit to reduce transportation-related air pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions? Appeal: 4, 19, 20, 21

Toronto Official Plan

5. Does the Plan align with the general intent and purpose of the Council-adopted Official Plan Amendment 570 to recognize the Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue intersection as a Protected Major Transit Station Area? Appeal #: 4, 18, 19, 21

6. Do the policies and/or maps of the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan and implementing by-law, as identified by each Appellant in Attachment 1 give appropriate effect to the City of Toronto Official Plan policies: 2.1.1 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21 2.1.1(a) – Appeal #: 4 2.1.1(b) – Appeal #: 4 2.1.1(d) – Appeal #: 4 2.2 – Appeal #: 2, 5, 19, 20, 21 2.2.1 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 2.2.1(a) – Appeal #: 4 2.2.1(c) – Appeal #: 4 2.2.2 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 2.2.2(a) – Appeal #: 4, 5 2.2.2(b) – Appeal #: 4, 5 2.2.2(d) – Appeal #: 4, 5 2.2.2(g) – Appeal #: 4 2.2.2.1 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.2.2 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.2.3 – Appeal #: 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21 2.2.5(h) – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13 2.3.1.3 – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 2.3.1.4 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 2.4.4 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 2.4.7 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 2.4.8 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 3.1.1.12 – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 3.1.1.20 – Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 18 3.1.2 – Appeal #: 18, 21 3.1.3 – Appeal #: 4 3.1.3.1 – Appeal #: 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 3.1.3.1(b) – Appeal #: 5 3.1.3.5 – Appeal #: 2, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 3.1.3.6 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20 3.1.3.7 – Appeal #: 4 3.2.1.1 – Appeal #: 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21 3.2.1.2 – Appeal #: 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21 3.2.1.3 – Appeal #: 18 3.5.1.3 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5 3.5.3 – Appeal #: 18 4.5 – Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21 4.5.2 – Appeal #: 4, 18 5.2.1.3 – Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 5.2.1.4 – Appeal #: 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21

Yonge Street North Secondary Plan Policy Issues

Section 1: Vision

7. Policy 1.5 – Does Policy 1.5, which protects for the stability of Neighbourhoods, provide sufficient flexibility to allow for appropriate development in Neighbourhoods within the Secondary Plan area? Appeal #: 6

Section 2: Area Structure

Steeles Transit Station Area

8. Policy 2.1 – Is Policy 2.1, which identifies the Steeles Transit Station Area as the primary area for intensification with the greatest height and densities within the Secondary Plan, consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan? Appeal #: 1, 4

9. Policy 2.2 – Is Policy 2.2, which specifies that the Steeles Transit Station Area will have the highest concentration of non-residential uses within the Secondary Plan area consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan? Appeal #: 1

10. Policy 2.3 – Is Policy 2.3, which specifies that within the Steeles Transit Station Area, development will be supported by planning for a diverse mix of uses to support transit, fostering collaboration between public and private sectors, and prohibiting land uses and built form that would adversely affect the achievement of transit supportive densities, consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan? Appeal #: 1

11. Policy 2.4 – a) Is Policy 2.4, which specifies that existing and new development in the Steeles Transit Station Area will collectively achieve, or exceed, a minimum population and employment target of 300 residents and jobs combined per hectare, consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan? Appeal #: 1 b) Is it appropriate for this policy to provide that the minimum density target cannot be achieved through individual development applications? Appeal #: 18

12. Policy 2.5 – Is Policy 2.5, which specifies that the lands to the north of Steeles Avenue are guided by the policies of York Region and the Cities of Vaughan and Markham, and the Secondary Plan has regard for those planning frameworks in the context of transit-supportive development and infrastructure at and beyond the Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue intersection, consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan? Appeal #: 1

13. Policy 2.6 – a) Is Policy 2.6, which specifies that the Steeles Transit Station Area will redevelop with tall, mid-rise and low-rise buildings with the greatest heights and densities at the Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue intersection and generally step down as development moves further away from the intersection, consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan? Appeal #: 1, 5, 21 b) Does Policy 2.6 inappropriately restrict the greatest heights and densities to only one property within the Steeles Transit Station Area – namely, 6464 Yonge Street, and does it appropriately consider the existing and emerging planning frameworks in City of Vaughan and City of Markham? Appeal #: 4 c) Is it appropriate to have a detailed height map for the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18 d) Does Policy 2.6 provide insufficient clarity on permitted heights and densities, specifically related to transition policies? Appeal #: 12, 13

