Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 25, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002104

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Appellant: 1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd. and others Subject: Zoning By-law Description: New City-wide comprehensive zoning by-law Reference Number: By-law 001-2021 Property Address: City Wide Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-002104 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002104 OLT Case Name: D'Aversa v. Vaughan (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Appellant: 1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd. and others Subject: Zoning By-law Description: Transitional by-law Reference Number: By-law 039-2022 Property Address: City Wide Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-003554 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002104

Heard: July 12, 2023 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
City of Vaughan	Pitman Patterson, Candace Tashos and Lee English
Greenpark Homes and Intergreen Development Inc. (Green Park)	Kailey Sutton, Mary Flynn-Guglietti and Annik Forristal
Lorwood Holdings Inc.; Fleur de Cap Development Inc.; and Cuenca Development Inc.	Justine Reyes
Anatolia Block 59 Developments Limited	Russell D. Cheeseman and Stephanie Fleming
Amar Transport Inc. and 3942198 Canada Inc.	Patrick Harrington

DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON AUGUST 21, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION

1The City passed a new Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 (“CZBL”) on October 20, 2021. The CZBL affects all properties within the City of Vaughan, with the exception of lands in the vicinity of Yonge Street and Steeles Avenue known as the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan Area. The CZBL, when fully in force, will replace the City’s former Zoning By-law No. 1-88, with the exception of matters subject to certain transition provisions pursuant to Section 1.6 of the CZBL and the Yonge-Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan Area.

2A total of one hundred and thirty (130) appeals were made to the Tribunal with respect to the passing of the CZBL.

3The City advised the Tribunal that there was a total of sixty-two (62) CZBL appeals related to the transition provisions (Section 1.6) of the CZBL. The City ultimately determined that these transition provisions should be substantially revised and, on March 22, 2023, repealed the transition provisions of the CZBL and adopted new transition provisions by enacting By-law No. 039-2022 (“Transition By-law”). The Transition By-law amends the CZBL by replacing Section 1.6.

4A total of forty-six (46) appeals were made to the Tribunal with respect to the passing of the Transition By-law.

5Since then, the City has engaged in a number of dispute resolution efforts with the various appellants. Settlements with certain appellants have previously been brought to the Tribunal and have been approved. The present written motion is being conducted for similar settlement purposes.

6The Tribunal is now in receipt of Motion materials to settle the following appeals:

1. Appeal No. 002721, being a City-wide appeal of the CZBL by Greenpark Homes and Intergreen Developments Inc. (“Greenpark”), owners of lands municipally known as 25 Interchange Way, Vaughan (“Greenpark Lands”);
2. Appeal No. 002776 and Appeal No. 004798, being site-specific appeals of the CZBL and Transition By-law by Lorwood Holdings Inc., Fleur de Cap Development Inc., and Cuenca Development Inc. (“Lorwood”) the owners of lands municipally known as 3180 Teston Road, Vaughan and 10980 and 10804 Jane Street;
3. Appeal No. 002824 to the CZBL, being a site-specific appeal by Amar Transport Inc. and 3942198 Canada Inc. (“Amar”), the owners of lands municipally known as 7290 Major Mackenzie Drive West (“Amar Lands”); and
4. Appeal No. 002670 to the CZBL, being a site-specific appeal by Anatolia Block 59 Developments Limited (“Anatolia”), the owner of lands municipally known as 8555, 8811 and 9151 Huntington Road and 6560 and 6880 Langstaff Road (“Anatolia Lands”).

Settlements

7Evidence for the settlements was provided by Robert Rappolt, an expert in land use planning previously qualified for this matter by the Tribunal.

A. Greenpark’s City-wide appeal (Appeal 002721)

8As the Tribunal understands it, the Greenpark appeal is the only remaining City-wide appeal concerning the CZBL and Transition By-law.

