Sharma v. Brampton (City), 2021 CanLII 63290

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 15, 2021

CASE NO(S).: PL200070

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Tiere Sharma Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 2006 Municipality: City of Brampton LPAT Case No.: PL200070 LPAT File No.: PL200070 LPAT Case Name: Sharma v. Brampton (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Tiere Sharma Subject: By-law No. 279-2019 Municipality: City of Brampton LPAT Case No.: PL200070 LPAT File No.: PL200071

Heard: June 7, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Tiere Sharma and The North Brampton Neighbours Association (“Appellants”)	James Feehely
Partacc Gate Kennedy Development Inc. (“Applicant”)	Scott Snider, Anna Toumanians
The City of Brampton (“City”)	Matthew King Rea

DECISION DELIVERED BY R.A. BECCAREA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The subject matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by Tiera Sharma (“Sharma”) initially and the North Brampton Neighbours Association (“Appellants”), respecting the City of Brampton’s (“City”) decision on December 11, 2019 to adopt By law No. 296-2019 (OP 2006 -179 and By law 279-2019 (Zoning) in accordance with its staff’s recommendations.

2Partacc Gate Kennedy Developments Inc. (“Applicant”) is the proponent of the application respecting the subject site, which is located at the northern corner of Kennedy Road and Mayfield Road. The land comprises 19.99 hectares (“ha”) (49.4 acres) within the City’s built boundary.

3Sharma, through her Counsel James J. Feehely, filed her Appeal both to the Zoning Bylaw Amendment No. 297-2019, respecting zoning by-law intended to implement the Official Plan Amendment and Official Plan Amendment OP 2006-179 on January 8th, 2020. The City on January 23, 2020, forwarded the Appeal to the Tribunal which was received on January 27, 2020. The Appellant Sharma was subsequently incorporated as the North Brampton Neighbours Association which carried forward her Appeal in its name.

4Both the City and the Applicants request the Tribunal to order the coming into force of subject Official Plan Amendment (Exhibit 9) and the Zoning By-law (Exhibit 10) as proposed to be modified pursuant to its powers under s 17 (50) and 34 (26) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13 as amended (“the Act”).

5The Tribunal's hearing of the evidence covered four (4) days, from June 7 to June 10, 2021 with additional Written Argument provided by Counsel on June 15, 2021.

6During the course of the hearing the Tribunal heard from 12 witnesses who also provided written witness statements.

7A Joint Evidence Book (Exhibit 4 and 5) and a Joint Policy Book (Exhibit 6 and 7) were filed as Exhibits which contained a significant amount of material.

8A total of 15 Exhibits were marked which also contained the written closing submission of the three parties (Exhibits 13, 14, 15).

9The Tribunal followed the written Hearing Plan (Exhibit 1) which was prepared in consultation with each of the Parties.

THE APPLICATION-PROPOSAL

10The subject's land is currently vacant farmland that Mr. Feehely described as “the hole in the horseshoe” in that it is completely surrounded on three sides by very large single-family homes as depicted in Glenn Schnarr and Associates, Appendix 5, Zoning Designation, which is appended to the November 8, 2019, Recommended Report authored by Stephen Dykstra, the City’s Development Planner (Exhibit 5, Tab 29, p.1093).

11The application for the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision that was appended to the same March 8, 2019 report of Mr. Dykstra as Appendix 1, proposed the development of 360 dwelling units, comprising 182 single detached dwellings and 178 townhouse dwellings surrounded by a one-hectare park, a 1.83 ha natural heritage system and two stormwater ponds (as set out in Mr. Dykstra's Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, Tab I).

12The Applicant’s proposal attracted significant opposition. Some 700 residents opposed the earlier proposal of 359 units. The 360 units proposal attracted a petition of some 683 signatures (Witness Statements of Ms. Sharma, Exhibit 2, Tab F).

13At no time during the City’s analysis before Council of the Applicant’s proposal, did Sharma or the opponents of the proposal put forward an alternative suggested proposal.

14The alternative proposal advanced by Mr. Johnson to be discussed later, did not occur until the appeal was before the Tribunal.

15The Appellants’ position contained in its Appeal letter was that the proposal is characterized as “an ad-hoc increase in density that does not take into account the existing building stock or area which has been planned and developed exclusively” as an Upscale Executive Housing area.

16Despite significant community pressure to refuse the proposal and following extensive public consultation, three Townhall meetings, a statutory public meeting, and meetings of the City Planning Development and Council, the Applicant’s proposal was approved by a five (5) to four (4) vote and a six (6) to three (3) vote respecting the Draft Plan of Subdivision.

ISSUES LIST

17The Tribunal’s December 4, 2020 Decision, at Attachment 2, sets forth 19 Issues for this hearing, three (3) of which were withdrawn at its opening.

18The Witnesses, during their evidence, which the Tribunal has considered, addressed each of those items.

PLANNING CONTEXT

19The subject property is zoned. “Agricultural (A)” By-law No. 270-2004, as amended.

20The subject lands are designated “Residential” on Schedule A of the City’s Official Plan and “Low Density Residential” within “Special Site Area 2” on Schedule 1 of the Snelgrove-Heart Lake Secondary Plan (Exhibit 6, Tab 7, section 8.2).

21Policy 8.2. of the Snelgrove-Heart Lake Secondary Plan states in part “Lands designated Special Site Area 2, located between Hurontario Street and Kennedy Road south of Mayfield Road shall be designated in accordance with the. Upscale Executive Housing policies of s. 4.2.2 of the Official Plan.

22According to the Applicant’s argument outline in the late 1990’s, the City undertook studies to address a perceived lack of “resident executives” in it. These reports supported development that would target toward the “upscale executive housing market”. It identified a number of development areas and adopted associated official plan policies in January of 2000 which are found in s. 4.2.2, “Upscale Executive Housing”, of the current and enforced Official Plan policy are set out below in the following paragraph.

23Policy 4.4.4 provides: “Upscale Executive Housing is a low-density form of housing characterized by high value, high quality houses on large lots located in areas with enhanced street designs, open space and related community amenities. Upscale Executive Housing is planned to be located in various parts of City in areas with attractive natural and manmade features”.

24The development standards reflected in Policy 4.2.2 would require large lots including:

• Minimum lot frontage for single detached homes of 15 metres (50 feet)
• Maximum net density of 14.5 units per hectare
• Lot sizes up to and beyond 26 metres in width to accommodate 3-car garages
• “Anchor” lots greater than 21 metres in frontage
• Opportunities for wide-shallow lots with minimum frontage of 16.5 metres and;
• High end executive townhouses with a minimum lot frontage of 9 metres.

25Quoting paragraph 22 of the Witness Statement of David Stewart, Policy 7.1.1g of the former Snelgrove Secondary Plan (pre-October 17, 2018, but in effect at the time of filing the Partech application) states in part:

The City recognizes that the southeasterly quadrant of the Snelgrove Secondary Plan, which contains Upscale Executive Housing Special Policy Area 3 is a substantially developed area that already exhibits some of the desirable characteristics of upscale executive housing areas, including low densities, large lots, large houses and adjacent major open space features, but that its housing designs and streetscapes falls short of the executive housing ideal. Accordingly, the design of the remaining upscale executive housing infill areas within Upscale Executive Housing Special Policy Area 3 shall pay particular attention to the need to achieve compatibility with the existing development, while endeavoring to add some of the upscale features that are unrepresented in the adjacent areas.

26Policy 4.2.2 also required a qualitative dimension to the Upscale Executive Housing area to include a strong community identity, and neighborhood character, a high-quality urban design, architectural treatment and streetscapes and strong identifiable edge treatments. The City adopted a “design workbook” for these special policy areas that included a description of the design requirements which its Design Workbook describes as “essential design features”.

27Through discussions with City staff, there was a requirement to prepare a Scoped Community Design Guideline (“CDG”) for the subject lands. The CDG established a design framework for the proposed development based on a contextual analysis of the site and provides an Executive Community Design Vision with the intent of providing a development that had a distinct and upscale character (Paragraph 29 of the Witness Statement of David Stewart).

OVERVIEW

28A Draft Plan of Subdivision and applications to amend the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law were submitted by the Applicant in October 2017 and refiled in April 2019 to permit the proposed development of the subject lands, which included 360 dwelling units consisting of single-detached and townhouse dwelling types. The plan also included park, natural heritage, and Stormwater Management (“SWM”) uses.

29The Official Plan Amendment proposes to amend s. 8.2 Land Designated Special Site Area 2 of the Snelgrove-Heart Lake Secondary Plan by adding the following provisions, set out below, to permit a mix of low-rise housing types that incorporates Upscale Executive residential designs attributes up to a maximum density of 37 units per net residential ha (15 units per net residential acre).