14. Policy 2.7 – Is Policy 2.7, which specifies that within the Steeles Transit Station Area, the redevelopment of Centerpoint Mall lands will deliver the Plan's largest proportion of non-residential uses, and include a street network that supports connectivity, the creation of a vibrant public realm, opportunities for Privately Owned Public Spaces and include a centralized public park, consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan? Appeal #: 1, 18

Yonge Main Station

15. Policy 2.10 – Is Policy 2.10, which specifies that Yonge Street south of the Steeles Transit Station Area and north of the Yonge Drewry/Cummer Node, will function as the primary mid-rise, mixed-use main street, appropriate? Should a mix of mid-rise and tall buildings be permitted in these areas? Appeal #: 8, 9, 16, 17, 19, 21

Neighbourhoods

16. Policy 2.14 – Is Policy 2.14, which specifies that Neighbourhoods will retain their existing low-rise character and will provide for a variety of low-rise building types, appropriately worded to implement the intention of facilitating duplex, triplex and other multi-unit buildings within Neighbourhoods? Appeal #: 6

17. Policy 2.15 – Is Policy 2.15, which specifies that for the purposes of this Secondary Plan, duplex, triplex and other multi-unit buildings, are part of the prevailing building type, appropriately worded to implement the intention of facilitating those building types in Neighbourhoods? Appeal #: 6

Section 3: Public Realm

18. Preamble – Should the words "all public and private spaces to which the public has access. It includes," be removed as being ambiguous as to what constitutes private spaces? Appeal #: 18

Public Realm Network

19. Policy 3.4 – Is Policy 3.4, which directs the location of POPS to Yonge Street, appropriate in light of the existing "Enhanced Pedestrian Route to Parks" policies? Appeal #: 18

20. Policy 3.5 – Does Policy 3.5 sufficiently allow development to provide public realm enhancements in a manner that is appropriate, give effect to Provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure, particularly within a proposed PMTSA, in a manner that is consistent with the PPS, and which would conform to the Growth Plan and Official Plan? Appeal #: 5

21. Policy 3.6 – Is it appropriate/necessary to specify that all setback areas from a street are to be publicly accessible to the public? Appeal #: 18

22. Policy 3.7 – Is Policy 3.7 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 20

23. Policy 3.10 – Does Policy 3.10 sufficiently allow development to provide public realm enhancements in a manner that is appropriate, give effect to Provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure, particularly within a proposed PMTSA, in a manner that is consistent with the PPS, and which would conform to the Growth Plan and Official Plan? Appeal #: 5

Yonge Street Promenade

24. Policy 3.16 – Is Policy 3.16 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 5, 8, 9, 17, 16, 18, 19, 21

25. Policy 3.17 – Is Policy 3.17 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 5, 8, 9, 17, 18

Steeles Avenue, Cummer Avenue and Drewry Avenue

26. Policy 3.20 – Is Policy 3.20 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 5, 18

Prime Pedestrian Area and Retail Use

27. Policy 3.21 – Is Policy 3.21 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Alternatively, should a wide range of active uses at grade be encouraged along Yonge Street? Appeal #: 2, 8, 9, 17, 18

28. Policy 3.22 – Should the second sentence of Policy 3.22 be removed as being inconsistent with the preferred language of the first sentence? Appeal #: 18

29. Policy 3.23 – Should the reference to "encourage fine grain retail at grade" be removed as it applies to the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18

30. Policy 3.25 – Is Policy 3.25 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Appeal #: 2, 8, 9, 18, 19, 20

Public Streets and Secondary Streets

31. Policy 3.26 – Is Policy 3.26 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21

32. Policy 3.27 – Is Policy 3.27, which specifies that new buildings in the Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space, appropriate in light of the policies permitting multi-unit residential buildings and multiplexes within Neighbourhoods in the Secondary Plan area? Appeal #: 6

33. Policy 3.28 – Is Policy 3.28, which specifies that the 10 metre wide Enhanced Pedestrian Routes to Parks shown on Map 49-3 should be designed with a generous pedestrian sidewalk and a row of trees planted on each side of the sidewalk, appropriate? Is it too onerous or impractical? Appeal #: 18

Privately Owned, Publicly-Accessible Spaces (POPS)

34. Policy 3.31 – Is it appropriate to clarify that POPS are only those spaces shown on Map 49-3 rather than use the definition of a POPS in Policy 3.31 which includes other spaces such as mid-block connections as POPS? Appeal #: 18

35. Policy 3.35 – Is Policy 3.35, which outlines the requirements for designing and securing mid-block connections, appropriate? Appeal #: 5, 12, 13, 18

36. Policy 3.36 – Is it appropriate to require a "Mid-Block Connection" between Yonge-Steeles subway station and the future park on the Centerpoint Mall lands and for that connection to be generally 10 metres wide? Appeal #: 18

