1

Submission Number

Date Submission

Received Municipality Submission Author

Link to Submissions with

Regional Responses

Submissions from Landowners and Developers received since April 23, 2010

D05.2009.1.178 D05.2009.1.179

2010-04-29 2010-05-04

RH Aird & Berlis LLP (on behalf of E. Manson Investments)

D05.2009.1.009 D05.2009.1.019 D05.2009.1.057 D05.2009.1.081 D05.2009.1.125

D05.2009.1.180 D05.2009.1.190

2010-05-04 2010-05-27

V MMM Group (on behalf of Signature Developments) D05.2009.1.005 D05.2009.1.036

D05.2009.1.181 2010-05-05 RH Aird & Berlis LLP (on behalf of North Leslie Residential Landowners' Group Inc.)

D05.2009.1.124 D05.2009.1.165 D05.2009.1.171

D05.2009.1.182 2010-05-05 EG QX4 Investments Ltd (on behalf of Living Water Faith Fellowship)

D05.2009.1.060 D05.2009.1.131

D05.2009.1.183 2010-05-05 RH Davies Howe Partners (on behalf of Clearpoint

Developments, Upper City Corporation and 775377 Ontario Ltd (Belmont))

D05.2009.1.016 D05.2009.1.020 D05.2009.1.056 D05.2009.1.130

D05.2009.1.184 2010-05-12 A Brutto Consulting (on behalf of Aurora Leslie Landowners Group)

D05.2009.1.004 D05.2009.1.021 D05.2009.1.052

D05.2009.1.185 2010-04-23 YR Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association D05.2009.1.136

Council A

ttachment 5

2

D05.2009.1.186 2010-05-18 RH 583753 Ontario Ltd.

D05.2009.1.187 2010-05-19 M Malone Given Parsons Ltd (on behalf of North Markham Landowners’ Group)

D05.2009.1.013 D05.2009.1.061 D05.2009.1.062 D05.2009.1.070 D05.2009.1.133 D05.2009.1.175

D05.2009.1.188 2010-05-19 YR Aird & Berlis LLP (on behalf of 11160 Woodbine Avenue Ltd)

D05.2009.1.189 2010-05-20 RH Davies Howe Partners (on behalf of Yonge Bayview Holdings Inc)

D05.2009.1 191 2010-05-20 G Michael Smith Planning Consultants on behalf of Mohinder Sud (Oxford) in Sutton

D05.2009.1.027

D05.2009.1 192 2010-05-21 G Michael Smith Planning Consultants on behalf of Jackson’s Landing in Sutton D05.2009.1.029

Submission from Public Agencies and Government received since April 23, 2010

D05.2009.3.036 2010-05-03 YR County of Simcoe

(acknowledgement letter; no analysis required) D05.2009.3.011

D05.2009.3.037 2010-05-04 EG Town of East Gwillimbury D05.2009.3.009

D05.2009.3.038 2010-05-12 YR Chippewas of RAMA First Nation

(acknowledgement letter; no analysis required) D05.2009.3.001 D05.2009.3.008

Draft York Region Official Plan – December 2009 - Submission Analysis June 7, 2010

1

Submission Number D05.2009.1.178 D05.2009.1.179

Date of Submission: May 4, 2010

Submission Author: Aird and Berlis on behalf of E. Manson

Comments or Requested Change to Draft Official Plan Analysis and Recommendation

1.178 Copy of letter to Larry Clay, Regional Director MMAH, enclosing the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, dated March 16, 2010, with respect to the North Leslie Secondary Plan Area and requesting the Ministry to modify Figure 2 to remove the “Strategic Employment lands” identification in accordance with Policy 4.3.21 of the York Region Official Plan – December 2009

Policy 4.3.21 identifies that Figure 2 will be revised accordingly when the OMB decision and order are issued. No order has yet been issued and as such the policy requirements for changes has not been fulfilled. Regional staff will continue to monitor this situation and proposed changes to Figure 2 at the appropriate time.

1.179 Letter to Regional Planning and Economic Development Committee requesting that Committee not endorse modification 23 which deletes Policy 4.3.21 committing the Region to revising Figure 2 when the OMB decision and order is issued without modifying Figure 2.

See above comment. Should also be noted that this appellant has objected to policy 4.3.21 on an ongoing basis since the policy was added to the ROP when it was adopted. Once the Board order is issued on this matter Figure 2 will revised accordingly.

D05.2009.1.178

Received A

pril 29, 2010

PL020446

Lionheart Enterprises Ltd., 583753 O

ntario Limited, 625734 O

ntario Inc. and others (collectively called B

ayview E

ast Landowners G

roup) have appealed to the Ontario M

unicipal Board under

subsection 22(7) of the Planning A

ct, R.S

.O. 1990, c. P

.13, as amended, from

Council's refusal

or neglect to enact a proposed amendm

ent to the Official P

lan for the Town of R

ichmond H

ill to redesignate lands com

posed of Lots 26 to 30, Concession 2 and 3, E.Y

.S., to establish the

North Leslie P

lanning District and to im

plement a S

econdary Plan for the N

orth Leslie Area in

order to facilitate the expansion of the Town’s urban boundary

Town’s File N

o: D01-00011

OM

B File N

o: O020073

Lionheart Enterprises Ltd., 583753 O

ntario Limited, 625734 O

ntario Inc. and others (collectively called B

ayview E

ast Landowners G

roup) have appealed to the Ontario M

unicipal Board under

subsection 22(7) of the Planning A

ct, R.S

.O. 1990, c. P

.13, as amended, from

Council's refusal

or neglect to enact a proposed amendm

ent to the Official P

lan for the Regional M

unicipality of Y

ork to redesignate lands composed of Lots 26 to 30, C

oncession 2 and 3, E.Y.S., from

“A

gricultural Policy A

rea” to “Urban A

rea” and to add the lands to the “Urban Transit A

rea” R

egion’s File No: D

05 102.41 O

MB

File No: O

020096 E

. Manson Investm

ents has appealed to the Ontario M

unicipal Board under subsection 22(7) of

the Planning A

ct, R.S

.O. 1990, c. P

.13, as amended, from

Council’s refusal or neglect to enact

a proposed amendm

ent to the Official P

lan for the Regional M

unicipality of York to redesignate

lands composed of Lots 26 to 30, C

oncession 2 and Part of Lots 26 to30, C

oncession 3 E.Y.S

. in the Tow

n of Richm

ond Hill from

“Agricultural Policy A

rea” to “Urban A

rea” and to add the lands to the “U

rban Transit Area”

OM

B File N

o: O030043

E. M

anson Investments has appealed to the O

ntario Municipal B

oard under subsection 22(7) of the P

lanning Act, R

.S.O

. 1990, c. P.13, as am

ended, from C

ouncil’s refusal or neglect to enact a proposed am

endment to the O

fficial Plan for the Tow

n of Richm

ond Hill to redesignate lands

composed of Lots 26 to 30, C

oncession 2 and Part of Lots 26 to 30, C

oncession 3 E.Y

.S. from

“A

gricultural Policy A

rea” to “Urban A

rea” O

MB

File No: O

030046 A

PP

EA

RA

NC

ES

:

Parties

Counsel

Town of R

ichmond H

ill R

. Beam

an and D. G

ermain

O

ntario Municipal B

oard C

omm

ission des affaires municipales de l’O

ntario

ISS

UE

DA

TE:

March 16, 2010

- 2 -

PL020446

Region of Y

ork R

. Miller and G

. Szobel

E

. Manson Investm

ents Limited

P. Foran

C

learpoint Developm

ent Limited,

Upper C

ity Corporation, and

775377 Ontario Ltd.

S. R

osenthal

York C

atholic District S

chool Board

P. W

illiams

D

EC

ISIO

N D

ELIV

ER

ED

BY

JAM

ES

R. M

cKE

NZIE

E.

Manson

Investments

Limited

(Manson),

Clearpoint

Developm

ent Lim

ited (C

learpoint), Upper C

ity Corporation (U

pper City), and 775377 O

ntario Ltd. (Belm

ont) each ow

n land in the vicinity of the 19th A

venue/Leslie Street intersection in R

ichmond

Hill. Together, these Land O

wners challenged a 2006 B

oard decision that designated their respective lands for E

mploym

ent purposes. The Town of R

ichmond H

ill (Town)

and the Region of Y

ork (Region) opposed that challenge. This hearing, a rehearing,

was convened as a result of a review

– ordered and undertaken pursuant to Section 43

of the Ontario M

unicipal Board A

ct – that directed a rehearing of the Land Ow

ners’ appeals of their applications to am

end the Richm

ond Hill O

fficial Plan.

P

reviewing the outcom

e, the Board has decided generally in favour of the Land

Ow

ners, subject to specific findings with respect to three particular issues. This

decision will proceed by first establishing a context and then by providing an overview

of the evidence. It w

ill then set out its analysis of the issues followed by its form

al disposition.

Context

There is a long and storied history concerning the Land O

wners’ applications. To

begin establishing a context for what follow

s, a brief summ

ary of that history is provided follow

ing a description of the Land Ow

ners’ holdings. Other contextual elem

ents are addressed thereafter.

- 3 -

PL020446

The lands which are collectively the subject of this rehearing w

ill, for the balance of this decision, be referred to as the R

eview Lands. The R

eview Lands include:

1. Lands ow

ned by Manson situated at the north-w

est corner of the 19th

Avenue/Leslie

Street

intersection.

These lands

comprise

approximately 21 hectares;

2.

Lands ow

ned by

Clearpoint

situated generally

in the

south-east quadrant of 19

th Avenue/Leslie S

treet intersection;

3. Lands ow

ned by Upper C

ity situated in the south-west quadrant of the

19th A

venue/Highw

ay 404 intersection. These lands include Parcel A

1, adjacent to H

ighway 404, w

hich, with P

arcel A2, figures prom

inently in the B

oard’s analysis and findings; and,

4. Lands ow

ned by Belm

ont, situated south of the Clearpoint and U

pper C

ity lands, extending the full distance between Leslie S

treet and H

ighway N

o. 404. These lands include Parcel A

2, noted above in connection w

ith Parcel A

1, which are also adjacent to H

ighway 404.

The C

learpoint, Upper C

ity, and Belm

ont holdings collectively comprise

approximately 30 hectares.

The applications to am

end the Richm

ond Hill O

fficial Plan, the appeals of w

hich are technically the m

atters before the Board in this rehearing, w

ere comm

enced by M

anson in 1997, as part of a group called the 19th A

venue Landowners G

roup, and by C

learpoint, Upper C

ity, and Belm

ont in 2000, as part of a group called the Bayview

East

Landowners G

roup. The applications were subsequently appealed and consolidated in

March, 2003.

A

hearing on the appeals, as part of a larger hearing convened to deal with a

proposed expansion of the Richm

ond Hill urban boundary to include an area called the

North Leslie S

econdary Plan area, began in D

ecember, 2003 (2003 hearing). That

hearing was interrupted by a provincially-im

posed Greenbelt freeze, and ultim

ately suspended pending a final determ

ination of that freeze.

