Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 27, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001274 OLT-24-000256
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of the application
Description: To permit the development of two 40-storey mixed-use residential buildings containing approximately 852 residential units, connected by a 6-storey podium containing commercial space on the first two floors
Reference Number: PLAN 23 114260
Property Address: 8435 Woodbine Avenue
Municipality/UT: City of Markham/ Regional Municipality of York
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001274
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001274
OLT Case Name: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. v. Markham (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of the application
Description: To permit the development of two 40-storey mixed-use residential buildings containing approximately 852 residential units, connected by a 6-storey podium containing commercial space on the first two floors
Reference Number: PLAN 23 114260
Property Address: 8435 Woodbine Avenue
Municipality/UT: City of Markham/ Regional Municipality of York
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001275
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001274
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: 1000503212 Ontario Inc.
Appellant: CF/OT Buttonville Properties Inc.
Appellant: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd.
Appellant: Haulover Investments Ltd.; and others
Subject: By-law No. 2024-19 (Comprehensive Zoning By-law)
Municipality: City of Markham
OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000256
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000256
OLT Case Name: CF/OT Buttonville Properties Inc. v. Markham (City)
Heard: May 8, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd.
Daniel Artenosi Justine Reyes
2226524 Ontario Inc.
Aaron Platt (in absentia) Katryna Vergis-Mayo (in absentia)
Knob Hill Farms Limited
Alan Heisey (in absentia)
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Matthew Rutledge Tim Duncan (in absentia)
City of Markham
Maggie Cheung-Madar Piper Morley (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. Dixon ON May 8, 2025 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
Background
1This Decision and Order arises from a Hearing on the Merits regarding appeals filed by Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”), concerning official plan and zoning by-law amendment applications (“Applications”) in the City of Markham (“City”) for lands known municipally as 8435 Woodbine Avenue (“Subject Lands”).
2The Applications seek to amend the City’s Official Plan (“COP”) and Zoning By-law No. 165-80 (“ZBL 165”) to facilitate the development of the Subject Lands with two mixed-use residential towers connected by a podium.
3On November 1, 2023, City Council refused to approve the Applications and the appeals were filed on that basis.
Parties and Participants
4At the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) for these matters, three requests for Party status were granted by the Tribunal for:
- 2226524 Ontario Inc;
- Knob Hill Farms Limited; and
- Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
5Smart Centres REIT was granted Participant status at the first CMC.
Related Appeals
6The Appellant has also filed an appeal pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Act, concerning the City’s adoption of the new City-wide comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 2024-19 (“Comprehensive ZBL”). That appeal is being heard as part of Tribunal Case No. OLT-24-000256.
7The Comprehensive ZBL, adopted by City Council on January 31, 2024 (after the site-specific appeals for the Applications had been filed), proposes to consolidate and repeal numerous zoning by-laws throughout the City, including ZBL 165. The Appellant appealed the City’s approval of the Comprehensive ZBL on the basis that the proposed zoning for the Subject Lands is inconsistent with the zoning being sought through the Applications, among other reasons.
8Given that the Appellant’s appeals in both cases (i.e., OLT-23-001274 and OLT-24-000256) pertain to the site-specific zoning for the Subject Lands, counsel for the Appellant requested that the appeals in both proceedings be heard together, on a site-specific basis.
9The request was not opposed by the Parties to either matter and was granted by the Tribunal. For clarification, only the site-specific appeals by the Appellant in both cases are being heard together, and not the appeals by other appellants to Tribunal Case No. OLT-24-000256. None of the appeals have been consolidated.
SETTLEMENT
10As anticipated following the prior CMC for these proceedings, counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that the Parties had reached a settlement of the appeals to both proceedings.
11The settlement revises the Applications to facilitate the development of the Subject Lands with:
- Two towers of 36 and 41 storeys in height, separated by 25 metres and connected by a 10-storey podium;
- 967 residential units, inclusive of 20 affordable units to be conveyed to the City;
- A total proposed gross floor area (“GFA”) of 78,586.5 square metres (“m2”), with 5,920.2 m2 of commercial/office space located on the first three floors;
- Two rooftop terraces to provide outdoor amenity space for residents;
- 554 parking spaces located within a four-storey below-grade parking garage and portions of the podium;
- A municipal park of 2,813 m2 on the eastern portion of the Subject Lands, which is larger than the required parkland dedication amount, to be conveyed to the City; and
- A sufficient at-grade area at the southern property line of the Subject Lands to accommodate a potential extension of Clegg Road from the east to Woodbine Avenue.
12In support of the settlement, the Tribunal was in receipt of the sworn affidavit of Michael Testaguzza, which was marked as Exhibit 1.
13Mr. Testaguzza is a Partner with The Biglieri Group Ltd. He is a Registered Professional Planner with 10 years of professional planning experience and has been previously qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in that regard. He is so qualified once again.
14Appended to Mr. Testaguzza’s affidavit as Exhibits “R”, “S” and “T”, respectively, are a revised draft official plan amendment, a revised draft zoning by-law amendment to ZBL 165, and a revised draft zoning by-law amendment to the Comprehensive ZBL (together, “Revised Instruments”).
ANALYSIS
Site and Area Context
15Mr. Testaguzza proffered that the Subject Lands are located south of Highway 7, on the east side of Woodbine Avenue, and are generally surrounded by large format auto-oriented retail/commercial uses to the west, south, and east, which are generally designated for commercial and/or mixed-use mid-rise developments. To the north, the Subject Lands are bounded by Beaver Creek, with Highway 7 and additional auto-oriented retail/commercial uses north of the same. Further north and east are low-rise residential dwellings.
