Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 14, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000570

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

Applicant and Appellant: Cortel Group Inc. & 283367 Ontario Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit a 380 unit apartment building and a 808 square metre commercial building.

Reference Number: 02.207

Property Address: 232 Cameron Crescent

Municipality/UT: Georgina/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000570

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000570

OLT Case Name: Cortel Group Inc. & 283367 Ontario Ltd. v. Georgina (Town)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Cortel Group Inc. & 283367 Ontario Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a 380 unit apartment building and a 808 square metre commercial building.

Reference Number: 03.1180

Property Address: 232 Cameron Crescent

Municipality/UT: Georgina/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000571

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000570

Heard: March 4-12, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Cortel Group Inc. & 283367 Ontario Ltd.

Counsel/Representative* Brendan Ruddick Alexandra Whyte

Town of Georgina Andrew Biggart

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY CARMINE TUCCI AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal, was with respect to the appeals of a notice of refusal by the Town of Georgina (“Town”) relating to an Application to amend the Official Plan and amend Town’s By-law No. 500, where the subject land is municipally located at 232 Cameron Crescent (“Subject Lands”).

2The proposed development requires an application to amend the Town’s Official Plan to permit a building with a height of 20 storeys. The current site and area specific policy in the Plan permits six and seven storey buildings.

3An amendment to the Zoning By-law 500 is also required to permit an increase in height and specify the required built form criteria within the Zoning By-law.

4The development proposes a 380-unit apartment building and a 808 square metres commercial building. The residential structure is proposed to have a seven storeys podium (to contain a combination of parking and residential units) and a 20-storey tower (13 storeys atop the podium). The commercial building is proposed to have two storeys.

5A Holding (H) provision would be required to be incorporated into the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to allow for zoning permissions subject to confirmation of water and wastewater services until such times as allocation is provided to the satisfaction of the Region of York.

SITE CONDITIONS

6The Subject Lands are approximately 3.48 hectares (8.61 acres) in size, with frontage on Cameron Crescent. The lands are located within the Keswick Community Area, adjacent to Lake Simcoe and the mouth of the Maskinonge River.

7The area is characterized as a residential neighbourhood comprised of single-detached homes situated on large lots. Directly south of the Subject Lands lies the Maskinonge River, beyond which is a marina with boat slips. Further south along the Queensway, the land use transitions to commercial, including restaurants and automotive-related businesses. To the west, the Subject Lands are bordered by Cook’s Bay (Lake Simcoe).

8The Subject Lands are currently vacant, with partial site development remaining in the form of a foundation structure associated with a previous development application. The lands also contain a range of natural heritage features, including treed areas, wetland elements, and open space, which contribute to the site's environmental context.

9The Subject Lands are designated under the Town’s Zoning By-law No. 500, as amended, with the following site-specific zones: 'Medium Density Urban Residential Exception (R3-46)', 'General Commercial Exception with Holding Provision (C1-42(H))', and 'Open Space Exceptions (OS-60 and OS-61)'.

10Further, the Subject Lands are designated as ‘Local Strategic Growth Area’ and ‘Maskinonge Urban Centre’ in the Keswick Secondary Plan (“KSP”) 2023. The northern limits of the site, include a ‘Neighbourhood Residential’ designation in the KSP 2004, and these lands are designated as ‘Existing Residential’ in the KSP 2023.

11Previous development applications on the Subject Lands included an approved Site Plan authorizing the development of two six-storey condominium residential buildings comprising a total of 150 dwelling units; a seven storey hotel containing 100 guest rooms; a three storey mixed-use commercial building; and a six storey structured parking facility.

12The hotel, commercial building, and parking structure were approved to be located adjacent to the wetland feature and the neighbouring marina.

13A building permit authorizing the construction of the foundation for the residential buildings was issued and executed prior to the formal registration of the Site Plan Agreement. As a result, the foundation was constructed in advance of the agreement’s execution.

14The previous proponent ceased advancement of the approved development prior to its completion. Subsequently, Cortel Group Inc. and 283367 Ontario Ltd. (“Appellant” / “Applicant”) acquired ownership of the Subject Lands, prompting the submission of new applications to facilitate a revised development proposal.

15The proposed development necessitates an amendment to the Town’s Official Plan to permit a maximum building height of 20 storeys, whereas the current site-specific policy framework permits buildings of up to six and seven storeys. A concurrent Zoning By-law Amendment to Zoning By-law No. 500, as amended, is also required to facilitate the proposed height increase and to establish site-specific built form standards within the zoning framework.

16The new proposal comprises a slender 13-storey tower element positioned atop a seven storeys podium, along with a separate two storeys commercial building. The podium is primarily situated on the existing foundation footprint from the previously approved development and accommodates 380 residential apartment units, consisting of 236 one-bedroom units and 144 two-bedroom units.

17A building setback is proposed on the third storey, to reduce the perceived impact of the building height on the public realm. A roof-top terrace is also provided on the third storey, providing for additional amenity space for residents, and additional outdoor amenity space is provided on the rooftop of the seventh storey.

18The podium structure includes a 2.5-level integrated parking facility and four storeys of residential units above. 490 parking spaces are provided for both the residential and commercial developments, which includes 402 parking spaces for the residential component of the development, and 88 spaces for the visitor and commercial parking areas.

19The proposed commercial component comprises of 808 square metres in regard for the two-storey building that is intended to accommodate a range of uses, which including restaurant, personal service, retail, and professional office functions. The revised commercial proposal represents a reduction in both building footprint and height relative to the permissions currently in place for the site. These modifications propose an increased setback from the adjacent wetland, enhance the provision of public amenities and open space, as well as preserve key view corridors to the waterfront.

20On April 10, 2024, the applications were presented to Town Council with a staff recommendation for refusal. The recommendation was based on the conclusion that the proposed amendments are not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (“PPS”), do not conform to applicable Provincial Plans, the York Region Official Plan, the Town’s Official Plan, the Keswick Secondary Plan, or relevant planning guidelines. Furthermore, the applications were found not to have sufficient regard for matters of provincial interest, as outlined in the Planning Services Department report dated April 10, 2024.

21On April 10, 2024, the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were refused by the Town Council.

EVIDENCE

22The hearing before the Tribunal proceeded over the course of six days and the Tribunal heard from the following witnesses:

• Paul Demczak was called to testify by the Appellant and qualified without objection to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning;
• Eldon Theodore was called to testify by the Appellant and qualified without objection to give opinion evidence in the area of Urban Design;
• Adrian Litavski was called to testify by the Town and qualified without objection to give opinion evidence in the area of land use planning;
• Anne Mcllroy was called to testify by the Town and qualified without objection to give opinion evidence in the area of Urban Design.

23These appeals primarily reflect the concerns regarding Urban Structure, Growth Management, and Urban Design.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Applicant’s Position

24The Applicant submits that the Property is located within a Strategic Growth Area (SGA), constitutes an appropriate potential for optimal land use including good access to amenities such as transit, parks, open spaces, and schools.

25Additionally, the Proposed Development contributes to the Town’s housing targets by providing a variety of apartment units and has been designed with regard for the site and surrounding area.