The G

reenbelt Act w

as enacted in February, 2005, and its related Greenbelt P

lan cam

e into

force, retroactive

to D

ecember,

2004, through

an O

rder-In-Council.

Significant portions of the lands included in the N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan area and

- 4 -

PL020446

those covered by the appealed applications were included in the G

reenbelt Plan. For

example, 34%

of the total Secondary P

lan area and 37% of the Land O

wners' holdings

were taken for the G

reenbelt and related natural heritage system.

W

ith the delineation of the Greenbelt P

lan and identification of a related natural heritage system

– in some places, the natural heritage system

extended beyond the boundary of the G

reenbelt Plan – a hearing w

as further convened in February, 2006 (2006 hearing), to deal w

ith the appealed applications and the proposed North Leslie

Secondary P

lan area.

The decision resulting from

the 2006 hearing was issued in N

ovember, 2006

(2006 decision). Am

ong other things, it had the dual effect of bringing the North Leslie

Secondary P

lan area into the Richm

ond Hill urban boundary and designating the

Ow

ners’ lands for Em

ployment purposes – the latter being contrary to their desire to

have their lands designated for Residential and M

ixed-use purposes.

A

s noted, the Ow

ners challenged the 2006 decision as it affected their lands through the S

ection 43 review. The reasons for the granting of that review

are set out in the relevant B

oard decision and need not be recounted here. The inclusion of the North

Leslie Secondary P

lan area in the Richm

ond Hill urban boundary w

as not challenged and is settled.

The N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan covers that area bounded on the west by

Bayview

Avenue, on the south by E

lgin Mills R

oad East, on the east by H

ighway 404,

and generally on the north by 19th A

venue, and includes Manson’s total holdings, (both

the easterly portion under review in this rehearing and a w

esterly portion settled in the 2006 decision), located on the north side of 19

th Avenue – all of w

hich collectively com

prise some 620 hectares.

The lands w

ithin the North Leslie S

econdary Plan area are largely undeveloped;

however, in the vicinity of the R

eview Lands there are several parcels of relevance that

are developed.

The R

ichmond G

reen complex is situated in the north-w

est quadrant of the Elgin

Mills R

oad East/Leslie S

treet intersection and comprises approxim

ately 50 hectares. A

number of institutional land uses are situated w

ithin the complex, including a library, a

- 5 -

PL020446

high school, an arena and comm

unity centre, a public works yard and related facilities,

and several playing fields for outdoor sports and comm

unity activities.

The R

iotrin development is situated at the north-east corner of the E

lgin Mills

Road E

ast/Leslie Street intersection. It includes a H

ome D

epot, a Costco, a S

taples store, a P

etSm

art store, a Michaels store, and approxim

ately 25 other retail comm

ercial stores.

N

orth of the Richm

ond Green com

plex and the Riotrin developm

ent, on the east side of Leslie S

treet and outside of the Review

Lands, is situated The York C

entre, a school providing special program

ming.

The S

econdary Plan area is traversed by several tributaries of the R

ouge River.

For this rehearing, only Tributary 1 and Tributary 2 are pertinent.

The discussion w

oven into the balance of this decision involves the lands in the N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan area situated east of Tributary 2 – namely, the R

eview

Lands and others not under review. It is im

portant for the context of this decision to also address how

the 2006 decision dealt with these lands.

The B

awden-W

ood holding is situated between Leslie S

treet and Highw

ay 404, south of the B

elmont lands and north of the R

iotrin development. It w

as designated for R

esidential and Mixed-use purposes in the 2006 decision.

E

xcept for The York C

entre, the Review

Lands, the Baw

den-Wood lands, and

other lands dedicated to the Greenbelt and the natural heritage system

, the balance of the

lands east

of Tributary

2 includes

three parcels

that w

ere designated

for E

mploym

ent purposes in the 2006 decision. They include holdings opposite the Review

Lands, in the south-w

est quadrant of the 19th A

venue/Leslie Street intersection (south-

west quadrant E

mploym

ent lands) and two m

uch smaller parcels in the south-east

quadrant – one imm

ediately on the intersection and the other situated further east on the south side of 19

th Avenue.

Finally, the P

hyllis Raw

linson Park and several existing residential properties are

located in the Greenbelt on the north side of 19

th Avenue, outside of the N

orth Leslie S

econdary Plan area.

- 6 -

PL020446

Also critical to appreciating the evidence and argum

ents respectively advanced by the P

arties is an understanding of the Highw

ay 404 corridor in Richm

ond Hill. Three

Business P

arks are situated in the corridor between H

ighway 7 and the N

orth Leslie S

econdary Plan area.

The Beaver C

reek Business P

ark includes that area straddling both sides of Leslie S

treet bounded on the south by highway 7, on the east by H

ighway 404 and on

the north by 16th A

venue.

The Headford B

usiness Park includes that area bounded on the w

est by Leslie S

treet, on the south by 16th A

venue, on the east by Highw

ay 404, and on the north by M

ajor Mackenzie D

rive.

The Barker B

usiness Park includes that area bounded on the w

est by Leslie S

treet, on the south by Major M

ackenzie Drive, on the east by H

ighway 404, and on the

north by a cemetery located on the south side of E

lgin Mills R

oad East. The cem

etery is situated opposite the R

iotrin development.

Residential neighbourhoods are located opposite the H

eadford and Barker

Business P

arks on the west side of Leslie S

treet. More w

ill be said about this relationship in the B

oard’s analysis of the planners’ compatibility evidence.

The effect of the S

ection 43 review granting this rehearing is a setting aside of

the Em

ployment designation approved for the R

eview Lands in the 2006 decision.

Accordingly, this decision regards the R

eview Lands as having never been designated

for an urban land use despite being included in the North Leslie S

econdary Plan area

that now is in the R

ichmond H

ill urban boundary. Specifically, it is about determ

ining a first urban designation for the R

eview Lands and nothing m

ore.

G

iven the dates on which the Land O

wners' applications w

ere comm

enced, they are subject to the 1997 P

rovincial Policy S

tatement (1997 P

PS

), and, as agreed betw

een the Parties and am

ong their respective counsel, are not subject to the 2005 P

rovincial Policy S

tatement (2005 P

PS

) or the Grow

th Plan for the G

reater Golden

Horseshoe (G

rowth P

lan). This was the basis upon w

hich the 2006 hearing proceeded. In view

of this history, the Board is fully m

indful of the present-day regime represented

by the 2005 PP

S and G

rowth P

lan, and, in view of the agreem

ent among the P

arties

- 7 -

PL020446

and their counsel, the Board w

ill assent to the collective position concerning the regime

under which the appeals are to be determ

ined.

For ease of reference, the relevant policies from the 1997 P

PS

are extracted here:

1.1 D

eveloping Strong C

omm

unities …

1.1.2.

Land requirements and land use patterns w

ill be based on: a.

the provision of sufficient land for industrial, comm

ercial, residential, recreational, open space and institutional uses to prom

ote employm

ent opportunities, and for an appropriate range and m

ix of housing, to accomm

odate growth projected for a

time horizon of up to 20 years.

... 1.2

Housing

…

1.2.1 P

rovision will be m

ade in all planning jurisdictions for a full range of housing types and densities to m

eet projected demographic and m

arket requirements of current

and future residents of the housing market area by:

a. m

aintaining at all times at least a 10-year supply of land designated and available

for new residential developm

ent and residential intensification; b.

maintaining at all tim

es, where new

development is to occur, at least a 3-year

supply of residential units with servicing capacity in draft approved or registered

plans; c.

encouraging housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to m

oderate and low

er income households;

d. encouraging all form

s of residential intensification in parts of built-up areas that have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure to create a potential supply of new

housing units available from residential intensification; and

e. establishing

cost-effective developm

ent standards

for new

residential

development and redevelopm

ent to reduce the cost of housing.

The respective Official P

lan of the Region and the Tow

n are also relevant for

assessing the merits of the Land O

wners’ applications and the agreed-to issues for this

rehearing.

The central issue to be decided in this rehearing is the land use designation of

the Review

Lands. Quite sim

ply, the Land Ow

ners seek a Residential and M

ixed-use

designation, whereas the Tow

n and Region seek an E

mploym

ent designation. Several

other related issues fall out of this central issue, and given their concise nature, they are

reproduced here in full:

- 8 -

PL020446

Overall Issue:

1. S

hould the

land use

of the

Review

Lands

be E

mploym

ent as

sought by

the Tow

n/Region, or R

esidential and Mixed U

se as sought by the Applicants [i.e., the Land

Ow

ners]? If R

esidential and Mixed U

se: 2.

Is the Manson C

omm

ercial designation inappropriate? Is it too large? 3.

What is the need for C

atholic schools in the area in question? Where should any school

be located? What conditions should apply to such location?

4. Is the addition of S

eniors Residential uses appropriate?

5. Is a M

ixed Use C

ategory of Com

mercial/R

esidential appropriate? 6.

Is the road pattern appropriate? Can it accom

modate the proposed R

esidential and M

ixed Use developm

ent? 7.

Is there a need for additional residential lands in the Town?

8. A

re the proposed land uses in the south-east corner of 19th A

venue and Leslie Street

appropriate in the context of the adjacent designated employm

ent lands? If E

mploym

ent Uses:

9. Is there a need for additional em

ployment lands in the Tow

n?

N

ine witnesses addressed the B

oard in three principal areas: market analysis,

urban design, and land use planning. Each w

itness was qualified in his respective area

of expertise, without challenge.

Warren S

orenson, on behalf of the Land Ow

ners, and David B

utler and Robert

Lehman, on behalf of the Tow

n and Region, respectively, provided land use planning

evidence. Each is a professional planner.

Michael E

lliott, a comm

ercial real estate professional with a specific expertise in

office development, V

aldemar N

ickel, a professional planner with a specific expertise in

industrial land use development, and Thom

as Martin, a professional architect and urban

designer, on behalf of the Land Ow

ners, and Michael H

annay, an architect, on behalf of the Tow

n and Region, provided urban design evidence.

- 9 -

PL020446

Randy G

rimes, a real estate econom

ist, Robert Feldgaier, a housing m

arket analyst, and M

r. Elliott provided m

arket analysis evidence within their respective field of

specialization on behalf of the Land Ow

ners. Raym

ond Sim

pson, a land economist and

professional planner, provided market analysis evidence on behalf of the Tow

n and R

egion. A tenth w

itness, Gary P

appin, testified in connection with a settlem

ent arrived at am

ong the Parties during this rehearing regarding roads. M

r. Pappin w

as qualified on consent as an expert in transportation planning.

Finally, an eleventh witness, Tom

Pechkovsky, provided affidavit evidence on

behalf of the York C

atholic District S

chool Board addressing the acceptability of the

conceptual location of the elementary school site identified on the M

anson lands.

