Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 30, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000064

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2631622 Ontario Corp.

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

Description: To permit the amendment of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 and Zoning By-law 001-2021

Reference Number: OP.23.005

Property Address: 11151 Highway 50

Municipality/UT: Vaughan

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000064

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000064

OLT Case Name: 2631622 Ontario Corp. v. Vaughan (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 2631622 Ontario Corp.

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

Description: To permit the amendment of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 and Zoning By-law 001-2021

Reference Number: Z.23.008

Property Address: 11151 Highway 50

Municipality/UT: Vaughan

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000063

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000064

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 2631622 Ontario Corp.

Subject: By-law No. 001-2021

Description: To permit the amendment of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 and Zoning By-law 001-2021

Reference Number: 174-2024

Property Address: 11151 Highway 50

Municipality/UT: Vaughan

OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000061

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000064

Heard: March 10-12, 2026, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
2631622 Ontario Corp.	M. Helfand
City of Vaughan	M. Rubin

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision and Order address appeals by 2631622 Ontario Corp. (“Appellant”) against the failure of the City of Vaughan (“City”) to decide on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Temporary Use Zoning By-law (“TZBL”) (collectively, “Applications”), and against the City’s adoption of By-law No. 174-2024 (“174-2024”). Both appeals relate to the property legally described as Part of Lot 28, Concession 11, Part 4, Plan 65R-19710 (“Site”) and were heard together.

2There is a unique contextual and historical backdrop to the appeals, including significant legislative and policy changes affecting the Site, as well as development constraints thereon, by virtue of it being in an area identified by the Province of Ontario (“Province”) for significant future infrastructure, namely Highway (“Hwy”) 413 and a new hydro transmission corridor. In light of the foregoing, this case largely focused upon the appropriate timing of planning applications/development amid a shifting policy landscape.

BACKGROUND

3In early 2021, the Appellant was advised by the City that, because the Site was in the Focused Analysis Area (“FAA”) and Narrowed Area of Interest (“NAI”) for the planned Hwy 413 and hydro transmission corridor, no permanent structures were permitted thereon until the Province determined preferred corridor routes.

4In October 2021, the City rezoned the Site from Agriculture (“Ag”) to General Commercial (“GC”) in Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 (“001-2021”). Shortly thereafter, the Appellant began using the Site as an intermodal facility. Such a use is not permitted in either zone and enforcement action by the City resulted in the Appellant pleading guilty to an offence and agreeing to pay the applicable fines.

5To permit the otherwise illegal use (which continues to date), the Appellant met with City staff in April 2022 and was advised that a TZBL and OPA were required. The required applications were submitted in May 2023 and, at the time, the proposed OPA maintained the underlying land use designations in the City’s Official Plan 2010 (“VOP”), adding site-specific policies to permit the otherwise illegal use. The Applications were deemed complete on May 30, 2023.

6On July 1, 2024, the Regional Municipality of York (“Region”) lost planning responsibilities pursuant to Bill 185 (Cutting Red Tape to Build More Homes Act), and the Regional Official Plan (“YROP”) was deemed to be a local Official Plan. Shortly thereafter, the Appellant revised the Applications, responding to comments from the City but also changing the OPA, which now seeks to amend underlying land use designations in the VOP and no longer proposes site-specific policies to permit the use.

7In October 2024, the City adopted 174-2024, rezoning the Site from GC back to Ag on the basis that the Site was erroneously rezoned in 001-2021, as adopted. In November 2024, the Appellant submitted the present appeals.

8The City adopted a new City Official Plan (“VOP2025”) in October 2025. VOP2025 is not yet in force and effect, and while it is not determinative of the issues in this Hearing, it includes relevant transition provisions and identifies the Site as being within an area planned for employment uses.

9The Site was released from the FAA for Hwy 413 in December 2025, but it remains in the NAI for the hydro transmission corridor. Consequently, it may be subject to a future expropriation/encumbrance and the development constraint prohibiting permanent structures remains, pending determination of a preferred corridor route.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

10The proposed OPA seeks to change the Site’s designation in the VOP from Natural Areas and Countryside to Employment Areas on Schedule 1 (Urban Structure) and from Agricultural to General Employment on Schedule 13 (Land Use). The Appellant takes issue with the rezoning of the Site to Ag in 174-2024 and instead proposes a new Zoning By-law Amendment to rezone the Site from GC to Future Development (“FD”). The TZBL seeks to permit the existing intermodal facility and associated structures on the Site for a period of three years, in addition to the uses permitted in the proposed FD zone.