30Section 8.2 of the Official Plan proposed to add the following so that the section would read:

• 8.2 Lands designated Special Site Area 2 located between Hurontario and Kennedy Road, south of Mayfield Road shall be developed in accordance with the Upscale Executive Housing policies of Section 4.2.2 of the Official Plan.
• Notwithstanding the density and lot sizes policies of Section 4.2.2 of the Official Plan regarding Upscale Executive Housing and in acknowledgement that the housing unit requirement of 200 units for Area 3 (Snellgrove-Heart Lake Secondary Plan) has been satisfied, the lands designated as Special Site Area 2 on Schedule 1 may be developed for a broader range of structural housing types that incorporates the executive housing elements and design policy objectives of the Upscale Executive Housing designation. The overall maximum development density permitted on the lands designated Special Site Area 2 may be 37 units per net residential hectare (15 units per net residential acre).

31The Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to implement, the residential, a park, a natural heritage system and a SWM pond uses on the proposed plan of subdivision.

32The Community Design Guidelines previously referred to, and prepared by both David Stewart and Bryn Barron, were approved by City staff as part of the application.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANTS

33The Appellants called four (4) witnesses, Wayne Parsons, Mark Johnson, Roy Prince and Tiere Sharma.

34Mr. Feehely, in his opening remarks advised the Tribunal that he would not be calling any experts, and the witnesses he intended to call were all ratepayers. He advanced the appeal on behalf of the North Brampton Neighbors Association, which represented abutting neighborhoods.

35The Tapestry Ridge neighborhood lies to the West; the Parklane Estates neighborhood lies to the South; and the Stonegate neighborhood lies to the east of the subject property.

36The Town of Caledon is located north of Mayfield Road, which is the northern boundary of the subject property, which Kennedy Road, to the east of the subject property, intersects as does Inder Heights Drive to its West.

A. THE EVIDENCE OF WAYNE PARSONS

37Mr. Parsons, a professional Architect, is a 15-year resident of the Park Lane Estates residing at 30 Ramsgate Court.

38Mr. Parsons, in his evidence, followed closely the witness statement he provided. He attended the City's planning committee, where he delivered what he called many technical issues and inconsistencies in the proposed original zoning amendments, that he said could have been avoided if the City had adopted the zoning requirements of the surrounding neighborhoods as they were designated.

39Instead, Mr. Parsons said that the City chose to establish a perimeter wall of townhouse units that do not respect the natural makeup of the surrounding built environments of those adjacent neighborhoods.

40He termed the proposed “work/live units” lanes of traffic as causing even more traffic chaos than already exists at Kennedy Road and Mayfield Road. Similarly, the proposed development would possibly with its traffic, he assured, cause congestion with traffic going into established neighborhoods.

41He further posed that townhouse units redefines “executive homes” lowering those standards.

42Mr. Parsons, when cross-examined by Mr. Snider as to his statement that the three-story wall of townhouses and a series of live work units where “foreign vernacular” to the surrounding neighbors, admitted that his house cannot even be seen on the Aerial Context Figure 1 Map of the abutting areas (Exhibit 4, Tab 1).

43When asked how the proposal would affect him from such a distance Mr. Parsons said, it would “sensibly bring four times more people and vehicles in”, with walking dogs, with kids in the playground, and people on walkways”.

44Mr. Parsons, the Tribunal finds, continued to be effectively cross-examined by Mr. Rea but continued to repeat his position that his area was a self-contained community and ought to remain so.

B. THE EVIDENCE OF MARK JOHNSON

45Mark Johnson provided the Tribunal with an impressive amount of evidence as did the next witness called, Roy Prince, in support of the Appellants opposition to the proposal.

46While Mr. Johnson did not ask to be qualified as an expert, he did bring his 40 years of experience working in the development and construction industry with him. He was a Senior Vice President in a $3 billion year construction company.

47Mr. Johnson is a retired member of the Professional Engineering Association of Ontario (“APEO”) and Alberta and has an undergraduate degree in Civil Engineering and an MBA from the University of Western Ontario.

48Mr. Johnson and his wife are 35 year residents at 24 Inder Heights Drive in the Tapestry Ridge neighborhood, just west of the existing Inder Heights Park.

49Mr. Johnson provided a Witness Statement and a Reply Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 1 and 1B).

50As Mr. Feehely stated in paragraph [3] of his Written Submission (Exhibit 13) his client's appeal is not based on a reactive, “NIMBY”, opposition. The Appellants Mr. Johnson and his spouse acknowledge that it is appropriate to follow the evolution of the site to take into account the principles of the Growth Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement in order to allow for a higher density and mix of unit types that permit the introduction of townhouse units.

51In the spirit of that recognition, Mr. Johnson put forward an Alternate Proposal depicted in his Reply Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 1B, page 42).

52In the first instance however, Mr. Johnson provided in his Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 1a) his position that the Applicant’s proposal was an inappropriate infill development.

53Under its heading “Urban Planning Ignored” Mr. Johnson set out in 13 pages how he believed Brampton’s Official Plan, its By-laws, it's Neighborhood Integration it's Upscale Executive Housing definition, it's 2040 Vision and its LEED/One Planet Living Commitment were all ignored.

54Under its heading “Inadequate Execution”, Mr. Johnson outlined in 5 pages his position respecting a poor Parking Plan; concerns regarding the parking at the proposed Live Work Units; and concerns about the traffic study at the Mayfield/Kennedy intersection.

55Finally, under its heading “Compromise Layout Proposal”, Mr. Johnson put forward the position of what he termed an acceptable compromise layout to what he says more accurately reflects the character of the existing surrounding neighborhoods in both layout and composition which can balance the desire for development with the interests of the surrounding residents in 11 pages.

56Mr. Johnson, in his Reply Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 1B) advanced, after reviewing the Witness Statements of both the City and the Applicant’s witnesses made suggested changes to the Design Capital layout proposed by the Applicant.

57Claudia LaRota, the Applicant’s witness (discussed later) concluded that the development proposal provides for a density of 37 units per net hectare. Mr. Johnson commented that the 37 units per net hectare is 23% higher than the maximum of 30 units per net hectare.

58Using that 23% formula, Mr. Johnson put forward a revised design by reducing the 360 units the Applicant’s is proposing by 23%. According to Mr. Johnson that would reduce the proposal by 83 units, to a plan of 277 units.

59Mr. Johnson, recognizing that reduction to be at the high end, developed an alternative proposal showing a development with 299 units.

60The 277 units are depicted in the map titled Total Unit Count - 277 at page 42; and the 299-unit total count at page 43 of his reply Witness Statement.

61The Tribunal could find no evidence that the position of Mr. Johnson on the Applicant’s proposal, or his alternative Design proposal, were even put forward to the City staff or its Planning and Development Committee or Council for consideration prior to its approval of the Applicant’s proposal before the Tribunal.

62The Tribunal left it to the City and Applicant to address Mr. Johnson’s suggested alternatives.

63Mr. Johnson was not seriously shaken in his cross-examination by Mr. Snider or Mr. Rea; both choosing instead to rely on the Response Witness Statements and the evidence of their witnesses to address answers to the positions he advanced.

C. THE EVIDENCE OF ROY PRINCE

64Mr. Prince is a retired Certified Public Accountant and a 35-year resident of the Stonegate Neighborhood who, in his Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 1E), said he was “adamantly” opposed to the Applicant’s proposal.

65Mr. Prince lives at 77 Kenpark Avenue, which street is east of the proposal and which street accesses Kennedy Road, almost opposite the northern access of the proposed Road Arctic Tern Avenue within the proposal.

66Mr. Prince uses the same words as Mr. Parsons in describing the proposed townhouses as a “wall of them” on the west side of Kennedy Road.

67Mr. Prince primarily addressed the traffic concerns and addressed the Traffic Impact Study prepared by Applicant’s Consultants, BA Consulting Group. He indicated his prime concern was “cut-through traffic”.

68Mr. Prince, in his Witness Statement stated that the 360 dwelling units proposed will “substantially” increase the volume of traffic onto the already busy Kenpark Avenue from the proposed Arctic Tern Avenue as motorists will seek a short cut to Hwy 410 which is some distance to the north and east of the subject property from Kennedy Road to Stonegate Drive.

69When confronted, by Mr. Snider, with the City's July 26, 2019 Traffic Calming Program Report (Exhibit 8) Chart at page 9.2.3-9, that Kenpark Avenue ranked 90 out of 102 streets, Mr. Prince agreed that cut-through traffic was a “small percentage” of the total at 3.49% and was the bottom 10% of those streets.

70Mr. Prince, when confronted with the aerial view of Kenpark Avenue and Stonegate Drive (Exhibit 5, Tab 27, p. 1072) by Mr. Rea in his cross examination, also agreed that a number of lots within his neighborhood do not have a view of the proposed townhouses.

71The Reply Witness Statement of the Applicant ’s witness Stuart Anderson (Exhibit 3 Tab F) further addressed Mr. Prince’s traffic position.

D. THE EVIDENCE OF TIERA SHARMA

72Ms. Sharma has lived in the Tapestry Ridge neighborhood for 17 years. She is currently the President of the North Brampton Neighbours Association. She has an Undergraduate and Master’s degree.