The balance of this decision w

ill address each area of evidence beginning with

market analysis evidence, then the urban design evidence, and finally the land use

planning evidence. Following that, related evidence – that of M

r. Pappin and M

r. P

echkovsky – will be taken up. The B

oard's analysis and findings are then set out, follow

ed by its Disposition.

Overview

of Evidence

Market A

nalysis

The respective testim

ony of Messrs. S

impson, G

rimes, Feldgaier, and, in part,

Elliott collectively define the param

eters of the market evidence.

M

r. Grim

es was retained by the Land O

wners, originally in 2002, to carry out an

employm

ent land needs assessment. Just as he had for this rehearing, he prepared

witness statem

ents for the 2003 and 2006 hearings, and he testified at the 2006 hearing. A

ccording to Mr. G

rimes, the central issue for the 2003 and 2006 hearing, and

now again in this 2009 rehearing w

as and is determining the appropriate land use for

the Review

Lands; specifically, ascertaining whether there is a need for additional

- 10 -

PL020446

Em

ployment lands over and above w

hat is now designated. A

ccordingly, Mr. G

rimes's

testimony w

as directed only to Issue Nos. 1 and 9.

M

r. Grim

es described the methods available for forecasting em

ployment land

needs: the employm

ent forecast method and the absorption rate m

ethod. He em

ployed the form

er, and when asked to explain w

hy, he reported that is generally preferred am

ong land economists because it facilitates a m

ore accurate estimation of the range

and complexities of input param

eters and is not as potentially vulnerable, as is the latter, to relying on historical patterns. M

oreover, he opined that the former is consistent

with provincial Forecast M

ethodology Guidelines.

A

s directed by the Procedural O

rder for this rehearing, Mr. G

rimes and M

r. S

impson m

et prior to the hearing and were able to agree on an em

ployment forecast for

Richm

ond Hill, a corresponding planning period for that forecast, and an inventory of

existing employm

ent land.

It is noted, parenthetically, that the Region's O

fficial Plan does not contain

population or employm

ent forecasts for Richm

ond Hill. Those forecasts w

ere deferred circa 1993, at the request of the Tow

n, so as to allow it to continue and com

plete a grow

th managem

ent exercise it was then undertaking w

ith the objective of determining

what those forecasts should be. That exercise w

as never completed, thus rendering the

Regional P

lan devoid of such numbers. N

evertheless, Messrs. G

rimes and S

impson

dexterously side-stepped that vacuum for the purposes of this rehearing by agreeing to

an employm

ent forecast number for R

ichmond H

ill – 100,600 – over a planning period extending to 2031. That planning period is consistent w

ith provincial directives set out in the G

rowth P

lan and with the conform

ity exercise work being undertaken by R

egion staff w

ith respect to those directives – notwithstanding that the G

rowth P

lan does not apply in this rehearing. Furtherm

ore, with respect to the inventory of em

ployment land,

they agreed on both the amount of occupied land and vacant land.

M

r. Grim

es walked the B

oard through his approach and analysis, describing the elem

ents upon which he relied for his analysis and the m

eans by which he calculated or

determined those elem

ents. Those elements included inventorying both occupied and

vacant/undeveloped employm

ent land; deriving an appropriate employm

ent density; ascertaining, from

population and employm

ent forecasts, employm

ent occurring on

- 11 -

PL020446

and/or requiring Em

ployment-designated lands; and, applying a frictional vacancy

factor.

W

ith respect to employm

ent densities, Mr. G

rimes review

ed work undertaken by

Region staff (in 2007) and by M

r. Sim

pson (in 2003) as a consultant to the Region. H

e also review

ed his own survey w

ork undertaken (in 2003 and updated in 2006) in connection w

ith his original retainer. The evidence demonstrated that em

ployment

densities in Richm

ond Hill are am

ong the highest in the Greater Toronto A

rea.

M

r. Grim

es also candidly acknowledged that he applied a frictional vacancy

factor and "factored up" (i.e., increased) the demand for em

ployment land upon w

hich he relied because he w

anted to be conservative in his analysis.

M

r. Grim

es testified that in his professional opinion the 100,600 job employm

ent forecast for 2031 – upon w

hich he and Mr. S

impson agreed and as – is very achievable

on lands currently designated for Em

ployment purposes in R

ichmond H

ill. He further

opined that no additional Em

ployment-designated lands are needed.

M

r. Feldgaier is a housing market analyst. H

e was retained by the Land O

wners

to examine the adequacy of the future residential land supply in R

ichmond H

ill and the im

plications of any identified shortfall of the future residential land supply on the need for residential uses. H

is evidence was directed to Issue N

o. 7. Moreover, for both this

rehearing and the 2006 hearing, both he and Mr. S

impson produced statem

ents of agreed upon facts.

M

r. Feldgaier addressed the adequacy of the future residential land supply by first considering the policy context for housing. H

e examined the 1997 P

PS

as well as

the Region and Tow

n Official P

lans. Mr. Feldgaier concluded from

that analysis that the policies all support a broadening of the m

ix of housing so as to increase housing choices.

M

r. Feldgaier

then turned

his attention

to addressing

residential grow

th projections for R

ichmond H

ill and the available future supply of “designated and available” residential land to satisfy projected m

arket requirements, (see, for exam

ple, P

olicy 1.2.1(a) of the 1997 PP

S). H

e also applied a market contingency factor – w

hich,

- 12 -

PL020446

he explained, is similar in operation and effect to the frictional vacancy factor applied by

Mr. G

rimes.

M

r. Feldgaier testified that a continuous 10-year supply is effectively a 15-year supply according to the P

roject Methodology G

uidelines. As a final step, then, M

r. Feldgaier com

pared projections with the anticipated supply to arrive at a conclusion

that, in his professional opinion, the Town has an insufficient supply of designated and

available land for single and semi-detached and apartm

ent housing to satisfy the m

inimum

10-year

requirement

of P

olicy 1.2.1(a)

of the

1997 P

rovincial P

olicy S

tatement, and, further, that the supply for row

housing is only modestly m

ore than 10 years.

M

r. S

impson

maintains

a long

history of

extensive involvem

ent in

growth

managem

ent works undertaken by the Tow

n and Region given his considerable

experience in, among other things, developing grow

th forecasts and identifying lands for urban grow

th. Like Messrs. G

rimes and Feldgaier, M

r Sim

pson was also involved in the

2006 hearing, and was subsequently retained by the Tow

n and Region to provide an

opinion on the Review

Lands. His evidence w

as directed to Issue Nos. 1, 7, and 9.

For M

r. Sim

pson, the central issue as to the appropriate land use designation of the R

eview Lands is m

ore than simply a m

arket determination m

atter relating to ‘need.’ H

e w

as candid

in his

admission

that the

Review

Lands

could, from

a

market

perspective, be used for either Em

ployment or R

esidential purposes seeing as, in his opinion, R

ichmond H

ill has a need for both types of land uses. He drew

the Board’s

attention to a major conclusion from

the Town's grow

th managem

ent work – specifically,

an update analysis for which his firm

was retained – that R

ichmond H

ill's supply of vacant, G

reenfield development land is constrained for all types of urban uses. H

e also took the B

oard to a central conclusion of the Region’s Land B

udget Report – that an

urban boundary expansion will be required to accom

modate 2031 forecasted population

and employm

ent growth in the R

egion.

Throughout his testimony, M

r. Sim

pson maintained that the principal concern

with w

hich the parties are grappling is a lack of land available for development in

Richm

ond Hill. S

upply is constrained. The Review

Lands constitute the last remaining

Greenfield lands in R

ichmond H

ill for urban development. For M

r. Sim

pson, the

- 13 -

PL020446

determining factor boils dow

n to what is in the public interest, and, in his view

, that w

ould be an Em

ployment designation on the R

eview Lands. H

e comes to this

conclusion, in part, as a result of two things: from

a micro-perspective, the Tow

n's long-standing

desire and

intent to

take advantage

of the

Highw

ay 404

corridor for

employm

ent uses; and, from a m

acro-perspective, the direction set by the province with

respect to employm

ent forecasts and maintaining E

mploym

ent lands – the latter of w

hich largely relate to the 2005 PP

S and the G

rowth P

lan and their combined effect.

M

r. Sim

pson testified that the determination of a designation for the R

eview

Lands takes on added significance because of the Lands’ ability to provide for

Em

ployment land em

ployment. A

note of explanation is required here. Em

ployment

may be defined according to three categories: m

ajor office employm

ent, (i.e., office activity jobs); population-related em

ployment, (i.e., em

ployment arising in response to

population grow

th, including,

for exam

ple, retail

jobs); and,

Em

ployment

land em

ployment, (i.e., em

ployment that captures w

hat was form

erly referred to as industrial, m

anufacturing, and comm

ercial activities). Em

ployment land em

ployment requires

parcels that

can generally

accomm

odate m

ore expansive

land uses

so as

to accom

modate, for exam

ple, larger floor plates and on-site trucking movem

ents. While

the Grow

th Plan m

akes no distinction between the three categories of em

ployment for

the purposes of employm

ent forecasts, some, like M

r. Sim

pson, place an emphasis on

differentiating between kinds of em

ployment.

Mr. S

impson testified to the Tow

n’s and Region’s desire to have the R

eview

Lands used for Em

ployment land em

ployment purposes. In his opinion, the Lands are

ideally suited for such purposes given what he referred to as their locational attributes

(i.e., being in the Highw

ay No. 404 corridor).

M

r. Sim

pson also drew the B

oard’s attention to several other factors he felt were

important and relevant to the m

atters before it. First, the employm

ent forecasts for R

ichmond H

ill to 2031 result in an activity rate – that is, the ratio of total jobs to population – of 41%

. This is lower than the pre-G

reenbelt Act m

inimum

target of 45%

set out in the Town’s O

fficial Plan and low

er than the Region rate of 53%

.

S

econd, the Region is in the process of m

aking significant investments in transit

in areas suitable for intensification – namely, its centres and corridors. It is im

portant

- 14 -

PL020446

that intensification occur in those areas so as to complem

ent those transit investments.

According to M

r. Sim

pson, therefore, it is to those same areas that higher-density

residential uses should be directed; to do otherwise w

ould not be consistent in his opinion w

ith the Regional policy.

Third, the value differential betw

een Em

ployment-designated and R

esidential-designated lands has led to increased pressure to convert E

mploym

ent lands to other purposes. Likew

ise, efforts to preserve Em

ployment lands have intensified, and M

r. S

impson em

phasized the provincial response to this phenomenon as expressed in the

policies of the 2005 PP

S and the G

rowth P

lan, even though neither is applicable in this rehearing.

W

ith respect to the work undertaken by M

r. Grim

es and Mr. Feldgaier, M

r. S

impson indicated that he m

aintained some m

odest concerns with elem

ents of the approach that each em

ployed – and this is taken up in the section of this decision setting out the B

oard's analysis and findings.

