Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004652

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S): March 18, 2025

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE: July 29, 2025

RE: Wedgewood Columbus Limited v. Vaughan

Correction to: the professional designation of the City’s Urban Design witness (in the Table following paragraph [9])

Originally: Chrisoula Assimopoulos, OAA

Corrected to: Chrisoula Assimopoulos, MRAIC

“Matthew D.J. Bryan” MATTHEW D.J. BRYAN REGISTRAR 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.

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 18, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004652

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wedgewood Columbus Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: proposes to redesignate the Site to High-Rise Mixed-Use to permit the proposed maximum height of 51 storeys and the proposed density of 11.1 FSI Reference Number: OP 19.015 Property Address: 7887 Weston Road Municipality/UT: City of Vaughan/York Region OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004652 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004652 OLT Case Name: Wedgewood Columbus Limited v. Vaughan

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wedgewood Columbus Limited Subject: to amend Zoning By-law 1-88 Description: to rezone the Subject Lands from “C7 Service Commercial Zone”, subject to site-specific Exception 9(754B) by Zoning By-law 1-88 with site-specific zoning exceptions to permit the development Reference Number: Z.19.039 Property Address: 7887 Weston Road Municipality/UT: City of Vaughan/York Region OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004653 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004652 OLT Case Name: Wedgewood Columbus Limited v. Vaughan

Heard: January 13 to 29, 2025 by video hearing and written submissions ending February 12, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Wedgewood Columbus Limited (“Applicant”/“Appellant”)	C. Tanzola M. Cara
City of Vaughan (“City”/“Vaughan”)	A. Baker J. Lesage
Regional Municipality of York (“Region”)	R. Kehar N. Gunawardana
Home Depot of Canada Inc. (“Home Depot”)	J. White D. Tang (in absentia)

INTERIM DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to the Order

INTRODUCTION

1In pursuit of many principles that comprise good planning, Vaughan is enabling housing intensification in specified areas. This case addresses the fundamental issues that often accompany “building up” as favoured over “building out.” Here, the Applicant is enabled to proceed with an intensive, mixed-use development that will increase transit ridership and active transportation which outweigh the relatively minimal effects on existing traffic conditions.

2The Applicant seeks planning approvals to establish a high-rise, mixed-use residential development at 7887 Weston Road in Vaughan (“site”) comprising four towers rising from two podiums with street-front commercial space and a total of 2,339 apartment units.

3The Parties agreed to a phased Hearing whereby the appealed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) applications would be considered in Phase 1, and if approved in principle by the Tribunal, the Phase 2 Hearing would address the associated site-specific issues of the neighbouring Home Depot, along with the final form of the OPA and ZBA.

4Numerical references used in this Decision are often rounded for ease of reference.

PARTY and PARTICIPANT POSITIONS

5Anna Zeppieri, a resident nearby this site, filed a Participant Statement identifying concerns for how this development will meet the Province, Region and City’s plans for this area regarding density, walkability, transit, road impacts, public service facilities, and neighbouring intensification proposals. These issues are central to this case, as fully addressed by the Parties’ submissions and evidence.

6The Applicant seeks the Tribunal’s approval in principle for the OPA and ZBA to allow the revised proposal with its reduced podium height, reduced tower heights, and its progressive, substantially reduced parking ratio, along with several other Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) measures. With the Weston Road – Highway 7 (“Weston 7”) draft Secondary Plan (“SP”) underway for years, still not adopted and continuing to evolve, the Applicant argues that its development helps answer the Provincial mandate for housing, given the site’s location within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”), proximity to transit, the efficient use of road and infrastructure capacity, and in pursuit of a complete community that is compatible with its existing and future surroundings.

7The City responds that both existing and future transportation and infrastructure constraints for the Weston 7 area require a cap on population, and thus, the scale or intensity of development should be reduced. While the SP is not in effect, the traffic and infrastructure studies upon which it relies, confirm the area’s constraints for transportation and servicing. The several applications filed within the SP area warrant a coordinated approach to growth management. The City argues that this site’s proposal would maximize, not optimize, development relative to the intensification goals for the Weston 7 PMTSA. Density is a primary issue that must be balanced with the availability of infrastructure. The City requests that the appeals be dismissed, but does not oppose an OPA and ZBA that aligns with the draft Weston 7 SP, including maximum densities, tower heights, land use mix, and Holding (“H”) provisions.

8Aligned with the City, the Region underscores the Transportation Master Plan (“TMP”) that includes its Regional Roads of Weston Road (“Weston”) and Highway 7 (“Hwy 7” or “7”) where both background traffic and new traffic will grow over time. An interim cap on people and jobs is necessary until substantial infrastructure improvements are achieved, including Highway 400 (“Hwy 400”) overpasses for vehicles and active transportation, widened roads, and pedestrian/cycling routes. As such, density should be allocated across the affected area rather than allocated to “who comes first.” The Region asks that the Applicant’s proposal be rejected and that the Tribunal approve in principle the City’s request. Such Decision would enable the Applicant to revise its proposed development for further consideration at the Phase 2 Hearing.

Evidence

9The Tribunal heard thorough and detailed evidence from 11 witnesses, all of whom were qualified to provide opinion evidence in their field of expertise, as displayed below.