Public Art

37. Policy 3.37 – Is Policy 3.37, which includes requirements and guidelines for public art on public and private land, legally constituted good planning, appropriate and/or necessary? Is it appropriate to encourage public art as part of development without reference to the community benefit charge framework in the Planning Act? Appeal #: 5, 16, 17, 18, 21

38. Policy 3.39 – Does Policy 3.39, which describes potential locations and process for determining locations for public art, conflict with Policy 3.37 as to the location of public art? Appeal #: 18

Section 4: Parks and Open Spaces

39. Policy 4.3(e) – Has appropriate justification been provided to support Policy 4.3(e), and the identification of a Priority Parkland Expansion Area on Maps 49-3 and 49-7? Appeal #: 5, 21

40. Policy 4.6(g) – Is Policy 4.6(g), which directs that development adjacent to parks be located and designed to maximize sunlight and minimize shadowing on parks, appropriate? Appeal #: 18

Section 5: Transportation and Mobility Principles

Pedestrian and Cycling Network

41. Policies 5.4, 5.5 - Is the proposed public and secondary streets network referenced in these policies and Map 49-4 appropriate for the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18

Street Network

42. Policies 5.10, 5.11 – Is the proposed public and secondary streets network referenced in these policies and Map 49-4 appropriate for the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18

43. Policy 5.9 – Does Policy 5.9, which specifies that accessible mid-block connections are to be secured as identified in Map 49-3 through future developments, and will be of generous width to support movement by all forms of active travel, including walking and biking, provide sufficient clarity on mid-block connections? Appeal #: 5, 12, 13, 18, 21

44. Policy 5.12 – Does Policy 5.12, which directs lands to be protected and conveyed for road widening, fail to adequately and appropriately identify how the exact road alignment will be determined, how the roads will be dedicated, and who will pay for them? Appeal #: 1, 5

45. Policy 5.15 – Is Policy 5.15, which specifies that the planned right-of-way widening for Lariviere Road and Dumont Street will be taken exclusively from the side of the street that is designated as Steeles Transit Station Area or Mid-Rise East and West Areas, in Map 49-2, appropriate? Appeal #: 18

46. Policy 5.17 – Should Policy 5.17, which specifies that new/modified lanes will be public and a minimum of 6 metres wide, to be secured through the development application review process, be clarified to indicate how the lanes will become public? Should the policy be clarified to explain how modifying existing lanes to achieve the minimum required width will be accomplished? Appeal #: 5, 8, 9

Transit Infrastructure

47. Policy 5.20 – a) Does Policy 5.20 give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 5 b) Is the wording "rather than in standalone buildings" appropriate? Appeal #: 18

48. Is Policy 5.23, which specifies that transit priority measures are to be provided on Steeles Avenue to improve transit experience and reliability, appropriate? Appeal #: 18

49. Is Policy 5.24, which specifies that surface transit vehicle access to transit terminal facilities should be provided from the Public Street network identified in Map 49-4, appropriate? Is it appropriate to strongly discourage transit only accesses directly to/from Yonge Street? Appeal #: 18

Section 6: Housing

50. Policy 6.1 – Is Policy 6.1, which specifies minimum two- and three-bedroom requirements for developments that contain more than 80 new residential units, inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Is it necessary and desirable, and does it give effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure? Appeal #: 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

51. Policy 6.3 – Is Policy 6.3, which specifies that residential developments will include a range of tenures, unit types, sizes and affordability levels inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Should it be clarified to better articulate the intent of the proposed policy? Appeal #: 2, 8, 9

Section 7: Community Services and Facilities

52. Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8 – Are these policies regarding new and existing community service facilities consistent with the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act after their recent amendment? Are the policies in regard to school accommodation appropriate? Appeal #: 18

Section 8: Built Form

Shaping Built Form

53. Policy 8.1 – Is Policy 8.1, which provides that tall buildings will have a visible transition in height of approximately 5-storeys moving away from the Yonge and Steeles intersection in the Steeles Transit Station Area, appropriate and/or necessary ? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Is it too prescriptive? Appeal #: 1, 5, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21

54. Policy 8.2 – Is Policy 8.2, which specifies that mid-rise buildings and tall buildings lower in height/scale/intensity than those in the Steeles Transit Station Area are to be located within the Yonge Drewry/Cummer Node and will provide visible transition down in height of approximately 5-storeys moving away from the Yonge Street and Drewry/Cummer Avenue intersection, appropriate? Appeal #: 10, 11, 12, 13, 21