M

r. Elliott w

as retained by the Land Ow

ners to assess whether the R

eview Lands

possess the

necessary attributes

to attract

and retain

major

office em

ployment

development. G

iven his 30 years' experience facilitating complex developm

ent projects and real estate investm

ent transactions, Mr. E

lliott's evidence contained elements

relating to the market characteristics of m

ajor office development, (sum

marized here),

and elem

ents relating

to design

considerations in

connection w

ith m

ajor office

development, (taken up in the next section of this decision). M

ajor office employm

ent developm

ent refers to buildings maintaining a floor area greater than 20,000 square feet

which are prim

arily office with som

e ancillary retail uses.

M

r. Elliott's overall analysis integrated three com

ponents: a consideration of land attributes, or w

hat he referred to as key success factors or conditions precedent; a strategic SW

OT analysis; and, a com

petitive market analysis, or w

hat he referred to as fine-tuning via com

parison with a benchm

ark building.

M

oreover, Mr. E

lliott's analysis did not treat the Review

Lands on a monolithic

basis; that is, in a manner regarding them

as all the same. R

ather, he divided the lands into three distinct sub-areas: lands adjacent to H

ighway 404 (P

arcels A1 and A

2), interior lands situated in the south-east quadrant of the 19

th Avenue/Leslie S

treet

- 15 -

PL020446

intersection; and,

interior lands

situated in

the north-w

est quadrant

of the

19th

Avenue/Leslie S

treet intersection. The Board w

ill return to those sub-areas, particularly P

arcels A1 and A

2, in its analysis.

C

oncerning the market-related com

ponent of his work, M

r. Elliott undertook a

comparative analysis to estim

ate whether office developm

ent on the Review

Lands w

ould attract a premium

or a discount in expected rental income, using 45 V

ogell Road

as a surrogate. Mr. E

lliott concluded that office development on the R

eview Lands

would lease at a 30%

discount over the long term, all things being equal.

In conjunction w

ith his other analysis, summ

arized below, M

r. Elliot testified to his

professional opinion that the Review

Lands do not possess the necessary attributes to attract and retain m

ajor office development.

Urban D

esign

The

respective testim

ony of

Messrs.

Elliot,

Nickel,

Martin,

and H

annay collectively define the param

eters of the urban design evidence.

A

s noted above, Mr. E

lliott assessed the Review

Lands through a lens of key success factors. A

ccording to Mr. E

lliott, those factors are: access; building and signage exposure; connectivity and critical m

ass; private amenities; and, access to

relevant labour force. While he differentiated betw

een sub-areas of the Review

Lands, he ultim

ately concluded that the Review

lands will neither attract m

ajor users of office nor investm

ent capital, and further that they do not possess the necessary attributes to do so.

M

r. Nickel w

as retained by the Land Ow

ners to assess the appropriateness and feasibility of developing the R

eview Lands under an E

mploym

ent designation. Given

his considerable experience in developing and marketing em

ployment and industrial

lands, he

assessed the R

eview

Lands according

to various

criteria reflective

of developm

ent principles

for em

ployment

land uses.

Those

criteria include:

lot configuration and grading, exposure and connectivity, and cost to develop. Through the lens of these criteria, M

r. Nickel paid particular attention to “w

hat users need and what

- 16 -

PL020446

is cost feasible.” For example, lot configuration considerations relate to a site’s ability to

provide a variety of lot sizes, constant grades, and rectilinear or very near rectilinear lot shapes. C

onnectivity and exposure considerations take into account both a site’s location w

ithin an employm

ent node, and a node’s location within a broader context.

Cost to develop considerations relate to both the ability and resultant cost to im

plement

a planned function given a site’s physical and locational characteristics.

Mr. N

ickel testified that employm

ent (i.e., industrial-type) buildings typically require a flat site to accom

modate a need for large, flat interior floors to accom

modate

storage racking and forklift requirements. This is consistent w

ith Mr. S

impson's

characterization of the land needs relating to Em

ployment land em

ployment. Through a

cross-sectional analysis, Mr. N

ickel demonstrated the extent to w

hich areas of the R

eview Lands w

ould require significant regrading and other earth work given their

current undulating grades. In his opinion, the cost of cutting and filling – that is, redistributing earth and soil to establish a flat grade – and the cost of providing extensive retaining w

all construction to stabilize grades would render E

mploym

ent developm

ent cost prohibitive on certain areas of the Review

Lands.

In his professional opinion, the Review

Lands can be technically developed for E

mploym

ent purposes,

but not

to a

scale or

efficiency consistent

with

good developm

ent principles for Em

ployment lands.

M

r. Martin w

as retained by the Land Ow

ners in 2007 to develop concept plans for lands east of Tributary 2, north and south of 19

th Avenue, and w

est of Highw

ay 404. W

ith respect to the Review

Lands, in particular, he prepared conceptual site plans and assessed road layouts and built-form

massing. H

e also took into consideration the m

atter of integrating his conceptual site plans with the three parcels east of Tributary 2

designated for Em

ployment purposes by the 2006 decision.

M

r. Martin’s assessm

ent of the Review

Lands was guided by a num

ber of principles, including exposure, w

hether to Highw

ay 404 or to Leslie Street or 19

th A

venue; avoiding isolated residential pockets; fronting residential development on to

Leslie Street and/or 19

th Avenue; and linking residential neighbourhoods by a collector

road or trail system to create a coherent com

munity w

ith appropriate ancillary uses (i.e., parks, etc.).

- 17 -

PL020446

M

r. Martin also addressed the m

atter of compatibility w

ith, principally, the south-w

est quadrant Em

ployment lands. H

e drew the B

oard’s attention to various examples,

beginning with the B

arker and Headford B

usiness Parks south of the R

eview Lands,

where residential uses are situated adjacent to em

ployment uses separated by an

arterial or collector road. Given that there are no interface incom

patibilities in those other areas betw

een the residential uses and prestige industrial uses, and that the sam

e type of employm

ent uses are anticipated in the south-west quadrant lands, M

r. M

artin did not envisage any incompatibilities arising betw

een the land uses reflected on his conceptual site plans and the approved E

mploym

ent lands situated opposite there from

.

M

r. Martin drew

comparisons betw

een the Review

Lands and the Baw

den-Wood

lands situated to the south, which in the 2006 decision, w

ere designated principally for R

esidential purposes. He outlined how

each is “impinged upon” by the R

ouge River

tributary system, predom

inantly Tributary 1, which has a sim

ilar impact upon each. The

result of that comparison left M

r. Martin w

ith the question, What does the land shape tell

us about what is suitable? That question, in turn, fram

ed his analysis with respect to

ascertaining the most suitable designation for the R

eview Lands.

In M

r. Martin’s opinion, a R

esidential and Mixed-use designation represents the

only use of the Review

Lands that can provide continuity and establish a coherent com

munity through an integration of the natural and built (i.e., approved) environm

ents – that is, contexts. The use of the R

eview Lands otherw

ise would result, in his opinion,

in numerous inefficiencies, including odd-shaped developm

ent parcels and single-loaded roads, (i.e., developm

ent on only one side of the road). (Mr. N

ickel raised sim

ilar points in his evidence.)

M

r. Hannay w

as retained by the Town to review

the urban design aspects of the Land O

wners’ proposed land use plan and, m

ore specifically, to respond to Issue No. 1

of the Issues List. It is Mr. H

annay’s opinion that the Review

Lands are, from an urban

design perspective, well-suited for an E

mploym

ent designation given their location and, w

hat he believes are their focus, visual accessibility, and physical characteristics.

Mr. H

annay is of the view that an E

mploym

ent designation on the Review

Lands w

ould, in conjunction with the south-w

est quadrant Em

ployment lands, create an

- 18 -

PL020446

opportunity for

establishing an

employm

ent-themed

precinct in

the N

orth Leslie

Secondary P

lan area focused at the intersection of Nineteenth A

venue/Leslie Street

intersection. He developed a conceptual plan dem

onstrating one manner in w

hich the R

eview Lands could be developed for E

mploym

ent purposes; a plan which reflected

road patterning as well as lot siting w

ith concomitant parcel sizes.

Finally, Mr. H

annay expressed an opinion that the topography of the Review

Lands is generally com

parable with the topography of other developed E

mploym

ent lands and B

usiness Parks in R

ichmond H

ill – an observation generally confirmed during

a site visit in which the B

oard and counsel toured the Review

Lands and the Beaver

Creek, B

arker, and Headford business parks.

Planning

The respective testim

ony of Messrs. S

orenson, Butler, and Lehm

an collectively define the param

eters of the planning evidence.

M

r. Sorenson’s involvem

ent in the North Leslie S

econdary Plan area dates back

to 2000 when his firm

was initially retained to assist several of the Land O

wners w

ith their applications. H

is retainer was subsequently expanded to represent all the Land

Ow

ners in connection with this rehearing. A

key component of his earlier w

ork included w

orking with Tow

n planning staff to develop what becam

e known in the 2006 hearing as

the "Blended P

lan" – a secondary plan document that identified both agreed-upon

policies as well as those m

atters remaining in dispute, along w

ith policy alternatives consistent w

ith the different positions advanced by the parties in that hearing (2006 B

lended Plan).

It is M

r. Sorenson's view

that the Review

Lands are better suited to a Residential

and Mixed-use designation. H

e comes to this conclusion and professional opinion as a

result of a very thorough examination of the policy context, including the 1997 P

PS

, the R

egion's Official P

lan, and the Town's O

fficial Plan; the application of his ow

n planning know

ledge and insight; and, a detailed consideration of the analysis and evidence of the other professional w

itnesses, including principally:

- 19 -

PL020446

� M

r. Feldgaier’s analysis and professional opinion that additional residential lands are needed;

� M

r. Grim

es’s analysis and professional opinion that additional employm

ent lands are not needed;

� M

r. Elliott's analysis and professional opinion;

� M

r. Nickel's analysis and professional opinion;

� M

r. Martin's analysis and professional opinion; and,

� the fragm

entation of the Review

Lands by woodlots, w

atercourses, open space

corridors, and

Greenbelt

designations and

natural heritage

areas/system associated w

ith Tributary 1.

Mr. S

orenson's testimony also responded to M

r. Butler's and M

r. Lehman's

evidence, and is taken up under the Board's analysis.

M

r. Sorenson testified that the Land O

wners' schem

e has full regard for the 1997 P

PS

, complies w

ith the Region’s O

fficial Plan, and conform

s to the general thrust of the Tow

n’s Official P

lan. A R

esidential and Mixed-use designation is consistent w

ith the balance of the N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan and would not derogate from

the Plan's

"Environm

ent First"

focus or

from

the Tow

n's objective

of prom

oting com

plete com

munities.