26Furthermore, the Proposal is consistent with the intent of relevant provincial, Regional, and Town policy documents, relevant guidelines, and current best practices.

27The Applicant asks that the Tribunal allow the appeals and grant approval in principle for the proposed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”), subject to specified conditions. As part of these conditions, the Applicant acknowledges that a Holding (H) provision should be incorporated into the proposed ZBLA to enable the zoning permissions, contingent upon confirmation of adequate water and wastewater servicing capacity, to the satisfaction of the Region of York.

Town’s Position

28The Town submits that the proposed development - which includes a 20-storey residential tower atop a seven storey podium, along with an adjacent commercial building - does not demonstrate regard for matters of provincial interest as outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act, particularly with respect to the orderly development of communities and the appropriate location and scale of growth.

29Additionally, the proposal is not consistent with the PPS, as it fails to appropriately direct growth within settlement areas and does not ensure compatibility or a suitable transition in built form.

30Furthermore, the proposal does not align with the intent of the York Region Official Plan, as it fails to conform to the York Region’s established intensification hierarchy. Similarly, it does not uphold the objectives of the Town’s Official Plan, as it significantly exceeds the permitted height and massing parameters and does not ensure compatibility with the surrounding low-rise residential neighbourhood.

31The Town seeks that the Tribunal deny the appeals in its entirety.

APPELLANT’S EVIDENCE

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

32Mr. Demczak provided, Pursuant to Section 2 of the Planning Act, the Tribunal must consider matters of provincial interest in the determination of its decision.

33The Tribunal heard, that from Mr. Demczak’s professional land use planning perspective, the proposed development demonstrates appropriate consideration for these interests. In particular, it aligns with the objectives set out in subsections (f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (o), (p), (q), (r), and (s) of Section 2 of the Planning Act.

34In regard to;

a. s.2.(f)

The proposed development will be fully serviced with municipal sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater management infrastructure, meeting the requirements of both the Region of York and the Town. A Holding (H) provision will be applied to the zoning, remaining in effect until servicing allocation is secured. The site is located on a municipal roadway that is capable of supporting the proposed development and is conveniently situated near York Region Transit Route 50 along The Queensway, offering direct transit access to the Newmarket GO Train Terminal.

b. s.2.(h),(p)

The proposed development will revitalize an underutilized site by introducing a new mixed-use project that includes 380 apartment units. Located within a Strategic Growth Area, the development promotes efficient land use within the existing built boundary and leverages municipal and regional investments in transit, infrastructure, and public services.

c. s.2.(i)

The site is situated within an established community and is conveniently located near a comprehensive range of schools, parks, community services, and recreational amenities.

d. s.2.(j)

The proposed development introduces a mixed-use project within an area where low-rise residential buildings characterize the block to the north, and existing commercial and marina-related uses are located to the east. This development contributes to the diversification of housing options in the Keswick community and has been thoughtfully scaled to respect and complement the surrounding built form. The residential units are designed to accommodate a variety of household sizes and life stages, supporting a more inclusive and adaptable community.

e. s.2.(o)

The proposed development has been designed to ensure that there will be no adverse impacts on the adjacent hazard lands, as confirmed by the technical studies submitted in support of the application.

f. s.2.(q),(s)

Residents of the proposed development will benefit from convenient access to a variety of everyday amenities, including parks, open spaces, schools, and nearby transit stops - supporting active transportation options and reducing dependence on private vehicles. The proposed density reflects a compact and efficient housing form that promotes transit-supportive intensification and maximizes the use of existing infrastructure. This approach contributes to the Town’s broader efforts to address climate change. Additionally, the applicant intends to incorporate sustainability features during the detailed design phase.

g. s.2.(r)

The proposed development is contextually suitable and provides an appropriate transition to the surrounding low-density residential properties. It enhances the public realm along the street frontage through active design elements and significantly improves internal accessibility and pedestrian-oriented spaces, fostering a strong sense of place and community.

35Mr. Demczak opined that the proposed development appropriately considers the matters of provincial interest outlined in Section 2 of the Planning Act and specifically addresses the relevant provisions applicable to this proposal.

36Mr. Theodore provided the following testimony as it relates to the Planning Act.

37The current proposal introduces a distinctive built form that functions as a key visual anchor within the local growth centre, enhancing the area's sense of place and reinforcing community identity.

38Mr. Theodore added that through strategic site orientation and the thoughtful design of both public and private spaces, the proposal maintains harmony with its surroundings by incorporating appropriate separation distances, high-quality landscaping, and by utilizing the established footprint from the initial approval as a foundation for the overall design.

39Mr. Theodore opined, the Applications and the current proposal appropriately consider matters of Provincial interest from an urban design standpoint.

Provincial Policy Statement 2024

40Mr. Demczak provided that the PPS is intended to be read in its entirety and all relevant policies are to be applied to each situation, with direct reference to Policies 2.1.6, 2.2.1. b), 2.2.1.c), 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.4.1 of the PPS, and Strategic Growth Areas (SGA).

41The Tribunal heard the proposed development features a mix of new housing options, including a 20-storey residential tower and a series of two storey standalone commercial buildings. The residential units are designed to support a compact, livable, and urban lifestyle.

42The proposed development makes efficient use of currently vacant and underutilized land within a designated Settlement Area and Strategic Growth Area - locations specifically identified for accommodating intensification.

43The site is well-connected to existing and planned transit, services, and community amenities. This proposal supports transit-oriented development, promotes efficient land use, and contributes to meeting the Town’s anticipated housing needs for both current and future populations.

44Mr. Demczak informed the Tribunal that the Proposal is located within a Local Strategic

45Growth Area in the Maskinonge Urban Centre, as identified in the Town’s Official Plan and the Keswick Secondary Plan. Keswick is the Town’s sole designated Urban Area, and its Urban Centres are expected to accommodate a substantial share of future intensification, as outlined in the Town’s Official Plan.

46The proposed development supports the creation of a complete community by offering a diverse mix of unit sizes and types within a high-density apartment format, including range of building amenities and new commercial uses along with enhancements to the public realm and open spaces.

47Mr. Demczak opined the development represents an efficient use of land within an area identified in the Town’s Official Plan as appropriate for context-sensitive growth and consistency with the policies of the PPS.

48Mr. Theodore provided the following testimony as it relates to the PPS with reference to Policies 2.1.6(a), 2.4.1.3.(b) and 3.9.1.(a).

49Mr. Theodore testified that the Current Proposal supports the development of a complete community by integrating a mix of residential, commercial, and publicly accessible open space uses on the Subject Lands. The proposed one- and two-bedroom residential units introduce a broader range of housing options that contrast with the predominantly low-density housing found in the surrounding area and Urban Centre.

50Further, as the Subject Lands are within a Local Strategic Growth Area, being the Maskinonge Urban Centre as identified in the Town’s Official Plan and Secondary Plans, the urban centres of Keswick are anticipated to accommodate significant intensification including a higher density of housing. Accordingly, the proposal ensures appropriate separation from adjacent property lines and surrounding land uses, further enhanced through strategic landscaping and the placement of more private functions within these buffer areas, thereby minimizing impacts on publicly accessible spaces.

