Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
October 14, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-24-001153
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Newdev Investments Ltd. & 1375920 Ontario Limited
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
to construct two 3-storey back-to-back stacked townhouse blocks
Reference Number:
OPA/ZBA 18 139486
Property Address:
5305 & 5307 Highway 7 East
Municipality/UT:
City of Markham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-001153
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-001153
OLT Case Name:
Newdev Investments Ltd. & 1375920 Ontario Limited v. Markham (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Newdev Investments Ltd. & 1375920 Ontario Limited
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
to construct two 3-storey back-to-back stacked townhouse blocks
Reference Number:
OPA/ZBA 18 139486
Property Address:
5305 & 5307 Highway 7 East
Municipality/UT:
City of Markham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-001154
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-001153
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Newdev Investments Ltd. & 1375920 Ontario Limited
Subject:
Site Plan
Description:
to permit stacked townhouses including site specific development standards
Reference Number:
SPC 20 139486
Property Address:
5305 & 5307 Highway 7 East
Municipality/UT:
City of Markham
OLT Case No.:
OLT-24-001152
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-24-001153
Heard:
October 6, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Newdev Investments Ltd. & 1375920 Ontario Limited
J. Shapira
City of Markham
M. Cheung-Madar
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. DEBOER ON OCTOBER 6, 2025 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal had originally scheduled a five-day Hearing to hear the merits of the appeals by Newdev Investments Ltd. & 1375920 Ontario Limited (“Appellant”) under sections 17(24), 34(11) and 41(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) due to the City of Markham’s (“City”) failure to make a decision within the statutory timelines on the Official Plan Amendment Application (“OPA”), the Zoning By-law Amendment Application (“ZBA”) and the Site Plan Application (“DPS”) otherwise known in this Decision as the “Applications” for the lands municipally known as 5305 and 5307 Highway 7 East, in the City of Markham (“Subject Lands”).
2Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received correspondence that a settlement had been reached between the Parties. The Parties made a request that the Tribunal review the settlement materials, and if the Tribunal was satisfied that the proposed planning instruments meet the statutory tests, approve the settlement and the proposed planning instruments.
3In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a Hearing on the terms of the settlement.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
4When considering appeals filed pursuant to sections 17(24), 34(11) and 41(12) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters must conform to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), and in this matter, to the York Region Official Plan, (“YROP”), the City of Markham Official Plan (“COP”), and the City of Markham Zoning By-law 1229 and Zoning By-law 2024-19, as amended (“ZBLs”).
SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDING AREA
5The Subject Lands are located on the south side of Highway 7 East, approximately 150 metres east of the intersection of McCowan Road and Highway 7 East. The Subject Lands are generally rectangular in shape, 5305 Highway 7 East is currently vacant while 5307 contains a single detached dwelling. The Subject Lands have a frontage on Highway 7 East of approximately 53 metres and a frontage of approximately 11.45 metres on Gladiator Road. The Subject Lands have a depth of approximately 39.94 metres on the west lot line and approximately 40.07 metres on the east lot line. The Subject Lands have an approximate combined area of 0.4175 hectares.
6Surrounding the Subject Lands to the north are several one-storey commercial retail plazas and Markville Mall. To the south and east are one and two-storey detached dwellings on Gladiator Road. To the west are one and two-storey commercial buildings containing a medical centre, bank, and retail stores.
7Highway 7 East is a four lane Regional arterial road that connects with other regional roads such as Kennedy Road, Warden Avenue, Woodbine Avenue, and Highway 404. Highway 7 East is designated as a Regional Corridor and a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor in the YROP and located approximately 700 metres from the Centennial GO Transit Station. The Subject Lands are located within the McCowan BRT Station Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”) designation within the COP.
8The Subject Lands are currently designated as “Residential Low Rise” in the COP and designated as “Residential One (R1)” in the ZBL.
BACKGROUND OF THE APPLICATION
9The Appellant filed an OPA and ZBA to the City on July 4, 2018. The original OPA and ZBA proposed the construction of two stacked back-to-back townhouse blocks consisting of 32 residential back-to-back townhouse units and underground shared parking. The original proposal included seven two-bedroom townhouse units and 25 three-bedroom townhouse units with a single driveway access from Highway 7 East. The OPA and ZBA were deemed complete on July 26, 2018.
