Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 2, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004469

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

Applicant and Appellant: Gates of Bayview Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a high-density residential development consisting of four residential towers Reference Number: D01-19005 Property Address: 0 Oneida Crescent Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004469 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004469 OLT Case Name: Gates of Bayview Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Gates of Bayview Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a high-density residential development consisting of four residential towers Reference Number: D02-19023 Property Address: 0 Oneida Crescent Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004470 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004469

Heard: June 22, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Gates of Bayview Inc.	Mark Flowers
City of Richmond Hill	Carlton Thorne

DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns two appeals filed by Gates of Bayview Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”) against the City of Richmond Hill (“City”) for its failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (collectively the “Applications”) within the prescribed timeframes as set out in the Act.

2The lands that are the subject of the appeals are located on the west side of Red Maple Road and on the north side of Oneida Crescent at the southerly intersection of Oneida Crescent and Red Maple Road. The lands are currently vacant and known municipally as 0 Oneida Crescent (“Subject Property”)

3The Applications will facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Property with a high-density residential development comprised of four towers having heights of 25, 30, 32 and 37 storeys. Each tower sits atop a three-storey podium and a free-standing, two-storey indoor amenity building is proposed to be shared by the residents of the four buildings. The development proposes 1,518 residential units and 1,799 parking spaces to be located both at grade and within a shared four level underground parking structure. The site will be accessed from two full-movement accesses proposed onto Oneida Crescent.

4The OPA proposes the addition of site-specific exceptions to the Richmond Hill Centre (“RHC”) designation within Richmond Hill Centre Secondary Plan (“RHCSP) of the City Official Plan (“OP”) to facilitate the proposed development. The proposed amendment includes site specific provisions to address angular planes, increased density, and increased building heights.

5The ZBA proposes to rezone the Subject Property from Multiple Residential One (RM-1) Zone under City Zoning By-law No. 278-96, as amended (“ZBL”), to a site specific Special Commercial Five (SC-5) Zone to include the appropriate performance standards to facilitate the proposed development.

6To the north of the Subject Property are lands that have been conveyed to the City for the purposes of a future park. Across Oneida Crescent to the north is the Langstaff Square Care Community building. These lands are designated RHC and are in the RHCSP under the OP. To the south of the Subject Property, across Oneida Crescent, are three 14-storey residential buildings. Further south, beyond High Tech Road, is the Langstaff GO Train Station on the west side of Red Maple Road and across the railway tracks is the Richmond Hill Centre Bus Terminal which connects York Regional Transit (“YRT”), VIVA Bus Rapid Transit (“VIVA”) and GO Bus services. To the east, across Red Maple Road, is Red Maple Public School, Langstaff Community Centre, and Dr. James Langstaff Community Park. The lands are designated “Neighbourhood” in the OP. To the west of the Subject Property, across Oneida Crescent, are two 20-storey towers and north of those lands there are four high-density residential buildings currently under construction.

7The Applications were filed with the City on December 24, 2019, and the City deemed the Applications complete on February 5, 2020. A revised submission was filed with the City on November 17, 2020. A Statutory Public Meeting was held on March 24, 2021. On January 28, 2022, the Applicant filed a third submission in response to comments provided at the Statutory Public Meeting. On September 2, 2022, the Applicant filed appeals in accordance with the Act.

8As part of ongoing settlement discussions with the City, the Appellant filed revised plans on May 1, 2023, which form the basis of the Settlement before the Tribunal. The submission included a Conceptual Site Plan, an updated draft OPA, an updated draft ZBA, and an Addendum to the Planning Brief (“Settlement Proposal”).

9The Settlement Proposal was considered by Council at the June 7, 2023, Committee of the Whole Meeting. City Staff Report SCRM.23.008 (“Staff Report”) recommended supporting, in principle, the approval of the revised OPA and ZBA. City Council adopted the recommendations of the Staff Report on June 14, 2023.

10The Settlement Proposal describes a reduction in the floor plates of the two easterly towers to generally match the two westerly towers, while increasing their building heights by two additional storeys (resulting in 27 storeys and 32 storeys). The overall density was further reduced to 6.96 Floor Space Index (“FSI”), consisting of 1,522 residential units. The “at grade” accessible units facing Red Maple Road will accommodate potential home occupation uses.

