Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 04, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004122

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

Applicant and Appellant: Auto Complex Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Purpose: To permit medium and high density development blocks, a public park and network of public streets

Property Address: 7200 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipal File No.: OP.22.001

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004122

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004122

OLT Case Number: Auto Complex Ltd. v. Vaughan (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Auto Complex Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law - Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Purpose: To permit medium and high density development blocks, a public park and network of public streets

Property Address: 7200 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipal File No.: Z.22.004

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004123

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004122

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Auto Complex Ltd.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of City of Vaughan to make a decision

Purpose: To permit medium and high density development blocks, a public park and network of public streets

Property Address: 7200 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipal File No.: 19T-22V001

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004124

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004122

Heard: August 28, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Auto Complex Ltd.	S. Rosenthal K. Gossen
City of Vaughan	B. Engell G. Perhar
Mizrahi Constantine (180 SAW) Inc.	B. Ruddick A. Whyte (in absentia) Q. Annibale (in absentia)
Development Group (100 SAW) Inc.	N. Mares M. Helfand (in absentia) T. Halinski (in absentia) S. Tomasello (in absentia)
Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc.	I. Kagan S. Kagan (in absentia) J. Park (in absentia) K. Stitt (in absentia)
Yonge & Steeles Developments Inc.	J. Reyes C. Tanzola (in absentia) D. Artenosi (in absentia) N. Ast (in absentia)
72 Steeles Holding Limited; and 7040 Yonge Holdings Limited, collectively, Humbold Properties	C. Barnett
390 Steeles West Holdings Inc.; 398 Steeles Avenue West Inc.; and Associated Vaughan Properties Limited	P. Pinho (in absentia) M. Flynn-Guglietti (in absentia) K. Sutton (in absentia)
Regional Municipality of York	B. Ogunmefun
Morguard Corporation	J. Shapira M. Bradley

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN ON AUGUST 28, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in the matter of appeals by Auto Complex Ltd. (“Applicant”/“Appellant”) from the failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), and the failure to make a decision on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”) for the property located at 7200 Yonge Street (the “subject property” / “Site”), and legally known as Part of Lots 10, 12 and 13 on Registrar’s Compiled Plan 9685 in the City of Vaughan (“City”), Regional Municipality of York.

2The subject lands are generally located north of Steeles Avenue West on the west side of Yonge Street directly south of the CN railway corridor. The property has an area of approximately 7.36 hectares (”ha”) and maintains approximately 20 metres (“m”) of frontage, each on Yonge Street and Powell Road. The property is currently occupied by automobile dealerships and an auto repair facility, all having surface parking areas that are accessed by a network of internal driveways.

3The proposed Draft Plan effects the subdivision of the subject lands to create a medium density residential development block; a mixed-use high density development block; a public park block and a network of public streets. The medium density and mixed-use high-density blocks will provide a combined total of 4,742 residential units. The public park block is currently proposed to be approximately 0.95 ha in area.

4The medium density residential development block is proposed for the western portion of the property and is planned to contain mid-rise built forms, including townhouses and mid-rise residential buildings (approximately 937 units).

5The mixed-use high-density development block is proposed for the eastern portion of the property adjacent to Yonge Street and is anticipated to contain approximately 3,805 residential units shared between seven residential towers having heights up to 55 storeys, as well as approximately 8,119 square metres of non-residential gross floor area to accommodate retail, commercial, and community uses in a range of podium spaces.

6The Tribunal received Party Status request form from Morguard Corporation (“Morguard”) prior to a second CMC, who was previously granted a Participant status. Morguard is the operator of lands municipally known as 7120 Yonge Street and 24-26 Crestwood Road in the City and has a direct interest in the subject appeals due to the proximity of its site to the subject property. Specifically, Morguard has an interest in ensuring that the extension of Pinewood Drive to Yonge Street is aligned and phased in such a manner that it does not negatively impact the existing uses on the Morguard site or the future redevelopment of the Morguard site.

7The Counsel for the Appellant informed the Tribunal that they have discussed Party status request and negotiated terms with Morguard Corporation. It includes an agreement not to seek an adjournment to the Hearing start date, length of time for the Hearing and have negotiated an additional issue for the Issues List.

8On the consent of all Parties the Tribunal granted Party status to Morguard Corporation.