9As part of their appeal, Greenpark raised concerns with the regulations of the CZBL as enacted, including defined terms, general provisions, specific use provisions, bicycle parking requirements, and certain lot and building requirements. Specifically, Greenpark appealed:

• Section 3, regarding defined terms for “ground floor height”, “height” and “storey”;
• Subsection 4.3.2, regarding minimum required amenity area;
• Subsection 4.3.3, regarding outdoor amenity area requirements;
• Section 4.7, regarding height exceptions;
• Section 4.13, regarding permitted encroachments into required yards;
• Section 4.20, regarding rooftop mechanical equipment and rooftop mechanical penthouses;
• Section 4.24, regarding waste storage;
• Subsection 5.11.2, regarding temporary sales office;
• Section 5.12, regarding outdoor patios;
• Section 5.15, regarding parking structures;
• Section 6.5, regarding bicycle parking space requirements; and
• Subsection 8.2.2, regarding lot and building requirements for certain mixed-use zones.

10Mr. Rappolt confirmed that the City and Greenpark agreed to resolve their appeal through certain amendments to the CZBL (the “Proposed Greenpark Amendments”). More particularly, the Proposed Greenpark Amendments:

1. Add a new definition for “mezzanine”;
2. Modify the definition for “storey” to clarify the exclusion of a mezzanine and mechanical penthouse;
3. Modify the definition for “tower step-back” to clarify that a tower is required to be set back from a podium on all sides;
4. Amend Subsection 4.7.1 regarding exceptions to height requirements by adding relief for parapet walls;
5. Amend Subsection 4.20.2 regarding mechanical penthouses by increasing the height by which mechanical penthouses are permitted to exceed the maximum height of the parent zone;
6. Add a new Subsection 4.20.4 regarding mechanical equipment or rooftop mechanical penthouse that introduces an additional provision to permit an elevator foyer subject to a maximum area per foyer, per elevator;
7. Amend Subsection 5.11.2 regarding temporary sales office to establish greater clarity for interpretation and administration, including a proximity requirement;
8. Amend Subsection 5.12.4 regarding outdoor patios to establish greater clarity for interpretation and administration, while continuing to regulate the location of outdoor patios on a lot, where said outdoor patio is located at grade;
9. Amend Subsection 5.12.5 regarding outdoor patios to establish greater clarity for interpretation and administration, while continuing to regulate the location of outdoor patios on a lot, where said outdoor patio is located above the first storey;
10. Add a new Subsection 5.12.6 regarding outdoor patios to establish minimum setback requirements;
11. Amend Subsection 5.15.2.3 regarding buildings or structures accessory to a below-grade parking structure to establish greater clarity for interpretation and administration, while introducing additional relief for encroachment permissions related to air ventilation shafts for below-grade parking structures.

Regard for Matters of Provincial Interest [Section 2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec2_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

11Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments have regard to matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, and particularly subsections 2(h), (m) and (n).

12He explained that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments will revise the CZBL to establish modified City-wide development standards, as well as introduce new or amended definitions, to better facilitate development application review processes and outcomes. He specifically opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments have regard for the provincial interest in the orderly development of safe and healthy communities (2(h)).

13Mr. Rappolt further testified that, by resolving the Greenpark appeal, the Proposed Greenpark Amendments will have regard for the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies, and the provincial interest in resolving planning conflicts between public and private interests (2(m), 2(n)).

Consistent with PPS

14Mr. Rappolt further opined that, by resolving the Greenpark appeal, the Proposed Greenpark Amendments are also consistent with the policies of the PPS, highlighting policy 1.2.1 which calls for a similar coordinated approach to dealing with planning matters.

Conforms with the Growth Plan

15Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments further conform with the policies of the Growth Plan, highlighting policies 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.3.

16Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 5.2.3.1 also requires a co-ordinated approach to implementing the Growth Plan, and he opined that the Greenpark resolution conforms with the Growth Plan by achieving this objective.

17Mr. Rappolt further testified that the Growth Plan also encourages municipalities to engage the public and stakeholders in local efforts to implement the Growth Plan, and to provide the necessary information to ensure the informed involvement of local citizens (5.2.3.3). He opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments conform to this policy direction as a result of the City engaging with the Appellant to seek a resolution.

Conforms with the York Region Official Plan 2010

18Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments conform with the policies of the Region OP 2010, highlighting policies 8.3.1 and 8.3.2.

19In particular, Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments conform with policy 8.3.1 of the Region OP 2010 which directs the co-ordination of the planning review process and the resolution of conflicts, the objective of which is achieved through the resolution of the Greenpark appeal.

