Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help OM G 7 )) $ 23% [4. Mon 5:19:22 PM Q OE Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 1 of 15) Q Search mandale Farms Limited v. M... ReiBoot Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d'appel de l'amenagement local FIDELIS FaceTime Ontario ISSUE DATE: October 19, 2018 CASE NO(S).: PL170781 2018 CanLil 99115 (ON LPAT) The Ontario Municipal Board (the "OMB") is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal"), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or 1 Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal. ms Furniture pdf PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Appellant: Romandale Farms Limited O Subject: By-law No. 2017-50 Municipality: City of Markham Hotspot Shield OMB Case No.: PL 17078 OMB File No.: PL 170781 HE APPLICA TON OMB Case Name: Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City) PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Appellant: Romandale F Subject: Plan of Subdivision ibook Property Address/Description: North-west corner of Prince Regent Street and Reflection Road/Block 120, Plan 65M-3830 Municipality: City of Markham Municipal File No.: 19TM-16008 OMB Case No.: PL 170781 2 OMB File No.: PL 171153 IMPORTANT Heard: July 3, 2018 in Markham, Ontario RYERSON..HEDULE APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel Romandale Farms Limited Michael Melling and Meaghan McDermid om Phone Bills 5,883 DEC 5Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help OM - G 7 )) $ 24% [4. Mon 5:19:30 PM Q OE Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 2 of 15) Q Search mandale Farms Limited v. M... 2 PL170781 ReiBoot 2473330 Ontario Limited and Partrick Harrington and Patricia Foran Pantheon Group Inc. City of Markham Mark Joblin DECISION DELIVERED BY RICHARD JONES AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FaceTime THE APPLICATION 2018 CanLII 99115 (ON LPAT) [1] 2473330 Ontario Limited and Pantheon Group Inc. ("Pantheon") made applications to the City of Markham (the "City") for a Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA") and a draft plan subdivision for lands described as Block 120, Plan 65M-380 ("subject ms Furniture property") located at the north west corner of Reflection Road and Prince Regent Street pdf in the Cathedraltown neighbourhood. [2] The ZBA and plan of subdivision were subsequently approved by the City Council and are appended as Attachment 1 to this Decision. Hotspot Shield PM HE APPLICA TON (3] The proposed draft plan of subdivision proposes four single detached residential units, nine rear lane single detached residential lots, and eight rear lane townhouses on a total (gross area) of 0.995 hectares ("ha") inclusive of streets, laneways and buffers. The net density is 29.3 units per ha. ibook [4] The subject property and Block 79 to the north were originally intended for the purposes of a future school (York Region Catholic School Board), but the subject property was released to Romandale Farms Limited ("Appellant") when the School 2 Board advised that the lands were not requited. The subject property was then sold to the Applicant in June 2016. IMPORTANT [5] The subject property was designed to integrate with the residential layout of RYERSON..HEDULE Block 79 and also underwent a series of design revisions before being approved, with conditions, recommended by the City's Planning Department. Of those conditions recommended, all were subsequently endorsed by City Council with the single Phone Bills 5,883 DEC 5 A6 Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help 6 Cl I10) >3 \"3 24% BJ- Mon 5:19:38 PM Q 0 Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 3 of 15) QQ Q .mandale Farms Limited V. M... 3 PL170781 exception that the Architectural Control Guideline is prepared and a control architect is hired prior to draft approval rather than af1er draft approval which according to evidence is the usual City practice in this regard. Pursuant to that direction. MBTW WAI. an architectural consulting rm, prepared the Addendum to the Cathedraltown (Phase 1) 5' FaceTime Furniture Architectural Guidelines dated October 2017 which was later approved by City staff on October 2, 2017. Notice of draft approval followed on October 10, 2017. [6] The ZBA. described as By-law No. 2017419, (note Attachment 1) which amends the City's comprehensive zoning by-law, By-law No. 177-96 (\"ZB\"). proposes changes p E \"3 24% BJ- Mon5t19147 PM Q 0 Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 5 of 15) QQ Q .mandale Farms Limited V. M... 5 PL170781 [11] The witnesses called to testify on behalf of the Appellant provided testimony that was largely consistent with those points raised in the appeal cover letter. MOTION El FaceTime Furniture [12] In February 2018. the Tribunal convened a hearing to hear a motion advanced by Pantheon (Mover) to dismiss Romandale's appeal on the basis that the appeal was not founded on legitimate planning grounds and that the appeal was frivolous and vexatious and intended to insert Romandale into the approval process regarding the approval of 2018 CanLll 99115 (ON LPAT] architectural guidelines. [13] The Motion was dismissed because from the planning evidence heard, preslding Member Bruce found that there was a diversily of planning opinions that expressed \"legitimate and genuine planning issues upon which the Board could either refuse or r) grant Appeals in whole or in part\" >71 Hotsput Shield EVIDENCE [14] The Hearing was held for three days beginning April 18. 