51Mr. Theodore opined that the Current Proposal and Applications are consistent with this PPS policy from an urban design perspective as they achieve an appropriate type and scale of development in this strategic growth areas as well as the transition of built form to adjacent areas.

Region of York Official Plan

52In regard to Sections 2.1.2.(a), 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.2, 2.2.2, 2.2.11.

53Mr. Demczak provided, in line with the Regional Structure and Growth Management policies, the proposed development introduces residential uses within a designated Community Area, where growth is actively encouraged.

54This supports the Town in achieving the intensification targets and population projections set out in the Regional Official Plan. The proposal promotes compact, efficient development that contributes to the creation of complete communities, while minimizing land consumption and optimizing the use of existing municipal infrastructure and services.

55In regard to Section(s) 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.10 and 2.3.13.

56Mr. Demczak testified, the proposal contributes to the development of a complete community by introducing a new high-rise built form that is thoughtfully integrated into the surrounding context. The proposal achieves this through appropriate transitions in scale, generous setbacks, and substantial enhancements to landscaping and open space within the high-rise component.

57Further, the proposal uses land efficiently and optimizes available infrastructure by providing for higher density development that is supportive of future transit development and provides for a mix of uses including residential, commercial, and open space.

58Mr. Demczak opined that the development enhances the character of the existing community by providing a thoughtful transition in building height, incorporating buffers, and maintaining spatial separation from neighboring properties. Its location near an established transit route that supports reduced reliance on automobiles. Additionally, the development creates a distinctive sense of place along the shoreline and is poised to become a recognizable landmark for both residents and visitors.

59In regard to Section(s) 3, 3.4.1, 3.4.5, 3.4.9, 3.4.12, 3.4.17

60Mr. Demczak testified that an Environmental Impact Study (“EIS”) was prepared in support of the Proposal.

61The wetland located on the site has been evaluated and determined not to be Provincially Significant. A standard setback of 15 metres from both the wetland and the shoreline is maintained, with a single exception where a boardwalk extends into the buffer zone. The EIS supports this reduced buffer from the shoreline, noting that due to existing site disturbances and the Town’s current development objectives, development within 30 metres of the Lake Simcoe shoreline is considered appropriate in this context. The proposed development integrates the EIS’s recommendations aimed at enhancing the shoreline’s ecological function and includes mitigation strategies, as outlined in the Stormwater Management Plan, to address and manage potential runoff impacts.

62In regard to Section(s)4.1, 4.1.3, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.4, 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.4.6, 4.4.7, 4.4.8, 4.4.10, 4.4.17, 4.4.19, 4.4.29, 4.4.53

63Mr. Demczak reiterated that the lands are located within an Urban Area, Community Area, Built-up Area, and within a Strategic Growth Area (Local Centre) as designated by the York Region Official Plan.

64The proposed development has regard for the local context and seeks to minimize the impact of height through transitions in height, building setbacks, landscaping, and building placement. The proposal is separated from adjacent low-density residential areas through generous side yard setbacks, which retain a mature tree line and incorporate additional lands caping to enhance privacy and visual buffering. The building has been strategically positioned to minimize shadow impacts on neighboring homes, as demonstrated in the accompanying shadow study.

65Mr. Demczak added the proposed development aligns with the Regional intensification hierarchy outlined in Policy 4.1.3, which encourages growth and intensification within designated strategic growth areas, such as the subject site. The existing road network has sufficient capacity to support the development, while water and wastewater servicing will be addressed through a Holding Zone provision. This provision will remain in place until servicing allocation is granted to the satisfaction of the Region of York. Additionally, the site benefits from convenient access to nearby parks, schools, and commercial amenities, supporting a complete and connected community.

66Mr. Demczak opined that the proposal conforms to the York Region Official Plan (“YROP”).

67Mr. Theodore provided his testimony as it relates to the YROP with reference to Policies 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.3.10, 2.3.13, 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.4.10(e), 4.4.17, 4.4.19, 4.4.29, 4.4.50 & 4.4.53.

68Mr. Theodore informed the Tribunal that the proposed development supports the broader regional objectives for community design and sustainability. The proposed development prioritizes on pedestrian accessibility, safety and connectivity across the site through the inclusion of wide pedestrian pathways, boardwalks, landscaped buffers, creating a welcoming and accessible public realm. The built form - comprising a seven storey podium and a 20-storey residential tower - has been carefully designed with setbacks, the setbacks is intended to reduce visual massing and provide an appropriate transition to the adjacent low-rise properties to the south.

69The Tribunal further heard that the proposed development supports sustainable design through features such as permeable paving, green roofs, and an increase in soft landscaping compared to the Initial Approval. It also includes amenities like bicycle parking to encourage active transportation. The buildings are designed with a consistent, high-quality architectural approach on all sides, and are complemented by well-planned landscaping that enhances both public and private spaces throughout the site and along the public realm.

70Public amenities - including a shoreline boardwalk, commercial plaza, and recreational areas - are thoughtfully integrated to provide centrally located spaces for both active and passive recreation, which encourage community interaction. The site also ensures safe, barrier-free movement across the property, with direct connections to public sidewalks, transit stops, and key destinations within the Local Centre. Additionally, more private elements such as a secluded boardwalk, beach access and amenity terraces contribute to a sense of place and support personal and community-oriented experiences.

71Mr. Theodore opined that the Current Proposal and Applications conform to the applicable design policies of the YROP.

Town of Georgina Official Plan (2016)

72Mr. Demczak directed the Tribunal to Policy 8.7.2.

73The Tribunal heard that the Proposed development’s intention is consistent with the policies as its designed to be street-oriented where appropriate, enhancing the streetscape compared to the previously approved plan, which featured a parking garage facing the public realm. In contrast, the current proposal locates the majority of parking within the podium of the residential building, creating a more active and visually appealing street edge. Commercial and visitor parking will be provided at grade, ensuring convenient access while maintaining a pedestrian-friendly environment.

74Further, the development effectively mitigates shadow impacts, as demonstrated in the accompanying Shadow Study. Additionally, by adjusting the previously approved building massing on the site, the new proposal enhances view corridors toward the lake. Functional elements such as loading areas have been strategically positioned away from the streetscape along Cameron Crescent, preserving the visual quality and pedestrian experience of the public realm.

75Mr. Theodore provided that the current proposal reduces the overall parking provision compared to the initial approval with most parking spaces integrated within the building podium and effectively screened from public view.

76The design prioritizes a publicly accessible and well-connected network of pedestrian and cycling paths. The building has been oriented to engage with these spaces, while parking is positioned at the rear of the site, adjacent to Cameron Crescent.

77High-quality landscaping is featured throughout, including tree-lined perimeters, landscaped walkways, and enhanced shoreline treatments, contributing to a cohesive and visually appealing environment.

78As previously noted, the new proposal establishes a landmark built form on the subject lands while mitigating potential impacts such as noise, overlook, and shadowing, and thoughtfully balancing public and private realms.