20Mr. Rappolt further testified that policy 8.3.2 of the Region OP 2010 directs that the local comprehensive zoning by-law shall be brought into conformity with the Region OP 2010 in a timely manner, and he opined that this is achieved because the Proposed Greenpark Amendments implement the Region OP by modifying certain development standards regulated through the CZBL.

Conforms with the York Region Official Plan 2022

21Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments conform with the policies of the Region OP 2022, highlighting Region OP 2022 policies 7.1.1, 7.1.3, and 7.3.3.

22Mr. Rappolt explained that Region OP 2022 policies 7.1.1, 7.1.3 and 7.3.3 direct engagement between the public, stakeholders and governments in a timely manner and the coordination through the planning review process, including those requiring conflict resolution. He opined that the objectives of these policies are achieved through the Greenpark appeal resolution.

Conforms with the Vaughan Official Plan

23Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments conform with the policies of the VOP, in particular policies 10.1.2.1 and 10.1.2.3.

24Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments conform to policy 10.1.2.1 by modifying the CZBL pertaining to the use of land, buildings or structures and consequently bring the CZBL into greater conformity with the VOP in this regard.

25Mr. Rappolt explained that policy 10.1.2.3 of the VOP establishes that zoning by- laws may be enacted to permit the use of land, buildings or structures subject to certain conditions as prescribed by Council. He further testified that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments include certain provisions and associated conditions, including new and modified definitions, to afford greater clarity for administration and interpretation of various regulations applying to the use of land, building and structures. Consequently, he opined, the Proposed Greenpark Amendments conform to policy 10.1.2.3 of the YOP.

Conclusions re: Greenpark’s City-wide Appeal Settlement

26In conclusion, Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments will facilitate greater clarity for interpretation and administration of the CZBL, and contribute to better facilitate implementation of the applicable land use planning framework. In so doing, he opined that the Proposed Greenpark Amendments have regard to matters of Provincial interest in accordance with s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, the Region OP 2010, the Region OP 2022, the VOP 2010, and it represents good planning.

27The Tribunal accepts the above-described evidence and opinion and finds same.

B. Site-specific Appeals

28In addition to the above described City-wide appeal, the present written motion dealt with three site-specific matters.

Lorwood (Appeals 002776 and 004798)

29Lorwood’s appeal concerns a failure to carry forward site-specific zoning standards under the CZBL which were previously established under ZBL 1-88.

30Mr. Rappolt testified that Lorwood Holdings Inc. (part of the collective Appellant in this case referred to as “Lorwood”) is the owner of lands municipally known as 3180 Teston Road, Vaughan (“Lorwood Lands”), and Fleur de Cap Development Inc. and Cuenca Development Inc. are the owners of lands municipally known as 10980 and 10804 Jane Street (“Fleur/Cuenca Lands”). He explained that the Lorwood Lands and the Fleur/Cuenca Lands are within an area known as Block 34 East. He noted that Block 34 East is bounded to the south by Teston Road, Highway 400 to the west, Kirby Road to the north, and Jane Street to the east.

31Mr. Rappolt further testified that the Lorwood Lands and the Fleur Lands/Cuenca Lands were previously the subject of applications including Zoning By-law Amendments and Draft Plans of Subdivision. In 2022, City Council adopted By-law No. 145-2022, which established site-specific zoning standards for the Fleur/Cuenca Lands by adding Exception 1539 to ZBL 1-88, which rezoned the Fleur/Cuenca Lands from “A Agricultural Zone” subject to site-specific Exception 9(593) to “OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone”, “EM2 General Employment Area Zone”, “C4 Neighbourhood Commercial Zone’, and “C7 Service Commercial Zone”. By-law 145-2022 also deleted the previous Exception 53.

32Mr. Rappolt further testified that City Council adopted By-law No. 146-2022 in 2022 which established site-specific zoning standards by adding Exception 1540. Exception 1540 rezoned the Lorwood Lands from “A Agricultural Zone” subject to site-specific Exception 593 to “OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone”, “EM2 General Employment Area Zone”, “C4 Neighbourhood Commercial Zone’, and “C7 Service Commercial Zone”. By-law No. 146-2022 also deleted the previous Exception 593.