16The Subject Lands are bisected by Beaver Creek, which is municipally owned, and are connected by an existing privately owned bridge/private driveway running east-west across the creek, between an existing automobile dealership on the western portion of the Subject Lands (fronting Woodbine Avenue) and at-grade parking associated with the dealership on the eastern portion of the Subject Lands.
Planning Analysis
17Mr. Testaguzza proffered that the Revised Instruments will:
a) Redesignate the western portion of the Subject Lands from “Commercial” to “Mixed Use High Rise” and “Greenway” in the COP;
b) Retain the existing “Mixed Use Mid Rise” designation in the COP for the eastern portion of the Subject Lands;
c) Rezone the Subject Lands from “Retail Warehouse (RW)” and “Holding – Retail Warehouse (H)RW” in ZBL 165 to “Community Amenity Two” and “Open Space One” in City Zoning By-law No. 177-96, with relevant holding and site-specific provisions;
d) Rezone the Subject Lands from “Commercial (COM)”, “Greenway One (GWY1)”, and “Mixed Use Future Development (MU-FD)” in the Comprehensive ZBL to “Mixed Use-High Rise Intensification Area”, “Greenway One”, “Open Space – Private”, and “Open Space – Public”, with relevant holding and site-specific provisions; and
e) Include holding provisions requiring the Appellant to enter into an agreement of purchase and sale for 20 dwelling units to be conveyed to the City prior to the lifting of the hold.
18Mr. Testaguzza further proffered that the proposed development facilitated by the Revised Instruments:
a) Is within a Strategic Growth Area as defined by the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), and will contribute to transit-supportive density in the same;
b) Aligns with the policies and mapping of the York Region Official Plan (“YROP”), which:
i. identifies the Subject Lands as “Urban Area” in a “Regional Corridor” on Map 1 – Regional Structure;
ii. designates the Subject Lands as “Community Area” on Map 1A – Land Use; and
iii. locates the Subject Lands within two Protected Major Transit Station Areas on Map 1B – Urban System Overlays;
c) Accommodates a planned road widening along Woodbine Avenue, as identified in the YROP;
d) Is within an “Intensification Area” and the “Woodbine/404 Key Development Area” in the COP, which are planned areas for the majority of residential intensification to be accommodated in the City;
e) Conforms to the intent of the “Commercial” policies of the COP, despite the requested redesignation, by increasing the commercial GFA on the Subject Lands and directing height and density to frontages along arterial and major collector roads, away from low-rise designations;
f) Conforms to the intent of the development criteria, urban design, and sustainable development policies of the COP;
g) Is in keeping with the heights and densities of nearby development proposals to the east of the Subject Lands;
h) Directly responds to the policy direction of the COP by facilitating mixed-use development and protecting for the natural heritage features associated with the adjacent Beaver Creek;
i) Contributes to the development of a complete community by including a mix of commercial, employment, and residential uses, including 20 dwelling units that will be conveyed to the City to contribute to the supply of affordable housing options;
j) Provides a transit-supportive development with a pedestrian-oriented built form;
k) Contributes to the improvement of the Woodbine Avenue streetscape and public realm, creating an active street frontage by providing commercial uses with direct entrances on the street along Woodbine Avenue;
l) Will have access to existing and emerging amenities in the surrounding area; and
m) Will maintain and enhance the natural features located adjacent to the Subject Lands by providing appropriate buffers to natural heritage features, enhanced naturalised landscaping, and a pedestrian pathway adjacent to same.
19Accordingly, it is Mr. Testaguzza’s professional opinion that the Revised Instruments:
a) Have regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act;
b) Are consistent with the PPS;
c) Conform with the policies of the YROP;
d) Are in keeping with the overall growth management policies of the COP;
e) Represent good planning; and
f) Are in the public interest.
FINDINGS
20Based on the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence of Mr. Testaguzza, the Tribunal finds that the Revised Instruments facilitated by the settlement have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the YROP, conform to the intent of the COP, represent good planning, and are in the public interest.
INTERIM ORDER
21THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals by Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, in Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-001274, are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in Paragraph [24], below
22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the official plan amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order is hereby approved, in principle.
23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the zoning by-law amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order is hereby approved, in principle.
24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that it will withhold the issuance of its Final Order for Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-001274 contingent upon confirmation by counsel to the Appellant that the following pre-requisite matters have been met:
a) The Tribunal has been provided with the final form of the proposed official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment, which are satisfactory to the City in form and content; and
b) The Tribunal has been advised by the Appellant that the City has been provided with a Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) Plan to the satisfaction of the City’s Director of Engineering or designate and has entered into a TDM Agreement to secure any TDM measures recommended in the TDM Plan.
25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal by Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, in Tribunal Case No. OLT-24-000256, as it applies to the lands municipally known as 8435 Woodbine Avenue (“Subject Lands”), is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in Paragraph [27], below.
26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the modifications to Zoning By-law No. 2024-19 of the City of Markham set out in Attachment 3 to this Interim Order are hereby approved, in principle.
27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that it will withhold the issuance of its Final Order concerning the Appellant’s site-specific appeal in Tribunal Case No. OLT-24-000256, as it relates to the Subject Lands, contingent upon confirmation by counsel to the Appellant that the following pre-requisite matters have been met:
a) The Tribunal’s Final Order in Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-001274 has been issued; and
b) The final form of the proposed site-specific exception to Zoning By-law No. 2024-19 for the Subject Lands has been filed with the Tribunal, consistent with the zoning by-law amendment approved through the Tribunal’s Final Order in Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-001274.
28If the Appellant does not submit the final drafts of all instruments identified above and confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Orders, set out in Paragraphs [24] and [27], above, have been satisfied by Friday, September 26, 2025, the Appellant shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date.
29The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event there are any issues implementing the Interim Orders above.
30This Member is seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final drafts of the instruments identified above.
“S. Dixon”
s. dixon
member
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3