Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 16, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001156

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

Applicant and Appellant: Yonge Sixteen Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Richmond Hill to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation: Key Development Area (KDA)

Proposed Designation: To maintain the Key Development Area (KDA) designation but to allow for certain policy amendments to permit the development of two mixed-use residential/commercial buildings at 43-storeys and 38-storeys in height on top of a 6-storey podium, with a total Gross Floor Area of 66,550 square metres (705,574 square feet), at a Floor Space Index of 8.77 and 962 residential units

Purpose: To permit the development of two mixed-use residential/commercial buildings at 43-storeys and 38-storeys in height on top of a 6-storey podium, with a total Gross Floor Area of 66,550 square metres (705,574 square feet), at a Floor Space Index of 8.77 and 962 residential units

Property Address/Description: 9251 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Richmond Hill

Approval Authority File No.: D01-19002

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001156

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001156

OLT Case Name: Yonge Sixteen Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Yonge Sixteen Inc.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 276-96, as amended by site-specific Zoning By-law No. 49-12 - Neglect of the City of Richmond Hill to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Key Development Area Zone under Zoning By-law No. 276-96, as amended by site-specific Zoning By-law No. 49-12

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (to be determined)

Purpose: To permit the development of two mixed-use residential/commercial buildings at 43-storeys and 38-storeys in height on top of a 6-storey podium, with a total Gross Floor Area of 66,550 square metres (705,574 square feet), at a Floor Space Index of 8.77 and 962 residential units

Property Address/Description: 9251 Yonge Street

Municipality: City of Richmond Hill

Municipality File No.: D02-19012

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001157

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001156

Heard: October 18, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Yonge Sixteen Inc.	Daniel Artenosi / Natalie Ast
City of Richmond Hill	Carlton Thorne

DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal are the Appeals filed by Yonge Sixteen Inc. (“Appellant”), under s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, regarding the City of Richmond Hill’s (“City”) neglect to make a decision of an application to amend Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) No. 276-96 as amended by site-specific Zoning By-law No. 49-12 (“ZBLA”) and the failure of the City to amend the Official Plan (“OPA”). The subject property is located at 9251 Yonge Street (“Subject Site”).

OVERVIEW

2In October 2019, applications for an OPA and a ZBL Amendment (“Applications”) were submitted to the City to permit a high density, mixed-use residential/commercial development comprised of two towers of 27 and 29 storeys in height, a gross floor area (“GFA”) of 46,100 square metres (496,216 square feet), a density of 6.07 Floor Space Index (“FSI”) and a total of 659 residential units. The proposal is intended to be developed as rental housing. The City deemed the Applications complete on October 25, 2019 and subsequently, hosted a Public Meeting on December 4, 2019.

3On March 25, 2020, a further revised development proposal was submitted to permit a high density, mixed-use residential/commercial development comprised of two towers of 38 and 43 storeys in height, with a GFA of 66,550 square metres (716,338 square feet) at a density of 8.77 FSI and 962 residential units, including 12 community housing units that were proposed as a community benefit in exchange for the increase in height and density under Section 37 of the Planning Act.

4On June 3, 2020, the City Council held a Public Meeting at which time a Staff Report was received. The Council adopted a motion “to receive the Report for information purposes only and that all comments be referred back to Staff.”

5On December 9, 2020, the City Staff presented a Report to Council titled ‘Request for Approval’ and recommended the approval of the OPA and ZBL Amendment Applications subject to conditions. The Council referred the Applications back to City Staff to address a number of issues, including density, height and reduced parking standards.

6On June 16, 2021, the Appellant appealed the OPA and ZBL Amendment Applications to the Tribunal on the basis of Council’s failure to make a decision on the Applications within the statutory timeframes set out in the Planning Act.

7On March 23, 2022, the City Staff presented a Request for Direction Report to City Council. The Staff Report recommended that Council support the revised OPA and ZBL Amendment Applications as outlined in the Staff Report SRPl.22.028, subject to:

• the Tribunal be requested to withhold the issuance of its Final Order with respect to the OPA and ZBL Amendment Applications until such time certain conditions were met and subject to entering into Minutes of Settlement, also with conditions.

8Council adopted a motion returning it back to Staff with directions and, on April 21, 2022, a further memorandum was prepared by Planning Staff with a Request for Direction for the proposed OPA and ZBL Amendment Applications.

9On April 27, 2022, Council did not support the revised OPA and ZBL Amendment Applications.

10The Tribunal was informed that on July 6, 2022, the City Council enacted the Community Benefits Charge By-law No. 99-22 (the “CBC By-law”) permitting the recovery by the City of the capital costs of any services needed due to development.

11The Tribunal heard that given the proposed ZBL Amendment to permit the Proposed Development, as submitted, was not adopted and in force, prior to the date that the City enacted the new CBC By-law, the former Section 37 provisions in the Planning Act do not apply to the By-law or the Subject Site. Rather, the redevelopment of the Subject Site is now subject to the new CBC By-law.

12On April 21, 2022, the Appellant advised, through legal counsel, that the Proposed Development was being revised to remove the 12 community housing units that which were previously proposed formerly, in Section 37 with provisions, in the Planning Act.

Neighbouring Site Context

13To the North:

• South Hill Shopping Centre, a large commercial retail plaza with a centralized surface parking lot.
• 9325 Yonge Street is currently subject to a development application to facilitate the first phase of a multi-phased site redevelopment. The first phase proposes two high-density mixed-use buildings with heights of 42 and 45 storeys that are to be connected by a five-storey podium fronting onto 16th Avenue.

14To the East:

• A two-storey car dealership occupied by Honda with a large surface parking lot wrapping the entirety of the building (77 and 89 16th Avenue).

15To the South:

• Adjacent to the Subject Site is the Beverly Hills Condo (9201 Yonge Street); a high-rise, mixed-use development that is comprised of two buildings with a centralized flex street for active and vehicular transportation. The north building, which is immediately south of the Subject Site, is comprised of two towers with heights of 20 and 23-storeys above a 12-storey shared podium. The south building contains two towers with heights of 12-storeys above a seven-storey shared podium. South of this is a townhouse subdivision with two to three-storey homes.

16To the West:

• Across and along the west side of Yonge Street, there are two development proposals in this general area including a redevelopment of the lands municipally known as 9218 Yonge Street, which would replace non-residential buildings facing Yonge Street with a high-density, mixed-use development comprised of two towers with heights of 42 and 36-storeys connected by a shared six-storey podium. The second Proposed Development is for the lands municipally known as 39-97 Carrville Road, and it is comprised of a proposed high-density, mixed-use development with three towers with heights of 16, 32 and 32-storeys.

17To the Northwest:

• Hillcrest Mall (9350 Yonge Street): a large shopping mall that is one to two-storeys in height occupied by numerous retailers, restaurants, personal services and shops. Applications were submitted to permit the first phase of redevelopment for the site. As part of the first phase, a high-density development comprised of two mixed-use rental apartment buildings are proposed with heights of 26 and 29-storeys, connected by a seven-storey podium.

Current Proposed Development

18The development proposal at the Subject Site (“Proposed Development”) is comprised of the following:

• a mixed-use development with two residential towers with heights of 38- and 43-storeys, connected by a six-storey podium with non-residential uses at-grade;
• a total GFA of 66,550 square metres, of which 65,150 square metres is residential GFA, and 1,400 square metres is non-residential/retail GFA, resulting in a density of 8.77 FSI;
• 962 residential dwelling units (616 one-bedroom units, 322 two-bedroom units, and 24 three-bedroom units);
• 890 square metres of indoor amenity space and 1,035 square metres of outdoor amenity space;
• 805 vehicular parking spaces in four levels of underground parking comprised of: I. 620 resident parking spaces II. 142 visitor parking spaces III. 18 retail parking spaces IV. five car share spaces (which equates to an additional 20 parking spaces) V. accessible parking spaces as follows:
  1. four accessible spaces for retail
  2. three accessible spaces for visitor
  3. six accessible spaces for residents
• 603 bicycle parking spaces; and,
• one (1) Type 'B' loading space and one (1) Type 'G' loading space.

EXPERT WITNESSES

19The Tribunal qualified without objections the following individuals to provide opinion evidence in their respective fields of expertise.

20For the Appellant:

• Antonio Volpentesta (Bousfields Inc.); Land Use Planning;
• Chris Pereira (M. Behar Planning and Design Ltd.); Urban Design; and,
• Nixon Chan (Lea Consulting Ltd.); Transportation Planning.

21For the City:

• Allan Ramsay, B.E.S., M.A.SC., M.C.I.P., R.P.P. - Land Use Planning; and,
• John McGill, P.Eng., PTOE, RSP - Parking /Transportation.

APPELLANT'S EVIDENCE

PLANNING CONTEXT

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

22The Subject Site is a key location within a wider intensification area. It has been assessed comprehensively in terms of its ultimate land use and how it will fit within a larger development block that has already seen significant development.

23Mr. Volpentesta provided that the Subject Site:

• is located in a Key Development Area ("KDA"), in the City of Richmond Hill Official Plan (“RHOP”).
• is situated in an area designated as "Urban Area" and located along a "Regional Corridor” which is identified as "Intensification Areas".
• is found in the KDA Development Block within the Draft Yonge and Carrville/16th Key Development Area Secondary Plan (the "Draft Secondary Plan").
• is also located in a proposed Protected Major Transit Station Area, as set out in the proposed New Regional Municipality of York (“York Region” or “Region”) Official Plan that has been adopted by the Region’s Council and forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”) as the approval authority.
• the Proposed Development and Applications will implement the planned function of the Subject Site to facilitate intensification in an area planned to achieve significant growth. The Proposed Development has been designed to achieve this intensification in a manner that does not create unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding areas and is compatible with existing and Proposed Developments in the immediate context.

24Mr. Volpentesta opined that the Proposed Development represents a logical development within its existing and planned context that will allow for the orderly development of the rest of the southeastern quadrant of Yonge Street and 16th Avenue.

25He stated that the Proposed Development has regard to s. 2 of the Planning Act.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 ("PPS")

26Of the PPS policies, cited by Mr. Volpentesta and through his extensive testimony, the Tribunal heard that one of the key policy directions expressed in the PPS is to build strong communities by promoting efficient development and land use patterns.

27Part V of the PPS contains Policies 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 that promote intensification, redevelopment and compact built form, particularly in areas well served by public transit.

28Mr. Volpentesta testified that through these policies, the subject site will:

• improve the intersection at Yonge Street and Carrville/16th Avenue by providing residential/mixed-use intensification on the Subject Site.
• transform the currently underutilized site into a transit-orientated development that is surrounded by an array of existing commercial, retail, and office uses, and located at a major intersection adjacent to an existing bus rapid transit (“BRT”) station and nearby the future High Tech subway station that is proposed as part of the Yonge North Subway Extension (“YNSE”) that will connect Finch Station, in the City of Toronto, to the Cities of Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill.
• as planned, the YNSE will terminate at the proposed High Tech Station, which will be located approximately 1.3 kilometres south of the Subject Site. Once the YNSE is completed, the subway will also connect with local and GO transit services.
• section 4.4 of the RHOP designates the Subject Site as a KDA on Schedule A2 - Land Use. KDAs are intensification areas located on a Regional Corridor where public rapid transit services intersect with major nodes of retail and commercial development activity, and where opportunities exist for redevelopment of large sites that can support new public streets, parks and urban open space connections.

29The Tribunal heard that the Proposed Development has been designed to support the existing and planned transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the Subject Site and will support the creation of a range of housing options in the City, generally, and the immediate context, in particular, by introducing a significant amount of residential units that are intended to be developed as rental housing.

30Mr. Volpentesta summarized key findings of the Richmond Hill Rental Supply Analysis Report prepared by Altus Group on January 21, 2020. He stated:

• The City has had 405 rental apartment completions from 2005 to 2019,
• the Proposed Development represents 237% of the 15-year rental supply that was constructed in the City from 2005 to 2019.
• approximately 342 of the 405 rental unit completions (84%) were projects undertaken by York Region Housing, and very little purpose-built rental has been constructed in the City without government funding.
• Regional Council adopted York Region Official Plan, 2022 (“YROP 2022”) provides that the purpose-built minimum rental target for the City from 2021 to 2031 is to build 1,500 purpose-built rental units.

31Mr. Volpentesta testified that the Proposed Development intends to contribute a significant amount of purpose-built rental units to future Richmond Hill residents, ultimately providing over half (64%) of the minimum rental target for the City before 2031.

32He stated that the Proposed Development is consistent with PPS policies 1.1.3.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.3 and 4.6 as it;

• proposes appropriate development standards to facilitate the intensification and redevelopment of the Subject Site to ensure there are no negative impacts to public health and safety.
• proposes "housing options" as a range of housing types such as, but not limited to single-detached, semi-detached, rowhouses, townhouses, stacked townhouses, multiplexes, additional residential units, tiny homes and multi-residential buildings. The term can also refer to a variety of housing arrangements and forms such as, but not limited to, life lease housing, co-ownership housing, co-operative housing, community land trusts, land lease community homes, affordable housing, housing for people with special needs, and housing related to employment, institutional or educational uses.
• comprises a range and mix of housing options including one bedroom-units, two-bedroom units, and three-bedroom units, which are intended to be developed as rental housing. The Proposed Development will increase both the residential and employment population in the area through the anticipated mixed-use intensification on the Subject Site, which will in-turn provide support for transit-ridership at the adjacent BRT station and future High Tech subway station.

33The Tribunal heard that the Proposed Development presents an opportunity to achieve consistency with the PPS for the Subject Site, and that the Proposed Development and implementing Applications are consistent with the PPS.

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”)

34Mr. Volpentesta testified that the Proposed Development meets the goals and aspects of the Growth Plan through various policies.