33Regarding the present settlement, Mr. Rappolt testified that the “Proposed Lorwood Amendment” will carry forward the site-specific zoning standards established by By-law No. 145-2022 and By-law No. 146-2022. The Proposed Lorwood Amendment will:

• add a new Section 14 Zone Exception for the Lorwood Lands;
• add a new Section 14 Zone Exception for the Fleur/Cuenca Lands; and
• make consequential amendments to Maps 204, 205, 224 and 225 in Schedule A of the CZBL.

Anatolia Block 59 Developments Limited (Appeal 002670)

34Anatolia’s appeal also concerns a failure to carry forward site-specific zoning standards under the CZBL which were previously established under ZBL 1-88.

35Mr. Rappolt testified that Anatolia owns lands municipally known as 8555, 8811 and 9151 Huntington Road and 6560 and 6880 Langstaff Road (“Anatolia Lands”). In 2021, City Council enacted By-law No. 006-2021 for the lands municipally known as 8811 Huntington Road, Vaughan. The purpose of this by-law is to rezone the subject lands from "A Agricultural Zone" to "EM1 Prestige Employment Area Zone, "EM2(H) General Employment Area Zone" with the Holding Symbol "(H)" and "OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone". The By-law included the Holding Symbol "(H)" for a portion of the lands zoned "EM2 General Employment Area Zone". This By-law also provides for site-specific development standards; including: exceptions to the permitted minimum landscape strip abutting an OS1 Zone, the definition of a front lot line, permitted uses, minimum rear yard, minimum required parking, location of loading spaces and the definition of outside storage.

36At the same time, City Council enacted By-law No. 007-2021 for the lands municipally known as 6560 Langstaff Road, Vaughan. The purpose of this by-law is to rezone the subject lands from "A Agricultural Zone" to "EM 1 Prestige Employment Area Zone", "EM 1 (H) Prestige Employment Area Zone" with the Holding Symbol "(H)", "EM2(H) General Employment Area Zone" with the Holding Symbol "(H)" and "OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone". The By-law includes the Holding Symbol (H)" for a portion of the lands zoned "EM1 Prestige Employment Area Zone" and the lands zoned "EM2 General Employment Area Zone". This By-law also provides for site- specific development standards; including: exceptions to the permitted minimum landscape strip abutting an OS1 Zone, the definition of a front lot line, permitted uses, maximum driveway access width, minimum rear yard, minimum required parking, location of parking and loading spaces and the definition of outside storage.

37Also at the same time, By-law No. 008-2021 was enacted for the lands municipally known as 9151 Huntington Road, Vaughan. The purpose of this by-law is to rezone the subject lands from "A Agricultural Zone" to "A Agricultural Zone”, "EM1 Prestige Employment Area Zone", "EM1(H) Prestige Employment Area Zone" with the Holding Symbol "(H)", "EM2(H) General Employment Area Zone" with the Holding Symbol "(H)" and "OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone". This By-law also provides for site-specific development standards; including: exceptions to the permitted minimum landscape strip abutting an OS1 Zone, permitted uses, minimum required parking, and the definition of outside storage. The By-law includes the Holding Symbol "(H)" for a portion of the lands zoned "EM1 Prestige Employment Area Zone" and the lands zoned "EM2 General Employment Area Zone".

38In 2022, City Council enacted By-law No. 025-2022 to remove a holding symbol from a portion of the Anatolia Lands, to permit use of those lands in accordance with the underlying EM1 Prestige Employment Area Zone, and EM2 General Employment Area Zone. Concurrently, the City enacted By-law No. 026-2022, which amended ZBL 1-88 for a portion of the Anatolia Lands to remove the holding symbol applicable to those lands.

39Regarding the present settlement, Mr. Rappolt testified that the “Proposed Anatolia Amendments” will carry forward the site-specific zoning standards established by By-laws Nos. 006-2021, 007-2021 and 008-2021, and also bring forward the amendments enacted by City Council through By-laws Nos. 025-2022 and 026-2022. He confirmed that the Proposed Anatolia Amendments will create new exceptions for each portion of the Anatolia Lands subject to By-laws Nos. 006-2021, 007-2021 and 008-2021, and, in addition, Maps 81, 82, 100 and 118 of CZBL Schedule A will be amended to reflect the new site-specific exceptions.

Amar Transport Inc. and 3942198 Canada Inc. (Appeal 002824)

40Amar’s appeal similarly concerns a failure to carry forward site-specific zoning standards under the CZBL which were previously established under ZBL 1-88.