10On February 19, 2019, a statutory public meeting occurred pertaining to the applications. The City’s Development Services Committee referred the OPA and ZBA applications back to staff to finalize a report and recommendations.
11On October 9, 2020, the Appellant submitted to the City revised OPA and ZBA applications and included a Site Plan Application. From October 2020 to May 2023, the Appellant made a series of revised Applications to the City in response to City Staff’s comments concerning the Applications.
12On November 20, 2024, the Appellant filed an appeal to the Tribunal due to a lack of a decision by the City on the Applications. On May 6, 2025, the Tribunal held its first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) pertaining to the appeals. From the time of the first CMC to the scheduled a five-day hearing, the Parties held settlement discussions which has resulted in the settlement that is now before the Tribunal.
SUBMISSIONS
13On behalf of the Parties, the Appellant presented Martin Rendl, the Appellant’s planner, who had been involved with the final form of the Applications. Mr. Rendl was affirmed and qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning pertaining to the Applications and Settlement before the Tribunal.
14Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received the following documents, and the Tribunal approved said documents as exhibits to the Hearing:
Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Martin Rendl
Planning Evidence
Section 2 of the Act
15Section 2 of the Act requires that the Applications before the tribunal are a matter of provincial interest. It was Mr. Rendl’s opinion that the Settlement before the Tribunal will ensure the orderly development of a safe and healthy community. Mr. Rendl continued to opine that the Settlement Proposal will provide for a range of housing options and resolve the planning conflicts involving public and private interests. Mr. Rendl continued to opine that the Subject Lands is an appropriate location for growth and development and the proposed development will provide a built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place and will provide adequate public spaces. As such, it was Mr. Rendl’s opinion that the Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest.
Provincial Planning Statement, 2024
16Mr. Rendl’s opined that the PPS 2024 emphasizes directing growth and development towards settlement areas, which include areas within a PMTSAs. Mr. Rendl continued to opine that the Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal is consistent with the applicable policies of the PPS 2024, as the Settlement prioritizes intensification that is with a PMTSA. The Settlement Proposal will promote housing densities, which will make efficient use of the Subject Lands in an area that is within a strategic growth area while using maximizing the use of existing municipal services. It was Mr. Rendl’s opinion that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS 2024.
YROP
17Mr. Rendl gave opinion that with the removal of planning responsibilities with York Region, the YROP is now deemed to be apart of the COP. The Subject Lands are within the Urban Area and on a Regional Corridor. The Subject Lands are located within a PMTSA and are located on a Rapid Transit Corridor and are within walking distance of the Centennial GO Station. Mr. Rendl continued to opine that the design of the townhouses will promote a unique sense of place, and the location of the Subject Lands allows for various transit options while providing proximity to retail and community services.
18Mr. Rendl opined that the Settlement Proposal will provide for an appropriate form of intensification within a PMTSA and on a Regional Corridor. The proposed design of the Subject Lands are in a form that is compatible with the surrounding area and provides for an appropriate transition to the neighbourhood’s residential and commercial land uses. It was Mr. Rendl’s opinion that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the applicable polices of the YROP.
COP
19It was Mr. Rendl’s opinion that the COP currently designates the Subject Lands as “Residential Low Rise”. The OPA purposes is to redesignate the Subject Lands to “Residential Mid Rise”. This proposed redesignation is the appropriate designation to permit the development of the stacked back-to-back townhouses. Mr. Rendl continued with his opinion that this redesignation is most relevant as the Subject Lands are located within a PMTSA and on a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor. Mr. Rendl opined that the Settlement Proposal is appropriate for the Subject Lands as the proposed development is in the designated built-up area of the COP where intensification is planned to occur.
20Mr. Rendl gave opinion that the Settlement Proposal is compatible with the surrounding area and will provide for an appropriate form of transition from the commercial areas located to the west to the adjacent low rise residential areas located east and south of the Subject Lands. The stacked townhouses proposed are an appropriate and compatible form of in-fill development. Mr. Rendl opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the applicable polices of the COP.