55. Policy 8.3 – Is Policy 8.3, which specifies that the Yonge Main Street, Mid-rise East and West and parts of the Steeles Transit Station Area and Yonge Drewry/ Cummer Node be developed with contextually appropriate mid-rise buildings, appropriate and good planning? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21

56. Policy 8.4 – Does Policy 8.4, which specifies that small scale, multiplex residential built forms are permitted in Neighbourhoods within the Secondary Plan area, provide sufficient flexibility? Appeal #: 6, 11, 21

57. Policy 8.5 – Is Policy 8.5, which regulates the form and scale of development in order to facilitate a transition in scale from Yonge Street North to the surrounding residential Neighbourhoods, drafted with sufficient clarity? Are modifications to the policy language appropriate to clarify the policy intent as it relates to development within Neighbourhoods within the Secondary Plan area? Is the policy appropriate? Appeal #: 5, 6, 10, 11, 20, 21

General Built Form

58. Policy 8.6 – Is Policy 8.6, which specifies that buildings will be located, massed and orientated to provide comfortable outdoor public realm spaces, including streets and sidewalks, parks and open spaces, for users of all ages and abilities, appropriate? Appeal #: 11, 18, 21

59. Policy 8.7 – Is Policy 8.7, which regulates base building heights of tall and mid-rise buildings, inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

60. Policy 8.8 – a) Is Policy 8.8, which specifies the requirements for a Block Context Plan where tall buildings are proposed, appropriate? Appeal #: 11 b) Is the requirement to address the "cumulative impacts' of shadow, wind and open views of the sky from the public realm appropriate and practical? Is there a need to clarify what constitutes an impact on "an open view of the sky from the public realm"? Is the requirement to "minimize" the identified impacts appropriate? Is the discouragement of "large, elongated floor plates" appropriate for the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18

61. Policy 8.9 – Is Policy 8.9, which regulates tall building separation distances and tower floor plate size, inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 21

62. Policy 8.10 – a) Is the angular plane requirement in Policy 8.10 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 19, 21 b) Is this policy appropriate for the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18

63. Policy 8.11 – a) Is the setback requirement in Policy 8.11 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 21 b) Is this policy appropriate for the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18

64. Policy 8.12 – a) Is Policy 8.12, which encourages active at-grade uses on the ground floor in Mixed Use Areas, appropriate? Appeal #: 11 b) Should flexibility be available for the Centerpoint Mall lands in regard to the location of entrances? Appeal #: 18

65. Policy 8.13 – a) Is Policy 8.13, which directs development to be related to the grade of the adjacent public realm, appropriate? Does it provide sufficient flexibility to recognize different circumstances, including deeper sites with built form that does not relate directly to a public road? Appeal #: 6, 11, 19, 20 b) Should flexibility be available for the Centerpoint Mall lands in regard to the location of entrances? Appeal #: 18

66. Policy 8.14 – a) Is Policy 8.14, which provides requirements for underground parking locations, appropriate? Appeal #: 11 b) In the context of the Centerpoint Mall lands, should this policy relate to new parking only? Appeal #: 18

67. Policy 8.15 – Are the sustainability and climate resilience policies for new buildings in Policy 8.15 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Are they overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Are the requirements sufficiently flexible to allow for good planning? Should the policies be better clarified to articulate their intent? Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18

Built Form by Character Area

Steeles Transit Station Area

68. Policy 8.16 – Does Policy 8.16, which specifies that the Steeles Transit Station Area will provide a mix and variation of building types and heights, and transition in scale to areas of different heights and intensity in the Plan area, give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Is it too prescriptive? Appeal #: 5, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21

69. Policy 8.17 – Should Policy 8.17 avoid prescribing specific height differentials in transition away from the Yonge and Steeles intersection? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Is it too prescriptive? Appeal #: 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 18, 21

70. Policy 8.18 – Is the base building height requirement of Policy 8.18 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 18, 21

71. Policy 8.19 – Is the minimum tower step back from base building requirement of Policy 8.19 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 18, 21

72. Policy 8.20 – Does Policy 8.20, which provides requirements for built form on the Centerpoint Mall lands, give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Is it too prescriptive? Are the tests of "maximize" and "minimize" appropriate and/or necessary? Appeal #: 11, 18, 21

73. Policy 8.21 – Is Policy 8.21, which specifies that the form of development in the Steeles Transit Station Area will create a well-defined edge and facilitate a gradual transition from this high intensification node to adjacent neighbourhoods outside of the Secondary Plan area, consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan? Does it give appropriate effect to provincial policies regarding the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within a proposed PMTSA? Is it too prescriptive? Appeal #: 1, 5, 11, 21