Area of Expertise	Applicant	City
Urban Design	Anne McIlroy, RPP	Chrisoula Assimopoulos, MRAIC
Transportation	Steven Krossey, P.Eng.	Christopher Tam, P.Eng. Paul Grove, RPP
Servicing	Patrick Turner, P.Eng.	Nadia Porukova, P.Eng.
Land Economics	Rowan Faludi, PLE, RPP
Land Use Planning	Antonio Volpentesta, RPP	Margaret Holyday, RPP Ronnald Palmer, RPP

10The Region had planned to call Shahid Matloob, P.Eng., on transportation issues but advised during the Hearing that the City’s transportation witnesses had covered all pertinent information and recommendations such that Mr. Matloob’s evidence would be duplicative. Mr. Matloob was not called and the Tribunal has not relied upon his written evidence that remained in the Exhibits.

CONTEXTUAL FACTS

11From the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal finds the following background information to not be in dispute and to “set the stage” for the fundamental issues of traffic volume, sanitary sewer capacity, built form compatibility, mix of uses, and Holding (“H”) provisions.

12To the northwest of the interchange of Highways 400 and 407, this 1.6 hectare site fronts onto Weston to the west, Chrislea Road (“Chrislea”) to the north, and Northview Boulevard (“Northview”) to the south. Along the site’s east boundary, the site provides an access lane via easement in favour of the abutting Home Depot store.

13The Applicant proposes a 6-storey podium for each of the north and south halves of the site, separated by a central, east-west pedestrian/amenity area. The towers would step down from south to north, being 49 and 46 storeys on the south half, to 39 and 36 storeys on the north half, as illustrated in the following rendering (Ex. 3.1b, p. 49). The buildings would provide 2,339 apartment units, including 136 live-work units, 2,564 square metres (“sq m”) of ground floor retail/commercial space, and a 10.8 Floor Space Index (“FSI”). The site’s below-grade parking would engage a low parking ratio of 0.4 spaces/unit, such that only 40% of apartment units will have a parking space.

14The site is a comfortable walk of 200 to 250 metres (“m”) to the Weston 7 Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) station and to the pedestrian/cycling path along Hwy 7 leading into the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre (“VMC”) and its TTC Subway Station (“Subway”).

15The Parties agree that this site: is and will be designated for mixed-use intensification; will improve the range and mix of housing within this existing “big box” retail area; and supports transit use and walking/cycling.

16Immediately surrounding the site are: to the south across Northview, the Centro Square (“Centro”) consisting of two mixed-use towers of 30 and 33 storeys with a 2-storey podium, and a 10-storey office building; to the east and west, large format retail buildings and plazas with extensive surface parking lots, on which intensification applications have been filed; to the northwest across Weston/Chrislea, a City Fire Hall behind which is a low-rise residential neighbourhood (“Ansley Grove”); and to the north across Chrislea, a car dealership, with industrial/commercial buildings extending northward on the east side of Weston within an extensive Employment Area.

17This site is within a Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMSTA”) as implemented under the Planning Act (“Act”) and is a Strategic Growth Area under the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”).

18Within the York Region Official Plan, 2010 (“ROP”), Hwy 7 is a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor and Weston is a Regional Transit Priority Network. Both Weston and 7 are Regional Major Arterial Roads. Centred around the Weston 7 intersection, with its BRT station, is the designated PMTSA. Hwy 7 contains a dedicated, separated pedestrian/cycling lane. The Subway station within the VMC is located 1.5 kilometres (“km”) east of the Weston 7 intersection.

19Within the Vaughan Official Plan, 2010 (“VOP”), this site is located within an Intensification Area categorized as a Primary Centre and a PMTSA, centred on the Weston 7 BRT station and the east-west BRT Corridor along Hwy 7. Hwy 400 separates this Primary Centre from the VMC to the east.

20The VOP designates this site as Mid-Rise Mixed-Use, permitting a height of 12 storeys. The latest draft SP for this area would designate the north half of the site as Mixed-Use I, permitting 18 storeys (and up to 25 storeys subject to criteria), and the south half of this site as Mixed-Use II, permitting 32 storeys (and up to 45 storeys subject to criteria).

21Key inputs to the draft SP are the City’s Transportation Master Plan (“TMP”) and Functional Servicing Strategy Report (“FSSR”) which recommend several parameters and infrastructure improvements to enable intensification to occur.

ISSUES and FINDINGS

22The Tribunal finds that it must first address two fundamental matters: whether this OPA and ZBA may be considered under the VOP policies for Secondary Plan (“SP”) areas; and the reliance to be placed on the draft Weston 7 SP. The Tribunal will then highlight key provincial and local planning policies, followed by analyzing the main issues in dispute: road capacity; sanitary sewer capacity; land use compatibility; office space; and cost sharing for infrastructure.

Amendments within a Secondary Plan Area

23The VOP identifies Weston 7 as a Key Development Area for which a Secondary Plan is required. VOP policy 10.1.1.6 does not permit an OPA and ZBA within a SP area until the SP is adopted. However, policy 10.1.1.13 provides an exception where City Council may direct staff to process an application in advance of a SP subject to the necessary steps to achieve a complete application.

24This case arises from the Applicant’s appeals to the Tribunal on the absence of a City decision for the OPA and ZBA. The Tribunal heard that, despite a Weston 7 SP not being adopted yet, the City had processed the Applicant’s OPA and ZBA applications as a result of a detailed iterative process including pre-consultation, additional studies and revised applications, and declaring the applications complete.

