Ontario Land Tribunal Approves Major Mixed-Use Intensification in Markham
Primont Homes (Leslie/John) Inc. v. Markham (City), the Ontario Land Tribunal approved, in principle, a significant mixed-use redevelopment at 2300 John Street in Markham.
The decision provides useful guidance on when a site outside a municipality’s formally identified intensification centres and corridors may be appropriate for substantial intensification.
The Proposal
Primont sought Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to redevelop a former commercial plaza at the northeast corner of Leslie Street and John Street with:
· Two residential towers of 22 and 18 storeys;
· A 12-storey mixed-use mid-rise building with commercial space at grade
The proposal includes approximately 642 residential units.
The City opposed the proposed the applications primarily on the basis that the proposed heights and density departed from the City’s planned intensification hierarchy and from the mid-rise character it considered appropriate for the site. The City’s position was that the site should retain a predominantly mid-rise character, with development generally limited to six storeys along John Street and up to 14 storeys along Leslie Street.
The Tribunal’s findings
The Tribunal concluded that the site possessed a combination of characteristics that made it unusually well suited for intensification, notwithstanding the surrounding low-rise residential context.
Of note, the Tribunal accepted that the site displayed characteristics associated with a strategic growth area which consequently warranted site-specific consideration for greater height and density. It is located at two arterial roads, is served by existing transit, is planned for improved transit service, fronts a multi-use path and is approximately 600 metres from the substantial employment area east of Highway 404.
In the Tribunal’s view, the proposal would support the achievement of complete communities; provide a range and mix of housing options where few options exist in the area; support intensification through mixed-use development and support the planned transit network.
Bordered by the CN rail corridor to the north, Leslie Street to the west and John Street to the south and municipal recreation facilities and sports fields are located immediately to the east, the Tribunal found that the site was physically and functionally separated from the surrounding low-rise neighbourhoods.
Of particular significance was the Tribunal’s finding that the neighbourhoods to the north and south were deliberately designed to face inward and away from the site and the transportation infrastructure.
In doing so, the Tribunal rejected the City’s characterization of the site as being at the “centre” or “heart” of the surrounding residential communities. Instead, it found that the neighbourhoods effectively turn their back on the John Street–CN corridor.
That distinction materially influenced the Tribunal’s assessment of compatibility. Although the proposed towers would be readily visible as the tallest buildings in the surrounding area, the Tribunal found that the separation created by the roads, rail corridor, distances, building stepbacks and other design measures prevented unacceptable impacts.
Notably, the Tribunal also considered the City’s evidence that a taller mid-rise form could be acceptable but found insufficient evidence to justify capping the development at 14 storeys.
Intensification outside established centres and corridors
An important aspect of the decision is the Tribunal’s treatment of Markham’s established intensification hierarchy.
The City argued that high-rise development should generally be confined to the centres, corridors and other strategic growth areas already identified through its Official Plan.
The Tribunal accepted that these locations remain the primary focus for growth. It did not, however, interpret the planning framework as prohibiting site-specific intensification elsewhere.
The Tribunal emphasized that, on an appeal, it sits in the place of municipal council and may make any decision that council could have made. The fact that the City had not elected to redesignate the site was therefore not determinative.
The decision does not suggest that high-rise development outside designated centres and corridors will routinely be appropriate. To the contrary, the Tribunal described such circumstances as likely to be rare. In this case, however, the site’s physical separation, transportation context, proximity to employment and conformity with applicable built-form principles justified the exception.
The relief granted
The Tribunal allowed the appeals in part on an interim basis and:
· approved the proposed Official Plan Amendment in principle;
· approved the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in principle;
· tied the approval to the building plans and drawings advanced at the hearing; and
· accepted the proposed 22-, 18- and 12-storey built forms for the proposed structures.
Significance of the decision
The decision demonstrates that a municipality’s decisions on the location for strategic growth remain important but are not necessarily exhaustive.
A site-specific amendment may be justified where the evidence establishes that a site:
· is physically and functionally distinct from nearby low-rise neighbourhoods;
· can accommodate greater height without undue impacts;
· is located near transit, employment and public facilities;
· supports provincial housing and intensification objectives; and
· remains compatible with the broader urban structure.
The result is a substantial approval for the appellant and a clear recognition that exceptional sites may warrant significant intensification even when they fall outside a municipality’s pre-designated growth areas.