Keswick Secondary Plan (2004)

79With regard to s(s) 13.1.1.1, 13.1.1.2 (a)

80Mr. Demczak informed the Tribunal that the Proposal supports a sustainable built form by introducing increased density that makes efficient use of land and existing infrastructure. This higher density fosters a transit-supportive environment, aligning with both current and planned transit services. Through its distinctive architectural design, enhanced public spaces, improved streetscape, and accessible shoreline, the development serves as a focal point and landmark within the Urban Centre.

81Further, as outlined in the EIS, the proposal maintains appropriate setbacks from the shoreline and surrounding natural features, ensuring the protection of ecological functions. Additionally, the inclusion of commercial and employment uses contributes to a complete community by offering opportunities for shopping and local employment.

82With regard to s(s) 13.1.2.2, 13.1.2.2 (b)

83The Tribunal heard the proposal serves as a prominent landmark within the Maskinonge Urban Area, enhancing the public realm and establishing a strong focal point through a single point tower that is thoughtfully integrated into its context.

84The site design, combined with a mix of uses and direct shoreline access, supports a vibrant and accessible community space. By redistributing the massing from the previously approved plan, the increased height allows for a significant portion of the site to remain open and publicly accessible, enhancing comfort and enjoyment for residents and visitors alike.

85The proposal features a well-integrated mix of residential, commercial, and open space uses. The open space component offers public access to the shoreline and includes a variety of recreational amenities such as a Lake Simcoe lookout, an elevated boardwalk along the wetland, passive recreation areas, connections to new and existing docks, and a retail plaza with commercial offerings.

86The development is designed to respect surrounding properties, with a seven storey podium set back appropriately from adjacent residential areas and a 20-storey point tower positioned to minimize impacts related to privacy, overlook, and shadowing.

87With regard to s. 13.1.2.6

88As the Tribunal previously heard, the proposed development introduces new housing options within the Keswick Urban Area, offering a mix of one- to two-bedroom apartment units. This variety in housing types, along with the increased residential density, supports the area’s population growth targets and helps respond to rising housing demand.

89The development represents a compatible form of intensification on currently vacant and underutilized lands. It makes efficient use of the existing built conditions by incorporating the previously constructed building footprint and partial foundation, while delivering a design that is contextually appropriate and sensitive to the surrounding environment.

90With regard to s. 13.1.2.9

91Mr. Demczak testified that the proposal includes an OPA, which seeks to permit a site specific density of 210 units per net residential hectare.

92The proposed Units Per Hectare (“UPH”) reflect the revised building design and a reallocation of space previously designated for hotel use. In the original approval, hotel units and their associated bedrooms were not included in the UPH calculation, whereas all residential units are now counted.

93The proposal re-evaluates the development program in response to recent market trends, which indicate reduced viability for hotel accommodations in the local market and a growing demand for residential housing. As a result, the development has been reprogrammed to prioritize residential units, aligning with current housing needs.

94Mr. Demczak emphasized that although the proposed development includes a greater number of residential units than the previously approved plan, the total gross floor area has actually been reduced. The bulk of the building mass has been shifted toward the northern section of the site, with the tower now positioned adjacent to Cameron Crescent. This redistribution results in a more concentrated form while maintaining a smaller overall footprint.

95Mr. Demczak opined that in comparison to the previous development’s floor area, the proposed increase in UPH does not result in any negative massing impacts as the overall building mass remains generally consistent with the original development.

96Mr. Demczak further provided that the subject site is one of the largest within the Maskinonge Urban Centre and is a landmark site at the entrance to the Maskinonge River, which is appropriate to accommodate the proposal including the noted publicly accessible features and amenities.

97Additionally, the community and neighbourhood amenities including existing parks, open space, recreational facilities, and institutional services can adequately serve the development.

98With regard to s. 13.1.3.2

99Mr. Demczak testified that the proposal represents an appropriate and well-considered addition to the Maskinonge Urban Centre. By introducing a mixed-use form with increased density near The Queensway South - a designated Minor Arterial Road - the proposal supports efficient land use in a strategic location. The building is thoughtfully sited, with the tower oriented toward the street and setbacks designed to reduce shadow impacts on adjacent properties.

100The development demonstrates compatibility with surrounding land uses, showing sensitivity in terms of massing, height, setbacks, orientation, privacy, landscaping, shadowing, accessibility, and visual integration.

101With regard to s. 13.1.3.2.3 and (g)

102Mr. Demczak provided that the proposal offers substantial opportunities for public access to the shoreline, enhancing open space within the Maskinonge Urban Centre on a prominent, landmark site - aligning with the objectives of the Official Plan.

103Mr. Demzcak opined that increasing the building height, the design redistributes the previously approved massing, enabling a more efficient use of land and allowing a significant portion of the site to be opened up for public use and enjoyment.

104With regard to (s). 13.1.3.7.4

105Mr. Demczak testified that a Floodplain and Shoreline Hazard Assessment has been conducted, confirming that the proposed development is situated outside of designated hazardous lands. The assessment also includes recommendations for shoreline enhancements and outlines measures to support the proposed development, ensuring consistency with applicable policy requirements.

106With regard to (s). 13.1.5 & 13.1.6

107The Tribunal heard the proposed development complies with applicable policies, as it is situated within the Urban Service Area Boundary. The Tribunal was informed of existing capacity limitations at the Region’s Keswick Sewage Pumping Station (SPS), for which a capital improvement project is currently underway. Additionally, a Holding Zone provision is proposed to remain in place until servicing allocation is granted to the satisfaction of the Region of York.

108Further, in support of the stormwater policies, a Stormwater Management Plan and Sediment and Erosion Control Plan have been prepared by Valdor Engineering Inc.

109In regard to (s).13.1.3.2.1 & 13.1.3.2.3

110Mr. Theodore testified that the proposed development supports key planning policies that encourage higher-density and mixed-use buildings along major roads. It includes a 20-storey residential tower on a seven-storey podium and a separate two storey commercial building, contributing to the intensification goals of the Urban Centre. The mixed-use development with residential and commercial components supports the area's vision as a tourist-focused, mixed-use destination.

111The design includes a 15.67 metres setback from nearby homes to the north of the Subject Land, helping to protect privacy, reduce shadows, and maintain sunlight.

112Mr. Theodore also highlighted the strong focus on pedestrian access, with a public plaza and wide sidewalks that improve walkability and encourage community interaction.

113The waterfront improvements, including a shoreline boardwalk, public outdoor spaces, and pedestrian connections that enhance the public realm in line with policy goals. The design emphasizes high-quality architecture and public spaces, helping to establish a landmark presence and a new identity for the site.

114Further, environmental considerations are addressed through wetland protection, on-site stormwater management, and flood mitigation, which are integrated as features of the development. The proposal also respects the area's character by maintaining water views, providing public access, and enhancing the natural waterfront.

115In regard to (s). 13.1.2.9 & 13.1.2.2

116The current proposal introduces a high-density residential development featuring 380 units, along with commercial and open space components, contributing to a complete, vibrant, and walkable community within the Maskinonge Urban Centre.

117The unique characteristics of the site present an opportunity to establish a landmark building and focal point along the waterfront.

