Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 16, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000402

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

Applicant and Appellant: ATC CAP Investments Limited

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

Description: To permit development of 14 residential units consisting of freehold townhouses

Reference Number: ZBA.21.01

Property Address: Part of Lot 15, Concession 3

Municipality/UT: East Gwillimbury/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000402

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000402

OLT Case Name: ATC CAP Investments Limited v. East Gwillimbury (Town)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: ATC CAP Investments Limited

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit development of 14 residential units consisting of freehold townhouses

Reference Number: 19T-20211

Property Address: Part of Lot 15, Concession 3

Municipality/UT: East Gwillimbury/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000403

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000402

Heard: February 23, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
ATC CAP Investments Limited (“Applicant”/“Appellant”)	Katarzyna Sliwa, Doug Pateman
Town of East Gwillimbury (“Town”)	Brendan Ruddick, Alexandra Whyte

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON FEBRUARY 23, 2026 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was a hearing to consider a settlement proposal (“Proposal”) of the Appellant’s appeals of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) of Zoning By-law No. 2018-043 (“ZBL”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) (the “Applications”).

2The purpose of the Applications was to facilitate the development of 14 residential units consisting of freehold townhouses on lands municipally known as Part of Lot 15, Concession 3 (“Subject Lands”/“site”), in the Town.

3At the start of the hearing, counsel for the Appellant informed the Tribunal that the DPS appeal is withdrawn and the Parties consented to a dismissal of that appeal.

4Following this Proposal, a draft ZBA was provided.

5Nour Bedas, a Registered Professional Planner, swore an Affidavit on February 19, 2026, on behalf of the Appellant, in support of the Proposal. She was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters. The Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1.

6The Tribunal, having reviewed the documents, the Proposal, and the uncontroverted sworn testimony of Ms. Bedas, allows the s. 34(11) Planning Act (“Act”) appeal for the reasons set out below.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

7Ms. Bedas explained the background to the ZBA and the Proposal. She reviewed the legislative and policy framework in support of the ZBA and Proposal.

8The relevant policy framework includes the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”), the Regional Municipality of York Official Plan (“ROP”), and the Town’s Official Plan (“OP”). Ms. Bedas’ opinion was that the Proposal and ZBA represent good land use planning and the ZBA should be approved.

AREA CONTEXT

9The Subject Lands are located in an area transitioning from rural to urban character and are positioned at the intersection of Leslie Street and Doane Road. The surrounding uses are: north, low-density rural residential dwellings; south, agricultural fields and open lands; east, undeveloped parcels and Town-owned road allowances; and west, residential and mixed-use parcels fronting Leslie Street.

10The Subject Lands are located within a designated Urban Area and are adjacent to a Regional Greenlands System, as identified on Figure 4 – Map 1, under the ROP.

11The Subject Lands are designated as a Community Area, located within a Local Corridor, as shown by Schedule A-1 of the OP.

12The Subject Lands are currently zoned as Rural (RU) Zone under the ZBL.

THE REVISED PROPOSAL

13The initial proposed development, when the Applications were filed, included 14 residential townhouse units.

14The Appellant and the Town contemplated a land swap to create a more developable and uniform parcel. The Appellant owns Developable Block A and Developable Block B, as well as the lands that form part of the Doane Road realignment. The Town owns the Jeffery Crescent South Block. Following the land swap, the Town will own Developable Block A, and the Appellant will own the Jeffrey Crescent South Block. The proposed ZBA will allow for a single development on a consolidated parcel made up of Developable Block B and the Jeffrey Crescent South Block.

15A revised plan for a four‑storey mixed‑use building, utilizing part of the Jeffrey Crescent right‑of‑way was submitted, and is the current proposal before the Tribunal. A draft concept plan of the proposed four‑storey building is attached to Ms. Bedas’ affidavit as Exhibit I.

16A formal resubmission for the ZBA was provided to the Town to recognize the four‑storey building. The ZBA seeks to rezone the Subject Lands from Rural (RU) to Mixed Use Seven (MU7), under the ZBL. A site-specific exception is proposed to permit a maximum building height of 17 metres, exclusive of elevator and amenity space enclosures, and to add an “Assisted Living Facility” as a permitted use. The ZBA will allow the development to achieve a maximum height of four storeys, as permitted by the OP. The ZBA will have a H1 holding provision.

ANALYSIS/FINDINGS

17The Tribunal agrees with the uncontested opinion evidence of Ms. Bedas that the Proposal has proper regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, in particular, s. 2(h) on the orderly development of communities, s. 2(p) on the appropriate location of growth and development, and s. 2(q) on the promotion of development that supports public transit and is oriented to pedestrians.

Provincial Planning Statement, 2024

18Ms. Bedas opined and the Tribunal agrees that the Proposal is consistent with the policies of the PPS. The Proposal directs growth to serviced settlement areas and emphasizes the timely delivery of housing. The development contributes to the Town’s housing supply in a built form appropriate for a transitioning area. This is consistent with PPS policies 2.2.1 and 2.3.1.3, which state:

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

2.3.1.3: Planning authorities shall support general intensification and redevelopment to support the achievement of complete communities, including by planning for a range and mix of housing options and prioritizing planning and investment in the necessary infrastructure and public service facilities.