35He stated that the Proposed Development conforms with Policy 1.2.1 of the Growth Plan by;

• proposing a high-density, mixed-use development with a range and mix of residential housing options to serve all sizes, incomes and ages of households, as well as non-residential uses such as retail, and personal service uses to meet people's needs for daily living.
• providing excellent access to the existing BRT transit corridor and bicycle parking spaces in the building to encourage active transportation.
• prioritizing intensification and higher density in a strategic growth area that makes efficient use of land and infrastructure, and support transit viability by proposing a compact, well-designed built-form that is supportive of the existing transit infrastructure.

36He stated that the Proposed Development conforms with Policies 2.2.1(2)(c), 2.2.1(3), 2.2.1(4), 2.2.2(3), and 2.2.4(1) of the Growth Plan as it:

• supports the optimization of land use and infrastructure, particularly with regards to directing development within a protected major transit station area, and a priority transit corridor.
• directly implements Provincial, Regional and Local policy, which generally supports the optimization of land use infrastructure.

37He stated that the Growth Plan policies promote prioritizing development in an area where infrastructure is already available, including access to higher order transit on a priority transit corridor and thus, he opined that the Proposed Development should not be considered premature as suggested by City staff.

38Mr. Volpentesta stated that the Proposed Development conforms with Policies 2.2.4(2), 2.2.4(3)(a), 2.2.4(9), and 5.2.5(8) of the Growth Plan:

• as it proposes a diverse mix of uses, including residential uses and non-residential uses, at a scale and density that will support the existing BRT service and the planned TTC subway extension, and more generally will support the optimization of land use and infrastructure.
• as it provides for reduced parking given its location adjacent to existing higher-order transit and through the provision of other parking demand management strategies. The scale of intensification and provision of parking is appropriate at this location, within an area that meets the geographical criteria for a Major Transit Station Area.
• as it can be accommodated at this location without creating undue adverse impacts on the immediate context and surrounding area.
• as it proposes the increase in height and density as well as other site-specific provisions through OPA and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications that are subject to the relevant Provincial and Municipal land use planning policies and approval processes.

39Mr. Volpentesta concluded that it is his opinion that the Proposed Development and implementing Applications conform with the Growth Plan.

York Region Official Plan, 2022

40York Region's Council adopted a new Official Plan, YROP 2022, on November 4, 2022.

41With regard to Policies 5.3.1, 5.3.3 (a) to (g), 5.3.4, 5.3.6, and 5.4 of the YROP, the Tribunal heard that:

• the intensification policies of the YROP establish an intensification matrix that provides direction on the hierarchy of the intensification areas across York Region. The Subject Site is located along a Regional Corridor. This intensification area is identified as the second highest intensification category, just below a Regional Centre, by the Region’s intensification matrix hierarchy.
• policies require intensification areas to be planned and designed to achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas, with the matrix hierarchy in the order ranging from Regional Centres, Regional Corridors, GO Transit train stations and bus terminals and subway stations, Local Centres and Corridors, Other Major Streets, Local Infill and Secondary Suites.

42Mr. Volpentesta opined that the Proposed Development and implementing Applications also conform with the in-force YROP 2010.

43The Tribunal heard that the City has not adopted a secondary plan for the Yonge-16th Carrville KDA, despite the YROP 2010 and RHOP having been in-force since the year 2010 and 2011 respectively.

44Mr. Volpentesta stated that since that time, the Province has approved two comprehensive amendments to the PPS and two comprehensive amendments to the Growth Plan, both of which reinforce the need to promote an intensification-first approach to growth amendment, and to actively plan for the optimization of land use and infrastructure.

45The Tribunal heard that within this framework;

• the Subject Site is subject to a site and area specific policy in the City Official Plan, approved in the year 2012, permitting a high density, mixed-use residential/commercial development consisting of two towers of 24 and 28- storeys in height, with a GFA of 40, 985 square metres (441,159 square feet), a density of 5.4 FSI, and 499 residential units,
• the Subject Site is not dependent on the future secondary plan process that may be undertaken by the City.

46He opine that the historical approvals for the Subject Site, the Proposed Development, implementing Applications and supporting studies and materials demonstrate that the Proposed Development can proceed independently of a future secondary plan, supporting the optimization of existing and planned infrastructure, and without undermining the planned function of surrounding lands.

47Mr. Volpentesta further testified that the City had begun a secondary plan process for the Yonge/16th-Carrville KDA in 2015, and subsequently, a draft secondary plan was prepared in April 2018. Since 2018, there were no updates to the Draft Secondary Plan until 2022, when City Staff presented the 2041 City Plan Key Directions Report (“Report”) to City Council.

48The Tribunal further heard that the Report was endorsed by City Council, which directed City Staff to utilize the key directions to guide the update to the City's Official Plan, in support of the City's 2041 planning vision.

49The Report includes direction on key matters including:

• purpose and intent of the intensification hierarchy; and
• the roles of Centres and Corridors, including Regional Corridors, and an appropriate Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) minimum density direction.

50The Yonge/16th-Carrville KDA is proposed to have a minimum density target of 300 persons and jobs per hectare.

51The Report identifies specific key directions for 2018 Draft Secondary Plan:

• building on and refining the 2018 Draft Secondary Plan;
• re-delineating the KDA boundary to include appropriate lands to realize the KDA vision; and,
• protecting lands that can support future Yonge Subway and/or GO Transit stations.

52Mr. Volpentesta stated the Proposed Development conforms with the key directions adopted by the Council for the Secondary Plan area, specifically, meeting the minimum density targets and providing for transit-supportive, mixed-use development.

53Mr. Volpentesta opined that the Proposed Development conforms to the YROP 2010.

City of Richmond Hill Official Plan

54The Tribunal heard that the;

• in-force RHOP was adopted by the City Council on July 12, 2010,
• the Plan was endorsed, as modified, by the Region on May 19, 2011,
• the RHOP was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”), as it existed then, with portions having been approved and/or amended since. Although certain portions of the RHOP remain under appeal, the policies that apply to the Subject Site are in-full force and effect.

55The growth management policies of the RHOP direct growth to the settlement area of Richmond Hill based on the availability of existing and planned services.

56The Subject Site is located within the Settlement Area of the RHOP "Settlement Area Boundary", which defines the area that is already serviced or may be serviced with major streets, transit, and piped sewer and water services, in accordance with the policies of the RHOP.

57The Tribunal heard that in February 2019, Council approved the development of an Affordable Housing Strategy (“Strategy”) for the City. The Strategy was endorsed by City Council on July 7, 2021.

58The Strategy sets out goals and targets related to the provision of affordable housing, which include:

• 25% of all new residential units to be affordable on a city-wide basis.
• 10% of all new residential units should be affordable to households with low incomes, including those with special needs and senior housing.
• 15% of new residential units should be affordable to households with moderate incomes.
• the city-wide vacancy rate for rental housing should be 3%.

59He stated that with the land available within the City's settlement area being nearly built out, most of the future development in the City must occur through intensification in any event.

60The Tribunal heard that the Proposed Development contemplates the provision of 962 new rental housing units, which will significantly contribute to the housing mix and affordability options within the City and in this KDA.

61Mr. Volpentesta opined that rental housing is a form of housing that is intrinsically more attainable than ownership housing, for obvious reasons that include the additional financial resources that are required to purchase housing as compared to the financial requirements to rent. He stated that the Proposed Development will contribute to the creation of new housing options within this KDA, and, in turn, support the creation of a complete community.

62He stated that of the total 962 proposed dwelling units, approximately 36% of the units are two- and three-bedroom units, which will provide family size units that can accommodate children.

63Mr. Volpentesta stated that the Proposed Development,

• provides for a compact built-form that offers a mix of residential and non-residential uses at a location that is located adjacent to an existing BRT station and nearby the future YNSE, and the proposed High Tech subway station;
• implements the general policy direction intended for the Yonge and Carrville / 16th KDA. While the proposed FSI for the Subject Site exceeds the general permitted FSI on a block basis, it is consistent with the in-force Official Plan policies as they apply to the Subject Site;
• supports an FSI of 8.77, which is appropriate given the Subject Site's location along a Regional Corridor at a major intersection with retail and commercial activity, and its proximity to existing public rapid transit and planned higher-order transit on a large. He said it is an underutilized site and the Proposed Development is in keeping with the general scale of development proposed in close proximity to the Yonge Street and Carrville/16th Avenue Intersection adjacent to the 16th-Carrville BRT station; and,
• meets the intent of height allowance given that the tallest buildings will continue to be directed towards the intersection of Yonge Street and Carrville Road and 16th Avenue, in a manner that achieves good urban design.

64He stated that Policy 6.5 of the RHOP, approved by the OMB, on December 20, 2012, is a site-specific Official Plan policy for the Subject Site.

65Mr. Volpentesta provided relevant context to various sections of the policy. He stated that:

• the Proposed Development is comprised of residential uses including 962 proposed residential units, as well as non-residential uses on the ground floor of the podium including at-grade retail.
• the Proposed Development provides for two towers with heights of 38 and 43-storeys. The proposed OPA would increase the maximum permitted height to 38 and 43-storeys.
• the proposed height and implementing OPA and ZBL Amendments are appropriate.
• the draft ZBL Amendment provides for the provision of minimum parking spaces for residential, visitor, and retail/non-residential parking spaces. The proposed parking supply is less than the general as-of-right parking requirements in By-law No. 49-12.
• in relation to Planning matters, the Subject Site is an appropriate location for reduced parking standards, given the location of existing higher-order transit.
• the Proposed Development is in keeping with the York Region Transit Oriented Development Guidelines (2006).
• the 2018 Draft Secondary Plan envisions the potential extension of the subway beyond the current approved High Tech Station. The 2018 Draft Secondary Plan envisions that a new subway station may be accommodated at the northeast corner of Yonge and 16th Avenue, which is currently occupied by a retail plaza with considerable surface parking.
• the Updated Environmental Project Report Addendum for the Yonge North Subway Extension dated May 10, 2022, illustrates that the "Proposed Subway Alignment at Grade" terminates at the proposed High Tech Station, which is just south of the Site.
• the Tribunal heard the Owner of the Proposal is committed to working with the City to address appropriate design measures to protect for the potential subway extension, which is a matter that can more fully addressed through the site plan review process.
• the Primary access to the Subject Site is proposed at the southwest corner of the site along Yonge Street with a right-in and right-out design. A secondary access to the Subject Site is proposed at the northeast corner of the site along 16th Avenue in the interim. A future street reconfiguration is anticipated for Northern Heights Drive, which plans to shift to the street to the west, adjacent to the east property line of the Subject Site. In the future, the secondary access point would shift from the northeast corner of the site to the mid-block of the eastern portion of the site.
• the Subject Site is in a prime location for residential intensification given its location adjacent to the existing 16th-Carrville BRT station and location in close proximity to the future High Tech subway station, providing for future ridership support at these stations.

66Furthermore, he stated that the Subject Site is:

• located in an area that is directly surrounded by a variety of commercial, retail, and office uses of which future residents may take advantage.
• is located within the KDA designation under the RHOP, which is the land use designation intended to establish mixed-use service centres that will serve the surrounding neighbourhoods and future intensification along Yonge Street.
• within the Yonge Street and 16th Avenue KDA specifically and is intended to be a subcentre for mixed-use high-density development due to its proximity to public rapid transit on Yonge Street and the opportunity to intensify underutilized lands in the area.

67He further added that Policy 6.5 predates multiple iterations of the PPS and Growth Plan and strongly supports an intensification first approach to growth-management and development that is transit oriented.

68Mr. Volpentesta opined that caps on unit maximums are not generally appropriate in the current policy context, particularly in an area that is supported by higher order transit.

69He stated that flexibility on unit counts is appropriate to respond to market conditions, recognizing the need to respond to the various housing needs of residents. As such, an Official Plan Amendment is proposed to increase the maximum FSI, which, as proposed, is appropriate.

70Mr. Volpentesta provided that a Site Plan Application was submitted which entails an orderly development of the site.

71Once the implementing OPA and ZBL Amendment are approved, a revised proposal will be submitted to the City to implement the ZBL site specific provisions. Any such details will be dealt with through the Site Plan review process.

72Mr. Volpentesta opined hat the Proposed Development implements the general vision and intent of the RHOP as it applies to the Subject Site. He said the proposed implementing Official Plan amendment will ensure that the RHOP enables the Subject Site to achieve an appropriate development response at this location, in keeping with current provincial policy directions.

Draft Yonge and Carrville/16th Key Development Area Secondary Plan (2018) “YCSP”

73Mr. Volpentesta testified that the Draft Yonge and Carrville/16th Key Development Area Secondary Plan (2018) (“2018 Draft Secondary Plan” or “Yonge and 16th-Carrville KDA Secondary Plan”) will require substantive revisions to conform with new policy directions at the Provincial, Regional, and Municipal level. Furthermore, the Yonge and Bernard KDA Secondary Plan process was initiated in January 2017, and was adopted by the City Council on November 27, 2017. The Plan addresses continued enhancements to public transit and increased capacities to accommodate surges in population all within proximity to the Subject site. He said that City Staff took a similar policy approach for both these secondary plans such as proposing maximum height limits of 10-15 storeys for the Yonge and Bernard KDA Secondary Plan while proposing a maximum height limit of 20-storeys for the Yonge and 16th-Carrville KDA Secondary Plan. Yonge and Bernard KDA Secondary Plan was appealed to the OMB after Council approval. The OLT-approved a revised version of the Yonge and Bernard KDA Secondary Plan, which removed rigid height limits and rather prescribed policies based on context driven design for developments.

74The Tribunal heard that the Proposed Development directly implements Provincial, Regional and Local policy, which generally support the optimization of land use infrastructure.

75Mr. Volpentesta testified that in the RHOP, the intersection of Yonge Street and Carrville Road/16th Avenue is identified as a "Key Development Area" on Schedule A1 - Urban Structure and is designated a "Key Development Area" on Schedule A2 - Land Use, which has a land area of approximately 39 hectares. He said that the Yonge Street and Carrville Road/16th Avenue KDA Secondary Plan was prepared in accordance with Section 5.1.5 and 5.1.10 of the RHOP, which requires policies to further implement the vision, principles, and development concept, in accordance with the Council endorsed Yonge Street and Carrville Road/16th Avenue KDA Policy Directions and Recommendations Report (December, 2016) and the balance of the RHOP (or "Part 1 Plan"), particularly, Section 4.4 (Key Development Areas).