11Canadian National Railway (“CN”) had requested Party Status but subsequently withdrew their request. The Tribunal was advised that the Appellant will enter into a Development Agreement with CN, with the specific terms to be negotiated and completed as part of the more detailed design exercise to occur through the Site Plan Approval process.

12Three late requests for Participant Status were received by the Tribunal at the hearing. Counsel for the Parties were unaware of the requests. After the Parties were given the opportunity to review the concerns outlined in the request, the Tribunal granted Participant Status to Peter Cheung, Helium Tsui, and Ivan Yeung and marked their Participant Status Request and Statement forms as exhibits.

13The City attended the hearing, indicating support of the Settlement Proposal.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

14When considering an appeal of an application to amend an official plan, filed pursuant to s. 22 of the Act, and an application to amend a zoning by-law, filed pursuant to s. 34 of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conform to the A Place to Grow: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as amended,2020 (“Growth Plan”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the ZBA conforms with the official plan(s) in effect.

15In consideration of the statutory requirements, as set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the OPA and ZBA represent good planning and are in the public interest.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

16The Tribunal qualified Billy Tung, a Registered Professional Planner, to provide opinion evidence as an expert in land use planning. Mr. Tung provided an affidavit sworn on June 20, 2023, in support of the Settlement Proposal and approval of the OPA and ZBA.

17Mr. Tung reviewed the Settlement Proposal, detailing the proposed site-specific requirements for the proposed development. He advised of modifications to the height of the two towers and the amenity building, tower floor plate size, number of units, FSI reduction and addressing shadow impacts.

18Mr. Tung explained the Settlement Proposal supports the site-specific exceptions to the RHC designation related to density, height and angular plane. Of note is that the site-specific exceptions conform to the RHCSP and are required at this time as the RHCSP plan has not been approved by York Region Council. The Settlement Proposal will also support the rezoning of the Subject Property under the ZBL from Multiple Residential One (RM-1) Zone to Special Commercial Five (SC-5) Zone together with site specific exceptions to permit and regulate the proposed use. The site-specific exceptions include:

i. amending or introducing definitions for Amenity Space, Car Share, Mechanical Penthouse and Tower Floor Plate;

ii. permitting home occupation use within ground level dwelling units facing Red Maple Road;

iii. amending the minimum parking space requirements;

iv. prescribing a minimum bicycle parking requirement;

v. increasing the maximum building height and floor area ratio;

vi. prescribing a maximum tower floor plate size;

vii. establishing a minimum building separation distance;

viii. providing a required amenity space rate; and

ix. amending standards for below-grade parking structures and setbacks.

19The terms of the Settlement Proposal include requesting the Tribunal to approve the proposed OPA and ZBA, as presented in Exhibits C and D of Tribunal Exhibit 1.

Planning Evidence

20Mr. Tung reviewed the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and specifically subsections (f), (h), (h.1), (j), (l), (n) through (s). Mr. Tung opined that the Settlement Proposal has appropriate regard for these matters. In consideration of the PPS, Mr. Tung reviewed the policies relating to efficient land use and infrastructure, encouraging a mix and supply of housing, while promoting transit supportive development. He opined that proposed OPA and proposed ZBA will facilitate an intensification of development that is consistent with these PPS policies, respecting an efficient use of land and infrastructure. The Subject Property is located within a built-up area, in a Settlement Area as defined by the PPS, within an identified regional growth centre that is well serviced by higher-order transit, both existing transit (VIVA, YRT, and GO Bus and GO Train) and planned transit (Future High Tech Road Subway Station). Mr. Tung advised that the high-density residential development contributes to the range and mix of residential types available within the RHC and uses efficient land use planning principles to promote growth management and intensification on a currently underutilized portion of land within the urban boundary.

21Mr. Tung reviewed the applicable policies of the Growth Plan submitting that the Settlement Proposal aligns transit investment with planned intensification areas. The RHC will be serviced by the planned High Tech Station as part of the Yonge North Subway Extension. The RHC meets the definition of a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) as described in the Growth Plan. Bridge Station is being planned to be a transit hub providing connections between the planned Yonge North Subway Extension and existing regional GO Bus service, GO Trains, and VIVA, as well as the future 407 Transitway. The Subject Property is in the RHC which is planned to be a major transit hub accommodating high-density commercial and residential uses and a large portion of residential growth within the City. Mr. Tung opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the policies of the Growth Plan.

