Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 03, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003367 (Formerly PL200230)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Plazacorp. Properties Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request by City of Mississauga

Existing Designation: Residential Low Density

Proposed Designated: Residential Medium Density

Purpose: To permit 101 back-to-back stacked townhomes

Property Address/Description: 2512, 2522 and 2532 Argyle Road

Municipality: City of Mississauga

Approval Authority File No.: OZ 18/017

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003367

Legacy Case No.: PL200230

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003367

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200230

OLT Case Name: Plazacorp. Properties Ltd. v. Mississauga (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Plazacorp. Properties Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law No. 225-2007 – Refusal of application by City of Mississauga

Existing Designation: R3

Proposed Designated: RM9 – Exception

Purpose: To permit 101 back-to-back stacked townhomes

Property Address/Description: 2512, 2522 and 2532 Argyle Road

Municipality: City of Mississauga

Approval Authority File No.: OZ 18/017

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003369

Legacy Case No.: PL200231

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003367

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL200230

Heard: May 31 to June 4, 2021 and June 7, 2021 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties City of Mississauga Plazacorp Properties Ltd.

Counsel Raj Kehar Mary Flynn-Guglietti Kailey Sutton

DECISION DELIVERED BY G.C.P. BISHOP AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1The Tribunal convened a Merits Hearing (“hearing”) for the above noted matter. Plazacorp Properties Ltd.(“Applicant”) has filed an appeal against the City of Mississauga’s refusal of an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) pursuant to s. 22(7) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act. The property is known municipally as 2512, 2522, and 2532 Argyle Road (“subject lands”), in the City of Mississauga (“City”).

2The effect of the two planning instruments under appeal is to allow the demolition of three existing single detached dwellings and to permit the construction of a four-storey back-to-back stacked townhouse development. The proposal consists of 101 units within four buildings.

3There are two Parties of record, all of whom are represented by Counsel, at this proceeding. There are four Participants of record, all of whom submitted Participant statements, and are considered by the Tribunal in its findings.

KEY ISSUES

4The Procedural Order defined several issues put forward by the Parties but during the proceeding it was clear that the key issues related to the proposed development are:

a. does the revised proposal conform to relevant Provincial and City planning policy?

b. is the proposed development considered an overdevelopment of the subject lands? and,

c. does the road network, in the immediate area, have sufficient capacity to service the proposed development from a vehicular, pedestrian and traffic safety perspective and is the proposed access in the best location?

THE WITNESSES

5The Tribunal had the benefit of hearing testimony from five witnesses. This Decision includes oral testimony and material found in the various expert witness statements (“WS”). The witnesses are as follows:

a. Land Use Planning – Michael Goldberg, for the Applicant (WS - Exhibit 6A and Reply WS - Exhibit 6B), Johnathan Famme (under subpoena), Planner for the City (Planning Report - Exhibit 1C, Tabs 17 and 22) and Edward Davidson for the City (WS - Exhibit 9A and Reply WS - Exhibit 9B);

b. Transportation Planning – Richard Pernicky, for the Applicant (WS - Exhibit 7A and Reply WS - Exhibit 7B) and Transportation Engineering - Kelsey Waugh, for the City (WS - Exhibit 10A and Reply WS - Exhibit 10B).

SUBJECT LANDS AND AREA CONTEXT

6The subject lands represent an assembly of three single detached residential properties and is located approximately 290 metres (“m”) south of Dundas Street West, on the west side of Argyle Road. The subject lands are the last three remaining lots along the west side of Argyle Road before Argyle Road swings, at 90 degrees, and heads east on Dunbar Road. They are located close to an area which is designated as an Intensification Corridor, in the City's Official Plan (“MOP”). The subject lands are rectangular in shape, with a total frontage of 72.5 m on the West side of Argyle Road, an approximate depth of 91 m and a total area of 6,603.9 square metres (“sq m”). There is a 17 m wide easement, in the favour of the City, across the rear (west) limit of the subject lands for storm sewer purposes. The easement will remain and will be unencumbered by any structures or hard surfaces. The topography of the subject lands is best described as generally flat.