11The Tribunal must be satisfied that each of the planning instruments has regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”), is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) and represents good planning in the public interest. Regard must be given to the decision of Council and the information that was considered by it. In this instance, the Tribunal has given regard to the decision and information relating to 174-2024 and acknowledges that, while there was no decision on the Applications, the City instructed counsel to appear in opposition to the appeals.

12The OPA must align with the overall vision of the applicable Official Plans, and the zoning instruments (the TZBL, 174-2024, and the Appellant’s proposed amendment to 001-2021) must conform therewith. In this case, there are two in-force local Official Plans, the YROP and the VOP. In the event of a conflict, the YROP prevails pursuant to s. 70.13(7) of the Act, which states:

In the event of a conflict, the portions of an Official Plan of an upper-tier municipality without planning responsibilities that are deemed under subsection (2) to constitute an Official Plan of the lower-tier municipality and an Official Plan or an amendment to an Official Plan that the lower-tier municipality is deemed to have adopted under subsection (3) prevail over an Official Plan of a lower-tier municipality that existed before the effective date.

13It is important to note that the not-in-force VOP2025 includes the following transition provisions:

It is the policy of Council:

1.3.2.1 That on approval of this plan, pursuant to By-law 241-2025, VOP 2010 and the YROP 2022 are repealed, save and except (and until such time as those portions are repealed and replaced pursuant to policies 1.3.2.2. and 1.3.2.3):

a) Volume 1 and Volume 2 of VOP 2010 remain in force…

d) For greater certainty, a reference to the policies or schedules of Volume 1 of VOP 2010… or in an approval arising from an application or appeal pursuant to policies 1.3.2.4(a), (b), (d)…is a reference to Volume 1 of VOP 2010 as it read immediately before it was repealed…

1.3.2.2 That over time the remainder of Volumes 1 and 2 of VOP 2010 may be repealed as updated or replacement policies are adopted…

1.3.2.4 That development applications:

a) submitted prior to the date this Plan is adopted (including any appeals of such development applications) shall not be subject to this Plan unless they have been deemed incomplete, and shall be reviewed and assessed under the appropriate Official Plan policies and schedules prior to this Plan…

SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA

14The 4.4-hectare Site is located between and has an approximate frontage of 205 metres (“m”) along both of Hwy 50, a Regional Major Arterial Road, and Cold Creek Road, a two-lane Collector Road. Directly across from the Site, west of Hwy 50, are City of Brampton lands planned for industrial/employment uses. East, along Cold Creek Road, are lands used as parking for intermodal facilities. Further east are undeveloped agricultural and open space lands. Immediately north and south of the Site are intermodal transportation terminals and logistics facilities. Further north, in the Town of Caledon, there are a mix of residential and employment uses, including similar transport/logistics operations. In all, 24 similar intermodal facilities (some of which are also operating without necessary planning permissions) exist in and around the area of the Site, with 11 of those sites being within the City.

15The surrounding area includes several major goods movement facilities, including Toronto Pearson International Airport, approximately 20 kilometres (“km”) from the Site, and three large intermodal rail terminals: Canadian Pacific Kansas City Vaughan; Canadian National Rail Brampton; and Canadian National Rail MacMillan (“The Rail Terminals”), all within 4, 15, and 20 km, respectively. Access to the 400-series highway network is presently within 4 km and the new Hwy 413/427 interchange is planned to be located directly south of the Site.

16The proposed temporary development is an approximately 14,000 square metres (“sq m”) intermodal facility with seven accessory structures (three for office space) and outdoor storage for containers (stacked four high). Approximately 10,500 sq m will be landscaped, including buffers with a minimum depth of 10 m around the perimeter of the Site, exclusive of access locations. Although those precise locations will be determined at the Site Plan stage of development, currently proposed are the existing Cold Creek Road access and a future access from Hwy 50.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

Appellant

17The Appellant takes the position that the appeals must be disposed of based on the planning framework as it exists today. The OPA is characterized as a “technical” amendment, resolving a direct conflict between the policies and long-term planning visions for the Site, resulting from being designated Agricultural in the VOP and Employment Areas in the YROP. The Appellant also notes VOP2025 confirms the long-term planning intent for the Site, which is employment, not agriculture.