73Ms. Sharma in her Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 1F at page 89) sets out how she viewed the Applicant’s positioning of its proposed development and the facts as to how she sees them. Ms. Sharma poses:

a. There are only 16 (4%) true executive homes that meet special policy criteria.

b. 178 (49%) are townhouses in ridiculously small lots (less than 25 feet). Another 104 (29%) are singles in small lots (less than 38 feet)

c. For every five lots in the surrounding community, the developer’s proposal has 15 homes within the infill site

74Using Google Ms. Sharma, at page 92, provides a map that she says visually proves the proposed development does not conform to the configuration of the surrounding established neighborhoods.

75Ms. Sharma states that the development “piggybacks” on the existing Inder Heights Park and the parkland, within the proposal in an awkward configuration, is hardly useable and results in the community overflowing into the existing Inder Heights Parks, thereby, practically resulting in overburdening it.

76Ms. Sharma isolates the Parkland in the abutting neighborhood communities in a series of maps at page 95-97, noting Stonegate Park land at 37.13 acres; Parklane Estates Parkland at 14.74 acres; Tapestry Ridge Parkland at 5.15 acres noting that the Applicant’s proposal has 2.65 acres.

77Ms. Sharma advised the Tribunal that it is “not fair” for the abutting community to be asked to contribute “their” parkland to the development. Parkland should be required to designate more parkland within its neighborhoods’ proposal.

78Ms. Sharma stated that “Brampton already is doing its fair share of meeting intensification guidelines”.

79She concluded that the surrounding communities were not intended to have this kind of intensification.

80The Applicant’s witness Bryn Barron specifically responded to Ms. Sharma’s evidence.

THE EVIDENCE OF PARTACC THE PROPONENT

81The Applicant called four witnesses, Jason Alfonso, Stuart Anderson, Bryn Barron and David Stewart, all of whom provided written Witness and Reply Witness Statements.

82The Applicant’s witnesses addressed the merits of its application; responded to the Applicant's evidence; and also specifically addressed the issues enumerated in the Issues List.

A. THE EVIDENCE OF JASON ALFONSO

83Mr. Alfonso, a qualified Land Use Planner, has worked since 2010 for Glen Schnarr and Associates Inc (“GSAI”) which was retained by the Applicant’s in early 2017 to provide land use planning services in relation to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision for the subject lands.

84Mr. Alfonso, at paragraphs [8] to [11] of his Witness Statement (Exhibit 3, Tab 2M) provided an extensive report of GSAI’s Retainer, which included the meetings attended, the preparation of the proposed planning instruments, the provision of the planning evidence respecting this appeal and a review of 15 official policy documents that, in part, are also set out in the Joint Policy Book filed by the Parties (Exhibit 6 and 7).

85Mr. Alfonso, at paragraphs [20] to [36] of his Witness Statement, provided an equally detailed overview of the subject application and the extensive planning process: beginning with a town hall meeting organized by GSAI on June 26, 2017; to a resubmission of the application to address various City, Region Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and agency comments on April 23, 2019; to the Statutory Public meeting on June 3, 2019; to a further revision of the proposed subdivision plan in September 2019; and to the City Council’s approval of the proposed development on December 11 2019.

86Mr. Alfonso summarized his opinion that the Applicant’s application is justified and represents good land use planning at paragraph [37] of his Witness Statement for seven (7) reasons:

1. The proposal is consistent with and promotes the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement.
2. The proposal conforms to and promotes the Growth Plan.
3. The proposed development conforms to the policies of the Region of Peel Official Plan.
4. The proposed development conforms to the residential land use policies of the City's Official Plan by providing a mix of housing forms, attractive streetscapes, a walkable pedestrian environment and accessible open space, promotes intensification and protects natural heritage features.
5. The proposed development meets the intent of the Upscale Executive Special Policy Area of the City's Official Plan.
6. The proposed development promotes appropriate buffering, transitioning and integration with the existing surrounding communities.
7. The expansion of the existing Inder Heights Park promotes sustainability and a complete community development.

87Mr. Alfonso was not seriously challenged in cross-examination as to the above opinion.

88The focus of the Appellants’ challenge in cross-examination and their Written Submissions centered more on the specific intent of the policies contained in s. 4.2.2 of the City's Official Plan, and as to the proposal’s accommodation of the number of housing units and their type and built form.

89Further, the Appellants’ challenge in cross-examination focused on the Design Workbook for Brampton’s Upscale Executive Special Policy Areas (Exhibits 7, Tab 17) that sets out policy respecting Basic Design Requirements, Alternative Developer Proposals, and Essential Design Features for Residential Lots, contained in Section 2 of that document.

90Mr. Alfonso did admit in cross examination that the Essential Design Features for Residential Lots contained in the Table at page 834 were not met by the Applicant’s proposal, except for Item 2, in part.

91Mr. Alfonso responded to 16 of the Appellants remaining Issues List (Issues 12, 13 and 18 being withdrawn) in detail at paragraphs [38] to [56] of his Reply Witness Statements.

92Mr. Alfonso’s answers to those Issues were clearly not supported of the Appellants’ position respecting the Applicant’s application.

93Mr. Alfonso agreed that the subject lands are located within Upscale Executive Housing Special Policy Area 3. He agreed with respect to the Upscale Executive Housing policies of s. 4.2.2 of the City’s Official Plan, that low density forms of housing, characterized by high value, high quality houses on large lots are promoted.

94Notwithstanding those provisions, Mr. Alfonso advised the Tribunal that in his opinion the Applicant’s application seeks to “modernize” the provision of the upscale executive housing through a broader range of lot sizes and higher density that incorporates executive housing elements.

95Mr. Alfonso’s opinion was that one can have smaller lots, and a broader range of unit types and still meet the policy. He further advised that broadening the range of lot widths still can meet the upscale executive housing objectives through enhanced architectural and urban design.

96The particulars of the proposed urban and architectural design are depicted in the Renderings in Figures 3 to 15 (Exhibit 2 (C), pages 353-357) of the Witness Statement of Mr. Barron.

97Mr. Alfonso directed the Tribunal to Policy 4.2.2.6 that states that the City shall endeavor to ensure eight (8) Upscale Executive Special Policy Areas designated on Schedule “A”. The Chart produced at page 578 of his Witness Statement provides for an allocation of upscale housing unit requirements for those areas.

98The policy provides for collectively a yield of a minimum of 5,100 upscale housing units having nominal lots exceeding 464.5 square meters (5000 square feet).

99The allocation for the subject property which is in Area 3 (Snelgrove Secondary Plan) has a requirement of 200 units.

100Mr. Alfonso advised the Tribunal that Area 3 currently accommodates approximately 278 upscale executive housing units exceeding the minimum by about 39%.

101Given that, the Applicant could have justified removing their lands from the Upscale Executive Housing designation. Mr. Alfonso however agreed that the Applicant retaining the designation, with permission for a modernized housing form, allows the City to continue to require the implementation of the executive housing elements and design policy objectives, which Mr. Barron in his evidence promotes and which are depicted in the earlier referenced Visual Renderings,

102Mr. Alfonso in his Reply Witness Statement (Exhibit 3, Tab N) replied to the Witness Statement of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Parsons and Ms. Sharma, in the following paragraphs.

103With respect to the Compromised Layout Proposal of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Alfonso found the proposed live work units internal to the plan, not appropriate in that they did not provide significant public exposure.

104The proposed public parkland was not visible within the community and does not conform to the Official Plan. Further it has limited access points and fails to take advantage of the opportunity to connect to existing and future trails along Kennedy Road, that the proposed Plan of Subdivision does, with an extensive and well connected trail system, connecting other existing multi use trails.

105The proposed Plan of Subdivision implements the policies of the City's Official Plan, where the Compromised Layout Plan has deficiencies and as such does not.

106With respect to Mr. Parsons and Ms. Sharma’s positions, Mr. Alfonso states that the existing Executive Housing policies predate the 2006 Growth Plan and while they continue to exist, the Applicant’s proposal puts a more modernized face on the current housing trends toward intensification and greater consistency and conformity with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan and Official Plan through compact built form and development patterns, transit-supportive design, prioritizing parkland as a focal point, of the prohibition of reverse-frontage lotting and the implementation of upscale community features.

107When questioned about the provisions at Page 9 of the Hemson Consulting Ltd Inventory and Assessment of Intensification (Exhibit 11) opportunities, which states, “that existing low density residential neighborhood “should” be protected from intensification that is not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods in built form, scale and character.” Mr. Alfonso replied to Mr. Snider that the Applicant’s proposal is compatible.

A. THE EVIDENCE OF STUART ANDERSON

108Mr. Anderson was qualified as an Expert in Transportation Planning and Traffic Engineering.

109Mr. Anderson is a Senior Associate with BA Group which was retained by the Applicant in June 2017 to provide transportation service regarding the proposed development.

110BA Group prepared a Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) in October 2017 and an updated report in April 2019 that reviewed the transportation implication of the proposed development.

111Mr. Anderson provided a Witness Statement (Exhibit 2, Tab 2E) and a Reply Witness Statement (Exhibit 3, Tab 2F).