7The subject lands are located in the Cooksville neighbourhood of the City, a residential neighborhood that was developed in the 1960s. Surrounding land uses may be described as follows:

a. North - A condominium apartment development comprised of two 13-storey residential buildings with associated landscape and amenity areas. Further to the north, is a rental apartment site comprised of two 13-storey residential buildings. Intensification, through a rezoning application, is also proposed on these lands for a third building in the form of a 15-storey apartment;

b. East - the east side of Argyle Road, one finds detached dwellings facing the subject lands and the side of the dwelling at 203 Dunbar Road that faces south. Further to the north, just south of the intersection with Dundas Street, on the east side of Argyle Road, are non-residential uses including an automotive shop and a welding shop;

c. West – immediately west are lands occupied by the outdoor amenity areas that are part of the condominium development found north of the subject lands; and,

d. South – immediately to the south are detached dwellings, approximately half of the length of the sideline of the subject lands, abuts the sideline of the property located at 220 Dunbar Road, with the remainder of the length of this sideline, abuts the rear yards of properties fronting on Consulate Road.

8The subject lands are located within the Cooksville West Character Area as defined by the MOP, which extends to the south and is the designation on the east side of Argyle Road. The lands immediately north and west are designated High Density Residential. The subject lands are well served by existing and planned public transportation. This includes the Hurontario Light Rail Transit (“Hurontario LRT”) (scheduled to be operational in 2024) and five existing bus routes that are in close proximity to the subject lands. The general area is well serviced with retail, service commercial, restaurants, community facilities, and religious institutions that serve the broader surrounding community.

BACKGROUND

9The history of the proposed development is summarized as follows:

a. an OPA and ZBA applications were filed with the City in October 2018, along with a series of expert reports, in support of and to assist in the evaluation of the proposal. The applications were deemed complete in November 2018;

b. the original proposal contained a total of 112 back-to-back stacked townhouses but in response to comments from City staff and the public, it was reduced to 101 units;

c. two public meetings were held by the planning and development committee in March and April 2019;

d. a Public Meeting Recommendation Report (“Report”) dated January 31, 2020, was considered by the Planning and Development Committee, in February 2020. This Report recommended that the applications to amend the OPA and ZBA be approved subject to the conditions referenced in the Report. The recommendations found, in this Report, were refused by the Committee; and,

e. in March 2020, City Council refused the applications.

THE PROPOSAL

10Mr. Goldberg advised the Tribunal that the proposal and its many details, including the projected statistics, are reflected in the architectural site/concept plans dated December 24, 2019, and found in Exhibit 1A -Tab 4a. Plans have been modified from the original application submission and incorporate revisions based upon refinements to the design in an effort to address City staff comments and input received at public meetings. Changes also reflect comments from Peel Region related to turning movements for waste management.

11Mr. Goldberg noted that he has reviewed the most up-to-date application status report dated March 29, 2021, which indicates there are no design or technical issues outstanding with any of the City departments, Peel Region’s departments or other agencies that commented on various submissions of previous plans.

12The proposal includes the following:

a. a Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 9,530.62 sq m with a Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 1.44;

b. 101 dwelling units consisting of 32 one-bedroom, 67 two-bedroom and two, three-bedroom units;

c. a height of four-storeys and 15.0 m;

d. total landscaped area of 3,588.31 sq m (54.3% of the subject lands), which includes 1,993.23 sq m of soft landscaping;

e. vehicle parking spaces – 151 (126 for residents and 25 for visitors) and a total of 62 bike parking spaces;

f. a common outdoor amenity space of 1,304.1 sq m and a private amenity space of 1,464.3 sq m (14.5 sq m/unit); and,

g. a variety of setbacks.

13The Applicant plans to demolish the existing detached dwellings and construct a four-storey, back-to-back stacked townhouse development. The residential units adjacent to Argyle Road would be oriented to the street. An access driveway entrance is provided at the centre of the subject lands which includes pedestrian walkways on both sides and provides access to the underground parking garage and the servicing/ garbage area. Lower units have grade level patios and upper units have terraces on the fourth floor. Shared outdoor amenity space is located along the rear of the subject lands and the location of the storm sewer easement which will be maintained. There is also a central play area at the terminus of the driveway. The proposal includes one level of underground parking accommodating both cars and bicycles.

PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

14The Tribunal has two planning instruments for consideration at this hearing;

a. an OPA to the MOP to amend the land use designation from Residential Low Density 1 to Residential Medium Density (Exhibit 1C -Tab 28). The OPA would also add a special site in the Cooksville Neighborhood Character Area and amend the FSI on the subject lands:

b. a ZBA to By-law No. 0225-2007 (“BL 0225-2007”) to rezone the subject lands from a R3 to a RM 9- Exception (Back-to-Back and Stacked Townhouses). The ZBA would permit a maximum of 101 back-to-back stacked townhomes with a maximum height of 16 m and four storeys with a flat roof, a maximum FSI of 1.5 and requisite zone provisions (Exhibit 1C - Tab 29).