H

e also testified that he would, under norm

al circumstances, regard lands

proximate to a highw

ay as a reasonable candidate for employm

ent uses, in particular, space-intensive, vehicle-oriented industrial and business uses (i.e., E

mploym

ent land em

ployment uses). There are several factors, how

ever, that, in Mr. S

orenson's opinion, significantly detract from

this general proposition insofar as the Review

Lands are concerned. Those factors relate to the respective conclusions arrived at by M

r. Grim

es and M

r. Feldgaier, as well as, am

ong other things, the fragmentation of developm

ent lands by the G

reenbelt and natural heritage system, discontinuities in the land use

pattern along

Highw

ay 404

in proxim

ity to

the S

econdary P

lan area,

and the

unsuitability of the Review

Lands for Em

ployment purposes as dem

onstrated by Mr.

Nickel.

A

s part of his analysis, Mr. S

orenson also assessed the potential influence of the south-w

est quadrant Em

ployment lands and concerns about com

patibility with the

designation advanced by the Land Ow

ners. Given that those lands are anticipated to

be developed with relatively light form

s of industry, that such development w

ill be required to dem

onstrate high performance standards, and that they w

ill be separated

- 20 -

PL020446

from the R

eview Lands by the arterial-function right-of-w

ay for 19th A

venue and Leslie S

treet, any development occurring in conjunction w

ith a Residential and M

ixed-use designation on the R

eview Lands w

ould not be incompatible.

M

r. S

orenson also,

out of

prudence, proposed

alternate policies

for an

Em

ployment designation in the event that the B

oard decided to not allow the Land

Ow

ners’ appeals. Given the B

oard’s findings, nothing more needs to be said about M

r. S

orenson’s alternate policies.

In sum

, Mr. S

orenson testified that in his professional opinion the fundamental

characteristics of the Review

Lands are inherently well-suited to a R

esidential and M

ixed-use designation, and relatively ill-suited to an Em

ployment designation.

M

r. Butler w

as retained by the Town in 2008 to support the N

orth Leslie S

econdary Plan as approved by the B

oard in the 2006 decision. He has considerable

experience with the R

ichmond H

ill and York R

egion planning contexts derived from

numerous other consulting planning projects undertaken w

ithin these municipalities. In

Mr. B

utler's professional opinion, the 2006 decision to designate the Review

lands for E

mploym

ent purposes represents good planning. An E

mploym

ent designation would

maintain the Tow

n’s employm

ent corridor vision, constitute the “best planning” for the R

eview Lands, and w

ould be in the public interest.

M

r. Butler testified that the Tow

n wishes to have the R

eview Lands designated

for Em

ployment purposes in order to satisfy targets espoused by the R

egion and province. H

e pointed out that both the Town and the R

egion have consistently supported em

ployment uses along the H

ighway 404 corridor for over 10 years as part of

the Town’s grow

th managem

ent initiatives. The Land Ow

ners’ desire to have a R

esidential and Mixed-use designation apply to the R

eview lands represents, in his

opinion, a fundamental change to the basic structure of N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan as envisaged by the Tow

n and would be contrary to the 1997 P

PS

, the Town and R

egion O

fficial Plans, the principles of good planning, and the public interest.

M

r. Butler is also of the view

that the Highw

ay 404 corridor represents a strategic em

ployment corridor in the G

reater Toronto Area.

- 21 -

PL020446

Mr. B

utler testified that, because the Review

Lands represent the last available lands w

ithin the Town for designation for urban industrial use, any decision on their long

term designation becom

es even more critical. To that end, it is M

r. Butler's opinion that

the Town should not be put into a position w

here it cannot meet public policy objectives.

The basis

for M

r. B

utler's conclusion

that a

Residential

and M

ixed-use designation w

ould be contrary to the Town’s O

fficial Plan rests, in part, in O

fficial Plan

Am

endment N

o. 218 (OP

A 218). A

pproved by the Minister of M

unicipal Affairs and

Housing

on M

arch 9,

2006, O

PA

218

implem

ented the

Oak

Ridges

Moraine

Conservation P

lan and went further to establish policies relating to population and

employm

ent targets – targets that, despite being adopted, have not been incorporated into the R

egion's Official P

lan. With respect to an em

ployment projection, O

PA

218 established 119,000 jobs as a target over the planning period to 2026 – a num

ber that M

r. Sim

pson recomm

ended against at the time w

hile engaged as the Town's consultant.

In addition to his principal opinion, M

r. Butler also testified that in his opinion a

Residential and M

ixed-use designation on the Review

Lands will prejudice the south-

west quadrant E

mploym

ent lands through the introduction of incompatible land uses,

result in a mixing of residential and em

ployment traffic on Leslie S

treet and on 19th

Avenue, and result in com

patibility challenges with the B

awden-W

ood lands situated south of the R

eview Lands.

W

ith respect to the south-west quadrant E

mploym

ent lands, Mr. B

utler testified that the designation being advanced by the Land O

wners w

ill put pressure on those lands and likely result in an application at som

e point in the future to redesignate those lands for non-em

ployment purposes.

Finally, M

r. Butler expressed concern about high-rise buildings being developed

on the Review

Lands in the event the appeals are allowed through this rehearing and

the specific threat they represent to the viability of the south-west quadrant E

mploym

ent lands. Just as M

r. Sorenson sought to hedge bets on behalf of the Land O

wners, so too

did Mr. B

utler propose alternate policies on behalf of the Town.

Like M

r. Butler, M

r. Lehman w

as retained by the Region in 2008 to review

the issues before the B

oard in this rehearing. He has considerable experience in R

ichmond

Hill, in part from

his preparation of the growth m

anagement exercise leading to the

- 22 -

PL020446

expansion of the Town's urban boundary north to E

lgin Mills R

oad East and the

implem

entation of the secondary plans for the area imm

ediately south of the North

Leslie Secondary P

lan area. He w

as also involved in the 2006 hearing regarding the N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan on behalf of a land owner w

ith holdings on Bayview

A

venue.

M

r. Lehman expressed his professional opinion that the R

eview Lands are m

ore suitably designated for E

mploym

ent purposes given their location in the Highw

ay 404 corridor. H

e drew attention to the relationship betw

een 400-series highways and

employm

ent lands throughout the Greater Toronto A

rea, suggesting that the proximity

of the latter to the former is not a coincidence. A

ccording to Mr. Lehm

an's analysis, history dem

onstrates that employers prefer locating near 400-series highw

ays.

E

choing Mr. B

utler, Mr. Lehm

an also testified that in his opinion a Residential

and Mixed-use designation on the R

eview Lands w

ould raise the likelihood of an incom

patibility being established with the south-w

est quadrant Em

ployment lands.

Uses associated w

ith the designation sought by the Land Ow

ners would constitute

sensitive land uses under Ministry of the E

nvironment G

uidelines, and their proximity to

Em

ployment lands w

ould, in Mr. Lehm

an's opinion, be contrary to the D-1 and D

-6 G

uidelines and would likely require substantial buffering.

M

oreover, in Mr. Lehm

an's opinion, a Residential and M

ixed-use designation on the R

eview Lands w

ould function as a disincentive to employers to locate on the south-

west quadrant E

mploym

ent lands. Such users/uses require a degree of com

munity w

ith like-users/uses, along w

ith an absence of incompatible land uses. In all likelihood, if

designated for Residential and M

ixed-uses purposes, the Review

Lands would develop

before other employm

ent lands east of Tributary 2 thereby prejudicing the south-west

quadrant Em

ployment lands insofar as their ability to perform

their planned function is concerned. A

ccordingly, the Review

Lands are neither appropriate nor necessary for residential uses, and a R

esidential and Mixed-use designation w

ould be inconsistent w

ith the Region’s O

fficial Plan insofar as it establishes an urban structure w

ith respect to centres and corridors.

C

entral to Mr. Lehm

an's evidence was his interpretation of the 1997 P

PS

. With

respect to Policy 1.2.1, M

r. Lehman testified that it had application only to upper-tier

- 23 -

PL020446

planning jurisdictions. In other words, low

er-tier planning jurisdictions need not have regard to its intent. In M

r. Lehman's view

, there is no obligation on the Town to m

aintain a 10-year supply of designated and available land for new

residential development.

This aspect of his evidence is fully canvassed in the Board’s analysis.

Finally, M

r. Lehman also expressed an opinion that the B

oard should take the 2005 P

PS

and the Grow

th Plan into account in rendering a decision on a designation for

the Review

Lands in light of the very substantial amount of w

ork that has been undertaken

over the

past three

years w

ith respect

to protecting

the supply

of E

mploym

ent lands.

Related E

vidence (Roads and S

chool Site)

G

iven that the evidence of Mr. P

echkovsky in relation to Issue No. 3 and the

evidence of Mr. P

appin with respect to Issue N

o. 6 are not in dispute, both will be

addressed in the following section setting out the B

oard's analysis.

Analysis and Findings

Issue N

o. 1

Issue N

o. 1 – whether the R

eview Lands should be designated for E

mploym

ent or for R

esidential and Mixed-use purposes – as an over-arching issue, w

as germane to

the evidence of several of the witnesses; how

ever, the respective evidence and testim

ony of Messrs. S

impson, B

utler, Lehman, and S

orenson are specifically taken up in this analysis because it is these professionals w

ho fulsomely engage the issue as

framed.

A

central theme running through the evidence of M

essrs. Sim

pson, Butler, and

Lehman w

as the opinion that the Review

Lands should be designated for Em

ployment

purposes because that designation is reflective of the nature of the land uses the Town

and Region have long-desired for the Lands given their location in the H

ighway 404

corridor. The imm

ediacy of Highw

ay 404 and the access it facilitates to other 400-

- 24 -

PL020446

series highways; the likelihood of an interchange being constructed w

ithin the 2031 planning

horizon at

the 19

th A

venue/Highw

ay 404

intersection; the

location of

Em

ployment-designated lands in the B

eaver Creek, H

eadford, and Barker B

usiness P

arks, and opposite Highw

ay 404 in Markham

; all, for these three witnesses, point to an

Em

ployment designation as being the appropriate choice for the R

eview Lands and to

any other designation(s) as being inappropriate.

A

theme w

oven through the evidence of Mr. S

impson and M

r. Lehman w

as the relevance of the 2005 P

PS

and the Grow

th Plan – especially the principal thrust of each

to, in part, preserve Em

ployment lands and shelter them

from initiatives to convert them

to other non-em

ployment land uses. M

r. Sim

pson repeatedly made reference to the

effect of each, testifying that never before over his almost 40 year career has he seen

the province take such an active role in establishing land use policy. A not insignificant

component

of his

Witness

Statem

ent w

as dedicated

to com

mentary

on the

intensification of efforts to preserve Em

ployment lands for their intended use, (em

phasis added by the B

oard). Mr. Lehm

an even went so far as to include a caveat w

ith his signature on the agreem

ent between the planners – their List of Item

s in Agreem

ent and in D

ispute directed by the Procedural O

rder – implying that regard should be had in

these circumstances for the 2005 P

PS

and the Grow

th Plan; that their role is not, in his

opinion, a matter that is appropriately an exclusive legal consideration.