41Mr. Rappolt testified that Amar owns lands municipally known as 7290 Major Mackenzie Drive West (“Amar Lands”). In 2021, City Council enacted By-law No. 141-2020 to permit a truck terminal with the accessory outside storage of transport containers, transport trailers, chassis, and a temporary accessory administrative office on the Amar Lands.

42Regarding the present settlement, Mr. Rappolt testified that the “Proposed Amar Amendments” will correct the discrepancy between By-law No. 141-2020 and the CZBL, as enacted. The Proposed Amar Amendments will delete Section 14.967 and replace it with a new Section 14.967.

Regard for Matters of Provincial Interest [Section 2](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec2_smooth) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

43Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Lorwood Amendment, the Proposed Anatolia Amendment, and the Proposed Amar Amendment (collectively the “Site-specific Amendments) all have regard to matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, and in particular subsections are s. 2(a), (h), (k), (m) and (n).

44Mr. Rappolt testified that the Site-specific Amendments will correct the discrepancies between previously approved and in force site-specific zoning by-laws and the CZBL, as enacted. He opined that the Site-specific Amendments will have regard for matters of provincial interest concerning the orderly development of safe and healthy communities (2(h)) and an adequate provision of employment opportunities (2(k)). He further opined that the Site-specific Amendments will also resolve planning conflicts between public and private interests (2(m), 2(n)), which arose as a result of the passing of the CZBL without carrying forward previously approved and in-force site-specific zoning by-laws.

45As it relates to the Proposed Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment, Mr. Rappolt testified that both proposed amendments recognize natural heritage areas and therefore having regard for the provincial interest of protecting ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions (2(a)).

Consistent with the PPS

46Mr. Rappolt opined that the Site-specific Amendments are consistent with the policies of the PPS, and policies 1.2.1, 1.3.1, and 1.3.2.1 in particular. Additionally, the Proposed Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment conform with policy 2.1.1.

47Mr. Rappolt testified that the Site-specific Amendments provide for a coordinated approach to correcting the discrepancies between the previous approvals and the CZBL, as enacted, in a manner consistent with policy 1.2.1 of the PPS.

48Mr. Rappolt further opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments is consistent with PPS policies 1.3.1 and 1.3.2.1 that direct municipalities to promote economic development and competitiveness, while planning for, protecting and preserving employment areas for future uses.

49Furthermore, Mr. Rappolt testified that both the Proposed Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment identify key natural heritage features and zone a portion of these lands as Environmental Protection (EP). Consequently, he opined, these particular amendments are additionally consistent with PPS policy 2.1.1 which directs the long-term protection of natural features.

Conforms with the Growth Plan

50Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform with the policies of the Growth Plan, and in particular policies 2.2.5.1, 5.2.3.1 and 5.2.3.3. Additionally, the Proposed Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment conform with policy 4.2.2.6.

51Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform with the Growth Plan policy directions designed to promote economic development and competitiveness within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including making efficient use of existing employment areas and vacant and underutilized employment lands and increasing employment densities (2.2.5.1(a)). The Proposed Site-specific Amendments also contribute to ensuring the availability of sufficient land in appropriate locations for a variety of employment uses to accommodate employment densities (2.2.5.1(b)) and integrating and aligning land use planning and economic development goals and strategies (2.2.5.1(d)).

52Mr. Rappolt further testified that Growth Plan policy 5.2.3.1 requires a co-ordinated approach to implementing the Growth Plan, and he opined that correcting the discrepancies between the previous approvals and the CZBL, as enacted, conforms with such policy. Mr. Rappolt further testified that, given that the Growth Plan encourages municipalities to engage the public and stakeholders in local efforts to implement the Growth Plan, and to provide the necessary information to ensure the informed involvement of local citizens (5.2.3.3), the Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform to this policy direction by engaging with the Appellants to seek resolution of their appeals.

53Furthermore, again by correcting the described discrepancies between the previous approvals and the CZBL, as enacted, Mr. Rappolt opined that the Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment identify key natural heritage features and zone a portion of these lands as Environmental Protection (EP). As such, it conforms with the Growth Plan policy direction to continue to protect natural heritage features and areas in a manner consistent with the PPS (4.2.2.6).

