Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 10, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001879 (Formerly PL070987)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Consent Property Address: 83 Sylvan Crescent Description: Residential severance to permit one new single-family dwelling Municipality: Richmond Hill Municipal File No.: B041/07 OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001879 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879 OLT Case Name: Salna v. Richmond Hill (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Consent Property Address: 83 Sylvan Crescent Description: Residential severance to permit one new single-family dwelling Municipality: Richmond Hill Municipal File No.: B043/07 OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001934 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: By-law No. 64-21 Municipality: Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001120 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Robert Salna Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 22 Municipality: Richmond Hill OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001530 Legacy Case No.: PL070987 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001879

Heard: February 12-28, 2024 and March 19, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Robert Salna	Jeffrey Streisfield
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority	Tim Duncan
City of Richmond Hill	Carlton Thorne

DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

Introduction

1These matters arise from an appeal by Robert Salna (“Appellant”) under section 53(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”), seeking approval to sever land and create two new lots. The Appellant also appealed the City of Richmond Hill’s (“City”) Official Plan Amendment No. 22 (“OPA 22”) under section 17(36) of the Act, which modifies the Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area (“SPA”), and By-law No. 64-21 (“By-law 64-21”) under section 34(19) of the Act, which implements OPA 22.

Site Conditions

2The property, located at 83 Sylvan Crescent (“subject property”), contains a single detached dwelling and a detached garage. It spans approximately 1.2 hectares (“ha”), fronting the western shore of Lake Wilcox and the northern boundary of its sole outlet—a channel forming part of an East Humber River tributary.

3The entire parcel lies within a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”) regulated area of the Humber River watershed.

4The proposal seeks to create two additional building lots on the west side of the subject property. These lots would be comparable in size to the existing properties at 37 and 39 Sylvan Crescent, located immediately west of the subject property.

5Applications for these lots (Committee of Adjustment Severance Applications B041/07 and B043/07 (“Applications B041/07 and B043/07”)) were originally filed in September 2007.

Floodplain Context

6At the time of the original submission, the subject property and the proposed severed lots were identified on TRCA mapping as being within the regulatory floodplain of Lake Wilcox (“Regulatory Floodplain”) and its outlet channel.

7Based on the most current Humber River floodplain mapping (2004), the regulatory flood elevation for Lake Wilcox was established at 296 metres (“m”) above sea level (“masl”). Topographical survey data confirmed that the majority of the subject property, including nearly all proposed severed parcels, are located within the Regulatory Floodplain.

Policy Framework

8Policy documents that are relevant to the subject property and the Regulatory Floodplain and their relevant guidelines are explained briefly below.

TRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program

9Some of the key directives of the TRCA Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program’s (“VSCMP”) intent were as follows:

• It opposed further subdivision of land ownership within valley and stream corridors;

• It required property boundaries for new development not extend into such corridors; and

• It permitted new lots between existing developed parcels only if located outside the Regulatory Floodplain.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2005, Section 3.1 – Natural Hazards

10The Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (“PPS 2005”):

• Directed development away from hazardous lands, including flood-prone areas; and

• Prohibited development in locations inaccessible during a flood event or within a floodway.

Municipal Decisions

11On October 10, 2007, the TRCA recommended refusal of Applications B041/07 and B043/07.

12On October 15, 2007, the City issued a Notice of Decision denying the proposed severances within Applications B041/07 and B043/07.

Key Issues

13Key issues in determining the merits of the appeal are as follows:

1. Are the Appellants' lands located within a floodplain?

2. Is the TRCA 2014 Regulatory Floodplain map accurate and appropriate?

3. Should consent approval be granted to subdivide the subject property into two additional lots?

4. Should the City-initiated OPA 22 and By-law 64-21 be rejected?

Evidence

14Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Streisfield, strongly objected to the admission of all witness statements and testimony presented on behalf of the City and the TRCA. His objection was based on the view that the witnesses’ evidence relied on information obtained from third-party consultants and that the witnesses themselves had neither authored the statements nor undertaken any independent work related to them.

15After careful consideration, the Tribunal did not accept Mr. Streisfield’s position and proceeded to qualify the following individuals as expert witnesses in their respective fields.

16The Tribunal heard from the following witnesses:

• Ms. Chun Chu – Called to testify by the City and qualified to give expert opinion evidence as it relates to Land Use Planning;

• Mr. Anthony Sun – Called to testify by the TRCA and qualified to give expert opinion evidence as it relates to Land Use Planning;

• Mr. Dan Hipple – Called to testify by the TRCA and qualified to give expert evidence as it relates to Water Resources Engineering;

• Mr. Michael Manett – Called to testify by the Appellant and qualified to give expert opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning;

• Mr. Eric Greck – Called to testify by the Appellant and qualified to provide expert evidence as it relates to Water Resource Engineering.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Appellant’s Position

17The Appellant submits, in light of OPA 22 establishing a revised SPA boundary, additional lot creation should be permitted on the subject property. The mechanism for permitting such development would depend on findings arising from the evidence presented, particularly regarding whether the subject property is within the Regulatory Floodplain and/or subject to flood risk and floodproofing measures.

18The Appellant further proposes the technical analysis and supporting work underlying the City’s 2017 document titled “Revised Justification Report” (“2017 RJR”), including associated floodplain modeling and mapping for OPA 22 and By-law 64-21, as well as any Ministerial approval of the SPA, is flawed.

19The Appellant asserts the subject property is not within the Regulatory Floodplain.

City’s Position

20The City submits that the subject property is located within the Regulatory Floodplain, where the creation of new lots is not a permitted form of development. Furthermore, the subject property falls within the expanded Lake Wilcox SPA, as established through the approval of OPA 22 and By-law 64-21. Within the Lake Wilcox SPA, new lot creation is expressly prohibited.

