September 26, 2013 PL Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario

Transcription

1 ISSUE DATE: September 26, 2013 PL Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario IN THE MATTER OF subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Amir-Hessam Limited & Ontario Limited Ontario Limited Yonge Bayview Holdings Inc. K.J. Beamish Holdings Limited Signature Developments Inc. TSMJC Properties Inc. Haulover Investments Limited New Era Developments (2011) Inc. Yorkdale Group Inc. Rice Commercial Group and Major Mac Realty Inc. Loblaw Properties Limited E. Manson Investments North Leslie Residential Landowners Group Inc. Montanaro Estates Limited and William & Yvonne Worden Baif Developments Limited Arten Developments Inc. Stonecourt Construction Inc. P. Campagna Investments Ltd., P.A. Campagna and Ontario Ltd. Ram Nischal, Rekha Nischal, Neelam Narula and Raj Kumar Angelo, Louise and Josephine Cimetta and Shiplake Developments Ltd. Great Lands (Westwood) Inc Ontario Ltd. (Belmont) Robert Salna and Robert Salna Holdings Inc. AME-SON Holdings Ltd. Corsica Development Inc. Elginbay Corporation Sitzer Group Holdings No. 1 Limited, Grall Corporation Limited, Natweiss Investments Limited, Ontario Limited & Loblaws Inc. (owners of the Richmond Heights Shopping Centre) Dickson 48 Property Inc., Sedgewick Property Inc., Long Body Homes Inc., & Ontario Ontario Inc Ontario Inc Ontario Inc.

2 - 2 - PL Subject: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Failure of the Regional Municipality of York to announce a decision respecting the proposed new Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill Town of Richmond Hill PL PL Baif Developments Limited has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from Council s refusal to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill to redesignate a 3.56 hectare (8.79 acres) parcel of land located at the southwest quadrant of Yonge Street and Hopkins Street (the Yonge Street Block, bounded by Yonge Street to the east, Harding Boulevard West to the south, Addison Street to the west and Hopkins Street to the north), described as Block 9 and Part of Addison Street, Plan 65M-2368 and Part of Atkinson Street, Plan 65M-2369, municipally known as 0 Addison Street, from Town Centre to Town Centre Key Development Area and by adding provisions permitting a mixed-use residential and commercial development of up to a maximum height of 31-storeys and up to a maximum overall Floor Space Index of 4.32, in order to permit the development of 3 residential towers with maximum heights of 20, 28 and 31 storeys and 3 additional towers with a maximum height of 10 storeys with a total of 1,560 residential units and 5,292 square metres (56,962 square feet) to contain proposed uses such as apartment residential units, livework residential units, townhouse units, retail, service commercial and office uses Town of Richmond Hill File No. D OMB File No. PL Baif Developments Limited has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from Council s refusal to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law , as amended, of the Town of Richmond Hill to rezone a 3.56 hectare (8.79 acres) parcel of land located at the southwest quadrant of Yonge Street and Hopkins Street (the Yonge Street Block, bounded by Yonge Street to the east, Harding Boulevard West to the south, Addison Street to the west and Hopkins Street to the north), described as Block 9 and Part of Addison Street, Plan 65M-2368 and Part of Atkinson Street, Plan 65M-2369, municipally known as 0 Addison Street, from Commercial Office (CO) Zone and Residential Office Complex (RO) Zone to Multiple Residential Ten Special (Hold) (RM10-S(H)) Zone to permit the development of 3 residential towers with maximum heights of 20, 28 and 31 storeys and 3 additional towers with a maximum height of 10 storeys with a total of 1,560 residential units and 5,292 square metres (56,962 square feet) to contain proposed uses such as apartment residential units, live-work residential units, townhouse units, retail, service commercial and office uses Town of Richmond Hill File No. D OMB File No. PL120651