25The City acknowledges that it did not pursue a Motion to Dismiss these appeals and that it was prepared to address the merits of the OPA and ZBA. Oral evidence confirmed that, under these VOP policies, the City has processed and approved several applications in various SP areas in advance of a relevant SP being adopted. Ms. Holyday for the City agrees that the VOP does not impose an absolute prohibition to considering an OPA and ZBA.

26On this basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that the process herein conforms with the intention and practice of addressing applications within SP areas as set out in the VOP.

Weston 7 Draft Secondary Plan

27Connected to the above finding, this case involves multiple and repeated references to the contents of the draft SP. As a point in law, the Tribunal must emphasize that the draft SP is just that – draft. It is not adopted, not in force, and may not even be finalized. As such, the Tribunal weighs the draft SP relevance as a potential direction in which the City intends to go, but cannot and will not base a Decision here on possible, proposed, draft policies.

28However, the studies and conclusions of the TMP and the FSSR, upon which the draft SP relies, are relevant and useful for this case. Traffic and sanitary services are main issues arising from this site’s proposed intensity, for which the TMP and FSSR help answer how best to proceed.

29The Tribunal accepts the City and Region’s reference to draft SP policies as illustrations of what may flow from the anticipated transportation and infrastructure needs, but the Tribunal agrees with the Applicant that a Decision must rest on the in-force policy regime.

Key Policies

30Of interest in this case is the relative absence of disagreement among the Parties on the policy directions to be followed. On the Parties’ submissions and the planners’ evidence, the Tribunal accepts that a range of possible outcomes may be interpreted from and enabled by a policy, where, for example, the City may reasonably prefer a lower density, where the Applicant reasonably seeks a higher density. Both positions could be found in general conformity with the policy. This case rests on specific details.

31The Tribunal finds that the following provisions and policies highlight and summarize the matters to be considered, and upon which themes the Tribunal bases its findings. The Tribunal’s Decision on the Applicant’s OPA and ZBA must be based on: regard to s. 2 of the Act; consistency with the PPS; conformity with the ROP; general regard for the VOP regarding the OPA; and conformity with the VOP, as amended by the OPA, for the ZBA.

32Highlights are added in the following excerpts to emphasize provisions/policies of particular relevance to this Decision.

33The provincial interests in the Act s. 2 include:

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of … transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians;

(r) the promotion of built form that,

(i) is well-designed,

(ii) encourages a sense of place, and

(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant;

34The PPS directs, in several policies, that residential intensification be permitted to meet housing needs, including on underutilized sites such as plazas, to efficiently use land and infrastructure, to support active transportation, and to support transit, all in pursuit of complete communities (e.g., policies 2.2 Housing, 2.3.1 Settlement Areas, and 2.4.1 Strategic Growth Areas). Policy 2.2.1.b) is quite specific and directly applicable to this appeal.

2.2 Housing

1. Planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected needs of current and future residents of the regional market area by:

b) permitting and facilitating:

2. all types of residential intensification, including the development and redevelopment of underutilized commercial and institutional sites (e.g., shopping malls and plazas) for residential use, development and introduction of new housing options within previously developed areas, and redevelopment, which results in a net increase in residential units in accordance with policy 2.3.1.3;

35Central to this case is policy 2.4.2 Major Transit Station Areas applicable to the Weston 7 area.

2.4.2 Major Transit Station Areas

1. Planning authorities shall delineate the boundaries of major transit station areas on higher order transit corridors through a new official plan or official plan amendment adopted under section 26 of the Planning Act. The delineation shall define an area within an approximately 500 to 800 metre radius of a transit station and that maximizes the number of potential transit users that are within walking distance of the station.

2. Within major transit station areas on higher order transit corridors, planning authorities shall plan for a minimum density target of: …

b) 160 residents and jobs combined per hectare for those that are served by light rail or bus rapid transit; …

3. Planning authorities are encouraged to promote development and intensification within major transit station areas, where appropriate, by:

a) planning for land uses and built form that supports the achievement of minimum density targets; and

b) supporting the redevelopment of surface parking lots within major transit station areas, including commuter parking lots, to be transit-supportive and promote complete communities.

6. All major transit station areas should be planned and designed to be transit-supportive and to achieve multimodal access to stations and connections to nearby major trip generators by providing, where feasible:

a) connections to local and regional transit services to support transit service integration;

b) infrastructure that accommodates a range of mobility needs and supports active transportation, including sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and secure bicycle parking; and

c) commuter pick-up/drop-off areas.

36The PPS Chapter 3: Infrastructure and Facilities provides direction on services and transportation systems, including as follows.

3.1 General Policies for Infrastructure and Public Service Facilities

1. Infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in an efficient manner while accommodating projected needs.

Planning for infrastructure and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning and growth management so that they:

a) are financially viable over their life cycle, which may be demonstrated through asset management planning;

b) leverage the capacity of development proponents, where appropriate; and

c) are available to meet current and projected needs.

2. Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities:

a) the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized; …

3.2 Transportation Systems

1. Transportation systems should be provided which are safe, energy efficient, facilitate the movement of people and goods, are appropriate to address projected needs, and support the use of zero- and low-emission vehicles.