ZBLs
21Mr. Rendl opined that the ZBA removes the Subject Lands from Zoning By-law 1229 and amends Zoning By-law 177-96 to incorporate the Subject Lands into the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law 2024-19. The ZBA changes the zoning from “Residential One (R1)” to “RES-MR1 Residential - Mid Rise One”, a zoning category that is a better match for the proposed stacked back-to-back townhouse concept. Mr. Rendl continued to opine that the proposed ZBA contains the appropriate development standards for the proposed development and should be approved as presented.
Site Plan
22It was Mr. Rendl’s opinion that the Site Plans as presented have been accepted by the City and should be approved, subject to the satisfaction of the Conditions that are required by the City and the Region of York.
23Mr. Rendl continued with his opinion that the proposed Site Plan includes underground parking for 41 resident spaces and eight visitor parking spaces, along with 16 bicycle spaces. The residential waste and recycling are located underground and designed for municipal collection and includes an outdoor amenity area in the proposed rear yard. Access to the proposed development is by way of highway 7 only and there will not be any access from the residential Gladiator Road, located directly behind the Subject Lands.
24Mr. Rendl continued to opine that the proposed development includes landscaping improvements to provide more privacy to the adjacent properties and includes the removal of two units to provide a greater setback to the adjacent residential property.
Overall Planning Context
25Mr. Rendl continued to opine that the applications have taken into account the current and planned contexts of the neighbourhood. The existing context consists of commercial retail use to the west and north of the Subject Lands, and residential uses to the south and east. All residential uses east along Highway 7 East have their rear lot lines abutting onto the said Highway 7 East. The commercial and retail development located west of the Subject Lands are oriented towards Highway 7 East. The Subject Lands are oriented towards Highway 7 East and will provide a compatible built form from the existing commercial area to the existing residential area.
26Mr. Rendl continued with his opinion that the Subject Lands are within the PMTSA, which are areas that are designated for intensification. The proposed four-storey residential height is permitted by Official Plan Amendment 64, which includes the PTMSA.
27Mr. Rendl continued with his opinion that the Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal proposes an efficient use of in-fill development with a massing and scale that are appropriate and compatible with the adjacent properties. The Settlement Proposal allows for an appropriate amount of buffering between adjacent properties and is of a design that will minimize the impacts of privacy to those same adjacent properties.
Participant Statements
28Mr. Rendl took the Tribunal through the Participant Statements and their concerns related to the proposed development. It was Mr. Rendl’s opinion that the proposed development had taken the Participant’s concerns into consideration with the final form that was being presented before the Tribunal. The proposal before the Tribunal has a reduction of the total number of units from 32 to 28. The side yard setback abutting one of the Participant’s residence has increased to 7.9 metres from the initial 1.5 metres due to the reduction of total units. The increased foliage, shrubs and trees will provide a greater natural buffer with the adjacent lands and the privacy barriers created on the rooftop terraces will allow the existing residents to continue enjoying their residential properties without any privacy or overlook impacts.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
29The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted evidence provided by Mr. Rendl. Based on Mr. Rendl’s Affidavit and his oral testimony, the Tribunal finds that the settlement before it has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Act.
30The Tribunal finds that the settlement is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms to the applicable policies of the YROP, the COP, and the Zoning By-laws.
31The Tribunal finds that the settlement has taken into consideration the concerns of the Participants, as the settlement demonstrates how those issues were included in the final form of the planning instruments that were presented before it.
32The Tribunal finds that the planning instruments before it should be approved as presented as the settlement will allow for a much-needed form of housing near a PTMSA and the proposed built form will be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The settlement will allow for a form of development that will provide for an appropriate type of transition from adjacent commercial lands to adjacent residential lands and represents good land use planning.
ORDER
33THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Official Plan for the City of Markham is amended as set out in Schedule A to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Markham to assign a number to this Official Plan Amendment for record keeping purposes.
34THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the City of Markham Zoning By-laws 1229 and 2024-19 are hereby amended as set out in Schedule B to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Markham to assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.
35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the site plan prepared by RAW Design dated September 23, 2025, which include the landscape plans by Adesso Design dated September 22, 2025, are hereby approved as set out in Schedule C, subject to the conditions as set out in Schedule D to this Order.
36If there are issues pertaining to the satisfaction of the Conditions of Site Plan, the Member may be spoken to, schedule permitting.
“S. deBoer”
S. deBOER
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.