112Mr. Anderson advised the Tribunal that his traffic capacity analysis in April 2019 showed that the proposal is expected to have minor impact on adjacent intersections and would not create a need for road improvements to accommodate its traffic.

113In response to the Appellants’ Issues (3,5 and 19), Mr. Anderson said that the proposed development does not represent an over-development from a transportation perspective, that its transportation impacts have been comprehensively addressed in the April 2019 BA Group report and after its review by the City, was accepted on June 14, 2019.

114With respect to parking supply, Mr. Anderson advised that the proposed development would provide for the City's parking requirement and that the internal street network can accommodate additional parking supply, if required.

115In response, to the Witness Statements of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Prince, Mr. Anderson concluded that the transportation aspects of the development accommodate the transportation needs of the site, and changes to the plan that are proposed in their Witness Statements are either not required or are not desirable from a traffic engineering standpoint.

116In terms of Mr. Prince’s suggestion that additional traffic from the development site will exacerbate the already required traffic calming on Kenpark Avenue Mr. Anderson replied that the cut-through traffic would be marginal. He did see the route as being desirable.

117Mr. Anderson did concede to Mr. Feehely's comment that traffic conditions on the northside Mayfield Road in Caledon are busy.

C – THE EVIDENCE OF BRYN BARRON

118Mr. Barron was qualified to provide his expert evidence on Landscape Architecture. Mr. Baron has 30 years of professional experience in the field of Landscape Architecture, Urban Design and Arboriculture for public and private clients in Ontario.

119Mr. Barron is President and Principal Landscape Architect of Strybos Barron Kind Ltd who were retained by the Applicant in May 2017.

120Mr. Barron outlined the extensive collaboration that was taken with the City’s Open Space, Planning and Urban Design staff that resulted in an enlarged park and an improved open space system which expanded the buffer between the existing and proposed residential lots, while increasing the functionality and recreational amenities of the open space.

121The collaboration also resulted in the Applicant’s committing to a cash contribution in the amount of $800,000 over and above the required parkland dedication requirements in the Planning Act.

122Mr. Barron directed the Tribunal to the Landscape Master Plan (Exhibit 4, Tab 13) and the Visual Rendering earlier referred to (Exhibit 2, Tab 2, c. pages 352 to 357).

123He described the proposed development as having a robust entry feature, attractive greenspace, with the wetland having a theme.

124The expanded Inder Heights Park is featured in Figures 9-15, in contrast to its current formation that only services 113 houses.

125In response to Mr. Johnson’s Alternate Proposal, Mr. Barron indicated it would take significantly more Parkland away and thereby reduce the number of residential units. Reducing the units would lead to inefficiency, but he did concede in Mr. Feehely’s cross-examination that there was no reason why, by providing for 275 to 299 units, that the plan could retain the same features. In response to Mr. Snider however, Mr. Barron stated there may not be sufficient parkland to provide the intended connectivity.

D – THE EVIDENCE OF DAVID STEWART

126Mr. Stewart is a registered Land Use Planner and Principal of Williams and Stewart Associates Limited/John G. Williams Limited Architect (“JWL”) and was qualified to provide his expert architectural, urban design and land use planning opinions respecting the Applicant’s development proposal.

127Mr. Stewart’s firm was retained by the Applicant to provide architectural control and urban design consulting services in June 2017. As part of the retainer, JWL prepared the Scoped Community Design Guidelines (Exhibit 4, Tab 9) for the subject lands as requested by the City, which was approved by City staff on September 5, 2019.

128The purpose of the Scope CDG was to establish a design framework for the Applicant’s proposed development and given the size of its land holdings (19.99 ha), the City considered it appropriate to address the urban design and architectural goals for the area, based on a contextual analysis of the site and its surrounding area.

129Mr. Stewart provided detailed responses to the Appellants’ Issues List (Issues 2-9, 14-15) and in particular Issue 1 and its relation to the Residential Policies in s. 4.2, including Policy 4.2.1.14; 4.2.2.2; 4.2.2.3; 4.2.2.8.

130Commenting specifically on the City’s Design Workbook respecting Brampton’s Upscale Executive Special Policy Areas (“Workbook”) (Exhibit 7, Tab 17), Mr. Stewart at page 168 of his Witness Statement said the “Workbook was prepared in September 2000 and was reviewed in the preparation of the CDG. Given its age (20 years), he said in his opinion, “the design principles and considerations provided in the Workbook do not reflect current development realities and Provincial Policy (PPS and the Growth Plan) that promote compact communities and optimize the use of land and infrastructure”.

131Mr. Stewart further stated that the Applicant’s subdivision “reimages” what an executive community looks like in today’s development environment. He advised the Tribunal that the size of a house and lot is not the sole factor in accepting upscale housing in today’s environment. The provision of additional design criteria is essential.

132Mr. Stewart noted that the Applicant’s development will be subject to street architectural control measures as stipulated in the Conditions of Draft Approval and Subdivision Agreement.

133Mr. Stewart was firm in his opinion that the Applicant’s proposed development application, together with the CDG, is in compliance with the relevant Urban Design and Executive Housing policies of the City and are appropriate to achieve a high standard-built form and urban design quality.

134While Mr. Stewart, in Mr. Feehely’s cross-examination, agreed that the Appellants’ proposal gets closer to the 19.5 units in Policy 4.2.2.2 (ix), Mr. Stewart countered that he was not aware of any unacceptable effect in the Applicant’s proposal which he described as a “gentle” intensification and not a “maximum” one.

135Mr. Stewart did agree with Mr. Feehely that the subject lands will still remain in the Upscale land dedication and agreed they should remain there. He agreed the land was in a key location but advised Mr. Feehely that the intent of the proposal was a harmonization with neighboring areas.

THE CITY’S EVIDENCE

A. THE EVIDENCE OF MADU DEBNATH

136Ms. Debnath has been with the Urban Design division of the City for 15 years and was qualified to provide her expert opinion in urban design.

137She was called to respond to the comments of Mr. Parsons related to streetscapes and housing designs. She advised that the photos taken by Mr. Parsons of Parkland Estates, Tapestry Ridge Estates and Stonegate Estates are examples of communities planned in the mid-80s and cannot be compared in today’s context. Further the photos taken from Trinity Village are standard plans of subdivision and are not upscale communities.

138She reiterated that the design vision for the Applicant’s subdivision is based on reimaging what an upscale executive housing community could look like in today’s planning context, calling it “a distinct 2021 version”.

139She conceded to Mr. Feehely that it would be “possible” to achieve the array of executive community and urban design features embedded in the Applicant’s proposal with fewer lots, but she would need to see how those lots and streets would be laid out, to be sure.

B – THE EVIDENCE OF SCOTT MCINTYRE

140Mr. McIntyre is a Certified Engineering Technologist and was so qualified to provide his opinion evidence as to the Appellants’ Issues List, Items 5 and 19.

141Mr. McIntyre has been employed by the City for 11 years within the Traffic Planning section.

142Mr. McIntyre also provided a Reply Witness Statement (Exhibit 3, Tab 3B) responding to the claims of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Parsons and Mr. Prince as they relate to parking supply, traffic circumvention and the City’s traffic calming program.

143In Mr. McIntyre’s opinion, and in accordance with the ITE manual and City requirements, traffic and parking have been adequately accommodated by, and within the proposed development.

144With respect to Mr. Johnson’s proposed compromise layout, Mr. McIntyre said his directional stands are not appropriate. The route between Kennedy Road and Mayfield Road being circuitous, will not result in any significant traffic volume increase through Stonegate Drive and Kenpark Avenue.

C – THE EVIDENCE OF CLAUDIA LA ROTA

145Ms. La Rota is a Policy Planner in the City’s Planning and Economic Development Department of the City and has been employed by the City for 13.5 years and was so qualified.

146Ms. La Rota addressed Issues 2, 10 and 16 of the Appellants’ Issues List from a policy perspective.

147While Ms. La Rota acknowledged that the proposed density of the Applicant’s application does not conform to the density permission of the Upscale Executive Housing policies and the OP 2006 -149, it was her opinion that there are no implications for the proposed development.

148In Ms. La Rota opinion, the application proposes a variety of housing units with a range of lot sizes that only marginally exceeds the City’s OP low density requirement of 30 units per net ha. She advised the Tribunal that the proposal contributes to the development of compact and complete communities as directed in the City’s 2040 Vision.

149Ms. La Rota disagreed with Mr. Johnson’s view that the Brampton’s 2040 Vision is ignored. The low-medium density development of the Applicant’s application with single and townhouse units at a maximum of three (3) stories are actually identified as appropriate built forms to be located in the “Neighborhood Infill” and “Greenfield Neighbourhoods” concepts of the Vision in order to create complete neighborhoods to accommodate a variety of housing choices.

D – THE EVIDENCE OF STEPHEN DYKSTRA

150Mr. Dykstra, a qualified Land Use Planner, assumed the responsibility as the lead planner for the Applicant’s proposal.