21The City further emphasizes OPA 22 and By-law 64-21 represent the culmination of extensive land use planning and technical analysis undertaken by the City, the TRCA, and qualified third-party consultants.

22This work was subject to review and approval by multiple levels of government, including the City, TRCA, Regional Municipality of York (“York Region”), the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (“MNRF”), in accordance with Policy 3.1.4(a) of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS 2020”).

CITY AND TRCA PLANNING EVIDENCE

23Ms. Chu and Mr. Sun provided the following evidence and opinions on the following areas related to Land Use Planning.

Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area and the 2010 Official Plan

24The Tribunal heard the history and policy framework governing the Lake Wilcox SPA and its integration into the City planning documents:

SPA Designation and Policy Basis

25The Lake Wilcox SPA was formally designated through Official Plan Amendment No. 129 (“OPA 129”), which established specific SPA policies and boundaries along the north shore of Lake Wilcox and within the East Humber Valley Corridor. These policies were carried forward into the City’s 2010 Official Plan (“2010 OP”), preserving the SPA boundary and prohibiting new lot creation, in alignment with the PPS 2005.

Provincial Policy Context

26The definition of SPA in the PPS 2005 remains unchanged in the 2014 and 2020 versions. SPAs are intended to allow continued viability of historically established uses within floodplains while mitigating social and economic hardship from strict provincial development restrictions.

Policy Evolution and Updates

27The 2010 OP committed to updating SPA policies and mapping, leading to OPA 22 and By-law 64-21. Between 2011 and 2014, technical studies were undertaken to update floodplain modeling, assess risks, and review land use designations. The 2017 RJR confirmed compliance with the 2009 Provincial Technical Guide and analyzed the implications of SPA expansion.

Impact of OPA 22

28Under OPA 22, the Lake Wilcox SPA expanded from 15.23 ha to 19.49 ha, increasing the number of parcels from 184 to 223 and dwellings from 177 to 208, thereby elevating potential development risks within the Regulatory Floodplain.

Official Plan Amendment No. 22

29OPA 22 introduced significant updates to the City’s 2010 OP policies on Natural Hazards and SPAs, including revised boundaries for the Lake Wilcox SPA. Key highlights include:

• SPA Boundary Expansion: The Lake Wilcox SPA expanded from 15.23 ha to 19.49 ha to reflect updated floodplain mapping and regulatory flood elevations provided by TRCA (296.31 m based on 2014 data). This adjustment accounts for evolving climate conditions and ensures accurate risk management;

• Alignment with Provincial Policy: OPA 22 aligns with the PPS 2020, requiring provincial approval for SPA designations and any changes to policies, land use, or boundaries. Revised policies also incorporate floodproofing and access standards consistent with PPS 2020 Policy 3.1.7.

• Consistency with Growth Plan and Regional Plans: The amendments conform to the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”) and both the 2010 and 2022 York Region Official Plans (“YROPs”), supporting conservation authorities in managing floodplains and ensuring provincial oversight for SPA modifications;

• Technical Basis: Updated floodplain mapping reflects TRCA’s 10-year review cycle and incorporates the latest technology and land use data. These updates are critical for public safety and reducing property damage from increasingly severe weather events; and

• Policy Safeguards: OPA 22 prohibits new lot creation and restricts intensification within SPAs, unless approved through a municipal comprehensive review and provincial authorization, ensuring development remains consistent with hazard mitigation principles.

30OPA 22 modernizes SPA and hazard policies to reflect current flood risk science, provincial requirements, and regional planning objectives. It strengthens safeguards for public safety while maintaining compliance with provincial and regional frameworks.

By-law No. 64-21

31By-law 64-21 amended Zoning By-law No. 256-88 to implement OPA 22 for the Lake Wilcox SPA. Key highlights include:

• SPA Overlay and Boundary Updates: The original “Flood Damage Centre” overlay was replaced with a SPA overlay, and boundaries were updated to match the revised SPA limits established by OPA 22. Flood elevation provisions were also revised to align with updated mapping and policies;

• Alignment with Provincial Policy: By-law 64-21 complies with PPS 2020 by restricting development within the SPA to small-scale single detached dwellings and prohibiting secondary suites. It also enforces floodproofing, protection works, and access standards consistent with PPS 2020 Policy 3.1.7;

• Consistency with Growth Plan and Regional Plans: By-law 64-21 aligns with the Growth Plan and both the 2010 and 2022 YROP’s supporting measures that direct growth away from hazardous lands and uphold public safety. It implements zoning provisions that address floodplain management and SPAs; and

• Conformity with 2010 OP: The amendments reflect Policy 3.2.2.4(6) of the 2010 OP, requiring zoning provisions for setbacks, lot coverage, floodproofing, and other measures deemed necessary by the City and TRCA.

32By-law 64-21 ensures zoning regulations for the Lake Wilcox SPA are consistent with updated floodplain mapping, provincial and regional policies, and hazard mitigation principles. It strengthens safeguards for public safety while maintaining compliance with OPA 22 and the City’s 2010 OP.

Consent Applications – 83 Sylvan Crescent

33The Tribunal was informed of the history of consent applications and related appeals for the subject property.

Initial Consent Applications (2007)

34On August 21, 2007, the Appellant submitted two consent applications:

• B041/07: Proposed severance of the westerly portion of the subject property to create a lot with 15.24 m frontage, 77.45 m depth, and 1,180 square metres in area; and

• B043/07: Proposed severance of an adjacent lot with identical dimensions.

Committee Decision

35Applications B041/07 and B043/07 were denied on October 11, 2007 because:

• The proposals did not maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan and zoning by-law; and

• The severances were deemed undesirable for appropriate land development.