76Mr. Volpentesta opined that the development proposal conforms to Policy 11.2.2 and 11.2.3 of the YCSP. While the proposed height and density for the development exceeds the maximum height and density requirements set out in the Secondary Plan, the Proposal is in keeping with the intent of the policies given the sites location within the KDA, at the major intersection of Yonge Street and Carrville/16th Avenue. With an increased height and density at this intersection, the Proposed Development would help achieve a transition of height and density by supporting the other tall and dense development applications currently under review at the intersection, while at the same time providing a gradual decrease in height and density to the existing 23-storey building to the south of the Subject Site (9205 Yonge Street).

77Mr. Volpentesta opined that the development proposal conforms to Policy 11.2.7 YCSP regarding affordability for the same reasons set out in recent amendments to the Planning Act in which affordable housing may be secured through the development process. Specifically, the Planning Act sets out a framework that governs where affordable housing may be required, and the preconditions that a municipality must satisfy to establish an inclusionary zoning framework to secure affordable housing. Furthermore, the Proposed Development contemplates the provision of 962 new rental housing units, which will significantly contribute to affordability options.

78Mr. Volpentesta further opined that rental housing is a form of housing that is more attainable than ownership housing and that the Proposed Development generally conforms to the Policy as 36% of the total 962 proposed dwelling units are two- and three-bedroom units, including 33.5% two-bedroom units, and 2.5% three-bedroom units. While the provided number of three-bedroom units is slightly less than the required 5%, there are a significant number of two-bedroom units that provide space for larger, family size units that can accommodate children.

79Mr. Volpentesta opined that the proposal conforms to Policy 11.4.2 YCSP as the Proposed Development includes both residential and commercial uses, including the entire ground floor of the proposed building as retail. The proposed residential/mixed use intensification on the Site will allow for future residents and employees to support the existing 16th Carrville BRT station, which runs in a dedicated lane along Yonge Street, and which is planned to have connections to the future Yonge North Subway Extension and GO Transit Expansion.

80Mr. Volpentesta opined that, based on the Policy references, the Proposed Development conforms to the general intent of the 2018 Draft Secondary Plan.

City Plan 2041 Key Directions Report

81Mr. Volpentesta testified that the key directions for the Yonge and 16th-Carrville KDA are as follows:

• build on and refine the 2018 Draft Secondary Plan.
• re-delineate the KDA boundary to include appropriate lands to realize the KDA vision.
• create connections to the David Dunlop Observatory lands and German Mills Creek.
• protect lands that can support future Yonge Subway and/or GO Transit Stations.
• ensure that the long term build out of this area is neither precluded nor unnecessarily delayed by a potential temporary subway train storage and maintenance facility, should it be necessary to locate one within this area.

82Mr. Volpentesta opined that the Proposed Development is consistent with the key directions for the Yonge and 16th-Carrville KDA.

83He said the Proposed Development proposes a high-density, mixed-use development in a location that is planned to accommodate the tallest heights and highest densities, just second to the Richmond Hill Centre in the City. The Subject Site is well serviced by existing higher order transit service. The long term vision for the KDA is to include additional higher order transit services in the immediate area. The Subject Site is also in relatively close proximity to the planned subway station in the Richmond Hill Urban Growth Centre, which is just south of the Yonge and 16th-Carrville KDA, providing opportunities for residents to access the future subway station via the BRT, or other transportation modes, including walking and cycling.

Richmond Hill ZBL

84Th Tribunal heard that the Subject Site is currently zoned KDA as per the site specific ZBLA No. 49-12 and is subject to minor variances approved by Committee of Adjustment Decision A117/17. This zoning framework sets out specific development standards to implement the 2012 OMB approved development, including but not limited to a maximum floor space index of 5.4 FSI, maximum number of units of 528 and maximum height of 28 storeys (93.7 m).

Section 37 Benefits/Community Benefits Charge and the Removal of Community Housing Units

85Mr. Volpentesta testified that on July 6, 2022, City Council passed Community Benefits Charge (“CBC”) Bylaw No. 99-22 (“CBC By-law”). The CBC By-law came into force on July 6, 2022. Community Benefits Charges will replace the former framework for securing community benefits under s. 37 of the Planning Act.

86CBC By-laws can be levied only against higher density residential development, limited by the Planning Act to developments that are:

• five or more storeys, and
• contain 10 or more residential units.

87Mixed-use developments, a building or buildings that contain both residential and non-residential uses, can be subject to a CBC if they meet the above criteria.

88The Proposed Development will be subject to the CBC By-law. The CBC By-law will be calculated based on the land value of the development on the day before a building permit is issued.

89The Tribunal heard that as a result of the approval of the CBC By-law, the former Section 37 framework is no longer available to secure community benefits. The Appellant has accordingly removed the community housing units previously proposed as part of the Proposed Development. The City may utilize the CBC funds to be paid in respect of the Proposed Development at the time of building permit issuance, in accordance with the provisions of the CBC By-law.

90Mr. Volpentesta provided concluding opinions that the Proposed Development and implementing OPAs and ZBL amendments:

• have regard for the matters of Provincial Interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, but not limited to subsections 2(h), 2(m), 2(p) and 2(r),
• are consistent with the PPS,
• conform to the Growth Plan,
• is consistent with the in-force YROP (2010) as well as the YROP (2022) that was adopted by the Regional Council,
• will support the optimization of land use and infrastructure in keeping with the general planning vision, intent and principles set out in the RHOP
• conform with the general planning vision, intent and principles of the RHOP, including the general growth management policies and hierarchy of intensification areas. As proposed to be amended by the OPA, the Proposed Development and implementing ZBL Amendment will fully conform with the RHOP, and,
• constitutes good planning.

URBAN DESIGN CONTEXT

91Mr. Pereira testified that the Proposed Development:

• determines that the increased scale of development is directly supported by current provincial and regional policies, as well as the more current urban design vision for managing the scale of development within KDAs; more specifically, as evidenced in the approved Yonge & Bernard KDA Secondary Plan, the more current urban design policies in a KDA growth area focus on achieving good fit through policies that impose, for example, angular planes, without prescribing arbitrary height maximums,
• responds to the emerging context within the Yonge and 16th KDA evidenced in the approved and proposed developments on adjacent and surrounding lands,
• is the product of an extensive and collaborative effort between City staff and the Appellant, which has resulted in a proposal that exemplifies excellence in urban design.

92Mr. Pereira provided that the Subject Site’s immediate access to higher order transit, within a proposed PMTSA, warrants a scale of development that facilitates significant intensification in an urban form that will enhance the pedestrian realm and promote active transportation, which is achieved by the Proposed Development.

93He said the Subject Site is situated within the Carrville/16th Avenue KDA, and the scale of the Proposed Development is commensurate with the planned function of the Subject Site, and the overall growth management structure in the RHOP.

94Mr. Pereira testified that the Proposed Development:

• implements the Urban Structure policies contained in the RHOP, the Yonge Street and 16th Avenue KDA Policy Directions and Recommendations Report, and is generally consistent with the 2018 Draft Secondary Plan. He said the Proposed Development implements the planned urban design function of this growth node;
• is a mixed-use, high-density, transit and pedestrian-oriented development that directly implements provincial policy;
• is generally supported by the KDA policies in the RHOP. The scale of the Proposed Development conforms with the overall growth management framework, with the KDA's plan to facilitate a significant level of intensification, second only to the Richmond Hill Urban Growth Centre located just south of the Subject Site;
• is located at a prominent intersection within the Yonge and 16th KDA. The RHOP directs the tallest heights to be located at the Yonge and 16th Avenue intersection. This is consistent with the historical approval of OPA No. 272, wherein the Site was planned to be developed with a landmark building;
• the proposed height, FSI, tower floor plate size and tower separation distance are appropriate given the location, context, design, and composition of the Proposed Development;
• the Subject Site and the Proposed Development are well beyond the lower scale neighbourhoods surrounding the KDA, ensuring that appropriate urban design controls, including angular planes, are met to ensure transition in scale and mitigation of potential impacts are met;
• conforms with the RHOP’s urban design principles and policies for high density buildings, which promote high quality design, compatibility and contextual fit along the centres and corridors;
• results in a high-quality built environment and conforms to the principles of sustainable urbanism which promote high densities, compact urban form, and transit and pedestrian-oriented development along Yonge Street, being a Regional Corridor where intensification is generally planned for, and in particular, for areas along the Corridor that are within a KDA;
• will support the re-urbanization process underway along Yonge Street, and within the KDA, where a number of high-density developments have been developed and are proposed in the immediate area.
• will create a strong streetwall and animated streetscape along both public streets by locating buildings and land uses to frame the Yonge Street and 16th Avenue frontages,
• will have two towers with appropriately sized footprint that are connected by a prominent six-storey podium, which achieves appropriate proportions between the high and low massing;
• will have a taller 43-storey tower located at the intersection, providing an appropriate emphasis at the corner of this emerging urban context; the 38-storey tower will provide transition in scale, reinforcing the height peak that is planned at the intersection and the visual interest that is created through a variation in height. The proposed buildings will help define the contemporary skyline of Richmond Hill at this KDA through its dynamic massing and architecture;
• provides an appropriate fit with the existing and emerging built form contexts by providing a high-density, mixed-use, transit- and pedestrian-oriented development;
• does not result in any undue shadow, wind or overlook impacts on surrounding lands. Given the efficient floorplate sizes and tower separation, shadows move quickly through the Yonge Street and 16th Avenue boulevards, with the vast majority of shadows falling onto the roads.

95Mr. Pereira opined that the Proposed Development constitutes good urban design.

96In response to the City’s evidence and submissions, Mr. Pereira stated that the Proposed Development represents a high-quality design that is appropriate for this intersection within the KDA and will support public transit. Architecturally, he said the proposal will establish a landmark presence and support the development of a dynamic skyline. The tower and podium have been massed and sited to create a pedestrian supportive scale along Yonge Street and 16th Avenue. He said the six-storey podium, with active retail frontages and corner primary entrance, will be accessible, attractive, and promote a sense of place at the public realm, as well as public safety.

97Mr. Pereira opined that the Proposed Development and implementing Applications have regard to matters of provincial interest as they pertain to matters of urban design.

98Mr. Pereira opined that as an urban designer, the matters of sustainable urbanism refer to the following general principles, many of which are captured under the policy framework of the City. He said:

• Sustainable Urbanism is a term that applies to the many facets of the broader (City Building) and more specific (Community/Building Design). It can cover a variety of topics, including but not limited to: I. promoting healthy built and natural environments and the long term viability of communities by efficiently using land, resources and all types of infrastructure. II. growth management, including delineating areas to focus growth and transit infrastructure. This also includes delineating important environmental features that serve important ecological functions. III. compact development at higher densities with a mix of uses to make efficient use of existing resources, avoiding new infrastructure wherever possible. IV. encouraging Transit-Oriented Development and reducing the reliance on the automobile. V. communities that are inclusive, safe, provide opportunities to work, live and recreate. VI. creating neighbourhoods that are walkable, safe and include complete streets. VII. efficient built form and massing that provides high quality design while ensuring appropriate relationships with the neighbouring properties.

99Mr. Pereira opined the proposed instruments are consistent with the PPS as it pertains to matters of urban design.

Growth Plan

100Mr. Pereira stated that the Subject Site is situated in the geographical area of a MTSA, and within a proposed PMTSA. The Subject Site is also situated along a priority transit corridor. He stated that the MTSA is to be planned to achieve a minimum of 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare as it is served by bus rapid transit.

101Mr. Pereira testified that the proposed instruments conform with these policies. The Proposed Development proposes a built form applying development standards that will facilitate a scale of intensification that is transit-supportive, without negatively impacting adjacent development, potential development in the surrounding area, or the low-rise residential uses in the area beyond. The proposed reduced parking standards reinforce the built-form scale that is intended to be transit supportive.

102He stated that the Proposed Development provides for one, two and three-bedroom units, varying in size to support a wide range of households and housing needs. It is intended that the proposal will be developed as a residential rental building, further providing various housing options within the City and in the KDA/MTSA, which will further support the creation of a complete community.

103Mr. Pereira opined that the proposed instruments conform with the Growth Plan. The proposed scale and overall built form will implement the policies of the Growth Plan as they pertain to matters of urban design. The Proposed Development is an efficient, compact, transit and pedestrian-oriented development that will support the optimization of land use and infrastructure, including higher order transit. He said the Proposed Development will contribute to the urbanization of the KDA/MTSA, increase transit ridership, and promote a sustainable development pattern and measures that are reflective of sustainable urbanism.

YROP 2019

104Mr. Pereira testified that the Proposed Development conforms to policy direction in achieving the urban design objectives intended. The Proposed Development is massed in an appropriate manner, with retail ground floor uses and an active and safe pedestrian-scaled building face to frame both Regional Road frontages. He said the Proposed Development concentrates intensive development and a mix of uses in close proximity, with direct walking accessibility to an existing rapid transit station.

105Mr. Pereira opined that the Proposed Development advances urban design and built form characteristics and scores ‘excellent’ overall on the City’s sustainable metrics.

106Mr. Pereira testified that the Proposed Development orients the main building entrances to face public streets, providing a pedestrian friendly urban form, providing active entrances from Yonge Street (for the 43-storey building A, which is oriented to Yonge Street) and 16th Avenue (for the 38-storey building B, which is oriented along 16th Avenue). A majority of the parking spaces are located below grade, save for surface spots for retail and car share located at the southeast corner of the Subject Site, away from any major streets. Outdoor landscaped courtyard amenity, sidewalks, entrances and landscaping encircle the Subject Site to provide for a comfortable, pedestrian-friendly public realm.