19The Proposal supports the principle of complete communities by integrating retail uses, walkable design, and proximity to existing amenities and transportation corridors as required.In terms of infrastructure “3.1.1 Infrastructure and public service facilities shall be provided in an efficient manner while accommodating projected needs”.

20The Tribunal finds that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS.

Region of York Official Plan

21The Subject Lands are within the Urban Area, as identified in the ROP.

22At the time of the original applications, the 2010 ROP was the applicable upper‑tier policy for the Subject Lands. Given that the resubmitted mixed‑use proposal post‑dates the adoption of the 2022 ROP, the 2024 ROP (Office Consolidation) is the applicable plan.

23Ms. Bedas stated that the development demonstrates compatibility with surrounding uses, appropriate transition in height and massing, and strong urban design as required by the policies, including those in s. 2.2.2, which states:

2.2.2: That growth management be integrated such that land use, financial and infrastructure planning achieve compact development patterns, promote the development of complete communities, optimize investments, provide for environmental sustainability, and minimize land consumption and servicing costs.

24The Tribunal agrees with Ms. Bedas that the ZBA reinforces the public realm and provides an animated, pedestrian‑scaled frontage, at a prominent intersection. Its compact footprint and underground parking support sustainable urban design and infrastructure efficiency. The Proposal reflects principles of good planning by optimizing land use, enhancing neighbourhood character, and coordinating development with public investment. In particular, the revised Proposal conforms with the key policies in s. 2.2.2 and s. 2.2.4 of the ROP.

25The Tribunal finds that the Proposal conforms to the ROP.

Town Official Plan

26Given that the resubmission of the mixed‑use proposal post‑dates the adoption of the 2022 OP, the ZBA was reviewed to ensure conformity with the adopted OP policy context.

27The Subject Lands have been strategically assembled and reconfigured through the coordination of public road realignment and private land consolidation, resulting in a developable parcel that is functional, appropriately scaled, and well-located.

28Ms. Bedas stated that the ZBA represents a logical and efficient form of infill within the Town’s designated Community Area. It conforms with the OP which encourages compact, mixed-use, and pedestrian-oriented development within the urban boundary. She reiterated, and the Tribunal agrees, that the ZBA conforms to policy 3.2iv) of the OP as it falls within the settlement boundary identified in the OP, specifically along a Corridor which is intended to support a wide range of uses. Community Areas policy 3.2.2 of the OP says:

An effectively planned Community Area fosters a sense of belonging and includes a variety of housing sizes, types and densities as well as other uses that contribute to the creation of: i) vibrant, identifiable, liveable and walkable neighbourhoods; ii) a built environment that provides opportunities for residents to meet their daily needs; iii) pedestrian movement that is sustainable and prioritizes people over cars.

29Centres and Corridors are planned to accommodate the highest densities and broadest mix of uses. These policies intend that the majority of medium and high density housing will be located there to become focal points for residents to meet their needs (policy 3.2.3iii) and v) of the OP).

30The ZBA conforms to policies 3.1c.i) and 3.5.3 of the OP and facilitates an infill medium density proposal that contributes to the creation of a complete community through the introduction of a dense, walkable, form of development along a local corridor. These policies state:

3.1 c.i) A Complete Community with a focus on the provision of a mix of housing types, including housing that is more affordable, and with easy access to a full range of land uses that support a complete community;

3.5.3 Infill and intensification is encouraged within the built boundary, particularly within Village Core Areas, Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential land use designations and along Local Corridors.

31The Tribunal finds that the Proposal conforms to the OP.

Summary

32The Tribunal finds that the Proposal:

a) Is a development promoting residential intensification while providing housing stock for existing and future residents;

b) Is within a transitioning area of the Town, close to municipal infrastructure and amenities for a site suitable for the residential intensification planned;

c) Is transit supportive and will result in a complete and healthy community in this neighbourhood;

d) Represents intensification that is compatible with the neighbourhood character, without adverse impacts to the area;

e) Represents an appropriate increase in needed housing and advances the Town’s goals for intensification and optimal use of infrastructure;

f) Is a compact urban design-built form on an underutilized site within a designated growth area; and

g) Is a development that provides an animated public realm, and pedestrian accessibility at a prominent intersection.

CONCLUSION

33The Tribunal is satisfied that the Proposal represents good planning and that the proposed draft ZBA has regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms to the ROP and the OP.

34The Tribunal grants the s. 34(11) appeal in part and approves the ZBA.

ORDER

35THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, by consent, the s. 51(34) Planning Act appeal is dismissed.

36THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the s. 34(11) Planning Act appeal is allowed, in part; and the Town of East Gwillimbury is directed to amend By-law No. 2018-043 as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“T.F. NG”

T.F. NG

VICE-CHAIR

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