18It is argued that 174-2024 does not meet the test of Official Plan conformity, as it fails to conform with the YROP, which designates the Site Employment Area, and which prevails in the event of a conflict. As such, the Appellant submits the Ag zone does not align with the in-force planning framework and long-term intent for the Site. Instead, the Appellant proposes a FD zone, an interim/temporary category allowing minimal uses that can later be amended to a more appropriate zone, in accordance with the conclusions of any future planning studies. The Appellant asserts the proposed amendment to 001-2021 is a reasonable solution, which is not in conflict with the applicable Official Plans.

19The Appellant further submits the TZBL will permit a temporary use that supports efficient goods movement in proximity to provincial highways and major rail/air facilities. Moreover, it recognizes and aligns not only with the Site’s Employment Area designation in the YROP and future planned context, but also with the current developmental constraint owing to the planned hydro transmission corridor. The Appellant submits the TZBL meets the requisite legislative tests including, but not limited to, specific criteria for the temporary use of land set out in the VOP.

20Finally, it is submitted that the proposed instruments satisfy all necessary tests and, together, they achieve a sound planning outcome.

City

21The City takes the position that the appeals must be dismissed to protect the integrity of the existing planning framework, and the Tribunal must apply in-force policies and their implementation tools, specifically a comprehensive planning study/Secondary Plan (“SP”). It warns that approval of the instruments will encourage others in the area to seek similar permissions to permit otherwise illegal uses.

22It is submitted that the OPA is premature, as it is the responsibility of the VOP2025 to harmonize the two existing Official Plans. In the City’s view, VOP2025 confirms an intended planning sequence requiring SPs for all new Employment Areas to prevent “queue jumping” between the Official Plans. Whereas VOP2025 and the YROP contemplate SPs, the VOP does not. The proposed OPA is seen as exploiting that loophole, using the YROP to change the VOP before VOP2025 comes into force, effectively “jumping the queue” to avoid a SP.

23The City urged the Tribunal to uphold 174-2024, arguing that it is not inconsistent with the YROP because under the YROP Employment Areas are implemented through SPs, which determine appropriate form, density, and function. 174-2024 simply maintains the existing Ag zone pending a SP, which the City argues aligns with the proper policy sequence.

24The City submits the use sought by the TZBL is not temporary, because the proposed OPA would effectively pre-zone the Site with a permanent General Employment designation, establishing long-term General Employment permissions in the absence of the required SP. It is submitted that this framework could support a future permanent zoning by-law amendment, frustrating the City’s ability to ensure the highest and best use of the Site and area. It is further submitted that, because the illegal use has already existed for years, the surfacing and heavy truck circulation associated therewith has permanently changed the Site such that it cannot be returned to an agricultural use, in accordance with the temporary use criteria in the VOP.

DECISION

25On the evidence presented, as discussed in further detail below, the Tribunal is not satisfied that 174-2024, as approved by the City, meets the necessary legislative test of conformity with applicable Official Plans, in particular, the YROP. The Tribunal is satisfied that the instruments proposed by the Appellant do meet the necessary tests and represent good planning in the public interest.

26Allowing the Site to function temporarily as an intermodal facility contributes economic benefits to the area, supports major goods movement, efficiently uses the Site for employment purposes, as intended, and efficiently uses surrounding transportation infrastructure and facilities. In the view of the Tribunal, the proposed instruments address a direct conflict between the VOP and the YROP and allow the Site to be used temporarily in a manner which does not interfere with the planned hydro transmission corridor, does not preclude a future change in designation, zoning, or use, and does not preclude the City from determining the highest and best use for the Site and area through a future comprehensive planning study/SP.

27The appeals are accordingly granted, in part, and the draft OPA and TZBL, as well as the Appellant’s draft amendment to 001-2021, are approved in principle. At the request of the Appellant, the Final Order will be withheld pending the Tribunal’s receipt of the planning instruments in a final form (confirmed to be satisfactory to the Parties) for its review and approval.