2018 and was reconvened as a continuation on July 3. 2018 for a final three days. [15] The following paragraph is provided [or background purposes. [16] Cathedraltown IS an area within the larger Cathedral Community bounded by Victoria Square Boulevard on the east. Donald Buttress Boulevard on the north and Highway 404 to the west. Conceived by Romandale. Cathedraltown was designed to reflect traditional European design values centered on the Cathedral of the IMPORTANT Transfiguration of Our Lord. Like other neighbourhoods within Markham such as PM RYERSO...HEDULE Cornell, the Cathedral Community as a whole does reect a unique design aesthetic as Multiple documents relating to policy and guidelines have been produced and approved which support and encourage this unique conception originally envisioned by Romandale. Phone Bills lhe planning and architectural witnesses all affirmed in their statements to lhe Tribunal. 6 Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help L21 I10) >E \"3 24%[6- Mon 5:19:51 PM Q 0 Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 6 of 15) QQi .mandale Farms Limited V. M... 6 PL170781 [17] David Stewart, a professional planning consultant was qualied to provide expert opinion evidence on behalf of the Appellant. Mr. Stewart has been aftiliated with the a Cathedral Community since its inception involving, in particular. the provision of architectural guidelines on behalf of development applications, He opined that the Secondary Plan for the Cathedral Community (OPA 42) (Tab 8, Exhibit 1) set out the initial requirements for developments within the Community, one of most prominent FaceTime Furniture being the policy requiring that low density housing applications \"engage the services of a qualied architect acceptable to the Town (now City) who shall review all low density housing plans and certify their compatibility with design guidelines to be established at the time of development approval\" (from page 212, Tab 8, Exhibit 10) Further, he 20H! CanLll 99ii5 VON LPAT) described that OPA 42 provided authorization for the preparation of a Community Design Plan (GDP) for the Cathedral Community where regard shall be given to the r) design objectives and principles of OPA 42 and the Town's Implementation Guidelines. >71 Hotspot Shield [18] Accordingly, the CDP was introduced into evidence by Mr. Stewart and several of the relevant passages from that document are cited below (The CDP was prepared by NAK Design Group, in consultation with Ms. Roman-Barber and Mr. Stewart's firm, John G. Williams Architects, which was the control architect for Cathedraltown): From the outset, the CDP notes on page 303, Tab 13. Exhibit 1, that the \"study is not a statutory document" but was prepared as a \"supplement" to OPA 42. \"The study includes all of the inherent flexibility associated with urban design documents. It represents a vision for the development of the community. design criteria, objectives and guidelines for its component elements that will guide their development through the subdivision and site IMPORTANT plan stages towards the described urban form". pM RYERSO...HEDULE Residential uses described on page 310 of Exhibit \"the low density With regard to the CDP's prescription for Low and Medium Density residential uses will include single detached, semi-detached, and street townhomes having street related and lane related garages and parking." Phone Bills 6 Preview File 0 QQi .mandale Farms Limited V. M... Edit View Go Tools Window Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 7 of 15) 7 F'L170781 With regard to Built Form (page 319 of Exhibit 1)\"Dwelling facade details including rootlines, cladding, window and door proportions and surrounds should be consistent with the Georgian or Regency periods and complement the architectural style of the buildings in the Cathedral Precinct": the Precinct being that area in the immediate vicinity of the cathedral itself which does not include the subject lands. The CDP guidelines pursuant to Parkside lots (page 320. Exhibit 1)which includes lots facing or adjacent to parks states: \"All dwellings and garage elevations visible from the street. park or open space should have enhanced architectural detailing including bay windows or porticoes except where the dwelling is adjacent to a woodlot'. Across Prince Regent Street, the east portion of the subject property lies