3 - 3 - PL Baif Developments Limited has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from Council s refusal to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill to redesignate a 1.71 hectare (4.23 acres) parcel of land located at the southwest quadrant of Yonge Street and Hopkins Street (the Major Mackenzie Block, bounded by Major Mackenzie Drive West to the north, Atkinson Street to the east and Hopkins Street to the south), described as Block 4 and Part of Hopkins Street, Plan 65M-2369, municipally known as 0 Hopkins Street, from Town Centre to Town Centre Key Development Area with special policies to permit a mixed-use development comprised of townhouses and an apartment building with ground-related commercial floor space along Major Mackenzie Drive West with a maximum Floor Space Index of 2.63, in order to permit the development of a residential building with a maximum building height of 9 storeys with an overall total of 421 residential units (including the townhouse units as well) Town of Richmond Hill File No. D OMB File No. PL Baif Developments Limited has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from Council s refusal to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law , as amended, of the Town of Richmond Hill to rezone a 1.71 hectare (4.23 acres) parcel of land located at the southwest quadrant of Yonge Street and Hopkins Street (the Major Mackenzie Block, bounded by Major Mackenzie Drive West to the north, Atkinson Street to the east and Hopkins Street to the south), described as Block 4 and Part of Hopkins Street, Plan 65M-2369, municipally known as 0 Hopkins Street, from Parking (P) Zone to Multiple Residential Ten Special (Hold)(RM10-S(H)) Zone to permit the development of a residential building with a maximum building height of 9 storeys with an overall total of 421 residential units (including the townhouse units as well) Town of Richmond Hill File No. D OMB File No. PL Baif Developments Limited has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law , as amended of the Town of Richmond Hill to rezone lands respecting 0 Vogell Road from MC-1 High Performance Commercial Industrial to MC-1 (specific) to permit a retail warehouse and to introduce site-specific zoning standards. OMB File No Elginbay Corporation has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Richmond Hill to redesignate land located at Bayview Avenue to permit a high density residential development comprised of townhouses and condominium apartment complexes. OMB File No. PL121414

4 - 4 - PL Elginbay Corporation has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law of the Town of Richmond Hill to rezone lands respecting Bayview Avenue from residential second density (R2) to residential multiple sixth density (RM6) to permit a high density residential development comprised of townhouses and condominium apartment complexes. OMB File No. PL Angelo Cimetta et al have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill to redesignate land at 8874 Yonge Street from Residential to Multiple Residential to permit mixed-use, high density residential commercial development. Approval Authority File No.: D OMB File No Angelo Cimetta et al have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill to redesignate land at 8874 Yonge Street from Residential to Multiple Residential to permit mixed-use, high density residential development. Approval Authority File No.: D OMB File No Angelo Cimetta et al have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 2523 of the Town of Richmond Hill to rezone lands respecting 8874 Yonge Street from Residential (R2) Zone to Multiple Residential Ten Holding (RM 10 (H)) Zone to permit the development of a 18-storey condominium on a 6-storey podium, and a 15-storey condominium on a 4-storey podium. OMB File No Angelo Cimetta et al have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 2523 of the Town of Richmond Hill to rezone lands respecting 8874 Yonge Street from Residential (R2) Zone to Multiple Residential Ten Holding (RM 10 (H)) Zone to permit the development a 10-storey retirement residence and a 5-storey seniors apartment building. OMB File No

5 - 5 - PL Great Lands (Westwood) Inc. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from Council s neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill to modify the height, density and land use policies of the Residential Area designation for the purpose of permitting a mixed use, high density residential/commercial building consisting of an 18-storey residential tower on a 6- storey base building for a total of 24 storeys containing 257 residential units, a Gross Floor Area of 23,761 square metres (255,770 square feet), 333 parking spaces and 932 square metres (10,032 square feet) of retail space on an approximately hectare (1.176 acres) vacant parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Yonge Street and Westwood Lane, municipally known as 8890 Yonge Street Town of Richmond Hill File No. D OMB File No. PL Great Lands (Westwood) Inc. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, from Council s neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law 2523, as amended, of the Town of Richmond Hill to rezone an approximately hectare (1.176 acres) vacant parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Yonge Street and Westwood Lane, municipally known as 8890 Yonge Street, from Second Density Residential (R2) Zone to Multiple Residential Ten Holding (RM 10 [H]) Zone with site specific provisions to implement the proposed development consisting of an 18-storey residential tower on a 6-storey base building for a total of 24 storeys containing 257 residential units, a Gross Floor Area of 23,761 square metres (255,770 square feet), 333 parking spaces and 932 square metres (10,032 square feet) of retail space Town of Richmond Hill File No. D OMB File No. PL IN THE MATTER OF subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Referred by: Great Lands (Westwood) Inc. Subject: Site Plan Property Address/Description: 8890 Yonge Street Municipality: Town of Richmond Hill OMB File No.: PL Signature th Inc. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council's refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to the Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill to redesignate land at the southwest corner of 16 th Avenue and Red Maple Road from Industrial to Residential to permit high density residential development D OMB Case No.: PL OMB File No.: PL130640

