Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 17, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000753

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Gil Shcolyar

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To facilitate five-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: A052/23

Property Address: 20 Bedford Park Avenue

Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York

OLT Case No: OLT-24-000753

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000753

OLT Case Name: Shcolyar v Richmond Hill (City)

Heard: October 4, 2024 by video hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Gil Shcolyar (“Applicant”)	Lee English
City of Richmond Hill (“City”)	Carlton Thorne

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY MATHIEU E. QUESNEL ON OCTOBER 4, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant is appealing the City Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) decision to refuse their application for minor variances.

2On September 6, 2023, the Applicant submitted an application for the minor variances (“MV”) to the CoA. On June 20, 2024 the CoA, in a tie vote, refused the application.

3Notice of Hearing was sent by email by the Tribunal on August 9, 2024 and is filed as Exhibit 1.

VARIANCES REQUESTED

4The MV requested (“Requested Variances”) are as follows:

a. To permit the reduction of the minimum side yard setback (east) to 4.75 m, whereas the Zoning By-law No. 76-91 (“ZBL”) requires 9.45 m.

b. To permit a maximum encroachment for roof overhang (east) of 6.55 m, whereas ZBL requires 0.90 m.

c. To permit the maximum floor area ratio of 250 percent, whereas ZBL requires 190 percent.

d. To permit a maximum residential floor area ratio of 204 percent, whereas ZBL requires 150 percent.

e. To permit a minimum number of parking spaces of 10, whereas ZBL requires 23 spaces.

f. To permit a minimum number of loading spaces of zero, whereas ZBL requires one space.

Parties and evidence

5Lee English attended the Hearing, representing the Applicant. Carlton Thorne attended the Hearing, representing the City and confirmed with the Tribunal from the start that he will not be calling any witnesses and was mainly there as an observer. There was one Participant status request from ROSI Educational Services Inc. trading as Open Arms Preschool (“ROSI”), represented by Dhillon Daljit.

6All parties acknowledged receiving copy of the Participant written statement in advance and no objections were raised as to the request. The Tribunal granted the Participant status to ROSI. The statement of the Participant was entered as Exhibit 2.

7The Applicant’s Book of Documents, which included the MV application form, the package provided to the CoA, site and neighbourhood context images, the City Planning Staff Report (“staff report”), CoA presentation and Decision were received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 3. The Visual Evidence Book of the Appellant was received by the Tribunal and marked as Exhibit 4.

8The Tribunal heard evidence from Murray Evans, who was affirmed and deemed qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning.

9The Tribunal also heard evidence from Anil Seegobin, who was affirmed and deemed qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in traffic engineering.

SUBJECT SITE AND CONTEXT

10The Subject Property is municipally known as 20 Bedford Park Avenue in the City, which is on the south side of Bedford Park Avenue, approximately 75 m east of Yonge Street.

11The Subject Property is located within the General Commercial Residential (“GCR”) zone pursuant to the ZBL and identified as being within the Downtown Local Centre land use designation and more particularly within the Uptown District (“UP”) within the City of Richmond Hill Official Plan (“RHOP”).

12The permitted uses in UP for lands without frontage onto Yonge Street include low and medium-density residential uses, within a height range of six to eight storeys at the south end of the UP, and a maximum density of 2.5 Floor Space Index (“FSI”) for a development block.

13The GCR zoning permits apartment dwellings, as well as a variety of non-residential uses including business or professional offices.

14Mr. Evans indicated to the Tribunal that the City has approved an update of the RHOP on December 1, 2023, referred to as Amendment 18.6 which is being appealed. Part of the Amendment would allow buildings up to six storeys in the location of the Subject Property.

Appellant’s position and Section 45(1) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html) (“Act”)

15The Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act when making a decision regarding an MV application. Under s. 3(5) of the Act, the Tribunal’s decision on the MV must be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”).

16When considering a proposed variance, the Tribunal must consider each of the four elements set out in s. 45(1) of the Act to determine if the requested variance:

1. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the official plan;
2. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
3. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
4. Is minor in nature.

17All four elements must be satisfied.

18With the City not calling any evidence during the proceedings, the Tribunal received no contradictory evidence to the following opinion evidence of Mr. Evans and Mr. Seegobin.

[Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

19Mr. Evans opined that the variances which will facilitate the proposed development have regard for matters of provincial interest as it offers a functional housing for lifestyle changes; it is compatible, appropriate, would not impact the environment, and would not result in any adverse impacts with a compliant build form.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

20Evidence was provided by Mr. Evans that the PPS promotes intensification and efficient use of land and resources. Development should occur where existing infrastructure and public service facilities are available. Mr. Evans identifies many municipal facilities in the vicinity of the Subject Property and in his view, this development creates a compatible form of the objective for a sustainable community.

21Mr. Evans also testifies that the PPS promotes development in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations. He testifies that the Subject Property is located within walking distance to a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) identified by the City as MTSA No.45. He identifies bus routes, metro stations and access to a railway station within the proximity of the Subject Property.

22Therefore, Mr. Evans opined that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS.

GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE (“Growth Plan”)

23The Growth Plan outlines policies for managing and directing where and how growth should occur within the Greater Golden Horseshoe. All decisions in respect of the exercise of any authority that affects a planning matter are required to conform to the Growth Plan.

24Mr. Evans testifies that the Subject Property is located within the City settlement area. Growth within the settlement areas will be focused on locations with existing or planned transit and in areas where existing public service facilities are available. He also testifies that the Growth Plan’s objective is to create complete communities as per s. 2.2.1.4 and within MTSAs as per s. 2.2.4.6.

25Therefore, it was the opinion of Mr. Evans that the Requested Variances are modest in nature and conform to the policies of the Growth Plan.

THE FOUR TESTS

1. Do the variances meet the general Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan?

26It was the opinion of Mr. Evans that the variances conform to the policies of the applicable Downtown Local Centre designation under the RHOP.

27It was also the opinion of Mr. Evans that the application conforms to the policies of the Region of York Official Plan.

28Therefore, it was the opinion of Mr. Evans that the application’s Requested Variances meet the intent and purpose of both Official Plans.

2. General Intent and Purpose of the ZBL

29Mr. Evans testifies that an apartment building is a permitted use under the zoning GCR.

30He also testifies and refers to the City’s staff report to say that the Requested Variances are not negatively impacting the neighboring properties.

31He further testifies that the proposed development will ensure a proper transition between the single family properties to the east and the higher density uses along Yonge Street.

32Mr. Evans opined that the Requested Variances met the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

3. Desirable for the Appropriate Development or the Use of Land

33Mr. Evans stated that the Requested Variances collectively would not negatively impact the surrounding community and represent an appropriate utilization of the site, its location, and the surrounding local context.

34Mr. Seegobin testifies that the traffic impact study shows minimal impact on the traffic that the development will generate, and that the development contains sufficient parking spaces for cars and bicycles.

35He further testifies that the lack of a loading space in this kind of development is not an issue since the roadway can serve this purpose and it is typical for small sites to be exempt from providing a loading space in downtown areas.

36Mr. Evans also testifies that there is ample municipal parking within a short distance of the property to accommodate visitors. The reduction of parking spaces and removal of a loading space is not creating a negative impact.

37Therefore, Mr. Evans and Mr. Seegobin opined that the variances that will facilitate the proposed development are desirable for the appropriate development or the use of land and will have very minimal impact on the immediate neighbors and surrounding area.

4. Is Minor in Nature

38Mr. Evans opined that the Requested Variances are not anticipated to result in negative impacts on the surrounding community and will be minimal, if any.

39Mr. Evans also agrees with the City staff report indicating that the relief requested will facilitate a development that is modest and appropriate for the property and the surrounding area.

40In conclusion, Mr. Evans stated that it is his professional opinion that the impacts of the Requested Variances are minor in nature.

FINDINGS

41The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Evans and Mr. Seegobin that the Requested Variances for the Subject Property will have a minimal impact on neighboring and surrounding properties.

42The Tribunal accordingly comes to the same conclusion as both witnesses and as the City staff report and finds that the Requested Variances have regard for the provincial interests expressed in the Act, are consistent with the PPS and the Growth Plan, both official plans, and satisfy all four elements set out in the Act.

ORDER

43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the variances are authorized subject to the following conditions:

1. That the variances pertain only to the request as submitted with the application.
2. That development be substantially in accordance with the sketch submitted with the application as required by Ontario Regulation 200/96, as amended, s. 5.25.

“Mathieu E. Quesnel”

MATHIEU E. QUESNEL MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.