15Mr. Goldberg noted, in his evidence, that should the OPA and the ZBA applications be approved, a site plan application would be filed with the City.

LAND USE PLANNING POLICY

16The proposed planning instruments are subject to several relevant Provincial and City planning policies found in various statutory planning documents. The planning framework in Ontario is provincially led and the Tribunal must be satisfied with all aspects of relevant planning documents in the formulation of its Decision.

Provincial Policy

The [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

17Mr. Goldberg, in his testimony, opined that the revised proposal has regard for s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”). He made specific note of s. 2 f), h), k), q), r) and s). The Planner for the City did not speak in detail to the Act. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Goldberg that the revised proposal has appropriate regard for s. 2 of the Act.

18Much was made in the submissions by the City regarding s. 2.1(1) of the Act and the fact that City Council made a decision to refuse the OPA and ZBA. The Tribunal has, in its determination of this appeal, had regard to matters as outlined in s. 2.1(1) of the Act which states: “When … the Tribunal makes a decision under this Act that relates to a planning matter, it shall have regard to, (a) any decision that is made under this Act by a municipal council…as it relates to the same planning matter; and (b) any information and material that the municipal council…considered in making the decision described in clause (a)”.

19The Tribunal notes that the courts have (Minto Communities Inc. v. Ottawa (City), 2009 CanLII 65802 (ON SCDC), 2009 CarswellOnt 7349) determined that the Municipal Council is the first to determine the public interest but “…the appeal process before the Ontario Municipal Board is not merely a lis between parties, but a process requiring the OMB to exercise its public interest mandate...”

20City Council did have the benefit of two comprehensive planning reports dated February 15, 2019 and January 31, 2020 (Exhibit 1C, Tabs 17 and 22) providing complete background information, a thorough analysis of the proposal as it relates to applicable public policy, considerations relating to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law results of a complete technical analysis, and a summary of public comments.

21The planning reports are part of the record provided to the Tribunal and is relevant and carries weight in this matter. The Tribunal notes the comments found in the reports on how the application aligns with Council’s Strategic Plan:

The applications are consistent with the Connect pillar of the Strategic Plan by contributing a choice of housing type to residents that supports the principle of building complete communities to accommodate growth.

22The conclusion found in the staff report is:

In summary, the proposed development has been designed to be compatible with the existing and planned character of the neighborhood, providing for limited and appropriate intensification for the neighborhood context. The proposed back to back stacked townhomes provide an appropriate transition from the apartment buildings to the north and detached dwellings to the south. The proposed official plan amendment and rezoning are acceptable from a planning standpoint and should be approved.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020

23On February 28, 2020, the Province issued a revised Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), which took effect on May 1, 2020 and all land use planning decisions made after this date are required to be consistent with its policy directions. The PPS provides overarching policy on land use planning in Ontario with the general goal to enhance the quality of life of those living in the Province. The PPS is one of the foundations of the Provincially led planning policy regime.

24Mr. Davidson, in his evidence, stated that the proposed development represents an inappropriate approach to development of the subject lands within the Cooksville Neighborhood Character Area (West) with respect to built form and intensity of use. Therefore, it represents an overdevelopment of the site and is not consistent with the PPS. With respect to the policies of the PPS, he maintained the following to support this view:

a. planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated. The subject lands are not within the proposed Urban Growth Centre, does not form part of the “City Centre”, and does not form part of a “community node” as identified in the MOP;

b. the City, in keeping with the release of the new PPS 2020, has begun an Official Plan Review to determine changes, if any, to the City Structure as well as to identify “Strategic Growth Areas”. This review has suggested no major changes to the existing City Structure will be required to accommodate population growth to 2051. This review has identified “Strategic Growth Areas” to be located generally around existing major transit stations that are already underutilized, the Downtown City Centre and the former site of the Lakeview Coal fired generating station site; and,

c. the subject lands are not identified as a “Strategic Growth Area” and the Dundas Connects Master Plan does not include the subject lands within the Dundas Focus Area. The lands also fall outside of the intensification corridor designated along Dundas Street West.

Mr. Davidson stated that the proposed development is generally consistent with the PPS, but not consistent enough.