EVIDENCE

28The Tribunal heard from Michael Vani, for the Appellant, and Joshua Cipolletta, for the City, both of whom were qualified to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. The Tribunal also heard from Annosan Srikantha, who was qualified to provide opinion evidence in transportation engineering.

29In advance of the Hearing, the planning witnesses agreed that the YROP constitutes a local Official Plan, that it designates the Site as Employment Area and that, in the event of a conflict between the YROP and the VOP, the YROP prevails. They also agreed that the City has not prepared a SP or conducted a comprehensive planning study, and the proposed temporary use does not require infrastructure improvements, nor does it rely on water or wastewater servicing to function.

30There was no dispute that the Site and area are planned for employment uses in the long-term and it became clear during the Hearing that the principal areas of disagreement between the Parties and their planning witnesses concerned: (1) whether a conflict exists between the YROP and the VOP; and (2) whether it is appropriate to change the Site’s underlying VOP designation to General Employment prior to completion of a comprehensive planning study/SP.

31Mr. Vani expressed the view that the YROP and the VOP are in direct conflict, as they identify different long-term visions and relevant planning policies for the Site. He opined that the proposed OPA addresses that conflict, bringing the VOP into conformity with the YROP, while also supporting the temporary use through the requested General Employment designation, which permits outdoor storage (whereas the alternative office-driven designation of Prestige Employment, does not). He described the Site’s Ag zoning under 174-2024 as outdated and in conflict with both the YROP and the long-term vision for the area. He also acknowledged that the previous GC zoning does not permit the temporary use sought. As such, he recommended the FD zone, because it can be readily amended in the future and will function in tandem with the proposed TZBL to permit the temporary use for a three-year period.

32Mr. Vani recommended approval of the proposed instruments, asserting that they meet all necessary tests and represent good planning in the public interest. In support of this recommendation, he opined the instruments have regard for matters of provincial interest and are consistent with the PPS, as they provide employment and economic opportunities in an appropriate location for growth and development, efficiently use land and optimize infrastructure, such as the surrounding multimodal transportation system with connections crossing jurisdictional boundaries. He opined the temporary use is appropriate for the Site, which is in an area that does not include residential uses and is close to major goods movement facilities/corridors. Finally, he opined that the proposed instruments align with policies which speak to designation, planning, and protection of Employment Areas for the long-term.

33In contrast, Mr. Cipolletta urged the Tribunal to uphold 174-2024 and refuse the Appellant’s proposed instruments, warning that approval of same would undermine future planning for the area. He asserted that there is no actual conflict between the applicable Official Plans because the YROP merely identifies the Site generally as being within an Employment Area, but does not assign a specific land use category (i.e. General vs. Prestige Employment) which, in his opinion, can only be determined through a SP.

34He expressed the view that the original Applications, which did not seek to amend the designation of the Site, were the appropriate path to permit the temporary use. He characterized the revised OPA as premature and exploitative of a temporary policy circumstance in advance of VOP2025 coming into force. By using the general YROP Employment Area designation to justify a specific and permanent redesignation in the VOP, the OPA would establish General Employment uses on the Site without a planning study to confirm the appropriateness thereof. Mr. Cipolletta warned that this would influence/constrain a future SP and establish a framework to support long-term continuation of the current use, contrary to the stated intention of the TZBL. In his view, once in place, the requested designation would serve as “strong justification” to approve a future rezoning application to permit the intermodal facility as a permanent use.

35With respect to the current zoning of the Site, Mr. Cipolletta explained that the GC zoning in 001-2021 was an administrative error and a substantial deviation from the intent of the Official Plans, which 174-2024 corrects by restoring the Site’s Ag zoning. He reiterated his view that there is no conflict between the Official Plans due to the lack of a specific land use category in the YROP and opined that the Ag zone, which conforms with the VOP, is appropriate until such time as a more specific designation is determined for the Site, in accordance with a SP. Notwithstanding the foregoing, he testified that the alternative FD zoning proposed by the Appellant would also be appropriate, given the transitional nature thereof, which allows the Site to be rezoned in accordance with the future policy framework, once it is in place.

36While Mr. Cipolletta did not directly address matters of provincial interest, he briefly referenced PPS policies on transportation and infrastructure corridors. He acknowledged these policies encourage freight supportive uses and optimization of infrastructure, but he emphasized the importance of coordinated planning to ensure safe and compatible areas and supporting networks. To that end, his evidence largely focused on the YROP and the VOP, and the need for a comprehensive planning study/SP in advance of any redesignation to ensure the development of appropriate forms of employment and to establish the supporting road network for the area.