The R

eview Lands are not E

mploym

ent lands; they do not enjoy the benefit of an E

mploym

ent designation or, indeed, any urban designation. To determine such

designation is the sole purpose of this rehearing. The Board is not persuaded by the

above line of evidence to disregard the agreement betw

een the Parties and unanim

ity am

ong counsel that the 2005 PP

S and G

rowth P

lan do not apply. Moreover, to the

extent that Mr. S

impson or M

r. Lehman perceives this proceeding in som

e fashion as being about preserving E

mploym

ent lands, that perception is mistaken. For this reason,

the Board cannot ascribe any w

eight to the opinions of Mr. S

impson and M

r. Lehman

with respect to the role and effect of the 2005 P

PS

and Grow

th Plan.

A

comm

on theme in the evidence of M

r. Butler and M

r. Lehman w

as the deleterious im

pact and prejudicial effect a Residential and M

ixed-use land use scheme

will visit upon the south-w

est Em

ployment lands. M

r. Lehman raised the M

inistry of the E

nvironment D

-1 and D-6 G

uidelines and sought to demonstrate how

the presence of

- 25 -

PL020446

residential and other sensitive land uses will prejudice those E

mploym

ent lands by requiring increased separation distances – perhaps as m

uch as 300 metres. M

r. Butler

echoed Mr. Lehm

an's attention to the effect of the Guidelines and w

ent even further to say that an approval of the Land O

wners' schem

e would result in a pressure to convert

the south-west quadrant E

mploym

ent lands to non-employm

ent uses. Even so, he

sought to

introduce policy

measures

to im

prove the

interface betw

een these

designations and their related land uses, and those specific measures are taken up

under several of the issues discussed below.

W

ith respect to Mr. B

utler's testimony regarding conversion pressure, the B

oard sim

ply notes the operational effect of those provisions in the Planning A

ct and those policies in the G

rowth P

lan directed precisely at that phenomenon, w

hich Mr. B

utler fairly acknow

ledged in cross-examination.

W

ith respect to the interface between the R

ehearing Lands and the south-west

quadrant Em

ployment lands, the B

oard has found it impossible – not for trying – to

differentiate these circumstances from

those existing in and adjacent to the Highw

ay 404 corridor concerning the B

arker and Headford B

usiness Parks – w

here those E

mploym

ent lands interface with residential uses on the w

est side of Leslie Street.

First, the Board w

as not shown any instance of a land use conflict in those situations.

Granted, the residential uses in those situations are low

density, ground-oriented hom

es, not multi-storey residential buildings as is likely to be the case on the R

eview

Lands. Mr. S

orenson, however, testified that externalities, w

here there are any, can be m

itigated in situations involving multi-storey buildings because those buildings tend to

rely more on internal areas for providing am

enities rather than external, outdoor areas as is the case in a low

-rise situation.

S

econd, Mr. B

utler acknowledged in cross-exam

ination the desirability of an arterial separator in such circum

stances. Just as Leslie Street serves as the separator

between land uses to the south, so too a role w

ill it serve between the R

eview Lands

and the south-west quadrant E

mploym

ent lands.

Finally, the south-west quadrant E

mploym

ent lands are specifically designated E

mploym

ent C

orridor.

Mr.

Sorenson

testified that

this designation

permits

the developm

ent of

only high

performance

standard em

ployment

uses and

high

- 26 -

PL020446

performance industrial uses contained w

ithin wholly enclosed buildings. The applicable

designation in the Barker and H

eadford Business P

arks permits com

parable uses, and the types of em

ployment uses anticipated in the south-w

est quadrant are expected to be sim

ilar to the uses now found in these tw

o Business P

arks. In response to Mr.

Lehman's

and M

r. Butler's

evidence regarding

the D

-1 and D

-6 G

uidelines, M

r. S

orenson comprehensively assessed the G

uidelines to demonstrate that a 300 m

etre distance separation requirem

ent would not be a factor and that 20 m

etres would be the

more anticipated separation requirem

ent. Since Leslie S

treet and 19th A

venue is to eventually m

aintain a right-of-way w

idth of 36 metres, M

r. Sorenson opined that the

lands in the south-west quadrant w

ould likely not be prejudiced as a consequence of the G

uidelines.

M

r. Butler testified that the approval of the Land O

wners' schem

e will result in a

mixing of em

ployment and residential traffic – that is, cars and trucks – resulting in a

potentially unsafe situation. If this mixing is to occur anyw

here, it will be on 19

th Avenue

and Leslie Street, both of w

hich are designated as arterial roads in the Region's O

fficial P

lan. On this point, the B

oard notes the function of an arterial road is to convey all types of traffic.

A

s noted previously, Mr. S

impson and M

r. Butler testified to the Tow

n's long-standing desire to designate lands situated in the H

ighway 404 corridor for E

mploym

ent purposes. The R

ehearing Lands, however, are separated from

the southern Business

Parks of the corridor by no less than tw

o kilometres at their closest. M

oreover, situated w

ithin that gap are three intervening land uses: the large cemetery situated on the south

side of Elgin M

ills Road E

ast, spanning the full distance between H

ighway 404 and

Leslie Street; the R

iotrin retail comm

ercial development; and, the B

awden-W

ood lands, w

hich were designated principally for R

esidential purposes in the 2006 decision. That the Tow

n maintains a desire to have the R

eview Lands designated for E

mploym

ent purposes is understood; how

ever, the Board finds that desire disconnected from

the reality of the R

eview Lands, taken up below

in a discussion of Mr. S

orenson’s evidence, and the isolating effect of the other interrupting land uses and designations in the corridor.

A

t multiple points during his testim

ony, Mr. S

impson im

pressed upon the Board

that its decision should not be based solely on numbers; that this is not a “num

bers

- 27 -

PL020446

game”; that its determ

ination should be based on planning principles and not merely on

the quantitative analyses and results of Mr. G

rimes and M

r. Feldgaier. The Board

agrees, and accordingly finds persuasive Mr. S

orenson’s testimony explicating w

hy these

particular circum

stances involving

the R

eview

Lands are

not norm

al circum

stances where proxim

ity to a highway substantiates an E

mploym

ent designation.

The fragm

entation of developable lands by intervening natural heritage features and the G

reenbelt; discontinuities in the land use pattern along this section of Highw

ay 404; land characteristics and other factors m

ilitating against efficient lot configuration and road patterning, and significantly higher developm

ent costs for employm

ent uses associated therew

ith; all are factors that have persuaded the Board that the R

eview

Lands are not suitable for an Em

ployment designation despite being proxim

ate to the H

ighway 404 corridor. E

qually compelling w

as Mr. S

orenson's opinion that the Review

Lands, if designated for E

mploym

ent purposes, would likely not be taken up for

development w

ithin the planning period to 2031 given their shortcomings and the

availability of other more attractive E

mploym

ent lands in Richm

ond Hill.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the B

oard prefers the evidence of Mr. S

orenson and generally finds that the Land O

wners' schem

e to be appropriate and preferable to the desires advanced by the Tow

n and Region. The B

oard, however, m

aintains a reservation w

ith respect to the Mixed-use designation in the O

wners’ schem

e and that is taken up in the follow

ing discussion regarding Issue No. 5.

Issue N

o. 2

Issue N

o. 2 – regarding the appropriateness and size of the Neighbourhood

Com

mercial designation (N

C designation) on the M

anson lands – was addressed by M

r. B

utler and Mr. S

orenson.

M

r. Butler testified that the size of the com

mercial area proposed by M

anson in this rehearing is larger than w

hat was proposed in the 2006 hearing. A

ccording to Mr.

Butler, a rationale for increasing the area under an N

C designation is to potentially

accomm

odate free-standing apartment buildings up to 10 storeys in height.

- 28 -

PL020446

M

r. B

utler acknow

ledged that

he did

not have

any difficulty

with

an N

C

designation in the proposed location on the Manson lands, (i.e., on the intersection);

however, he proposed policy m

odifications for the Board to consider in the event it

decides to allow the Land O

wners' appeals. W

ith his concern being the size of perm

itted comm

ercial uses and the inclusion of policy permissions that w

ould allow

medium

- and high-density residential uses, Mr. B

utler proposed modifications to: restrict

the total size of comm

ercial uses to 60,000 square feet; to remove the perm

ission for stand-alone apartm

ent building; and, to replace portions of the area proposed for an NC

designation w

ith a Medium

Density R

esidential designation. These latter modifications

were proposed given M

r. Butler's opinion that residential uses w

ill not be compatible

with the south-w

est quadrant Em

ployment lands.

M

r. Sorenson's evidence on this issue w

as that the policy approach for the NC

designation stands unchanged from

that set out in an agreed-upon section of the 2006 B

lended Plan presented at the 2006 hearing and w

hich has been applied to other approved lands in the N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan area.

There is no dispute betw

een Mr. B

utler and Mr. S

orenson that an NC

designation is appropriate at the intersection of tw

o arterial roads. With respect to the size of the

comm

ercial perm

issions, the Tow

n's O

fficial P

lan now

includes

a general

policy restricting neighbourhood com

mercial uses to 60,000 square feet – identical to that

proposed by Mr. B

utler. The Town is in the process of review

ing its Official P

lan. Mr.

Sorenson testified that it is highly unlikely the Tow

n would rem

ove or modify that policy

– especially now given the airing of this issue. G

iven that this limitation is now

in effect, the B

oard finds nothing on this particular issue that would necessitate the introduction of

a further, specific limitation on the size of perm

itted comm

ercial uses into the policies of the N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan.

The Tow

n has recently enacted Official P

lan Am

endment N

o. 245 to introduce a series of new

policies into its Official P

lan that stipulate the requirements for having an

application under the Planning A

ct deemed com

plete. Those new policies, for exam

ple, include a requirem

ent for a full range of studies to address any potential for adverse developm

ent effects and nuisance impacts – including noise, vibration, and odour

impacts, as w

ell as others not specifically listed in the policy but which m

ay be required nonetheless.

These

requirements

in conjunction

with

the interface

compatibility

- 29 -

PL020446

considerations discussed above under Issue No. 1 lead the B

oard to conclude that m

odifications to policies regulating heights in the Review

Lands are unnecessary.

B

ased on the foregoing analysis, the Board prefers the evidence of M

r. Sorenson

and finds that the NC

designation, its size, and corresponding policies are appropriate.

Issue N

o. 3

M

r. Pechkovsky testified on consent through an affidavit that the elem

entary school location conceptually show

n on the Manson lands is generally acceptable and

will be refined at later stages in the developm

ent process. He stated that the location

complies w

ith the School B

oard's "Prudent A

voidance" policy – namely, that it has been

prudently located so as to avoid, among other things, natural gas and hydro corridors

and the like. Being filed on consent, the B

oard accepts Mr. P

echkovsky's evidence and finds Issue N

o. 3 to be satisfactorily addressed.

Issue N

o. 4

Issue N

o. 4 – whether the inclusion of S

eniors residential uses is appropriate – w

as addressed by Mr. B

utler and Mr. S

orenson.