Appeal History

36The Appellant appealed both decisions to the Tribunal on November 4, 2007. The hearing was adjourned sine die at the request of the Appellant and TRCA.

37Subsequently, the Appellant filed a site-specific appeal of the 2010 OP on November 4, 2011, which was adjourned pending completion of OPA 22. After OPA 22 and By-law 64-21 were adopted and approved, the Appellant appealed both instruments.

38Applications B041/07 and B043/07 and the subsequent appeals have been intertwined with evolving SPA policies and floodplain regulations. The adoption of OPA 22 and By-law 64-21 now forms the basis for current planning considerations and Tribunal deliberations.

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

39The Tribunal considered Applications B041/07 and B043/07 in the context of the Act and matters of provincial interest.

Provincial Interests (Section 2)

Protection of Ecological Systems (Section 2(a))

40The proposed lot creation within the Lake Wilcox SPA fails to protect natural areas and functions. SPA modifications must follow the Provincial Technical Guide, and the Appellant has not demonstrated compliance.

Orderly Development of Safe Communities (Section 2(h))

41The proposed lots are located entirely within hazardous lands (floodplain). Flood depths during a Regulatory Storm Event range from 0.8 to 1.3 m, making safe access impossible and creating significant safety risks.

Financial and Economic Well-being (Section 2(l))

42Adding two lots increases exposure to flood hazards, elevating municipal liability and potential flood-related damages beyond those assessed in the 2017 SPA Justification Report.

Public Health and Safety (Section 2(o))

43Provincial, regional, and municipal policies prohibit lot creation in SPAs to minimize risks to life and property. Approving these consents would contravene these policies.

Subdivision Criteria (Section 51(24))

Effect on Provincial Interests (Section 51(24)(a))

44The PPS 2005 and PPS 2020 consistently prohibit new lot creation in floodplains and SPAs. The proposed consents conflict with these policies.

Conformity with Official Plans (Section 51(24)(c))

45The applications do not conform to the 2010 OP, OPA 129, or the 1994 York Region Official Plan (“1994 YROP”), all of which prohibit new development in hazard lands.

Conservation and Flood Control (Section 51(24)(h))

46The proposed consents fail to demonstrate appropriate regard for flood control and natural resource conservation.

47The Tribunal heard the proposed consents are inconsistent with the Act, the PPS 2005 and PPS 2020, and applicable Official Plans. They do not protect ecological systems, public safety, or municipal financial interests and should not be approved under either the current or historical planning frameworks.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

48The Tribunal reviewed Applications B041/07 and B043/07 against the PPS 2020.

Policies 3.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.4

49The PPS 2020 prohibits development and site alteration within floodways and limits development in SPAs to circumstances approved by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (“MMAH”) and MNRF.

50SPAs are not intended for new or intensified development where opportunities exist outside the floodplain. The PPS 2020 definition of “development” includes new lot creation, making the proposed consents inconsistent with PPS 2020 policy. Ample development opportunities exist outside flood hazard areas within designated Centres and Corridors.

Policy 3.1.7

51Development in hazardous lands must ensure safe access and egress during flooding and avoid creating or aggravating hazards. The only access to the proposed lots is via Sylvan Crescent, which the 2017 RJR identifies as inaccessible during flooding. Flood depths during a Regulatory Storm Event would prevent safe access, meaning the applications fail to meet PPS 2020 requirements.

52The Tribunal heard the proposed consents conflict with PPS 2020 policies by introducing new lots within a floodplain SPA, where safe access cannot be achieved. Applications B041/07 and B043/07 do not satisfy provincial standards for hazard mitigation and public safety.

Growth Plan

53The Tribunal reviewed the Applications B041/07 and B043/07 against the Growth Plan.

Growth Plan Direction

54The Growth Plan explicitly directs growth away from hazardous areas, including SPA) that encompass lands within flooding hazard limits. It does not require SPA development to exceed what is permitted to achieve minimum intensification or density targets.

Non-Conformity

55The proposed consents represent intensification within the SPA, which is contrary to the Growth Plan’s objectives of protecting public safety and directing growth to appropriate locations.

56The Tribunal heard the applications do not conform to the Growth Plan and conflict with its core principle of avoiding development in hazardous lands.

York Region Official Plans

57The Tribunal reviewed Applications B041/07 and B043/07 against the YROPs.

2010 York Region Official Plan (Policies 2.3.22, 2.3.23, 2.3.25, and2.3.26)

58The 2010 YROP directs development away from hazardous lands and requires provincial approval for SPAs before regional approval. It prohibits new lot creation in floodplains and hazardous sites. The definition of “Special Policy Area” expressly excludes new lot creation. Since the subject property lies within the Regulatory Floodplain and SPA, the proposed consents conflict with these policies and are prohibited under the 2010 YROP.

2022 York Region Official Plan (Policies 3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, and 3.5.7)

59The updated 2022 YROP maintains the same hazard policies as the 2010 version, continuing to prohibit new lot creation in SPAs and requiring provincial approval for SPA changes. The proposed consents remain inconsistent with the 2022 YROP, which reinforces prohibitions on development within hazardous lands and SPAs.

60The Tribunal heard that both YROPs prohibit new lot creation within SPAs and floodplains. The proposed consents for the subject property do not conform to regional policy and should not be approved.

City of Richmond Hill 2010 Official Plan

61The Tribunal reviewed Applications B041/07 and B043/07 against the 2010 OP.

Policy Conflict

62The proposed consents would create two new lots within hazardous lands and the Lake Wilcox SPA, as confirmed by updated floodplain mapping in the 2017 RJR, and by OPA 22.

63Applications B041/07 and B043/07 directly conflict with Policies 3.2.2.3(6) and 3.2.2.4(7) of the 2010 OP, which prohibit new lot creation in floodplains and SPAs.