2. Efficient use should be made of existing and planned infrastructure, including through the use of transportation demand management strategies, where feasible. …

3.6 Sewage, Water and Stormwater

1. Planning for sewage and water services shall:

a) accommodate forecasted growth in a timely manner that promotes the efficient use and optimization of existing municipal sewage services and municipal water services …

37The ROP directs a minimum of 40% of residential development to occur within the built-up area (policy 5.3.1) and to meet or exceed an intensification target for Vaughan of 29,300 residential units by 2031 (policy 5.3.3). Transit stops are to be located such that half of all City residents live within 200 m of a stop (policy 5.3.4). Intensification is to transition to adjacent built forms consistent with the Region’s Transit Oriented Development Guidelines and the Implementation Guidelines for Regional Centres and Corridors (policy 5.3.6).

38Aligned with the ROP, the VOP Goal 8 directs growth to intensification areas where 45% of residential growth will occur on just 3% of the land base:

Planning for the attractive, sustainable and prosperous city envisioned by this Plan will in large part be achieved by directing growth to appropriate locations that can support it. This means a shift in emphasis from the development of new communities in greenfield areas to the promotion of intensification in areas of the City with the infrastructure capacity and existing or planned transit service to accommodate growth.

This Plan provides an appropriate balance in this regard by accommodating 45% of new residential growth through intensification and the remainder within New Community Areas. Intensification Areas have been limited to 3% of the overall land base to protect existing Community Areas and Natural Areas. Similarly, employment growth is being accommodated through a balance of intensification within mixed-use centres and through new development in Employment Areas.

39The VOP policies pursue the above goal regarding intensification, active transportation, transit support, and complete communities. Policy 4.3.2.2 supports reduced parking requirements and policy 4.3.3 speaks to TDM strategies to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.

Transportation

40Mr. Grove for the City helpfully identifies the fundamental transportation question: “can this site proposal be supported by the road network?” The Tribunal finds that this case turns on this question of transportation.

41Having thoroughly considered all of the transportation evidence, the Tribunal finds that the answer is: yes, the existing road network will support this site’s development, albeit reaching or possibly slightly exceeding capacity in certain stretches and intersections. It is the support for, and reliance on, transit and active transportation that is found to justify this site’s reasonable effects on the road network. The Tribunal will require the safeguard of an updated Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) at the time of lifting the ZBA Holding (“H”) provision to ensure that road capacity and impacts thereto are acceptable at the time of construction.

42Messrs. Tam and Grove opine that the TIS is fundamentally flawed for its failure to fully account for background and future traffic volumes. Based on the analysis of factors herein, the Tribunal finds that the TIS utilized certain conservative factors that sufficiently counteract other potentially generous inputs and analysis.

43The Tribunal has little doubt that the City’s transportation experts will disagree with the findings herein and find holes in the Tribunal’s technical analysis. To that end, the Tribunal underscores its summary findings that movement by automobile in a car-centric City must give way to facilitate transit use. This development exemplifies and warrants the necessary “cost” to area traffic conditions in favour of the “benefit” to transit City-wide.

44As Mr. Krossey opines in his Affidavit (Ex. 2.1, p. 76):

… it is unreasonable to prioritize traffic travelling through the community by limiting good development. The priority instead should be to develop buildings with progressive parking rates and strong TDM programs near transit stations.

45The transportation witnesses agree that: traffic congestion exists and will continue in this area; the BRT is a comfortable walk of 200 to 250 m from the site and conveniently connects to the Subway in the VMC; the Hwy 7 pedestrian/cycling path provides an active transportation link to the VMC and the Subway; a parking ratio of 0.4 spaces/unit is a highly effective means to reduce car usage; the proposed Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) measures are appropriate, subject to clarifying implementation details; and, in accordance with the TMP, this site’s road widenings will enable separated pedestrian and cycling facilities adjacent to this site along Chrislea, Weston and Northview, and an east-west Active Transportation Link through the centre of this site.

46The Tribunal finds this proposal consistent with PPS s. 2.2.1, 2.4.2, 3.1 and 3.2 cited earlier. The Tribunal accepts that, under PPS s. 3.1.2 and s. 3.2.2, to “optimize” and to make “efficient use” of existing road infrastructure, certain reasonable leniencies may occur in the TIS analysis, provided that the resulting impacts are acceptable for a full, but functioning, road system.

47Moreover, the optimization of existing infrastructure includes that of transit. With just 40% of units at the site having a parking space, fully 60% of its residents will rely on transit and active transportation (and some may be passengers in automobiles, buy into a car-share program, or utilize taxi/uber). To the City’s position that to optimize should not mean to maximize traffic on the road system, the Tribunal finds that optimizing across the transportation options may involve some impacts to the road system in exchange for substantially improving the rate of active transportation and transit use. Indeed, the TMP displays this approach where the modelled road and bridge improvements “barely worked” for the population metric used, including the worsening of conditions over time. Nevertheless, the City considers these effects warranted to enable intensification that will support transit and an envisioned walkable, complete community.

48In addition to the site’s close proximity to the BRT, the Applicant’s TDM measures include a private shuttle service to/from this site and the Subway. This service will add a further option for residents without a car to access the VMC and the Subway: shuttle, BRT, bus, ride-share, or walk/cycle.

