Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: February 16, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003759

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

Applicant/Appellant: 4Q Commercial WP Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of 15-storey, 18-storey and 35-storey residential buildings Reference Number: D01-20013 Property Address: 11160 Yonge Street Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-003759 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003759 OLT Case Name: 4Q Commercial WP Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: 4Q Commercial WP Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of 15-storey, 18-storey and 35-storey residential buildings Reference Number: D02-20025 Property Address: 11160 Yonge Street Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-003760 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003759

Heard: January 22, 2024 in Writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel/Representative
4Q Commercial WP Inc.	Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
City of Richmond Hill	Carlton Thome

DECISION DELIVERED BY F. LAVOIE AND HUGH S. WILKINS AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order arises from a written settlement hearing regarding an appeal filed by 4Q Commercial WP Inc (the “Appellant”) pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, in respect of the failure by Council for the City of Richmond Hill (the “City”) to make a decision on the Appellant’s applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to develop three buildings consisting of a 12-storey building, a 15-storey building, and a 22-storey building connected by a 4-storey podium on the Appellant’s property municipally known as 11160 and 11172 Yonge Street (“Subject Site”).

2The Appellant and the City reached a proposed settlement on December 13, 2023, which they now seek to have approved by the Tribunal.

3The Tribunal received written evidence from the Appellant in the form of an affidavit sworn by Michael Goldberg, dated January 24, 2024. Mr. Goldberg is a Registered Professional Planner retained by the Appellant, whom the Tribunal qualifies to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. The following findings of the Tribunal are based on Mr. Goldberg’s uncontroverted evidence, which the Tribunal accepts.

4The Subject Site is a rectangular shaped property totaling 16,111 square metres of land area, with 65.48 metres (“m”) of frontage on Yonge Street. It is currently developed with a commercial building and paved parking lot. To the west of the parking lot, there is a tributary of the Rouge River and its associated valley feature, which is subject to the policies of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (“ORMCP”) and regulated by the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”).

5The ZBA is required to rezone the Subject Site from General Commercial One (GC1) Zone to a residential zone that will permit the three proposed buildings, resulting in 607 units, a gross density of 2.73 Floor Space Index (“FSI”) and a net density of 4.14 FSI. The OPA is required to implement the increased building heights and density, as the City Official Plan limits height to eight storeys, and density to 2 FSI.

6The planning documents applying to these amendments include the following: s. 2 of the Planning Act; the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”), the ORMCP, the Region of York Official Plan (“Regional OP”), the City Official Plan (“City OP”), and the City’s guideline documents. Several common themes, through the related policies and provisions in these documents, are implemented by the proposed OPA, ZBA, and resulting development including:

• Encouraging intensification on a Regional Corridor where increased densities and heights are anticipated and planned;
• The efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure, the Subject Site being along a planned transit corridor;
• Promoting mixed use development and growth in Centres, Avenues, and Employment Areas;
• Protecting the ecological and hydrological integrity of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area through a minimum 10 m setback from the revised dripline;
• Supporting a range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable housing, to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households;
• Providing appropriate massing and design to fit in with the existing and planned context of the neighbourhood, resulting in no adverse planning impacts.

7In his affidavit, Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposed OPA and ZBA, as modified through the proposed settlement, are consistent with the PPS and conform with the Growth Plan, the ORMCP, the Region’s OP, and the City’s OP. He stated that the Subject Site is located in a growth and intensification area, which can accommodate the proposed built form, and is located close to public transit, amenities, and services. He said the proposed development would constitute the efficient use of land and infrastructure, provide for additional housing options, including affordable housing, provide for appropriate urban design and transition to adjacent areas, have proper environmental setbacks, and assist in creating a more complete community. He said the proposed development would constitute a good and compatible fit for the subject site and represents good urban design, in accordance with the City’s Urban Design Guidelines.

8On the uncontroverted evidence of Mr. Goldberg, the Tribunal finds that the requested OPA and ZBA have due regard for matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act; are consistent with the PPS; conform with the Growth Plan; conform with the ORMCP, conform with the Region’s and City’s OPs; have regard for the applicable guidelines; and represent good planning in the public interest.

INTERIM ORDER

9THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

a. the appeals are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in subparagraph (d) below;

b. the proposed amendment to the Richmond Hill Official Plan is approved in principle in the form attached hereto as “Appendix A” to this Interim Order and Decision;

c. the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment is approved in principle in the form attached hereto as “Appendix B” to this Interim Order and Decision;

d. the Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its final order bringing the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment into full force and effect until such time as the City advises the Tribunal that the conditions set out in “Appendix C” to this Interim Order and Decision have been satisfied;

e. the Panel will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and draft Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order; and

f. the Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that the parties have any difficulty in implementing this Interim Order and Decision.

“F. Lavoie”

F. LAVOIE MEMBER

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS VICE-CHAIR

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.

Appendix “C”

1. The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment instruments have been finalized to the satisfaction of the City’s Commissioner of Planning and Building Services;

2. The following Conditions of Approval have been finalized to the satisfaction of the City’s Commissioner of Planning and Building Services:

(a) the Appellant has addressed all of the outstanding comments from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in the TRCA’s letter dated February 17, 2022 regarding files D01-20013 and D02-20025 to the satisfaction of the TRCA;

(b) the Appellant has submitted an updated Functional Servicing Report addressing the servicing requirements for the proposed development based on the revised unit count;

(c) the Appellant has submitted an updated Transportation Impact Study;

(d) the Appellant has submitted an updated Natural Heritage Evaluation or Addendum, Tree Inventory and Protection Plan and Arborist Report, recommending, amongst other matters, the revised dripline for the significant woodland, a 10 metre minimum vegetation protection zone to the revised dripline, and restoration planting therein;

(e) that the Natural Heritage lands and their associated buffers as shown on the revised plans, be placed in an appropriate Open Space (OS) Zone or Flood (F) Zone; and,

(f) the Appellant provides updated architectural plans demonstrating that all access routes shall maintain a 4.6 metre vertical clearance, loading areas for waste collection that have a 6.5 metre vertical clearance and showing the height of roll-up doors, and providing revised truck maneuvering diagrams from loading areas.