64The Tribunal heard the proposed consents do not conform to the 2010 OP and violate policies intended to protect public safety and manage flood hazards. Approval would be inconsistent with municipal planning objectives and provincial requirements.

Living City Policies Planning and Development in the Watershed of the TRCA

65The Tribunal reviewed the proposed consent applications against the TRCA’s Living City Policies, specifically Sections 7.3.1.3 and 7.5.2.4. Key findings are noted below.

Policy Conflict

66These policies explicitly prohibit lot creation within flood hazard areas and in locations that would be inaccessible during a flood event. The proposed lots fall entirely within the Regulatory Floodplain, as confirmed by updated mapping and the 2017 RJR.

Risk Implications

67Creating two new lots within the flood hazard would significantly increase risks to life and property. It would introduce additional homes and families into an area where safe access during flood events cannot be achieved, contrary to TRCA’s hazard management principles.

68The Tribunal heard that the proposed consents do not conform to TRCA’s Living City Policies and would exacerbate flood-related risks, making them inconsistent with regional hazard mitigation objectives.

Opinion Summary

69The proposed consents fail to demonstrate appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, including the protection of public health and safety. They are inconsistent with PPS 2020, including PPS 2005, and do not conform to the Growth Plan. Similarly, Applications B041/07 and B043/07 do not align with the YROPs, or the 1994 YROP. Furthermore, they conflict with the 2010 OP, as amended by OPA 22, and OPA 129.

70In summary, the proposed consents do not represent good planning and are not in the public interest.

TRCA’s ENGINEERING EVIDENCE

71Mr. Hipple provided the following evidence and opinions.

Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area

72The study area lies within the headwaters of the Humber River watershed, specifically the Lake Wilcox sub-watershed, which is a Regulatory Floodplain under TRCA jurisdiction and designated as a SPA.

73In 2012, the TRCA retained R.J. Burnside and Associates Limited (“RJBAL”), a recognized engineering and environmental consulting firm, to update floodplain mapping for the Lake Wilcox SPA. This work was finalized in 2014 through the “Summary Report for Digital Floodplain Mapping for the East Humber River within the Town of Richmond Hill” (“Floodplain Report”).

74The Floodplain Report utilized industry-standard hydraulic and hydrologic modeling tools, including Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (“HEC-RAS”) and Personal Computer Storm Water Management Model (“PCSWMM”) tools, to define floodplain limits, depths, and flow velocities for the Regulatory Storm Event (Hurricane Hazel, 1:500). These technical outputs formed the basis for the TRCA’s flood hazard delineation and were integral to the preparation of OPA 22 by the City.

75The Floodplain Report provides authoritative, defensible data for flood hazard management and land use planning decisions, ensuring compliance with provincial and municipal requirements.

Key Floodplain Data from the Floodplain Report

Upstream Drainage Area

76Regarding upstream drainage, there is approximately 563 ha draining into Lake Wilcox. This includes residential lots, natural areas, and Lake Wilcox.

Peak Flow Rate

77Peak flow rate was calculated at 69.07 metres cubed per second (“m³/s”) for the Regulatory Storm Event (Hurricane Hazel, 1954).

78This rate was derived using the PCSWMM, which accounts for rainfall, imperviousness, soil type, and slope.

Flood Hazard Modeling

79The HEC-RAS was used to compute water surface elevations.

80The resulting elevation near Lake Wilcox and tributary was calculated at approximately 296.31 masl.

81Lake Wilcox drains west through the Lake Wilcox Channel toward Yonge Street, and ultimately to the East Humber River. The upstream drainage area to Yonge Street is approximately 694 ha, generating a peak flow of 83.02 m³/s during the Regulatory Storm Event (Hurricane Hazel, 1:500), as established in the Floodplain Report and through PCSWMM modeling. These figures formed the technical basis for the flood hazard delineation supporting OPA 22.

82In 2018, the TRCA completed the Humber River Hydrology Update, revising peak flow values using the Visual OTTHYMO (“VO”) model at a watershed scale. The update concluded that peak flows were lower than those reported in the 2014 study. Subsequently, in 2019, TRCA updated Humber River flood line mapping using the HEC-RAS model.

83The Lake Wilcox SPA was not included in this hydraulic update because its regulation limit had already been approved by TRCA, the City, and provincial authorities (MNRF and MMAH). Updating flood lines in this area would require reopening the SPA review process and obtaining renewed provincial approvals.

84The existing regulation limit for the Lake Wilcox SPA remains valid and enforceable, and any changes would necessitate a formal SPA review and provincial approval process.

Subject Property Flood Hazard

85Based on TRCA’s floodplain mapping, computer modeling, and laser imaging, detection, and ranging (“LiDAR”) topographic data, the following applies to the subject property during the Regulatory Storm Event:

Flood Depths

86On the subject property, depths range from approximately 1.31 m to 0.31 m, with the westerly side varying between 0.81 m and 0.31 m, and a small area elevated above the floodplain.

87On the Sylvan Crescent right-of-way, depths range from 1.31 m in front of the subject property’s entrance to about 0.31 m along the western section of the roadway.

88On Lakeland Crescent (at the Sylvan Crescent connection), depths range from 1.31 m to 0.81 m.

Flood Velocities

89Flood velocities were calculated at approximately 0.04 metres per second (“m/s”), indicating very slow movement and a backwater condition across the subject property.

90The 2002 MNR Technical Guide: River and Stream Systems – Flooding Hazard Limit (“MNR Technical Guide”) outlines public safety considerations related to flood hazards:

Low-Risk Threshold

91There is a reasonable approximation of low risk that occurs when the depth multiplied by the velocity produced is less than 0.4 metres squared per second (“m²/s”), provided that depth does not exceed 0.8 m and velocity does not exceed 1.7 m/s.

