Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 30, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002608 (Formerly PL170151) OLT-21-001787 (Formerly PL111184) OLT-22-002104

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

Applicant and Appellant: 7553 Islington Holding Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt the requested amendment Existing Designation: “Low Density Residential” and “Open Space” Proposed Designation: “Medium Density Residential” Purpose: To permit the development of a multi-storey residential building containing 490 residential units with variable heights of 12-storeys and 17-storeys, inclusive of a 7-storey podium Property Address/Description: 7553 Islington Avenue & 150 Bruce Street/ Part of Block 88, Registered Plan 65M-2059, Lots 4 and 5, Concession 7 Municipality: City of Vaughan Approval Authority File No.: OP.08.017 OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002608 Legacy Case No.: PL170151 OLT File No.: OLT-22-002608 Legacy File No.: PL170151 OLT Case Name: 7553 Islington Holding Inc. 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: 7553 Islington Holding Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1-88, as amended – Neglect of application by the City of Vaughan Existing Zoning: “A - Agricultural Zone”, “OS1 - Open Space Conservation Zone” and “R1 9(643) – Residential Zone” Proposed Zoning: “RA3 – Apartment Residential Zone” and “OS1 – Open Space Zone” with site specific exceptions Purpose: To permit the development of a multi-storey residential building containing 490 residential units with variable heights of 12-storeys and 17-storeys, inclusive of a 7-storey podium Municipality: City of Vaughan Municipal File No.: Z.16.022 OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002608 Legacy Case No.: PL170151 OLT File No.: OLT-22-002611 Legacy File No.: PL170152

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 11333 Dufferin St et al Appellant: 1191621 Ontario Inc.; and others Subject: Failure to announce a decision respecting Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. New Official Plan Municipality: City of Vaughan OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001787 Legacy File No.: PL111184 OLT File No.: OLT-21-001787 Legacy File No.: PL111184 OLT Case Name: Duca v. Vaughan (City)

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

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Appellant: 1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd. and others Subject: Zoning By-law Description: New City-wide comprehensive zoning by-law Reference Number: By-law 001-2021 Property Address: City Wide Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-002104 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002104 OLT Case Name: D'Aversa v. Vaughan (City)

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

Appellant: 1042710 Ontario Limited (aka Royal Centre) Appellant: 1096818 Ontario Inc. Jordan, Ryan, and Brittany Fisch Appellant: 1150 Centre Street GP Inc. Appellant: 1163919 Ontario Ltd., 1888836 Ontario Ltd., and 1211612 Ontario Ltd. And others Subject: Zoning By-law Description: Transitional by-law Reference Number: By-law 039-2022 Property Address: City Wide Municipality/UT: Vaughan/York OLT Case No: OLT-22-003554 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002104

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 9(1) of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O. 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6

Request By: Jointly, the City of Vaughan and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (submitted February 10, 2026). Request For: Tribunal Direction seeking to strike Witness Statement evidence submitted by 7553 Islington Holding Inc. Heard: February 23, 2026, to March 6,2026, by Video Hearing (excluding March 2, 2026), with Closing Summary submissions received on March 11, 2025, in writing.

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
7553 Islington Holding Inc. (“Appellant”/ “Applicant”)	Matthew Helfand, Patrick Harrington (in absentia)
City of Vaughan (“City”)	Raj Kehar, Zaynab Al-waadh, Victoria Perricciolo (student-at-law)
Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority (“TRCA”)	Tim Duncan (present on Day 1)
Armando Rosano, Elisa Testa, Vaughanwood Ratepayers’ Association (“Ratepayers” / “VWRA”)	Amber Stewart
Regional Municipality of York (“Region”)	Alexis Alyea (in absentia)
Sarno Holdings Corporation (“Sarno”)	Meaghan McDermid (in absentia), Grace O’Brien (in absentia)

DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1These site-specific appeals referenced in the Title of Proceedings above, have been brought by 7553 Islington Holding Inc. (“Appellant”) under the Planning Act (“Act”) for the City of Vaughan’s (“City”) failure or neglect to make a decision, within the prescribed timelines regarding a series of applications for the lands municipally known as 7553 Islington Avenue and 150 Bruce Street (“Subject Lands”) (“Appeals”). The Appeals were eventually consolidated by the Tribunal at the request of the Parties, and the matters were divided, to be considered in a Phase 1 and Phase 2 Hearing format.

2A Phase 1 Hearing Decision (Issued July 29, 2024), determined that the Subject Lands could be developed or site altered, subject to the applicable policy framework with respect to natural features and functions, noting that “there is a permissible structure, that is, to demonstrate to the approval authority that the proposed development and alteration do not negatively impact ” a number of Environmental Designations (“EDs”) (“Phase 1 Decision”).

3As a result of the Phase 1 Decision, a Request for Review of the Tribunal Decision under Rule 25 of the Rules of Practice and Procedures (“Rules”), was dismissed by the Chair of the Tribunal, and direction was given to proceed to the Phase 2 Hearing.

4The City and TRCA subsequently filed a Joint Motion, concerning findings associated with the Phase 1 Decision, at which point a separate Tribunal Joint Motion Decision that resulted in the bifurcation of the Appeals into a Phase 2A and Phase 2B Hearing process (Issued March 13, 2025).

5The Phase 2A Hearing commenced in September 2025, over a period of 10 days, by this same Member. The Phase 2A Decision resulted in a further Decision (Issued October 29, 2025), considered evidence regarding any “unresolved natural heritage issues as threshold issues” and whether the proposed development satisfied all “unresolved natural heritage [(“NH”)] and hazard land [(“HL”)] issues as threshold issues.” The Tribunal was persuaded by the Appellant’s evidence that no constraints were found from these and other EDs, or the respective policy framework, and that there were no impediments to the advancement of the Proposal, to this Phase 2B Hearing of the Appeals, including a defined, permissible development envelope, relative to the NH and HL issues. It was further determined that the numerous remaining land use planning issues were to then be adjudicated through this Phase 2B Hearing (“Phase 2A Decision”). The Tribunal then proceeded with this Phase 2B Hearing over a period of nine days. At the outset of the Hearing, the Tribunal also considered a Joint Motion from the City and the TRCA, which was filed on February 10, 2026.

SUBJECT LANDS AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

6The Subject Lands consist of approximately 1.77 hectares (“ha”) situated north of Highway 407 and south of Highway 7, extending between Islington Avenue and Bruce Street. The Subject Lands are surrounded: to the north-west across Islington Avenue, by a vacant commercial lot and adjacent commercial plaza along Legion Court; generally to the north-east, and adjacent, along a portion of Bruce Street are lands previously owned by Sarno Holdings Corporation (“Sarno” / “Sarno Lands”), now owned by Tesmar Holdings Inc. (“Tesmar” / “Tesmar Lands”); to the south-west by Islington Avenue; to the south-east by residential properties along Helen Street; to the north-east by Bruce Street, consisting of a number of residential dwellings, a large school property with recreational amenities, fields, and additional residential properties further north along Pioneer Lane. The Islington Avenue frontage is approximately 121 metres (“m”) and there is a 39 m frontage along Bruce Street under the Appellant’s ownership.

7The Phase 2B Hearing now considers land use planning evidence, and the Appellant seeks an Order from the Tribunal allowing the Appeals in order to facilitate a site-specific development of a single 21-storey residential building fronting along Islington Avenue, including a 14-storey elevation along Bruce Street. The proposed building presently contains 567 residential units and 612 parking spaces, with one full, below-grade level of underground parking, fronting along Islington Avenue, and with a rear parking garage component of six additional levels rising to grade level, along 150 Bruce Street. The building is proposed along the side of the valley wall of the Humber River Valley (“HRV”) by removing existing woodland on the Subject Lands, including the excavation of the valley slope of the HRV system, with grading modification and the removal of approximately 458 trees, as part of the development envelope as proposed. Primary vehicular access for the development would be from Islington Avenue, with emergency access being provided from 150 Bruce Street (“Proposal”).

8The Parties also advised the Tribunal, at the outset of the Phase 2B Hearing, that a formal Site Plan Application (“SPA”) has yet to be filed with the City. The Appellant has recently requested a Public Application Consultation (“PAC”) meeting (December 19, 2025), to be scheduled, however, this has not yet occurred. The City appears to take the position that this request is premature, while it awaits the Tribunal’s Phase 2B Hearing Decision.

EXHIBITS LIST

9The following Exhibits were confirmed with the consent of the Parties, in advance of the commencement of a joint motion for direction (“Joint Motion”). The entire Exhibits List in respect of the Joint Motion and the Phase 2B Hearing, were the following:

1. Joint Motion Record (February 9, 2026);
2. Affidavit of Service of Motion (February 12, 2026);
3. Responding Motion Record (February 13, 2026);
4. Affidavit of Service (February 20, 2026);
5. Reply Motion Record (February 20, 2026);
6. Affidavit of Service (February 20, 2026);
7. Joint Document Book-Volumes 1-4 (“JDB”) (updated February 23, 2026);
8. Engineering Agreed Statement of Fact (January 30, 2026);
9. Transportation Agreed Statement of Fact (January 29, 2026);
10. Planning Agreed Statement of Fact (January 23, 2026);
11. Urban Design Agreed Statement of Fact (January 23, 2026);
12. Witness Statement – Ryan Guetter (January 30, 2026);
13. Witness Statement – Shane Morgan (February 13, 2026);
14. Witness Statement – Rommel Lumbao (January 30, 2026):
15. Witness Statement – Mike Dartizio (January 29, 2026);
16. Witness Statement – Richard Pernicky (January 30, 2026);
17. Reply Witness Statement – Ryan Guetter (February 13, 2026);
18. Reply Witness Statement – Shane Morgan (February 13, 2026);
19. Witness Statement – Letizia D’Addario (January 30, 2026);
20. Witness Statement – Shirin Rohani (January 30, 2026);
21. Witness Statement – Pirooz Davoodnia (January 30, 2026);
22. Reply Witness Statement – Letizia D’Addario (February 13, 2026);
23. Reply Witness Statement - Shirin Rohani (February 13, 2026);
24. Witness Statement – Martin Rendl (January 30, 2026);
25. Appellant Visuals (February 20, 2026);
26. City Planning Visuals (February 20, 2026);
27. City Urban Design Visuals (February 20, 2026);
28. Witness Statement – Matt Coleridge (January 29, 2026);
29. Updated Issues List (February 23, 2026);
30. Revised Draft OPA Instrument (February 23, 2026);
31. Revised Draft ZBA Instrument (February 23, 2026);
32. Alternative 45-Degree Angular Plain Visuals (City and VWRA – February 24, 2026);
33. 2019 Stantec Landscape Plan (“SLP”) (City – February 23, 2026);
34. New Tree By-law No. 177-2025 excerpt (VWRA – February 24, 2026);
35. Tesmar Holdings-OHCRA (February 25, 2026);
36. 4603 & 4611 Highway 7 (February 25, 2026);
37. OPA–101 Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSAs”) (February 25, 2026);
38. YROP Appendix II – PMTSA 77 (Jane & Rutherford) (February 25, 2026);
39. Lot Fabric-York Region Mapping (February 26, 2026);
40. 4800 Highway 7 (February 26, 2026);
41. 4700 Highway 7 (February 26, 2026);
42. Bellaria Towers – Jane & 7 (February 26, 2026);
43. Aird & Berlis Letters (2014) (March 3, 2026);
44. Google Maps – Screenshots (March 3, 2026);
45. Transportation- ASF Addendum/Letter (February 27, 2026);
46. 2019 Architectural Renderings (February 27, 2026);
47. 2025 Architectural (East Elevation) (February 27, 2026);
48. Morgan-Hwy 7 Corridor Analysis (March 3, 2026);
49. Arrowhead Decision – Excerpt (March 3, 2026);
50. Arrowhead Plans – Excerpt (March 3, 2026);
51. Arrowhead Decision – Full Version (OLT-24-000565) (March 5, 2026);
52. List of SPA Themes – Ryan Guetter (March 4, 2026);
53. Aerial Photo Site #4 – Ryan Guetter (March 4, 2026);
54. Metrolinx RTP (March 4, 2026);
55. Google Maps – Future GO Station Distances (March 4, 2026);
56. Google Maps – Extracts-Distances to 7553 (March 4, 2026);
57. COW-Report-10, 20, 24 Wigwoss Drive (OLT-24-000404) (March 4, 2026);
58. Tregebov-Architectural Witness Statement Extracts – 10, 20, 24 Wigwoss Drive (OLT-24-000404) (March 4, 2026);
59. SPA-PAC Request (March 4, 2026);
60. 7553 – Urban Design Staff Comments, September 2019 (March 3, 2026); and,
61. Architectural Drawings – 2920 HWY. 7 (March 5, 2026).

PRELIMINARY JOINT MOTION – CITY AND TRCA (“Moving Parties”)

10At the outset of the Phase 2B Hearing, the Moving Parties brought a Joint Motion seeking to strike portions of Witness Statements, and specific references to Long-Term Care Facilities (“LTCF”) in the Appellant’s materials and Tribunal directions requested below:

1. An Order to strike: A. Paragraphs 10, 11, 14 and 15 in the Witness Statement of Mike Dartizio dated January 29, 2026, and Drawing [of Updated Landscape Plan] [(“ULP”)]100, [ULP]101, LD300, [ULP]102 attached to Mr. Dartizio’s Witness Statement, and any other written evidence, drawings and/or oral testimony Mr. Dartizio has or will present the Tribunal related to natural heritage matters; B. Paragraphs 300(c)(vi) and 304 in the Witness Statement of Ryan Guetter dated January 30, 2026, and the associated references within the draft official plan amendment [(OPA”)] and/or zoning by-law amendment [(“ZBA”)] that relate to a [LTCF], and/or any written and/or oral testimony Mr. Guetter has or will present the Tribunal related to a [LTCF]; and,

2. An Order prohibiting 7553 Islington Holding Inc. in this proceeding from requesting any provision in the proposed [OPA] and/or [ZBA] that would permit the use of a [LTCF], with or without a holding provision [(“H”)], on the [Subject Lands];

3. In the alternative, if the Tribunal does not strike the impugned paragraphs and associated reference to a [LTCF] from Ryan Guetter’s Witness Statement and allows the appellant to modify its proposal to add a permission for a [LTCF], the City and TRCA request that the Tribunal: A) Permit the following issues be added to the issue list: i. Does the proposed development of a [LTCF] on the [Subject Lands] demonstrate consistency with the natural hazard policies of the PPS, 2024, including Policy 5.2.6? ii. What would the proposed development of a [LTCF] on the [Subject Lands] look like? B) Adjourn the Phase 2B hearing to permit [the Appellant] to present updated architectural plans to demonstrate how the [LTCF] can be developed on the [Subject Lands] and to permit the City and other respondents to introduce evidence responding to same; C) Subject to receipt of the architectural plans, to permit the City and other respondents to add additional issues that may arise as a result of reviewing the updated architectural plans; and,

4. The Moving Parties are also seeking to strike: A. Paragraphs 17 19 and 25¹ in the Witness Statement of Matt Coleridge dated January 29, 2026, that relates to written and/or oral testimony Mr. Coleridge has or intends to provide related to without prejudice discussions that occurred in the experts’ meetings.

RESPONSE TO JOINT MOTION (“RESPONSE”)

11In its Response to the Joint Motion (Exhibit 3), the Appellant clarified the paragraphs referenced in Mr. Coleridge’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 28), and concluded that there was consent from the Parties, that paragraphs 19 and 25 are to be struck from the Witness Statement of Mr. Coleridge (Exhibit 28).

12Counsel for the Appellant further consented to the Moving Parties’ request to strike:

1. Any and all references in the Witness Statements regarding the LTCF, in the Witness Statement of Ryan Guetter, dated January 30, 2026, including paragraphs 300(c)(vi) and 304, and the associated references within the draft OPA and/or ZBA, that relate to a LTCF, and/or any written and/or oral testimony Mr. Guetter has or will present to the Tribunal related to a LTCF; and,
2. Secondly, regarding Mr. Coleridge’s Witness Statement, all matters were resolved prior to the Phase 2B Hearing, and through oral submissions, confirmed that paragraphs 19 and 25 have been struck from the Witness Statement (Exhibit 28), on consent of the Parties, and the matter of Site Servicing/Engineering in this regard, are no longer before the Tribunal, in the Phase 2B Hearing.

13The Response, however, requested that the balance of the Joint Motion be dismissed regarding the Motion requests seeking to strike elements of Mr. Dartizio’s Witness Statement, specific to the Appellant’s ULP (December 2025). Counsel asserts that the Joint Motion wrongfully characterizes Mr. Dartizio’s evidence as “untested heritage evidence.”

14Finally, counsel for the Appellant confirmed that Mr. Dartizio is a Landscape Architect, and not a natural heritage expert, and that the evidence presented in his Witness Statement (Exhibit 15, paras. 10, 11, 14 and 15) represent a “form of factual non-opinion evidence”, resulting from the Phase 2A Decision, shared in concert with GEI Forestry evidence. It was also expected that this evidence would form just a small part of a general overview of the updated plans submitted, at the request of the Tribunal.

Matt Coleridge Witness Statement

15Regarding the Joint Motion request to strike paragraphs 17 and 25 of the Matt Coleridge Witness Statement (Exhibit 28), paragraph 17 was erroneously submitted, and corrected to include paragraphs 19 and 25, and the Appellant/Responding Party consented to this revised request to strike out paragraphs 19 and 25, as previously noted, at the start of the Tribunal’s consideration of the Joint Motion. The Tribunal deemed this to have been resolved and directed that it be struck from the Witness Statement.

Ryan Guetter Witness Statement

16Regarding the Ryan Guetter Witness Statement, the Moving Parties submitted that the Joint Motion seeks to strike the above-noted paragraphs cited. Clearly, the most important area of disagreement, was a proposed change in the nature of use from the Appellant, specifically, the suggested LTCF reference.

17Through submissions from the Moving Parties, it was evident that a series of procedural fairness, and issues list challenges were raised in the Joint Motion, and that a LTCF, is fundamentally inconsistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS 2024”). The Joint Motion expands on the rationale requesting these directions from the Tribunal (Exhibit 1, paras. 35-43).

18The Moving Parties also asserted that the Tribunal’s December 18, 2025, directions to strike overlapping ED issues, to avoid a re-litigation of the Phase 2A Hearing, restrict their involvement related to updated designs and the proposed revisions to the instruments, of the Proposal, now under consideration.

Mike Dartizio Witness Statement

19Regarding the Mike Dartizio Witness Statement (Exhibit 15, paras. 10, 11, 14 and 15), there were concerns with evidence that could be interpreted to impact Phase 2A Decisions to HL, NH and Significant Woodland (“SWL”) issues. The Moving Parties asserted that the Witness Statement inappropriately re-introduces HL, NH and SWL issues, that cannot be the subject of City or TRCA expert witness rebuttals through further evidence.

20The Joint Motion further sought the Tribunal’s direction to strike a number of ULP visuals, from the Witness Statement, as submitted by Stantec, who first provided the original SLP, (May 2019) (Exhibit 33). More recently, Stantec was re-engaged to produce a more detailed ULP, produced in consultation with Forestry consultants, (GEI Consultants Ltd.), who provided detailed evidence at the Phase 2A Hearing.

TRIBUNAL JOINT MOTION FINAL DIRECTIONS

21Upon consideration of the Joint Motion, the Response and submissions from all Parties, the Tribunal directed that:

1. It accepts the Moving Parties’ withdrawal of paragraphs, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, and 4C of the relief sought in the Joint Motion as noted above, and on consent of all Parties;
2. Any and all references in Witness Statements regarding the LTCF, in the Witness Statement of Ryan Guetter, dated January 30, 2026, including paragraphs 300(c)(vi) and 304, and the associated references within the draft OPA and/or ZBA, that relate to a LTCF, and/or any written and/or oral testimony. Mr. Guetter has or intended to present, to the Tribunal, related to a LTCF, are struck from the record;
3. Noting that the Appellant has abandoned its request for a LTCF on the Subject Lands, the Tribunal will not be adjudicating the issue as part of the Phase 2B Hearing;
4. Regarding Mr. Coleridge’s Witness Statement, all matters were resolved at the commencement of the Phase 2B Hearing. The Tribunal confirmed that paragraphs 19 and 25 have been struck from the Witness Statement (Exhibit 28), on consent of the Parties, and the issues of Site Servicing/Engineering in this regard, were struck by Tribunal, on consent of the Parties, and are no longer before the Tribunal in the Phase 2B Hearing; and,
5. Regarding the request to strike paragraphs 10, 11, 14, and 15 of Mr. Dartizio’s Witness Statement, dated January 29, 2026, together with the ULP and any other written evidence, drawings or oral testimony of Mr. Dartizio, the request is denied. The Tribunal determines that the ULP is part of the updated plans, submitted on December 8, 2025, as previously suggested and evidence was expected by the Tribunal, arising from the Phase 2A Decision, noting that there may be elements in the design drawings that could be of assistance to the Tribunal as it considers the OPA and ZBA instruments.

