Please see attached PDF for…

Please see attached PDF for formal comment letter and attachments.

We are the planning consultants for 1834375 Ontario Inc. (hereinafter the `Client`) to review the proposed Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan for the property municipally addressed as 1890 Highway 7, Vaughan legally described as Part of Lots 6 and 7, Concession 3 (Figure 1).

To become better informed and exchange comments on the Proposed Amendment 1 (hereinafter “Amendment”) to the Growth Plan, MHBC has attended a number of Regional Workshops hosted by the Province.

Based on our review of the amendment, it is understood that conversion of employment lands will continue to require a comprehensive assessment and implications for economic development by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH). The most significant proposed change is the introduction of Provincially Significant Employment Zones (“PSEZ”) mapping across the GTA. We are concerned with the extent of this mapping and its accuracy vis-à-vis existing land uses and municipal Official Plan mapping.

Our clients lands have been included in proposed Provincially Significant Employment Zone 10 (400/407 Vaughan North). The subject lands are predominately designated as “High-Rise Mixed Use” with the balance of the lands for parks and open space in the Region Approved City of Vaughan - Concord GO Centre Secondary Plan (see attached land use map).

Our clients developable lands have been designated as of the 2015, Region Approved City of Vaughan Concord GO Centre Secondary Plan. The subject lands are currently vacant but applications have been submitted to provide a mixed use comprehensive development that includes residential uses. In addition, on January 19, 2019 the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (“LPAT”) approved the following rezoning for our clients lands:

“The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal orders:
1. That the City of Vaughan By-law Number 1-88 as amended, be and is hereby further
amended by:

a. Rezoning the lands shown as “Subject Lands” on Schedule “1” (excluding Block 1) attached hereto from “A Agricultural Zone”, subject to site-specific Exception 9(976), “A Agricultural Zone”, ”EM2 General Employment Area Zone”, and ”OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone” to “RA3(H1) Apartment Residential Zone” with a Holding Symbol (“H1”) and “RA3 (”H2”) Apartment Residential Zone” with a Holding Symbol (”H2”), ”OS1 Open Space Conservation Zone”, ”OS2 Open Space Park Zone”, and ”OS5 Open Space Environmental Protection Zone”, in the manner shown on the said Schedule 1”.

b. Rezoning Block 1 on the Subject Lands on Schedule 1, attached hereto from “A Agricultural Zone” and “EM2 Employment Zone” to “A ” (H1a) ” Agricultural Zone” and “EM2 ”(H1a)” General Employment Zone” each with the Holding Symbol “(H1a)” and “OS5 Open Space Environmental Protection Zone”.

See attached LPAT Decision.

The designation of a PSEZ which is intended to protect major or heavy industry which does not match the mixed use land use character along Highway 7. Additionally the subject lands are located within an 800 m radius of the proposed Concord GO Station, which meets the definition of a MTSA. Given this, the proposed PSEZ on the subject lands would limit the potential for development on with site within an MTSA and will not accurately articulate the planned context of these lands. Our Client supports the intensification envisioned by the Province around MTSAs.

We recognize the intent of the Amendment is to reflect existing designations and not to make any land use changes. However, the Province’s mapping erroneously includes the subject lands within PSEZ 10 (400/407 Vaughan North). This is in direct conflict with the Secondary Plan designation and zoning for the lands, which consist of future mixed-use developments.

The Province’s proposed Section 2.2.5.12 of the Growth Plan requires that lands within a PSEZ be protected for employment uses through Official Plan policies and related land use designations. If implemented, this provision appears to require that the City re-designate the subject lands for employment purposes as part of its Official Plan review, which would ultimately be carried through to the zoning. This is in contrast to the current mixed use permissions for the subject lands.

We request the subject lands be removed from the PSEZ to implement increased density and investment with a mixture of uses as intended by the Secondary Plan. In addition, we request that should the mapping be modified that additional consultation is undertaken to ensure the mapping is accurate and request the Province undertake further consultation with affected landowners on PSEZ mapping where municipalities have requested increased PSEZ limits which was not subject this consultation.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and hope that our request to correct this mapping is undertaken.