107Mr. Pereira testified that the Proposed Development will result in a built form that implements the planned design function of the intersection of Yonge Street and 16th Avenue.

108He opined that the Proposed Development maintains a built form, massing and height that is appropriate within the KDA and wider Official Plan hierarchy. Within the KDA, the Official Plan directs that the tallest buildings are to be directed towards the intersection of the KDA. The Subject Site is well distanced from the low-rise residential areas to the south and east to ensure an appropriate transition that ensure that no unacceptable built-form impacts will result from the proposed height and overall massing.

109Mr. Pereira further stated that the Proposed Development falls well within a 45 degree angular plane, thus not impacting neighbouring areas.Mr. Pereira opined that the Proposed Development and implementing Applications conform with the YROP 2019.

Adopted York Region Official Plan, 2022 (“YROP 2022”)

110Mr. Pereira testified that policies 2.3, 2.3.1 – 2.3.29, and 4.4.24 in the YROP 2022 address the appropriateness of development proceeding independently of the completion of the secondary plan exercises at the local level. He stated that such development may be permitted in strategic growth areas, subject to the proposal fulfilling measures within these policies.

111Further, the Site is the subject of Policy 6.5(5),which provides “to work with local municipalities and the conservation authorities in the preparation and implementation of comprehensive stormwater management master plans or equivalent, informed by watershed planning”, which recognizes that the Subject Site may have a high-density, high-rise building.

112He said the Proposed Development will assist the City in meeting growth targets for the City generally, and within the proposed PMTSA, specifically. It will include a mix of uses, including at-grade retail, and rental housing with a mix of unit sizes.

113Mr. Pereira opined that the Proposed Development:

• constitutes an urban built form that is massed, designed and oriented to people, and creates active and attractive streets for all seasons with ground-floor uses, such as retail;
• constitutes a compact, transit and pedestrian-oriented development that screens all functional components of the building from public view;
• ensures that the vast majority of parking is contained below grade with some surface parking to support retail and the car-share program, which is located behind the main building face;
• will support the creation of an attractive streetscape that encourages active transportation and improves safety. The building placement is located and oriented to emphasize walkability, accessibility and pedestrian visibility; and,
• is well separated from lower rise residential uses to the south and east, to ensure appropriate transition and support land use compatibility.

114Mr. Pereira further stated that the proposed design is highly articulated and provides a prominent architectural expression, complemented with the use of high-quality materials that create dynamic views of the building at this prominent intersection from a variety of vantage points.

RHOP

115Mr. Pereira stated that the Proposed Development respects the siting and proportion of the adjacent building to the south, and will contribute to an architectural rhythm along the Yonge Street Corridor that, while varied as to architectural expression, is compatible with existing developments.

116In regard to Policy 4.4.1.8 of the RHOP dealing with height requirements, , Mr. Pereira stated that the OPA seeks to permit maximum heights of 43- and 38-storeys. The resultant built-form will achieve the planned urban design function of the Subject Site and its role within the KDA. He said the Proposed Development is a compact, pedestrian and transit-supportive development that responds to the existing and emerging built-form context, and it will facilitate a landmark building at this location.

117Mr. Pereira further testified that the Proposed Development provides a highly desirable and appropriate street edge condition along both Yonge Street and 16th Avenue via the six-storey podium with pedestrian supportive setbacks., He said the six-storey podium provides a good balance between pedestrian scale, comfort/safety and a built edge condition. This area is further enhanced for the pedestrian experience using landscaping within the private realm. Mr. Pereira stated the Proposed Development includes two towers with floorplates of 815 m2. He provided that within the Policy 3.4.1.59 of the RHOP, it states “Mid-rise and high-rise development shall have a step back of the building above the base building height set out in the relevant policies of Chapter 4 (land Use Policies) to provide a clearly discernible top to the street wall and to minimize shadow impact on the public realm.” Mr. Pereira stated there is no requirement or rule that all developments maintain a 750 m2 floorplate. The use of the word ‘generally’ implies an inherent flexibility on this matter based on site specific conditions. The requirement of 750 m2 is tied to the notion of limiting wind, shadow impacts and loss of skyview. He said the Proposed Development does not result in any undue negative impacts as evidenced by the supporting studies. He said the staggered towers maintain the required 25 m tower separation and ensure minimal shadow impacts that move quickly through the Yonge Street and 16th Avenue Boulevards. The proposal, at 815 m2 floorplate, allows for an efficient floorplate with no undue impacts on surrounding areas.

118He said the proposed increase of 65 m2 from a 750 m2 floorplate to 815 m2 is not substantial, thus, the intent of the Policy is maintained.

119Policy 3.4.1 of the RHOP addresses Urban Design in its role in maintaining and enhancing civic image, economic potential, and quality of life. Mr. Pereira testified the Proposed Development is a compact, well-integrated development that is transit-supportive and pedestrian-oriented. The additional proposed height and density continues to provide a development form and intensity that fits comfortably on the Subject Site and will contribute to the area’s emphasis as an urban mixed-use, sub-centre. He said the Proposed Development provides a high-quality addition to the City and fosters compact, pedestrian-oriented, human-scaled development in both the public and private realms.

120Mr. Pereira further stated that the Proposed Development will support the creation of a strong skyline presence by employing prominent building heights, varying the tower heights, providing dynamic and highly articulated facades at an important intersection, and locating the buildings to front public streets. Additionally, the proposed buildings do not create any transition issues as they are located within the centre of the KDA and well away from any low-rise Neighbourhood.

121Policy 4.4.2 of the RHOP addresses design by “building of strong, vibrant identity and character and to create walkable streets and people places”, Mr. Pereira testified that the Proposed Development conforms to it by providing a distinctive, well-designed built form located at a prominent corner of Yonge and 16th Avenue. The design quality of the proposed buildings are indicative of a gateway site and a focal point, where height and density are encouraged. The Proposed Development will provide for connections to public sidewalks, access to transit and safe on-site circulation for pedestrians. The proposed ground floor retail assists in animating the streetscape and ensuring ‘eyes on the street.’

122Mr. Pereira provided his opinion that the Proposed Development conforms to the relevant urban design policies set out in the RHOP, representing an attractive, compact built form at a gateway location where a landmark building is intended. The Proposed Development is transit-oriented, and it will implement the general planned urban design function of the Subject Site within the KDA.

2018 Draft Secondary Plan

123Mr. Pereira testified that, as it pertains to height and density, the 2018 Draft Secondary Plan provides that the Subject Site is subject to the policies in Chapter 6 of the parent RHOP. Within Policy 6.5(5), it permits a building height of up to 28 storeys and an FSI of 5.4. The proposed OPA seeks permission for heights of 43- and 38-storeys, and an FSI of 8.77.

124Mr. Pereira opined that the Proposed Development implements the Urban Structure policies contained in the Official Plan, the Yonge Street and 16th Avenue Key Development Area Policy Directions, and Recommendations Report. He stated that the scale of the proposal conforms with the overall growth management framework and with KDA’s objectives to facilitate a significant level of intensification. Within Policy 11.2.5, it states that the location and orientation of buildings in relation to the street is important because of the impact on the street at the pedestrian level and that a consistent and active street edge is desired. Mr. Pereira provided the proposal orients both buildings towards the corner and podiums at the street edge that create a street edge and animate the pedestrian realm. Retail has also been provided at-grade to further support active pedestrianism.

125In regard to Policy 3.4.1(55), Mr. Pereira testified that the Site is at the corner of Yonge Street and 16th Avenue, well distanced from the Neighbourhood lands in the surrounding area. The Proposed Development is below the 45 degree angular plane measured from the adjacent low density residential lands.

126Mr. Pereira testified the Site is located within the proposed Gateway, which includes the four corners of the intersection Yonge Street and Carrville Road/16th Avenue. The Proposed Development achieves a scale and prominence of development that will achieve its role at this envisioned Gateway. The proposal provides for a taller building than the built Great Lands Site to the immediate south. The proposal also provides a minimum 12.5 m tower setback from the south property line to secure a minimum 25 m tower separation between different sites.

127He opined that the use of built form controls that follow generally accepted urban design principles, such as angular planes in certain contexts, as opposed to arbitrary height maximums, is appropriate and is more in keeping with current provincial policy direction that seeks to promote transit-oriented development that supports the optimization of land use and infrastructure. This direction will also better ensure that new development results in a high quality design and promotes sustainable urbanism.

128Mr. Pereira further provided that sustainable urbanism is concerned more with matters of built form, transition and massing than overall height.

129He opined that the numerical height permissions in the Yonge 16th KDA are no longer relevant moving forward, and the assessment of a proposal's height should be evaluated in the context of the building location, transition to adjacent properties and the appropriateness of scale.

York Region Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines, 2006

130The York Region Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines (the "TOD") provides criteria to assess a development proposal's capacity to utilize transit infrastructure, particularly within and along the Region's centres and corridors. Development proposals are assessed based on the massing and height of buildings, parking, pedestrian environment and distances between transit stops and buildings.

131Mr. Pereira testified the Proposed Development fulfils the TOD requirements for pedestrians, parking, land use, built form and connections. The proposal is consistent with the guidelines by providing a development form that achieves a density that is transit supportive, and has the built form characteristics that ensure a strong pedestrian-oriented environment as well as an appropriate fit with the existing and emerging context. The main entrances to the retail and residential uses are oriented towards Yonge Street. The result is a building, which provides two pedestrian supportive streetscapes and access to transit stops while encouraging passive surveillance. As well, walkways provide connections from the public realm to the interior of the Site.

132The Proposed Development is located within the boundaries of a proposed Protected Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) and provides access to transit opportunities and connections to both the local and larger regional transit network. The existing BRT route along Yonge Street provides convenient connections to Richmond Hill Centre, which is a multi-modal transit hub.

Richmond Hill Urban Design Guidelines, 2013

133Mr. Pereira provided that the Richmond Hill Urban Design Guidelines set out recommendations for siting, massing, articulating, and designing tall buildings. The guidelines seek to create a high-quality, human-scaled, and pedestrian-oriented public realm; to transition tall buildings to surrounding areas; to promote creative architectural expression on visually prominent corner sites, to mitigate adverse effects on adjacent development and the public realm; and to protect and create attractive sky views.

134The Tribunal was informed that the Proposed Development has regards to the applicable Guidelines set out in Section 5 (Site Design) and Section 6 (Building Design), inclusive of Section 6.6 (Tall Buildings).

135Mr. Pereira testified the Proposed Development meets the intent and implements the applicable recommendations of the Richmond Hill Urban Design Guidelines. In this regard, the buildings are sited and massed to provide a tower separation distance of 25 m. The proposal maintains slender tower floorplates of approximately 815 m2. This results in a more efficient tower floorplate that continues to maintain the intent of the floorplate guideline in terms of massing. The increased height continues to provide appropriately proportioned towers and podium massing.

136Mr. Pereira opined that the Subject Site is a landmark site that warrants the additional height that accentuates a slender tower that positively contributes to a dynamic skyline. Furthermore, the additional height provides an elongated mid portion that continues to emphasize a slender, point tower form.

137He further added that the towers are highly articulated by offsetting the floor plates to provide a prominent architectural expression, complemented with the use of high-quality materials that create dynamic views of the building from a variety of vantage points.

138The Tribunal heard within Section 6, the proposal maintains the overall intent by proposing a clearly defined, pedestrian supportive podium. The ground floor contains retail uses and a minimum ground floor height of 7.5 m to accentuate the retail and lobby areas, making them more prominent and an important improvement to the streetscape and corner. The six-storey podium is appropriately scaled to create a sense of place along both street frontages. Once combined with private landscaping, new boulevard works by York Region, the result is a highly desirable pedestrian experience that is envisioned by the guidelines.

139Mr. Pereira testified that the Proposed Development's height, built form and massing are appropriate as it pertains to transition. Design measures were considered to ensure that sufficient tower separation is provided, both on-site and with the adjacent neighbour. One of the aims of tower separation is related to minimizing shadow impacts. The proposal's slim profile and staggered tower locations result in shadows that move very quickly over the course of the day and mainly fall into the Yonge Street or 16th Avenue right-of-way, resulting in no undue impacts.

140Mr. Pereira stated that the Proposed Development fits within the character of adjacent and surrounding lands, having regard to existing developments, as well as the planned and emerging built form in the area.

141He opined that the proposed built form, height, density and overall design are appropriate.

142Mr. Pereira provided concluding opinions with respect to matters of urban design, the Proposed Development and instruments. He stated that:

1. they have regard to matters of provincial interest, they conform with the PPS, the Growth Plan, the YROP, and the RHOP;
2. while not determinative, they have regard to, and conform with, the adopted YROP (2022);
3. they achieve the design principles outlined in the City's Urban Design Guidelines; and,
4. the appeals should be allowed, in part, and the Proposed OPA and Proposed ZBL Amendment should be approved.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONTEXT

143Mr. Chan submitted that he is the Manager of Transportation Engineering and an Associate of LEA Consulting Ltd., a Consulting Engineering firm specializing in Transportation. Mr. Chan was retained to provide consulting services regarding transportation, specifically parking.

144Mr. Chan testified that;

• In March 2020 LEA completed a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) in support of the OPA and ZBA applications.
• Comments on the March 2020 TIS from York Region and the City of Richmond Hill were received, dated May 20th, 2020 and July 23rd, 2020, respectively. An updated TIS was then prepared in October 2020 to address the comments and review the revised site plan, which had undergone minor changes. The changes included an additional three (3) dwelling units and approximately 100 m2 GFA of retail space.
• The table shows the parking requirements in accordance with By-law 49-12, along with the proposed parking supply.