22The Tribunal requested that the Appellant provide updated conceptual plans, from the 2018/2019 versions of the Proposal, to help guide deliberations during the Phase 2B Hearing.

23Importantly, the Tribunal understood that the SPA is a separate process, not currently before it, but also understood that the SPA approval process is currently under consideration by the City, specific to a PAC request, from the Appellant, as noted earlier.

24Finally, the Tribunal further determined that the Dartizio Witness Statement and testimony, as an expert in landscape architecture, will be considered in a contextual manner only, expected without any references or opinions regarding NH or HL issues that have already been determined by the Tribunal through the Phase 2A Decision of October 29, 2025.

HEARING ADMINISTRATION

25The Tribunal provided further direction that, because of the Joint Motion’s timing requirements, and the potential for up to nine witnesses expected to testify about relevant land use planning evidence, some timing adjustments were needed to ensure procedural fairness to all Parties.

26The Tribunal also directed that the written Closing Summary submissions be submitted on or before March 11, 2026.

PHASE 2B HEARING

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

27In determining the outcome of the Appeals through this Phase 2B Hearing, and based the evidence presented, the Tribunal must have regard to the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and to any information and material that the municipal council or approval authority received in relation to the matter, in accordance with s. 2.1(2) of the Act. Subsection 3(5) of the Act further requires that any Decisions of the Tribunal must be consistent with the PPS 2024 and, conform with any provincial plans, and have regard to relevant policies and guidelines that are in effect.

SUBJECT LANDS AND APPEAL HISTORY

28The only area of consensus between Planning witnesses was in evidence under the Planning Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) (Exhibit 10) surrounding more detail regarding the description of the Subject Lands, briefly stating the following:

1. The subject lands are comprised of two adjacent parcels municipally known as 7553 Islington Avenue and 150 Bruce Street, respectively. They are located in the southwest region of the City, south of Highway 7, on the east side of Islington Avenue. The property at 7553 Islington Avenue has an area of 1.6256 hectares (4.017 acres) and the property at 150 Bruce Street has an area of 0.1509 hectares (0.373 acres). 7553 Islington Avenue maintains approximately 121 m (400 ft) of frontage along Islington Avenue, while 150 Bruce Street maintains 39 m (128 ft) frontage along Bruce Street.
2. The subject lands are existing lots of record. The property at 7553 Islington Avenue is comprised of two lots.
3. 7553 Islington Avenue is currently occupied by an abandoned 1 to 2-storey detached dwelling, a detached garage, and various structures that are accessory to the dwelling. The detached dwelling and accessory structures are generally located in the centre of the property. The detached dwelling and its entrance are oriented towards Islington Avenue.
4. 150 Bruce Street is occupied by a 2-storey detached dwelling with an integral garage. The detached dwelling and its entrance are oriented towards Bruce Street. A chain link fence is located near the western corner of the subject lands, west of the western lot line.
5. Two vehicular accesses are currently provided to 7553 Islington Avenue. One vehicular access is currently provided to 150 Bruce Street from Bruce Street at the southeast corner of the subject lands.

29The history of proposed developments on the Subject Lands dates back to 2008, under previous ownership, and the various were filed as follows:

• June 28, 2012 – A site-specific appeal of the entirety of the Vaughan Official Plan 2010 (“VOP 2010”), presently seeking an OPA amendment with provisions that outline changes to Urban Structure, Land Use Designations, with site-specific plans allowing heights of 21 and 14 storeys respectively, among other related designations relating to “Natural Areas” and “Hi-Rise Residential”(Exhibit 30);
• February 10, 2017 – A site-specific appeal of a non-decision by the City, regarding OPA and ZBA applications ultimately seeking to implement a detailed site-specific ZBA and Site Plan Application to follow, pursuant to the Act (Exhibit 31); and,
• November 15, 2021 – An appeal of the entirety of the City’s Consolidated Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 (“CZBL”) facilitating the above.

30A more detailed chronology of the applications associated with the Subject Lands is carefully outlined in Mr. Guetter’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 12, Tab 5, paras. 1-91).

SURROUNDING AREA

31In the course of the Hearing, there was general agreement among the witnesses that the surrounding area included Islington Avenue and the Humber River to the west, the adjacent residential neighbourhoods to the east and north, Highway 407 to the south, also encompassing Highway 7 to the north, with a number of references that extended as far north as Downtown Woodbridge.

32Witnesses also generally agreed that the existing site conditions of 7553 Islington Avenue (“7553”) consisted of a one - two storey dwelling on site which suffered fire damage, leaving limited structural remains, a detached garage, and other small, accessory structures at the centre of the site, which is also located 34 m from the Humber River, and separated by Islington Avenue as a four-to-five lane regional arterial roadway. It was also confirmed that a number of old shipping containers in poor condition are still located at the north end of the Subject Lands.

ISSUES, EVIDENCE, AND ANALYSIS

Issues List and Witnesses

33In consideration of the Issues List (“IL”), the Parties further clarified that all Site Servicing / Engineering issues, along with Transportation issues, had been fully resolved.

34Furthermore, the originally approved IL contained redlined elements as a result of the Tribunal’s determination to strike various issues that were overlapping from the City and TRCA directly related to all NH and HL issues, already addressed in the Phase 2A Hearing. With the combination of the Joint Motion Decision, and the recent ASFs (Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11) as submitted, further updates to the IL on consent of the Parties, were clarified at the commencement of evidence before the Phase 2B Hearing and marked as Exhibit 29.

35The Tribunal heard extensive evidence with reference to several City Official Plans, as well as the City’s Consolidated Zoning By-law No. 001-2021 (“CZBL”), and relevant submissions surrounding the significance of the HRV, and related EDs, all of which resulted in the Phase 1 and Phase 2A Decisions, respectively. The proposed development envelope remained the same in both Decisions. Evidence in the Phase 2A Hearing over the course of 10-days in September 2025, touched on proposals dating back to 2008, however, the 2019 updated Architectural drawings were considered the most current, under the Tribunal’s consideration at that time.

36The following witnesses were properly affirmed, without objections from any of the Parties, and duly qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in their respective areas of practice as follows:

For the Appellant

1. Rommel Lumbao – Architecture (RA Lumbao Architects Inc.);
2. Michael Dartizio – Landscape Architecture (Stantec);
3. Ryan Guetter – Land Use Planning (President, Weston Consulting);
4. Shane Morgan – Planning and Urban Design (Weston Consulting); and,
5. Richard Pernicky – Transportation Planning (NextEng Consulting Group Inc.).

For the City

1. Shirin Rohani – Landscape Architecture;
2. Letizia V. D’Addario - Land Use Planning; and,
3. Pirooz Davoodnia – Transportation Engineering (If required, who did not appear).

For the Ratepayers (“VWRA”)

1. Martin Rendl – Land Use Planning (Martin Rendl Planning)

Transportation, Servicing and Engineering

37The Parties also confirmed on consent, that further to these revisions due to the respective ASFs, Issues 17 to 26 related to transportation, servicing and engineering were abandoned and removed as matters for the Tribunal’s adjudication (Exhibits 8, 9, and 11).

38However, on consent, Richard Pernicky, a duly qualified Transportation Planning expert briefly provided some updated information regarding the Nextrans Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”), dated January 2026.

39Mr. Pernicky testified as follows:

• Estimated levels of transportation leading up to the 2030 target for potential single-phase completion, to the 2035 window once full occupancy may occur, anticipate transportation counts are well-within regulatory road requirements;
• There is nothing surprising with regard to modal splits between cars and transit usage, specific to this Proposal, and nothing out of the ordinary;
• Although the area tends to be less transit oriented, with the addition of new anticipated transit, including new GO stations and the potential of a westbound BRT extension, this should result in an increase in future transit usage;
• There is ample on-site parking provided for both residents and visitors in the Proposal;
• Any other issues can be scoped through the SPA approval process, if necessary.

Architectural Evidence and Analysis

40In this Phase 2B Hearing, the Tribunal ultimately determined the land use planning implications associated with the most recent set of Architectural drawings submitted by RA Lumbao Architects Inc., in December 2025.

41Mr. Lumbao outlined the overall site layout and indicated that the most fundamental elements of the previous design in 2019, were maintained, but that there was a Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) increase of approximately 7000 square metres (“m²”), which included a total of 567 residential units, increased parking for residents and visitors, and adjusted setbacks, with the identical building height maintained, along both frontages. The key design revisions included the following:

• Covered building area increased from 3,005 “m²” to 3,453.44 m²;
• Road coverage adjusted from 1,830 m² (11%) to 2,132 m² (12%), in accordance with requirements;
• Total GFA increased from 49,500 m² to 57,198.76 m², resulting in a Floor Space Index (“FSI”) increase from 2.79 to 3.22;
• Building height maintained with no change;
• Setbacks adjusted, with the north setback increased from 22.0 m to 23.0 m, and the south setback refined from 63.83 m to 61.55 m;
• Indoor amenity space increased from 1,060 m² to 1,435 m², and outdoor amenity space increased from 1,060 m² to 1,747 m²;
• Residential parking increased from 470 spaces (0.85/unit) to 495 spaces (0.87/unit);
• Visitor parking increased from 79 spaces (0.15/unit) to 114 spaces (0.20/unit);
• Barrier-free parking increased from 18 to 21 spaces;
• Residential bicycle parking increased from 285 to 310 spaces, with visitor bicycle parking adjusted from 73 to 59 spaces; and,
• Loading and servicing are accommodated through one Type D loading space and one Type C loading space.

42Mr. Lumbao further stated that the step backs at levels 15 and 18 along the east side of the Proposal were “strategically designed to reduce perceived massing, mitigate shadow impacts, and provide a sensitive transition” to the surrounding area.

43Mr. Lumbao reviewed all levels of the design including the basement, and ground floor which he asserted “is organized to establish a clear, legible circulation hierarchy, with a centrally located entrance vestibule leading to a generously proportioned main lobby that serves as the primary point of access for residents and visitors.” Mr. Lumbao expanded further on other important elements associated with the ground floor, including servicing details of the Proposal, referencing his Witness Statement (Exhibit 14, paras. 10-19).