37Turning to the YROP and the VOP, key policies which were repeatedly referenced, and upon which this hearing largely turned, are policy 4.3.22 and, to a lesser extent, policy 4.3.21 of the YROP, as well as policies 9.2.2.24 and 10.1.2.4 of the VOP.

YROP Key Policies

4.3.21 That development in Employment Areas be planned to achieve the minimum density targets (measured as jobs per hectare in the developable area) in Table 5 and Appendix 1 of the Plan.

4.3.22 That local municipalities, in consultation with York Region, prepare secondary plans or equivalent comprehensive planning studies for new Employment Areas that meet or exceed the minimum density targets in Table 5 and in accordance with applicable policies of the Plan.

38Mr. Cipolletta insisted that policy 4.3.22 prescribes what he characterized as an “order of operations”, requiring a comprehensive planning study/SP in advance of development and, in this instance, the specific land use designation sought. He described SPs as holistic examinations determining the highest and best use for individual properties and how those properties will function together to meet density targets, as well as ensuring proper planning for roads/networks to support the area. He explained that policy 4.3.22 is intended to avoid “piecemeal” development applications coming forward and being approved out of sequence in the absence of a SP.

39He explained that, if approved, the OPA would exist under the VOP in accordance with transition provisions in VOP2025, discussed above at paragraph [13]. Consequently, any future applications for the Site (prior to VOP2025 coming into force) would be considered under the VOP, which does not require a SP. Mr. Cipolletta warned this would open the door to similar requests from other landowners seeking to circumvent the SP process, hindering the City’s efforts to combat illegal uses and undermining the coordinated City-building approach embedded in VOP2025.

40With respect to policy 4.3.21, the Tribunal’s attention was drawn to Table 5, which sets a minimum density target of 30 jobs per hectare for the area. Mr. Cipolletta opined the intermodal facility proposed would not meet this target. While he acknowledged density targets are not typically applied to individual sites, he explained that approving development applications ahead of a comprehensive study/SP can shift the responsibility for meeting overall density targets onto other sites. For this reason, he testified that the City’s approach to “piecemeal” applications is to assess whether the specific site itself achieves the applicable density target.

41Although Mr. Vani agreed the density target would not be met, he opined that such targets are not applicable to temporary uses. He also explained that Table 5 explicitly states density targets are applied as an average, in recognition of the fact that, within a given area, some sites will fall short of the target while others will exceed it. Regardless, he testified that refusal of the proposed instruments would leave the Site idle until a comprehensive planning study/SP is completed, thereby contributing nothing toward density targets in the interim.

42The Tribunal’s attention was drawn to the specific wording of policy 4.3.22 which, Mr. Vani pointed out, does not include any requirement for a SP/equivalent study to be completed or even advanced, before development applications can proceed. He rejected the notion that the policy prescribes an order of operations, noting applications are routinely submitted and approved in advance of SPs. He opined that, in the absence of an interim control by-law, development applications may proceed at any time.

43Mr. Vani also rejected the notion that the proposed redesignation is permanent or enables the proposed use to continue beyond the expiry of the TZBL. In his view, redesignation now would neither preclude/interfere with any future comprehensive planning study/SP, nor would it prevent the City from initiating a future OPA to amend the Site’s designation in accordance with any new policies arising therefrom. He indicated that, by the time the TZBL expires, VOP2025 will likely be in force, and a SP either completed or underway, establishing a new policy framework against which any TZBL extension or future zoning application would be evaluated.

VOP Key Policies

9.2.2.24. In areas designated on Schedule 13 as Agricultural, the following policies shall apply:

a) Agricultural areas consist predominantly of high quality agricultural lands as determined by the York Region LEAR evaluation, and shall be protected for agricultural uses. Non-agriculture uses, including but not limited to open storage, transportation and industrial uses, are prohibited from locating on lands designated as Agricultural. Temporary permissions for non-agricultural purposes shall not be permitted

10.1.2.4. That Zoning By-laws may allow the temporary use of land, buildings or structures provided the temporary use meets the following conditions:

a) is consistent with the general intent of this plan;

b) is compatible with adjacent land uses;

c) is temporary in nature and can be easily terminated when the temporary zoning by-law expires;

d) sufficient servicing and transportation capacity exists for the temporary use; and

e) maintains the long-term viability of the lands for the uses permitted in this Plan.