Land Use	No. of Units / GFA (m2)	By-law 49-12 Minimum Parking Rates	Parking Spaces Required	Parking Spaces Proposed
1-bedroom	487	0.7 sp/unit (<55m2)	340	620 (plus 5 carshare spaces)
	129	0.8 sp/unit (55m2 – 67m2)	103
2-bedroom	317	0.9 sp/unit (>65m2 – 83m2)	285	5
	5	1.0 sp/unit (83m2 – 102m2)	5
3-bedroom	24	1.2 sp/unit (>102m2)	28
Blended Rate	962	0.79 sp/unit	761
Sub-Total			625 physical 645 effective*
Visitors	962	0.15 sp/unit	144	142
Retail	1,400	1.5 sp/100m2	21	18
Total			926	785 physical 805 effective*

145Through the LEA consulting March 2020 Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) in support of the OPA and ZBA applications, the City is currently developing a Parking and Transportation Demand Management Strategy, which will update the parking recommendations in the Council-approved 2010 Parking Strategy Draft Report as summarized below:

The City is working on a Parking and Transportation Demand Management Strategy as an update to the Council-approved 2010 Parking Strategy Draft Report. The Strategy seeks to align parking-related development policy with the City's vision of building a new form of urban, affordable and transit-oriented community.

Residents provided feedback through surveys made available in March and October 2021 about parking space requirements and electric vehicle accommodation for new developments. This input will help inform decisions about effective parking management practices for Richmond Hill that ensure appropriate parking supplies promote sustainable transportation choices, help to reduce car dependency, and effectively accommodate electric vehicles.

The Parking and Transportation Demand Management Strategy is intended to recommend standards, guidance and input into the City's ongoing Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Review, the Transportation Master Plan Update, as well as the City's Official Plan Update and related Secondary Plans.

• In January 2020, City staff and their external consultant, HDR Consulting were preparing the Parking and Transportation Demand Management Strategy (“TDM”).
• HDR Consulting would be conducting their parking surveys and also, studying the TDM measures employed by other municipalities.
• The study has still not been completed.
• In November 2020, discussions with City staff were held identifying efficiencies on the ground floor and underground parking plans for the proposed development to install more spaces where possible.
• It was achieved by providing 10% of the spaces as compact spaces to accommodate more parking and maintaining five (5) car-share spaces. It was also indicated that the proposal will need to meet a minimum of 0.15 spaces/unit for visitors, 0.65 physical spaces/unit for residents (0.67 effective spaces/unit with the inclusion of car share spaces), and 18 spaces for retail, which is modestly deficient by three (3) spaces per the By-law requirements.
• City Staff issued a Staff Report dated December 9, 2020, recommending approval of the proposal that staff was satisfied that a parking supply of 785 spaces is adequate to support the Proposed Development with a total of 962 units and approximately 1,300 m2 GFA of retail space. This includes 620 spaces (0.64 spaces/unit) being assigned for residential uses, 142 spaces (0.15 spaces/unit) for residential visitors, 18 spaces (1.3 spaces/100 m2) for retail uses, and five (5) carshare spaces.
• A further Staff Report (SRPI.22.028), dated March 23, 2022, restated the Staff recommendation that Council support the OPA and ZBL Amendment. This Report notes that Staff's comments remain unchanged, and that "the reduction in parking are considered appropriate in the context of the area in which the subject lands are located and their proximity to the now operational Viva Bus Rapid Transit system on the Yonge Street corridor."
• City Council adopted a motion to not support the applications on April 27, 2022. An updated site plan has since been prepared for the Tribunal, dated July 11, 2022. The number of dwelling units and retail GFA have remained similar to the October 2020 TIS; however, the parking supply has been updated to match the recommendations in the Staff Report (i.e. increase of 62 parking spaces). In addition, the plan and development statistics have been updated in the July 11, 2022 site plan to provide the extra 100 m2 of retail GFA (for a total increase to 1,400 m2 from 1,300 m2), which results from the removal of the community space that was previously proposed as part of a community benefits package under the former Section 37 provisions in the Planning Act.
• The July 11, 2022 site plan has a physical parking supply of 785 spaces to support the Proposed Development of a total of 962 units and approximately 1,400 m2 GFA of retail space. This includes 620 spaces (0.64 space/unit) being assigned for residential uses, 142 spaces (0.15 space/unit) for residential visitors, 18 spaces (1.3 space/100 m2) for retail uses, and five (5) carshare spaces.

x	October 2020 TIS	Staff Report/Recommendation	July 11, 2022 Site Plan
	Rate	Supply	Rate
Residential	0.61 sp/unit	581*	0.64 sp/unit
Visitor	0.09 sp/unit	86	0.15 sp/unit
Retail	1.3 sp/100 m2	18	1.3 sp/100 m2
Flexible		38
Carshare	5 sp / carshare space	5 physical (25 effective)	5 sp / carshare space
Total		723 physical 743 effective

• The July 11, 2022 plans are generally consistent with the rates/supply endorsed in the Staff Reports noted above. The reduction in parking when compared to By-law No. 49-12 requirements will support and promote the use of active and public transportation in the area, and the transit options in the area, including higher order transit immediately available to the Proposed Development that connects to the approved and funded subway station at High Tech Road. This will support the reduced parking supply as residents will have a viable option for travel to and from their residence.

Transportation (Parking) Framework and Issue Responses

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

146The Tribunal heard that the Proposed Development is a high-density, mixed-use development within 80 metres of the existing Yonge 16th Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) Station, which will provide connections to the planned and funded High Tech Subway Station just south of the Subject Site. The Proposal will support the use of public transportation and encourage more active modes of transportation for future residents and visitors.

147Mr. Chan opined the Proposed Development has regard to matters of provincial interest in that it will support public transit.

PPS

Policy Section 1.1.3.2

148Mr. Chan opined that the Proposed Development is consistent with the relevant transportation policies in the PPS, in that it is a mixed-use, high-density development in proximity to transit, that will support the efficient use of such transit infrastructure, both existing and planned. In keeping with Policy 1.1.3.2 e) and f), the Proposed Development will support active transportation, as it has been designed to provide for alternative modes of transportation through the inclusion of TDM measures, bicycle parking, car-share facilities and connections to higher order transit located in the immediate vicinity.

Growth Plan

Policy 2.2.4 and 2.2.4(9)

149Within Policy 2.2.4 as it applies to transportation matters pertaining to the Proposal, Mr. Chan stated that the Subject Site is located approximately 80 m from the Yonge Sixteen BRT Station. The Subject Site is within the geographical area of a MTSA as defined in the Growth Plan. The YROP 2022 identifies the 16th-Carrville BRT Station as a proposed Protected PMTSA.

150Within Policy 2.2.4(9), it states that “the development will be supported in a number of ways within a major transit station area, including, but not limited to a diverse mix of uses, alternative development standards such as reduced parking standards.” Mr. Chan testified that the Proposed Development provides a mix of uses, including residential dwelling units and retail space. The Proposed Development also provides for, and encourages active transportation with bicycle parking amenities and various TDM measures, such as car-share spaces and bicycle parking spaces, are proposed on-site.

151The area surrounding the Subject Site has undergone significant transit improvements and there are plans for additional transit improvements in the future. The site is currently serviced by VIVA Blue, local transit routes 16, 85, 86, and 99, which are located within comfortable walking distance to the Subject Site, as well as Langstaff GO Station, which is accessible from the Subject Site via transfer from route 86. The future Yonge North Subway Extension is planned to be completed and in service in 2029-2030, which will be accessible from the Subject Site via transfer from the VIVA Blue transit stop. The future High Tech Station is also located within a reasonable distance from the Subject Site that would be reasonably accessible to residents of the Proposed Development by walking, as well as by other modes of active transportation.

152Mr. Chan opined that the Proposed Development provides for a mix of uses within walking distance to higher order transit, including transit options that in turn provide connections for residents to various higher order transit options. The Proposed Development provides for appropriate parking standards within a proposed PMTSA, wherein reduced standards are contemplated by the Growth Plan, and overall, the Proposed Development will contribute to more transit users in this location.

YROP

153Mr. Chan stated that the Proposed Development provides for reduced minimum parking requirements that are reflective of the Subject Site's walking distance to transit and additional multi-modal infrastructure, such as bike lanes along Yonge Street and mixed land uses along Yonge Street and at the Yonge and Carrville / 16th Avenue intersection. The Subject Site is across the street from the nearest northbound Viva Rapid way bus stop and is within a 250 m (3-minute) walking distance to the southbound Viva Rapid way stops, and the eastbound and westbound bus stops along Carrville Road and 16th Avenue.

154The proposed surface parking will be reserved for five (5) carshare and visitor parking and will be located towards the back of the site. The main building entrances will be oriented towards the Yonge Street and 16th Avenue frontages and will not be separated from the adjacent street frontages by surface parking, thus supporting an active street frontage and pedestrian activity at-grade along Yonge Street and 16th Avenue.

155The main retail and residential entrances are proposed to be fronting Yonge Street and 16th Avenue to provide direct connections to the transit and active transportation options in the area without needing to cross surface parking nor multiple driveways.

156All residential and retail parking and the majority of visitor parking spaces are proposed to be located underground. The remaining 21 visitor parking spaces and five (5) carshare spaces are proposed to be located at surface level and are conveniently located near the rear residential entrance, but away from the street, to secure the street frontages for active uses.

157Further, the proposed ZBL Amendment for the Subject Site reflects the proposed parking reductions and inclusion of car-share spaces on-site.

158Mr. Chan opined that the Proposed Development conforms with the relevant transportation policies in the YROP and further opined that the Proposal implements and conforms with the relevant transportation policies of the YROP, 2022. The YROP, 2022 provides clear direction with respect to promoting active transportation and reducing single-occupant vehicle trips. Further, the YROP, 2022 contemplates reduced parking rates within MTSAs and the Proposed Development should be considered in light of this updated policy context that represents York Region's goals for directing development within MTSAs.

RHOP

159Mr. Chan testified the Subject Site is located within the Yonge Street and Carrville/16th Avenue KDA.

The Yonge Street and 16th Avenue KDA will be a sub-centre for mixed-use high density development due to its proximity to public rapid transit on Yonge Street and the opportunity to intensify underutilized lands in the area.

160Mr. Chan stated that, with respect to the Proposed Development, the existing sidewalks, multi-use paths, bike lanes, and transit shelters will be maintained, and linked to the Proposed Development. This infrastructure forms part of the Viva Rapidway project.

161Retail and residential entrances are proposed fronting Yonge Street and 16th Avenue to provide direct connections to the active transportation options in the area.

162Further, TDM options, such as car-share spaces and bicycle parking spaces are proposed on-site, to encourage active transportation and a reduction in single occupant vehicle trips.

163The Tribunal heard that, with the combination of the parking proxy surveys indicating an average peak demand of 0.77 spaces / unit, which compose of 0.68 spaces / unit for residents, and 0.09 spaces / unit for visitors, the Proposed Development has been designed to be a transit-oriented development, bolstered by the proposed TDM measures and the provincial, regional and local policy direction to actively promote the use of public transit and active transportation over automobile use.

164Mr. Chan opined that the reduction in parking is supportable for this development, contributing to achieving a transit modal split, and was determined to be appropriate based on the Staff Report provided by the City.

165Mr. Chan testified that the Proposed Development provides reduced parking standards. The reduced standards are to be secured in the ZBL Amendment before the Tribunal. The Proposed Development incorporates TDM measures, which will be secured through the site plan process.

166Mr. Chan stated that the siting of the Proposed Development, including the underground garage, was previously designed to accommodate a potential subway extension along the east property line.

167The Proposed Development provides a right-in and right-out access from Yonge Street. An interim second access to the lands is provided from the 16th Avenue Service Road, with provisions made for a final access to be provided once Northern Heights Drive is realigned.

168Mr. Chan opined that the Proposed Development conforms with the RHOP as it pertains to matters of transportation planning.

Yonge and Carrville/16th Avenue Key Development Area Secondary Plan

169The Tribunal heard that the Proposed Development contains a number of initiatives including:

• transit incentive through PRESTO Cards (cost to be determined through the development process);
• Pedestrian and cycling connections to existing infrastructure;
• Bicycle parking in accordance with the Zoning By-law;
• Two (2) bike repair stations / stands; and,
• Five (5) car-share spaces.

170The Tribunal heard that the Proposed Development implements many of the objectives contemplated by draft Policy 11.4.8 of the Secondary Plan by providing parking below grade, with the exception of 26 parking spaces being located at grade (i.e., the rear and side of the site) for car-share and visitor uses.

171Mr. Chan opined that the Proposed Development implements several of the objectives of the Secondary Plan’s draft policies with respect to supporting transit, providing appropriate measures and requiring the majority of the parking spaces to be below grade.

172Mr. Chan testified, with respect to the traffic generation, the October 2020 TIS, prepared by LEA Consulting Ltd., demonstrates that there are no concerns with traffic that is generated by the Proposed Development. Under future background and future total conditions, the Yonge Street and Carrville Road / 16th Avenue intersection is expected to operate over capacity for all studied horizon years (2025, 2031 and 2041) during the PM peak hour. Similarly, the southbound right movement at the Northern Heights Drive / 16th Avenue Service Road and 16th Avenue is expected to operate over capacity during the 2041 horizon year. It should be noted that these movements / intersections are expected to operate over capacity during future background conditions (mainly due to growth rates and background developments). The Proposed Development is not adding undue additional impact on these intersections, and the level of service is acceptable at this planned urban location.

173Mr. Chan further stated that the October 2020 TIS concludes that the Proposed Development is expected to generate 356- and 362 two-way vehicle trips during AM and PM peak hours, respectively, in the 2025 horizon. In the 2031 and 2041 horizon, the Proposed Development is expected to generate 307- and 306- two-way vehicle trips during AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Based on Mr. Chan’s comparison in traffic operations between future background and total traffic conditions, the October 2020, the TIS concluded that the Proposed Development will have minimal traffic impact on the study area intersections.

174Mr. Chan testified that the proposed parking rates are representative of a desire to provide Transit-Oriented Development (“TOD”) in response to the evolution of the Yonge Street corridor towards an urban, mixed-use corridor serviced by higher-order transit, and the current planning objectives to increase density and support transit ridership within MTSAs.