across irom a park space. The CDP also allows varying lot sizes where site conditions may be variable and some variation in architectural style and detail is also tolerated but style must \"remain consistent with or complementary to the style precedents set by the buildings in the Cathedral Precinct". For buildings on Corner Lots; \"the building elevation facing the side street should have strong architectural detailing equivalent to the front elevation. Feature elements such as bay windows, porticoes, or other appropriate elements consistent with the Georgian or Regency architectural styles are encouraged on the side elevation" (page 322 of Exhibit 1). [19] In addition to the CDP, Mr. Stewart in testimony introduced the Tribunal to the Cathedraltown (Phase 1)Architectural Guidelines (\"GAG") (Tab 17, Exhibit 1) which apply to grade related housing which is not subject to site plan control and which build upon the principle concepts established by the GDP. The CAG sets out additional 9 SJ 1) >B 4;\" 24% [+3- 2078 CnnLll 99115 \\ON LPATl Mon 5:19:55 PM q Fl FaceTime Furniture r) Hotspo! Shield IMPORTANT PM RYERSO...HEDULE Phone Bills I' Preview File . QQl'I'l mandate Farms Limited v. M... Edit View Go Tools Window Help Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 8 of 15) 8 F'L170781 Figure 9 of the CAG, the subject lands form part of Area 5 of Phase 1 which itself is comprised of a total of six Areas. The south boundary of the subject lands is coincident with the south boundary of Area 5, below which lies Area 1 south of Reection Road. This distinction is explained at this point because witnesses for the Appellant were of the view that the subject lands were part of Area 1 as a possible consequence of its history as a school site and its prior Romandale ownership. Nevertheless, Area 1 requires that all single family dwellings \"shall be Georgian/Regency' in style whereas: Area 5 allows (irom the CAG on page 434 of Exhibit 1)that: \"Dwellings in this area will provide a transition between the Georgian/Regency architecture to the south in Area 1 and the existing architectural influences within the Hamlet 01 Victoria Square to the east. The architectural style for dwellings within Area 5 shall respect the existing Georgian influences found in Victoria Square and the emerging Georgian/Regency architecture within Cathedraltown". In light of this Area 1/Area 5 dispute. the Tribunal relies on Figure 9 which includes the subject property Into Area 5. [20] In Mr. Stewart's opinion, the architecture style proposed by the Applicant for the subject property as part of Area 5 as dowmented in the Addendum to the Cathedraltown (Phase 1)Architectural Design Guidelines (Addendum)(updated in October 2017) prepared by the MBTW WAI consultancy represented a hybrid of architectural styles inconsistent with the character of Phase 1. In this regard. he opined that the townhomes' roofs were too steep, the detailing too ornate around the windows and the projecting townhome staircases out of character with Area 1 guidelines. With regard to the proposed single family uses, he opined that the basement windows were \"vertically stretched and horizontally compressed" and the provision of full panel doors were inappropriate as were the narrower proposed exterior staircases which all reected an eclectic Georgian/Regency inuence rather than one representative of classical Georgian design cues. He further stated that the three storey height of the townhomes were not in character with homes in the near vicinity of the subject property which were uniformly two storeys in height, nor suited by Virtue oi design and height to front onto the Prince Regent Street Ceremonial Route (which is described as such in CAG although is not described as a ceremonial route in OPA 42) 971:1 17)) >5 '' 2mm- ON LPr'tTl of guts CLtiL Mon 5:20:02 PM Q FaceTime Furniture Hotspot Shield PORTANT SO...HEDULE \\ I' Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help LI' 17)) >3 '' 24%[6- Mon5t20107 PM Q 0 Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 9 of 15) QQl'I'l -mandale Farms Limited Vt M... 9 PL170781 [21] part may explain that when asked to prepare a cost proposal by Pantheon in 2017 for Mr. Stewart has had a long, professional association with Cathedraltown which in architectural control services. he responded by letter on June 5. 