Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: January 17, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000758
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1921318 Ontario Limited
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: To permit development of 23-storey mixed-use building comprised of 395 residential units and 1,950 m2 of commercial space
Reference Number: OPA-24-0001
Property Address: 8790 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000758
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000758
OLT Case Name: 1921318 Ontario Limited v. Richmond Hill (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 1921318 Ontario Limited
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To permit development of 23-storey mixed-use building comprised of 395 residential units and 1,950 m2 of commercial space
Reference Number: ZBLA-24-0002
Property Address: 8790 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Richmond Hill/York
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000759
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000758
Heard: December 10, 2024, by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
1921318 Ontario Limited
J. Alati
G. O’Brien (in-absentia)
City of Richmond Hill
C. Thorne
Condor Properties Ltd.
A. Beduz* (in-absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON DECEMBER 10, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns applications and subsequent appeals filed by 1921318 Ontario Limited (“Applicant/Appellant”) arising from the failure of the City of Richmond Hill (“City”) to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) applications, (“Applications”), pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), for the property located at 8790 Yonge Street (“Subject Property”).
2The initial Applications facilitated the construction of a 23-storey mixed-use building comprised of 395 residential units and 1,950 square metres of commercial space (“Original Proposal”).
3The Subject Property is located on the west side of Yonge Street, south of Roosevelt Drive and across from where High Tech Road terminates at Yonge Street. Currently, the Subject Property contains a low density, single storey automotive dealership, with sales and service, which is surrounded by parking and storage areas.
4The York Region Official Plan (“ROP”) designates the Subject Property as Urban Area located on a Regional Corridor, within a Regional Centre, and more specifically, designated as a Community Area. It is also located along a Rapid Transit Corridor and within a Protected Major Transit Station Area.
5The City’s Official Plan (“COP”) designates the Subject Property as Neighbourhood and Richmond Hill Centre, which permits low-density, and it is also zoned General Commercial Two (“GC2”), which permits low and medium density residential uses. The Richmond Hill Centre designation permits high and medium density, major office, office, commercial, major retail, retail, community uses, parks, and live-work units.
6The Applications were deemed complete by the City in March 2024 and were then circulated to the relevant City departments and external agencies for review and comment. In June 2025, a report was prepared by City staff to seek comments from City Council and the public.
7Deliberations between the Parties continued and on November 6, 2024, a Staff Report for the Committee of the Whole Meeting recommended that City Council support a revised development proposal associated with the Applications submitted by the Applicant/Appellant.
8City Council supported the revised development proposal and directed staff to notify the Tribunal of its support and appear at Tribunal proceedings regarding the proposed re-development.
9Condor Properties Ltd. did not attend these proceedings. The Applicant/Appellant indicated that the concerns raised by Condor Properties Ltd. were resolved.
10On consent of the Parties, and in accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened these proceedings as a Settlement Hearing on the terms of their draft agreement (“Settlement Proposal”).
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL
11The Settlement Proposal addresses the concerns raised by the City with the Original Proposal and results in a 32-storey, mixed use development, comprised of a 26-storey residential tower component above a six-storey podium, and consisting of 409 residential units. It also proposes to reduce the number of underground parking spaces from 260 to 250 and increase the number of bicycle spaces from 222 to 229 underground spaces. In addition, it proposes to establish a privately owned, publicly accessible open space at the rear of the Subject Property for recreational use by future residents and the surrounding community while providing a buffer between existing and new development.
12The Settlement Proposal also addresses additional City concerns related to site organization by addressing setbacks at both the north and south property lines.
13Concerns related to built form/massing and conceptual design were addressed through building typology, height, and floor plate size. The Settlement Proposal reflects a reduction in the mechanical penthouse height and a change to the angular plane with the increase to 32 storeys so that the entirety of the building is within a 45-degree angular plane.
14The Proposal allows for a road extension, addresses shadow impact because of the redesign, and 37% of the units will meet the affordable housing unit definition which surpasses the 35% minimum requirement.