9At the CMC the Tribunal was informed that going forward Ms. Lampert should be no longer listed as a Counsel for the Appellant. Also, the City is now represented by a new Counsel – Messrs. Engell and Perhar.

PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

10The Tribunal was informed that the Parties have submitted the Draft Procedural Order, including the Issues List on a date of the second CMC. For the most part the Issues List is in final form. However, the City has raised a few issues reflecting conformity with various policy documents. At the upcoming experts meeting the experts can discuss those issues and identify them at that time. Final form of the Issues List will be provided to the Tribunal by September 11, 2023 and will govern the proceedings moving forward. The scheduled Merit Hearing will commence on Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 10 a.m.

11Parties 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:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/719383509

Access code: 719-383-509

12Parties 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

13Persons 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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is 719-383-509.

14Individuals 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

15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that Morguard Corporation is granted Party status.

16The Tribunal further orders that the final version of the Procedural Order and Issues List are to be submitted to the Tribunal by September 11, 2023.

13No further notice will be given.

14This Member is not seized.

“P. Tomilin”

P. Tomilin 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.

ISSUE DATE: October 4, 2023

O.L.T. LEAD CASE NO.: OLT-22-004122

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

Applicant and Appellant: Auto Complex Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Purpose: To permit medium and high density development blocks, a public park and network of public streets

Property Address: 7200 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipal File No.: OP.22.001

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004122

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004122

OLT Case Number: Auto Complex Ltd. v. Vaughan (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Auto Complex Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law - Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Purpose: To permit medium and high density development blocks, a public park and network of public streets

Property Address: 7200 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipal File No.: Z.22.004

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004123

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004122

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Auto Complex Ltd.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of City of Vaughan to make a decision

Purpose: To permit medium and high density development blocks, a public park and network of public streets

Property Address: 7200 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Vaughan

Municipal File No.: 19T-22V001

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004124

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004122

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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 November 14, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. Unless otherwise subsequently ordered by the Tribunal, the Hearing shall proceed by videoconference.

3. The Parties’ initial estimation for the length of the Hearing is fourteen (14) 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 1.

5. The issues for the Hearing are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. 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 3. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, direct evidence (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. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in it are set out in Attachment 4.

8. 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.

9. 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

Requirements Before the Hearing

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 August 11, 2023, 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before September 7, 2023 and try to resolve or reduce the issues for the Hearing. Following the experts’ meetings, and if any agreement is reached, the Parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the Case Co-ordinator on or before September 22, 2023.

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 15 below. Instead of an Expert 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 and not paid to produce a report do not have to file an Expert Witness Statement; but the Party calling them must file an outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 15 below.

14. A Party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a Witness Statement, as in paragraph 15 below.

15. On or before October 6, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their Witness Statements and Expert Witness Statements to the other Parties and to the Case Co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

16. On or before October 6, 2023, a Participant shall provide copies of their written Participant Statement to the Parties and to the Case Co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A Participant cannot present oral evidence or submissions at the Hearing unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. Parties may provide to all other Parties and the Case Co-ordinator a written response to any Written Evidence on or before October 20, 2023, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

18. On or before November 1, 2023, 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.

19. The Parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the Case Co-ordinator on or before November 7, 2023.

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 and the other Parties by November 7, 2023 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 November 7, 2023 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 direct, cross-examination and re-direct 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 filing shall be electronic, unless the Tribunal requests a hard copy(ies) of any document. 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.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

BEFORE:

Name of Member:

Date:

TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR

SUMMARY OF PROCEDURAL DATES

DATE	EVENT
August 11, 2023	Exchange of list of witnesses and the order in which they will be called
September 7, 2023	Meeting of expert witnesses in the same field
September 22, 2023	Filing of agreed statement of facts
October 6, 2023	Exchange of expert reports/expert witness statements/written evidence, evidence outlines for witnesses under summons, participant statements
October 20, 2023	Exchange of responding evidence
November 1, 2023	Exchange of visual evidence
November 7, 2023	Filing of Joint Document Book
November 7, 2023	Filing of Hearing Plan
November 14, 2023	Hearing commences