2017 (Exhibit 7) in paragraph 2, that: \"Model designs and the nal Plan of Subdivision shall comply with the intent of the Cathedral Community Design Plan and the Cathedraltown architectural .ON Lei-Ti FaceTime Furniture design Guidelines and will be subject to review by Romandale\". The Tribunal notes at 99th this juncture that Romandale certainly has no administrative role to play in the review process, nor was Romandale conveyed a legal right to intervene in this regard in O a; relationship to the sale of the subject property sale to the Applicant according to the submissions. [22] planning opinion on behalf of the Appellant. Robert Foran, Professional Planning Consultant was qualified to provide expert [23] classification was incorrect as the subject lands formed part of the original Romandale land holding (Figure 4, Exhibit 4) which did not include Block 79 to the north which is Hotspot Shield From the outset of his testimony, the planner was of the view that the Area 5 separated from the Pantheon lands by a hedgerow. [24] the planner stated that the applications were not consistent with policy 1.7.1 (d) which requires that long term prosperity should be supponed by encouraging a sense of place In reference to consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (\"PPS"), by promoting a well-designed built form and cultural planning and by conserving features that help define character including built heritage resources and cultural heritage resources and he also drew the Tribunal's attention to several policies of the York Official Plan (Tab 3. Exhibit 1) which encourages municipalities to develop urban standards to ensure that each community has a sense of place. The plannerdid not address the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2017 (\"GP") in his PORTANT , SO...HEDULE evrdence. ' [25] Cathedral District and the CDP (policies 9.5.2 and 9.5.4) which state as objecuves the With regard to the Markham Official Plan OP, he outlined policies pursuant to the I' Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help LIt 17)) >3 '' 24%[6- Mon5t20213PM Q 0 B Romandale Farms Limited v. Markha (City).pdf (page 10 R) 7 Q Q l'I'l mandate Farms Limited v. M... 10 PL170781 need to build upon the presence of the cathedral and the need for development to be consistent with community design plans. [26] With respect to the draft plan of subdivision which the planner critiqued for possessing flanking lots and btocks contraryto the alignment of lots and homes on me ON LPA\" south side of Reflection Road, the planner sketched on Exhibit 9. his preferred lotttng . FaceTime 99H; arrangement/design at the request of the Tribunal. Although the Tribunal acknowledges that the redesign did delete theflanking lots, which he found to be objectionable, and the sketch was undertaken \"on the spot\" and Without prior warning, the redesign also J - eliminated an important road outlet for the Block 79 subdiVision, which is draft approved and proposed a new road intersection with the existing development to the west which ' would clearly be difficult. if not impossible to implement because of the nature of Furniture existing development unlike the proposed draft plan which appropriately integrates with those outside land holdings. [27] Planning Consultant Billy Tung who proVided expert opinion evidence on behalf of the Applicant (and was accordingly qualified) described that the current draft plan Hotspot Shield design appropriately interconnects and aligns with the tot and road fabric of Block 79 to the north, which also facilitates the provision of engineering services to the subject lands and Block 79 in a manner preferred by the City. [28] With respect to Provincial policy. the submissions promote the development of \"complete communities" and encourage intensification within Built-Up areas of the City, objectives consistent with. and conforming to. the PPS and GP respectively [29] The applications further conform to the Urban Area designation of the York Region Official Plan applicable to the subject property, a designation encouraging new growth. and he affirmed that the applications will foster a sense of place in conformity pORTANT with that Plan. With regard to policy 8.2 of the City of Markham OP (Tab 5, Exhibit 1) he SO...HEDULE opined that the applications served those policies by being: well designed, compatible ' with existing development and appropriately serviced. As an infill development, the proposed development \"respected and reflected" the existing pattern and character of I' Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help Q L:' 17)) >3 '' 24%[6- Mon5t20120PM Q 0 B Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 11 of 15) QQl'I'l imandale Farms Limited v. M... 11 PL170781 existing development. In reference to policy 8.2.3.5 e) of the Official Plan, the planner cited the following: The new buildings shall have a complementary relationship with existing buildings. while accommodating a diversity of building styles. materials FaceTime a Furniture [31] Appropriately. the Tribunal was referred to s, 51 (24) of the Planning Act which sets out the criteria for plans of subdivision where the planner stated that the criteria and colours. [30] planner testified that in his view, Area 5 was the correct Area designation applying to the subject property and the one also supported by the City's planning staff. In specific reference to the guidelines reviewed earlier in this Decision, the had been satisfied by the application for draft plan of subdivision approval. In his view in reference to the proposed