22Mr. Tung reviewed the Settlement Proposal and opined that the OPA and ZBA conform with the Region of York Official Plan, 2010 (“ROP 2010”). The ROP 2010 was in force when the Applications were filed. The Subject Property is identified as Urban Area and Regional Centre on Map 1 of the ROP 2010. Urban areas are the focus of growth and intensification in the Region of York (“Region”) and provide for a wide range of uses (Policy 5.2). The proposed OPA and ZBA conform with ROP 2010 policies respecting intensification within the built boundary (Policy 5.3.1) and maximizing efficiencies in infrastructure delivery and supporting active and public transportation use (Section 5.3). Section 5.4 of the ROP 2010 provides policy direction for development in Regional Centres to provide a diverse mix of uses and built forms, mobility choices for residents and employees to create vibrant and complete communities. Regional Centres are recognized for the key role they play in achieving the Region’s intensification objectives and are addressed within local intensification strategies.

23The Region of York Official Plan, 2020 (“ROP 2022”) was approved on November 4, 2022. Mr. Tung stated that Transition provision 7.4.13 of the ROP 2022 identifies that development applications which have not been deemed complete by the approval date of the ROP 2022 shall be subject to the policies of the ROP 2022. He stated that the Applications were deemed complete on February 5, 2020, and therefore are subject to the ROP 2010.

24Mr. Tung reviewed the Applications for conformance with the ROP 2022. He advised that the ROP 2022 guides economic, environmental and community building decisions to manage growth through a series of regional strategies, plans and guidelines to support and guide the Region. A primary objective of the ROP 2022 is to direct growth to existing built-up areas. The ROP 2022 has a planning horizon to the year 2051, an intensification target of 50 percent and an Urban System based on a hierarchy of intensification areas with the greatest densities at Regional Centres and Subway Stations (Major Transit Station Areas) (Section 4.4).

25Mr. Tung advised that the Subject Property is designated Urban Area and Regional Centre on Map 1: Regional Structure and designated as Community Areas on Map 1A – Land Use Designations and identified as Regional Centre and Protected Major Transit Station Area on Map 1B – Urban System Overlays in the ROP 2022. The Subject Lands are located within the York Region Growth Centre (Richmond Hill/Langstaff Gateway Centre) under Appendix 3 and are located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (Richmond Hill Centre Subway Station) under Appendix 2. Regional Centres are targeted for the most intensive and greatest mix of development in the Region and highest densities.

26Mr. Tung proffered that as a continuation from the ROP 2010, Regional Centres will provide the highest development densities and greatest mix of uses in the Region, with a diverse mix of uses and built forms, to create complete communities including living, working, shopping, recreation, and entertainment opportunities. Regional Centres will also provide mobility choices and associated facilities for walking, cycling, transit, and carpooling (Section 4.4.33).

27Section 4.4.42.j of the ROP 2022 requires that within MTSAs, a minimum of 35 percent of new housing units be affordable. The proposed development conforms with this requirement as it pertains to the Subject Property through the proposed unit mix.

28Mr. Tung opines that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the ROP 2022. The ROP 2022 reflects the current direction of Regional planning, conforms with the Growth Plan and is consistent with the PPS.

29Mr. Tung reviewed the policies of the OP. The Tribunal was advised that the Subject Property is identified as being within the RHC on Schedule A1 – Urban Area and Schedule A2 – Land Use (Figures 8 and 9). Section 3.1.3.7 states that:

The Richmond Hill Centre will:

a) Be the primary intensification area of the Town providing the greatest range of uses in a mixed-use format, including employment and residential uses, that are transit-oriented and concentrated around an integrated transit hub;

b) Accommodating the highest level of intensification in the Town, including the greatest height and density;

c) Be planned to achieve a 1:1 ratio of residents-to-jobs; and

d) Be planned to achieve a minimum gross density of 200 people and jobs per hectare by 2031, in accordance with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

30Mr. Tung referenced Section 4.2 of the OP directing that a secondary plan be prepared for the area encompassing the Subject Property. The City Council has undertaken a study and adopted Official Plan Amendment 41 (“OPA 41”), which outlines the approval and adoption of the RHCSP. It should be noted that the RHCSP is awaiting approval by the Region.