Attachment “1” List of Parties/Participants

PARTIES

Party	Counsel / Representative
Auto Complex Ltd.	Susan Rosenthal / Kyle Gossen Davies Howe LLP 425 Adelaide Street West, 10th Floor Toronto, ON M5V 3C1 Email: susanr@davieshowe.com / kyleg@davieshowe.com Tel: (416) 263-4500 / (416) 263-4519
City of Vaughan	Bruce Engell WeirFoulds LLP 4100-66 Wellington Street West Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 Email: bengell@weirfoulds.com Tel: (416) 365-1110 Gurnick Perhar City of Vaughan, Legal Services 2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan, ON L6A 1T1 Email: gurnick.perhar@vaughan.ca Tel: (905) 832-8585
Regional Municipality of York	Bola Ogunmefun The Regional Municipality of York Development Law, Legal & Court Services 17250 Yonge Street Newmarket, ON L3Y 6Z1 Email: bola.ogunmefun@york.ca Tel: (1-877) 464-9675 ext 71459
Yonge & Steeles Developments Inc.	Daniel Artenosi / Natalie Ast Overland LLP 5255 Yonge Stret, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 Email: dartenosi@overlandllp.ca / nast@overlandllp.ca Tel: (416) 730-0320 / (416) 730-0337
390 Steeles West Holdings Inc., 398 Steeles Avenue West Inc. and Associated Vaughan Properties Ltd.	Mary Flynn-Guglietti / Kailey Sutton / Patrick Pinho McMillan LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3 Email: mary.flynn@mcmillan.ca / kailey.sutton@mcmillan.ca / patrick.pinho@mcmillan.ca Tel: (416) 865 -7256
Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc.	Ira Kagan / Jason Park / Sarah Kagan Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP 188 Avenue Road Toronto, ON M5R 2J1 Email: ikagan@ksllp.ca / jpark@ksllp.ca / skagan@ksllp.ca Tel: (416) 368-2100
Development Group (100 SAW) Inc.	Tom Halinski / Sidonia Tomasella Aird & Berlis LLP 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Email: thalinski@airdberlis.com / stomasella@airdberlis.com Tel: (416) 865 -7767 / (416) 865-7763
72 Steeles Holdings Limited and 7040 Yonge Holdings Limited	Chris Barnett Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP Box 50, 1 First Canadian Place Toronto, ON M5X 1B8 Email: cbarnett@osler.com Tel: (416) 862-6651
Mizrahi Constantine (180 SAW) Inc.	Quinto Annibale Loopstra Nixon LLP 135 Queens Plate Drive, Suite 600 Toronto, ON M9W 6V7 Email: qannibale@loonix.com Tel: (416) 748-4757
Morguard Corp.	Johanna Shapira Wood Bull LLP 65 Queen Street West, Suite 1400 Toronto ON M5H 2M5 Email: jshapira@woodbull.ca Tel: (416) 203-5631

Attachment “2” Issues List

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List does not mean that all parties agree that such an issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate or relevant for the proper determination of the appeal. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

City of Vaughan

1. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning by-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision (collectively, the “Proposal”) have regard to matters of provincial interest set out in subsections 2 (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q) and (r), of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended?

2. Is the Proposal consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including but not limited to sections 1.1.1 a), b), c), e), f), g); 1.1.3.2 a)-f); 1.1.3.3; 1.1.3.4; 1.1.3.6; 1.2; 1.4.3; 1.5.1 a)-b); 1.6.6.1; 1.6.6.7; 1.6.7; 1.6.8; 1.7.1 b); and 1.8.1 a), b), e) and the applicable definitions therein?

3. Is the Proposal in conformity with the applicable policies of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, including but not limited to sections 1.2.1; 2.2.1.3 c); 2.2.1.4 a), d), e); 2.2.4.9 a), c); 2.2.4.11; 2.2.5.3; and 2.2.5.4 and the applicable definitions therein?

4. Is the Proposal in conformity with the applicable policies of the York Region Official Plan 2010, including but not limited to Sections 3.5, 4.2, 4.4, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 7?

5. Does the proposal have appropriate regard for the adopted York Region Official Plan (adopted by Regional Council on June 30, 2022), including but not limited to Sections 2.3, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.4?