44Regarding the levels from the second floor to the eighth level above, these details are also comprehensively outlined further in Mr. Lumbao’s Witness Statement (Exhibit 14, paras. 20-33).

45As the building height reaches the ninth-floor to the 21^st level, Mr. Lumbao references important circulation configuration details, focused on sound Architectural design principles and requirements including:

• integrating outdoor amenity areas on both east and west sides;
• providing appropriate step backs in the tower massing;
• ensuring safe accessibility;
• reduced floor plates at levels 19-21, maintain design continuity with sound vertical circulation access, and sensitive to 45-degree angular plane guidelines;
• details around the rooftop mechanical-level objectives, ensuring good design and controlled access.

46In cross-examination, Mr. Lumbao stated that the design, as represented, achieved a maximization of development, however, he did not distinguish whether that was in relation to the entirety of the Subject Lands, or the pre-determined developable envelope.

47There was also some clarification related to glazing, in the event that grading-line adjustments as required, may impact exposure associated with the parking levels. Some ambiguity existed in the 45-degree angular plane analysis, which was later clarified, in Urban Design evidence.

48The Tribunal generally finds that other than the relative FSI increase, the Architectural design elements as described in paragraph 45 above, did not vary significantly from the 2019 Architectural design. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that the Architectural design and layout within the previously-determined developable envelope, represented a well-designed, compact built-form, respectful of the surrounding area.

49Furthermore, the Tribunal’s finding above, was reinforced by supportive evidence that follows below, involving Landscape Architecture, and Urban Design, noting that the SPA approval process, should also guide a more detailed Final approval.

Landscape Architecture Evidence and Analysis

50In his first appearance before the Tribunal, Mr. Dartizio presented uncontroverted evidence that provided for the most part, non-opinion evidence, with informative detail from the updated Stantec ULP drawings, dated December 2025.

51Respectful of the Joint Motion Decision above, Mr. Dartizio did not offer evidence related to NH. Instead, he provided an overview of many of the ULP elements evident in the plan, that proved most helpful to the Tribunal in the final analysis, including but not limited to, that the ULP:

• was prepared in consultation with the Phase 2A Forestry expert, Alex MacLeod (GEI), an Arborist and Registered Professional Forester, who’s evidence was detailed extensively in the Phase 2A Decision, and Crozier Engineers, regarding grading matters; and,
• outlines the Layout Plans North, and South, which include many other details associated with curbs, paving, plantings and planters, mitigation and restoration recommendations, and associated schedules/tables with his recommendations.

52Mr. Dartizio referenced his Witness Statement extensively and also referred to the ULP details, which delineate much of the expected grading, tree preservation and plantings, among numerous mitigation techniques, along with many other details that will be further assessed during the SPA process, at a more appropriate time (Exhibit 15, Tab 3).

53When challenged regarding detailed mitigation/restoration measures in cross- examination, Mr. Dartizio carefully opined that many of these measures can generally consist of several options, with different methodologies, varying the sizing elements in plantings, with differing species, and having particular regard for existing naturalized areas to be maintained and enhanced where possible.

54Mr. Dartizio concluded that using an assortment of techniques and measures, that Tree Protection Protocols, when carefully followed, can and should result in effective preservation and reforestation efforts, with appropriate oversight from the relevant authorities, which are more appropriate for consideration during the SPA approval process.

55Based on this evidence, the Tribunal finds that with the various mitigation/restoration methods expected to be carefully finalized and implemented through the SPA approval process, along with further updated information, this should serve to assist the Parties in moving the Final approval process along in the near future.

Urban Design Evidence and Analysis

Appellant

56Mr. Morgan opined extensively on behalf of the Appellant, asserting that the Proposal is located adjacent to, but not within, a Community Area, and is appropriately defined as a hi-rise residential project. He expanded on the unique site-specific conditions regarding the appropriateness of heights along both the Islington Avenue and Bruce Street frontages, respectively, further into the testimony.

57Mr. Morgan’s oral testimony and written evidence, included, but was not limited to the following opinions, regarding what was repeatedly referred to as a unique Proposal, within a unique site, with important elements tied to Urban Design including that:

a) There is an overarching development team effort, cognizant of the significance of preservation and restorative importance of the many elements of the NH area; b) With this in mind, the Proposal’s height and density are appropriate for an overall site of this size, as the Proposal is situated and configured along Islington Avenue and Bruce Street, within the well-established/defined parameters of the development envelope, as confirmed by previous Tribunal Decisions; c) Site topography, and grade differential, as a through-site, also provides a unique opportunity for creative urban design; d) Building height, massing and built-form is more appropriate at this site-specific location as a longer, rectilinear-horizontal form, as opposed to a vertical tower, which minimizes shadow and overlook impacts. The only exception to this was identified demonstrating some limited shadow impact during the month of December, with “fast-moving” shadows, mostly to the north-east, noting very limited impact on residences to the east; e) Pedestrian interface is achieved quite effectively along Bruce Street, with an approximate 260 m treed edge, noting that most of it is owned by Tesmar/Solmar, without adversely impacting the internal character of the surrounding residential neighbourhood, and Woodbridge College High School (“Woodbridge College”), along with its related park, field, and recreational facilities; f) The Islington Avenue ULP component, will create a well-buffered, and streetscaped, very walkable character within the HRV, delivering “an enhanced sense of space” along all sides of the building envelope; g) Despite the hi-rise definition, the Proposal is more accurately representative of a tall-midrise with hybrid design, particularly along Bruce Street, and diagonally positioned to help minimize any micro-climate/wind impacts, that also co-exists very well with the surrounding adjacent residential area character; h) The built-form is also well-screened along Islington Avenue, representative of a design that is “not over-bearing”; i) Maintains significant setbacks at 19.8 m to the first residential dwelling on Bruce Street, from the property line, and its grade-differential interfaces well with roadway elevations, and natural streetscapes, which again, are unique to the Subject Lands. These characteristics are unlike many other examples identified as comparables along Highway 7, the established Wigwoss Helen BRT Station 69, as a Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA 69”); j) Fully complies with the Angular Plane guidelines of the City, which could actually allow additional height and density, based on the modelling presented, and maintains privacy, and daylight/sunlight, for the surrounding area;

58Transition and compatibility are made clearly evident with significant setbacks and extended separation distances, with a minimum distance of 45 m building-to-building, with the nearest residential dwelling on Bruce Street. Additional separation examples are at approximately 60 m, 72 m, and 84 m, among a number of others. These distances clearly substantially diminish scale and massing, as the Proposal is set out below (Exhibit 25, Visual 6).

59Mr. Morgan further expanded on his evidence purporting minimal shadowing impacts, resulting from the Proposal’s location, that demonstrates how shadow impact is predominantly maintained on the Subject Lands (Exhibit 25, pg. 73).

60Mr. Morgan also asserted that the Subject Lands, located at the cusp of PMTSA 69, at a distance between 500 m to 800 m, ensures walkability for residents, families and visitors to alternate transit opportunities/routes, among other area community facilities including Woodbridge College, all of which, are in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Morgan and other witnesses refer to the Walkshed Analysis, which demonstrates quite effectively, the options available to future residents and visitors, as part of the Proposal (Exhibit 25, Tab 5).

61Additionally, Mr. Morgan utilized evidence with Streetscape Views (Exhibit 25, pgs. 69-71), demonstrating impact/images of the Proposal’s built-form, as currently located from Islington Avenue, Bruce Street and Helen Street residents, including Majesty Court, Pioneer Lane, Woodbridge College, and Legion Court to the north-west. He emphasized that these 3-D images generally demonstrate that the Proposal is well-positioned, representative of a massing strategy that is effective, and respectful of the adjacent, surrounding residential area character.

62During cross-examination, the size, scale, height and massing of the Proposal were challenged, with a detailed comparative analysis with distant sites. A number of these examples of redevelopment sites, and other more recent properties along Highway 7, were used to show similarities and differences compared to the Subject Lands.

63More specifically, comparisons regarding GFAs, heights, densities, FSIs, transportation designations, and transit analysis, all allowed for interesting debate/discussion, however, each of the examples appeared very different contextually, with some that included multi-tower projects, and others that were mid-rise sites with a variety of site-specific differences, such as smaller lot sizes, immediately abutting residential homes.

64The Tribunal found that although these examples were interesting and useful comparisons, each of them were quite dissimilar, contextually, to this Proposal, and site characteristics also differed in each case related to their respective surroundings. Mr. Morgan’s evidence was found to be quite compelling as comparisons with other sites, maintained a wide range of contextual differences, that were not found to be representative of this Proposal.

65Furthermore, discussion ensued around the upper floor elements of the Proposal, and the prospect of further sculpting of the structure, which appeared somewhat different from the 2019 Architectural rendering. Most notably, the emphasis from counsel for the Ratepayers, regarding a need for revisions to the design, were highlighted as it compared to a recent Tribunal Decision at the location of 4850 Highway 7 and 79 Arrowhead Drive (“Arrowhead Decision” / “Exhibit 51”). The Arrowhead Decision, which saw a proposal reduced in height from approximately 12/14-storeys, down to 10-storeys, for a variety of reasons. The thrust of the rationale associated with the Arrowhead Decision, which involved a number of the same Parties, suggested that a reduction in height would better align with the area character.

66Mr. Morgan opined that the Arrowhead Decision, assessed a series of completely different site characteristics, with different massing, and architectural design. He further references in his Reply evidence (Exhibit 18, para. 4.0) the rationale he has used in support of this Proposal, inclusive of the following assertion:

4.2 …The VOP 2010 acknowledges that policy variations may be required in response to the unique conditions or context of a site, and that variations other than height and density will not require an amendment provided that they are supported by an Urban Design Brief (VOP 2010, Policy 9.2.1.2). I have explained throughout my witness statement why the site and its surrounding context have unique conditions and how the proposed building appropriately responds to them.

The Urban Design Brief submitted with the Applications, dated July 2019, provides supplemental, comprehensive analysis of the Site and the surrounding context, including its unique features, and supports the proposed hybrid built form, functionally similar to the currently proposed building. For the proposed height and density, requests for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are being made.

[emphasis added]

67Mr. Morgan concluded that the massing and overall shape of the Proposal is reasonable on a detail level, as opposed to thickness and GFA, and that any comparison with some of the Highway 7 proposed developments, were all different in nature.