31Applications for development are being reviewed in accordance with the policies of the RHCSP as well as the Richmond Hill Regional Centre Design and Land Use Study Final Recommendations Report (“Recommendations Report”) until such time as the RHCSP has been approved by the Region. The City-approved RHCSP and the Recommendations Report permit a broad range of high-density residential, office, commercial, retail and community uses as well as parks and urban open spaces. The Tribunal was further advised that, in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Recommendations Report, the eastern portion of the Subject Property is contemplated to include development with a maximum height of 15 storeys, a minimum FSI of 2.5 and maximum density of 3.0 FSI. The western portion of the Subject Lands is contemplated to include a maximum of 30 storeys, a minimum density of 3.5 FSI and a maximum density of 5.0 FSI. With respect to height, development is permitted up to 15 storeys, except where abutting the Neighbourhood designation, where a maximum of four storeys is permitted, subject to the provision of a 45 degree angular view plane applied from the edge of the adjacent property line on the opposite side of Red Maple Road towards the Subject Lands (Section 4.2.2.11).

32Mr. Tung proffered that Official Plan Amendment 18.3 (“OPA 18.3”) came into full force and effect on September 9, 2022, as part of the City’s requirement to undertake a mandatory OP review in accordance with the Act. As it applies to the Subject Property, OPA 18.3 includes amended transition and angular plane policies. More specifically, the angular plane requirement is still to be consistently applied to adjacent Neighbourhoods, however, only where a proposed development abuts low-density residential areas and medium-density residential areas in the Neighbourhoods. The Neighbourhood designation adjacent to the Subject Property to the east comprise the Langstaff Community Centre, Red Maple Public School, and Dr. James Langstaff Community Park, all of which are institutional uses. The transition/angular plane policies do not apply along the eastern side of Red Maple Road with respect to development on the Subject Property.

33Mr. Tung referenced that under Section 3.1.5 of the OP, a minimum 35 percent of new housing units within the RHC are to be affordable, offering a range of affordability for low and moderate income households. In addition, proposed high-density residential developments are required to provide a minimum of five percent of units to contain three or more bedrooms. The proposed development provides for 832 units that meet the definition of affordable housing or approximately 55 percent of the proposed units. Also proposed are 165 three-bedroom units, representing approximately 11 percent of the proposed units. The proposed development conforms with these housing requirement policies through the unit mix.

34Mr. Tung opined that the proposed development meets the intent of the OP and that, subject to the approval of the proposed OPA, the proposed ZBA will conform to the OP.

35Mr. Tung advised that the RHCSP was adopted by City Council on May 10, 2023. He opined that, although the ZBA conforms to the RHCSP, the OPA is required at this time because the RHCSP has not yet been approved by York Region Council.

36Mr. Tung contended that the RHCSP is intended to build upon the policies, principles and guidelines as established by the OP, while providing more detailed direction for the long-term development of the RHC. The Subject Property is in the Red Maple Character Area (“RMCA”) which represents an area that is to be developed as a predominantly high-density and high-rise residential neighbourhood, while encouraging active at-grade uses facing public streets. Mr. Tung notes that the Subject Property represents the remaining undeveloped parcel of land within the RMCA.

37The Tribunal was advised that the RMCA will have a maximum long-term built out density of 5.5 FSI. With respect to building height and massing, base buildings in this area are to range from three to six storeys, above which towers are to be designed to provide for slender floorplates in accordance with the OP. Being the last remaining undeveloped parcel within the RMCA, the proposed development and implementing OPA and ZBA meet the density target for the RMCA with an overall block density of approximately 3.5 FSI. Further, the Settlement Proposal will provide a minimum base building height of 3 storeys, which conforms with the requirements of the RHCSP.