175As demonstrated in the October 2020 TIS, and accepted by City Staff, Mr. Chan stated that the proposed 785 parking spaces (effective supply of 805 spaces) is adequate to support the Proposed Development, which provides for 620 residential spaces, 142 residential visitor spaces, 18 retail spaces and five (5) car share (25 effective) spaces, for a total of 785 physical and 805 effective parking spaces to support the Proposal.

176Mr. Chan opined that the reduced parking rates contained in the Proposed Development are considered to be transit-supportive, compatible with TDM strategies, and supported by current provincial, regional and municipal planning policy.

177He further opined that the parking supply will appropriately service the Proposed Development. The proposed parking supply directly implements provincial, regional and municipal policy, which generally support the optimization of transit infrastructure, with reduced parking rates being a key TDM strategy. The parking standards proposed in the ZBL are appropriate to serve the Proposal, and they will support the goals to increase transit ridership, promote active transportation and reduce single occupant vehicle trips.

178Under cross-examination, Mr. Chan opined that the Proposed Development is not premature. As confirmed, the subway extension is planned to start construction in 2023, to be in service by 2029/2030. Provincial policy direction provides direction to support optimization of existing and planned infrastructure. He further opined, the site is located within 80 metres of the 16th-Carrville BRT Station Area, and it forms part of a proposed PMTSA. The Viva Bus Rapid Transit system is currently in place along Yonge Street from Highway 7 to 19th Avenue / Gamble Road. The future Yonge Subway Extension will only further support the non-auto mode of travel in the vicinity of the Subject Site. As such, the existing higher-order transit, along with other transit options will support the Proposal.

179Mr. Chan provided his concluding opinion with respect to matters of Transportation and Parking. He stated that the Proposed Development:

• represents a transit-supportive development. It is located within a potential PMTSA as identified by York Region.
• facilitates methods of active transportation, including pedestrian circulation, meeting or exceeding bicycle parking requirements, car share parking spaces, and the Subject Site is located in very close proximity to the Yonge/16th BRT station.
• contemplates numerous TDM measures to encourage non-auto or non single-occupant vehicle trips.
• provides for vehicle parking that is appropriate for the Subject Site's context, as a transit-oriented mixed-use development, and City Staff have accepted the proposed parking supply.

180Mr. Chan concluded with the opinion that the appeals should be allowed, in part, to facilitate the Proposed Development, and the ZBL Amendment and OPA should be approved by the Tribunal.

CITY'S EVIDENCE

PLANNING CONTEXT

181Allan Ramsay testified that as a Principal at Allan Ramsay Planning Associates Inc., he was retained by the City to review and provide an independent professional planning opinion.

182Mr. Ramsay said the key issues are:

• Massing and height - the proposed 38- and 43-storeys tower buildings will have a height and massing that is out of context with the existing and proposed planning context for the adjacent and surrounding lands.
• Parking - the proposed parking reduction of 202 residential and visitor parking spaces is not appropriate for the proposed development.
• Tower Separation - the proposed 14 m separation between Tower A and the adjacent 20-storey tower at 9201 Yonge Street is not sufficient and does not conform with or have regard for the minimum requirement of 25 m separation as set out in the RHOP, the draft Secondary Plan and the Richmond Hill Urban Design Guidelines.
• Setbacks and Stepbacks - the proposed setbacks to Yonge Street and 16th Avenue do not provide opportunities to enhance and complement the pedestrian realm along the public boulevard. As well, the proposed stepbacks along the Yonge Street and 16th Ave. façades do not create a clear distinction between the podium and tower elements of the proposed building.

183Mr. Ramsay opined that the proposed development is a form of intensification that is not compatible with the existing and planned character of the KDA. The proposal has a built form that will have a significantly larger building mass and taller height than existing buildings and the planned context as outlined in the RHOP and the draft Secondary Plan.

184Mr. Ramsay further provided the opinion that the proposed development is not in conformity with, nor does it maintain the intent, principles and policies of the RHOP, including the KDA policies and the site specific exception policies. The Appellant's OPA proposes increases in massing and building height, and reductions in parking that are not appropriate for the Subject Site.

185Mr. Ramsay opined that the Proposed Development with its larger massing and reduced development standards will not result in an appropriate built form that is well designed or that encourages a sense of place or provides for public spaces. In particular, the larger building mass and increased building height will not fit harmoniously with the existing neighbourhood context, will not be well integrated into the streetscape and will not contribute to a sense of place within the neighbourhood setting.

PPS 2020

186Mr. Ramsay opined that the development proposal is not consistent with the above policy directions as follows:

• the Proposed Development does not represent an efficient development and land use pattern and does not provide sufficient on-site parking necessary for the proposed use (1.1.1 a)).
• the Proposed Development does not accommodate an appropriate mix of housing types. There are no affordable housing units included in the proposal and only 24 (2.5%) of the 962 dwelling units are three-bedroom units suitable for larger households (1.1.1 b).
• Although the Proposed Development is intensification of the Subject Site and is a transit supportive land-use, the proposed reduction in on-site parking cannot be supported by the availability and proximity of transit services in the area or the use of TDM measures 1.1.1 e)).

Settlement Areas

187Mr. Ramsay opined that the development proposal is not consistent with the Settlement Area policies of the PPS as follows:

• the proposed amendments will result in an intensification that cannot be accommodated on the Subject Site without significant, and inappropriate increases in height, density and massing. The extent of the Proposed Development does not fit with the existing and planned context of the area (policy 1.1.3.2); and,
• the proposed amendments do not appropriately take into account existing building stock or areas. Within the context of the surrounding area that permits densities of up to 4.0 FSI and building heights of up to 20 storeys, the Subject Site is not appropriate for the extent of intensification proposed (Policy 1.1.3.3).

Housing

188Mr. Ramsay stated that the development proposal contributes additional housing and satisfies certain policy directions within Policy 1.4.3 of the PPS in that the Proposed Development provides a compact and intensified built form that will utilize existing infrastructure. The Proposed Development should provide a greater mix of housing choice by providing more three bedroom or larger units. Three-bedroom units would accommodate the needs of larger families.

189Furthermore, the proposed amendments should provide affordable housing units and not just market units so as to help meet projected market based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area.

Growth Plan

Policies 1.2.1, 2.2.2 (3), 2.2.4 (2) (9), 5.2.5.8

Principles

190Under examination, Mr. Ramsay testified that the Proposed Development contributes to the achievement of a complete community in that it is a form of intensification and a high-density development that supports transit viability.

191However, he opined that the extent of development proposed and the proposed reduction in on-site parking are not appropriate and cannot be supported by the availability and proximity of transit services in the area or the use of TDM measures.

Transit Corridors and Station Areas

Policy 2.2.4 (9)

192Mr. Ramsay opined that the development proposal does not conform with the following elements of Policy 2.2.4 (9):

• the Proposed Development does not provide for either affordable housing or sufficient larger dwelling units suitable for families (item a);
• the Proposed Development is based on alternative development standards that are not suitable or appropriate;
• the proposed height will result in an overdevelopment of the Subject Site; and,
• the proposed on-site parking reductions are not appropriate and cannot be supported by the availability and proximity of transit services (item c).

Implementation and Interpretation

Policy 5.2.5.8

193Mr. Ramsay stated that the proposal to develop the Subject Site for a mixed-use, high-density development generally supports higher order policies that prioritize intensification within settlement areas and specifically, within the delineated built-up area and a MTSA. However, the Official Plan is meant to implement these provincial policies and that conformity with the Official Plan is required to fully implement these provincial policies. The Official Plan, in turn, is implemented through planning instruments, including zoning by-laws.

YROP

Sustainable Cities, Sustainable Communities

194Mr. Ramsay opined that the Proposed Development does not conform within Policies of the YROP regarding;

1. Character of the Existing Area - the development is out of character with the existing area and does not foster a unique sense of place. Under the existing and planned context the Proposed Development is an overdevelopment;
2. Promotion of Landscaping and Streetscape - the Proposed Development introduces a streetscape pattern that is not found in the surrounding area. In particular, the proposed setbacks along Yonge Street and 16th Avenue do not provide any enhancements and complementary features adjacent to the public boulevard such as patios, benches and open areas; and
3. Compatibility and Transition - the Proposed Development does not provide for an adequate separation between the proposed 43 storey Tower A abutting Yonge Street and the adjacent mixed use building located at 9201 Yonge Street. He stated that the draft Secondary Plan and the City's Urban Design Guidelines have a minimum building separation of 25 m between tall building towers is appropriate. As proposed the separation between the two buildings is approximately 14 m.

195The Tribunal heard that Policy 5.2.10 of the YROP indicates that

a. …secondary plans and zoning by-laws shall, in consultation with the Region and related agencies, incorporate parking management policies and standards that include: reduced minimum and maximum parking requirements that reflect the walking distance to transit and complementary uses; b. shared parking requirements, where possible, reflecting variances in parking demand between complementary uses on a time-of-day, weekday/weekend, and monthly basis; c. on-street parking; and, d. site design that orients the main building entrance(s) to face the public street(s), provides a pedestrian friendly urban form, and where appropriate, as determined by the local municipality, does not permit the placement of surface parking spaces between the main building entrance and the major street;

196He stated that the parking policies in the draft Secondary Plan for the Carrville Road/16th Avenue KDA and the parking regulations in Zoning By-law No. 49-12 have been prepared in accordance with the above policies.

Intensification

197The Tribunal heard that in regard to Policy 5.3.3, local municipalities are to complete and adopt their own intensification strategies based on the York Region 2031 Intensification Strategy and on the Region's Intensification Guide. The local municipal intensification strategies, developed in co-operation with the Region are to meet and/or exceed intensification targets of the YROP.

198The City has adopted an intensification strategy in accordance with Policy 5.3.3 of the YROP. This strategy establishes the Carrville/16th Avenue as a key development area. The RHOP permits densities of up to 3.0 FSI and building heights of up to 20 storeys on development blocks in the Carrville/16th Avenue KDA area with additional permissions for the Subject Site for a maximum density of 5.4 and a metre.

199Policy 5.3.6 indicates intensification areas are to be planned and designed to achieve an appropriate transition of built form to adjacent areas.

200Mr. Ramsay testified that Tower A located adjacent to Yonge Street does not maintain the minimum 25 m separation with the existing 20-storey tower at 9201 Yonge Street.

Regional Centres and Corridors

201The Tribunal heard that Policy 5.4.6 requires that;

…comprehensive secondary plans for Regional Centres and key development areas along Regional Corridors be prepared by local municipalities and implemented in co-operation with the Region and related agencies.

202The Tribunal heard that the City has undertaken a Secondary Plan study for the Carrville / 16th Avenue KDA. The draft Secondary Plan has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Policy 5.4.6 and specifically, addresses items within it. The draft Secondary Plan has not been adopted by the City Council and is not in effect. As outlined within the draft Secondary Plan, it is to be relied in the review and evaluation of development applications within the area, until such time as Council adopts a Secondary Plan for the 16th KDA.

City of Richmond Hill Official Plan (“RHOP”)

Policies 3.1.5.2 ,3.1.5.6, 3.4.1.39, 3.4.59, 3.5.4, 4.4.1.6, 4.4.1.7, 4.4.1.8, 4.4.2, and 6.5

Housing

203The Tribunal heard that Policy 3.1.5.2 within the Richmond Hill Centre and the KDAs requires that a minimum 35% of new housing units shall be affordable with a range of affordability for low- and moderate-income households.

204Mr. Ramsay stated that the Proposed Development does not include affordable housing units and only 24 units (2.5%) of the units are larger units suitable for households with children.

Placemaking/Urban Design

205Section 3.4.1.39 directs that:

....development within centres and corridors shall be designed to:

a. Create a rhythm of façades that complements adjacent buildings; and b. Provide built form that maintains a well-proportioned, human-scaled street wall. Minimum and maximum building heights, including maximum podium or base building heights, are set out in Chapter 4 (Land Use Policies) of this Plan. Notwithstanding the minimum height and density provisions as set out in Chapter 4 of this Plan, expansions of existing buildings or structures may be permitted provided that the expansion is not greater than 15% of the gross floor area of the existing building or structure as of the date of adoption of this Plan. Single storey expansions greater than 15% of the gross floor area of the existing building or structure as of the date of adoption of this Plan may only be considered where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Town that the proposed expansion will otherwise be in accordance with the policies of this Plan.

206Section 3.4.59 states: "High-rise residential buildings shall generally have a slender floorplate above the podium of approximately 750 m2 to adequately limit shadow and wind impacts and loss of skyview". Mr. Ramsay opined that the Proposed Development does not comply with Policy 3.4.59. The proposed floor plate for Towers A and B are 815 m2 and exceed the design standard of approximately 750 m2.

Transit-Oriented Development

207The Tribunal heard that Section 3.5.4 indicates that Transit-Oriented Development in the centres and corridors is necessary to help strengthen the relationship between land use and transportation planning. Built-form that is compact and comprised of a mix of uses can allow for better transportation alternatives, which in turn improves connectivity and mobility. By making active transportation and public transit the focus of the transportation system, rather than the private automobile, mobility throughout the Town will be improved.

208Mr. Ramsay conceded that the Appellant has proposed some TDM measures but he said the Appellant has not prepared or submitted a comprehensive TDM Strategy.

KDAs

Policy 4.4.1.6 a), 4.4.1.7, and 4.4.1.8

209The Tribunal heard that:

1. Density - the density of a development block within a KDA shall be a minimum of 2.5 FSI and a maximum of 3.0 FSI. The overall minimum and maximum FSI for specific blocks within a KDA or for a KDA overall may be revised through the development and approval of the Secondary Plan for that KDA. The boundaries of development blocks shall be identified in a Secondary Plan. (Section 4.4.1.6 a)
2. Density applicable to the Yonge and Bernard KDA - located approximately 4 km north of the Subject Lands is the Yonge and Bernard KDA. Within the Yonge and Bernard KDA, the overall density of development shall be a minimum of 2.5 FSI to a maximum of 4.0 FSI. Allocation of density within this KDA is to be specified in a schedule to the Official Plan and the implementing Zoning By-law. These allocations on a parcel basis can be less than and/or greater than the overall density. (Section 4.4.1.6 b)
3. Development prior to Secondary Plan Approval - until such time as Council approves a Secondary Plan for the KDA applications for development, an applicant shall be required to submit a concept plan, in accordance with Section 5.2 of the RHOP, which demonstrates how the development meets the land use and design policies of this Plan. (Section 4.4.1.7)

210The Proposed Development has a site specific FSI of 8.77 and exceeds the maximum FSI of 3.0 for the development block.