44The planning witnesses differed in their approaches to the analysis of the TZBL against these key policies. Mr. Vani acknowledged the prohibition against permissions for non-agricultural uses in Agricultural areas in 9.2.2.24.a) but reiterated his opinion with respect to the Site’s conflicting designations and opined that, because the YROP Employment Area designation prevails, the VOP Agricultural policies are not applicable.

45Turning to policy 10.1.2.4., Mr. Vani opined the proposed use is consistent with the general intent of the VOP, which speaks to managing growth and locating industrial uses in appropriate locations ensuring truck traffic is directed away from residential and Community Areas, as well as ensuring a sufficient supply of employment lands to support economic growth and efficient goods movement utilizing available air, rail, and provincial highway networks. He explained all structures can be easily removed on expiry of the TZBL, preserving the Site’s long-term viability for employment and allowing future changes in use (i.e. Prestige Employment). He further explained that the time-limited TZBL, in conjunction with the interim zoning category (FD) sought, reinforces the temporary nature of the use. With respect to compatibility, Mr. Vani noted the absence of sensitive land uses and the presence of 24 similar facilities operating in the immediate and surrounding area. In his view, the proposed instruments and temporary use also align with the long-term employment visions for the Site in both the YROP and VOP2025.

46With respect to criterion (d) of policy 10.1.2.4., the planning witnesses agreed that there are no servicing issues, which left only transportation capacity to be evaluated. In this regard, Mr. Vani relied on the evidence of Mr. Srikantha, who conducted traffic and on-site circulation reviews and concluded the proposed use will not result in undue traffic impacts.

47Mr. Srikantha explained that he studied existing traffic volume on the Site and surrounding road network and then layered on additional traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed use. Because the Site is already operating as an intermodal facility, the actual traffic generated by the proposed use was already known and accounted for in the existing volume studied. Mr. Srikantha estimated and studied impacts of 20 additional two-way trips over and above the actual traffic generated, which he opined was a generous amount.

48Although the study concluded that most of the surrounding intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service, Mr. Srikantha noted there are certain turning lanes at specific intersections which are currently failing (long delays with stop-and-go traffic). However, he reviewed the routes of the trucks which use/would use the Site and noted they would not include use of the lanes which are currently failing, save and except for one specific intersection. He concluded that the future total traffic generated would result in an additional eight vehicles using that intersection. He provided an overall opinion that the proposed use would result in negligible impacts to the surrounding road network, with additional delays of approximately two seconds.

49Mr. Srikantha also testified that his studies revealed no safety issues/conflicts in terms of on-site circulation, and that the existing access at Cold Creek Road is projected to operate at excellent levels of service. With respect to recommended infrastructure improvements, he indicated that traffic signs prohibiting certain movements might be required, but this would be addressed at the Site Plan stage of development.

50In evaluating the TZBL against the key policies of the VOP, Mr. Cipolletta primarily focused upon the Site’s Agricultural designation in the VOP and recommended refusal of same, given the prohibition against temporary non-agricultural uses in policy 9.2.2.24.a). Turning to the criteria in policy 10.1.2.4., he opined that the use would not truly be temporary and would compromise the agricultural intent of the VOP, as well as the orderly planning framework mandated in the VOP2025, reiterating his opinion that the proposed OPA would establish a framework to support a future application to continue the use beyond the expiry of the TZBL. He also pointed out that the surfacing of, and heavy truck circulation on, the Site constitute permanent physical changes making it difficult, if not impossible, to restore agricultural uses following expiry of the TZBL. Finally, he noted that, when considering compatibility and impacts on adjacent uses, one must consider the legal designations of adjacent lands. He opined that the temporary use sought is not compatible with the underlying agricultural designations on adjacent lands which are currently being used as intermodal facilities.

