Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 12, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000427

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

Applicant/Appellant: DRC (Markham) Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: Propose to develop a mix-used building with two 40 storey towers and nine townhouse units. Reference Number: Plan 22 253004 Property Address: 8127-8149 Yonge Street Municipality/UT: Markham/York OLT Case No: OLT-23-000427 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000427 OLT Case Name: DRC (Markham) Inc. v. Markham (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: DRC (Markham) Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – neglect to make a decision Reference Number: Plan 22 253004 Property Address: 8127-8149 Yonge Street Municipality/UT: Markham/York OLT Case No: OLT-23-000428 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000427

Heard: May 2, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
DRC (Markham) Inc.	Paul DeMelo
City of Markham	Lee English Maggie Cheung-Madar Piper Morley
Ali Dianat	Andrew Jeanrie

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. Dixon ON MAY 2, 2025, AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Interim Order

INTRODUCTION

Background

1This Decision and Interim Order arises from a Hearing on the Merits regarding appeals filed by DRC (Markham) Inc. (“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 amendment (“OPA”) and zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) applications (together, “Applications”) in the City of Markham (“City”) for lands known municipally as 8127-8149 Yonge Street (“Subject Lands”).

2The Applications, revised in February 2025, seek to facilitate the development of a high-rise mixed-use development with two towers of 50 and 55 storeys atop a shared eight-storey podium.

3The City did not make a decision on the Applications within the statutory timeframes prescribed by the Act and the appeals were filed on that basis.

Added Party

4At a prior Case Management Conference, Ali Dianat was granted Party status to these proceedings. Mr. Dianat owns a restaurant with a front outdoor patio located in the commercial plaza to the immediate north of the Subject Lands. He is concerned with the potential wind impacts on his restaurant’s patio resulting from the proposed development.

SETTLEMENT

5The Parties advised the Tribunal that they reached a settlement of the appeals, in principle. The settlement contemplates a revision to the tower heights of the proposed development from 55 and 50 storeys to 50 and 47 storeys, as well as the addition of a holding provision in the ZBA requiring the completion of a wind study that assesses the impacts of the proposed development on Mr. Dianat’s restaurant patio (“Revised Applications”).

6In support of the settlement, the Tribunal heard viva voce evidence from Lauren Capilongo. Ms. Capilongo is a Principal of Malone Given Parsons Ltd. and a Registered Professional Planner with over 17 years of professional planning experience. She has been previously qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning and was so qualified once again by the Tribunal.

7In support of her oral testimony, Ms. Capilongo relied on her previously filed witness statement, which was marked as Exhibit 1, and a Visual Evidence Book, which was marked as Exhibit 2. Ms. Capilongo proffered that while Exhibit 1 was drafted prior to the settlement being reached, her opinions therein are still applicable to the Revised Applications, which represent “minor tweaks” to the prior development concept.

ANALYSIS

Site and Area Context

Existing Context

8The Subject Lands – currently occupied by a two-storey commercial plaza – are located on the east side of Yonge Street, mid-block between Kirk Drive to the north and Bay Thorn Drive to the south, with approximately 103 metres of frontage along Yonge Street. Further south (approximately 300 metres from the Subject Lands) is the intersection of Yonge Street and Royal Orchard Boulevard, the confirmed location for a future subway station.

9Ms. Capilongo proffered that the land uses along the east and west sides of Yonge Street are dominated by strip plaza commercial uses, including to the immediate north and south of the Subject Lands. The lands to the north include Mr. Dianat’s property, which vehicular traffic can only access via a shared driveway (and a corresponding access easement running parallel to Yonge Street) located on the Subject Lands. The access easement restricts any relocation of the driveway access from Yonge Street.

10The lands to the immediate west, on the west side of Yonge Street, are currently being redeveloped with a 10-storey mixed-use building. Further west is a residential neighbourhood consisting of single detached dwellings and Langstaff School Park. To the immediate east of the Subject Lands are existing medium density residential dwellings in the form of two-storey townhouses. Further east is a residential neighbourhood consisting of single detached dwellings and Pioneer Park.

Emerging Context

11Ms. Capilongo proffered that the City prepared a study called The Yonge Corridor Land Use and Built Form Study Report (“Yonge Corridor Study”), which anticipates the Yonge North Subway Extension (“YNSE”) into Markham. The YNSE has been approved through an Environmental Assessment and addendum, is fully funded, and is in the detailed planning and design stages.

12Ms. Capilongo further proffered that the Yonge Corridor Study presents a land use and built form concept for each of the planned subway stations in the City, including Royal Orchard Subway Station, which is identified as a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”). The Subject Lands are located within the Royal Orchard MTSA.