Conforms with the York Region Official Plan 2010

54Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform with the policies of the Region OP 2010, in particular policies, 4.1.5, 4.3.4, 4.3.5, 8.3.1 and 8.3.2. Additionally, as it relates to the Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment, policies 2.2.4 and 2.2.9.

55Mr. Rappolt testified that Policy 4.1.5 of the Region OP contemplates that local municipalities will create a business-friendly environment that includes a diverse range, size and mix of available employment lands (4.1.5(a)). Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments will establish a range of employment-oriented zones on lands with varying lot configurations, thereby conforming to this policy.

56Mr. Rappolt further testified that policy 4.3.3 of the Region OP contemplates that employment lands are of strategic significance to the Regional economy and are major drivers of economic activity, and policy 4.3.5 directs local municipalities to protect, maintain and enhance the long term viability of all employment lands designated in local municipal official plans for employment land uses. Mr. Rappolt opined that Proposed Site-specific Amendments implement these policies by reflecting the intent of the Region OP to recognize the strategic significance of employment lands by planning for the long-term protection of said lands, thereby conforming to these policies.

57Mr. Rappolt further opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments, having resolved the site-specific appeals, conform with policy 8.3.1 of the Region OP 2010 which directs the co-ordination of planning review processes and the resolution of conflicts.

58Furthermore, Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 8.3.2 directs that the local comprehensive zoning by-laws shall be brought into conformity with the Region OP 2010 in a timely manner, and the Proposed Site-specific Amendments achieve this by modifying certain development standards regulated through the CZBL. Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments implement the Region OP 2010 and, consequently, conforms to this policy as well.

59Given that the Proposed Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment identify key natural heritage features and zone a portion of their lands as Environmental Protection (EP), and these EP zones will prohibit development and site alteration within the subject key natural heritage features, Mr. Rappolt further opines that these amendments conform with Region OP 2010 policy 2.2.4.

Conforms with the York Region Official Plan 2022

60Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform with the policies of the Region OP 2022, in particular policies 2.3.46, 2.3.48, 4.3.5, 7.1.1, 7.1.3, and 7.3.3. As it relates to the Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment, Mr. Rappolt further opined that both amendments also conform to policies 3.1.1 and 3.4.5 and, as it relates to policy 4.1.1, both the Proposed Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Amar Amendment are conforming.

61Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 2.3.46 of the Region OP 2022 contemplates that land use planning will be integrated and aligned with economic development goals and strategies to retain and attract investment. Furthermore, policy 2.3.48 encourages municipalities to foster an economic environment that supports economic growth. He opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments will all permit employment land uses of varying orders, and, as such, conforms to these polices by supporting economic development goals and objectives through land use planning.

62The Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment identify key natural heritage features and zone a portion of these lands as Environmental Protection (EP) in conformity with Region OP 2022 policy 3.1.1. Such EP zoning of these amendments will prohibit development and site alteration within key natural heritage features in further conformity with policy 3.4.5.

63Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 4.3.5 of the Region OP 2022 directs that local municipalities will protect, maintain and enhance the long-term supply and viability of all employment lands designated in local municipal official plans. He opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments will all establish an employment-oriented zone that permits a range of employment uses and, as such, conforms to this policy.

64Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 4.1.1 of the Region OP 2022 directs the location for growth and development within the Region to appropriately designated lands. He opined that the Proposed Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Amar Amendment will each establish development-oriented zones that permit a range of land uses in conformity with this policy.

65Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments exemplify engagement between the public, stakeholders and governments in a timely manner and achieve coordination through the planning review process, including those requiring conflict resolution. Consequently, he opined, the Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform to the Region OP 2022 policies 7.1.1, 7.1.3 and 7.3.3.

Conforms with the Vaughan Official Plan

66Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform with the policies of the VOP, in particular policies 9.2.2.11, 10.1.2.1, 10.1.2.2 ,10.1.2.3. As it relates to the Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment, Mr. Rappolt opined that both amendments also conform to policy 2.2.2.1.

67Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 9.2.2.11 of the VOP permits a range of building typologies, including employment and industrial buildings, low-rise buildings, and mid-rise buildings. He opined that the anticipated land uses facilitated by Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform to this policy.

68Mr. Rappolt further opined that the present settlements also conform with VOP policies 10.1.2.1, 10.1.2.2 and 10.1.2.3, insofar as the Proposed Site-specific Amendments accurately reflect the previously approved zoning applicable to the subject Lands.