Yonge Drewry/Cummer Node

74. Policy 8.22 – Is Policy 8.22, which specifies that development in the Yonge Drewry/Cummer Node will provide a mix of building types, a variation of building heights and transition in scale as shown on Map 49-5, appropriate? Appeal #: 10, 11, 20, 21

75. Policy 8.23 – Is Policy 8.23, which specifies that the tallest buildings within the Yonge Drewry/Cummer Node will be 45 storeys, located at the intersection. Tall buildings will step down in height by an approximate 5 storey difference away from the intersection to provide a visible distinction in height, appropriate? Appeal #: 10, 11, 20, 21

76. Policy 8.24 – Is Policy 8.24, which specifies that the base buildings of all buildings in the Yonge Drewry/Cummer Node will front onto the abutting right-of-way and be no higher than 80 percent of the adjacent right-of-way width and between 3 storeys and 7storeys, appropriate? Appeal #: 10, 11, 20, 21

77. Policy 8.25 – Is Policy 8.25, which specifies that the tower portion of the building which is taller than 80 percent of the adjacent right-of-way will be set back minimum 5 metres from the Yonge Street building façade at the Yonge and Drewry/Cummer intersection, appropriate? Appeal #: 10, 11, 20, 21

78. Policy 8.26 – Is Policy 8.26, which limits tall buildings to Yonge Street within the Yonge Drewry/Cummer node and specifies that only if a higher order transit station is confirmed may tall buildings be located behind tall buildings that front onto Yonge Street, appropriate? Appeal #: 10, 11, 21

79. Policy 8.27 – Is Policy 8.27, which specifies that above the base building height, taller portions of a mid-rise building facing onto streets and parks will be set back approximately 3 metres from the base building façades, appropriate? Appeal #: 10, 11, 21

Yonge Main Street

80. Policy 8.28 – Is Policy 8.28, which specifies that new development within the Yonge Main Street shall be mid-rise buildings which have heights generally no greater than the width of the adjacent right-of-way, appropriate and/or necessary? Should a mix of mid-rise and tall buildings be permitted in these areas? Appeal #: 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21

81. Policy 8.29 – Are the minimum sunlight requirements for mid-rise buildings in Policy 8.29 inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Are they overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Appeal #: 2, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 21

82. Policy 8.30 – Is Policy 8.30, which provides minimum requirements to achieve a pedestrian-scale street wall condition, inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Appeal #: 2, 8, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

83. Policy 8.31 – Is Policy 8.31, which is intended to ensure the Centre Park area receives ample direct sunlight, inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Is it overly restrictive and better suited to be included in a Zoning By-law or Urban Design Guidelines? Appeal #: 2, 8, 9, 11, 17, 21

Mid-rise East and West

84. Policy 8.32 – Is Policy 8.32, which specifies that existing lots may be consolidated into larger blocks to allow the blocks to be redeveloped by mid-rise and low-rise buildings in the Mid-rise East and West area, appropriate? Appeal #: 11, 16, 19, 21

85. Policy 8.33 – Is Policy 8.33, which provides requirements to mitigate shadows on Goulding Park, appropriate? Appeal #: 11, 21

Neighbourhoods

86. Policy 8.34 – Is Policy 8.34, which specifies that low-rise, multiplex residential buildings may be located in Neighbourhoods within the Secondary Plan, appropriate? Appeal #: 11, 21

87. Policy 8.35 – Is Policy 8.35, which specifies that in Neighbourhoods, existing lots shall not be consolidated into larger blocks of land for development and that new development will fit into the existing character of the neighbourhoods, appropriate as it relates to property ownership and prohibiting lot consolidation? Is the description of the existing character of neighbourhoods appropriate? Appeal #: 6, 11, 21

88. Policy 8.36 – Is Policy 8.36, which includes indoor amenity space provisions, appropriate? Appeal #: 11

Amenity Space

89. Policy 8.37 – Is Policy 8.37, which includes outdoor amenity space provisions, appropriate? Appeal #: 11

90. Policy 8.38 – Is Policy 8.38, which specifies that indoor amenity space will be provided in appropriately scaled rooms, one of which will be encouraged to be directly adjacent and connected to the outdoor amenity space, appropriate? Appeal #: 11

91. Policy 8.39 – Is Policy 8.39, which specifies that development that includes residential units will be encouraged to include pet amenity areas that include facilities for the disposal of pet waste, appropriate? Appeal #: 11

Section 9: Implementation

92. Policy 9.1 – Is Policy 9.1 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1

93. Policy 9.2 – Is Policy 9.2 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1

94. Policy 9.3 – Is Policy 9.3 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1

95. Policy 9.4 – Is Policy 9.4 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Should it be clarified to indicate how the lands required for the widening of lanes will be identified and the process by which the City will acquire or secure the acquisition of lands required for the widening of lanes? Appeal #: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9

