Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 24, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL110363

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 582302 Ontario Limited Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law 151-88 of the City of Brampton - Neglect of City of Brampton to make a decision Existing Zoning: OS (Open Space) Proposed Zoning: RM (Residential Multiple) Special Section XX Property Address/Description: 9124 Dixie Road Municipality: City of Brampton OLT Case No.: PL110363 OLT File No.: PL110364

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 582302 Ontario Limited Subject: Failure of the City of Brampton to make a decision respecting a Plan of Subdivision within 180 days Municipality: City of Brampton OLT Case No.: PL110363 OLT File No.: PL110366

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Referred by: 582302 Ontario Limited Subject: Site Plan Property Address/Description: 9124 Dixie Rd (Pt Lot 6, Conc. 3, E.H.S.) Municipality: City of Brampton OLT Case No.: PL110363 OLT File No.: PL110372

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: 582302 Ontario Limited Subject: Failure of the City of Brampton to make a decision respecting a Draft Plan of Common Element Condominium within 180 days Municipality: City of Brampton OLT Case No.: PL110363 OLT File No.: PL110386

Heard: October 6, 2021 by video conference

APPEARANCES:

Parties 582302 Ontario Limited City of Brampton Region of Peel

Counsel M. Virginia MacLean Maggie Cheung-Madar Rachel Godley

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T. PREVEDEL ON OCTOBER 6, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Background

1This was a settlement hearing conducted with respect to appeals filed by 582302 Ontario Limited against the City of Brampton’s (“City”) failure to make a decision on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), a Zoning By-Law Amendment (“ZBA”), a Site Plan Application (“SPA”), two subdivision applications and a condominium roadway (draft plan of common element condominium).

2The municipal address of the subject property is 9124 Dixie Road (“subject property”).

3The original application proposed thirteen (13) residential units with the following key features:

• Six (6) townhouse units (1 plan of subdivision),
• Three (3) pairs of semi-detached dwellings (6 units),
• One (1) detached residential dwelling (second plan of subdivision),
• 25 resident parking spaces and four (4) visitor parking spaces,
• A full moves access from Dixie Road, and
• A condominium roadway (a draft plan of common element condominium).

Area Context

4The subject property is a residual parcel of vacant residential lands located in an urbanized area of the City, on the west side of Dixie Road, north of Queen Street East situated between Hillside Drive and Hazelwood Drive. The lot area is 0.44 hectares, with a lot frontage along Dixie Road of approximately 76 metres and lot depth of approximately 89 metres. Abutting the property to the north is the Brampton Hydro Alectra Utilities. To the west, is a City's neighbourhood park. To the south, is a tributary of the Little Etobicoke Creek. To the east, on the opposite side of Dixie Road, are the rear yards of existing residential townhouses.

The Settlement Proposal

5The Development Applications were revised on consent and the development now proposes a total of eleven (11) residential units, a reduction from the original thirteen (13) units originally proposed. The current proposal includes five (5) semi-detached dwellings (10 units), one (1) single detached dwelling and one common element condominium roadway.

6The City acknowledges that no OPA is necessary for the Revised Development Applications and the Appellant has withdrawn the portion of the Appeals that relates to the OPA. The Tribunal also notes that the second plan of subdivision referred to in the third bullet point above was also withdrawn and therefore not a subject of this proceeding.

7The Appellant and the City have entered into Minutes of Settlement, with consent of the Regional Municipality of Peel. The Minutes of Settlement are inclusive of five Schedules as follows:

• Schedule “A” Zoning By-Law Amendment; and
• Schedule “B” Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision; and
• Schedule “C” Proposed conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval; and
• Schedule “D” Proposed Site Plan; and
• Schedule “E” Proposed Draft Plan of Common Element Condominium.

8The Minutes of Settlement specifically request that the Tribunal allows the Appeals and approves the planning instruments referred to in the above five Schedules.

9The Minutes of Settlement also request that the Tribunal exercise its discretion pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act so that the City shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and grant final approval of the draft plan of subdivision pursuant to subsection 51(58) of the Planning Act.

The Hearing

10This was a Settlement Hearing as the Appellant and the City have reached mutually acceptable Minutes of Settlement, endorsed by all Parties.

11Mr. Peter Chee was available at the Hearing and qualified by the Tribunal as an expert witness in land use planning on behalf of the Appellant.

12Mr. Scott McIntyre was available at the Hearing and qualified by the Tribunal as an expert witness in transportation planning on behalf of the City. Mr. Stephen Dykstra, a land use planner for the City, was also available at the Hearing but not called to give evidence.