151Mr. Dykstra in his Witness Statement (Exhibit 3, Tab 3I) which covered 108 paragraphs provided a detailed planning report of the background and planning context, the chronology of the application; and analysis of the relevant Planning Act, Provincial Policy Statement 2020, the 2019 Growth Plan, the Region of Peel Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan including an analysis of s. 4.2.2 Upscale Executive Housing.

152Mr. Dykstra also provided his opinion on Issues 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 of the Appellants’ Issues List.

153To each of those issues in the Appellants’ list, Mr. Dykstra was of the opinion that the Applicant’s proposal satisfied the issues raised by them, in the Applicant’s favour.

154Mr. Dykstra in his Reply Witness Statement (Exhibit 3, Tab 3 J) addressed the evidence of Mr. Johnson and Ms. Sharma.

155With respect to Mr. Johnson’s Compromise Proposal, Mr. Dykstra advised that notwithstanding that it has not been subject to an application and technical review he observed that the City discourages the use of cul-de-sacs, discourages reverse fronting dwellings onto streets, does not support the concept that reduced density is more environmentally sound, and would view its limited access to the parklands and open spaces.

156Mr. Dykstra commented that Ms. Sharma inaccurately identified the maps she produced as park land.

157Mr. Dykstra concluded in his evidence by asking the Tribunal to support the Applicant’s proposal in that the proposed OPA is a good plan that helps to introduce new housing types without disrupting the overall character of the area, and the proposed zoning by-law amendment properly interprets the City’s OP.

158In the cross-examination by Mr. Feehely, Mr. Dykstra told him he supported what the other witnesses said in supporting the Applicant’s application, that lot sizes as a “stand alone element” does not mean upscale executive housing and “large lot” does not necessarily mean “executive lot”.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

159The Tribunal has provided a lengthy summary of the evidence of all 12 of the witnesses called respecting the matter before it.

160The Tribunal has done so, not only to thoroughly analyze the witnesses evidence, but to demonstrate the extraordinarily effort that the City, the Applicant and for that matter, the Appellants went to, to ensure that the Applicant’s development becomes a proper and compatible fit and that the area remain as an upscale executive housing community.

161The dispute primarily centered on whether the area develops as a modernized form of executive housing by the introduction of a different built form from that of the three abutting communities.

162Mr. Feehely, put forward resident witnesses from each of the surrounding communities. While not qualified, as expert witnesses, they did bring, in their own right, a professional background and approached the hearing positively. They expressed their concerns that the Applicant’s development should remain consistent and cognizant of the way in which their communities have developed. They wanted it to be developed true to the current and intended planned designation.

163All of the witnesses have acknowledged that the area is an important and vital locational City asset and they want to ensure that it remains so.

164The Tribunal has no hesitation after considering all of the evidence, that it will remain so. The Tribunal can find no supportable evidence that the surrounding communities will be marginalized by the approval of the current Applicant’s proposal before the Tribunal.

165The Tribunal has earlier set out the evidence of Mr. Johnson and his alternative proposal advanced by Mr. Feehely. The Tribunal, after considering the Applicant’s and City’s witnesses’ opinions on that proposed alternative, agrees with them that the deficiencies and concerns they expressed, would unlikely be supported by City staff and Council as Mr. Stewart indicated.

166Mr. Snider in his closing submissions, as did Mr. Rea, submitted that the Tribunal “have regard for” Council's decision. The Tribunal agrees with the reasoning of Justice Aston in Ottawa (City) v Minto Communities Inc, 2009 CanLII 65802) (ONSCDC) that those words do not mean more than minimal deference to a municipal council decision.

167The Tribunal agrees with Justice Aston that it has however an “obligation” to scrutinize and carefully consider what Council had before it and how it made its decision.

168The Tribunal has not only considered the thorough and complete expert evidence of the City’s witnesses in particular, but has examined the voluminous material before City Council, and can find no reason to doubt their findings and approval of OPA and the ZBA then before it.

169It is not enough for the Tribunal to return this matter back to Council based on the evidence of Ms. Sharma that Council should have acquiesced to what she called “the massive opposition” of the area residents who signed petitions opposing the development, especially when Council had before it compelling planning and technical analysis respecting traffic and urban design that supported the application.

170It is to be noted that no expert opinion evidence respecting planning, traffic, architecture or urban design was provided by the Appellants to counter the expert evidence of either the Applicant’s or the City's witnesses who were called to provide their professional opinion in those areas.

171The Tribunal agrees with the reasoning of Member Rogers in the Scarborough City Official Plan decision, (1998) O.M.B. R389 (provided) at paragraph [63], stated that:

while assessing the magnitude of differences between that proposal and that existing, can assist in assessing compatibility, the truly objective test of compatibility is whether or not the proposal will have a physical or functional adverse impact on the existing development.

172Ms. Rogers further noted “that this is not a test which requires a determination as to the existing residents’ likes or don't likes”. Rather it is a gathering of real and tangible negative impact on the existing residents’ enjoyment of their property and their community.

173Then Member Makuch in Nahon v Ottawa City (2015) O.M.B.D. No. 571, (provided) heard in June 2015 at paragraph [14] said, “compatible does not mean that it has to be the same but that the new and existing developments can coexist”.

174The Tribunal finds, based on the expert opinion of both the witnesses for the Applicant and the City, that the new and existing development can coexist.

175The Tribunal has considered the Written submissions of the Appellants’ as delivered by Mr. Feehely, but does not agree that the proposed development does not follow the range of City policies to achieve a sensitive degree of intensification and unit mix. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of both the Applicant and the City and finds that it does, and that what is proposed is consistent with, and in compliance with, those policies.

176The Tribunal agrees with the conclusion contained in Mr. Snider’s Argument Outline that the Tribunal has before it an exemplary infill project and that the Appellants have not identified any substantive land use impacts that would be introduced by the proposed development.

177To ensure that the development be built in accordance with the Parkside Heights Scoped Community Design Guidelines and that no building permits be issued that do not comply with its architectural control components, Mr. Snider, with the consent of the City and the Appellants Counsel, requested the Tribunal to order that the provisions contained in Paragraph 181 of this decision, be included as additional conditions in the Applicants proposed Subdivision Agreement and be a condition of this approval with no objections.

178The Tribunal, after a consideration of all of the evidence, has no hesitancy in finding that the Applicant’s proposal constitutes good land use planning and the suggested OPA and Zoning By-law as modified be approved to accommodate it.

ORDER

179The Tribunal Orders that the appeals respecting the City of Brampton’s By-law No. 296-2019 (OP) and By-law No. 279-2019 (zoning) are dismissed.

180The Tribunal Orders that Amendment 206 of the City’s Official Plan and the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 which were marked as Exhibits 9 and 10 and are appended as Appendix 1 and 2 be approved for adoption by the City of Brampton’s City Council.

181The Tribunal Orders that the following provisions on consent be included in the Subdivision Agreement for the subject lands:

The Developer agrees that the development shall be in accordance with the Parkside Heights Scoped Community Design Guidelines approved by the Planning and Development Services Department on September 5, 2019. This shall include, but not limited to, the provisions relating to the design, treatment and features of building architecture, landscape, open space systems (parks, trails, stormwater management facilities), streetscapes, and street networks.

The Developer agrees that neither it nor any Builder nor any other person will apply for or be entitled to receive any building permits or will appeal pursuant to section 25 of the Building Code Act, 1992 any decision of the City's Chief Building Official refusing to issue building permits until the Developer, the Builder, or any person has complied with architectural control components of the Parkside Heights Scoped Community Design Guidelines approved by the Planning and Development Services Department on September 5, 2019 relevant to the issuance of a building permit.

“R.A. Beccarea”

R.A. BECCAREA 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

APPENDIX 1

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRAMPTON

BY-LAW

Number - 2021

To Adopt Amendment Number OP 2006- to the Official Plan of the City of Brampton Planning Area

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, hereby orders the coming into force of By-law Number LPAT OPA XX-2021, as follows:

1. Amendment Number OP 2006 - to the Official Plan of the City of Brampton Planning Area is hereby adopted and made part of this by-law.

APPROVED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON , 2021, PURSUANT TO ORDER NO. _.

AMENDMENT NUMBER OP 2006 – To Official Plan of the City of Brampton Planning Area

AMENDMENT NUMBER OP 2006 – TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF BRAMPTON PLANNING AREA

1.0 PURPOSE

The purpose of this amendment along with the schedules is to implement the policies of the Official Plan and the Snelgrove – Heart Lake Secondary Plan through the preparation and approval of an amendment for Special Site Area 2 within Snelgrove - Heart Lake Secondary Plan Area 1.

This amendment to Chapter 1 of the Snelgrove - Heart Lake Secondary Plan is based on the findings of several component studies completed to address environmental, servicing, community design and growth management considerations. The amendment addresses the principles of complete community, sustainability and incorporates an updated perspective to the concept of an Upscale Executive Housing development on the remaining greenfield site within the Snelgrove - Heart Lake Secondary Plan Area in the context of the current Provincial, Regional and local planning policy environment for the development of such sites.