6 - 6 - PL Signature th Inc. has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, from Council s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed amendment to Zoning By-law of the Town of Richmond Hill to rezone lands respecting th Avenue and 370 Red Maple Road from M-1(1)(19)) to RM4 to permit the development of 2 residential towers, 16 and 18 storeys in height OMB File No. PL A P P E A R A N C E S : Parties Town of Richmond Hill Regional Municipality of York Yonge Bayview Holdings Inc. Signature th Avenue Inc. Signature Developments Inc. New Era Developments (2011) Inc. P. Campagna Investments Ltd. P.A. Campagna Ontario Ltd. 254 Centre Street East 375 Edward Ave. MI Developments Inc. ( Ont. Inc.) Ontario Inc. TSMJC Properties Inc. Angelo, Louise, and Josephine Cimetta Shiplake Developments Ltd. Haulover Investments Ltd. Montanaro Estates Limited Yvonne & William Worden Robert Salna Holdings Inc. Baif Developments Limited Stonecourt Construction Inc. Richmond Heights Shopping Centre Torview Properties Inc. Rice Commercial Group of Companies Counsel/Agent* Barnet Kussner/Antonio Dimilta/Alexis Alyea Francesco Santaguida/Gabriel Szobel Mark Flowers Caterina Facciolo Aaron Platt Jeffrey Streisfield Roslyn Houser Ira Kagan/Alexandra De Gasperis (student at- law)

7 - 7 - PL Major Mack 404 Realty Inc. Elginbay Corporation Zamani Homes (Richmond Hill) Ltd. Amir-Hessam Limited Ontario Limited Ontario Limited Ram Nischal, Rekka Nischal, Neelam Narula, and Raj Kumar Loblaw Properties Limited Great Lands (Westwood) Inc. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Yorkdale Group Inc. Arten Developments Inc Ontario Inc. Mark Flowers for Susan Rosenthal Patrick Harrington Andrew Biggart Quentin Hanchard* Richard Arblaster Christopher Tanzola/Daniel Artenosi Marc Kemerer DECISION DELIVERED BY J. de P. SEABORN AND ORDER OF THE BOARD INTRODUCTION [1] The appeals before the Board relate to the proposed Official Plan for the Town of Richmond Hill ( Town ) and were scheduled for a further prehearing, notice of which was given in previous dispositions. Notice was also given in connection with a request by Signature th Avenue Inc. (PL130640) for consolidation and a hearing date, described below. In addition, the Town requested the Board approve certain policies described in an order for partial approval. Counsel made specific requests to schedule further hearings which will be designed to address policies that are unresolved and remain under appeal and/or site specific appeals. The Town circulated an agenda and the issues raised at the prehearing are addressed below. STATUS UPDATE: BAIF DEVELOPMENTS LTD ( Baif ) [2] The Town and Baif have engaged in mediation in an attempt to resolve the issues for this site specific project. As the matter has been consolidated with the official plan appeals, those individuals who are participants in the Baif site specific matter are

8 - 8 - PL on the Board s mailing list and receive copies of all dispositions. Ms. Houser, counsel for Baif, indicated that her client and the Town remain in discussion with respect to her client s application. Mediation sessions have been held and additional sessions will likely be convened. Several participants appeared at the prehearing in connection with the Baif matter (Karen Cilevitz, Margaret Roscoe, Manfried and Barbara Segall and Rose Dodgson). In the event it is the intention of the parties to request a hearing date for the Baif matter at the next prehearing, Ms. Houser will advise the participants accordingly. Otherwise, it will not be necessary for those individuals solely interested in the Baif matter to attend the October 2013 prehearing. REQUEST FOR PARTICIPANT STATUS: ONTARIO PARKS ASSOCIATION [3] Paul Ronan contacted the Board prior to the prehearing indicating that the Ontario Parks Association wishes participant status in the Parkland Hearing, set to commence in November There was no objection to Mr. Ronan s request, subject to the preparation of a participant statement which should be provided to counsel in accordance with the Board s procedural order issued for this hearing. The Ontario Parks Association is added as a participant to the Parkland Hearing and its participant statement is required no later than Friday, October 11, 2013 (Procedural Order, issued August 6, 2013, paragraph 9). STATUS UPDATE: GREAT LANDS (WESTWOOD) INC. (APPEAL #34) AND SHIPLAKE DEVELOPMENTS LTD./CIMETTA (APPEAL #32) [4] Both Great Lands and Shiplake/Cimetta have filed site specific appeals. The details of these appeals are described in the title of proceedings, above. In a decision issued in June 2013, the Board consolidated the site specific appeals (PL and PL130389) with the official plan appeals. Subsequent to the last prehearing conference, a mediation session was held and several individuals who continue to seek party status for the site specific hearing attended the prehearing. [5] The Board s June 2013 disposition indicated that those seeking formal party status for the hearing should appear (or send a representative) so that Mr. Biggart and Mr. Platt can prepare and circulate a draft procedural order in anticipation of a spring 2014 hearing. The appellants, the Town, the Region and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ( TRCA ) are parties. In addition, the following individuals confirmed their respective requests that each be identified in the draft procedural order