211Mr. Ramsay stressed that site specific exception Policy 6.5 permits a maximum site specific FSI of 5.40 on the Subject Lands. The proposed increase to 8.77 FSI represents 2.9 fold increase from the maximum FSI of 3.0 (s. 4.4.1.2 a) and a 1.62 fold increase from the maximum FSI of 5.40 (s. 6.5).

212Further, he stated that the FSI of 3.0 applies to the whole development block and that approval of an FSI of 8.77 for this single site could result in lower densities being available for other developments and further, incompatibilities between this development proposal and other development proposals within the development block with respect to height, density and appropriate transition.

213Mr. Ramsay stated that the Proposed Development conforms with the minimum and maximum height requirements of three- and six- storeys respectively for the podium building. However, he said the proposal does not conform with Policy 4.4.1.8 c) regarding overall building heights. Through the 2011 OMB approval, the maximum building height of 28 storeys was determined on a site-specific basis and has been included in Site Specific Exception 6.5. The Appellant is proposing to amend the maximum building height outlined in the site specific exception.

214Mr. Ramsay opined the proposed building heights of 43- and 38- storeys will overwhelm the existing buildings, are not appropriate for the site and will result in an overdevelopment.

215Mr. Ramsay acknowledged that the Proposed Development is a distinctive gateway building that is oriented towards the intersection of Yonge St. and Carrville/16th Ave.

216Mr. Ramsay offered the opinion that the Proposed Development does not provide features or amenity spaces that are oriented towards the intersection of Yonge St. and Carrville/16th Ave. The Proposed Development maintains minimal setbacks along Yonge St. and 16th Ave. and does not provide any enhancements and complementary features adjacent to the public boulevard. Further, the Proposed Development incorporates a landscaped courtyard behind the proposed buildings. The landscaped courtyard is not visible from either Yonge St. or 16th Ave. and does not provide opportunities for publicly accessible, private open space.

217Mr. Ramsay opined that, in respect to urban open space connections, the design of the proposed building provides little opportunity for urban open space connections. He further provided the opinion that a design that breaks each proposed building into two or more segments would facilitate improved open space connections.

Exceptions

218Section 6.5 of the RHOP outlines site specific policies for the development of the Subject Site that are based on the Decision and Order of the Ontario Municipal Board dated October 28, 2011 (OMB File No. PL101255).

219Mr. Ramsay stated that the Appellant is proposing, through its proposed OPA, to replace certain existing policies within section 6.5 titled Exceptions;

a. The subject lands shall be developed for purpose built rental residential development consisting of two buildings, with ground level commercial uses; b. The maximum building heights shall be 38 and 43 storeys; c. A maximum 8.77 FSI shall be permitted; d. Access from Yonge Street shall be limited to right-in and right-out movements; e. A future vehicular connection to Northern Heights Drive shall be protected for along the south east limit of the Subject Lands. In the interim, a secondary access to the lands shall be from the 16th Avenue Service Road with traffic movements limited to a right-in, right-out and left turn-in. This interim access along 16th Avenue Service Road shall be modified for service and/or car share vehicle access at such time as a direct connection to Northern Heights Drive has been implemented at the owner's expense; f. Development shall be designed to protect for a potential subway extension from Richmond Hill Centre and continuing north. Accordingly, the owner shall enter into an agreement with the Region of York to secure the following; i. Dedicate to the Region, at no cost and free of all encumbrances, except for the existing servicing easement (Inst. R654356) an easement for a subsurface right of way and support for a future subway extension based on a draft plan of survey prepared by P. Salna Surveying dated June 22, 2011. (and ii. Submit an application to the Toronto Transit Commission, to the satisfaction of the Commission and Region acting reasonably, in accordance with the TTC's Developer's Guide.

220Mr. Ramsay presented the key differences between the existing policies and the proposed policies, which are:

a) An increase in permitted building height from 28 to 43 storeys (Tower A) and 38 storeys (Tower B) (94 m to 121.3 m/136 m); b) An increase in density from 5.4 FSI to 8.77 FSI; c) The elimination of the density cap of 662 units per hectare; d) The elimination of policies establishing the basis for parking reductions.

Draft Yonge and Carrville/16th Avenue Key Development Area Secondary Plan

Policies 11.2.2, 11.2.3, 11.2.5, 11.2.7, 11.4.2, 11.4.3, 11.4.8

Building Height

221The Tribunal heard that Section 11.2.2 of the draft Secondary Plan addresses building heights. The tallest buildings are to be concentrated at the Yonge Street and Carrville Road/16th Avenue intersection. Height and density are to decline gradually towards the edges of the Yonge and 16th Avenue KDA boundaries, as distance increases away from the intersection. The lowest and least dense buildings will be located in areas that abut the Neighbourhood.

222Mr. Ramsay opined that the existing and planned site context does not support an increase beyond the 28-storey maximum building height set out in the Part 1 of the RHOP. Existing and planned building heights fall within the range of 20- and 24-storeys. The Proposed Development represents a doubling of the permitted building heights in the area and a 68% increase to the maximum height permitted under Site Specific Exception Policy 6.5 of Part 1 of the RHOP.

Density

223Section 11.2.3 of the draft Secondary Plan addresses density. The higher densities are clustered around the intersection of Yonge Street and Carrville Ave./16th Avenue and decline gradually towards the edges of the 16th Avenue KDA boundaries, as distance increases away from the intersection. The lowest and least dense buildings will be located in areas that abut the adjacent Neighbourhood areas. With the exception of the Subject Site, maximum densities in the 16th Avenue KDA area range between 1.25 FSI to 4.0 FSI.

224There is no establishment of a maximum density for the Subject Site. What is relied on is the maximum density applicable to the Subject Site prescribed in Site Specific Exception 6.5 of Part 1 of the RHOP. Under the site specific policy, the maximum density is 5.40 FSI and 662 units per hectare.

225Mr. Ramsay stated that the proposed further density increase to 8.77 FSI and the related increase in the overall massing of the buildings is not in keeping with the other high density, mixed use buildings in the area.

Built Form

226The Tribunal heard that Section 11.2.1 of the draft Secondary Plan addresses built form. Policy 11.2.5.1 sets out the location and orientation of buildings as follows. The Policy:

1. directs the placement of buildings at the street edge to animate and enhance pedestrian realm.
2. encourages pedestrian amenities are grade.
3. provides a minimum of half of the required tower separation distance from the adjacent developable lots.

227Mr. Ramsay stated that the Proposed Development places buildings at the street edge but does not provide a sufficient setback to enhance and complement the public realm. The minimal setbacks along Yonge Street and 16th Avenue do not allow for wider pedestrian zones adjacent to the sidewalk for patios, benches or other features that help to animate the street.

Housing

228The Tribunal heard that Section 11.2.7 of the draft Secondary Plan addresses housing and directs that:

1. A minimum of 35 per cent of new housing units within the 16th KDA shall be affordable.
2. Affordable housing shall comprise a mix and range of types, lot sizes, unit sizes, functions, and tenures to provide opportunity for all household types including larger families, seniors and residents with special needs.
3. Medium density residential or high density residential development on a site shall demonstrate how the minimum 35 per cent affordable housing target is met or exceeded over the long term on the site.
4. High density residential development on a site shall provide a minimum of 5 per cent of units that contain 3 or more bedrooms.
5. New rental accommodation will be promoted and the retention of existing rental housing stock will be encouraged in accordance with Policy 3.1.5(4) of the Part 1 Plan.

229Mr. Ramsay stated that the Proposed Development does not include any affordable housing units and, therefore, will not contribute to the achievement of the minimum target of 35% of new housing units being affordable within the 16th KDA. Furthermore, the Proposed Development does not achieve the minimum requirement that 5% of all units are on a high density residential development site and shall have units with three or more bedrooms. Under this Policy, a minimum of 48 of the 962 units are to contain three or more bedrooms. The Appellant is only proposing 24 three-bedroom units.

Transit

230The Tribunal heard that Section 11.4.2 of the draft Secondary Plan addresses transit and indicates the 16th KDA is well served by local and regional transit.

231According to Policy 11.4.2(1), development is to support transit by:

a) Ensuring a mix of uses consistent with the Part 1 Plan, including employment uses to draw peak ridership in the morning and afternoon and destination uses such as retail, commercial, and arts and cultural facilities to draw ridership during off-peak hours. b) Siting entrances close to the edge of the right-of-way and providing landscaping that animates the pedestrian realm, where appropriate. c) Ensuring a transit-supportive built form and site density in accordance with Schedule 2 to this Secondary Plan. d) Implementing the finer-grained street network as shown on Schedule 4 to this Secondary Plan.

232Mr. Ramsay opined the Proposed Development does not satisfy item b) above as the proposed building does not provide adequate landscaping to animate the pedestrian realm. The proposed site design provides minimum setbacks along Yonge Street and 16th Avenue, and does not provide opportunities to enhance and complement the pedestrian realm along the public boulevard.

233Policies 11.4.2 (3) to 11.4.2 (8) address the potential subway extension through the area and prescribes measures to protect the conceptual alignment of the subway, integrate transit facilities as unobtrusively and attractively as possible and require coordination of development with the Region and the Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”).

234Mr. Ramsay offered the opinion that the proposed amendments do not have appropriate regard for the Policies in the Draft Yonge/16th Secondary Plan that deal with built form, housing, transit and TDM.

Urban Design Guidelines

235The Tribunal heard that the City’s Urban Design Guidelines are applied when the City reviews Site Plan applications and that they are not directly applicable to the proposal at this time. However, they are relevant to the review of the proposed rezoning since these matters directly influence the scale, massing, character and siting of the Proposed Development.

236Mr. Ramsay provided summary opinions regarding sections of the Guidelines;

i) Frame the Public Realm

• The proposed setback from the street does not support grade related activities;
• The Proposed Development does not have appropriate regard for this Guideline and the proposed 2.0 m step backs above the podium do not achieve the Guideline of 3.0 m to 5.0 m, and will achieve a clearly discernible top to the street wall.

ii) Integrate Urban Open Space

• The proposal includes a roof top terrace above the second floor and a courtyard area located in the rear yard. These areas appear to be private open spaces and are not publicly accessible open space.
• The proposal offers a limited range of open space areas. The Appellant has not indicated what, if any, programming will occur in the courtyard area.
• The courtyard area is not visible from the public realm and does not appear to be a publicly accessible open space.
• The courtyard area does not appear to be a publicly accessible open space. The courtyard is separated from the main building by driveways and is not integrated with the retail uses located within the ground floor of the proposed building.
• The rooftop terrace located above the second story is not well integrated with the architecture of the building.

iii) Light, View and Skyline

• The Guideline requires to “Orient tall buildings with elongated floor plates in a north south alignment to reduce shadow impact.” The proposed towers have elongated floor plates. Tower A is oriented in a general north-south alignment, while Tower B is aligned in a general east west direction, thus, they do not have appropriate regard for this Guideline.
• The proposed towers are located along the westerly and northerly sides of the Site and thus, do not have appropriate regard for this Guideline.
• The proposed towers have a 2.0 m stepback above the sixth storey. A larger stepback is required in order to clearly distinguish between the podium and the middle section of the proposed towers and thus, do not have appropriate regard for this Guideline.
• The proposed towers are slab towers with elongated floor plates and do not have appropriate regard for this Guideline.
• The penthouse level of each tower does not include any articulation or reduced floorplate area to distinguish it from the middle section of the building.
• Each of the proposed towers have floorplates of 815 m2, which exceeds the maximum. The Proposed Development does not have appropriate regard for this Guideline.
• Tower A does not maintain the minimum 25 m separation with the existing 20-storey tower at 9201 Yonge Street. Tower A will be setback approximately 12 m from the property line and will provide separation of approximately 14 m with the adjacent tower on 9201 Yonge St. The Proposed Development does not have appropriate regard for this Guideline.

iv) Façade Treatment

• The Guideline requires that “new development shall not negatively impact existing buildings with side windows.” The Proposed Development does not have appropriate regard for this Guideline as it will negatively impact the existing building at 9201 Yonge St. that contains side windows facing the Subject Site.

v) Balconies and Projections

• The Guideline requires that “ above the street wall, private terraces are encouraged at the upper level setback and that balconies shall not project beyond the primary street wall or building face.” The Proposed Development does not have appropriate regard for this Guideline as the building contains balconies that project on the primary street wall or building face.

237In summary, Mr. Ramsay testified that:

• the development proposal represents an overdevelopment of the site. The extent of the overdevelopment is evident by the overall scale and massing of the development, the significant reductions in parking proposed, the lack of separation between the Proposed Development and the abutting mixed-use building at 9201 Yonge Street;
• the proposed density, building height, built form and overall site design is not appropriate for the area and does not reflect the existing and planned character of the area;
• the development does not provide an appropriate transition to adjacent and surrounding areas. Abutting the subject lands, on the south side, is a 20- and 24-storey mixed use development. Tower A on the Subject Site will result in building separation of approximately 14 m with the 20- and 24-storey mixed-use development at 9201 Yonge Street;
• the Proposed Development is not compatible with and does not fit with the context and character of the adjacent and surrounding area. The Proposed Development is an overdevelopment of the site and lacks appropriate transition to the abutting mixed-use, high-density building located at 9201 Yonge Street;
• the Proposed Development is not appropriate in the context of the area, and in its relationship with the surrounding neighbourhood. Rather than provide a well-integrated development, the proposal would introduce incompatible development. Mr. Ramsay further opined that the issues dealing with height, density, massing, scale and setbacks illustrate that the proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law result in a development that is too dense/intense and requires too many compromises in its design; and,
• the Proposed Development does not represent good land use planning and is not in the public interest. The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site, is not in keeping with the character and scale of the area, will be incompatible with the existing and planned uses located within the immediate vicinity of the site and provides insufficient parking. The Proposed Development will result in undue privacy and overlook impacts and will create spillover parking issues for the surrounding areas. An appropriate high-rise form of development of the Subject Site is possible within the context of good land use planning. However, such a proposal requires a reduction in the overall intensity of the development on the site as well as the provision of an appropriate amount of parking in order to balance the interests of all stakeholders, the developer and the public interest.