68The Tribunal was further persuaded by Mr. Morgan’s supplemental evidence, that formed part of the Arrowhead Decision (Exhibit 48, 2.5, pg. 16), which delineates a Corridor Analysis, within the PMTSA, that demonstrates how different many of the Highway 7 proposals appear. The analysis, demonstrated through the illustration below, shows that there are existing constraints with many, if not all of the sites. It became clear to the Tribunal, through Mr. Morgan’s evidence, that these other examples within the Corridor Analysis, could not compare to the unique characteristics of the Subject Site, and the current Proposal. Furthermore, this also appeared to be the case even with potential assemblies and other site-specific examples, as presented to the Tribunal.

69The image below provides an accurate general summary of current and potential opportunities dated as recently as January 2025. No such analysis exists from the City, (i.e. Avenue Study), which appears to demonstrate a preference to deal with applications as they arise on a site-specific basis.

70Mr. Morgan’s Corridor Analysis was quite helpful to the Tribunal, in highlighting the importance of Highway 7 and Islington Avenue. While not a formal Avenue Study, it is in many respects, currently representative of existing and future opportunities with respect to the realistic, achievable, development potential of Highway 7, within the immediate area, and PMTSA 69, specifically. It further reinforced the view that the limitations that may exist along the Highway 7 corridor, are not necessarily the same challenges that could be applied/argued in opposition to these Subject Lands, or Proposal specifically.

City

71The City response to the Urban Design evidence of Mr. Morgan, consisted of written and oral testimony from Ms. Rohani, as a Project Manager in the Parks, Infrastructure and Planning Department.

72Ms. Rohani initially referenced built-form policies in VOP 2010, and stressed the importance of high quality architecture, asserting that the Proposal was not respectful of the surrounding area character, was not representative of having a “minor” impact, and that the built-form lacked compatibility, proper pedestrian realm design, and represented inappropriate housing typology.

73Ms. Rohani continued with a focus on the Bruce Street elevation, which she asserted represented two-thirds of the built-form massing, as a hi-rise, and was somewhat critical of the ULP, although avoided specifics.

74Regarding the Bruce Street frontage, Ms. Rohani opined that the:

• approximately 20 m setback, was out of place;
• 45 m building-to-building setback, as noted above, was inadequate;
• height, and horizontal massing design is out of scale; and,
• trees along Bruce Street, do not change the perception of the human scale/pedestrian realm, and should not be referred to as appropriate visual buffering.

75Regarding the Islington Avenue frontage, Ms. Rohani opined that:

• there is disagreement with the visual impacts analysis, and the design is “not very successful” in achieving the objectives of the City’s Urban Design Guidelines 2018 (“UDG”), specifically referencing those listed in the JDB (Exhibit 7, Vol. 2, pg. 225), particularly, the design frontage, streetscape, and walkability; and,
• existing site constraints including NH elements, should not preclude better architectural design, and asserted that the Islington Avenue main entrance was not “clear”, not “public-friendly or facing”, and not representative of good “human scale design”.

76Ms. Rohani further opined that the built-form floorplates are not “minor” referring to a 270-400 percent variance from the VOP 2010, 850 m² floorplate guideline, and that a redesign should more appropriately reflect a “low-rise” built-form, due to the existence of the current valley slope.

77Noting that there was no disagreement with Mr. Morgan regarding wind impact, Ms. Rohani focussed on the need for reduced height, higher setbacks, and step backs that would further mitigate micro-climate impacts, and in particular, shadow impacts. She further opined that mere built-form sculpting is not an improvement and will not properly address “slow-moving” shadow impact on the public park elements across Bruce Street.

78Ms. Rohani also stated that the massing, and housing typology is conducive to auto-dependency, with “environmentally unfriendly design.”

79During cross-examination from the Ratepayers’ counsel, Ms. Rohani opined that the angular plane guideline was not an issue of concern in this instance, and that the floorplates appear to be more functional with a similar, but more efficient interior floorplan, without the need for phasing of the build-out. However, that did not deter her from her opinion that the built-form was inappropriate.

80During cross-examination from Appellant’s counsel, Ms. Rohani further acknowledged that the Subject Lands were “a-typical” when compared with other examples of sites approved or under consideration for residential development during the Hearing. Additionally, she affirmed that the Subject Lands were, in fact, adjacent to and not within the established Community Area, and the built-form is located along the edge of the NH designated area, agreeing that the UDG are not rules, but guidelines.

81Ms. Rohani also demonstrated a resistance to qualify her description of the Islington Avenue access as a “laneway”, rather than a “driveway”, however, eventually she agreed with Mr. Morgan’s classification of the entrance as an “access road”, which is effectively a “driveway”, as agreed to in the Transportation ASF (Exhibit 9).

82Furthermore, during cross-examination, there were a few other revelations including that Ms. Rohani acknowledged:

• there was no opinion submitted on built-form transition;
• there is no street wall construction associated with properties to the north and south, but also along Islington Avenue, and Bruce Street;
• there is no rear yard on any side of the Proposal;
• although some shadow concerns exist, there is no impact with view and overlook, as demonstrated by the angular plane analysis;
• there is “always a solution” when considering public vs. private site design scenarios, but that in this instance, the Subject Lands were entirely privately-owned;
• there was no opinion on the need for public vs. private ownership in this matter, and wasn’t aware if this is applicable with such a Proposal;
• that Urban Design analysis is based on built-form, and is not part of a density analysis/calculation; and,
• that in the lead up to this Proposal, the only known UDG City staff design input dates back to September 2019 (Exhibit 60), as follows:

Urban Design Policies:

1. The proposed land is located within the Stable Areas and is subject to the Urban Design and Built Form policies of the VOP2010 section 9.1.2.1 New Development within Community Areas. Please demonstrate how the proposed typology meet the objectives of these policies.
2. Notwithstanding comment #1, high-rise buildings are subject to the Urban Design and Built Form policies of the VOP2010 section 9.2.3.6. High Rise Building. Please demonstrate how the proposed typology meet the objectives of these policies.

83Finally, when questioned by counsel about the prospects of other immediately adjacent properties and their plans for development (which do not currently exist), Ms. Rohani expressed her personal view, as opposed to a professional opinion, asserting the statement “I hope not”, which she quickly realized should be retracted. This brief statement, with the immediate retraction, magnified what appeared to be her inherent bias against any further development of these Subject Lands, and neighbouring, privately-owned properties, from the City.

84Counsel for the City contends that this is a hi-rise, slab-design massing concept from the 1970s, that adversely impacts the low-rise character of the surrounding area, yet at the same time acknowledges that shadow impacts and angular plane are not matters of concern.

85The further assertion from counsel for the City, and Ms. Rohani, that the Proposal represents poor Urban Design, without reference to the importance of setbacks or step-backs that appear to be quite significant, combined with the fact that the development envelope has not changed during the course of two previous Tribunal Hearings/Decisions, were considered unconvincing.

86Finally, while the Tribunal finds that although Architectural evidence was not necessarily presented with any flair for design through the Architect’s testimony, quite substantive evidence, however, followed with the Appellant’s Landscape Architect and Urban Design experts. This important supplemental evidence bolstered the Architect’s evidence, and persuaded the Tribunal, that the Proposal will prove to be beneficial, from a long-term planning perspective. The Architectural and Urban Design features are quite reasonable and impactful in a very positive way. They combine functionality, with enhanced density in a manner that continues to be respectful of the surrounding area, and NH features, which will also be the subject of further analysis and implementation in the course of the SPA approval process.

87Therefore, based on this evidence, the Tribunal remains convinced that the Proposal is characterized by well-designed, compact built-form, with appropriate transitioning, is respectful of the surrounding area, and represents good Urban Design.

Planning Evidence and Analysis

Appellant Planning Evidence

88Throughout Mr. Guetter’s comprehensive written Witness/Reply Statements (Exhibits 12 and 17) and oral testimony, he expressed his view that the Subject Lands presented a unique opportunity:

…this site is unlike any other in the surrounding neighbourhood and represents a unique opportunity to accommodate a greater intensity of development in the proposed built form in order to assist in supporting investment in higher order transit, the objectives of the PMTSA, and the provincial housing objectives while maintaining compatibility and appropriate transition to surrounding stable uses. It is recognized that future residents of the development would benefit from being within walking distance to higher order transit and other amenities and community uses along Highway 7.

89Mr. Guetter further testified that:

a) The Proposal statistics, emphasized that the development envelope represented approximately 19 percent of the Subject Lands, with the balance of the site designated as Open Space, confirming that it is preferable to ensure that the Subject Lands remain entirely under the control of the landowner, ensuring implementation of any and all responsibilities, in perpetuity; b) A general breakdown of the varied residential unit mixture, setbacks and step backs, noting that most balconies were inset, and westerly-facing, up to level seven. He noted a mid-rise context with step backs beginning at the tenth level, up to the 14^th level, and emphasized the importance of transition and built form, as presented in architectural and urban design evidence above; c) He acknowledged that the building falls within the definition of hi-rise, as it relates to both the Islington Avenue and Bruce Street frontages, however, he opined that the unique site conditions, should allow for the characterization of the Proposal, as being a hybrid of mid-rise and hi-rise, in the absence of a tall-mid-rise category, within current City policies/guidelines; d) PMTSA 69 distances are very close to 500 m, with the Proposal entirely within 800 m, highlighting resident access from Helen Street. In addition, PMTSA 63 is within close proximity to the east, along Highway 7, and highlights VIVA bus route access both north and south, along Islington Avenue (Exhibit 25, Tab 3); e) The Proposal achieves optimization by “making effective use of infrastructure”, consistent with the PPS 2024, and maximizes access to transit opportunities, as demonstrated in the image above; f) The Walkshed Analysis (Exhibit 25, Tab 5) reflects accurate distances to transit options, all within approximately 10 minutes or less, with an assortment of opportunities for future residents to access transportation in all directions, including detailed YRT and TTC/Line 1 expanded transit mapping evidence (Exhibit 25, Tab 9); g) The City’s hierarchy of urban structure is not offended, in that the various Appeals that should be allowed, reflect conformity with hi-rise examples within, or adjacent to Community Areas, dating back prior to VOP 2010 (under appeal). Additionally, that the Appellant has been consistent in their efforts to reasonably reflect various examples of planned vs. approved densities (Exhibit 11, Tab 11, pg. 65), with FSIs ranging from 2.5, all the way up to 16; h) The detailed angular plane analysis clearly demonstrates that the Proposal is well below the threshold from all elevations, maintaining a one-to-one ratio or more, and there are no rear-yard or side-yard concerns; and, i) The larger floor plate is the result of the uniqueness of the Subject Lands, within a carefully scrutinized buildable envelope, allowing for a lower profile rather than a point tower, which is more appropriate from an efficiency standpoint, and with common corridors, impacting favourably on the Proposal’s economic viability.