2.0 LOCATION

The subject lands comprise an area of approximately 20.0 hectares (49.4 acres) in north central Brampton and is located at the southwest corner of Mayfield Road and Kennedy Road. The land is largely an agricultural crop field but also contains part of a small provincially significant complexed wetland.

The subject lands are legally described as Part of the East Half of Lot 2 Concession 1, E.H.S. in the former geographic Township of Chinguacousy, now in the City of Brampton. The lands subject to this amendment are specifically indicated on Schedule 1 to the Snelgrove - Heart Lake Secondary Plan as attached.

3.1 AMENDMENTS AND POLICIES RELATIVE HERETO

The document known as the Official Plan of the City of Brampton Planning Area is hereby amended by:

(1) by adding to the list of amendments pertaining to Secondary Plan Area Number 1: Snelgrove – Heart Lake Secondary Plan as set out in Part II: Secondary Plans thereof, Amendment Number OP2006- .

(2) amending Schedule A1 ‘Executive Housing Policy Areas’ to the Brampton Official Plan to identify a ‘Special Policy Area 3A’ as shown on Schedule A to this amendment.

(3) by adding the following site-specific policy section, as follows:

4.2.2.9 ‘Notwithstanding the density and lot sizes policies of Section 4.2.2 Upscale Executive Housing, and in acknowledgement that the housing unit requirement of 200 units for Special Policy Area 3 (Snelgrove – Heart Lake Secondary Plan) has been satisfied, the lands designated as Special Policy Area 3A on Schedule A1 may be developed for a wider range of housing types that incorporate the executive housing elements and design policy objectives of the Upscale Executive Housing Designation.The development shall be in accordance with the Parkside Heights Scoped Community Design Guidelines approved by the Planning and Development Services Department on September 5, 2019 ’

(4) amending Schedule 1 to Chapter 1 to the Snelgrove – Heart Lake Secondary Plan (SPA1) to identify additional Natural Heritage System and Recreational Open Space designations as shown on Schedule B to this amendment.

(5) adding to Section 8.2, Special Site Area 2 of Chapter 1: The Snelgrove – Heart Lake Secondary Plan thereof, the following additional text:

By-law Number _- 2019

‘Notwithstanding the density and lot sizes policies of Section 4.2.2 Upscale Executive Housing, and in acknowledgement that the housing unit requirement of 200 units for Area 3 (Snelgrove – Heart Lake Secondary Plan) has been satisfied, the lands designated as Special Site Area 2 on Schedule 1 and located at the southwest corner of Mayfield Road and Kennedy Road may be developed for a broader range of structural housing types that incorporate the executive housing elements and design policy objectives of the Upscale Executive Housing designation. The overall maximum development density permitted on the lands designated Special Site Area 2 may be 37 units per net residential hectare (15 units per net residential acre).The development shall be in accordance with the Parkside Heights Scoped Community Design Guidelines approved by the Planning and Development Services Department on September 5, 2019.'

4

APPEALED TO THE OMB

LANDS TO BE DESIGNATED "AREA 3A"

MAYFIELD RD

EXTRACT FROM SCHEDULE A1 - UPSCALE EXECUTIVE HOUSING SPECIAL POLICY AREAS

SUBJECT LANDS

UPSCALE EXECUTIVE HOUSING SPECIAL POLICY AREAS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES File: C01E17.029_OPA_A Date: 2019/10/15 Author: ckovac

SCHEDULE A TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OP2006#

LANDS TO BE REDESIGNATED FROM "RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "OPEN SPACE - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM"

LANDS TO BE REDESIGNATED FROM

LANDS TO BE REDESIGNATED FROM "OPEN SPACE -RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE" TO "OPEN SPACE - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM"

"RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "RECREATIONAL- RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE"

LANDS TO BE REDESIGNATED FROM "RESIDENTIAL - LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO "OPEN SPACE - NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM"

2

EXTRACT FROM SCHEDULE SP1(A) OF THE DOCUMENT KNOWN AS THE SNELGROVE/HEART LAKE SECONDARY PLAN

COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT INSTITUTIONAL RESIDENTIAL OPEN SPACE ROADS

CONVENIENCE RETAIL GENERAL EMPLOYMENT 1 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM COLLECTOR ROAD DISTRICT RETAIL GENERAL EMPLOYMENT 2 MIDDLE SCHOOL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL RECREATION OPEN SPACE MINOR ARTERIAL ROAD HIGHWAY AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL SECONDARY SCHOOL MEDIUM / HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CEMETERY MAJOR ARTERIAL ROAD HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL FIRE STATION HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE COMMERCIAL RECREATION PROVINCIAL HIGHWAY MIXED EMPLOYMENT COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL RAILWAY NEIGHBOURHOOD RETAIL PLACE OF WORSHIP SERVICE COMMERCIAL 1 SPECIAL SITE AREAS

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCHEDULE B TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OP2006# File: C01E17.029_OPA_B Date: 2019/10/15

APPENDIX 2

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BRAMPTON BY-LAW

Number _- 2021

To amend Comprehensive Zoning By-law 270-2004

The Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, hereby orders the coming into force of By-law Number LPAT ZB XX-2021, as follows:

(1) by changing on Schedule A thereto, the zoning designation of the lands as shown outlined on Schedule A to this by-law:

From: AGRICULTURAL (A)

To: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED F- 9.0 – SPECIAL SECTION (R1F-9.0-2959) RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED F- 13.0 – SPECIAL SECTION (R1F-13.0- 2960) RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED F- 13.0 – SPECIAL SECTION (R1F-13.0- 2961) RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE E-7.3 – SPECIAL SECTION (R3E-7.3-2962); RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE E-7.3 – SPECIAL SECTION (R3E-7.3-2963); RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE E-6.0 – SPECIAL SECTION (R3E-6.0-2964); RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE E-6.0 – SPECIAL SECTION (R3E-6.0-2965); FLOODPLAIN ZONE – (F) OPEN SPACE ZONE – (OS)

(2) By adding thereto, the following sections:

“2959 The lands designated R1F – 9.0 – 2959 on Schedule A to this by-law:

shall only be used for the purposes permitted in an R1F-9.0 zone;

shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions:

(1) Minimum Lot Area: Interior Lot -225.0 square metres; Corner Lot - 270.0 square metres;

(2) Minimum Lot Width: Interior Lot - 9.0 metres; Corner Lot - 10.8 metres;

(3) Minimum Lot Depth: 25.0 metres;

(4) Minimum Front Yard Depth: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to a garage door facing the front lot line; c) the main wall of a dwelling may encroach into the front yard to within 1.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; d) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum front yard; e) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the front yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum front yard; and g) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the front yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle;

(5) Minimum Exterior Side Yard: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to a garage door facing the exterior side yard for corner lots 11.0 metres or greater in width; c) the main wall of a dwelling may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 1.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; d) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar and chimney may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard; e) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding triangle; f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; and g) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1 .0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard;

(6) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: a) 6.0 metres for an interior lot; b) 3.0 metres for a corner lot provided that not less than 50% of the unit width is setback 6.0 metres from the rear lot line; c) 3.5 metres to a deck off the main floor; d) 0.6 metres to the side wall of a garage, where access to the garage is from the exterior side yard for lots greater than 11.0 metres; e) 4.5 metres for open roofed porches and or uncovered terraces; and f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum rear yard;

(7) Minimum Interior Side Yard: a) 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side provided that the combined total for each interior lot is 1.8 metres; b) Interior side yards between two lots can be paired at 0.6 metres per paired lots, and or 1.2 metres and 0.6 metres per paired lots and or at 1.2 metres and 1.2 metres per paired lots; c) 1.2 metres where the side yard abuts a public walkway or a non-residential zone; and d) 0.6 metres for a corner lot abutting another interior lot with a side yard of 0.6 metres, for a total of 1.2 metres between buildings;

(8) Maximum Building Height - 12.0 metres

(9) No garage may project more than 1.5 metres beyond the porch or front wall of a dwelling;

(10) The following provisions apply to garages: a) the maximum cumulative garage door width for lots, with a lot width less than 10.4 metres shall be 3.7 metres; b) the maximum cumulative garage door width for lots, with a lot width equal to or greater than 10.4 metres but less than 11.0 metres shall be 4.6 metres; c) the maximum cumulative garage door width for lots, with a lot width equal to or greater than 11.0 metres but less than 12.5 metres shall be 5.0 metres; d) the maximum cumulative garage door width for lots, with a lot width equal to or greater than 12.5 metres but less than 14.0 metres shall be 5.5 metres; e) the garage door width restriction does not apply to a garage door facing the exterior lot line; and f) the interior garage width, as calculated 3.0 metres from the garage opening shall be a maximum 0.9 metres greater than the maximum cumulative garage door width permitted on the lot;

(11) The following shall apply to a bay, bow or box window: a) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum width of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 4.5 metres; b) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum depth of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 1.0 metres; c) A bay, bow or box window with a maximum depth of 0.6 metres does not need to contain side windows; and d) A bay, bow or box window with a depth greater than 0.6 metres up to a maximum depth of 1.0 metres does need to contain side windows;