118Further, the increased height is considered appropriate as the proposal achieves compatibility through a slender tower design and strategic setbacks that reduce overlook, shadowing, and privacy impacts. The mid-rise podium and surrounding open space, including extensive landscaping, ensure a sensitive transition to the surrounding context.

119The proposal further supports future transit initiatives, encourages pedestrian activity, and reinforces the area’s identity as a prominent urban and waterfront destination.

120High-quality landscaping throughout the site enhances both public and private areas. The design also addresses noise, shadow, and wind impacts through internal waste storage, rooftop screening, and future studies at the Site Plan stage to guide mitigation.

121Finally, the tower uses a mix of materials and colors across the podium and tower to create visual interest and ensure an attractive appearance from all sides.

122Mr. Theodore addressed the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (“CPTED”).

123Policies 13.1.4.3.2. (j);

Adequate lighting

124Proposed lighting elements are illustrated in the landscape plans. The Town’s final decisions regarding the design and placement of lighting within public, private, and publicly accessible areas will be finalized during the Site Plan Approval stage.

Clear sight lines, allowing natural surveillance of open spaces and walkways

125The proposed circulation routes within both the publicly accessible and private open spaces follow gently curving paths that maintain clear sight lines, minimizing blind spots and enhancing natural surveillance. In areas where sharper turns occur, these locations have been designed to ensure visibility or are situated in zones where regular activity and animation are anticipated, which further support safety and user comfort.

Avoiding landscaping, buildings and other design features that create blind spots or hiding places

126The proposed landscape design features tree-lined pathways that maintain visibility throughout all seasons, supporting natural surveillance. Dense planting and buffering, particularly near the parking podiums, are intentionally setback from the main circulation routes to preserve clear sight lines and prevent the creation of concealed areas along the paths of travel.

Adequate fencing and fenestration

127Fencing will primarily be used to delineate public and private areas within the site. Final fencing details will be refined during the Site Plan stage to ensure alignment with CPTED principles.

Streetscape and building design that promotes interest, activity and ‘eyes on the street

128The design of the apartment building promotes interest and eyes on the street by extending a broad pedestrian walkway to the main entrance, inclusive of public art and providing drop off opportunities to the entrance.

129Further, while the screened parking podium in the current proposal is taller than in the Initial Approval, it’s important to note that the ground floor was always intended to accommodate parking rather than active uses. To enhance the pedestrian experience along this frontage, the design relies on landscaping and architectural screening to create visual interest. This is achieved through the use of alternating colored perforated panels that help break up the building’s mass and reduce visual monotony at the pedestrian level. These panels are complemented by a robust landscape edge along both public and private pedestrian routes, reinforcing a more engaging and walkable environment.

130Mr. Theodore provided that the CPTED principles are adhered to and can be implemented on this site at the Site Plan stage.

131Mr. Theodore opined that the Applications and Current Proposal conform to the design direction of the Adopted Secondary Plan.

Keswick Secondary Plan (2023)

132The Tribunal heard that the new Keswick Secondary Plan is not in effect, which has been given consideration in relation to the proposed development as it provides policy direction on Municipal planning considerations.

133In regard to s(s) 13.1.3, 13.1.3.2, (e)

134Mr. Demczak provided that the proposed high-rise residential development supports the Town’s growth policies by helping meet population forecasts and intensification goals. The proposal adds more housing options and is located within The Queensway Corridor, as outlined in Policy 13.1.3.2 of the Keswick Secondary Plan. The development also falls within a designated Local Strategic Growth Area, in line with Policy 13.1.3.2(e).

135In regard to s(s) 13.1.4, 13.1.4.1.2, 13.1.4.2, 13.1.4.3, 13.1.4.3.2

136Mr. Demczak informed the Tribunal that the proposed development includes a mix of uses and high-density buildings, along with improved public spaces and better pedestrian access to Lake Simcoe. These features promote active lifestyles, social interaction, and community pride. The pedestrian paths will offer year-round access to the lake, and the public spaces are designed to create a welcoming and vibrant environment.

137The proposed open spaces are well integrated with nearby natural features. The development introduces a modern architectural style that fits well with the surrounding area. The high-rise building includes step-backs and generous spacing from the northern property line, creating a smooth transition to neighboring properties. The design aligns with the Maskinonge Urban Centre policies and maintains compatibility with the local context.

138The proposed development meets the compatibility policies of the KSP 2024 by considering factors like height, design, setbacks, privacy, landscaping, shadows, and visual impact. The building’s podium fits the shape of the site, which extends toward Lake Simcoe, and most of it isn’t visible from Cameron Crescent.

139A slim tower is placed near the front of the site with large setbacks and a 6.5 metres setback above the podium to reduce its visual impact. The tower’s height has been carefully planned to avoid negative effects like shadows or privacy concerns. A shadow study confirms there are no unacceptable impacts.

140The building is setback from the street and nearby properties, which the landscaping is used to protect privacy and improve views. Public walkways and modern architecture enhance the area and support a forward-looking urban design.

141Mr. Demczak, elaborated on the compatibility of the proposal by offering the proposal to improves the landscape, building design, and overall character of the Maskinonge Urban Centre, which is planned for mixed-use growth and redevelopment. The proposal avoids negative impacts on nearby properties by including proper setbacks and landscaping to reduce the visual effect of the high-rise. The development offers generous on-site amenity space for both residents and the public. The development also fits well within the area’s layout, with appropriate block lengths, building spacing, and setbacks.

142Mr. Demczak further provided in support of a high-rise development, the proposal fits well with its surroundings and provides a smooth transition in building form through appropriate setbacks and spacing between the podium and tower. The tower’s floor plate is limited to 892 square metres to reduce shadow and visual impact. The landscaping have provide generous separation from nearby properties, which help ensure the development is sensitively integrated.

143As one of the largest and most prominent sites in the Maskinonge Urban Centre, it is well-suited for the proposed mix of uses and public amenities. The site’s parking, loading, and service areas are thoughtfully placed to reduce their impact, with most residential parking inside the podium and commercial/visitor parking at ground level.

144In regard to s.13.1.5.

145Mr. Demczak provided, the application includes an OPA to allow a building height of 20 storeys (71.5 metres) and a site-specific density of 210 units per net hectare.

146This high-density residential use is appropriate for the site, which is within the Maskinonge Urban Centre designation. The development is compatible with surrounding land uses, offering proper setbacks, separation distances, landscaping and public amenities.

147Technical studies confirm that transportation, utilities, and servicing infrastructure can support the development, and existing community amenities like parks, recreation, and institutions are sufficient to meet future needs.

148In regard to s(s). 13.1.6.1, (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), 13.1.6.1.1.(i) & 13.1.5.3.2

149Mr. Demczak emphasized the proposed development’s intention on the supports for the vision of Maskinonge Urban Centre as a tourist and recreation-focused area. The proposed development includes public recreation space, commercial uses, and well-integrated residential growth near the Maskinonge River. The proposed development will adds more housing options to help build a complete, healthy, and sustainable community. The proposed development will also allow to connects to the Town’s trail and active transportation network and supports the Maskinonge Urban Centre’s role as a hub for local and regional transit.