96. Policy 9.5 – Is Policy 9.5 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1

97. Policy 9.6 – Is Policy 9.6 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1

98. Policy 9.7 – Is Policy 9.7 inappropriate? Is it unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Should this policy refer to Map 49-4 as well as Map 49-11? Appeal #: 1, 18

99. Policy 9.8 – Is Policy 9.8 inappropriate? Is it unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1, 18

100. Policy 9.9 – Is Policy 9.9 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1

101. Policy 9.10 – Is Policy 9.10 inappropriate? Is it unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1, 18

102. Policy 9.10(a) – Should Policy 9.10(a) be clarified to describe the process by which required lanes identified on Map 49-11 Transportation Implementation Plan that form part of a site under application for redevelopment will be secured and/or constructed prior to development proceeding? Are the required improvements on Map 49-11 (Transportation Implementation Plan) appropriate and/or sufficiently described? Appeal #: 8, 9, 18

103. Policy 9.10(b) – Is Policy 9.10(b), which specifies that application proponents will make best efforts to coordinate required improvement within the Development Area with other landowners, reasonable and appropriate? Appeal #: 18

104. Policy 9.10(c) – Should Policy 9.10(c) be re-worded to read "if the improvements required under Policy 9.10(b) are not secured or constructed, development proponents…"? Appeal #: 18

105. Policy 9.11 – Is Policy 9.11 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Is it vague as to when a landowner agreement may be appropriate? Appeal #: 1, 18

106. Policy 9.12 – Is Policy 9.12 inappropriate and unclear with respect to how the Secondary Plan applies to lands outside of the Secondary Plan Area? Appeal #: 1

Urban Design Guidelines

107. Policy 9.13 – a) Is it appropriate to specify in Policy 9.13 that development will be guided by urban design guidelines that have not yet been adopted? Appeal #: 5 b) Should this policy be reworded as follows to clarify intent and avoid ambiguity: "Urban design guidelines should be developed to ensure that further guidance is provided regarding the public realm features including mid-block connections and pedestrian-supportive streetscapes, particularly in the Mid-rise East and West character areas. In addition, area specific built form guidelines should be developed to address the creation of a variety of built forms". Appeal #: 18

List of Maps

Map 49-1 - Secondary Plan Area

108. Map 49-1 – Is the introduction of a new/modified lane extending south from Steeles Avenue, east of Yonge Street, appropriate and supportive of good planning, in particular given that the new/modified lane falls within a proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 5

Map 49-2 - Character Areas

109. Map 49-2 – a) Should the boundaries of the proposed Steeles Transit Station Area found on Map 49-2 be consistent with the boundaries of the proposed Yonge-Steeles PMTSA? b) Alternatively, should the "Steeles Transit Station Area" align with the boundaries of the proposed Yonge Steels PMTSA along the Yonge Street corridor, extending south to Homewood Avenue on the west side of Yonge Street and to Centre Avenue on the east side of Yonge Street. Appeal #: 2, 8, 9 c) Should the map be modified to replace, for the Centerpoint Mall lands, the designation of "Yonge Main Street" with the designation of "Steeles Transit Station Area" which is applicable to the balance of the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18

Map 49-3 – Public Realm

110. Map 49-3 – a) Is the introduction of a new/modified lane appropriate and support good planning? Has appropriate justification been provided for the identification of a Priority Parkland Expansion Area? Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 21 b) Is it appropriate to have a detailed map or maps for Centerpoint Mall lands to illustrate proposed new streets, park, "Mid-Block Connections", "POPS" and an "Enhanced Pedestrian Route to Parks"? Is it appropriate to conceptually identify potential locations for public art on Map 49-3? Are the proposed locations identified for proposed new streets, park, "Mid-Block Connections", "POPS" and "Enhanced Pedestrian Route to Parks" within the Centerpoint Mall lands inappropriate and/or unnecessary? Appeal #: 18

Map 49-4 – Street Network

111. Map 49-4 – a) Are the proposed road alignments and improvements appropriate? Is the introduction of a new/modified lane appropriate and support good planning? Appeal #: 1, 5, 10, 11, 21 b) Is it appropriate to have a detailed map or maps for Centerpoint Mall lands to illustrate a proposed street network for these lands? Is the proposed public and secondary streets network appropriate for the Centerpoint Mall lands? Appeal #: 18

