Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 23, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000670
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Whitehorn Investments Limited, Stephen-Mitchell, Realty Limited, 891566 Ontario Limited and Ledbrow Investments Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit the development of two towers, 42 and 45 storeys in height.
Reference Number: D01-20015
Property Address: 9301, 9325 and 9335 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000670
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000670
OLT Case Name: Whitehorn Investments Limited v. Richmond Hill (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Whitehorn Investments Limited, Stephen-Mitchell, Realty Limited, 891566 Ontario Limited and Ledbrow Investments Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit the development of two towers, 42 and 45 storeys in height.
Reference Number: D02-20029
Property Address: 9301, 9325 and 9335 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000671
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000670
Heard: August 27, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Whitehorn Investments Limited, Stephen-Mitchell, Realty Limited, 891566 Ontario Limited, and Ledbrow Investments Ltd. | Chris Barnett |
| City of Richmond Hill | Antonio Dimilta Carlton Thorne (in absentia) |
| Canadian National Railway Company | Michael James Isaiah Banach (in absentia) |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. Dixon ON August 27, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision and Order arises from a Hearing on the Merits regarding appeals filed by Whitehorn Investments Limited, Stephen-Mitchell, Realty Limited, 891566 Ontario Limited, and Ledbrow Investments Ltd. (together, “Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), concerning the failure of the City of Richmond Hill (“City”) to adopt Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) applications (together, “Applications”) for lands municipally known as 9301, 9325 and 9335 Yonge Street in the City (“Subject Lands”).
2The Applications initially sought to permit a high-density mixed-use development consisting of two towers of 42 and 45 storeys in height connected by a five-storey podium with commercial uses at grade, 821 dwelling units, a Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 69,407 square metres (“m2”), and a Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 8.78.
SITE CONTEXT
3The Subject Lands form a contiguous land holding of 10.68 hectares located at the northeast corner of Yonge Street and 16th Avenue in the City. The Subject Lands are currently occupied by a commercial centre with four single-storey retail and service commercial buildings, including a supermarket. Large areas of the Subject Lands are devoted to surface parking.
4The northeast corner of the Subject Lands contains a triangular parcel of land approximately 1.3 hectares in size that abuts lands owned by the Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”) and that are separated from the main portion of the Subject Lands by German Mills Creek (a tributary of the Don River) and an existing sewer easement for the York Durham Sanitary Sewer.
SETTLEMENT
5The Parties advised the Tribunal that they reached a settlement of the appeals whereby:
- The Applications have been modified following discussions with City staff regarding public streets, building stepbacks, and streetscape issues (“Revised Applications”); and
- Agreements with CN have or will be executed pertaining to appropriate mitigation measures regarding noise, vibration, safety, emissions, and residential occupancy (“CN Agreements”).
6In support of the settlement, the Tribunal was in receipt of the sworn Affidavit of Todd Trudelle, which was marked as Exhibit 2 to these proceedings.
7Mr. Trudelle is an Associate with Goldberg Group and has been practicing land use planning for more than 30 years. He has been qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence on matters pertaining to land use planning on numerous occasions and was once again qualified in that regard by the Tribunal at the Hearing.
Planning Analysis
8Mr. Trudelle proffered that, similar to the initial Applications, the Revised Applications seek to redevelop the Subject Lands with two mixed-use towers of 42 and 45 storeys in height, connected by a five-storey podium. However, the Revised Applications provide a number of tower stepbacks above the podium to achieve the desired tower setbacks from the adjacent street frontages. In Mr. Trudelle’s opinion, the tower heights appropriately respond to the planned context established for the area.
9Mr. Trudelle further proffered that the Revised Applications now comprise approximately 71,061 m2 of GFA – with an FSI of 8.56 – that will accommodate 1,057 new residential dwelling units comprised of 675 one-bedroom units, 324 two-bedroom units, and 58 three-bedroom units. 389 of the units will be affordable housing units (approximately 37 per cent).
10A large outdoor amenity area (2,114.7 m2) is located on the roof of the fourth storey, with the fifth storey podium surrounding the outdoor amenity area on the north, south, and west sides. A 2.2-metre noise attenuation wall is provided along the east-facing edge of the amenity area, consistent with the CN Agreements.
11In Mr. Trudelle’s professional opinion, the Revised Applications:
a) Have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and in particular matters 2(f), 2(h), 2(j), 2(n), 2(p), 2(q), and 2(r);
b) Are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), and in particular Policies 1.1.1(a, b, e), 1.1.2, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2 (a, b), 1.1.3.3 to 1.1.3.6, 1.4.1, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1 (a, b, c, d), 1.8.1 (a, b, e), and 4.6;
c) Conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019, as amended (“Growth Plan”), and in particular Policies/Sections 1.2.1, 2, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.2, 2.2.4, 2.2.6.1, and 5.2.5.1;
d) Conform to the Region of York Official Plan (“ROP”), and in particular Sections 3.1, 3.5, 5.2 to 5.4, and 7.2;
e) Conform to or, in the case of the OPA, advance the policy themes and intent of the City Official Plan (“COP”);
f) Implement the intent of the City’s Urban Design Guidelines;
g) Represent good planning; and
h) Are in the public interest.
CN Agreements
12At the Hearing, counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that the CN Agreements had not yet all been finalised, but that the Parties expected them to be completed in the very near future. Accordingly, the Parties requested that the Tribunal withhold issuance of its order until after the Parties confirmed that the CN Agreements had been finalised.
13The Tribunal received the aforementioned confirmation on September 20, 2024.
FINDINGS
14Based on the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence of Mr. Trudelle, the Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA attached to this Decision and Order as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, respectively, have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, ROP and, where applicable, the COP, represent good planning, and are in the public interest.
ORDER
15THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) is allowed in part and the Official Plan for the City of Richmond Hill is amended in accordance with Official Plan Amendment No. 53, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal Orders that Amendment No. 53 to the Official Plan for the City of Richmond Hill is approved as set out in Attachment 1.
16THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act is allowed in part and By-law No. 108-85 for the City of Richmond Hill is hereby amended in accordance with By-law No. 89-24, as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal Orders that By-law No. 89-24 is approved as set out in Attachment 2.
“S. Dixon”
S. DIXON MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2