Vehicle Passage

92Most private vehicles can traverse flood depths of 0.3 m to 0.4 m before egress issues arise due to flooding impacting exhaust systems and electrical components.

Emergency Vehicles

93These generally face similar constraints as private vehicles, except for specially equipped diesel fire trucks with top exhaust systems, which can handle flood depths of 0.9 m to 1.2 m.

Conclusions

94Based on TRCA floodplain and topographic data for the subject property, combined with the MNR Technical Guide flood risk criteria, the following conclusions can be drawn.

On-Site Flood Risk

95Flood depths on the subject property range from 0.31 m to 0.81 m. Portions exceeding 0.8 m fall into a high-risk category while most of the subject property would be considered low-risk.

Roadway Flood Risk

96Flood depths on Sylvan Crescent and Lakeland Crescent range from 0.81 m to 1.31 m, exceeding safe limits for pedestrian movement and posing high risk for most individuals.

Vehicular Access

97These depths surpass the tolerances for most private and emergency vehicles, meaning the location lacks safe vehicular access for residents and emergency services (fire, police, and ambulance).

98Mr. Hipple opined that this location is not suitable for further development as it lies within the Regulatory Floodplain and lacks safe access or egress for pedestrians, private vehicles, and emergency services.

APPELANT’S ENGINEERING EVIDENCE

99Mr. Greck provided the following evidence and opinions.

100The Tribunal heard that, following a detailed review and reassessment, the current Regulatory Floodplain for the Lake Wilcox SPA is overly conservative and no longer appropriate.

Findings of Appellant’s Engineering Evidence

Recommended Flood Elevation Adjustment

101The analysis indicates the floodplain upstream of Yonge Street should be regulated to an elevation approximately 1.53–1.84 m lower than the existing official mapping (from 296.33 m to 294.49–294.80 m). This reduction is supported by improved modeling techniques and a more accurate understanding of local hydrology, hydraulics, and topography.

Enhanced Methodology

102The revised approach incorporates more frequent return events, historically overlooked, but critical for SPA considerations. Implementing this adjustment would reduce flood risk to acceptable levels under provincial guidelines and enable development opportunities.

Technical Review

103Previous reports, including the Humber River Hydraulic Model (“Burnside Hydraulic Model”) and Hydrologic Model (CIVICA, 2018), were analyzed.

Key Observations

104The Burnside Hydraulic Model begins at the Lake Wilcox Dam and includes approximately 500 m of channel functioning as a wetland rather than a defined watercourse.

105The modeled channel’s slope does not accurately reflect actual upstream topography.

Floodplain Size Disparity

106Upstream averages 630 metres squared (m²”) against 31 m² downstream, indicating a 95% difference in area, suggesting backwater effects result from natural channel constriction, not the Yonge Street crossing.

Minimal Impact of Yonge Street Bridge

107Removing the crossing from the Burnside Hydraulic Model results in negligible change, confirming structural improvements would not significantly reduce flooding. The main constraint lies in downstream channel configuration and landform.

108The Tribunal heard that the evidence supports revising the regulatory flood elevation for the Lake Wilcox SPA to reflect updated science and reduce unnecessary restrictions, while maintaining public safety.

Assessment of Upstream Storage and Hydraulic Behaviour Near Yonge Street

109A comprehensive assessment of upstream storage potential and hydraulic behaviour near Yonge Street was conducted using 2014 LiDAR data, Geographic Information System analysis, and advanced hydrologic/hydraulic modeling.

Findings

Elevation-Storage Curve

110LiDAR-derived data confirms substantial upstream storage capacity, closely matching the TRCA’s Lake Wilcox stage-storage relationship. Volumes were calculated at 25 centimetre intervals, excluding sub-water volumes.

Theoretical Bathtub Scenario

111Correlating runoff volumes from major storm events with the storage curve shows that even under conservative assumptions (no outlet), flood elevations remain below the TRCA’s current regulatory flood line. For example, during a Regulatory Storm Event, elevation would reach 295.57 m, which is 0.76 m lower than the current regulatory flood line (296.33 m).

Route Reservoir Modeling

112Incorporating reservoir routing into the hydrology model demonstrates that maximum storage utilized never exceeded 50 ha-m. Flood elevations for Regional, 1:500, and 1:350-year events remain below critical thresholds, ensuring safe access to the subject property per MNR Technical Guide guidelines.

Key Implications

113Upstream flood storage is a critical and underutilized component of flood mitigation.

114Backwater effects attributed to Yonge Street are overstated, as upstream low-lying areas fill before any downstream backwater influence occurs.

115Structural improvements to the Yonge Street crossing offer negligible benefit compared to strategies leveraging upstream storage.

116The Tribunal heard, following a comprehensive flood risk analysis, the methodology, and results have been thoroughly validated.

Assessment Conclusions

Recommended Flood Elevations

117The Regulatory Floodplain throughout Lake Wilcox SPA, particularly upstream of Yonge Street and the subject property, should be regulated to a newly calculated regional flood elevation of 294.80 m or the 1:500-year flood elevation of 294.49 m. Both elevations are lower than the property’s topography and provide safe access.

Justification for 1:500-Year Regulation

118Regulating to the 1:500-year return event is appropriate within a SPA. The TRCA and other agencies routinely assess these scenarios to evaluate risk and appropriateness.

Hypothetical Bathtub Assessment

119Under a conservative assumption of no outlet beyond Yonge Street, flood elevations significantly decrease when considering upstream storage alone.

120Mr. Greck opined that the analysis strongly indicates that current regulatory flood lines are overstated. Both the Regional and 1:500-year flood elevations provide safe access and support development within the SPA, reinforcing the feasibility of future development.