Shall also be subject to the requirements and restrictions relating to the R1 F zone and all the general provisions of this by-law, which are not in conflict with those set out in Section 2959.2”

(3) By adding thereto, the following sections:

“2960 The lands designated R1F – 13.0 – 2960 on Schedule A to this by-law:

shall only be used for the purposes permitted in an R1F- 13.0 zone;

shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions:

(1) Minimum Lot Area: Interior Lot -325.0 square metres; Corner Lot - 370.0 square metres;

(2) Minimum Lot Width: Interior Lot - 13.0 metres; Corner Lot - 14.8 metres;

(3) Minimum Lot Depth: 25.0 metres;

(4) Minimum Front Yard Depth: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to a garage door facing the front lot line; c) the main wall of a dwelling may encroach into the front yard to within 1.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; d) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum front yard; e) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the front yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum front yard; and; g) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the front yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle;

(5) Minimum Exterior Side Yard: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to a garage door facing the exterior side yard for corner lots 11.0 metres or greater; c) the main wall of a dwelling may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 1.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; d) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar and chimney may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard; e) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding triangle; f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; and g) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1 .0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard;

(6) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: a) 6.0 metres for an interior lot; b) 3.0 metres for a corner lot provided that not less than 50% of the unit width is setback 6.0 metres from the rear lot line; c) 3.5 metres to a deck off the main floor; d) 0.6 metres to the side wall of a garage, where access to the garage is from the exterior side yard for lots greater than 11.0 metres; e) 4.5 metres for open roofed porches and or uncovered terraces; and f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum rear yard;

(7) Minimum Interior Side Yard: a) 1.2 metres

(8) Maximum Building Height - 12.0 metres

(9) No garage may project more than 1.5 metres beyond the porch or front wall of a dwelling;

(10) The following provisions apply to garages: a) the maximum cumulative garage door width for lots, with a lot width equal to or greater than 12.5 metres but less than 14.0 metres shall be 5.5 metres; b) for lots 14.0 metres wide or greater, the maximum cumulative interior garage width shall be 6.4 metres or 50% of the dwelling unit width whichever is greater; c) the garage door width restriction does not apply to a garage door facing the exterior lot line; and d) the interior garage width, as calculated 3.0 metres from the garage opening shall be a maximum 0.9 metres greater than the maximum cumulative garage door width permitted on the lot;

(11) The following shall apply to a bay, bow or box window: a) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum width of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 4.5 metres; b) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum depth of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 1.0 metres; c) A bay, bow or box window with a maximum depth of 0.6 metres does not need to contain side windows; and d) A bay, bow or box window with a depth greater than 0.6 metres up to a maximum depth of 1.0 metres does need to contain side windows;

Shall also be subject to the requirements and restrictions relating to the R1 F zone and all the general provisions of this by-law, which are not in conflict with those set out in Section 2960.2”

(4) By adding thereto, the following sections:

“2961 The lands designated R1F – 13.0 – 2961 on Schedule A to this by-law:

shall only be used for the purposes permitted in an R1F- 13.0 zone;

shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions:

(1) Minimum Lot Area: Corner Lot - 450.0 square metres;

(2) Minimum Lot Width: Corner Lot – 13.0 metres;

(3) Minimum Lot Depth: 20.0 metres;

(4) Minimum Front Yard Depth: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to a garage door facing the front lot line; c) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum front yard; d) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum front yard; and e) Daylight roundings and triangles shall not be applicable;

(5) Minimum Exterior Side Yard: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to a garage door facing the exterior side c) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar and chimney may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard; d) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1 .0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard; and e) Daylight roundings and triangles shall not be applicable;

(6) Minimum Rear Yard Setback: a) 6.0 metres for an interior lot; b) 3.0 metres provided that not less than 50% of the unit width is setback 6.0 metres from the rear lot line; c) 3.5 metres to a deck off the main floor; d) 4.5 metres for open roofed porches and or uncovered terraces; and e) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum rear yard;

(7) Minimum Interior Side Yard: a) 1.2 metres

(8) Maximum Building Height - 12.0 metres

(9) No garage may project more than 1.5 metres beyond the porch or front wall of a dwelling;

(10) The following provisions apply to garages: a) for lots 14.0 metres wide or greater the maximum cumulative interior garage width shall be 6.4 metres or 50% of the dwelling unit width whichever is greater; and b) the garage door width restriction does not apply to a garage door facing the exterior lot line/ or front lot line;

(11) The following shall apply to a bay, bow or box window: a) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum width of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 4.5 metres; b) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum depth of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 1.0 metres; c) A bay, bow or box window with a maximum depth of 0.6 metres does not need to contain side windows; and d) A bay, bow or box window with a depth greater than 0.6 metres up to a maximum depth of 1.0 metres does need to contain side windows;

Shall also be subject to the requirements and restrictions relating to the R1 F zone and all the general provisions of this by-law, which are not in conflict with those set out in Section 2961.2”

(5) By adding thereto, the following sections:

“2962 The lands designated R3E – 7.3 2962 on Schedule A to this by-law:

shall only be used for the purposes permitted in an R3E- 7.3 zone, and; a) Dwelling, Rear Lane Townhouse;

shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions:

(1) Minimum Lot Area: Interior Lot – 160 square metres; End Lot – 187 square metres;

(2) Minimum Lot Width: Interior Lot – 7.3 metres End Lot – 8.5 metres

(3) Minimum Lot Depth: 22.0 metres;

(4) Minimum Front Yard Depth: a) 4.0 metres; b) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum front yard; and c) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum front yard;

(5) Minimum Rear Yard Depth: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to garage door facing the rear lot line; c) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum rear yard; and d) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum rear yard;

(6) Minimum Interior Side Yard Width: a) 1.2 metres and 0.0 metres when abutting side lot line coincides with a common wall between two dwellings; b) 0.0 metres when abutting side lot line coincides with a common wall between two garages; c) 0.5 metres into the 1.2 metre interior side yard for a bay window, or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar; and d) 0.7 metres to a bay, bow, or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar;

(7) Maximum Building Height – 12.0 metres;

(8) Minimum Amenity Space: a) 3.5 square metres shall be provided either on a balcony/uncovered terrace on the second or third floor or in the rear yard at ground level;

(9) The following provisions apply to garages: a) the maximum cumulative garage door width for interior lots, with a lot width equal to 6.0 metres but less than 12 metres shall be 5.6 metres; and b) the interior garage width, as calculated 3.0 metres from the garage opening shall be a maximum 0.9 metres greater than the maximum garage door width permitted on the lot;

(10) The following shall apply to a bay, bow or box window: a) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum width of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 4.5 metres; b) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum depth of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 1.0 metres; c) A bay, bow or box window with a maximum depth of 0.6m does not need to contain side windows; and d) A bay, bow or box window with a depth greater than 0.6m up to a maximum depth of 1.0 metres does need to contain side windows;

(11) Notwithstanding Section 10.13.2, front to rear pedestrian access through the dwelling unit does not need to be provided:

(12) Notwithstanding Section 10.9.1B.1, the following shall apply: a) The minimum driveway width shall be 2.75 metres;

(13) The width of the driveway shall not exceed 4.9m or the width of the garage or whichever is greater;

(14) Air conditioning units are permitted to be located on a balcony or uncovered terrace or rear yard;

(15) For zoning purposes, the front property line shall be deemed to be on Mayfield Road or Kennedy Road;

(16) Maximum fence height abutting Mayfield Road or Kennedy Road – 1.2 metres;

(17) No permanent accessory structures shall be erected in the front yard; and

(18) No outdoor storage is permitted in the front yard;

Shall also be subject to the requirements and restrictions relating to the R3E zone and all the general provisions of this by-law, which are not in conflict with those set out in section 2962.2”

(6) By adding thereto, the following sections:

“2963 The lands designated R3E – 7.3 2963 on Schedule A to this by-law:

shall only be used for the purposes permitted in an R3E- 7.3 zone, and; a) Dwelling, Rear Lane Townhouse with Optional Live- Work Unit;

shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions:

(1) The following uses are permitted within a Live-Work Townhouse Dwelling on the ground/first floor: a) a residential unit; b) bank, trust company and finance company; c) service shop; d) retail establishment with no outdoor storage or display; e) home occupation; f) commercial, technical or recreational school; g) art gallery; h) artist and photography studio including framing; i) personal service shop; j) health or fitness centre; k) a dining room restaurant, and take-out restaurant; l) a laundromat; m) a dry cleaning and laundry distribution station; n) a printing or copying establishment; o) a custom workshop; p) an animal hospital; q) a convenience store; r) an office, including the office of a health care practitioner; s) a day nursery; t) a police station; u) a radio or television broadcast establishment; and; v) purposes accessory to the other permitted purposes;

(2) The following uses shall not be permitted: a) amusement arcade; b) massage or body rub parlour; and c) adult video store or adult book store;