38Mr. Tung advised the building height is regulated under the RHCSP by the provision of Character Area density and transition policies, where applicable, subject to Policies 10.3.3 and 10.3.4 of the RHSCP. Mr. Tung opined that transition policies do not apply to the proposed development. While there is no prescribed maximum building height for the Subject Property, Policy 10.3.4.6 does restrict maximum building height for the RHCSP area to a limit of 323 metres (“m”) above sea level, until such time as the Federal Zoning Regulations for the Buttonville Airport are no longer in force and effect. The established grade on the Subject Property is approximately 204 m above sea level and the highest point of the tallest tower, including rooftop mechanical penthouse, will be at approximately 321.3 m above sea level.

39Mr. Tung proffered, that consistent with the OP, Section 10.7.1 of the RHCSP contains policies requiring a minimum 35 percent of new dwelling units to be affordable and to require a minimum 5 percent of units to have three bedrooms or more. Mr. Tung advised the proposed development consists of a housing mix that conforms with these policies.

40The Subject Property is currently zoned Multiple Residential One (RM1) Zone in the ZBL which permits townhouse dwellings but does not permit the proposed high-density residential development. An amendment to the ZBL is required to implement and regulate the Settlement Proposal on the Subject Lands.

41Mr. Tung advised the Tribunal that the concerns of the Participants related to the height of the towers were taken into account by the Parties during settlement discussions. Mr. Tung stated that for Participant concerns related to increased traffic, pedestrian safety and parking supply, those matters were addressed by the Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”). The Tribunal was advised the TIS indicated that both the current and future traffic generated by the Settlement Proposal can be accommodated by the existing street system with minor modifications to the intersections of Oneida Crescent at Red Maple Road. The Tribunal was further advised that the TIS was reviewed by internal and external staff and found to be acceptable. Mr. Tung stated that Transportation Planning staff confirmed that the proposed parking rates are acceptable and any other potential minor transportation design issues can be addressed through the ongoing Site Plan application process.

42In conclusion, Mr. Tung proffered that the OPA and ZBA satisfy the applicable provisions of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, the ROP 2010, the ROP 2022, and the OP as proposed to be amended by the proposed OPA. He stated the proposed development, as set out in the OPA and ZBA, constitutes good planning and the approval of same is in the public interest.

43Mr. Tung recommended the Tribunal allow the appeals and approve the OPA and ZBA as submitted.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

44Having considered the uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Tung and his affidavit in support of the Settlement Proposal and having reviewed the proposed instruments, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate optimization of the lands and public infrastructure and the existing and planned public transit infrastructure.

45The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS as it seeks to sustain a healthy, liveable, and safe community through the promotion of the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns that optimize transit investments and implement standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs.

46The Tribunal, in consideration of the Growth Plan, finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan. The Subject Property is in a strategic growth area with access to existing and planned higher-order transit and public service facilities. The Settlement Proposal will optimize infrastructure investment and transit infrastructure supporting the MTSA and support the achievement of complete communities with a compact built form.

47In consideration of the OP, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents a high-quality and mixed-use development that reduces automobile dependency, meets the needs of the local community, and provides new job opportunities and homes for the City’s growing population on underutilized lands. The Built Form policies and Public Realm are appropriately implemented in the Settlement Proposal.

48The Tribunal has considered the RHCSP and finds that the OPA conforms with the OP and is consistent with the lands that will be subject to the RHCSP. The site-specific policies contemplated to address the proposed height, floor plate size, density and affordability are appropriate to optimize the transit infrastructure investments and support the MTSA.

49The Tribunal finds that the ZBA, proposed to facilitate the development, as described in the Settlement Proposal, and implement the corresponding OPA, conforms with the OP and RHCSP.

50The Tribunal has considered the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and is satisfied that the approval of the OPA and the ZBA will have regard for such matters including being an appropriate location for growth, promoting a design that supports public transit, being a well-designed built form, and contributing to the range of housing options required to meet the social, health and economic needs of residents to support their well-being, and assisting with the short-term and long-term projected needs of current and future residents.

51In consideration of the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal and the requisite OPA and ZBA constitute good land use planning and are in the public interest.

52The Tribunal allows the appeals and approves the OPA and ZBA instruments contained in Attachment 1 and 2 of this Decision.