49The proposed “no-car residents” play another role in this case: 60% of the units will have no parking space, and yet Mr. Krossey’s TIS calculations impose a 40% non-auto mode split when considering traffic impacts (as confirmed by Messrs. Tam and Grove, e.g., Ex. 2.2, p. 51, para. 38: “The October BA Study assumes 40% of residents will not drive their own vehicle.”). In other words, the TIS calculations use a cautious assumption: despite 60% of residents not owning a car, only 40% of trips are estimated to be completed on foot, bicycle or transit; or, on the other side of this equation, fully 60% of trips are assumed to be by car, despite the high likelihood that only 40% of residents will own a car. Further supporting this finding, is that the TMP assumes a 50% non-auto mode split: half of all trips will not use a vehicle. The Tribunal finds the TIS more cautious in its use of 40%, especially given that this site’s location and limited parking is likely to result in 60% of trips by active transportation and transit.

50The Tribunal favours Mr. Krossey’s evidence on the use of a peak hour factor and the predominance of through-traffic. His conservative 0.5% annual rise in background peak hour traffic is found acceptable given certain stable or declining rates in recent years in the immediate area of the site. Mr. Grove’s recommended use of total daily traffic that shows, for example, upwards of 2.5% annual growth on Weston, is less favoured by the Tribunal because peak hours are, by definition, the worst-case analysis. Overall traffic counts may rise, but peak hours identify if capacity is reached or exceeded. This site’s low to moderate impacts on peak traffic volume, being up to 3% worsened Volume/Capacity (“V/C”) ratios, are found justified by the virtually assured uptake of transit and active transportation by 60% of this site’s future residents, being those without a private automobile.

51Highly relevant to the need and desire for intensification, is that over 90% of existing traffic on Weston is through-traffic. Fewer than 10% of all trips through the area are considered “local” – starting or ending near Weston 7. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Krossey’s opinion that desired intensification in this area should not be prevented by through-traffic on Weston which dominates the vehicle counts. Some priority in the modelling should be attributed to future local traffic, leaving the through traffic to either accept longer trip durations or choose a different route, mode or time of travel. The Tribunal finds this rationale assists in the acceptance of an up to 3% increase in V/C ratios.

52The City emphasizes that Mr. Krossey’s TIS uses a lower peak trip rate per unit of 0.14 AM and 0.16 PM when other area proposals use 0.25 trips/unit during peak hours. While the Tribunal accepts that a higher trip rate would add more vehicles to the area’s roads at peak hours, insufficient evidence was provided to enable the Tribunal’s full understanding of why other proposed developments may use a different rate. Mr. Krossey emphasized that proximity to transit and the reduced parking supply at this site support his TIS calculations. The Tribunal also accepts that the TMP indicates a declining Level of Service (“LoS”) at, and south of, the Weston 7 intersection, largely associated with these roads’ connections to Hwy 407 and Hwy 400. The intersections closer to this site remain within acceptable LoS ranges. To underscore the parking supply again, the Tribunal finds that 60% of this site’s residents will, in all likelihood, not own a vehicle. They may choose to walk/cycle, utilize bus or BRT services, or take the private shuttle to the VMC/Subway. This reality alone may effectively reduce and validate the spread between 0.14 and 0.25 peak trip rates per unit.

53This case reflects an analogy of “the last seat in the theatre.” If one seat remains empty just before the curtains rise, and a line of people wait outside the door, that first person should and will be welcomed in to fill the theatre, achieving a full house. The others may return to another showing when seats (i.e., capacity) are available. Similarly, the Tribunal prefers Mr. Krossey’s evidence that it optimizes infrastructure use to consume available, albeit limited, capacity now, while other subsequent developments may have to address and await future capacity improvements. The Tribunal finds that the City’s position leaves seats empty in the theatre: its over-reliance on a draft SP to require coordination with other, possible, future developments, does not fully utilize capacity now.

54The Tribunal finds that the development sequence, exemplified by this site, is common, whether it be for an infill single dwelling in a subdivision or for 2,300 apartment units in an intensification area. Both will benefit from, and optimize the use of, existing functional infrastructure while also contributing to existing and future capacity needs through Development Charges. The Tribunal heard that certain TMP projects are addressed by the City’s existing Development Charges By-law (“DCBL”), and, of course, the Development Charges Act (“DCA”) remains available to the City to cover the costs of other eligible projects of benefit to the Weston 7 area. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s argument, as opined by both Mr. Volpentesta and Mr. Krossey, that this site presents an opportunity to develop now in accordance with the TMP. Developments on other sites, with their needed transportation infrastructure projects, are neither certain nor before the Tribunal in this Hearing.

55While the City prefers two TIS time periods – at build-out and five years later – the Tribunal accepts Mr. Krossey’s opinion that the TMP more than replaces the second TIS time period and can be relied upon for the longer term to 2041. While the informal Landowners Group (which includes this Applicant) monitored the Hearing, no landowner/developers within Weston 7 sought Party status in this Hearing. While attributing little weight, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s position that such absence, along with the scale of other proposals in the immediate area, suggest the absence of concern for the transportation capacity that this site may consume.

56For this site’s connections to Cheslea and Northview, the Tribunal also finds Mr. Krossey’s recommendation reasonable: to allow time for residents to choose their best route for entering and exiting the site based on existing and projected queue lengths, and then determine, with the City, if directional limitations are required.