(3) Minimum Lot Area: Interior Lot – 160 square metres; End Lot – 187 square metres;

(4) Minimum Lot Width: Interior Lot – 7.3 metres; End Lot – 8.5 metres;

(5) Minimum Lot Depth: 22.0 metres;

(6) Minimum Front Yard Depth: a) 4.0 metres; b) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum front yard; c) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum front yard; and d) a canopy, roof overhang, architectural brackets, goose neck lamps, and architectural cornices may encroach into a public road allowance by a maximum 0.5 metres;

(7) Minimum Rear Yard Depth: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to garage door facing the rear lot line; c) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum rear yard; and d) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the rear yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle;

(8) Minimum Interior Side Yard Width: a) 1.2 metres and 0.0 metres when abutting side lot line coincides with a common wall between two dwellings; b) 0.0 metres when abutting side lot line coincides with a common wall between two garages; c) 0.5 metres into the 1.2 metre interior side yard for a bay window, or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar; and d) 0.7 metres to a bay, bow, or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar;

(9) Maximum Building Height – 12.0 metres;

(10) Minimum Landscape Open Space: a) those portions of all yards not occupied by permitted accessory structures, permitted encroachments and the permitted driveway and sidewalk, shall consist of landscaped open space;

(11) Maximum Lot Coverage: - No Requirement;

(12) Minimum Amenity Space: a) 3.5 square metres shall be provided either on a balcony/uncovered terrace on the second or third floor or in the rear yard at ground level;

(13) The following provisions apply to garages: a) the maximum cumulative garage door width for interior lots, with a lot width equal to 6.0 metres but less than 9.8 metres shall be 5.6 metres; and; b) the interior garage width, as calculated 3.0 metres from the garage opening shall be a maximum 0.9 metres greater than the maximum garage door width permitted on the lot;

(14) The following shall apply to a bay, bow or box window: a) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum width of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 4.5 metres; b) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum depth of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 1.0 metres; c) A bay, bow or box window with a maximum depth of 0.6m does not need to contain side windows; and d) A bay, bow or box window with a depth greater than 0.6m up to a maximum depth of 1.0 metres does need to contain side windows;

(15) Notwithstanding Section 10.13.2, front to rear pedestrian access through the dwelling unit does not need to be provided;

(16) Notwithstanding Section 10.9.1B.1, the following shall apply: a) The minimum driveway width shall be 2.75 metres;

(17) Air conditioning units are permitted to be located on a balcony or uncovered terrace or rear yard;

(18) For zoning purposes, the front property line shall be deemed to be on Kennedy Road;

(19) Maximum fence height abutting Mayfield Road or Kennedy Road – 1.2 metres;

(20) No permanent accessory structures shall be erected in the front yard;

(21) No outdoor storage is permitted in the front yard; and

(22) No additional parking is required for commercial uses.

Shall also be subject to the requirements and restrictions relating to the R3E zone and all the general provisions of this by-law, which are not in conflict with those set out in section 2963.2”

(7) By adding thereto, the following sections:

“2964 The lands designated R3E - 6.0 – 2964 on Schedule A to this by-law:

shall only be used for the purposes permitted in an R3E- 6.0 zone, and; a) Dwelling, Street Townhouse

shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions:

1. Minimum Lot Area: Interior Lot – 150.0 square metres; Corner Lot – 225.0 square metres; End Lot – 180.0 square metres;

2. Minimum Lot Width: Interior Lot – 6.0 metres; Corner Lot – 9.0metres; End Lot – 7.2 metres;

3. Minimum Lot Depth: 25 metres;

4. Minimum Front Yard Depth: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to garage door facing the front lot line; c) the main wall of a dwelling may encroach into the front yard to within 1.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; d) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum front yard; e) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the front yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum front yard; and g) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the front yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle;

(5) Minimum Exterior Side Yard: a) 3.0 metres; b) the main wall of a dwelling may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 1.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; c) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar and chimney may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard; d) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; e) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; and f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard;

(6) Minimum Rear Yard a) 6.0 metres for an interior lot; b) 3.0 metres for a corner lot provided that not less than 50% of the unit width is setback 5.0 metres from the rear lot line; c) 3.5 metres to a deck off the main floor; and d) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar may encroach1.0 metres into the rear yard;

(7) Minimum Interior Side Yard: a) 1.2 metres and 0.0 metres when abutting side lot line coincides with a common wall between two dwellings;

(8) Maximum Building Height- 12.0 metres;

(9) No garage may project more than 1.5 metres beyond the porch or front wall of a dwelling;

(10) The following provisions apply to garages: a) the interior garage width, as calculated 3.0 metres from the garage opening shall be a maximum 0.9 metres greater than the maximum garage door width permitted on the lot;

(11) The following shall apply to a bay, bow or box window: a) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum width of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 4.5 metres; b) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum depth of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 1.0 metres; c) A bay, bow or box window with a maximum depth of 0.6 metres does not need to contain side windows; and d) A bay, bow or box window with a depth greater than 0.6 metres up to a maximum depth of 1.0 metres does need to contain side windows;

(12) Notwithstanding Section 10.13.2 the following shall apply: a) front to rear yard access shall be permitted via non habitable rooms and with more than a two step grade difference;

apply:

(13) Notwithstanding Section 1 0.9.1 B (1) the following shall a) the minimum driveway width shall be 2.75 metres;

Shall also be subject to the requirements and restrictions relating to the R3E zone and all the general provisions of this by-law, which are not in conflict with those set out in section 2964.2”

(8) By adding thereto, the following sections:

“2965 The lands designated R3E - 6.0 – 2965 on Schedule A to this by-law:

shall only be used for the purposes permitted in an R3E- 6.0 zone, and; a) Dwelling, Street Townhouse

shall be subject to the following requirements and restrictions:

(1) Minimum Lot Area: Interior Lot – 150.0 square metres; Corner Lot – 225.0 square metres; End Lot – 180.0 square metres;

(2) Minimum Lot Width: Interior Lot – 6.0 metres Corner Lot – 9.0metres End Lot – 7.2 metres

(3) Minimum Lot Depth: 25 metres;

(4) Minimum Front Yard Depth: a) 3.0 metres; b) 5.5 metres to garage door facing the front lot line; c) the main wall of a dwelling may encroach into the front yard to within 1.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; d) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum front yard; e) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the front yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum front yard; and g) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the front yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle;

(5) Minimum Exterior Side Yard: a) 3.0 metres; b) the main wall of a dwelling may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 1.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; c) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar and chimney may encroach 2.0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard; d) a porch and/or balcony with or without foundation or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; e) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar including eaves and cornices may encroach into the exterior side yard to within 0.0 metres of a daylight rounding/triangle; and f) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation or cold cellar may encroach 1.0 metres into the minimum exterior side yard;

(6) Minimum Rear Yard a) 7.0 metres for an interior lot; b) 3.0 metres for a corner lot provided that not less than 50% of the unit width is setback 5.0 metres from the rear lot line; c) 3.5 metres to a deck off the main floor; and d) a bay window, bow window or box window with or without foundation and a porch or cold cellar may encroach1.0 metres into the rear yard;

(7) Minimum Interior Side Yard: a) 1.2 metres and 0.0 metres when abutting side lot line coincides with a common wall between two dwellings;

(8) Maximum Building Height- 12.0 metres;

(9) No garage may project more than 1.5 metres beyond the porch or front wall of a dwelling;

(10) The following provisions apply to garages: a) the interior garage width, as calculated 3.0 metres from the garage opening shall be a maximum 0.9 metres greater than the maximum garage door width permitted on the lot;

(11) The following shall apply to a bay, bow or box window: a) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum width of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 4.5 metres; b) Notwithstanding Section 6.13 Table 6.13.A the maximum depth of a bay, bow or box window with or without foundation shall be 1.0 metres; c) A bay, bow or box window with a maximum depth of 0.6 metres does not need to contain side windows; and d) A bay, bow or box window with a depth greater than 0.6 metres up to a maximum depth of 1.0 metres does need to contain side windows;

(12) Notwithstanding Section 10.13.2 the following shall apply: a) front to rear yard access shall be permitted via non habitable rooms and with more than a two step grade difference;

apply:

(13) Notwithstanding Section 1 0.9.1 B (1) the following shall a) the minimum driveway width shall be 2.75 metres;

Shall also be subject to the requirements and restrictions relating to the R3E zone and all the general provisions of this by-law, which are not in conflict with those set out in section 2965.2”

APPROVED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON PURSUANT TO ORDER NO. _.

, 2021,

•BRAMPTON )(

....flowerOty

..........DIM!l.Of'llfJfflON'CU

Fie:C01E17.o29_2JllA

0019:2018111122 er_, · ..

PART LOT 17, CONCESSION 1 E.H.S.

BY-LAW

SCHEDULE A

OH

LENNOX

CRES

SUBJECT LANDS CITY LIMIT

KEY MAP

PLANNING, BUILDING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

File: C01E17.029_ZKM