ZBA of Attachment 1, there was nothing in the amending by- law which was adverse or contrary to the CDP. Vt Hotspot Shield [32] an author of the Addendum referred to earlier, originally prepared in August 2003 and The Tribunal heard testimony from Michael Hannay, a practicing architect, and updated in October 2017 specific to Area 5 of Phase 1 known as the Victoria Square Neighbourhood. Mr. Hannay was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence on behalf of the Applicant, [33] The architectural implications of the Area 5 designation were in his view, pre established by the CDP, the Cathedraltown (Phase 1) Architectural Design Guidelines and the Victoria Square Architectural Guidelines prepared initially in June 2007 and updated in July 2017. PORTANT SO...HEDULE In his opinion, the architectural design of the new housing was consistent with ' [34] the guiding vision established in the parent guidelines as the proposed architecture reflects the Georgian and Regency design influences in accordance with GDP and is accordingly compatible with the preeminent design style of Area 1. Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help M - G )) $ 24% [4 Mon 5:20:23 PM Q Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 12 of 15) Q Search mandale Farms Limited v. M... 12 PL170781 ReiBoot [35] The Addendum (Tab 18, Exhibit 1) draws frequent reference to the guiding architectural principles of the CDP in relationship to the proposed housing forms 10 including visual references to existing building types already realized in Cathedraltown. Mr. Hannay, as the Control Architect, for the Applicant was satisfied that the Addendum prescribed architectural approaches consistent with the CDP and existing housing forms with regard to height, materials and style. He acknowledged that the urban design FaceTime review process administered by the City was in his view "thorough". 2018 CanLII 99115 (ON LPAT) [36] In his visual evidence, submitted as Exhibit 16, he illustrated the variations of architectural treatments extent in the Cathedraltown (Phase 1) area describing building with Italianate and Queen Anne influences and one multi-plex residence incorporating ms Furniture glass or clear plastic balcony railings. In this regard he described the prevailing pdf architectural expression as being somewhat eclectic, a design outcome consistent with the guidelines which tolerate variations. Mr. Hannay also expressed his support for the subdivision design which he believed was appropriately executed. [37] Daniel Brutto, Planner 1 was qualified as a professional planner providing opinion Hotspot Shield PM 11 evidence on behalf of his employer, the City of Markham. Mr. Brutto prepared the staff report recommending the applications (Tab 21, Exhibit 2). [38] In lockstep with Mr. Tung, he testified that there was consistency with the PPS, conformity with the GP, the York Region Official Plan and the City OP. The applications ibook had regard to s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and subscribed positively to the guidelines He confirmed that Tabs 27 and 31 of Exhibit 2 were the correct versions of the ZBA and draft plan of subdivision with conditions. Mr. Brutto who has had administrative carriage of the applications from the onset, stated that owners of the subject property and Block 79 had worked together to achieve an integrated design appropriate for future development purposes. IMPORTANT PM RYERSON.. HEDULE [39] Finally, the Tribunal heard from Yvonne Yeung, a planer with the urban design section of the City's administration. Ms. Yeung was qualified as an expert witness. 12 Phone Bills 9.42 PM PM 5,883 DEC 5I' Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help Q L:' 17)) >3 '' 24%[6- Mon5t20130PM Q 0 B Romandale Farms Limited v. Markha (City).pdf (page 13 of 15) Q Q i1 -mandale Farms Limited v. M... 13 F'L170781 [40] The planer supported the provision of three storey townhouses which the ZB and the guidelines allow particularly at intersections. She commented the review process administered by the City was interactive and collaborative particularly between her department and the Control Architect who is hired by the Applicant which was in this case Mr. Hannay as noted. She added that there is no requirement or provision for the insertion of Romandale into the review process further asserting that the subject CV LPAT: FaceTime 5 1 property lies within Area 5 and not Area 1. She was also of the view that the proposed subdivision design was very protective of the existing hedgerow situated along the northern boundary of the subject property. : - FINDINGS 3 Furniture [41] The Order pursuant to the findings of the Tribunal dismisses the appeal for various considerations. [42] Throughout the hearing, witnesses were examined and cross-examined by the Ti Appellant's counsel asking whether consistency with the guidelines implied a parallel Hotspot Shield and perhaps equal status with the test for consistency