69In addition, Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments conform to VOP policy 2.2.2.1 by zoning portions of the Proposed Lorwood Amendment and Proposed Anatolia Amendment Lands as Environmental Protection (EP), thereby recognizing the ecological function of these lands as contemplated by this policy and the Natural Area designation as shown on Schedule 13. He testified that the intent of the Environmental Protection (EP) Zone is to provide for the conservation of environmentally sensitive lands or features and to restrict development on these lands.

Conforms with the West Vaughan Employment Area Secondary Plan

70Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Anatolia Amendment and Proposed Amar Amendment conforms with policy 2.5.1 of the West Vaughan Employment Area Secondary Plan (“WVEASP”). He did not testify that the WVEASP applied to the Lorwood Amendment.

71Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 2.5.1 of the WVEASP designates the Anatolia Lands “Prestige Employment”, “General Employment” and “Natural Area” in accordance with Schedule 3, and the policy directs that the detailed policies of the VOP shall apply to the land use designations as shown on Schedule 3. Consequently, Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Anatolia Amendment conforms with the WVEASP.

72Mr. Rappolt testified that policy 2.5.1 of the WVEASP designates the Amar Lands “General Employment” in accordance with Schedule 3, and the policy directs that the detailed policies of the VOP shall apply to the land use designations as shown on Schedule 3. Consequently, Mr. Rappolt testified that the Proposed Amar Amendment conforms with the WVEASP.

Conclusions re: Site-specific Appeals Settlements

73In conclusion, Mr. Rappolt opined that the Proposed Site-specific Amendments have regard to matters of Provincial interest in accordance with s. 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan, the Region OP 2010, the Region OP 2022, the VOP and WVEASP (as applicable) 2010 represent good planning.

74The Tribunal accepts the above-described evidence and opinion and finds same.

ORDERS

75THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. The following Orders recorded in this decision and approval of portions of the CZBL as attached hereto as Attachments 1 through 8 are without prejudice to the disposition of any other appeal of the CZBL and any unapproved portions of the CZBL, such that if those appeals proceed to a subsequent hearing or motion, either on their own or as may be consolidated with other proceedings, the City will not take the position that the Tribunal ought not to approve amendments to the CZBL on the basis that such amendments deviate from or are inconsistent with the amendments attached hereto as Attachments 1 through 8 as brought into force by these Orders. However, this does not affect the City’s right to assert that the CZBL as amended by Attachments 1 through 8 hereto, to the extent brought into force by these Orders, should be applied to specific sites or areas without amendments on the basis that doing so is consistent with the Planning Act and provincial policies, conforms to provincial and official plans and/or constitutes good planning; and

2. Notwithstanding the Orders, the Tribunal retains jurisdiction to consider and approve amendments to the CZBL as amended herein, as may be appropriate to dispose of any of the outstanding appeals before the Tribunal.

Re: Greenpark Homes and Intergreen Development Inc.

3. Appeal No. 002721 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by Greenpark Homes and Intergreen Development Inc., is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a) In Part 3, adding the definition of “Mezzanine”, in alphabetical order, as follows:

“Mezzanine: Means an intermediate floor level located between the floor and ceiling of the first storey of a building which shall not exceed 40% of the ground floor area.”

b) In Part 3, deleting the definition of “Storey” and replacing it with the following:

“Storey: Means a level of a building located between the surface of a floor and the ceiling or roof immediately above it, but shall not include a basement, attic, mezzanine, or mechanical penthouse. Any portion of a building partially below grade shall be deemed a storey where its ceiling is at least 1.8 m above the established grade.”

c) In Part 3, deleting the definition of “Tower Step-Back” and replacing it with the following:

“Tower Step-Back: Means the horizontal distance that the main wall of a tower is recessed from the main wall of a podium on all sides.”

d) In Part 4, deleting Subsection 4.7.1 and replacing it with the following:

“1. The height requirements of this By-law shall not apply to:

a. A belfry or spire associated with a place of worship;

b. Ornamental architectural features such as, but not limited to a dome or skylight;

c. Water storage tank;

d. A clock or bell tower;

e. A chimney;

f. Flagpole;

g. Telecommunication equipment;

h. A parapet wall not exceeding 1.5 m in height; and

i. Buildings and structures that are accessory to a permitted agriculture use, provided that the building or accessory structure is not used for human habitation.”