90Mr. Guetter outlined the detailed rationale included in the updated draft OPA and ZBA Instruments, which set out all of the site-specific requirements, including setbacks, step backs, appropriate measurements, and some design elements (Exhibits 30 and 31).

91Furthermore, surrounding area development sites were shared with the Tribunal, that, for the first time, pointed to another example of a development at the opposite tip of the HRV, V-Shaped, ED designation, located at 4603 and 4611 Highway 7, along the south side of Highway 7, just east of Helen Street, as approved in 2015 (“Forest Green Homes”) (Exhibit 36). This development approval demonstrates a built-form (not yet constructed), at the Top of Bank, with seven and ten-storey buildings, consisting of both RA3 (Apartment Residential Zone) and OS1 (Open Space Conservation Zone) designations, with site-specific exemptions in the ZBA, and without the need for an OPA. The use is a “Supportive Living Facility,” and there does not appear to be any requirement for a proposed privately-owned Open Space conveyance to the City, as a component. The location #4 is evident in the image below (Exhibit 53).

92At the request of the Tribunal, Mr. Guetter provided a detailed series of proposed SPA-related Development Agreement criteria, which include a variety of requirements to be fulfilled, including mitigation safeguards, but not limited to the following, resulting from all of the related Hearings:

1. The following drawings are typically included and secured within Site Plan Approval Drawings (Per Section 41.4 of Planning Act): a. Architectural Drawings – Site Plan, Elevations, Cross Sections, Floor Plans, Details with regards to accessibility for persons with disabilities; b. Landscape Drawings – Landscape Plan, Details; c. Tree Inventory Plans – Removals and Mitigation Measures; d. Restoration Plans – With input from Ecologist, Arborist; e. Servicing Plans – Grading, Servicing, Stormwater Management, Cut and Fill (Floodplain), Structural, Details; f. Photometrics Plan; g. Public Utilities Plan; h. Transportation Plans – Loading, Waste Collection, Parking, Wayfinding, Signage, TDM measures, Details; i. Construction Management – Sequencing, Erosion and Sediment Controls;

2. The following items are typically included within a Site Plan Agreement (Per Section 41.7 of Planning Act): a. General Conditions/Obligations of Owner b. List of Approved Drawings c. Warning Clause, as appropriate d. Sustainability Measures – Based submitted drawings and reports e. Recommendations from Technical Studies i. EIS, Floodplain Report, Geotechnical Report, Wind Study, Noise Study, Slope Stability Report, Functional Servicing Report, Arborist Report, Landscape Plans, others f. Installation and Construction of Works i. Inclusive of Utilities, TRCA, City Departments g. Securities/Letters of Credit/Performance and Maintenance Guarantees h. Parkland Dedication (Governed by Section 42 of Planning Act, but often included in agreement for convenience) i. Ongoing Maintenance Obligations/Restrictions – Including Site Maintenance and Restoration/Mitigation measures based on technical studies

93Mr. Guetter reiterated that the matters outlined in paragraph [92] can be properly addressed through the SPA approval process.

94As part of Mr. Guetter’s detailed OPA Instrument review and testimony, he emphasized that the attempts by City staff to apply an FSI calculation within the developable envelope only, that would result in an FSI calculation in excess of 16, is a mischaracterization of what the Phase 1 and Phase 2A Decisions determined. The Proposal is within the entirety of the overall Subject Lands, with a total of approximately 1.77 ha in size, and a clearly-delineated site-specific envelope containing the built-form design, and ULP elements, to be further considered in the SPA approval process. He also asserted that FSI of 3.22 is just one of a number of measures used to assess built-form control.

95Mr. Guetter’s detailed ZBA Instrument overview noted further design elements referenced under previous expert evidence above and included the important references to setbacks and step backs within site-specific provisions, emphasizing their relevance to the hybrid, built-form design. Mr. Guetter further acknowledged that ZBA fine-tuning, if the Appeals are allowed, is a process that can provide additional safeguards to the appropriate authorities and indicated a degree of flexibility around timing for discussion of the Final Instruments, ideally within a 30 to 60-day window, following the issuance of a Tribunal Decision.

96The Tribunal accepts Mr. Guetter’s concluding opinions that the Proposal:

1. Has appropriate regard to s. 2 of the Act; and,
2. Maintains consistency with the PPS 2024, as the Proposal is within a Settlement Area and achieves Complete Communities with a unique alternative form of housing in the area, focused, in part, among a number of sections referenced in his Witness Statement (paras. 90-115).

97Regarding the history and applicability of area Official Plans, he opined that:

• the YROP 1994, is applicable, and is similar to the YROP 2010, acknowledging that Local Corridors and Regional Centres have essentially remained the same, and reminds the Tribunal that the Proposal is located along a Regional Road (Islington Avenue);
• the Proposal is within the “Urban Area” in one instance entirely (YROP 1994), and in the other, partially (YROP 2010), and there are similar developments throughout York Region, that were reliant on those similar policy guidelines, that are reasonable comparables to these circumstances;
• as referenced in greater detail in his Witness Statement (Exhibit 12, para. 156), there is conformity to these policies, and appropriate regard is applied with regard to updates in the YROP 2022; and,
• OPA 240, as amended by OPA 269, remains outdated, as they relate to the Subject Lands (paras. 157-170, with conclusions in paras. 171-177), and area character is not adversely affected, highlighting the appropriate redesignations in the draft OPA.

98While the VOP 2010 still remains in effect with updates in 2015, and is under appeal, Mr. Guetter opined that it is not determinative or applicable, as redevelopment dates back to the 2008 OPA Appeal, which was subsequently consolidated with the current OPA and ZBA Appeals.

99While some elements of the VOP 2010 are relevant, he contended that fundamentally, as in the Phase 2A Hearing, it remains non-determinative in relation to this Proposal. Further support of this opinion is shared in much greater detail, through the Guetter Witness Statement (paras. 181 – 207).

100Mr. Guetter opined, and the Tribunal agrees, that “compatibility” is not necessarily the same as “co-existence in harmony” which, he asserts is more representative of the Proposal and denotes the significance of the PMTSA 69 designation in 2022, which came after the submission of this Proposal. He further asserted that while the hybrid, tall-mid rise, characterizations may not formally exist in the VOP 2010, the final built-form is in the spirit of s. 9.1.2.2, in that the Proposal is respectful of the physical area character, also having regard for:

• That in Community Areas with established development, new development be designed to respect and reinforce the existing physical character and uses of the surrounding area, paying particular attention to the following elements: a. the local pattern of lots, streets and blocks; b. the size and configuration of lots; c. the building type of nearby residential properties; d. the heights and scale of nearby residential properties; e. the setback of buildings from the street; f. the pattern of rear and side-yard setbacks; and, g. conservation and enhancement of heritage buildings, heritage districts and cultural heritage landscapes. h. the above elements are not meant to discourage the incorporation of features that can increase energy efficiency (e.g. solar configuration, solar panels) or environmental sustainability (e.g. natural lands, rainbarrels)

101Furthermore, Mr. Guetter opined that the Proposal’s primary land use planning principles, will be achieved through the very detailed elements of the OPA and ZBA Instruments, and, with the benefit of some additional time, associated with the proposed “H”, any other issues will be addressed in an acceptable manner.

102Mr. Guetter confidently opined that regarding protection measures associated with Ecology and Forestry, SWL connectivity will be ensured through long-term maintenance provisions, as part of any Site Development Agreement, and executed by the landowner, noting the high priority given to these concerns through the Phase 2A Decision.

103Finally, in addition to Mr. Guetter’s evidence that the Proposal has regard for s. 2 of the Act; is consistent with the PPS 2024; and conforms with the YROP and applicable VOP policies, Mr. Guetter also asserted that the Proposal implements the Phase 2A Decision through the draft OPA and ZBA. Although, just outside of a defined Strategic Growth Area, it is immediately adjacent to PMTSA 69, among a number of transit optimization alternatives; is near existing community infrastructure; and, importantly, does not abut, or fall within the Community Area, but is adjacent/contiguous to it.

104Under cross-examination, Mr. Guetter maintained his position that there are unique differences with the characteristics of the Subject Lands. His position was further clarified when comparisons to an array of older-era development, in downtown Woodbridge, Richmond Hill, Jane and Rutherford, and Martin Grove, were addressed. This extended even further to a detailed Highway 7 analysis, and all the way east of Highway 400, referencing the unprecedented growth area of the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre (“VMC”), just to name a few.

105The Tribunal accepts and prefers the evidence of Mr. Guetter over that of the Parties opposed, who consistently maintained and reinforced the view that the examples put to him in cross-examination did not represent credible comparables.

106The Tribunal further accepts and prefers Mr. Guetter’s following opinions to the extent of contradictions with the testimony of other experts, in that:

a) The OPA is the appropriate mechanism to modify the VOP on a site-specific basis where a proposed development may seem unprecedented; however, an OPA of this nature can also be representative of good sense and land use planning, such that, this Proposal is not synonymous with bad planning; b) The OPA will carefully define this site-specific Proposal, preserving neighbourhood character and will not result in a local intensification corridor, in part by paying particular attention to NH preservation and restoration as a very high priority; c) The Proposal’s proximity/adjacency to high-order transit and other significant community infrastructure is based on sound, supportive land use planning principles to support the overall planned function of the Subject Lands; d) The PMTSA 69 designation further reinforces the benefits associated with this Proposal, in that it does not dictate built-form, but rather uses minimum density targets, without establishing maximums; e) While the updated east-frontage design has been modified, it is not representative of a maximization of density above grade, and the SPA and Development Agreement process allows for further analysis and implementation of design measures to meet various objectives; and, f) Finally, this process will also address ED obligations, enshrining mitigation/restoration measures, in line with previous Tribunal Decisions, with the added measure in the ZBA of allowing some additional time under the H, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

City and Ratepayer Planning Evidence

107Ms. D’Addario’s and Mr. Rendl’s respective oral and written planning evidence ran contrary to Mr. Guetter’s evidence (“Opposing Planners”).