M

r. Butler testified that S

eniors residential uses are inappropriate adjacent or in proxim

ity to Em

ployment lands and, further, that such a land use arrangem

ent was

never contemplated in these circum

stances. In his opinion, the Review

Lands represent an inappropriate location for S

eniors residential uses because they are isolated; that is, they are not w

ell-served by transit, nor are they proximate to supportive, existing

comm

unity facilities including, for example, m

edical facilities. Given his opinion that

Seniors residential uses adjacent or in proxim

ity to Em

ployment lands w

ill raise potential safety issues and other land use sensitivities, thereby increasing the likelihood of incom

patibility and conflict, Mr. B

utler sees no reason for modifying the approved

policies (Section 4.2.4.2) of the N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan to accomm

odate the Land O

wners’ desires.

- 30 -

PL020446

M

r. S

orenson testified

that S

eniors residential

uses are

permitted

in any

Residential designation, subject to certain locational requirem

ents, all in accordance w

ith Section 4.2.4.2 w

hich were agreed-upon policies in the 2006 B

lended Plan put

before the

Board

in the

2006 hearing.

M

r. S

orenson considers

the locational

requirements as constraints, and as such he has exem

pted areas of the Review

Lands from

their application so as to provide greater flexibility to accomm

odate this form of

housing. During his initial cross-exam

ination, Mr. S

orenson referred to those criteria as being unduly or unnecessarily restrictive. A

t no point during his testimony, how

ever, did he review

the criteria to demonstrate in any m

eaningful way w

hy the criteria are so burdensom

e. Instead, during his testimony in reply, M

r. Sorenson introduced further

proposed policy

modifications

to address

the concerns

raised by

Mr.

Butler;

modifications designed to potentially provide for additional studies in accordance w

ith G

uidelines D-1 and D

-6 to address land use impacts and recom

mend appropriate

mitigation – all w

hile maintaining an exem

ption from the locational criteria.

That S

eniors are arguably among the m

ore vulnerable of society points to a need for an appropriate policy response to ensure that care is exercised w

hen making land

use decisions that will directly affect their w

ell-being. Section 4.2.4.2 in its current,

unmodified form

does precisely that. By exem

pting areas of the Review

Lands from the

locational criteria of Section 4.2.4.2, M

r. Sorenson has m

oved from w

hat he regards as one extrem

e to what the B

oard finds is another. The modifications he proposed in

response to Mr. B

utler’s testimony include a discretionary elem

ent that falls short of ensuring that S

eniors will be adequately protected. The B

oard is not persuaded that the criteria identified in P

olicy 4.2.4.2 are unduly or unnecessarily restrictive, finding Mr.

Sorenson's characterization as such curious given the central role he and his firm

played in negotiating the agreed-upon policies of the 2006 B

lended Plan in the first

place. The Board prefers the evidence of M

r. Butler on Issue N

o. 3 and finds the exem

ption of the Review

Lands from the locational requirem

ents set out in Policy

4.2.4.2. to be not appropriate.

- 31 -

PL020446

Issue N

o. 5

Issue N

o. 5 – regarding the appropriateness of a Mixed-use designation including

comm

ercial and residential uses – relates to Parcels A

1 and A2 since it is only these

two parcels in the R

eview Lands upon w

hich such a designation is proposed. (Mixed

uses are also proposed on the Manson lands; how

ever, they are done so singularly under a C

omm

ercial designation that includes policies also permitting residential uses.)

The Land O

wners’ schem

e on Parcels A

1 and A2 include policies perm

itting offices and one hotel as w

ell as medium

- and high-density residential uses, including S

eniors residential uses. Mr. S

orenson introduced a modification during his testim

ony that w

ould have the effect of subordinating medium

-density residential uses to some

other primary perm

itted use. He also testified that the size of these parcels and the

separating effect of the Greenbelt and natural heritage system

render these two sites

suitable for relatively intensive forms of developm

ent.

M

r. Butler testified that P

arcels A1 and A

2 are not appropriate locations for residential land uses. H

e also offered an opinion that such uses are appropriately located in m

ulti-functional centres and corridors – consistent with the R

egion’s policy encouraging the sam

e – where they w

ill sustain and reinforce transit investment. To

situate such uses adjacent to a highway w

ill, in Mr. B

utler’s opinion, de-emphasize

transit use and reinforce a less than ideal reliance on private automobile use. D

uring his cross-exam

ination, however, M

r. Butler acknow

ledged that he did not have any difficulty w

ith office uses on either parcel or a hotel use on the northerly parcel.

In an effort to check Mr. B

utler’s testimony, attention w

as drawn to num

erous exam

ples throughout the Greater Toronto A

rea of residential uses adjacent to a 400-series highw

ay. Mr. B

utler's opinion about those land use decisions – that they’re inappropriate or in som

e cases plain wrong – w

as also derided. The Board is not

persuaded by these overtures. The planning merits of proposed developm

ent does not necessarily equate w

ith what is already on the ground in other locations reflecting

similar contextual elem

ents. While the R

egion’s centres and corridors policy does not preclude high-density residential developm

ent from locating in areas beyond m

ulti-functional centres and transit-supported corridors, the reasons sustaining M

r. Butler’s

- 32 -

PL020446

opinion remain unim

peached and the Board finds them

more in keeping w

ith the public interest than rationales advanced by M

r. Sorenson on this issue.

A

ccordingly, the Board prefers the evidence of M

r. Butler and finds that a M

ixed-use designation is inappropriate on P

arcels A1 and A

2 by virtue of residential uses being inappropriate. In light of this finding, a question arises as to w

hat then is the appropriate designation for P

arcels A1 and A

2. The Board w

as presented with

sufficient evidence to find that office uses are appropriate, as is a hotel use on the northerly parcel. The B

oard, however, is not in a position to m

ake a final determination

on a designation for Parcels A

1 and A2, and w

ill therefore withhold its O

rder so as to allow

the Parties and counsel to confer for the purpose of identifying a designation that

is consistent with the B

oard's findings.

Issue N

o. 6

M

r. Pappin w

as called to testify in support of a consensus reached among the

Parties during the rehearing w

ith respect to Issue No. 6 – the appropriateness of the

road pattern.

In the spirit of collaboration that brought about this limited agreem

ent among the

Parties,

Mr.

Pappin

was

led through

his exam

ination-in-chief by

Ms

Rosenthal

notwithstanding that he w

as the Town's expert w

itness. Mr. P

appin specifically addressed

Exhibit

No.

N81

– revised

Major

and M

inor C

ollector R

oad policies

applicable only to the Review

Lands and testified that they are appropriate in his opinion. In essence, E

xhibit No. N

81 provides policy text to address the matter of a

connection between the east-w

est collector road identified on the Belm

ont lands and the north-south collector road show

n on the Upper C

ity lands. The Parties agreed that a

connection will not be show

n on the relevant schedules of the North Leslie S

econdary P

lan, but rather that a symbol w

ill be included directing any reader to the appropriate policies. Further, in the event that the R

eview Lands are designated E

mploym

ent, a sym

bol will be included on the relevant schedules w

est of Parcel A

2, and in the event

- 33 -

PL020446

that the Review

Lands are designated Residential and M

ixed-use, a symbol w

ill be included betw

een Parcels A

1 and A2.

M

r. Pappin’s testim

ony only addressed the two scenarios respectively advanced

by the Parties. In fairness to M

r. Pappin, he did not address – nor by inference w

as he likely asked to – a scenario in w

hich Parcels A

1 and A2 w

ould not be designated for M

ixed-use (Residential and C

omm

ercial) purposes. The Board, therefore, is not in a

position to make a final determ

ination on Issue No. 6 in light of its finding w

ith respect to Issue N

o. 5. While conferring on an appropriate designation for P

arcels A1 and A

2, the P

arties and counsel are also directed to ascertain whether M

r. Pappin’s testim

ony rem

ains relevant in light of its finding on Issue No. 5.

Issue N

o. 7

Issue N

o. 7 – whether there is a need for residential lands in R

ichmond H

ill – was

taken up principally through the evidence of Mr. S

impson and M

r. Feldgaier. It was also

taken up by Mr. Lehm

an through his testimony specifically regarding his interpretation of

Policy 1.2.1(a) of the 1997 P

PS

.

The fact that M

r. Sim

pson acknowledged in both his W

itness Statem

ent and his oral testim

ony that the Review

Lands could from a m

arket perspective be used for residential purposes – given the Tow

n's growth m

anagement w

ork and the Region's

land budgeting exercise – arguably settles this issue. Nevertheless, out of prudence,

the Board w

ill address what it finds to be the salient aspects of the evidence regarding

this issue.

There is no dispute that the 20-year supply requirem

ent set out under policy 1.1.2 of the 1997 P

PS

cannot be achieved with respect to either em

ployment or

residential land uses.

Mr. S

impson acknow

ledged that there was very little about M

r. Feldgaier's evidence w

ith which he disagreed; how

ever, he was judgm

ental of Mr. Feldgaier’s

approach, referring to it as having been done in a non-constrained way.

- 34 -

PL020446

With respect to the 10-year supply requirem

ent stipulated in Policy 1.2.1(a) of the

1997 PP

S, M

r. Sim

pson acknowledged that it is som

ething to consider, but opined that it is not a test generally applied in the R

egion. He also testified that neither it, nor the 3-

year requirement, operates as a “trum

p card.” Mr. S

impson drew

the Board's attention

to other municipalities as exam

ples of contexts in which the test could not be m

et or w

here meeting the requirem

ent had proven to be a challenge.

M

unicipalities and approval authorities – including this Board – are required to

have regard to the entirety of the 1997 PP

S w

hen carrying out their decision making

duties. That the 10-year supply requirement is not a test generally applied by the

Region does not render the test m

eaningless in these circumstances or serve to release

this Board from

its responsibility to meet its obligation under the P

olicy Statem

ent. The B

oard, therefore, finds that the evidence advanced through reference to the Region’s

approach does not meet the requirem

ent to have regard to the policies of the 1997 P

PS

. Furthermore, the decision to eschew

the 10-year requirement acts as a de facto

trump – ironically so given M

r. Sim

pson’s remarks – in favour of non-residential land

uses. Mr. S

impson also testified that high density residential, apartm

ent land uses are not land constrained and could locate in regional centres and corridors, consistent w

ith the R

egion's policy to that effect. Under cross-exam

ination, however, he readily

admitted that redesignations and/or rezonings w

ould likely be required to facilitate im

plementation of the policy – perm

issions that by virtue of being required are equally a constraint.

M

r. Feldgaier’s approach was thorough and his evidence w

ith respect to his conclusions easily w

ithstood cross-examination. M

oreover, the Board w

as not made

aware of any sim

ilar quantitative analysis undertaken by Mr. S

impson w

ith respect to assessing the opportunity of using the R

eview Lands as a m

easure of having regard for the 1997 P

PS

.