ORDER

53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal pursuant to s.22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed and the Official Plan for the City of Richmond Hill is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

54AND THAT the appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, is allowed and By-law No. 278-96, as amended, of the City of Richmond Hill is amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.

“W. Daniel Best”

W. DANIEL BEST 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

Richmond Hill Official Plan Official Plan Amendment 42

The attached schedule and explanatory text constitute Amendment No. 42 to the City of Richmond Hill Official Plan.

This amendment was approved by the Ontario Land Tribunal in accordance with Sections 17 and 22 of the Planning Act on the 2nd day of August, 2023.

Part One - The Preamble is not a part of the Amendment.

Part Two - The Amendment, consisting of text and maps, constitutes Amendment 42 to the Richmond Hill Official Plan.

Part One – The Preamble

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this Amendment to the Richmond Hill Official Plan is to permit a high density residential development comprised of four (4) apartment buildings with heights ranging from 27 to 37 storeys on the subject lands.

1.2 Location

The lands affected by this Amendment are described as Part of Lots 37 and 38, Concession 1, E.Y.S. (No Municipal Address), located on the north side of Oneida Crescent, west of Red Maple Road. The subject lands have an approximate lot area of 1.5 hectares (3.7 acres) and are shown on Schedule 1 attached hereto.

1.3 Basis

The proposed amendment is considered appropriate in accordance with the reasons provided by the Ontario Land Tribunal in its Decision (OLT Case No. OLT-22-004469).

Part Two - The Amendment

2.1 Introduction

All of this part of the document entitled Part Two – The Amendment, consisting of the following text outlined in Section 2.2 constitute Amendment 42 to the Richmond Hill Official Plan.

2.2 Details of the Amendment

The Official Plan of the City of Richmond Hill, is amended as follows:

2.2.1 That Schedule A11 (Exceptions) to the Richmond Hill Official Plan be amended to identify the subject lands as Exception Area Number 40, as shown on Schedule 1 attached.

2.2.2 By adding the following to Chapter 6 (Exceptions):

“6.40

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Plan to the contrary, for the lands known as Part of Lots 37 and 38, Concession 1, E.Y.S. (No Municipal Address) and shown as Exception Area Number 40 on Schedule A11 (Exceptions) to this Plan, the following shall apply:

a. The maximum density permitted on the subject lands shall not exceed 7.5 Floor Space Index (FSI);

b. The maximum building height shall not exceed 37 storeys;

c. Buildings located within 60 metres of the Red Maple Road right of way shall not exceed a maximum height of 32 storeys; and,

d. Policy 4.2.2.11 does not apply.

ATTACHMENT 2

The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill By-law 65-23

A By-law to Amend By-law 278-96, as amended, of The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill

Now Therefore the Ontario Land Tribunal hereby approves as follows:

1. That By-law 278-96, as amended, of The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill (the “Corporation”), be and hereby is further amended by:

a) by rezoning the Lands from to “Multiple Residential One (RM1) Zone” to “Special Commercial Five (SC-5) Zone” under By-law 278-96, as shown on Schedule “A” of this By-law 65-23; and,

b) by adding the following to Section 7 – Exceptions of By-law 278-96, as amended:

“7.43

Notwithstanding any inconsistent or conflicting provisions of By-law 278-96 of the Corporation, as amended, the following special provisions shall apply to the Lands zoned “Special Commercial Five (SC-5) Zone ” and more particularly shown as “SC-5” on Schedule “A” to By-law 65-23 and denoted by a bracketed number (7.43):

1. Definitions For the purposes of this By-law, the following definitions shall apply:

a) Amenity Space Means outdoor space on a lot that is communal and available for use by the occupants of a building on the lot for recreational or social activities.

b) Car Share Means the operation of a car sharing program either by an existing car share company, one established by the Condominium Corporation or one established by a public authority.

c) Mechanical Penthouse Means the rooftop floor area above the livable area of an apartment building that is used exclusively for the accommodation of mechanical equipment necessary to physically operate the building such as heating, ventilation, air conditioning, electrical, telephone, plumbing, fire protection and elevator equipment and includes walls and structures intended to screen the mechanical penthouse and equipment.

d) Tower Floor Plate Means the total gross floor area of individual floors within the building located above the fourth storey, measured from the exterior of the main walls at each storey, excluding balconies.