108The Tribunal preferred the evidence of Mr. Guetter and finds that it did not accept the opinion evidence of the Opposing Planners, with a summary of assertions, that the Proposal:

a) Represents an “overdevelopment” and is incompatible with the City “urban hierarchy and context identified by applicable planning policies”; b) Is clearly defined as a “Hi-Rise Building” in the VOP 2010, consisting of more than 12-storeys in height, which runs counter to surrounding area designations as “Low-Rise Residential”; c) Is not consistent with the PPS 2024 requirements seeking to achieve compact built-form, supportive of public transit; the objective of reduced auto-dependency; higher density, in close proximity to employment opportunities; protection of NH characteristics on the Subject Lands; and proper regard for surrounding low-rise residential Community Areas; d) Falls within a land use designated as “Open Space” by OPA 240, as amended by OPA 269 and designated “Natural Areas” by VOP 2010, which forms part of the larger and interconnected “Regional Greenlands System” identified by YROP 1994 and YROP 2010; e) Falls within land use designations such as “Natural Areas and Countryside” and adjacent to “Community Areas” on Schedule 1 – Urban Structure of VOP 2010, neither of which are identified for development of the scale and density being proposed for the Subject Lands; f) Does not reflect the VOP’s objective of allowing for limited intensification, contextually, with sensitivity and compatibility with the surrounding area character, form and planned function; g) Does not form part of the City’s Strategic Growth Areas, and from a density perspective, does not meet Provincial, Regional or City objectives for directing intensification to identified Intensification Areas (see image below); h) Density improperly attempts to benefit from PMTSA-established objectives, including maximizing transit usage, increasing housing supply, and creating complete communities; i) FSI of 3.22 is more appropriately applicable to the below (image) designated Intensification Areas; j) Should automatically be disqualified from such a redevelopment in-line with the “Countryside” designation and, at the same time, states that the Subject Lands are “not adjacent” to higher-order transit, requiring that the Proposal should, therefore, reflect a height of four to seven-storeys at a maximum, presumably referenced along Islington Avenue. k) Is subject to the VOP 2010 which is applicable and determinative in these circumstances, as the Proposal represents a “major change that is not desirable,” and, l) “Fails to balance the overall objective of achieving intensification with planning policies that direct the most significant levels of intensification, to Intensification Areas.”

109Ms. D’Addario points to the Arrowhead Decision excerpt (Exhibit 48) as comparable and contextual rationale for her support of reduced height and density within PMTSA 69 but later confirmed that she had no direct involvement with this matter. Further to this, Ms. D’Addario also references the matter of Forest Green Homes (Exhibit 36) as another example of revised height in the Tribunal Decision within PMTSA 69 and, again, later confirmed that she had no involvement with that matter or any direct involvement with the PMTSA 69, YROP 2022 adoption and approval process.

110Pertinent evidence during cross-examination, identified planned future higher-order transit initiatives, were relevant in the circumstances. These included: the Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan 2041 (Exhibit 54), recommending a BRT extension to the west of Islington along Highway 7, eventually connecting the City of Vaughan up to the City of Brampton; Future GO Transit Stations, including the construction of the GO Transit Station approximately 1.3 km south of the Subject Lands and the anticipated new Kipling GO Transit Station, further to the west of the Subject Lands.

111Finally, on the subject of the City’s delay associated with the SPA request for a PAC and the City’s reluctance to proceed with the matter, Ms. D’Addario clarified that her superior (Planning Manager), was consulted upon receipt of the Appellant’s request and directed that the SPA-PAC process should be intentionally delayed/deferred (Exhibit 59).

112Mr. Rendl opined independently, reiterating that the policy hierarchy is not respected with this Proposal and suggests that this built-form and density represent an aberration. He insisted that orderly development matters and that this Proposal is atypical and abnormal, despite efforts to qualify the design as a hybrid, which is not applicable and not orderly, based on his extensive experience.

113Mr. Rendl acknowledged that pedestrians/residents will utilize available transit, consistent with Mr. Guetter’s testimony, however, he simultaneously emphasized that the Subject Lands are not within an Urban Growth Area or Regional Growth Area, where increased densities should be located.

114Mr. Rendl further criticized urban design, noting that pedestrian orientation is not properly-oriented towards Islington Avenue and should be, noting that a 63 m setback currently, is inappropriate. No mention was made regarding the need for this setback in light of the Floodplain delineation noted in the Phase 2A Decision.

115Regarding Bruce Street, Mr. Rendl also insisted that pedestrian orientation is not favourable and “does not include a strong, daily exposure for active pedestrian interaction.”

116Mr. Rendl acknowledged that Islington is a Regional Road but that densities should be consistent with a Transit Corridor, the Subject Lands are located outside of the designation, and “transit access is not ideal,” referencing Mr. Pernicky’s analysis estimating low transit usage in the immediate future.

117Having previously been engaged with the Arrowhead Decision, along Highway 7, on behalf of the same Ratepayers, Mr. Rendl argued that transition was not appropriate in that case, hence, the Tribunal Decision should reduce height in this instance. He suggested that this Proposal is even worse.

118The Tribunal finds that Mr. Rendl neglects to compare differences between the size of the respective sites, significant setback differences, and angular plane analyses/rear-yard/side-yard dynamics, all of which have been satisfied with this Proposal, among a number of other fundamental differences.

119Finally, Mr. Rendl asserts that the Proposal represents a “planning-by-numbers exercise” and that a more appropriate re-design “off the top of my mind” should consist of three-storey townhomes at a maximum along Bruce Street, noting that the more appropriate frontage is Islington Avenue, which could allow for a maximum of 10-storeys with a different built-form configuration.

120The Tribunal noted important responses during cross-examination of Mr. Rendl, who further clarified his position regarding some of the following:

a) The Subject Lands are privately owned, and there are other NH features within public ownership in the immediate HRV, which form part of the area character; b) The Arrowhead matter has recently been scheduled to return before the Tribunal for further analysis; c) He has no issue with the FSI of 3.22 and acknowledged the building-to-building separate distance of approximately 45 m, at a minimum, which is approximately 10 m wider than Islington Avenue with five-separate lanes, which does assist with transition, fit, compatibility and physical context; d) Angular plane and micro-climate/shadow issues are not concerns; and e) The SPA and Development Agreement process can capture many of his concerns, with safeguards in effect under the Act.

121In summary, Opposing Planners, both conclude that the Proposal does not have appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act; is not consistent with the PPS 2024; does not conform to YROP 1994 and YROP 2010; does not conform to OPA 240, as amended by OPA 269; does not conform to VOP 2010; does not represent appropriate scale and massing; is not an appropriate location because of its frontage along Bruce Street; by definition, should only be considered as a high-rise building; does not represent good planning, in the public interest; there should be a conveyance of the Open Space to public ownership in order to preserve and protect HL and NH characteristics; and finally, should be dismissed and a new application submitted.

122In the alternative, Opposing Planners recommend that in the event that the Tribunal allows the Appeals, the “H” should apply, and both the OPA and ZBA should be withheld for up to 60-days to allow further review that ultimately satisfies the City and further allows for additional consideration before the Tribunal.

123The Tribunal prefers the Appellant evidence, to that of the Opposing Planners, resulting from the Walkshed Analysis, that demonstrated nearby pedestrian access to Highway 7 buses, and PMTSA 69 via Site Plan access points to Bruce Street and Helen Street. The 500 m to 800 m distance to the Subject Lands, was well-documented and is consistent with the PPS 2024 in support of the development of new housing, and applicable to this Proposal.

124The Tribunal was also persuaded by the Appellant’s position, which again emphasized, that consistency with the PPS 2024 is further demonstrated by the fact that: there should be support for all housing options and residential intensification; densities should be promoted through efficient land use; and developments within Settlement Areas should be supported, in achieving complete communities.

125Similarly, regarding the York Regional Official Plans 1994, 2010, and 2022, which now form part of the City’s adopted VOP 2025 (still awaiting Ministerial approval), the Tribunal is persuaded that there is conformity, through written and oral evidence from Mr. Guetter. Mr. Guetter’s assertion that the YROP 1994 is determinative with these Appeals, effectively counters the Opposing Planners’ position.

126The Tribunal was also persuaded by Mr. Guetter’s repeated assertion that the VOP 2010 (under appeal), is not determinative. Mr. Guetter highlighted that matters that are relative to the VOP 2010 policies, are better addressed through the site-specific OPA and ZBA Instruments and allowing some additional time (suggested 60-days) for review of the Parties, may be appropriate for the consideration of the Tribunal.

127The Tribunal finds that the degree of intensification is appropriate in the circumstances, and that high density does exist outside of Intensification Areas, noting that the compatibility test is reasonably achieved with this Proposal.

FURTHER ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

128As part of an effort to further demonstrate opposition to the Proposal’s built-form, in closing written submissions, counsel for the Ratepayers asserts that the 140 m / 460-foot “width” of the building along Bruce Street, is the equivalent of “almost half a kilometre” in length. This is either an honest mistake, or an intentional misrepresentation intended to demonstrate a building length that would be equivalent to 500 m.

129The Tribunal is persuaded by the Appellant witness evidence and testimony that this Proposal more accurately represents a well-designed, hybrid of mid-rise and hi-rise in the absence of a tall-mid-rise definition. The Tribunal also finds that the design is contextually appropriate, and well-situated within the delineated development envelope presented, consistent with both the Phase 1 and Phase 2A Decisions.

130The Tribunal finds that the development envelope represents a well-situated location on the Subject Lands for the development of the Proposal, and the proposed building height, and density also represent a diverse provision of housing that compliments current typology, within the Settlement Area.

131Moreover, the carefully-scrutinized development envelope, and built-form location, is consistent with evidence in the more recent Phase 2A Decision. The ongoing emphasis on mitigation measures through the proposed ULP, is representative of a plan that will be respectful of both NH and HL elements, as well as, demonstrating no adverse impact on the surrounding residential areas.

132Furthermore, the Phase 1 and Phase 2A Decisions, paid particular attention to the various unique NH and HL site characteristics that exist, were carefully assessed, in the context of the Proposal’s site location, general built-form, and approximate density.

133The Tribunal finds that the delivery of 567 new residential units under this Proposal, with a mixture of unit types, responds to the need for a greater diversity of density, accessible to Downtown Woodbridge. The combined expert evidence from the Architect, Landscape Architect, and Urban Designer, was compelling. Together, with the persuasive planning evidence from Mr. Guetter, they demonstrated how the Proposal pragmatically blends into the surrounding area on such a large site, with a built-form, that provides much needed housing supply, respectful and protective of natural features.