9 - 9 - PL as parties: South Richvale Ratepayers Association (contact: Paul Walsh); Jon Priestly; Elfi Berndl; Oksana Dewar. If any party intends to change their status to that of a participant before the next prehearing, that information should be provided to the other parties no later than two weeks before the prehearing, which is scheduled for November 1, Any individual who appeared at the May 2013 prehearing and therefore identified as a participant at that time, but was unable to attend the August 2013 prehearing will remain on the Board s mailing list and should be included as a participant for the purpose of the draft procedural order. [6] The next prehearing conference for the Great Lands and Shiplake/Cimetta matters is scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday, November 1, 2013 at the Town of Richmond Hill. No further notice will be sent of the prehearing and I remain seized of the prehearing process. The hearing is scheduled for three weeks, commencing May 5, 2014 and continuing to May 24, 2014 (the Board will not sit May 9 or May 16). Mr. Priestly indicated that he (and others) wished the hearing in respect of parkland policies to be completed and a decision issued prior to the start of these site specific appeals. On the basis that the parkland hearing is proceeding in November 2013 there should be ample time for that decision to issue prior to the commencement of the site specific matter in May The details of the organization and conduct of the May 2014 hearing will be set out in the draft procedural order, to be discussed at the November 1, 2013 prehearing. Following submissions on November 1, 2013, that procedural order will be issued. REQUEST FOR PARTY STATUS: TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ( TRCA ) [7] In a letter dated August 20, 2013 (Exhibit 64) the TRCA advised that it intended to appear at the prehearing and seek party status in the proceedings. Quentin Hanchard advised that the TRCA supports the environmental policies (including policies pertaining to the preservation of natural heritage, natural hazard land and floodplain management) proposed by the Town and has an interest in several site specific appeals. There was no objection to Mr. Hanchard s request and the TRCA is granted party status. CONSOLIDATION REQUEST: SIGNATURE th INC. (APPEAL #7) [8] In advance of the prehearing Signature th Inc. ( Signature 153 ) gave notice of its site specific appeal (Exhibit 65, Affidavit of Service). Ms. Facciolo requested

10 PL that her client s appeal be consolidated with the appeal of the Town s OP. There was no objection from the Town, subject to the imposition of the same conditions that have been imposed for other consolidation requests (Exhibit 63). One new participant, Brian Cave, appeared in response to the notice of prehearing. Mr. Cave is added to the Board s mailing list. At the request of the parties a five day hearing for the site specific appeal is scheduled for Monday, May 26, 2014 to May 30, 2014, at the Town s offices. Further notice will be given once a procedural order is finalized setting out the issues for the hearing. PARTIAL APPROVAL ORDER [9] In advance of the prehearing, the Town served and filed a notice of motion and supporting affidavit (Exhibit 66) seeking an order from the Board approving the certain portions of the OP referred to as group 5 to 7 policies. On behalf of York Region, Mr. Santaguida filed material (Exhibit 67) in support of the order sought. The purpose of the order, as with previous partial approval orders issued by the Board, is to bring these policies of the Town s Official Plan into full force and effect, subject to certain exceptions which are set out in the order agreed upon by the parties and attached to this decision. [10] In support of the order sought, evidence was filed by way of the affidavit of Michelle Dobbie, Senior Planner, Policy in the Department of Planning and Regulatory Services of the Town. A land use planner qualified to give opinion evidence, Ms. Dobbie set out the background and basis for the order sought. Group 5 to 7 policies on the consolidated issues list for the hearing relate generally to urban design, stormwater management and urban structure. A Board-led mediation session was held following which the participating appellants agreed to a number of modification all of which were described in detail by Ms. Dobbie as part of her affidavit. The agreement reached between the appellants and the Town is reflected in the partial approval order. [11] Mr. Streisfield opposed the relief sought on behalf of his clients and filed a responding motion record (Exhibit 68) and an affidavit (Exhibit 69) of Michael Manett, a land use planner. He argued that the order approving the policies should not be issued. Mr. Manett s was that opinion that a full hearing should be convened to understand and test the entire urban design policy framework and related policies. Protecting the appeals on a site specific basis would not, in Mr. Streisfield s submission allow for a full debate on the policy framework. In considering the objection I rely on Mr. Kussner s