with the policies of the PPS. In the main the witnesses testifying on behalf of the Appellant were of the view that the guidelines required a more rigorous and elevated adherence than the witnesses for the Applicant, However, the Tribunal does not agree with that contention that guidelines share an enforcement/compliance status co-equal with the statutory instruments enforced under the Planning Act which govern the applications before the Tribunal. If they did, the Planning Act, would no doubt, impose the same rigorous approval process applicable to subdivisions and ZBA's subjecting each to Council approval and public notification and other requirements. rather than to an administrative review process carried out by municipal staff. PORTANT [43] Guidelines serve to inform and they provide additional precision to statutory SO...HEDULE policies which because of their more generalized nature may omit more detailed instruction. The guidelines submitted in evidence fully subscribe to that classication being instructive and helpful. but the Tribunal does not elevate their status for those I' Preview File . QQl'I'l mandate Farms Limited v. M... Edit View Go Tools Window Help a Rom ndale Farms Limited v. Markha (City).pdf (page 14 of 15) 14 F'L170781 aforementioned considerations and in further consideration of the abundance of case law supporting that finding. [44] That being said, the Tribunal found that the witnesses testifying on behalf of the Applicant and the City were fully cognizant of the guidelines and implemented same in the direction of compliance. Furthermore those guidelines cited previously in this Decision do anticipate variation in architectural details, and do permit three storey townhomes, flanking built-forms and garages which are both serviced by laneways or direct driveway access to the roadway. The visual evidence of Exhibit 16 was very telling in this regard, and illustrated these variations (including glass balconies) that had been approved and built within Phase 1 of Cathedtraltown in presumed accordance with the guidelines and indeed the City's OP which supports a \"diversity" of styles as long as they are complementary, [45] Although many hours of testlmony were heard from Mr. Stewart and Mr. Hannay regarding preferred architectural details and whether or not Area 1 or Area 5 was the correct designation regarding guideline implementation, the Addendum nevertheless Implemented Georgian/Regency styles which is the dominant architectural vernacular for Phase 1 as a whole despite Area 5's reduced insistence on that style [46] Finally, the Tribunal found that instruments that had been appealed were not critiqued oropposed in any material way that would suggest adverse impact or functional impairment by virtue of their layout and the inter-relationship of that layout with exterior roadways and land uses. The range of amendments proposed by the ZBA are minor in the Tribunal's view and the design prescribed by the proposed draft plan is serviceable and protective of the hedgerow along the northern boundary of the subject property which was an important goal of the City. [47] In consideration of the above, the appeals are dismissed and the applications before the Tribunal are approved in accordance with the Order which follows. 9;" 17)) >5 '' 2mm- Mon 5:20:34 PM Q 3 FaceTime Furniture W Hotspot Shield PORTANT SO...HEDULE Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help J M 6 7 )) 8 24% [4 Mon 5:20:40 PM Q = Romandale Farms Limited v. Markham (City).pdf (page 15 of 15) Q Search mandale Farms Limited v. M... 15 PL170781 ReiBoot ORDER 13 [48] The Tribunal orders that the appeals are dismissed and the zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision are approved as described in Attachment 1, including draft plan conditions for the lands owned by 2473330 Ontario Lid. and Pantheon Group Inc. in the City of Markham. FaceTime 2018 CanLil 99115 (ON LPAT) "Richard Jones" RICHARD JONES MEMBER ms Furniture pdf Hotspot Shield PM 14 ibook IMPORTANT If there is an attachment referred to in this document, PM RYERSON..HEDULE please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format. Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248 15 Phone Bills 9.42 PM PM 5,883 DEC 5 @ullPreview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help UM - G )) $ 25% [4. Mon 5:21:57 PM Q = 484981786_PLG_510_Assignment_1 8236125631793411.pdf (1 page) Wee [ v Q Search Phone Bills ReiBoot PM PLG 510 - Assignment 1 - Case Summary - Information that can be included in a summary: PDF Title: aka "style of cause" - who are the parties? PLG 500 484981786_PLG_5 PM 10_Assig...3411.pd What kind of decision? (Tribunal? Court? ) Information about how the decision can be found - citation or date of decision if no citation Facts: what approval is being sought? What section of the Planning Act is the approval sought under? In what municipality? Who is opposed? PLG 510 FaceTime Policy issues/consideration: What