Planning Evidence

13A written Affidavit was provided by Mr. Peter Chee with respect to the proposed development, providing expert opinion that the proposed residential infill development appropriately addresses the matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conforms to the A Place to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), satisfies the criteria in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act for draft plan approval and conforms with the Region’s and City’s Official Plans.

14In his oral testimony, Mr. Chee provided a thorough overview of the proposed ZBA, the proposed plan of subdivision, the proposed site plan and the common element plan of condominium.

15Mr. Chee also took the Tribunal to Schedule “C” of the Minutes of Settlement, which included a comprehensive list of conditions from the City, the Toronto Region Conservation Authority and the Region of Peel.

16He stated that, with the exception of four outstanding issue, the proposed conditions were acceptable in his professional opinion.

The Outstanding Issues

1. Traffic Impact Study

17The memo from the City’s Development Engineering Group contained within the Minutes of Settlement, dated September 21, 2021 required that a Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) obtain approval status.

18Mr. Chee explained to the Tribunal that the TIS was submitted to the Region in late 2019 and accepted, as Dixie Road is a Regional Road.

19Mr. McIntyre, during his oral testimony, stated that a TIS is required to be reviewed by the City as well as the Region. However, he admitted that this is no longer an issue and the requirement has been cleared.

2. Length of Driveways

20In the same memo dated September 21, 2021, there was a requirement that driveways are to measure a minimum of 6.0 metres in length between the property line and the garage and/or between the garage and the private sidewalk or travel portion of the private right-of-way.

21Mr. Chee opined that the minimum driveway lengths of 6.0 metres does not work on Parts 1 to 5, inclusive, of the Site Plan and conflicts with the Zoning By-Law requirements. His opinion was that this condition was not necessary as the Zoning By-Law and Site Plan address the issue of driveways.

22Under cross-examination, Mr. Chee admitted that the ZBL does not address driveway lengths specifically. However, he explained to the Tribunal through a visual review of the Site Plan that it is not possible to achieve 6.0 metre driveways for Parts 1 to 5 inclusive as the proposed garages are set back 1.5 metres from the condominium road right-of-way.

23Mr. McIntyre, in his oral testimony, agreed that requiring 6.0 metre driveway lengths for Parts 1 to 5 inclusive was not practical and that removing this condition would not prejudice the outcome.

3. Driveway Width Requirements

24The memo dated September 21, 2021, under General Comments, suggested that driveway width requirements were 3.5 metres (single), 6.0 metres (double) and 7.3 metres (shared).

25Mr. Chee explained that this comment conflicted with the proposed site plan and was unnecessary.

26Mr. McIntyre agreed that this is a general comment and not a condition of draft plan approval. He stated that these are general comments advising of desired design criteria.

4. Community Mailbox Location

27The mailbox location has been identified on the Site Plan and is no longer an issue. This was also just a general comment and not a specific condition of approval.

28Subsequent to the Hearing, a revised memo dated October 6, 2021 was provided to the Tribunal from the City’s Transportation Development Engineering Group confirming that the above issues have been resolved. Mr. McIntyre requested that his comments remain on the record, although he was in agreement with the proposed settlement.

Analysis and Findings

29Based on the written Affidavit provided by Mr. Chee, and the oral testimony of both Mr. Chee and Mr. McIntyre, the Tribunal finds that the proposed settlement for the residential infill development appropriately addresses the matters of Provincial interest in Section 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, conforms to the A Place to Grow, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, satisfies the criteria in section 51(24) of the Planning Act for draft plan approval and conforms with the Region’s and City’s Official Plans.

Order

30The Tribunal Orders that the Appeal in OLT File No. PL110364 is allowed, in part, and the City is directed to amend its Comprehensive Zoning By-Law No. 270-2004 as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

31The Tribunal Orders that the appeal in OLT File No. PL110366 is allowed, in part, and the revised draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Mi-Ko Urban Consulting Ltd., dated September, 2009 and last revised September 26, 2019, comprising Blocks 1 to 6 inclusive and as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the revised conditions set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.

32The Tribunal Orders that pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act.

33The Tribunal Orders, pursuant to the Appeal in OLT File No. PL110372 that the revised site plan prepared by Mi-Ko Urban Consulting dated April 2009, last revised September 14, 2021, and set out as Attachment 4 to this Order is approved.

34The Tribunal Orders that the appeal in OLT File No. PL110386 is allowed, in part, and the revised draft plan of Common Element Condominium prepared by Mi-Ko Urban Consulting Ltd. dated September 2009, last revised August 11, 2020, and set out as Attachment 5 to this Order is approved.

35In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“T. Prevedel”

T. PREVEDEL MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.