For the reasons set out above, the B

oard prefers Mr. Feldgaier's evidence and

finds that there is a need for residential lands in Richm

ond Hill.

Turning to Mr. Lehm

an's evidence with respect to the 1997 P

PS

, it is his opinion that the 10-year requirem

ent of Policy 1.2.1(a) – effectively a 15-year supply given the

- 35 -

PL020446

provincial Forecast Methodology G

uidelines – simply does not apply to low

er-tier m

unicipalities like Richm

ond Hill. In other w

ords, neither the Town nor any other low

er-tier m

unicipality is obligated, in his view, to m

aintain a 10-year supply of land for new

residential development. Instead, the P

olicy requires the 10-year land supply to be m

aintained w

ithin the

Housing

Market

Area,

which

is the

Region.

G

iven this

interpretation of the 1997 PP

S and corresponding opinion, M

r. Lehman m

aintains that the analysis undertaken and conclusions reached by M

r. Feldgaier are flawed.

The Board cannot countenance M

r. Lehman's interpretation for the follow

ing reasons. First, on the face of the policy text, every planning jurisdiction is required to m

aintain a 10-year supply. While ‘planning jurisdiction’ is undefined in the 1997 P

PS

, the B

oard finds that the interpretation does not give effect to a plain reading of the policy.

S

econd, as fundamental as this opinion is to his overall testim

ony, there is no record of M

r. Lehman's interpretation of P

olicy 1.2.1(a) in either his Witness S

tatement

or the agreed-to List of Items In A

greement and In D

ispute arising from the required

meeting am

ong planners prior to the start of the rehearing. In fact, the first time M

r. Lehm

an’s interpretation comes to light is in his R

eply Witness S

tatement. The B

oard finds it curious that he should identify so central an interpretation so late in the process.

Finally, no other professional w

itness, for whose evidence P

olicy 1.2.1(a) held relevance, shared M

r. Lehman’s interpretation.

For these above reasons, the Board finds M

r. Lehman's interpretation of the

1997 PP

S untenable and to be offering no sustainable basis upon w

hich to question or reconsider its finding w

ith respect to Mr. Feldgaier's evidence.

Issue N

o. 8

Issue N

o. 8 – whether the land uses proposed in the south-east quadrant of the

19th

Avenue/Leslie

Street

intersection are

appropriate given

the adjacent

lands m

aintaining an Em

ployment designation – w

as also addressed my M

r. Butler and M

r. S

orenson.

- 36 -

PL020446

For M

r. Sorenson, this issue concerns the tw

o smaller-sized, E

mploym

ent-designated parcels noted previously. For M

r. Butler, the issue engages these sam

e two

parcels, but not so far as to excuse or exclude being mindful of the E

mploym

ent lands situated in the south-w

est quadrant of the intersection. The Ow

ners are proposing a M

edium/H

igh Density R

esidential designation on that portion of the Review

Lands fronting on 19

th Avenue betw

een these two parcels.

G

iven the relatively modest size of the tw

o parcels, Mr. S

orenson testified that industrial uses such as m

anufacturing or warehousing w

ould be effectively precluded. In his opinion, a range of institutional, retail, personal service, office, restaurant, and other sim

ilar uses permitted under an E

mploym

ent designation would be m

ore realistic. Furtherm

ore, the nature of the uses anticipated under the proposed Medium

/High-

Density R

esidential designation would be fully com

patible with the em

ployment uses

envisaged on the two parcels.

M

r. Butler, on the other hand, testified that land use conflicts are still possible

even with these parcels being developed w

ith comm

ercial uses. In the event that the B

oard finds

favour w

ith the

Land O

wners’

development

scheme,

he proposed

eliminating w

hat he called “an anomaly” by assigning an E

mploym

ent designation to that portion of the R

eview Lands fronting on 19

th Avenue betw

een the two parcels.

Doing

so w

ould result

in a

contiguous and

continuous stretch

of E

mploym

ent-designated lands extending east from

the intersection along the south side of 19th

Avenue.

M

r. B

utler also

recomm

ended elim

inating the

High-D

ensity R

esidential designation in order to restrict building heights to four storeys as a m

eans of mitigating

any potential incompatibility betw

een these land uses – just as he proposed regarding the N

C designation on the M

anson lands.

O

f the uses envisaged both on the two sm

aller Em

ployment parcels and the

Review

Lands in their vicinity, the Board finds the anticipated land use relationship to be

of a symbiotic nature and as such equally finds M

r. Sorenson’s opinion on their inherent

compatibility to be com

pelling and persuasive. Given the com

patibility of the anticipated uses under the respective designations discussed above, the B

oard cannot conclude that these circum

stances necessitate mitigation.

- 37 -

PL020446

For these reasons, the Board prefers the evidence of M

r. Sorenson on Issue N

o. 8 and finds the land uses proposed in the south-east quadrant of the 19

th Avenue/Leslie

Street intersection to be appropriate.

Issue N

o. 9

Issue N

o. 9 – whether there is a need for additional E

mploym

ent lands in R

ichmond H

ill – was addressed by M

r. Grim

es and Mr. S

impson.

B

oth Mr. S

impson and M

r. Grim

es were forthright and sincere in their testim

ony. For M

r. Grim

es, this manifested itself in a consistent approach over three hearing

events spanning some eight years; and for M

r. Sim

pson, in repeated exhortations that the appropriate designation of the R

eview Lands is a m

atter to be determined by proper

planning principles, not strictly by numbers derived as the result of a m

athematical

exercise. The Board has addressed this latter point.

W

hen probed by the Board, M

r. Sim

pson acknowledged there w

ere very few

things about which he and M

r. Grim

es disagreed. Am

ong them, how

ever, was M

r. G

rimes's reliance on a frictional vacancy factor and his inclusion of m

ajor office em

ployment in his estim

ate of employm

ent land occupied. Mr. S

impson excluded m

ajor office em

ployment from

his estimation of em

ployment land occupied and shunned any

reliance on a frictional vacancy factor.

W

ith respect to his reliance on a frictional vacancy factor, Mr. G

rimes testified

that it was included in his analysis because he w

anted to be conservative and prudent. In his opinion, it is the proper thing to do.

Mr. S

impson opined that M

r. Grim

es should not have included a frictional vacancy factor because the inclusion of such is now

eschewed by the province as an

element of w

hat it deems an acceptable m

ethodology for determining em

ployment land

forecasting pursuant to the Grow

th Plan. This criticism

fails on three grounds. First, Mr.

Sim

pson acknow

ledged under

cross-examination

that a

frictional vacancy

factor captures reality; that the m

arket cannot work w

ithout vacancy. If the market cannot

function without vacancies, one has to w

onder why the province has eschew

ed their

- 38 -

PL020446

inclusion in employm

ent land forecasting calculations. Perhaps this explains w

hy there is no form

al or approved policy stipulating what constitutes an appropriate m

ethodology – a fact M

r. Sim

pson acknowledged under cross-exam

ination.

Second, setting aside for a m

oment w

hether the inclusion of such a factor is or is not appropriate, the actual factor included and relied upon by M

r. Grim

es, (i.e., 10%)

was not challenged. A

t no point was he taken to task for relying on a num

ber that was

unrealistic; his evidence on this point stands unimpeached.

Finally, again in cross-examination w

hen asked about work his firm

, Hem

son, and his colleague, M

r. Mathew

, undertook recently in Durham

Region, w

here as part of a G

rowth P

lan conformity exercise M

r. Mathew

employed a frictional vacancy factor in

determining future em

ployment land requirem

ents, Mr. S

impson replied that (i) it w

ould not surprise him

to see such a factor included since (ii) it is a policy of his firm to use

such a factor and (iii) that they will continue to use such a factor until told otherw

ise – w

hich the province is in the process of doing, (see the first reason above). In the face of these inconsistencies, the B

oard cannot countenance Mr. S

impson's criticism

s.

For the above reasons, the Board finds M

r. Grim

es's reliance on and use of a frictional vacancy factor and the num

ber he derived for that factor to be reasonable, realistic, prudent, and appropriate.

M

r. Sim

pson also sought to make m

uch of what he characterized as a m

argin of error betw

een the results of his analysis and those of Mr. G

rimes. For the follow

ing reasons, the B

oard finds nothing to turn on Mr. S

impson's characterization.

First, Mr. S

impson estim

ated a margin of error of 5 to 15 %

between his and M

r. G

rimes’s results. D

uring his cross-examination, how

ever, Mr. S

impson adm

itted that his estim

ation of a margin of error w

as such that it could apply either way. P

ut in different term

s, Mr. S

impson w

as not simply alleging a m

argin of error in one and only one direction – that M

r. Grim

es's numbers could be off by 5 to 15%

thus rendering the situation not as rosy as M

r. Grim

es concluded it to be. Rather, his adm

ission points to a possibility that his ow

n assessment could be off by the sam

e margin thus rendering the

situation to be even rosier than Mr. G

rimes concluded it to be. A

ccepted planning principles include not over-designating land for any particular use.

- 39 -

PL020446

Second, accepting the presence of som

e margin of error, M

r. Grim

es's inclusion of a frictional vacancy factor and other steps consistent w

ith a more conservative

approach all serve to mitigate the possibility of any deleterious consequence resulting

from m

iscalculation or a change in circumstances.

The above reasons confirm

the Board’s findings w

ith respect to Mr. G

rimes’s

approach and analysis.

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Board prefers the evidence of M

r. Grim

es and finds that R

ichmond H

ill maintains a sufficient supply of designated E

mploym

ent lands and that a need for additional E

mploym

ent lands has not been proven.

Disposition

B

ased on the totality of the foregoing analysis and findings, the appeals filed by M

anson, Upper C

anada, Clearpoint, and B

elmont are allow

ed, in part, given the Board's

findings with respect to Issue N

os. 4, 5, and 6. The Land Ow

ners sought the Board's

approval of Exhibits N

6 (Schedule A

–Land Use–N

orth Leslie Secondary P

lan) and N

79A (Land O

wners' P

lan [policy text]) and the Board w

ill provisionally approve those E

xhibits, subject to its findings and comm

ents regarding Issue Nos. 4, 5, and 6. The

Board w

ill withhold its O

rder so as to enable the Parties and counsel to confer for the

purpose of producing versions of Exhibits N

6 and N79A

that reflect the Board's decision

herein.

Finally, separate from

the matter before the B

oard in this rehearing, the Board is

cognizant of the fact that an Order im

plementing the balance of the 2006 decision

remains outstanding. The P

arties and counsel are directed to also confer on presenting a final docum

ent that reflects the totality of the of the Board’s decisions concerning the

North Leslie S

econdary Plan.

U

pon receipt of all of the foregoing, the Board w

ill issue an Order approving the

North Leslie S

econdary Plan in its totality.

- 40 -

PL020446

The Board m

ay be spoken to if necessary.

“Jam

es R. M

cKenzie”

JAM

ES

R. M

cKE

NZIE

V

ICE

-CH

AIR