51During cross examination, Mr. Cipolletta agreed that, if the OPA were approved, the temporary use would meet the criteria in policy 10.1.2.4, save and except for compatibility with adjacent land uses. He opined that outside storage in proximity to nearby agricultural uses could result in adverse impacts, such as noise/dust. Counsel for the Appellant drew attention to an agricultural impact assessment concluding the proposed use would result in minimal direct impacts and was unlikely to have significant long-term negative effects on surrounding agricultural lands. Mr. Cipolletta admitted he did not review this assessment, which was submitted with the Applications and included in the joint document book for the Hearing. Counsel for the Appellant then drew attention to email comments from City staff, which indicated general satisfaction with the conclusions of the assessment and recommended consideration of mitigation measures (i.e. landscaping buffer around the perimeter), which Mr. Cipolletta conceded are appropriately addressed at the Site Plan stage of development.

Remaining YROP and VOP Policies

52Whereas Mr. Cipolletta’s evidence focused primarily on the key policies identified above, Mr. Vani went on to discuss the proposal’s conformity with remaining YROP and VOP policies including, but not limited to, those which speak to:

• making efficient use of underutilized employment lands;
• ensuring a sufficient supply of employment lands to support economic growth and protecting Employment Areas located in proximity to goods movement facilities and corridors, including existing and future major highways;
• protecting and promoting an interconnected multimodal goods movement network linking local municipalities, Employment Areas, and surrounding areas utilizing provincial highways, regional streets, and rail corridors; and
• encouraging employment uses that generate heavy truck traffic to locate near and adjacent to provincial highway interchanges and away from sensitive land uses.

53He also drew attention to YROP policy 7.3.1, which requires local Official Plans and comprehensive zoning by-laws to be brought into conformity with the YROP. He reiterated that there is a direct conflict between the local Official Plans and that the OPA and proposed amendment to 001-2021 achieve the conformity required by policy 7.3.1.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

54When it comes to land use planning, little, if anything, is truly permanent. Legislation and provincial/municipal policies and priorities are constantly evolving. In the 2010 VOP, the Site was designated Agricultural. Approximately a decade later, the 2022 YROP designated the Site as Employment Area. A few years later, VOP2025 confirmed the Employment Area designation. The long-term planning vision for the Site has clearly evolved over time.

55Prior to the 2024 downloading of the YROP onto the City as a local Official Plan, the designations of the Site in the VOP and the YROP were in conflict, and they remain in conflict. The Site cannot at once be subject to Agricultural policies and Employment Area policies and be planned long-term for both. The Tribunal was not persuaded that, because the YROP Employment Area designation is general in nature, the Site should remain designated as Agricultural in the VOP until VOP2025 comes into force and/or a comprehensive planning study/SP is completed. This neither conforms with the YROP, nor does it align with the long-term planning vision for the Site.

56Unlike some of the other YROP Employment Area policies, policy 4.3.22. does not use mandatory language such as “shall” or “require”. It does not, as suggested by Mr. Cipolletta, include an order of operations precluding development applications from being approved in advance of a SP and the Tribunal cannot read such language into the policy. No compelling evidence was led to persuade the Tribunal that approval of the proposed instruments prevents the City from identifying the Site within a comprehensive planning study/SP area and/or initiating a future OPA to change the designation of the Site in the event any such study favours Prestige Employment for the Site.

57Both the City and Mr. Cipolletta expressed the view that the original Applications were the more appropriate path to the temporary use sought and characterized the revised OPA as “jumping the queue” and a last-minute attempt to exploit a temporary policy circumstance in advance of VOP2025 coming into force, warning that approval thereof would open the door to similar applications and undermine comprehensive planning for the area.

58Despite such concerns, the City has taken no steps toward comprehensive planning for the area, nor has it used tools at its disposal, such as an interim control by-law, to avoid piecemeal applications/approvals in advance of VOP2025 coming into effect. The Appellant was entitled to submit/revise the Applications and have them evaluated under the current policy framework, rather than waiting for a future policy framework to emerge under VOP2025 and/or a future comprehensive planning study/SP, which Mr. Cipolletta testified could take years. While it is acknowledged that the intermodal facility is an illegal use, the Appellant nevertheless took appropriate and timely steps to legalize the use on a temporary basis. The City, however, despite expressing a preference for the Applications as originally submitted, failed to decide thereon, even though they were deemed complete on May 30, 2023.