APPELLANT’S PLANNING EVIDENCE

121Mr. Mannett provided the following evidence and opinions.

Lake Wilcox Special Policy Area

122The Tribunal heard the Appellant’s lands are located within the Lake Wilcox SPA, and additional lot creation should be permitted on the subject property. The approach to enabling this can be determined based on findings from evidence presented regarding whether the subject property is within the Regulatory Floodplain and/or subject to flood risk and flood-proofing requirements.

123Currently, Policy 2.2.5(3)(c) does not permit Additional Residential Units (“ARUs”) within the Lake Wilcox SPA. To allow ARUs on the subject property, the subject property would need to be exempted from this policy, or alternatively, the policy should be deleted.

Official Plan Amendment No. 22

124The Tribunal heard OPA 22 unnecessarily sterilizes urban residential land on and along Sylvan Crescent, resulting in land waste and disorderly development. This outcome is contrary to ss. 2(g), 2(h), and 2(j) of the Act.

125The Tribunal further heard the excessive sterilization of serviced and developable land is not consistent with the housing policies of the PPS 2020, including Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.3(b–f), and 1.7.1(b), and that it fails to conform to the Growth Plan, incorporating housing Policies 2.2.6(1) and (2).

126These Policies emphasize optimizing the use of existing serviced land, supporting intensification, and providing a range and mix of housing options to meet current and future needs. Restricting development on the subject property undermines these objectives and contributes to inefficient growth patterns.

By-law No. 64-21

127The technical work underlying Bylaw 64-21, OPA 22, and the 2017 RJR, including any associated floodplain modeling and mapping, is questionable.

128According to the findings of Mr. Greck’s report (September 27, 2023):

• The floodplain analysis and mapping referenced in these documents were not carried out by staff of the TRCA or the City; and

• The methodology and technical basis for determining floodplain extent and flood risk in the vicinity of Sylvan Crescent lacks proper validation and transparency.

129Based on Mr. Greck’s report’s findings, 83 Sylvan Crescent is not located within a floodplain.

130These findings raise concerns about the appropriateness and accuracy of the technical work supporting the planning instruments and Ministerial approvals related to the Lake Wilcox SPA and associated policies.

Consent Applications – 83 Sylvan Crescent

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

131The Tribunal was informed the proposed consents for lot creation have appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act, including ss. 2(a), 2(h), 2(l), 2(o), and 2(p), and more specifically:

• The consents align with provincial policy for settlement area lands, ensuring orderly development and efficient land use;

• There are no issues of public health and safety associated with the proposed consents. The location for the new lots and related dwellings is an appropriate area for growth and development;

• The subject property is not within hazardous lands or sites and are not subject to flood risk, as confirmed by the Mr. Greck’s report;

• Existing servicing laterals for sewer and water have been in place along this portion of Sylvan Crescent since the early 1990s, ensuring efficient and cost-effective servicing; and

• The proposed consent support orderly development within a settlement area, and are consistent with provincial and municipal planning objectives.

132The proposed lots represent a safe, serviced, and suitable location for residential growth and implement provincial policy and demonstrate appropriate regard for the enumerated matters under s. 2 of the Act.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

133The proposed consents are consistent with the relevant policies of the PPS 2020, including the natural hazard policies under Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.4, and the definition of “Special Policy Area”, and more specifically:

• The subject property is not located within areas identified as hazardous lands under PPS 2020 Policies 3.1.2 and 3.1.4;

• The subject property is outside any designated SPA and are not subject to flood-related constraints; and

• The proposed consents align with PPS 2020 objectives for safe development and risk avoidance, ensuring compliance with provincial natural hazard policies.

134The proposed consents are consistent with the PPS 2020 natural hazard policies and do not conflict with the definition or intent of SPAs.

Growth Plan

135The proposed consents conform with the policies of Growth Plan, particularly Policies 2.1, 2.2, and 5.2.5, and more specifically:

• These Policies establish broad objectives for managing growth, supporting complete communities, and coordinating infrastructure planning;

• The proposed lots and related developments are consistent with these objectives, as they occur within a settlement area, utilize existing infrastructure, and promote efficient land use; and

• No conflicts arise with Growth Plan principles for environmental protection, natural hazards, or intensification targets.

136The proposed consents conform to the Growth Plan Policies, which are general in nature and fully compatible with the proposed developments.

2010 York Region Official Plan

Natural Hazard Policies (2.3.22, 2.3.23, 2.3.25, and 2.3.26)

137The proposed consents conform with the 2010 YROP natural hazard Policies. The subject property is not within hazardous lands or hazardous sites, and therefore:

• No setbacks or buffers to hazardous lands are required;

• No lands need to be dedicated to a public agency for hazard protection;

• While Policy 2.3.25 notes an official plan update, the amendment is flawed as identified in the Mr. Greck’s report; and

• Policy 2.3.26 directs York Region to work with Conservation Authorities to update floodplain mapping, which remains an outstanding matter.

Housing Policies (3.5.1, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, and 3.5.7)

138The proposed consents also have appropriate regard for housing-related Policies as it:

• Supports updating the York Region Housing Needs Study (Policy 3.5.1);

• Permits lot development on the Salna lands, which contributes to maintaining an adequate region-wide housing supply (Policy 3.5.3);

• Requires local municipal plans and zoning to allow a mix and range of housing types and lot sizes. The proposed developments support this policy, whereas OPA 22 and By-law 64-21, based on flawed technical work, do not (Policy 3.5.4); and

• Policy 3.5.7 relates to Regional Centres and Key Development Areas and is not applicable to the subject property (Policy 3.5.7).

139The proposed consents conform with York Region’s natural hazard Policies and support housing objectives, while highlighting deficiencies in the basis for OPA 22 and By-law 64-21.