6. Is the proposal in conformity with the applicable policies, goals and objectives of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 Volume 1 (“VOP”) and the policies of the Yonge Steeles Corridor Secondary Plan (the “YSCSP”), including but not limited to,

(a) building heights: policy 3.1.4 of the YSCSP and policies 9.2.3.5.c and 9.2.3.6.c of VOP

(b) urban design policies: policies 3.1.10 step-backs, 3.1.4 angular plane, 3.1.6 tower floor plate (building A in Block 1) of the YSCSP and policies 9.2.3.5.c, 9.2.3.6.c and 9.2.3.6.d.i of the VOP

(c) mandatory retail provisions along Yonge Street: policy 3.4.3 of the YSCSP

(d) pre and post subway/bus rapid transit population thresholds of the YSCSP: policies 8.5 and 9.0, and Tables A, B and C of the YSCSP

(e) Official Plan policies respecting affordable housing: Part B, Chapter 2.0 Vision and Principles and policies 3.3.2.2 and 8.5 in particular 8.5.2.i. of the YSCSP and section 7.5 of the VOP

(f) water and servicing capacity allocation: policy 10.1.1.8 of the VOP and policies 6.3, 8.2 and 8.4 of the YSCSP

(g) orderly development with adjacent lands: sections 8.5 and 8.6 of the YSCSP

(h) coordination with surrounding municipalities, external and provincial agencies: policies 3.3.2.3 and 7.2 of the YSCSP

(i) requirements for public open space and parks: policy 4.0, specifically 4.1 Location, 4.3 Form and Design, and 4.4 Parkland Conveyance of the YSCSP

(j) transition to existing residential: policy 3.1.4 of the YSCSP and policies 9.2.3.4.b, 9.2.3.5.c, and 9.2.3.6.c of VOP

7. Is the relief requested through the zoning by-law amendment in conformity with the land use permissions of the YSCSP?

8. Does the Proposal appropriately address all matters related to compatibility?

9. Does the Proposal appropriately address community service/public use provisions in conformity with section 7 of the YSCSP?

10. What number of units (and resulting population) in the Proposal would be appropriate to construct prior to the Yonge North Subway Extension being in operation?

11. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeals, in whole or in part, is it appropriate for the implementing zoning by-law amendment to be subject to a Holding Symbol “(H)”?

12. Is there adequate water supply and wastewater servicing capacity to support the Proposal along with the development of the balance of the Secondary Plan as per the requirements of the YSCSP?

13. Does the Proposal provide an appropriate transportation network and would the transportation network conform with the YSCSP?

14. Have functional design drawings been provided for the roads, to the satisfaction of the City, to determine the property impacts and required ROW, and to ensure the design components conform with the YSCSP and appropriately address the City of Vaughan and York Region engineering design criteria and standard drawings?

15. Does the Proposal provide an appropriate phasing plan in relation to phasing of the required transportation infrastructure? Does the Proposal appropriately address the construction of Pinewood Drive and its conveyance to the City in the interim and ultimate conditions?

16. Was the Transportation Mobility Study prepared following the City of Vaughan Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) Guidelines (Feb 2022) and comments issued on the study Terms of Reference? Does the TIS have regard for the pre and post-subway development thresholds specified by the YSCSP?

17. Are the proposed parking rates appropriate and do they conform with the policies of the YSCSP?

18. Does the Proposal conform with sections 3 and 4 of the YSCSP?

19. Does the Proposal meet the objectives and have regard for the guidelines set out in City-Wide Urban Design guidelines performance standard 5.3.7 for Separation Distances, performance standard 5.2.2 for microclimate and sky view, performance standard 5.2.14 for Public Art, performance standard 6.2.8 for Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Spaces, performance standard 6.2.5 Urban Squares, performance standard 6.2.7 for Publicly Accessible Interiors and performance standard 5.3.8 for Threshold and Entrances?

20. Does the Proposal conform with section 4.4.2.2, Schedule 4 (South), and Schedule 8 (South) of the YSCSP for the configuration, location, and size of parkland conveyed?

Regional Municipality of York

21. Has the applicant provided an appropriate TIS that has appropriate regard for the recommendations of the York Region’s Transportation Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications (November 2016), and does it identify the traffic impacts of existing and proposed development(s) in the surrounding area?

22. Does the TIS have regard for the pre and post-subway development thresholds specified by the YSCSP?

23. Does the Proposal provide an appropriate phasing plan in relation to phasing of the required transportation infrastructure?