150The Tribunal heard, the previous KSP allowed high-density residential uses, whereas the KSP 2023 update now only permits existing low-rise and mid-rise housing. Notwithstanding this change, the proposed development offers a well-designed, mixed-use project that meets the Plan’s density targets and improves the pedestrian experience. The higher-density form is supported by policies for Local Strategic Growth Areas and adds a variety of housing types and sizes in Keswick, helping to increase rental and affordable housing options.

151Mr. Demczak further provided that the proposed site-specific OPA supports a landmark development that fits the site’s context and creates a vibrant destination for residents, visitors, and businesses. The proposed site-specific OPA promotes economic growth and intensification, backed by technical studies. The project helps the Town build a complete, healthy, and sustainable mixed-use community with a variety of housing options. At the same time, it has also supports the Town’s goal of making the Maskinonge Urban Centre a key hub for local and regional transit, helping to strengthen current and future transit infrastructure.

152From a land use planning and urban design standpoint, Mr. Demczak and Mr. Theodore concluded that the proposed development aligns with the PPS, adheres to the policies of the YROP, reflects the intent of the Town’s Official Plan and the Keswick Secondary Plans, and represents sound planning that serves the public interest.

TOWN’S EVIDENCE

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

153In regard to 2(o), 2(p), 2 (q), and 2 (r).

154Mr. Litavski testified, the proposed design presents serious safety concerns at street level and is likely to create a poor pedestrian experience around the building’s base, public spaces, and private amenity areas.

155Overall, the building’s design, height, and density do not align with the existing or planned context and contradict both the current and recently approved secondary plan for Keswick, particularly for the Maskinonge Urban Centre.

156The extended length of the base building and the absence of active uses along the first 2.5 storeys contribute to an uninviting and potentially unsafe streetscape, missing the opportunity to establish a vibrant and welcoming waterfront destination.

157Ms. Mcllroy testified that the Proposed Development does not provide a built form that meets the provincial interest.

158The Tribunal heard the three storey parking garage with its length of 205 metres, creates a long and inaccessible building length on this unique waterfront site. The absence of active ground-level uses around the building’s perimeter raises serious safety and spatial quality concerns. A lack of building activation at grade level and the tall blank parking façades will result in an intimidating condition around the building that lacks friendliness, interest, and potential for interaction.

159Ms. Mcllroy further added that the building’s long length and inactive podium create a poorly designed development that lacks safe, accessible, and vibrant public spaces, and fails to foster a strong sense of place.

Provincial Planning Statement (2024)

160In regard to S. 2,1,6(a) & 2.3.1.2 (a), (b)

161The Tribunal heard the Town’s goal for the Maskinonge Urban Centre is to encourage the creation of a complete community that will be a focus for intensification and serve all the needs of the immediate neighbourhood and Keswick as a whole. The proposed building makes no effort to fit in with its context.

162Mr. Litavski testified that the Application seeks to double the permitted density from 100 units per net residential hectare as permitted by the in-force KSP 2003, to 210 units per net residential hectare.

163Mr. Litavski echoed the opinion of Town staff in that the applications are significantly out of scale with both the previous and 2023 Keswick Secondary Plans. The Town’s planned growth direction and would require reallocation of limited water and sewer services, making it harder to implement the 2023 plan. If approved, they could set a precedent for similar proposals that further undermine the Town’s growth management goals.

164In regard to S. 2.4.1.3(b)

165Mr. Litavski testified that the proposal due to its size, design, density, and reduced range of uses, including the loss of commercial space and hotel/conference/spa facilities, represents a step back from the previously approved development.

166Further, the proposal would have unacceptable impacts on the low-density neighbourhood to the north of the subject land, including shadows, loss of privacy, and negative visual effects.

167Ms. Mcllroy supported the opinion of Mr. Litavski in that the proposal is disproportionately tall for this area, where all surrounding buildings are low-rise.

168In regard to S. 3.9.1(a) & (c)

169Mr. Litavski agreed and reaffirmed the opinion of Ms. Mcllroy in that the proposed development does not align with Section 3.9.1(a) and (c). Its design prioritizes parking within the podium, leading to large blank walls and inactive frontages. As result, along with the building’s length and the separation between public and private spaces have creates poor sightlines and limits access to the waterfront.

170Both Mr. Litavski and Ms. Mcllroy opined the design of the base-building and public recreational area and pathways are not consistent with the PPS’s direction.

York Region Official Plan (2022)

171In regard to P.(s) 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.3.10, 2.3.13 (Supporting Complete Communities)

172Mr. Litavski asserted that the poorly designed public spaces within our communities can affect our wellness, health and quality of life.

173The proposed building is much larger than the previously approved version, with a long, tall base and a 20-storey tower with a large 900 square metres footprint. The scale of the proposed building will negatively affect the low-density neighbourhood to the north, causing excessive shadowing and creating an overwhelming presence next to nearby homes.

174Mr. Litavski agreed with the opinion of Ms. Mcllroy that the proposed 195 metres long base building, combined with a mostly inactive façade and a dead-end pedestrian path, conflicts with the YROP 2022 policies and does not meet their requirements.

175Ms. Mcllroy added that the separation public and private pathways, along with dead-end routes and one-way exits, raises safety concerns. These design choices reduce walkability and limit opportunities for social interaction. A continuous, publicly accessible path around the building would improve safety by allowing two-way movement and more travel options in case of danger. This is especially important given the lack of visibility and activity around the building’s long façade.

176In regard to P. 4.4.4, 4.4.5, 4.4.10(e), 4.4.17, 4.4.19, 4.4.24, 4.4.29 (Intensification)

177Mr. Litavski provided that developing new housing through intensification is a clear regional priority, however, it must fit the character and scale of the area where it’s happening.

178Local Centres are the least intense type of Regional growth area and are planned entirely by local municipalities through their Official Plans. The Maskinonge Urban Centre is one such Local Centre. As intensification is encouraged and while some additional height may be appropriate on a site-specific basis, development should still respect the low to mid-rise character of these Local Centres within Keswick.

179Further, the proposal will cause significant shadowing and privacy issues for the homes to the north. These impacts could be avoided or greatly reduced with a design that better fits the existing and planned context of the Maskinonge Urban Centre.

180Both Mr. Litavski and Ms. Mcllroy opined that the proposal does not conform to the YROP 2022.

181The Tribunal hear of the importance to protect and improve views through the site especially regarding site lines to the Lake and marina. The imposing seven storey and 195 metres continual length of the structure base will create a wall obstructing views through the Subject Lands.

182Mr. Litavski stressed that through these policies, it is essential to ensure clear and connected access throughout the development, rather than creating dead-end paths and restricting much of the shoreline to private use.

183Ms. Mcllroy added the need for public safety. The lack of continuous pedestrian connections across the site reduces both comfort and safety for walkers. Although, the proposal includes a two storey commercial building at the southeast corner, it is poorly integrated with the residential high-rise, limiting its effectiveness.