City of Richmond 2010 Official Plan

140The proposed consents generally conform with the 2010 OP, as amended by Official Plan Amendment 22 (OPA 22), including Policies 3.2.2.4(7) and 3.2.2.3(6), subject to the following considerations:

• If new lot creation within the Lake Wilcox SPA is permitted through the deletion or exemption of Policy 2.2.5.3(c), then compliance with Policy 3.2.2.4(7) can be achieved;

• Since the subject property is not on hazardous lands or hazardous sites, there is no conformity issue with respect to natural hazard Policies; and

• OPA 22 was approved by York Region and the MMAH and MNRF; however, its basis is flawed, as noted in the Mr. Greck’s report, particularly regarding floodplain mapping and SPA designation.

141With appropriate policy adjustments (removal or exemption of Policy 2.2.5.3(c)), the proposed consents would conform to the 2010 OP Policies, and no natural hazard constraints apply to the subject property.

Living City Policies Planning and Development in the Watershed of the TRCA

142The proposed consents demonstrate appropriate regard for TRCA’s Living City Policies, particularly:

• Policy 7.3.1.3 (Natural Hazards): The subject property is not located within a natural hazard area, and therefore no hazard-related constraints apply; and

• Policy 7.5.2.4 (Zoning By-laws, Draft Plans, Severances/Consents): If new lot creation within the SPA is permitted, the new By-law 64-21 would govern the proposed use and establish regulations for how new dwellings can be constructed on the newly created lots.

143Applications B041/07 and B043/07 respect the TRCA’s Living City Policies, as the subject property is outside natural hazard areas and the proposed development would conform to applicable zoning regulations if SPA-related policy adjustments are made.

144The Tribunal was informed the proposed consents will not create new or increase risk to human life or property as a result of the existing Regulatory Floodplain. Key considerations include:

• The current Regulatory Floodplain mapping is incorrect and not based on sound science, as identified in the Mr. Greck’s report;

• Mr. Greck’s analysis demonstrates that the existing Regulatory Floodplain elevation is over 1 m too high, meaning the subject property is not within a true flood hazard area; and

• Consequently, the proposed developments does not introduce additional risk and are consistent with principles of public safety and hazard avoidance.

145There is no increased risk to human life or property associated with the proposed consents, given the flawed basis of the current floodplain mapping and the corrected technical findings.

146Further, there is insufficient evidence from TRCA or the City to support the floodplain assumptions underlying applicable policies.

147Mr. Greck’ report demonstrates that TRCA’s third-party external consultants miscalculated the extent of the floodplain.

148Neither the TRCA nor the City performed independent floodplain modeling or calculations, and neither has in-house expertise to do so.

149No technical work was completed by TRCA or City staff, and reliance was placed on flawed external assumptions.

150Applications B041/07 and B043/07 are supported by credible technical evidence (Mr. Greck’s report), whereas the TRCA’s position lacks sufficient scientific basis. The matter of policy compliance and hazard determination will ultimately be resolved by the Tribunal.

Opinion Summary

151The technical basis for the Lake Wilcox SPA, the associated OPA 22, and By-law 64-21, specifically related to the floodplain upon which they are based, is flawed.

152Based on the technical evidence provided by Mr. Greck, the subject property is not impacted by a floodplain, are not hazard lands, and are developable lands that can be safely accessed via a public road.

153The creation of additional residential lots is appropriate for the further development of the subject property, as proposed by the Applications B041/07 and B043/07, which should be approved.

154Furthermore, OPA 22 should be revised to permit ARUs on the subject property by providing a site-specific exemption for the subject property to Policy 2.2.5.3(c) of the 2010 OP.

155The technical foundation for SPA designation and related planning instruments is unsound. The subject property is suitable for development, and policy adjustments should be made to enable lot creation and additional residential units.

ANALYSIS

156In considering these appeals, the Tribunal must be satisfied, in its de novo review, that the proposed development and associated planning instruments:

1. Have regard to matters of provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act;

2. Are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), pursuant to s. 3(5)(a) of the Act;

3. Conform to the 2010 OP, with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment (ZBA), pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Act;

4. Have regard to relevant and applicable guidelines, including the City’s Urban Design Guidelines and TRCA’s Living City Policies; and

5. Have regard to the decision of City Council, as well as the information and material considered by City Council, pursuant to s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

157The Tribunal’s determination will hinge on whether the proposed consents and related instruments satisfy these statutory and policy requirements, supported by credible technical evidence and consistent with sound planning principles.

158When considering conformity with the 2010 OP, the Tribunal must interpret the 2010 OP in its entirety and apply a broad, purposive approach that advances its underlying policy objectives. The statutory tests of “having regard”, “consistent with”, and “conform to” represent a continuum of compliance, each requiring a different level of adherence. Of these, conformity with an official plan demands the highest standard of compliance.

159The Appellant carries the burden of proof and must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that all applicable statutory tests have been satisfied.

160The City and TRCA contend that the Appellant has not satisfied the statutory tests required to support the appeals. The Appellant disputes this position.

161The City and TRCA submit that, in 2012, RJBAL was retained to prepare the Floodplain Report for the Lake Wilcox and Humber Flats area. The Floodplain Report, including base mapping, modeling, and floodplain delineation, was reviewed by TRCA engineering staff to confirm compliance with the MNR Technical Guide. TRCA staff deemed the information appropriate, and it was adopted as the official floodplain mapping for the area, including the vicinity of Sylvan Crescent.

162This mapping formed the basis for the 2017 RJR and OPA 22. The 2017 RJR, floodplain mapping, and associated HEC-RAS and PCSWMM modeling were submitted to the Province of Ontario for review and approval, as part of the SPA process. Based on this mapping, the subject property is within the Regulatory Floodplain with a Regulatory Flood elevation of 296.31 m, while the site grades are 295.42 m – 296.02 m, thus rendering the entire subject property within the Regulatory Floodplain.