24. Does the Proposal provide an appropriate transportation access plan and does it meet the Region Access Guidelines requirements?

25. Does the TIS appropriately address the transportation infrastructure needs of the Proposal, such as a fine grid road network, consistent with the approved YSCSP?

26. Has the applicant identified and provided an appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan to address the impacts of the Proposal on the existing transportation network?

27. Have functional design drawings been provided for the roads, to the satisfaction of the City, to determine the required ROW, and to ensure the design components conform with the YSCSP and appropriately address the City of Vaughan and York Region engineering design criteria and standard drawings?

28. Has the Proposal provided sufficient pedestrian and cycling connections to and from the development?

Yonge Steeles Landowners Group Inc.

29. Does the Proposal appropriately address phasing of the development relative to other lands in the YSCSP area including, but not limited to, appropriately addressing the policies in the approved YSCSP dealing with pre-subway population limits?

30. Is there, or will there be, adequate servicing infrastructure for the Proposal?

31. Is there, or will there be, adequate transportation infrastructure for the Proposal?

32. Does the Proposal appropriately address the coordination and cost-sharing of infrastructure so as to ensure the development of the YSCSP area in a comprehensive manner? Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment include appropriate holding symbol provisions to address cost sharing?

33. Will the Proposal appropriately provide for or contribute to community facilities and community uses?

34. Does the Proposal and zoning by-law amendment conform to the approved YSCSP?

Yonge & Steeles Developments Inc. (Gupta) / 72 Steeles Holdings Limited and 7040 Yonge Holdings Limited (Humbold) / Development Group (100 SAW) Inc. (Dream)

35. Do the proposed zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision appropriately address the overall timing and phasing of development of the subject lands relative to the development of the Gupta, Humbold and Dream lands and other lands within the YSCSP South Area?

36. Does the Proposal appropriately address issues related to the coordination of development of the subject lands, including matters related to servicing, vehicular and pedestrian connections and access, and the provision of lands to facilitate same?

37. Does the Proposal conform with the YSCSP, including the policies set out in Sections 5.1, 5.9, 8.1, 9.1 and Table A? Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment appropriately address issues related to the cost sharing of municipal and community infrastructure and facilities, including subway access infrastructure, to support development within the YSCSP South Area?

38. Does the proposed zoning by-law amendment include appropriate holding provisions that conform with Policy 8.4 of the YSCSP?

Mizrahi Constantine (180) SAW Inc.

39. Does the Proposal appropriately address the overall timing and phasing of development of the subject lands relative to the development of the Mizrahi lands and other lands within the YSCSP area?

40. Does the Proposal appropriately address issues related to the coordination of development of the subject lands relative to the Mizrahi lands and other lands within the YSCSP area including matters related to vehicular and pedestrian connections and access?

41. Does the Proposal appropriately address matters of servicing, active and vehicular transportation, parkland provision (or “cash-in-lieu”), dedication of lands for community infrastructure and public rights of way, provision of community facilities and programming of private and public communal space, within the YSCSP area in a comprehensive manner?

42. Does the Proposal appropriately address issues related to the cost sharing of infrastructure that may be required to support the development of the subject lands and the YSCSP as a whole?

43. Is there, or will there be, adequate servicing infrastructure for the Proposal?

44. Is there, or will there be, adequate transportation infrastructure for the Proposal?

Morguard Corp.

45. Does the proposed alignment and phasing of the Pinewood Drive extension impact the existing use on the neighbouring property (7120 Yonge) or the future development of that property contrary to applicable policies and provincial and municipal plans and good planning? Should it be modified?

Attachment “3” Order of Evidence

1. Auto Complex Ltd.
2. City of Vaughan
3. Regional Municipality of York
4. Other Landowners
5. Auto Complex Ltd. (reply, if any)

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other Parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a Party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a Party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the Party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a Party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A Participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A Participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a Party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a Party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a Participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A Participant may also be asked questions by the Parties should the Tribunal direct a Participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A Participant must be identified and be accorded Participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A Participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A Participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a Participant does not have the rights of a Party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a Party or Participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a Party or Participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A Participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the Participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the Participant wishes to address and the submissions of the Participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the Participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A Party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the Party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the Party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any Party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by Parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the Party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the Parties or directed by the Tribunal.