184Further, the building’s length and the dominance of at-grade structured parking do not align with CPTED principles. Without active ground-level uses like residential units or amenity spaces, it is difficult to achieve natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, and effective space use.

Keswick Secondary Plan (2004)

185In regard to Section 13.1.3.2.1 (b), (e), (f) and h) and policy 13.1.3.2.1

186The Tribunal heard that the Secondary Plan establishes a network of three urban centres along The Queensway, each with its own character and vision, which collectively contribute to the overall Keswick Urban Structure.

187Mr. Litavski provided that while new development and intensification are encouraged, Urban Centres must fit well with their surroundings in terms of size, height, setbacks, privacy, landscaping, shadows, accessibility, and visual impact.

188Mr. Litavski opined that the current proposal does not meet this standard. Although, increase in height and density may be reasonable, the Appellant is asking for more than double the allowed density and over three times the permitted height. This results in excessive shadowing, poor shoreline access, and an unwelcoming, pedestrian-unfriendly environment.

189Ms. Mcllroy restated that the proposal is not compatible and sensitively integrated into the surrounding land uses. Further, a significant proportion of the ground floor of the proposed high-rise building is occupied by a structured parking garage, resulting in inactive frontages with an unsafe and non-continuous pedestrian environment surrounding the building.

190In regard to Section 13.1.3.2.3

191Mr. Litavski testified that the vision for the Maskinonge Urban Centre is to grow as a mixed-use, tourism-focused hub centered on marina and boating activities. While residential development is supported, the strategic location of the Subject Lands made them especially well-suited to advancing this goal, as reflected in the previously approved plan.

192Mr. Litavski reiterated that the increased height may be appropriate on the Subject Lands if designed and situated appropriately. Views are to be maintained within and through the site to the lake and along the water’s edge. In this case, the length and design of the base building is inappropriate, and the proposed 20-storey tower significantly exceeds the potential eight storey maximum and creates undue shadow and visual impact on neighbouring properties.

193Ms. Mcllroy restated that the proposal does not provide an appropriate scale and quality design, as it significantly exceeds the maximum height contemplated for the Maskinonge Urban Centre area. Further, the podium length significantly limits views and access through the Subject Land to the lake and river causing the interruption of public access, therefore, resulting in poor site circulation and site safety.

194In regard to Policy 13.1.2.9

195Mr. Litavski provided the proposal, at 210 UPH, is more than double the 100 units allowed under the KSP 2003 Similarly, the proposed 20-storey tower far exceeds the permitted height of six storeys, or eight storeys under special conditions.

196Ms. Mcllroy echoed Mr. Litavski’s opinion. Further, she added that while the proposal is within an Urban Centre designation and the Subject Lands is of an adequate size and configuration for on-site facilities and amenities that support high density development, it does not integrate with the surrounding land uses.

Keswick Secondary Plan (2023)

197In regard to Section 13.1.3

198Mr. Litavski offered , that while the proposal represents intensification and is located within a Local growth Area, it marks a significant divergence from the type of intensification anticipated and outlined in the 2023 plan.

199At 20 storeys and 210 units per hectare, the proposal goes far beyond what the Town’s Official Plan 2023 envisioned. The height is over three times the 6-storey limit set for the Maskinonge Urban Centre, and the density is 147% higher than the allowed maximum of 85 units per hectare.

200Mr. Litavski opined that while exceptions can be made for specific sites, the proposal strays too far from the new secondary plan and doesn’t align with its growth goals.

201In regard to S(s)13.1.14, 13.1.4.3.1, 13.1.4.3.2, (j)

202Ms. Mcllroy reiterated that the proposal does not provide continuous, year-round public access to the Lake Simcoe shoreline. The proposed high-rise residential building is out of scale with the surrounding development to the north and east in terms of height, massing, and overall size. While a high-rise may be suitable for this site, the current design is overly large and does not fit the context.

203Ms. Mcllroy further opined the placement of the private at-grade amenity space is poorly located, restricting both public access and views of Lake Simcoe. Additionally, the 900 square metres floorplate is significant and is excess of maximum floorplate sizes recommended as a benchmark for good urban design. The proposed floor plate results in shadowing effects on neighbouring lots that are longer in duration, and limits sky views from the surrounding area due to the height and mass of the tower.

204In regard to Section 13.1.6.1.1

205Mr. Litvaski testified, the Local Strategic Growth Area along Woodbine is clearly designated to support the highest density and tallest building forms within Keswick. In contrast, the Urban Centres, particularly the Maskinonge Urban Centre is envisioned as more modest in scale, featuring low- to mid-rise development that fosters a village-like atmosphere, aligned with the existing character of The Queensway.

206Mr. Litvaski opined, the Appellant’s proposal diverges from the established policy direction by introducing a significantly denser and taller urban built form that is inconsistent with both the existing and planned character of the area.

207Ms. Mcllroy added that although the proposal will provide a pier and marina docks, it will interfere with public access along the waterfront at the north edge of the Site.

208Ms. Mcllroy further provided; the proposed development does not include any three-bedroom units. Mid- to high-rise buildings on this unique waterfront site should offer a diverse mix of unit types including three-bedroom and grade-related units to enhance livability and accommodate a variety of family sizes and needs. Additionally, ground-related units can improve accessibility, activate the public realm, and support CPTED principles.

209In regard to Section 13.1.6.1.1 (a) through (ii)

210Mr. Litvaski disclosed that the KSP 2023 reaffirms the vision established in the KSP 2003, identifying the three urban centres along The Queensway as key destinations for tourism and as mixed-use growth nodes, which intended to accommodate new residents and businesses. These centres are envisioned to retain a low- to mid-rise built form that reflects Keswick’s existing character. The plan sets a maximum building height of 6 storeys or 20 metres, and explicitly prohibits high-rise residential development.

211While some degree of variation may be appropriate for the Subject Lands, the current proposal significantly exceeds these established parameters and thus does not conform to the vision for Urban Centres set out in the KSP 2023.

212Ms. Mcllroy acknowledged that the proposal does provide both for a residential and commercial structures. She opined that the integration of these two elements within the podium of the proposal would activate and improve the experience at grade level.

213Insofar, Ms. Mcllroy opined that the proposal does not meet the best practices in urban design and provides a built form that overwhelms the site.

214Ms. Mcllroy guided the Tribunal to the Urban Design & Architectural Control Guidelines as outlined in Appendix I of the Keswick Secondary Plan.

215As Ms. Mcllory repeated throughout her testimony, the massing, height, setbacks, and orientation of the proposed development fail to appropriately consider the adjacent low-rise residential context.

216The applicable Guidelines emphasize the importance of design excellence and contextual compatibility (Section 3.1.1(2)), the creation of multi-storey buildings that contribute to a strong urban street presence (Section 3.1.1(4)), and the provision of convenient direct access from sidewalks and public open spaces to primary building entrances (Section 3.1.1(7)).

217Ms. Mcllory opined, the size and length of the proposed development overwhelm the surrounding pedestrian area and create an unsafe environment. This is mainly due to the above-ground parking garage, which dominates the lower two to three storeys and lacks active uses at street level.