15City Council requested that the Tribunal approve the OPA and ZBA to facilitate the Settlement Proposal outlined above. The proposed OPA reflects an amendment to Schedule A11 of the COP to add Exception Area Number 52, which would permit the proposed height, total gross floor area (“GFA”), and floor space index (FSI”) required for the redevelopment. The proposed ZBA rezones the Subject Property to Residential Multiple Ten Zone and Temporary Open Space Zone. It proposes to add site-specific exceptions related to maximum height, GFA, FSI, lot coverage, and setbacks, while also permitting apartment dwellings and commercial uses.
LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT
16The issues that the Tribunal must address when adjudicating an OPA and ZBA appeal are whether the proposed instruments:
a) Are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”);
b) Conform with the ROP, COP, including the proposed OPA, if approved, and the Zoning By-law for the City; and
c) Represent good planning.
17The Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and have regard to the information and materials that the City received concerning the matters under s. 2.1(2) of the Act.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
18The Parties requested that Bruce Hall, a Registered Professional Planner, and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, provide land-use planning evidence in support of the Proposed Settlement. The Tribunal, qualified Planner Hall to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.
19As evidence in the Hearing, three documents were marked as exhibits:
Exhibit 1: Bruce Hall Affidavit;
Exhibit 2: Official Plan Amendment Draft By-Law; and
Exhibit 3: Zoning By-Law Draft.
20Planner Hall opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard for the matters set out in s. 2 of the Act. Planner Hall reviewed all matters of this section and proffered that the Settlement Proposal successfully meets these requirements as it is well designed and located in an appropriate area, while also ensuring that services and infrastructure are available and used efficiently. He proffered that it is a development that is sustainable through the access to various modes of public transportation, which also supports the reduction of green house gases.
21Planner Hall opined that the revised proposal is consistent with the policies of the PPS 2024 through its strong focus on intensification by increasing the supply and mix of housing options on lands adjacent to existing transit corridors, while also supporting a diverse and growing population within a settlement area. The intensification efficiently utilizes existing infrastructure and transit.
22Planner Hall proffered that the proposal similarly conforms to the growth management policies of the Official Plans of both the Region and City, by developing an “underutilized site with transit-supportive densities [and] into a more compact urban form, while maintaining commercial uses at grade and an appropriate transition between the adjacent existing neighbourhoods.”
23Planner Hall opined that the ZBA conforms to or is consistent with the applicable policy frameworks as it establishes standards around matters such as height, density, coverage, setbacks, floor plates, loading, bicycle parking, amenity space and open space that are “desirable and appropriate given the location and surrounding context.”
FINDINGS
24The Tribunal is satisfied, having reviewed all the documentation filed in support of the Settlement Proposal, and after having heard the uncontradicted viva voce evidence of Planner Hall, that the proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest. It is consistent with the PPS 2024, conforms with the Official Plans for the Region and the City, and the City’s Zoning By-Law 2523.
25The Tribunal finds that the re-development proposal, through successful deliberations between the Parties, results in a re-development plan that addresses provincial, regional, and city planning priorities. In particular, the mixed use residential commercial development proposes increased access and use of public transportation, accesses existing municipal services, utilities, and extends an existing roadway while also contributing to affordable housing targets for the Region.
26The Tribunal issued an Oral Decision on December 10, 2024, allowing the appeal of 1921318 Ontario Limited, in part, and approving the Amendment to the Official Plan of the City of Richmond Hill (Exhibit 2) and the Amendment to the Zoning By-law 2523 (Exhibit 2) respectively.
27In the event that any issues arise, the Tribunal may be spoken to with respect to the implementation of this Final Order.
ORDER
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
The appeal is allowed, in part, and the Official Plan Amendment to the City of Richmond Hill Official Plan is approved in accordance with Attachment 1 to this Order.
The appeal against Zoning By-law 2523 of the City of Richmond Hill is allowed, in part, and By-Law 2523 is amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.
“Gregory J. Ingram”
GREGORY J. INGRAM
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2