238Mr. Ramsay opined that the proposed instruments do not have sufficient regard for matters of Provincial Interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act and are not consistent with the PPS. He opined that they do not conform to the Growth Plan or the YROP.

239Furthermore, the proposed rezoning to a KDA (modified) zone would authorize a form of development on the Subject Site that does not maintain the intent and principles of the RHOP, nor does it conform with the policies of the RHOP dealing with housing, urban design and KDAs.

240He opined that the proposed re-designation and rezoning should not be approved.

PLANNING CONTEXT – PARKING

241Mr. McGill stated that he is Professional Transportation Operations Engineer from the firm, MobilSafe Solutions Ltd. Mr. McGill was retained to provide an independent parking plan for the Subject Site.

242Mr. McGill testified that:

a) the proposed parking supply totals 785 physical parking spaces as shown in the Table below. The parking supply consists of 620 residential parking spaces, 142 residential visitor parking spaces, 18 retail parking spaces, and five car share parking spaces. b) The five proposed car share parking spaces are considered to provide an equivalent parking supply of five-times value resulting in an effective parking supply of an additional 20 parking spaces. When the car share parking supply bonus is applied, the effective parking supply total is 805 parking spaces. c) When the parking supply for retail use is removed from consideration, the effective parking supply total becomes 787 parking spaces for residents and visitors (805 effective minus 18 retail). This represents a proposed parking supply rate of approximately 0.82 parking spaces per unit for residential and visitor use (787/962).

METROLINX SUBWAY EXPANSION PLANS

243Mr. McGill stated that according to the Metrolinx website, the Yonge North Subway Extension is proposed as a 7.4 km, six station extension from Finch Avenue to High Tech Road in City of Richmond Hill. The target completion date is 2030 to coincide with the opening of the Ontario Line and the Bloor-Yonge Capacity Improvement Project.

244The terminus station is the High Tech Station, which is approximately 1.5 km south of the Subject Site at 9251 Yonge Street. The typical comfortable walking distance for a station to be considered accessible is approximately 500 to 800 metres. This proposed station at High Tech Road will be approximately two to three times that distance away from the Subject Site. Mr. McGill testified that the future proposed terminus at High Tech Station exceeds comfortable walking distance.

245Mr. McGill opined that the proposed future subway extension to High Tech Station will not result in any significant reduction in personal vehicle trip travel from the Subject Site.

246Mr. McGill further opined that there will be no reduction in parking demand at the Subject Site when the subway is extended. Although fare integration, which would allow transit riders to only pay once when transferring between GO Transit, TTC, Brampton Transit, Durham Region Transit, MiWay and York Region Transit, is being considered by TTC and other transit service providers, it is premature to assume it will occur and have an effect on parking demand at the Subject Site.

CITY OF RICHMOND HILL - ZONING BY-LAWS

Zoning By-Law No. 49-12

247This Table illustrates and summarizes the estimated parking supply.

Proposed Dwelling Units - Category	Estimated Parking Space Rate/Unit	Minimum Parking Space Rate/Unit	Required Parking Spaces
616 - 1 Bedroom Units	0.8		493
322 – 2 Bedroom Units	1.0		322
24 – 3 Bedroom Units	1.2		29
Visitor Parking	0.15		145
Total Required Parking Supply			989

248Mr. McGill stated that applying the parking standards as required in By-law No. 49-12 for residential apartments, the required parking supply is a minimum of 989 total visitor and residential parking spaces (844 residential plus 145 visitor). As 962 residential units are proposed for the development, the resulting total required parking supply rate for residents and visitors is 1.03 parking spaces/residential unit (989/962).

249The Appellant has indicated that it will provide five car share parking spaces. By-law No. 49-12 allows for a reduction in the required residential parking supply at a rate of five parking spaces for each one car share parking space. Therefore, the effective parking supply is increased by 20 parking spaces resulting in a required parking supply of 969 physical parking spaces or 989 effective parking spaces.

250Mr. McGill testified that the Appellant is only proposing 787 effective parking spaces for residents and visitors, which falls 202 parking spaces short (989 to 787) of the required total base on the parking standards set out in By-law No. 49-12.

Draft Yonge and Carrville/16th KDA Secondary Plan

251The Tribunal heard that:

1. the Draft Yonge and Carrville/16th KDA Secondary Plan, April 2018, states in Section 11.4.2 Potential Subway Extension Item No. 8 that "The Environmental Assessment process will identify lands that may be required for transit infrastructure and transit uses, such as: parking, bus terminal, station entrances, emergency exit buildings, traction power sub stations, or accesses along the future subway extension corridor. The Region shall protect, secure and negotiate appropriate land arrangements with the landowner and Town of Richmond Hill for such purpose, either through dedication in accordance with the Planning Act, purchase, land exchange, lease, expropriation, or any other available means."
2. In accordance with Section 11.4.2.4 of the Draft Secondary Plan, the future subway extension is a "long-term consideration and subject to a future Environmental Assessment" and the future of that subway extension may affect the parking requirements of abutting properties such as the Subject Site. Mr. McGill opined that the proposed reduction in parking supply from the KDA requirements would be premature to approve.
3. In Section 11.4.3 on TDM, the KDA lays out eighteen (18) TDM options for developers to consider and a requirement to submit a comprehensive TDM Strategy to the City's satisfaction. Mr. McGill stated that the Appellant has proposed some TDM measures but has not prepared or submitted a comprehensive TDM Strategy.
4. In Section 11.4.8 on parking, the Yonge and Carrville/16th KDA Secondary Plan suggests that parking is a component of the overall transportation system and is used as a tool to support the KDA vision. After reviewing the five associated directions for parking in the KDA, Mr. McGill stated that they are all related to the planning and layout of parking in and around the building site. Section 11.4.8 does not, however, include a recommendation supportive of a reduced parking standard.

Zoning By-Law No. 30-18 - Yonge and Carrville/16th KDA

252The Tribunal heard that Zoning By-law No. 30-18, the proposed Yonge and Carrville/16th KDA Secondary Plan, includes in Section 5.14 Vehicle Parking Standards outlining the required parking spaces for developments in this KDA.

253Mr. McGill testified that this By-law is in draft form and therefore not in force and effect but can be useful in that it is relied upon by the City for setting the most reliable standard for parking in the KDA.

254Mr. McGill stated that based on the Appellant's proposal, this proposed Zoning By-law No. 30-18 would require, at a minimum, 1,051 parking spaces as demonstrated in the table below.

Proposed Residential Units	Quantity Proposed	Zoning By-law 30-18 Required Minimum Rate/Dwelling Unit	Zoning By-Law 30-18 Required Minimum Parking Supply
1 Bedroom	616	0.9	555
2 Bedroom	322	1.0	322
3 Bedroom	24	1.2	29
Visitors	962	0.15	145
Total			1,051

255Mr. McGill stated that as the required parking supply for residents and visitors is 1,051 pursuant to Zoning By-law No. 30-18 KDA, the required parking supply rate would be approximately 1.1 parking spaces/unit for residents and visitors (1,051 to 962).

256Mr. McGill further stated that, as the Appellant is proposing to provide only 787 effective parking spaces for residential and visitor use (805 effective minus 18 retail), its proposal falls 264 parking spaces short of the required minimum parking spaces required under the KDA Zoning By-law No. 30-18. This represents a proposed shortfall of approximately 25% from the required minimum parking supply (264 to1,051).

257Mr. McGill opined that the requested reduction in parking supply for the Subject Site would be inappropriate and would be inconsistent with the harmonious approach to parking supply as approved or proposed by neighbouring developments within the KDA.

258Mr. McGill provided the concluding opinions that:

• it is premature to approve the Proposed Development's parking supply plan since the completion of the subway extension to High Tech Station is anticipated to be many years in the future and since fare integration between transit service providers in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area is a long-term objective and not considered imminent;
• even when the subway is extended to High Tech, it will have little or no effect on demand for parking supply at the Subject Site;
• the Proposed Development will exacerbate a residential parking supply shortfall in the South-east corner of the KDA;
• the Proposed Development is not harmonious with the other proposed developments in the KDA; and,
• the Proposed Development is not consistent with the Zoning By-laws of other Municipalities within York Region and abutting Yonge Street.

259Mr. McGill opined that the requested reduced parking supply at the Subject Site is not appropriate as proposed. This application should not be approved as proposed.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

260In considering these appeals, the Tribunal has reviewed and given careful consideration to the materials and submissions of all Parties.

261The Tribunal is aware that City Staff recommended approval of the Proposed Development to City Council on two previous dates including in its "Request for Directions Report", where City Staff provided the following opinion, in support of their recommendation, that City Council support the Proposed Development:

…the proposed height, density, tower floor plate size and tower separation distance are considered appropriate given the location, context, design, and form of development, the previous OMB approval applicable to the subject lands, various land use tribunal approvals with respect to adjacent and surrounding lands, and the OLT's recent approval of the City's Yonge Bernard KDA Secondary Plan.

262The Tribunal has considered that the constraints raised by the City, in these Appeals, do not necessarily reflect concerns related to sufficiency of servicing nor concerns related to transportation capacity.

263The Tribunal has recognized that the City's issues have focused on the scale and massing of the Proposed Development and the proposed resident parking supply.

264The Tribunal was persuaded by the testimony of Mr. Volpentesta, Mr. Pereira and Mr. Chan in that the Proposed Development is appropriate for the Subject Site.

265The Tribunal considered the City’s opinion that the proposed increase in density and the related increase in the overall massing of the building is not in keeping with the other high density, mixed use buildings in the area.

266The Tribunal determined that the increase in FSI is appropriate due to the Site’s strategic position along a Regional corridor at an important intersection exemplified by retail and commercial activities as well as a nearness to existing public rapid transit and future higher order transit. The resulting massing has been proposed to create an alignment with the urban design policies outlined in the RHOP and is anticipated to enhance the public realm. Further, the site is located in an area that is well served by public transit and has been identified and designated as a mixed-use area suitable for higher density development.

267The Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development will contribute a considerable volume of purpose built rental units within the City of Richmond Hill in keeping with the YROP 2022 purpose built minimum rental target of 1,500 purpose built rental units.

268The Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development will provide unified mixed-use areas with predominantly mid- and high-rise related buildings incorporating residential, retail and commercial areas while in keeping with the outlook of the KDA Development Block within the Draft Yonge and Carrville/16th KDA Secondary Plan.

269The Tribunal considered the City’s opinion of compatibility , overdevelopment and transition.

270The Tribunal is satisfied that the height and density of the Proposed Development aligns with the objectives outlined in the KDA at such a prominent intersection of Yonge Street and Carville/16th Avenue. The proposed increase in height and density will facilitate a transition by complementing other tall and dense development proposals currently under consideration while also ensuring a gradual reduction in height and density towards the existing structures located to the south of the site.

271The Tribunal reflected on the City’s opinion regarding the allocated parking spaces were not appropriate.

272The Tribunal finds that the number of allocated parking spaces within the Proposed Development is satisfactory when supported by the planned future TTC station at the Richmond Hill Centre (High Tech) at Yonge Street and Highway 7. Further, the existence of public rapid transit combined with major existing nodes of retail and commercial development, provides ideal conditions to promote transit-oriented development.

273The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes efficient development of land, accommodates a range of appropriate mixed uses, intensifies uses within the settlement area, and contributes to the range of housing options and is supported by significant existing and planned public and active transportation.

274The Tribunal finds that the proposed instruments have regard to matters of provincial interest set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, conform with the YROP and integrate with the RHOP, as proposed to be modified through the implementing of the OPA.

275The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposed instruments have regard for matters of Provincial interest, are consistent with the principles of good land use planning and are in the greater public interest. The proposed instruments further the goals and objectives of the Provincial planning regime to increase housing opportunities.

276Accordingly, the Tribunal approves the draft OPA and the draft ZBL Amendment, and will withhold its Final Order until the Parties have filed the final form of the draft OPA and ZBL Amendments with the Tribunal.

ORDER

277THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal with respect to the Official Plan Amendment is allowed in part, and the amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Richmond Hill is approved in principle, generally in accordance with Attachment 1 to this Order

278THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment is allowed in part, and the amendment to the City of Richmond Hill By-law No. 278-96, as amended by site-specific Zoning By-law No. 49-12, is approved in principle, generally in accordance with Attachment 2 to this Order.

279The Final Order will be withheld pending completion of the following:

a) the Final Order respecting the Official Plan Amendment application be withheld until such time as the City advises the Tribunal that the Official Plan Amendment has been finalized to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning and Building Services; and, b) the Final Order respecting the Zoning By-law Amendment application be withheld until such time as the City advises the Tribunal that: i. the draft Zoning By-law Amendment has been finalized to the satisfaction of the City’s Commissioner of Planning and Building Services; and, ii. the related Site Plan application for the development has been finalized to the satisfaction of the City’s Commissioner of Planning and Building Services.

280AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that if the Parties have not completed the items in Paragraph [279] of this Interim Order within one year of the issuance of this Decision, the Parties shall provide a written status update to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator by that same date.

281In the event that there are outstanding issues with respect to the implementation of this Interim Order, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI

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.