Map 49-5 – Building Types and Heights

112. Map 49-5 – a) Should lands located within a proposed PMTSA be located in Area A rather than Areas B or C? Appeal #: 2, 19, 21 b) Is the "Mid-rise Buildings on Yonge Street" designation appropriate for the properties along the east side of Yonge Street that are within the Steeles Transit Station Area, in particular, the block that is located on the south-east corner of the intersection of Steeles Avenue and Yonge Street, north of Nipigon Avenue? Appeal #: 4 c) Is Map 49-5 consistent with provincial and municipal objectives to achieve intensification within the Yonge-Steeles proposed PMTSA? Appeal #: 4, 5, 19 d) Is it appropriate for Map 49-5 of the YSNSP to limit the lands on the east side of Yonge Street between Steeles Avenue East and Athabaska Avenue, and the lands on both sides of Yonge Street between Athabaska Avenue and Homewood Avenue / Centre Avenue, to "mid-rise buildings"? Appeal #: 8, 9 e) Is the portion of the subject site identified as Area B on Map 49-5 appropriate given the proximity to the Yonge/Drewry intersection, recent development approvals and in consideration of the area context? Appeal #: 10, 11, 21 f) Is it appropriate for Map 49-5 to limit the lands within the Mid-Rise East Character Area only to a mix of mid-rise buildings and low-rise buildings given the further mandatory policy direction regarding mid-rise buildings? Appeal #: 16 g) Is it appropriate for Map 49-5 to limit the lands on the east side of Yonge Street to "mid-rise buildings"? Appeal #: 4, 17 h) Is it appropriate to redesignate the Centerpoint Mall lands which are designated as C ("Mid-rise buildings on Yonge") to A ("Mix of tall buildings and mid-rise buildings) at Steeles Transit Station Area (max 50 storeys)")? Is it appropriate to redesignate the Centerpoint Mall lands which are designated as B ("Mix of mid-rise buildings and low-rise buildings") to A ("Mix of tall buildings and mid-rise buildings at Steeles Transit Station Area (max 50 storeys)") down to a line which is approximately the extension of the north boundary of the right-of-way of Otonabee Ave. west of Yonge St.? Is it appropriate to have a detailed height map for the Centerpoint Mall lands? Should the heights/building types illustrated on Map 49-5 be modified to those illustrated/described within the Centerpoint Mall SASP? Appeal #: 18

Map 49-7 – Proposed Long Term Parks

113. Map 49-7 – a) Has appropriate justification been provided for the identification of a Priority Parkland Expansion Area? Appeal #: 5, 10, 11, 21 b) Is the size of the proposed park on the Centerpoint Mall lands appropriate and in accordance with recent amendments to the Planning Act? Appeal #: 18

Map 49-8 – Pedestrian Connections

114. Map 49-8 – Is it appropriate to have a detailed map or maps for the Centerpoint Mall lands to illustrate proposed streets, park, "Mid-Block Connections", "POPS" and an "Enhanced Pedestrian Route to Parks"? Appeal #: 18

Map 49-10 – Transit and Transportation Demand Management

115. Map 49-10 – Is the location of the proposed planned Subway station appropriate? Appeal #: 18

Map 49-11 – Transportation Implementation Plan

116. Map 49-11 – a) Are the proposed road alignments and improvements appropriate? Is the introduction of a new/modified lane appropriate and support good planning? Appeal #: 1, 5 b) Should the "Proposed Secondary Streets" as shown on Map 49-4 4 (as they may be modified for the Centerpoint Mall lands) be shown on Map 49-11? Is it appropriate that road improvements shown on Map 49-11 extend beyond the boundaries of the Plan area? Appeal #: 18

Other

117. Should OPA 615 contain a policy which makes it clear that lands with frontage onto Steeles Avenue West are required to provide a 23.5 metre right-of-way tapering to a 22.5 metre right-of-way as measured from the centreline of the existing 36 metre right-of-way similar to Policy 5.9.13.2 of the City of Vaughan's Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan (the "YSCSP")? Appeal #: 3, 14, 18

118. Should a policy be added to OPA 615 to expressly state both a pre-subway and post-subway population (not employment) cap for the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan area as included in the YSCSP to ensure the orderly and appropriate development for the lands comprising the Yonge Street North Secondary Plan area? If so, what should the policy be for such pre-subway and post-subway population caps? Appeal #: 3, 14, 18

119. Do the Plan's policies for Mid-rise Buildings on Yonge Street conflict with the Area Structure policies which provide that the Steeles Transit Station Area is the primary area for intensification and will have the greatest heights and most intense built form within the Secondary Plan? Appeal #: 4, 19