134Regarding issues such as the FSI calculation of approximately 3.22, the angular plane analysis, and the micro-climate and shadowing analysis, the Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence from Mr. Guetter, as generally agreed to by Mr. Rendl in testimony, and unchallenged by Ms. Rohani. The Appellant has very carefully demonstrated how these tools, used to assess density and potential adverse impact, accurately reflect that there is minimal, or no adverse impact on the surrounding area from the Proposal within the context of the entirety of the Subject Lands.

135The Appellant’s expert evidence presents a well-designed, consistent and compatible built-form that carefully considers vehicular, pedestrian and emergency/safe-access requirements. The Proposal demonstrates sound design elements very carefully, considering its adjacency to a Community Area.

136There is also credible evidence that allows for further analysis, and potential for built-form related sculpting, and any necessary and important ULP revisions where appropriate. The SPA approval and Development Agreement process should resolve any of these issues. More specifically, the Tribunal also finds that issues that relate to mitigation, reforestation and other NH elements within the proposed ULP, should be mutually resolved, based on the brief, but credible presentation from the Landscape Architect.

137The SPA approval process, under the statutory requirements of the Act, is a significant responsibility that requires careful review and consideration from the City. The Tribunal further anticipates that the City will exercise its best efforts to consider the SPA/PAC approval process, in a timely and expeditious manner, following the issuance of this Decision.

138The impact of Mr. Guetter’s evidence clearly outlines the overarching relevance of the PPS 2024, in that a site such as 7553, should not be excluded from a meaningful opportunity for new housing opportunities, only because it is adjacent to the PMTSA 69, or that it may not be identified directly in the policy hierarchy referenced by Opposing Planners.

139The Tribunal is convinced that the Subject Lands are contiguous to the Community Area designations, despite arguments to the contrary. Islington Avenue is a well-established major arterial roadway, capable of absorbing a well-planned Proposal such as this, with good transitioning adjacent to the surrounding community/neighbourhood.

140The Subject Lands are immediately adjacent to the designated higher-order transit options, in addition to community infrastructure, within a very reasonable walking/vehicular distance to community infrastructure. This includes community centres, retail shopping, and educational and recreational facilities, not to mention the Proposal’s relatively close proximity to more regional destinations such as Downtown Woodbridge, Woodbridge Library, and other institutions.

141Furthermore, consistent with the PPS 2024, the Tribunal notes that access to higher order transit opportunities such as the PMTSA 69 applies to developable lands both within and outside of delineated boundaries. The Tribunal accepts the Appellant’s argument that delineated boundaries are not necessarily “firewalls” to accessing such transit opportunities and should not, at the same time, outright deny reasonable density, as represented in this Proposal.

142In the event that the Appeals are allowed, the Parties provided submissions regarding whether it would be appropriate to withhold approval of the draft OPA and ZBA Instruments. The Tribunal agrees with the City’s argument that a Final Order regarding the Instruments be withheld for up to 60-days to permit satisfaction of various conditions as set out in the Orders made below.

143Mr. Guetter’s assertions that protective measures associated with Ecology, Forestry, and SWL connectivity will be ensured through long-term maintenance provisions as part of any Site Development Agreement. These are expected to be executed by the current or future landowner, providing added assurance to the Tribunal that allowing some additional time, should be helpful, and is consistent with the Phase 2A Decision.

144The Tribunal does not agree to the request that any dedicated Environmentally Protected (“EP”) lands should also be secured by the City via easements and conveyances as needed. The example of the Forest Green Homes site was of assistance to the Tribunal, highlighting that the EP lands, under the proposed OS1 designation, appear to remain within the ownership of the Appellant, and that in this instance, private vs. public ownership is the preferred finding of the Tribunal, consistent with what exists today. The Tribunal was satisfied that with the appropriate provisions expected to be contained in the draft Final Instruments, the current and/or any future landowner would be required to fulfill any and all obligations, related to EP lands.

CONCLUSIONS

145Firstly, regarding the “H” provision, the Tribunal concludes that some additional time is required to allow the Parties an opportunity to clarify any concerns as it relates to precise language within the draft OPA and ZBA Instruments. The “H” provision would effectively allow some additional time to help fuse the Phase 2A Decision with the Phase 2B Decision, for up to a proposed 60-days following the issuance of this Order.

146Despite the Appellant’s preferred 30-day time frame, the Tribunal determined that the proposed 60-day period under the “H” was more appropriate and is reflected accordingly in the Orders below. The Tribunal expects that this should allow ample time for the Parties to appropriately ensure that the Final Instruments contain the requisite protective measures regarding the EDs, consistent with the Phase 2A Decision, involving landscaping plans, preservation/restoration methodology, mitigation measures and any other related concerns.

147Finally, based on all of the above-described opinion evidence from the Appellant’s experts, the Tribunal is persuaded that the Proposal has appropriate regard to s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS 2024, and conforms with relevant applicable policies and guidelines. The Proposal demonstrates a well-designed, compact built-form, with a density that is supported in evidence by Transportation, Servicing and Engineering experts, with no adverse impact on the surrounding residential area. The Proposal is within walking distance to a number of transit oriented options, and in close proximity to City services, community recreation and institutional facilities, schools, and close in proximity to a wide variety of retail shopping options. Finally, the Proposal represents good planning, in the public interest.

148Therefore, the Tribunal will allow the Appeals, in part, and will approve in principle the draft OPA and ZBA.

ORDER AND INTERIM ORDER

149THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT, pursuant to Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, notwithstanding the eventual date of the formal issuance of this Order, the Decision on the Joint Motion for Direction from the City of Vaughan and the Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority shall be and was effective as of February 23, 2026, which is the date that the Tribunal received and considered the evidence in support of the Joint Motion for Direction, and determined that:

1. It accepts the Moving Parties’ withdrawal of paragraphs, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B, and 4C of the relief sought in the Joint Motion, as noted above, and on consent of all Parties;
2. Any and all references in Witness Statements regarding the Long-Term Care Facility, in the Witness Statement of Ryan Guetter, dated January 30, 2026, including paragraphs 300(c)(vi) and 304, and the associated references within the draft Official Plan Amendment and/or Zoning By-law Amendment, that relate to a Long-Term Care Facility, and/or any written and/or oral testimony Ryan Guetter has or intended to present, to the Tribunal related to a Long-Term Care Facility, are struck from the record;
3. Based on the decision that the Appellant has abandoned, its request for a Long-Term Care Facility on the Subject Lands, the Tribunal will not be adjudicating the issue, as part of the Phase 2B Hearing;
4. Regarding Matt Coleridge’s Witness Statement, all matters were resolved at the commencement of the Phase 2B Hearing. The Tribunal confirmed that paragraphs 19 and 25, have been struck from the Witness Statement (Exhibit 28), on consent of the Parties, and the issues of Site Servicing/Engineering, in this regard, are no longer before the Tribunal in the Phase 2B Hearing; and,
5. Regarding the request to strike paragraphs 10, 11, 14, and 15 of Mike Dartizio’s Witness Statement, dated January 29, 2026, together with the ULP and any other written evidence, drawings or oral testimony of Mike Dartizio, in which the request is denied. The Tribunal determines that the ULP is part of the updated plans, submitted on December 8, 2025, as previously suggested and evidence was expected by the Tribunal, arising from the Phase 2A Decision.

150THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS ON AN INTERIM BASIS THAT:

1. The appeal in Tribunal Case No. OLT-21-001787, commenced under section 17(40) of the Planning Act arising from the failure of the approval authority to announce a decision respecting a New Official Plan (Vaughan Official Plan, 2010), is allowed, in part;
2. The appeal in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002104, commenced under section 34(19) of the Planning Act arising from the approval of Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 001-2021, is allowed, in part;
3. The appeal in Tribunal Case No. OLT-22-002608, commenced under section 22(7) of the Planning Act arising from the failure of the City of Vaughan to adopt the requested Official Plan Amendment within the statutory timeframe, is allowed, in part;
4. The appeal in Tribunal File No. OLT-22-002611, commenced under section 34(11) of the Planning Act arising from the failure of the City of Vaughan to make a decision on the requested Zoning By-law Amendment within the statutory timeframe, is allowed, in part;
5. The Official Plan Amendment attached hereto as Attachment A is approved in principle subject to the prerequisite matters described in paragraph 7 below;
6. The Zoning By-law Amendment attached hereto as Attachment B is approved in principle, subject to the following additional “H” condition:

Additional “H” condition to include in Zoning By-law Amendment:

The owner has submitted, and the City or Tribunal has reviewed and approved through the Site Plan Approval process, a Tree Removal, Compensation and Restoration Mitigation Plan that:

a. It is in a form substantially consistent with: i. Tab 76 of Exhibit 8 of the Phase 2A Hearing, being the September 12, 2023, EIS Addendum Prepared by GEI Consultants Ltd.; ii. Figure 1 & Appendix B of Exhibit 19 as accepted by the Tribunal in the Phase 2A Decision issued on October 29, 2025; and, iii. The December 8, 2025, Stantec landscape drawings contained in Exhibit 16 of the Phase 2B Hearing; b. Identify all tree removals, replacements, restoration plantings, monitoring, maintenance, and associated environmental protection measures consistent with the documents listed in paragraph (a) above; and, c. It is secured through a Site Plan Agreement, including financial securities for implementation and monitoring of matters listed in (a) and (b) above that are reasonably required.

7. The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Orders in respect of paragraphs 5 and 6 above, contingent upon the Tribunal being advised by 7553 Islington Holding Inc. and the City of Vaughan that the following conditions are met: a. The Official Plan Amendment is in its final form; b. The Zoning By-law Amendment is in its final form;

8. 7553 Islington Holding Inc. and the City of Vaughan shall provide final versions of the instruments referred to in paragraph 7, within 60 days following the issuance of this Order. If the Parties are unable to finalize the within referenced instruments within 60 days following the issuance of this Order, they shall instead provide a status update to the Tribunal.

151The Member remains seized in respect of any matters arising from the Orders and Interim Orders made above.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS MEMBER Ontario Land Tribunal Website: 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.

Footnotes

1. 1The Moving Parties initially accidentally requested that paragraph 17 in the Witness Statement of Matt Coleridge, dated January 29, 2026, be struck. They later corrected this to seek to strike paragraphs 19 and 25 thereof.