e) In Part 4, deleting Subsection 4.20.2 and replacing it with the following:

“2. A rooftop mechanical penthouse shall be permitted to exceed the maximum height required by this By-law to a maximum of 8.0 m.”

f) In Part 4, adding a new Subsection 4.20.4 as follows:

“4. Rooftop mechanical equipment or a rooftop mechanical penthouse may include an elevator foyer not exceeding 15.0 m² per elevator.”

g) In Part 5, deleting Subsection 5.11.2 and replacing it with the following:

“5.11.2 Temporary Sales Office

1. A temporary sales office shall be permitted in accordance with the permitted use tables and only on the lands subject to the development or in the immediate vicinity provided it shall not be located further away from the lands to be developed than 200 m.

2. A temporary sales office shall not be permitted unless the zoning permits the development within which the units to be sold are located.

3. A temporary sales office shall only be permitted if it complies with the requirements of the zone in which the lot is located.”

h) In Part 5, deleting Subsection 5.12.4 and replacing it with the following:

“4. An outdoor patio located at grade and with direct access from the first storey of a building shall be located between a building and a road.”

i) In Part 5, deleting Subsection 5.12.5 and replacing it with the following:

“5. An outdoor patio located above the first storey of a building shall be permitted.”

j) In Part 5, adding a new Subsection 5.12.6 as follows:

“6. An outdoor patio shall be subject to the minimum setback requirements of the building.”

k) In Part 5, deleting Subsection 5.15.2.3 and replacing it with the following:

“3. Notwithstanding any other requirement of this By-law, air ventilation shafts or an access staircase, shall be permitted anywhere on the same lot as the parking structure is located, subject to the following requirements:

a. Shall not be located in a minimum required front yard or exterior side yard.

b. Shall have a minimum setback of 3.0 m from any lot line.

c. Notwithstanding Subsections 5.15.2.3a and 5.15.2.3b above, air ventilation shafts are permitted to encroach up to the minimum required landscape strip.”

4. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002721 is dismissed.

Lorwood Holdings Inc., Fleur de Cap Development Inc., and Cuenca Development Inc.

5. Appeal No. 002776 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 and Appeal No. 004798 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-003554 to By-law No. 039-2022, being appeals by Lorwood Holdings Inc., Fleur de Cap Development Inc., and Cuenca Development Inc., are allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. A new Exception is added to Chapter 14 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new Exception number, inclusive of a new Figure, to be assigned a new Figure number, in the form set out in Attachment 1 to this Order;

b. A new Exception is added to Chapter 14 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new Exception number, inclusive of a new Figure, to be assigned a new Figure number, in the form set out in Attachment 2 to this Order;

c. Schedule A – Maps 204, 205, 224 and 225 are amended in the form set out in Attachment 3 to this Order;

6. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeals No. 002776 and 004798 are dismissed.

Amar Transport Inc. and 3942198 Canada Inc.

7. Appeal No. 002824 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by Amar Transport Inc. and 3942198 Canada Inc., is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. Exception 14.967 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new Exception 14.967 in the form set out in Attachment 4 to this Order;

8. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002824 is dismissed.

Anatolia Block 59 Developments Limited

9. Appeal No. 002670 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-002104 to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, being an appeal by Anatolia Block 59 Developments Limited, is allowed in part and Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021 is amended as follows:

a. A new Exception is added to Chapter 14 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new Exception number, inclusive of a new Figure, to be assigned a new Figure number, in the form set out in Attachment 5 to this Order;

b. A new Exception is added to Chapter 14 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new Exception number, inclusive of a new Figure, to be assigned a new Figure number, in the form set out in Attachment 6 to this Order;

c. A new Exception is added to Chapter 14 of Comprehensive Zoning By-law 001-2021, to be assigned a new Exception number, inclusive of a new Figure, to be assigned a new Figure number, in the form set out in Attachment 7 to this Order;

d. Schedule A – Maps 81, 82, 100 and 118 are amended in the form set out in Attachment 8 to this Order;

10. In all other respects, the Tribunal orders that Appeal No. 002670 is dismissed.

76The Member is not seized but may be spoken to should assistance be required. No further notice is required.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS 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.