120. Should the Plan introduce policies that promote creative and block-specific solutions with respect to matters such as setbacks and tower separation distances to facilitate achieving tall buildings within the Steeles Transit Station Area, along the east side of Yonge Street, recognizing the importance of capitalizing on public transit investment and that intensification near planned higher order transit stations is vital for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as well as to better reflect the planned context on the west side of Yonge Street and in Vaughan and Markham? If so, what should be the content of those policies? Appeal #: 4

121. Does the "Mid-rise Buildings on Yonge Street" designation conflict with Provincial Policy direction for this critical intersection at Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue? Appeal #: 4. 18

122. Is the Plan consistent with other urban Secondary Plans in the City of Toronto that promote the greatest heights and densities adjacent to higher order transit stations? Appeal #: 4

123. Did the previous draft iteration of the Plan, which illustrated tall buildings on the properties along the east side of Yonge Street near Steeles Avenue, represent a more appropriate vision for this future transportation hub? a) Should the requirement to maintain the existence and current alignment of the public laneway running parallel to and east of Yonge Street and located south of Steeles Avenue East and north of Nipigon Avenue (the "Laneway") prejudice and constrain the achievement of appropriate forms of development along the east side of Yonge Street? b) Does the need to maintain the Laneway in place preclude the achievement of the Plan's policy framework, as initially proposed, which contemplated towers of up to 50 storeys along the east side of Yonge Street? Appeal #: 4, 5

124. Should the Plan contain site-specific policies to facilitate tall buildings on the shallow sites along the east side of Yonge Street and west of the public laneway, similar to the proposed 50-storey building at 6979-6991 Yonge Street that is currently before the City? Appeal #: 4, 5

125. Should the Plan contain policies that contemplate greater setback requirements for tall buildings on the lands located to the east of the Laneway, recognizing that these lands were historically designated Neighbourhoods, and in consideration of the interface of such buildings relative to development to be located along Yonge Street? Appeal #: 4

126. Does the Plan represent good planning? Appeal #:4, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

127. Should OPA 615 include transition policies exempting developments for which planning applications have already been submitted? Appeal #: 6, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21

128. Should OPA 615 include an area-specific SASP which reflects the Tribunal approvals obtained by the Appellants through their site-specific OPA in Case Nos. PL110316 and PL200313 (Decision dated August 19, 2021)? Appeal #: 7, 20

129. Should OPA 615 be modified with respect to Character Area (Map 49-2) and Building Types and Heights (Map 49-5) respecting the lands north of Cummer Avenue and extending eastward to Willowdale Avenue, as identified in the Appellant's appeal letter? Appeal #: 7

130. Are there appropriate policies contained within the Secondary Plan to provide for compensation for over dedication of parkland in light of the Bill 23 amendments to the parkland provisions in the Planning Act? Appeal #: 10, 11, 18

131. Is it appropriate and good planning to require an enhanced streetscape along the entirety of Yonge Street, regardless of the appropriate setback, without reference to the community benefit charge framework in the Planning Act? Appeal #: 17, 18, 19, 20

132. Is it more appropriate to proceed with the development of the Centerpoint Mall lands under the policies of a SASP? Appeal #: 18

133. Is it appropriate to add a new policy to the Secondary Plan that acknowledges the existing use of the Centerpoint Mall lands and provides that the existing use may continue and be enhanced and expanded before and coincident with the redevelopment process? Appeal #: 18

Attachment #3a – Appellant/Party List and Related Number

Appellant	Details
1	CAPREIT
2	1018429 Ontario Inc.
3	Various (480 Steeles Avenue West Limited, 228 Steeles West Limited, 1163919 Ontario Limited, 188836 Ontario Limited & 1211612 Ontario Limited)
4	Longevity Properties Ltd.
5	Sky Property Group Inc.
6	Centre Park Holdings
7	Ghods
8	Augend Investment Ltd.
9	W Mandel Developments & Mandross Holdings Inc.
10	Connaught Yonge Square Limited & Enderby Developments Limited (Leonard Binder)
11	6200 Yonge GP Inc.
12	Delmar Development Group
13	Delmar Development Group
14	Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc.
15	CentreCourt Properties – WITHDRAWN
16	Trolleybus Urban Development Inc.
17	Streetside Capital Holdings Inc., Shivani Ruparell & 2126754 Ontario Inc.
18	Morguard Investments Ltd.

Added Parties	Details
19	6150 Yonge GP
20	Yongwood Ltd.
21	2078004 Ontario Inc. and 24590304 Ontario Ltd. (6125 Yonge Street/10 Centre Street)
22	Amdev Asset Management
23	City of Vaughan

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

IN CHIEF:

1. City of Toronto
2. Appellants/Added Parties

REPLY- if any:

1. City of Toronto