Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 01, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL171478
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Orlando Corporation
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of City of Brampton to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Logistic/Warehouse/Transportation, Corridor Protection Area, Business Park, Valley/and, Significant Woodland, Stormwater, Management Facility, Heritage Resource, Primary Gateway and Special Policy Area No. 6
Proposed Designated: Conformity with the Council approved Secondary Plan, subject to further assessment with respect to the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (not yet finalized at this time), and the Environmental Assessment for the Greater Toronto Area West Corridor
Purpose: To permit warehouse distribution and office uses
Property Address/Description: 10690/10700 Highway 50, 10900/10916 Coleraine Drive
Municipality: City of Brampton
Approval Authority File No.: C11E15.002
OLT Case No.: PL171478
OLT File No.: PL171478
OLT Case Name: Orlando Corporation v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Orlando Corporation
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 - Neglect of City of Brampton to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Agricultural, with portions of the area zoned Residential Estate 2
Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose: To permit proposed industrial uses and a proposed reduction to the required parking spaces.
Property Address/Description: 10690/10700 Highway 50, 10900/10916 Coleraine Drive
Municipality: City of Brampton
Municipality File No.: C11E15.002
OLT Case No.: PL171478
OLT File No.: PL171479
Heard: July 2, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Orlando Corporation | L. Longo |
| The Regional Municipality of Peel | S. Garrod |
| Toronto and Region Conservation Authority | T. Duncan |
| City of Brampton | B. Engell |
| Caveze Investments Limited | M. Cara |
| Gobind Marg Charitable Trust Ontario | M. Cara |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON JULY 2, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Orlando Corporation (“Appellant”) appealed the refusal or neglect of the City of Brampton (“City”) to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications relating to the Appellant’s lands located at 10690/10700 Highway 50 and 10900/10916 Coleraine Drive (“subject lands”).
2On July 2, 2021, the Tribunal held a settlement hearing regarding these proceedings. The proposed settlement is on consent of the Parties.
3In support of the proposed settlement, the Appellant filed the affidavit of Carl Brawley, sworn on June 10, 2021. Mr. Brawley is a land use planner retained by the Appellant. He also gave evidence at the settlement hearing. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
4Mr. Brawley stated that the Appellant applied for official plan and zoning by-law amendments to permit the development of the subject lands for two phases of development. The Phase 1 land block is between Coleraine Drive and Highway (Regional Road) 50 and the Phase 2 land block is west of Coleraine Drive, east of future Area 47 Arterial Road A (Major Mackenzie Drive extension).
5In December 2019 and January 2020, the Tribunal approved the proposed settlement of the Appellant’s zoning by-law amendment appeal for the Phase 1 lands. Mr. Brawley stated that subsequent to that approval, the Parties reached a proposed settlement regarding the Appellant’s zoning by-law amendment appeal for the Phase 2 lands and the official plan amendment appeal.
6Mr. Brawley stated that the proposed zoning by-law amendment for the Phase 2 lands includes holding (H) provisions that generally relate to matters to be resolved through the subdivision registration process once a draft plan is approved by the City. He stated that the proposed holding provisions relate to:
- an ongoing Environmental Study Report for the Class Environmental Assessment for Arterial Roads within the Highway 427 Industrial Secondary Plan Area (Area 47);
- the completion of technical studies such as a Functional Servicing Report, a Transportation Impact Study, and a Noise Attenuation Study;
- satisfactory arrangements for the provision of interim or temporary water and sanitary services as well as vehicle access and road improvements; and,
- the protection and conservation of heritage resources.
7Mr. Brawley stated that the proposed zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) as it will facilitate efficient, supportive development in a designated greenfield area within a settlement area and accommodate appropriate market-based employment uses to meet long-term needs. He opined that it conforms with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”) as it represents an efficient and diverse use of employment lands that will assist in accommodating forecasted employment growth on lands within a settlement area located near major goods movement facilities and corridors. He also stated that the subject lands lie within a provincially significant employment zone. Mr. Brawley further opined that the proposed zoning by-law amendment conforms with the Regional Municipality of Peel (“Region”) Official Plan. He stated that the subject lands are designated Urban System and also as a designated greenfield area in the Region’s Official Plan. He opined that the proposed zoning by-law amendment conforms with the City’s Official Plan, Official Plan Amendment No. 105 (“OPA No. 105”), and the Area 47 - Highway 427 Industrial Secondary Plan in which the subject lands are designated for industrial and employment purposes in a designated greenfield area. Mr. Brawley further opined that the proposed zoning by-law amendment has regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and represents good planning.
8The Appellant requested that, with the Tribunal’s approval in Tribunal Case No. PL141189 of modifications to OPA No. 105, the Appellant’s official plan amendment appeal should be dismissed.
9Based on Mr. Brawley’s uncontradicted evidence, and noting the consent of the Parties, the Tribunal finds that the proposed zoning by-law amendment is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the Growth Plan, the Region’s Official Plan, the City’s Official Plan, OPA No. 105, and the Area 47 - Highway 427 Industrial Secondary Plan. The Tribunal also finds that it has regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act.
ORDER
10The Tribunal orders that the s. 34(11) appeal is allowed, in part, and approves the proposed zoning by-law amendment as attached to this Order and Decision as Attachment 1. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
11The Tribunal orders that the Appellant’s s. 22(7) appeal is dismissed.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS 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.