163The Appellant disputes the City’s submissions. The Appellant relies on Mr. Greck’s detailed flood risk analysis for the subject property and is confident in the accuracy of its methodology and results. The assessment indicates that the floodplain throughout the Lake Wilcox SPA, particularly upstream of Yonge Street and at the subject property, should be regulated to a recalculated Regional Flood elevation of 294.80 m, or alternatively, the 1:500-year flood elevation of 294.49 m.

164These revised flood elevations are lower than the existing subject property’s grades and provide safe access, confirming that the subject property is not within a flood hazard area.

165In Mr. Greck’s report, Mr. Greck indicated that his evaluation was based on information from several base mapping sources, including a survey provided by the landowner, Mr. Salna, which lacked the signature and stamp of a licensed Ontario Land Surveyor.

166He further notes that he confirmed this with his own survey, which was not included in his report, as well as data from Natural Resources Canada.

167However, the Appellant did not explain how these various basemaps were integrated into the analysis, nor did Mr. Greck’s report provide details on establishing a consistent standard, benchmark, or verification of appropriateness across the combined datasets.

168The Tribunal is of the opinion that such base mapping must meet the requirements of the MNR Technical Guide and the 2017 Technical Guide for Flood Hazard Mapping. In this case, no justification was provided to confirm that these standards were met.

169By contrast, the TRCA base mapping used in the Lake Wilcox SPA reports is a consistent dataset that complies with the MNR Technical Guide.

170The Tribunal contends that the Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the base mapping utilized in support of the Mr. Greck’s report is acceptable for consideration at this time.

Findings

Tribunal’s Rationale for Upholding Official Plan Amendment 22 and By-law No. 64-21

171The Tribunal finds that OPA 22 and By-law 64-21 are the result of a comprehensive, multi-year planning process undertaken to address land use and natural hazard considerations within the Lake Wilcox SPA. This process included detailed technical studies such as hydrological modeling, floodplain mapping, and risk assessments prepared by the City, the TRCA, and qualified third-party consultants.

172OPA 22 ensures conformity with provincial directives governing development in hazardous lands. Policy 3.1 of the PPS 2020 prohibits new lot creation within SPAs and directs municipalities to manage flood risk through appropriate land use planning. The Tribunal accepts that OPA 22 reflects this policy direction by prohibiting new lot creation within the Lake Wilcox SPA and by revising SPA boundaries based on updated technical data.

173By-law 64-21 fully conforms to the applicable provincial, regional, and municipal planning frameworks. It demonstrates appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest and is consistent with PPS 2020. By-law 64-21 aligns with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and conforms to both the 2010 OP and the YROP. Furthermore, it is consistent with the Growth Plan, the YROPs, and maintains the intent and principles of the 2010 OP, as amended.

174This conformity ensures that By-law 64-21 supports the overarching objectives of provincial and municipal policy, including environmental protection, growth management, and hazard mitigation.

Compliance with Provincial Policy

175The Tribunal accepts the evidence that the methodologies employed in delineating the SPA boundary and Regulatory Floodplain were consistent with provincial standards and TRCA guidelines. Policy 3.1.4(a) of the PPS 2020 requires that any adjustment to SPA boundaries be supported by appropriate technical studies and approved by the MMAH, in consultation with the MNRF.

176The City’s evidence confirms that this requirement was met.

Multi-Level Review and Approval

177OPA 22 and By-law 64-21 were reviewed and endorsed by multiple levels of government, including:

• The City;

• The TRCA;

• York Region;

• The MMAH; and

• The MNRF.

178This multi-agency review process ensured that the SPA boundary and associated policies reflect a coordinated approach to hazard management and land use planning.

Technical Evidence Presented

179The Tribunal heard expert testimony confirming that:

• The floodplain modeling and mapping used to define the SPA were based on the most current hydrological data available at the time of approval.

• The expanded SPA boundary appropriately captures lands subject to flood risk, including areas adjacent to Lake Wilcox and its outlet channel.

• The policies embedded in OPA 22 and By-law No. 64-21 are designed to prevent new lot creation within hazardous lands, consistent with Policy 3.1 of the PPS 2020 and TRCA’s Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program.

180The Tribunal accepts that the methodologies employed in the preparation of floodplain mapping and hazard delineation were consistent with established provincial and conservation authority standards. The evidence demonstrates that the revised SPA boundary and associated land use policies were informed by best practices in flood risk management and reflect a coordinated approach to balancing development objectives with public safety and environmental protection.

Consent Applications

181The Tribunal finds that the proposed severances are inconsistent with the PPS 2005, do not conform to TRCA policies under the VSCMP, and fail to meet the requirements of s. 53 of the Act. The evidence demonstrates that the subject property and proposed lots are located within the Regulatory Floodplain, which constitutes hazardous lands under Policy 3.1 of the PPS 2005.

182Approval of the severances would result in development that is contrary to established provincial and conservation authority policies intended to protect public safety and environmental integrity.

Conclusion

183The Tribunal concludes that OPA 22 and By-law 64-21 are grounded in sound planning principles, supported by robust technical analysis, and consistent with provincial policy direction set out in the PPS 2020. These instruments appropriately balance development objectives with public safety and environmental protection.

184Accordingly, the Tribunal upholds OPA 22 and By-law 64-21.

Order

185THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is dismissed and Amendment No. 22 to the Official Plan for the City of Richmond Hill is approved.

186THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal against By-law No. 64-21 of the City of Richmond Hill is dismissed.

187THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals for Consent B041/07 and B043/07 are dismissed.

“Carmine Tucci”

CARMINE TUCCI

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.