57Further assurance of no unexpected changes or preceeding developments is provided by the Tribunal’s direction, through an H condition in the ZBA, to provide an updated TIS at the time of the Applicant’s Site Plan Application (“SPA”).

58The Tribunal accepts Mr. Tam’s explanation that the TMP modelling used generous, enabling inputs and yet the 2041 people and jobs “barely worked.” The City is endeavouring to enable intensification, despite it worsening traffic congestion, to advance a multi-modal network that substantially reduces reliance on automobiles. The Tribunal finds that this site similarly “barely works” but represents a reasonable trade-off of somewhat increasing road congestion for the substantial gain of transit ridership and walking/cycling.

59On the lesser issue of traffic impacts and parking spaces for commercial uses at this site, the Tribunal heard only passing reference to disagreements on primary/pass-by trips and peak periods under the ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition. The Tribunal finds on the urban design, planning and transportation evidence, that the street-front commercial spaces on this site will primarily serve its residents and pedestrians/cyclists passing by, rather than car drivers/occupants. This result reflects the goals of a more complete community. Few customers are likely to accept the time and effort to drive to the rear of the site, park below grade, and then make their way on foot to the desired commercial destination. The Tribunal anticipates that the commercial parking spaces will be used primarily by owners/employees of the commercial establishments. On the oral and written evidence, the Tribunal is unable to make any substantial findings that would alter the acceptance of Mr. Krossey’s TIS regarding commercial traffic.

60The Parties differ on the question of who pays and how. While Mr. Krossey opines that the area-wide improvements are not required by this site, Mr. Tam considers the TMP projects critical for intensification, and should be allocated proportionately through the H conditions in the ZBA.

61To this question of transportation infrastructure costs, the Tribunal generally finds for the Applicant. The City’s in-force DCBL includes some of the TMP’s infrastructure projects, which ensures this site pays its fair share. The City is entitled to pursue a new DCBL for this area to address other eligible TMP projects, which may or may not apply to this site depending on its timing. The Tribunal finds in this case that an H provision in a ZBA should not impose a financial burden on the Applicant where the City has authority to mandate cost allocations under the DCA.

62While the Tribunal accepts the axiom that “growth should pay for growth,” there are too many uncertainties in the Weston 7 area to enforce certain levies through this Hearing: the Weston 7 SP is just a draft; if/when adopted, it may be subject to appeal; several large intensification proposals are in the OPA/ZBA stream; and the future outcomes of the informal Weston 7 Landowners Group discussions are unknown. In respect of intensification, the Applicant “fills the last seat” resulting in the acceptable consumption and optimization of the near-term available transportation capacity.

63All Parties accept that the site will contribute necessary road widenings on all three of its frontages for future traffic lanes and/or active transportation, and an east-west pedestrian pathway will cross this site as recommended by the TMP.

64The Tribunal accepts the City witnesses’ request that the ZBA establish a firm cap for the parking rate. The Applicant intends to provide only 0.4 spaces/unit, but this could potentially be exceeded, e.g., if a higher parking rate were considered to comply with the ZBA requirement. The Parties may determine how best to word the ZBA to ensure that no more than 0.4 spaces/unit are allowed.

65During Mr. Krossey’s concluding oral evidence, the Tribunal understood him to assure the Tribunal that the TIS update, required through an H condition, would be done to ensure that the traffic conditions remain acceptable at the time of construction. This assurance was not contained in the Applicant’s closing written submissions. Perhaps the Tribunal misunderstood, but either way, the Tribunal will require the TIS update as an H condition to re-confirm the TIS traffic analysis and outputs at that time.

66The resulting findings for H conditions are addressed later in this Decision.

Sanitary Services

67The City and Applicant agree that existing water supply and stormwater infrastructure require no off-site upgrades to accommodate this proposal. At issue is the downstream capacity of the sanitary sewer some distance from the site. The FSSR identifies sanitary sewer surcharges in two sections downstream from the Weston 7 area in the design scenarios of 5 and 25 years.

68The Tribunal finds that this development may proceed based on: the existing available capacity of the sanitary sewer; the added protection of an H provision to ensure available capacity at the time of construction; and the length of time, being up to 25 years, before capacity exceedances occur due to this site, allowing ample opportunity for upgrades as the build-out of the Weston 7 area unfolds.

69Mr. Turner for the Applicant explains that the calculations utilize a conservative, i.e., much higher, population and wastewater volume than expected for this site: 6,250 people (or 5,848 people in the City’s submission), whereas 4,400 people are expected (1.9 persons/unit); and 370 litres/person/day whereas 263 litres/person/day is the area norm. With this site’s volume contributions, the 5-year model shows four sections of pipe where surcharges rise above 80% of pipe capacity, and the 25-year model shows 2 sections of pipe exceeding 100% capacity. These exceedances causes a rise of 9 centimetres in an area where the pipes are 5 m below the basement floor elevations. Mr. Turner considers this result as “limited surcharge” allowed by the Integrated Urban Water Master Plan, and the proposed H provision will ensure that capacity is available when needed. Mr. Turner advises that the in-force DCBL will charge this site for its use of existing capacity.

70Ms. Porukova refers to the Environmental Compliance Approval (“ECA”) and the FSSR which impose the surcharge limits, including for interim servicing. Ms. Porukova would be satisfied that the City’s issues are addressed if the H provision requires an updated study and necessary payments for infrastructure in advance of any new DCBL covering this area.