59The Tribunal was not persuaded by the argument that redesignating the Site General Employment will support approval of a future application for permanent use of the Site as an intermodal facility. The Site’s designation is only one of several factors which would be considered in the evaluation of the merits of any future planning application. Similarly, with respect to the concern that approval of the proposed instruments will set a precedent encouraging similar applications from other landowners seeking to permit otherwise illegal uses and/or to circumvent a comprehensive planning study/SP, the Tribunal notes that each individual planning application is evaluated on its own merits.

60With respect to the TZBL, the prohibition in policy 9.2.2.24 of the VOP is inapplicable, given the finding that the Official Plans’ designations of the Site conflict and the YROP Employment Area designation prevails. Turning to the temporary use criteria in policy 10.1.2.4, the Tribunal finds that the proposed use is temporary in nature, can be easily terminated and preserves the long-term viability of the Site for its intended employment use. It is consistent with the general intent of the VOP, which speaks to directing growth to appropriate locations, with industrial uses being directed away from residential/Community Areas. The proposed use is also compatible with adjacent land uses, including agricultural uses, as outlined in the agricultural impact assessment. While the mitigation measures recommended by City staff are appropriately addressed in more detail at the Site Plan stage of development, the Tribunal notes the current proposal includes a landscape buffer around the perimeter of the Site, in accordance with those recommendations.

61In relation to servicing and transportation capacity, the Tribunal accepts that there are no servicing issues and notes the City presented no evidence on the issue of transportation capacity, raising only unsubstantiated apprehensions during Mr. Srikantha’s cross examination and during closing arguments. Those apprehensions largely concerned the proposed access from Hwy 50 (to be determined at the Site Plan stage of development), and safety concerns related to truck drivers potentially ignoring provisions of the Highway Traffic Act and posted signage prohibiting certain vehicular movements. The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Mr. Srikantha, whose studies support the conclusion that the road network will operate safely and efficiently with minimal delays on immediate roads and at nearby intersections.

62In the view of the Tribunal, approval of the proposed instruments appropriately moves in the direction of the Region and the City’s long-term employment vision for the Site and area. Allowing the Site to function temporarily as an intermodal facility makes efficient use of land on which permanent development is currently prohibited, contributes economic benefits to the area, supports surrounding businesses, and optimizes nearby major goods movement infrastructure and facilities. The Tribunal does not accept that minimum density targets apply to temporary uses, nor does it accept that, in the absence of a SP, density targets should be applied to individual sites contrary to policy 4.3.21/Table 5 of the YROP, which states otherwise. In any event, the temporary use proposed allows the Site to contribute to density targets, whereas refusal of the use would result in no such contribution.

63In conclusion, the Tribunal finds the proposed OPA brings the VOP into conformity with the YROP and aligns with the overall vision of both Official Plans. It further finds 174-2024 fails to conform with the YROP, whereas the Appellant’s proposed amendment to 001-2021, which would zone the Site FD, does not conflict with the applicable Official Plans. The TZBL meets the necessary criteria for temporary uses and conforms with the applicable Official Plans. Finally, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed instruments have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest and are consistent with the PPS.

ORDER AND INTERIM ORDER

64THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal pursuant to section 34(19) of the Planning Act is allowed, and By-law No. 174-2024 is hereby repealed.

65THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the appeals pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon satisfaction/receipt of the pre-requisites identified in paragraph [66] below, and the following draft instruments are approved, in principle:

a. the draft Official Plan Amendment (attached as Schedule 1);

b. the draft Zoning By-law Amendment to amend City of Vaughan Zoning By-law No. 001-2021, as amended (attached as Schedule 2); and

c. the draft Temporary Use By-law (attached as Schedule 3).

66The Tribunal will withhold issuance of a Final Order contingent upon receipt of the planning instruments in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to 2631622 Ontario Corp. and the City of Vaughan. The Member will remain seized for the purpose of reviewing and approving the final drafts of the instruments and issuance of the Final Order.

67If the Parties do not submit final drafts of the instruments, confirm that the pre-requisite in paragraph [66] above has been satisfied and request a Final Order within 30 days of the issuance of this Interim Order, they shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date addressing the expected timing of same.

68The Tribunal may be spoken to should any difficulties arise in connection with the implementation of this Order.

“S. Braun”

S. Braun 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.

SCHEDULE 1

SCHEDULE 2

SCHEDULE 3