11 PL submissions with respect to the importance to the Town of ensuring that there is a high degree of certainty and finality going forward. The request in this instance is no different from previous requests for partial approval of the Town s plan. Site specific and area specific appeals are protected by the terms of the order sought. The order also indicates that the approvals are without prejudice to the rights of an appellant to take issue with the merits of a policy it has kept under appeal on either a site or area specific basis. For this reason and in light of argument previously made on this very topic, the order requested is issued as Attachment 1. [12] I accept Ms. Dobbie s evidence and opinion as set out in paragraphs 22 and 23 of her affidavit (Exhibit 66). The order requested by the Town is approved, as set out in Attachment 1. Similar to the previous orders bringing into full force and effect specific policies of the Town s Official Plan, the appendices delineate those policies that remain under appeal, either on a site specific or Town wide basis. The order is subject to the conditions and notes that accompany each appendix. PARKLAND HEARING [13] A procedural order governing the conduct and organization of the hearing designed to address the Town s parkland policies was issued on August 6, Counsel for Yonge Bayview, Baif, Elginbay and Zamani filed a detailed issues list respecting Policy (Exhibit 74). Proposed modifications were also filed by the Town and the parties to the hearing on parkland policies (Exhibits 71, 72, and 73 respectively). As indicated above, the Ontario Parks Association is added as a participant to the hearing. If any additional procedural matters arise before the commencement of hearing (November 18, 2013), a telephone conference call may be arranged or the matter can be addressed at the next prehearing, scheduled for October 9 and 10, 2013, as described below. NEXT PREHEARING CONFERENCE/HEARING DATES [14] The next prehearing is scheduled for two days, commencing Wednesday October 9, 2013 at 10 a.m. at: Town of Richmond Hill Committee Room 2 East Beaver Creek Richmond Hill, ON

12 PL No further notice will be sent and I remain seized. The Town indicated that it may seek certain relief from the Board and motions, if any, should be served and filed in accordance with the Board s Rules of Practice and Procedure ( Rules ). [15] A series of hearing dates were previously set to address the policies of the Town s official plan that remain unresolved (and are unlikely to be resolved through mediation). The following dates have been reserved on the Board s calendar: November 18, 2013 to December 10, 2013 (Parkland Hearing); February 3, 2014 to February 14, 2014; February 24, 2014 to March 7, Further notice of the scope and issues to be addressed at the hearings scheduled for 2014 will be given through subsequent procedural orders, which will be designed to focus on the issues for each hearing phase. Each block of hearing time is intended to address specific issues, which will be refined by those parties who either have appealed the relevant policies or expressed an interest in particular policies. I remain seized, subject to the Board s calendar. Mr. Steisfield indicated that he wished several of the issues that are of concern to his various client s dealt with during the block of hearing time scheduled for February 24 to March 7, The proposed issues for that portion of the hearing (as well as the time set aside for February 3, 2014 to February 14, 2014) will be addressed at the next prehearing. Mr. Kussner advised that there may be a request to adjust the February 3, 2013 to February 14, 2014 hearing dates. Adjustments, if any, will be made following at the October 2013 prehearing. In addition, Mr. Kagan suggested that the policies relating to commercial and retail uses which are under appeal by his clients could likely be scheduled for a hearing to be held during April This matter should be canvassed with the Case Coordinator with respect to potential dates and can be addressed at the October 9, 2013 prehearing. [16] If any issues arise before the October 2013 prehearing that require direction from the Board, counsel may arrange a telephone conference call through the Case Coordinator, Evelyn Gere. J. de P. Seaborn J. de P. SEABORN VICE CHAIR

13 PL Attachment 1

14 PL110189

15 PL110189

16 PL Appendix 1

17 PL110189

18 PL110189

19 PL110189

20 PL110189

21 PL Appendix 2

22 PL Appendix 3

23 PL110189