71As a safeguard, if the Tribunal’s findings on the use of existing sewage capacity are wrong in law regarding any necessary permits (as seemed to be somewhat implied by Ms. Porukova), then the City will have the legal authority to not grant a permit until a deficiency is rectified. Again, with the Weston 7 SP process unfolding, and the necessary time for this site’s approvals, permits and construction, several years will pass within which servicing demands and cost allocations may evolve. While some may view this approach as “wait and hope,” the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that short-term sewage capacity does exist, and, as explained by Ms. Porukova, longer-term upgrades will occur.

72The resulting findings for H conditions are addressed later in this Decision.

Built Form and Compatibility

73The urban design and planning witnesses addressed the interconnection of good urban design and compatibility with adjacent existing and planned uses. The Parties addressed their disagreements on podium and tower heights, separation, transition, shadows, and commercial floor area.

74In overview, the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s proposal as an appropriate form and scale within both the existing area and the future potential build-out of the Weston 7 area. The Tribunal prefers the urban design evidence of Ms. McIlroy for the Applicant over that of Ms. Assimopoulos for the City. Both experts referred to the VOP and the City’s Urban Design Guidelines. This Decision addresses the more macro level of design considerations that relate to potential ZBA provisions, whereas finer details may be addressed through the Applicant’s SPA.

75The rendering displayed earlier in this Decision and the architectural plans in evidence reflect the VOP policy 9.1.2.7 calling for new development in intensification areas to: frame the street; display accessible main entrances; provide active ground floor uses; enhance the pedestrian realm; transition to lower intensity areas; provide for parks and open spaces; allow for light and privacy of adjacent properties; limit shadow and wind impacts on the public realm and neighbouring lands; provide indoor and outdoor amenity space; and contribute to an attractive skyline.

76Policy 9.2.2.6 provides similar directions for the High-Rise Mixed-Use designation sought by the Applicant for this site. Policy 9.2.3.6 for High-Rise Buildings: allows a podium up to 6 storeys; requires a 45-degree angular plane from the property line of nearby low density dwellings; and encourages slender towers not exceeding 850 sq m, set back 15 m from a property line, and spaced at least 30 m apart.

77The 6-storey podiums will frame the street and warrant such height given the wide road allowances of Chrislea and Weston, and the Centro office building across Northview. The street right-of-way widenings and podium setbacks will facilitate active transportation, landscaping, and welcoming spaces for grade-level commercial uses.

78The Tribunal finds it acceptable for these towers to exceed the height of Centro’s two towers. The site’s staggered tower placement reflects a similar arrangement at Centro. Although proposed to be somewhat higher, this site’s separation from Centro’s towers and this site’s north- and south-matching podium and tower design provide a landmark and skyline that will orient viewers to Weston 7 without distracting from the VMC’s primacy. As opined by Mr. Palmer for the City, Centro need not constitute a height peak, and taller buildings are anticipated in this intensification area. The staggered tower placement results in the north tower maximizing its setback from the low-rise Ansley Grove neighbourhood (>125 m away) while also being set back 15 m from the Home Depot lot line to enable potential intensification there. The staggered pattern also mitigates for the intended 25 m tower separation to reasonably maximize light and views for the site’s residents.

79Ms. Assimopoulos recommends a lower podium and tower height that steps down toward Cheslea to eliminate shadowing on the Ansley Grove neighbourhood to the northwest and to better balance with the one-storey employment building (car dealership) on the north side of Cheslea. However, the shadow study demonstrates that equinox shadows reach only the nearest dwellings early in the day and are all but gone by 11:18 a.m. The Tribunal finds that shadows are “adequately limited” in conformity with VOP policy 9.1.2.7(h). Given the distance to Ansley Grove, the site well exceeds a 45-degree angular plane. This proposal raises no issues with privacy, view and overlook. There may be lands in Weston 7 that could have undue shadow and overlook effects on Ansley Grove, but this site is not one of them.

80Regarding the Employment lands to the north, the Tribunal finds it unnecessary to closely match the podium height to an industrial/commercial building in a different designation across a wide Collector road. When viewed from the north along Weston or from within the employment area, this site will mark the commencement of the Weston 7 intensifying neighbourhood. This site will add “eyes on the street” which could be beneficial for the security of commercial/industrial uses across Cheslea. Moreover, the employment zone permits a building height of 5 storeys, which matches closely to the proposed podium height.

81The podium tops will become pleasant outdoor amenity areas with views in virtually all directions and full sunlight on much of the space throughout the afternoon. On the site’s east side, smaller shaded amenity areas top the first storey of the vehicle and utility entrances to the buildings. Ms. McIlroy reviewed the Wind Study noting that the SPA details will need to mitigate wind to levels that are acceptable.

82The Tribunal finds that the proposed TDM measure of a shuttle service to the Subway can be addressed adequately at the SPA stage, as can the detailed layout for the east laneway for pedestrian safety and traffic movements.

Non-residential Uses

83To the City seeking more non-residential office/retail space and affordable residential units with reference to the draft SP, the Applicant retained Mr. Faludi to address the issues of land economics. On the largely uncontested evidence of Mr. Faludi, the Tribunal finds as follows.

84Although the draft SP includes affordable housing policies, the City has no strategy or policies in effect to mandate the provision of affordable housing units in new developments. Affordable dwelling units are neither required nor proposed on this site.