Schedule A
Schedule B
BY-LAW 2025-____
A By-law to amend By-law 2024-19, as amended
The Council of The Corporation of the City of Markham hereby enacts as follows:
That By-law 1229, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the lands shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto, from the designated areas of By-law 1229, as amended.
That By-law 2024-19, as amended, is hereby further amended as it applies to the lands outlined on Schedule “A” as follows:
2.1 By expanding the designated area of By-law 2024-19, as amended, to include additional lands as shown on Schedule “A” attached hereto.
2.2 By zoning the lands outlined on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto:
From:
Residential One (R1) Zone, By-law 1229, as amended
To:
Residential Mid Rise One 88 (RES-MR188), as amended
- By adding the following subsections to Section 14 – EXCEPTIONS:
Exception
14.88
Newdev Investments Ltd. and 1375920 Ontario Limited 5305 and 5307 Highway 7 East
Parent Zone
RES-MR1
Amending By-law
2025-XXX
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, the following provisions shall apply to the land denoted by the symbol *88 on the schedules to this By-law. All other provisions, unless specifically modified/amended by this section, continue to apply to the lands subject to this section.
14.88.2 Special Zone Standards
The following special zone standards shall apply:
a) Minimum setbacks: i) Front yard – 1.2 metres ii) Rear yard – 11.5 metres, except that a driveway ramp accessing an underground parking garage shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 3.0 metres iii) East interior side yard – 7.8 metres iv) West interior side yard – 1.2 metres
b) Minimum setback of an underground parking garage to any lot line – 0.15 metres
c) Maximum number of storeys - 4; where a mechanical penthouse or enclosed stairs or elevator providing access to an outdoor amenity area or to a mechanical penthouse are not considered a storey for the purpose of interpreting this section
d) Minimum outdoor amenity area: i) Common outdoor amenity area – 85 square metres ii) Balconies associated with multiple dwelling units located on the first and second storey – 6.1 square metres per unit iii) Rooftop terraces or balconies associated with multiple dwelling units located on the third and fourth storey – 28 square metres per unit
e) Maximum number of multiple dwelling units - 28
f) Maximum gross floor area of all buildings – 3960 square metres
g) Minimum landscaped open space – 22 percent
h) Sections 4.8.9, 5.2.6 c), and 5.2.8 b) shall not apply
i) There shall be no minimum parking requirement for any permitted use
j) Minimum number of bicycle parking spaces which may be horizontal, vertical or stacked: i) Short term bicycle parking spaces – 6 ii) Long term bicycle parking spaces – 10
k) Stacked bicycle parking spaces may be provided in accordance with the following minimum dimensions for each stacked bicycle parking space: i) Width - 0.3 metres ii) Length – 1.2 metres iii) Vertical clearance – 1.2 metres
l) Vertical bicycle parking spaces may be provided in accordance with the following minimum dimensions for each vertical bicycle parking space: i) Width - 0.35 metres ii) Length or vertical clearance– 1.8 metres iii) Horizontal clearance – 1.2 metres
m) Notwithstanding Section 5.9.1.c), the minimum width of an aisle providing unobstructed access to a bicycle parking space shall be 1.1 metres.
n) Notwithstanding the definition of structure, enclosed stairs or elevators or other means of egress from a transit system or underground parking garage are not deemed to be structures.
Amanda File No. ZA 20 139486
EXPLANATORY NOTE
BY-LAW 2025-___
A By-law to amend By-laws 1229 and 2024-19, both as amended
Newdev Investments Ltd. and 1375920 Ontario Limited
5305 and 5307 Highway 7 East
ZA 20 139486
Lands Affected
The proposed by-law amendment applies to a parcel of land with an approximate area of 0.21 hectares (0.52 acres), which is located on the south side of Highway 7 East, east of McCowan Road.
Existing Zoning
The subject lands are zoned Residential One (R1) under By-law 1229, as amended.
Purpose and Effect
The purpose of this By-law is to rezone the subject lands from the regulated area of By-law 1229, as amended, to be incorporated into lands regulated by By-law 2024-19, as amended, and rezoned to Residential Mid Rise One (RES-MR1*88). The effect of this By-law is to permit a 28 multiple unit development on the subject lands.