Planning Analysis

13In Ms. Capilongo’s opinion, the YNSE and associated MTSAs are a major catalyst for considerable intensification along the Yonge Street corridor and the Subject Lands, in particular, given their proximity to same. The Subject Lands also benefit from frequent bus service, with stops for York Region Transit, York Region VIVA rapid bus service, and GO Transit routes adjacent to the Subject Lands.

14Ms. Capilongo proffered that the Revised Applications:

a) Redesignate the Subject Lands from “Mixed Use Mid Rise” to “Mixed Use High Rise” with a site-specific exception to permit a maximum building height of 50 storeys and a maximum Floor Space Index of 13.7;

b) Remove the Subject Lands from City Zoning By-law No. 2150 and incorporate them into the City’s new Zoning By-law No. 2024-19; and

c) Rezone the Subject Lands from “Highway Commercial General (HC1)” to “MU-HR (IA) Mixed Use – High Rise (Intensification Area)” with site specific provisions (including holding provisions) to permit the proposed development.

15Ms. Capilongo further proffered that the Revised Applications:

a) Provide for a range of residential unit types;

b) Provide appropriate setbacks to adjacent properties;

c) Increase the retail-at-grade fronting Yonge Street to 1,725.6 square metres (“m²”);

d) Introduce a full moves access to the Subject Lands from Yonge Street;

e) Introduce a six-metre rear laneway extending along the entirety of the rear property line, intended to provide future connectivity between the parcels to the north and south, thereby reducing the existing at-grade parking and driveway uses immediately adjacent to Yonge Street;

f) Provide a total amenity space of 2,807.7 m², consisting of 1,209.9 m² of outdoor amenity space and 1,597.8 m² of indoor amenity space; and

g) Include 1,402 bicycle parking spaces.

16In Ms. Capilongo’s opinion, the Revised Applications support the optimisation of land use and infrastructure, focus mixed-use intensification in an MTSA on an underutilised commercial plaza, diversify the existing housing stock, and support higher-order transit along Yonge Street. Accordingly, it is Ms. Capilongo’s opinion that the Revised Applications:

a) Have regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and in particular matters 2(f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (m), (n), (p), (q), (r), and (s);

b) Are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”);

c) Conform to the York Region Official Plan (“YROP”);

d) Generally conform with the City Official Plan (“COP”);

e) Are generally consistent with the Yonge Corridor Study; and

f) Represent good land use planning.

17In response to a question from Mr. Jeanrie (counsel to Mr. Dianat) during a brief cross-examination, Ms. Capilongo confirmed that the inclusion of a holding provision in the ZBA requiring the completion of a wind study in relation to the lands to the north is, in her opinion, good planning.

FINDINGS

18Based on the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence of Ms. Capilongo, the Tribunal finds that the Revised Applications 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 general purpose and intent of the COP, represent good planning, and are in the public interest.

REVISED INSTRUMENTS

19The draft OPA and ZBA before the Tribunal at the Hearing (and attached to this Decision and Interim Order as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, respectively) did not reflect the revised building heights nor include draft language for the agreed upon holding provision requiring the completion of a wind study. Counsel for the Appellant submitted – and the other Parties agreed – that the draft instruments before the Tribunal were essentially in their final form and that a revised draft OPA and revised draft ZBA (“Revised Instruments”) reflecting the aforementioned changes could be submitted to the Tribunal for its consideration by the end of May 2025.

20The Tribunal therefore directed that the Revised Instruments be submitted to the Tribunal by no later than Friday, May 30, 2025 or, failing that, that an update be provided to the Tribunal with respect to the anticipated timing of same. The Tribunal further noted that, given the short timeframe for the anticipated submission of the Revised Instruments, the Tribunal’s Interim Order with respect to same would only be made orally at the Hearing, with a final written order to be withheld and issued following receipt of the Revised Instruments.

21As of the date of issuance of this Decision and Interim Order, however, the Parties have not provided the Tribunal with the Revised Instruments, nor an update with respect to the anticipated timing of same. Accordingly, the Tribunal has elected to issue the following Interim Order in writing, with a revised date for the required submission of the Revised Instruments (or an update respecting the same).

INTERIM ORDER

22THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in Paragraph [25] below.

23THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the official plan amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order is hereby approved, in principle.

24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the zoning by-law amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order is hereby approved, in principle.

25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that it will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon written confirmation by counsel to all Parties that the Tribunal has been provided with the final form of the proposed official plan amendment and the final form of the zoning by-law amendment, inclusive of a holding provision requiring the completion of a wind study, which are satisfactory to the Parties in form and content.

26If counsel to 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 Order, set out in Paragraph [25], above, have been satisfied by Friday, October 10, 2025, the Appellant shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date.

27The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event there are any issues implementing the Interim Order above.

28This 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