85Weston 7 is, at present, an extensive retail area with 2.3 million square feet of retail area, drawing consumers from a broad area via private automobile. To the north, between Weston and Hwy 400 is an extensive industrial area. The only existing residential land use in Weston 7 is on the Centro property.

86The Tribunal commends the City for its intentions to ensure that Weston 7 transitions to a mixed-use community, where retail, service and office uses are available to support, and be supported by, the resident population. However, this process takes time, based on economic factors and the existing uses in Weston 7.

87Large-format retail stores in this area are anticipated to remain in service for years, given the time needed for TMP projects to facilitate some level of mixed-use build-out, and for developers to obtain approvals and complete construction for occupancy. The existing and expected demand for office space remains low given a market vacancy rate of more than 10%, high construction costs with limited return, and work-from-home trends. The Centro office building is nearly 50% vacant at present and supply is gravitating to the VMC near the Subway.

88The Tribunal finds that the proposed ground-floor retail space and second-level live-work units are acceptable, without additional non-residential space as sought by the City. The non-residential floor area will adequately and appropriately serve the needs of area residents and pedestrians. It is residential floor area that is needed in Weston 7 now to commence its long-term transition to a mixed-use community and to assist in meeting the City’s housing targets. The Applicant has received no requests from service providers for the various permitted non-residential uses that could require substantial area such as a grocery store, school, convention space, or community centre.

89The Tribunal is satisfied on the planning evidence, including that of Ms. Holyday, that the VOP does not require a minimum amount of non-residential space in either the Mid-Rise Mixed-Use or High-Rise Mixed-Use designations. To the City’s contention that the built form and land uses should align with the draft Weston 7 SP, the Tribunal reiterates that such document is a draft, which at best, is a proposed policy subject to possible further change, and its adoption and eventual form and applicability are unknown.

Holding (“H”) Provisions

90The Tribunal finds the Applicant’s proposed H provisions acceptable, as contained in Ex. 4.15, subject to:

• replacing “or” with “and” at the end of provision 9.a., such that provision 9.b., with any necessary rewording, requires that the TIS be updated to re-confirm transportation capacity; and
• the Applicant’s requested revision committing to secure TDM measures at the SPA stage (as sought in para. 129 of the Applicant’s Closing Submission).

91The H provisions ensure a timely confirmation or re-confirmation of servicing capacity, transportation capacity, noise levels, air quality, environmental site assessment, and TDM implementation.

92The City’s requested H provisions that relate to cost-sharing of future transportation improvements will not be granted. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s submission that such charges are more appropriately levied through a DCBL, which the City has in force for certain Weston 7 projects, and may choose to pursue the other eligible projects in accordance with its authority under the DCA. The Tribunal accepts that the existing DCBL levies charges for certain Weston 7 projects which, the Tribunal has found herein, are not required for this development to proceed but will be required as the Weston 7 area builds out. Moreover, too many unknowns exist to warrant cost-sharing agreements with Weston 7 landowners or with the City, including that: a SP is not in force; cost allocations have not been determined; and nearby developments’ applications, outcomes and sequence are unknown.

93The conveyances for the widened street allowances abutting this site, and the TDM implementation assurances, are addressed through the H provision for SPA. The Tribunal finds for the Applicant that the SPA, not a ZBA H provision, is the more appropriate time to secure financing for TDM measures.

94The site’s driveway configuration and street accesses can be informed by the Phase 2 Hearing with Home Depot, and thereafter addressed, if necessary, through the H provision for SPA.

95With the Region not identifying any specific H provisions, no general provision will be included.

CONCLUSION

96The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s requested OPA and ZBA enable suitable, compatible and inviting housing, along with supportive mixed-uses, within a planned intensification area, that will substantially advance the area’s per capita use of transit and active transportation. This site will advance both the City and Province’s goals to increase the provision of housing.

97The Tribunal finds that its directions herein and the evidence upon which it is based, have regard for s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the ROP, and conform with the VOP as proposed to be amended. The Tribunal finds this proposal to constitute good planning in the public interest.

98The Tribunal has considered the various Tribunal Decisions and Court Rulings argued by the Parties in their written submissions and finds it unnecessary to delve into the specifics or applicability of each case. Suffice it to note that the Tribunal finds that its directions herein comply with applicable law based on the peculiarities and unique circumstances of this case, as is the norm in the Tribunal’s exercise of its duties.

99The Parties are encouraged to utilize this Decision to resolve, where possible, outstanding issues of relevance to the Phase 2 Hearing, and to further revise the wording of the OPA and ZBA to reflect this Decision.

100The Applicant, in consultation with the City and Region, may advise the Tribunal when ready to proceed.

INTERIM ORDER

101The Tribunal Orders that:

• the appeals are allowed in part, and a draft Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and draft Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (in accordance with the building plans and drawings of Exhibit 2.1, p. 16 – 34 and Exhibit 3.1B, p. 26 – 44), including draft Holding provisions (in accordance with para. 90 herein) are approved in principle; and
• the Phase 2 Hearing, to be scheduled at the request of the Parties, will enable the Tribunal’s determination of the final form and content of the OPA and ZBA.

102This Member is seized for the Phase 2 Hearing, and is available for interim case management, schedule permitting.

“S. Tousaw” S. TOUSAW VICE CHAIR 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.