218Ms. Mcllory further provided that the proposal does not provide a positive transition to the low scale residential neighbourhood to the north.

219Ms.Mcllroy emphasized that the proposal disregards the Guidelines in relation to:

a. approximately 90% inactive elevations within its first two to three storeys;

b. does not animate the ground floor of the building with commercial or retail uses;

c. excessive building length limits pedestrian connectivity to and through the site;

d. will not result in an active and safe pedestrian experience surrounding the high-rise building.

220Ms. Mcllroy opined that the Proposed Development is not responsive to its existing or planned context and does not represent best practices in urban design.

221Mr. Litavski concluded, the proposed development is too great a departure from the new secondary plan and does not conform to the plan’s growth management direction.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

222In considering these appeals, the Tribunal has reviewed and have been given careful consideration to the materials and submissions of all Parties.

223The Tribunal acknowledges that the Town's concerns throughout the Hearing have primarily focused on the scale, massing and density of the proposed development and issues related to urban structure, growth management, and urban design.

224The Tribunal further recognizes the concerns raised by the Town also reflect concerns related to sufficiency of water and wastewater servicing.

225Respectfully, the Tribunal was persuaded by the testimony of Mr. Demczak and Mr. Theodore in that the Proposed Development is appropriate for the Subject Land.

226The Tribunal determined, the Subject Lands represent the largest undeveloped parcel within the Maskinonge Urban Centre and are uniquely positioned, surrounded by water on three sides, making them particularly well-suited for higher-density development compared to other properties in the area.

227The design responds thoughtfully to its surroundings, featuring a seven-storey podium that is appropriately set back from nearby residential properties, and a slender 13-storey tower above that is strategically positioned to reduce potential impacts on privacy, overlook, and shadowing.

228The Tribunal finds that by increasing the building height, the previously approved massing is redistributed vertically, leading to a more effective land use arrangement. This approach allows a large portion of the site to remain available for publicly accessible open space, supporting both practical functions and urban design principles.

229The Tribunal accepts that the proposed development would transform an underutilized site into a vibrant mixed-use community, delivering new residential units within a designated Strategic Growth Area. The proposed development promotes compact, efficient land use within the existing urban boundary and capitalizes on the Town’s and Region’s prior investments in transit, infrastructure, and municipal services, consistent with Section 2 of the Planning Act.

230The Tribunal finds that the proposed development supports the Town’s growth objectives as outlined in Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022. The project includes 380 residential units - comprising 236 one-bedroom and 144 two-bedroom units and offers flexible internal configurations that allow for the combination of units to create larger two- or three-bedroom options, if needed.

231The integration of residential and commercial uses, publicly accessible open space, and a diverse housing mix supports the development of a complete community, in line with the PPS.

232The Tribunal agrees that the proposal is consistent with the objectives of the PPS and represent a meaningful improvement over the Initial Approval. The revised plan reduces both surface parking and overall building footprint, allowing for a greater extent of publicly accessible open space on the Subject Lands. This expanded open space will offer a range of pedestrian-oriented features, including a shoreline boardwalk that links to passive recreation areas, shaded seating, a commercial plaza, active recreational zones, a waterfront pier with boat docking facilities, and a scenic lookout. All public spaces will be designed to meet Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) standards, ensuring accessibility for people of all ages and abilities.

233The Tribunal concurs, as the only designated Urban Area in the Town, Keswick is expected to absorb a significant portion of planned growth and intensification. The proposal delivers a density that supports transit use and promotes efficient land utilization, helping the Town address both current and future housing demands in line with the YROP.

234The Tribunal finds that the proposed development complies with the evaluation of both the KSP 2003 Urban Design Guidelines and the KSP 2023 Urban Design & Architectural Control Guidelines. The proposed development is consistent with the principles and requirements outlined in both documents.

235The Tribunal is satisfied of the wetland located on the site, does not meet the criteria for Provincially Significant Wetland designation. In alignment with environmental best practices, a 15 metres setback has been established from both the wetland and the Lake Simcoe shoreline.

236The EIS supports this reduced setback, referencing existing site disturbances and consistency with the Town’s broader development goals. Additionally, the Stormwater Management Plan outlines targeted mitigation strategies to manage runoff and protect water quality, ensuring that potential environmental impacts are effectively minimized.

237The Tribunal finds the proposed development strengthens public access to the shoreline and adds to the open space network within the strategically important Maskinonge Urban Centre. This initiative aligns with the Official Plan’s vision, which emphasizes maximizing waterfront accessibility and enhancing the quality of the public realm.

238The Tribunal agrees that the proposed open spaces have been carefully planned to harmonize with the site's adjacent natural heritage features, strengthening the relationship with the surrounding landscape. The development introduces a modern architectural expression that includes a series of step backs and maintains suitable separation from the northern property boundary. These characteristics help create an efficient transition to nearby properties and land uses.

239The Tribunal finds that the Proposal speaks to the CPTED standards. Initial lighting concepts, the final decisions regarding lighting design and placement across the public realm, private spaces, and publicly accessible areas will be determined during the Site Plan Approval process.

240The Tribunal accepts that the proposed path routes within both the publicly accessible and private open spaces follow a gently curving layout, which enhances natural surveillance by preserving clear sightlines and minimizing blind spots. Ms. McIlroy confirmed during cross-examination that she had no concerns with the sightlines illustrated in the visual materials.

241The Tribunal further accepts the height of the screened parking structure has been addressed through strategic landscaping and screening measures. The design features perforated panels in varying colours, which add visual interest and help to break up the building’s massing along pedestrian pathways, thereby minimizing visual monotony. These panels are further enhanced by a strong landscape edge along the podium’s publicly and privately accessible areas, particularly in zones with anticipated high pedestrian traffic.

242The Tribunal finds that the location of the apartment component does not present significant overlook concerns for the residential properties to the north. The neighbourhood is well-shielded by a mature tree canopy, which offers effective natural screening. Moreover, the tower’s elevation and its setback from the northern boundary further diminish any potential for overlook, shadowing and privacy impacts.

243The Tribunal finds, the proposed development establishes a unique and recognizable presence and gateway within the Maskinonge Urban Area, acting as a key visual and functional anchor through the inclusion of a single, carefully designed point tower, contributing to an enhanced public realm.

244The Tribunal further finds the imposition of an Holding (H) provision will ensure that a building permit is not issued until conditions of water and wastewater services met or until such times as allocation is provided to the satisfaction of the Region of York.

245The Tribunal finds the proposal has sufficient regard for the matters in s. 2 of the Planning Act. The proposed OPA and ZBLA are consistent with the PPS, conform to the YROP, and where applicable the Town’s Official Plan.

ORDER

246THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part and Orders that the Official Plan for the Town of Georgina is modified as follows, and as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal Orders that the Official Plan is approved as modified.

247THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the Tribunal directs the Town of Georgina to amend By-law 500 as follows, and as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.

248The Final Order will be withheld pending completion of the following:

a. pending confirmation of sufficient water and wastewater capacity sufficient to service and make allocation to the Development to the satisfaction of the Region of York.

“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.

Attachment 1

Attachment 2