issues are engaged? Natural heritage? Intensification? PM Finding/Order: what was the decision? Appeal allowed? Approval given? Appeal refused? Ratio Decidendi: "rationale for the decision/reason for deciding" Necessary step in making the decision - elements of the decision that can be applied in other cases - either binding or as guidance Romandale Farms Furniture PM Limited... (City).pdf Obiter dicta: "said in passing" - incidental statement One page summary - 12 point font Should include title, facts, decision/order, ratio, obiter (if any), policy considerations (if any) Other headings or info you think are useful Screen Shot Hotspot Shield PM 2022-12...9.22 PM By su Cours conte conse Screen Shot ibook PM 2022-12...9.30 PM 2. S Screen Shot IMPORTANT PM 2022-12...9.38 PM RYERSON.HEDULE 3. E DEC 7 5Preview File Edit View Go Tools Window Help 25% [4 Mon 5:22:33 PM coursehero.com Week 8 . . . 2022-09-29-Zikria-Abubakar-PLG-510-Assignment-1-Case-Summary (1).pdf (1 page) Q Search Phone Bills ReiBoot Favorites App Case Summary: Par-Pak Lid. v. Brampton (City). 1998 CarswellOnt 5538 Rec Style of cause: Par Pak Lid v. Brampton (Ciy) and Ebrahim Properties Inc. PDE Type of decision: Land Tribunal of Ontario Municipal Board Late Des Citation: 1998 CarswellOnt 5538, 2 M.P.L.R. (3d) 230 PLG 500 484981786_PLG_5 Doc 10_Assig...3411.pdf Facts: The Ontario Municipal Board has reviewed an appeal by Ebrahim Properties Inc. The Dow City of Brampton has decided not to adopt an amendment to redesignate land within Block G, R.P., as amended in the Official Plan. In order to build an apartment dwelling unit, retail commercial use and office space, 387-391 Orenda Road will be transformed into a "Residential" iCloud and an "Office Node". Several parties have asked the Board to extend the boundaries of Official iClo Plan Amendment No. 93-68. The Board discovered during its prehearing conference that only some landowners had been notified of OPA 68, not all. Following a review of the current PLG 510 FaceTime proposal, the Board felt that the public deserves more information than less. Zakem argued that Locations the Planning Act requires the public to have access to a map of the current proposed plan. Media Policy issues/consideration: In principle, the staff recommends the modification of the concept [O Pho plan and the creation of detailed secondary plan policies. The Board has jurisdiction to approve an Official Plan Amendment that would add residential uses, increase certain densities and expand the boundaries of the plan. OPA 68 establishes a land use policy framework for an urban Tags gateway from a mixed-use center, say the appellants. With the expanded use area and modified Romandale Farms Furniture Red amendment area, the existing transportation network will be capitalized on and the new urban Limited...(City).pdf place strengthened. The original amendment does not qualify as a "modification" due to the Ora nature of the change it entails. The board has considered significant amendments to an application in the course of the hearing and has directed the municipality to make certain amendments that would address concerns arising out of the hearing. Finding/Order: According to the original proposal, the official plan was modified to change the land use fundamentally. An appeal of an OMB decision was denied by Haines J in Lawson Screen Shot Hotspot Shield Estates Ratepayers Assn. v. Grace Communities Corp. The applicants are overreaching their interpretation of the Board's powers, which is excessively restrictive. The board has directed a 2022-12...9.22 PM municipality to make certain amendments to an application in response to concerns raised during the hearing and has considered significant amendments to the application. The board believes that the proposal will remain the same. The OMB concluded that land can be used for purposes other than those intended by the owner, contrary to the argument of the respondents. Ratio Decidendi: Considering the proposal put forward as a proposed modification meets the Screen Shot Board's jurisdiction, proposed modifications could be entertained without a license. In opposition ibook to the expansion of OPA 68 to 150 acres, the City and 14 industrial landowners argued that it 2022-12...9.30 PM could only be expanded by amendment. This modification would alter the essence of OPA 68 and create designations that are completely at odds with those that exist today. The company believes that the 150 acres being sought are not fundamental. Mr. Davis argued that the 150 acres should be covered by a private amendment. Due to the fact that an owner can apply for the redesignation of a neighbor's land, the Board was troubled by this argument. A prehearing conference will be held on August 28th, 1998 to determine whether the proposed modifications are well-planned. It will be decided when a hearing will take place. Screen Shot IMPORTANT Nex 2022-12...9.38 PM RYERSON..HEDULE 793411.pdf (1 page) 5,88 DEC 7 5