2. A home occupation use shall be permitted within ground level dwelling units facing Red Maple Road.

3. Development Standards:

The following provisions shall apply (1)(2)(6):

(a) Minimum lot frontage (3): 100.0 metres (328 feet)

(b) Maximum lot coverage: Not applicable

(c) Maximum floor area ratio (9): 750%

(d) Maximum tower floor plate size: 850.0 square metres (9,149.6 square feet)

(e) Maximum building height (4)(7)(8): 37 storeys

(f) Minimum front yard (3): 2.5 metres (8.2 feet)

(g) Minimum side yard (north): 3.0 metres (9.84 feet)

(h) Minimum flankage yard (south): 4.0 metres (13.1 feet)

(i) Minimum rear yard (west): 4.0 metres (13.1 feet)

(j) Minimum building separation (5): 25 metres (82.02 feet)

Special Provisions:

1. See Section 5.20 of By-law 278-96, as amended.

2. The minimum setback for all structures associated with an underground garage (above or below ground) may be setback a minimum of 0.0 metres from any lot line.

3. For the purposes of this by-law, the lot line abutting Red Maple Road shall be deemed the front lot line of the subject lands.

4. For buildings within 60 metres (197 feet) of the Red Maple Road right-of-way, the maximum building height shall be 32 storeys.

5. For any two (2) apartment building exterior walls facing parallel to each other, the separation distance shall not be less than 25 metres (82 feet). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for any two (2) buildings adjacent to each other, the shortest distance between the exterior walls of the two (2) buildings shall be 6 metres (19 feet) for the first 3 storeys above grade.

6. Section 5.7(a) of By-law 278-96, as amended, shall not apply.

7. A mechanical penthouse which is less than 10.0 metres (32.8 feet) in height shall not be included in the calculation of maximum height.

8. All ground level residential units up to 5.3 metres (17.4 feet) in height are considered one (1) storey.

9. Above grade and below grade non dwelling unit floor areas shall be excluded from the maximum permitted gross floor area of the buildings on the subject lands.

10. Parking Standards: Minimum number of parking spaces to be provided for an apartment dwelling:

• 1 bedroom dwelling unit: 0.7 spaces per dwelling unit

• 2 bedroom dwelling unit: 0.9 spaces per dwelling unit

• 3 bedroom dwelling unit: 1.0 spaces per dwelling unit

• Visitor(1): 0.15 spaces per dwelling unit

Special Provision:

1. Visitor parking spaces may include up to five (5) car share parking spaces.

2. Bicycle Parking Standards: Minimum number of bicycle parking spaces to be provided:

• 0.6 bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit

• 0.05 bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be for visitor bicycle spaces

6. Amenity space must be provided at a rate of 2.0 square metres (21.53 square feet) per dwelling unit.”

7. All other provisions of By-law 278-96, as amended, not inconsistent with the foregoing, shall continue to apply to the lands shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto.

8. The imperial measurements found in this by-law in brackets are provided for information purposes only and are intended to be an approximate conversion of the metric measurements. The metric or SI measurements shall be deemed to be the standards established by this by-law and, wherever there is a variance between the metric or SI measurements and the imperial measurements, the metric or SI measurement shall apply.

9. Schedule “A” attached to By-law 65-23 is declared to form a part of this by-law.

The Corporation of the City of Richmond Hill

Explanatory Note to By-law 65-23

By-law 65-23 affects lands known as Part of Lots 37 and 38, Concession 1 (No Municipal Address), located on the north side of Oneida Crescent, west of Red Maple Road.

The lands are currently zoned “Multiple Residential One (RM1) Zone”. The “RM1” Zone permits street townhouse dwellings, block townhouse dwellings, quadruplex dwellings, home occupation and private home daycare.

By-law 65-23 will have the effect of rezoning the subject lands to "Special Commercial Five (SC-5) Zone" under By-law 278-96, as amended, with site specific development standards to permit the construction of a high-density residential development comprised of four (4) condominium apartment buildings on the subject lands