25Mr. Goldberg provided a comprehensive review on how the planning instruments are, in his opinion, consistent with the PPS 2020. He emphasized that he read the document in its entirety and identified an extensive list of important policy considerations that speak directly to the revised proposal being:

a. the subject lands abut existing apartment buildings, is in close proximity to a designated Intensification Corridor and the Downtown and is well served by high order public transit. Development of the subject lands as a back-to-back stacked townhouse development is an efficient use of land, with a moderately denser urban form, that will be cost effective and optimally utilize existing infrastructure land and community facilities;

b. the subject lands are located within a close walking distance to the Dundas Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) station at Dundas Street and Confederation Parkway and the Hurontario LRT. Higher densities are anticipated and expected by Provincial policies in such areas;

c. settlement areas are where growth and development are to be focused and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that efficiently use land and resources; are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, support active transportation, and are transit supportive. The additional concentration of people will contribute to maintaining and enhancing the vitality and vibrancy of the Cooksville neighborhood and injects reinvestment on the subject lands adjacent to the Downtown;

d. identification of appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development and accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment;

e. the promotion of appropriate development standards to facilitate intensification, redevelopment, and compact urban form while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety. The proposed stacked townhouse development is a form of intensification that will provide an appropriate transition between the apartment buildings to the north and the lower scale uses to the south. No such transition has existed next to the existing apartments. The transition is gradual and sensitive, therefore, it will be a compatible fit within the context of the subject lands and general area;

f. growth and development that is integrated with infrastructure planning, in an effort to meet population, housing and employment projections, and addressing housing needs;

g. provides a range and mix of housing options and densities required to meet projected requirements of current and future residents, planning authorities shall provide for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents and all types of residential intensification. Represents a proposal that is an appropriate housing type in this location, broadens the range and choice of housing, and is an appropriate optimal density for this context; and,

h. the proposal optimizes the use of land which can be simply stated as maximining the utilization of the subject lands given the site, area, and the existing policy context. An appropriate balance has been struck.

26In conclusion, Mr. Goldberg opined that the planning instruments support and advance the policy direction of the PPS to optimize the use of land, resources, and existing and planned infrastructure. Therefore, it is consistent with the policy direction of intensification and optimization of long-term land use, resources, and infrastructure. In his opinion, the proposed stacked townhouse development is appropriate and suitable for the subject lands and its surrounding context and consistent with the PPS.

27Mr. Famme made use of the planning staff report in his evidence. He reviewed the PPS consistency analysis made by staff, which was very comprehensive in nature similar to the analysis of Mr. Goldberg. He directed the Tribunal to his visual evidence (Exhibit 5), the series of Corporate Reports, the various Application Status Reports, including the final Planning Application Status Report and final comments, dated March 29, 2021, all contained in Exhibit 1C. It is Mr. Famme’s opinion that the planning instruments are consistent with the PPS.

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe - 2019

28All planning witnesses offered testimony, both through their witness statements or orally, on whether the proposed development conforms to ‘A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe – 2019’ (“Growth Plan”). Each noted that the Growth Plan builds on the policy foundation of the PPS and provides more specific land use policy. Suffice it to say that the evaluation of policy considerations and the planning expert’s divergence in opinion followed similar lines to those in the above evaluation of the PPS. The policies of the Growth Plan are very consistent with the themes found in the PPS. Hence, although the evidence is extensive, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to provide a concise review.

29Mr. Davidson reviewed the many reports in submissions, prepared by the City, in keeping with requirements of the various versions of the Provincial Growth Plans and noted that the City has identified appropriate intensification areas within its boundaries. By doing so, the City has met the tests of the Growth Plan in the following ways:

a. has acknowledged the need for a coordinated approach to implementation;

b. has accommodated the City's allocation residential growth as defined by the former Growth Plan, within the existing policy framework. The subject lands are not relied upon to achieve existing residential growth forecast and the current Official Plan review suggests no major changes to the urban structure found in the current Official Plan;

c. the MOP established a hierarchy of urban form that directs where intensification efforts in the City will be focused. The subject lands are not identified as a location warranting some measure of intensification and there are no specific policies within the Growth Plan, which propose that the subject lands must be developed in a form, contemplated by the proposed development; and,

d. the Growth Plan speaks to intensification along transit routes, which are adequate to support and enhance the provision of transit services. While there are future plans to increase the level of public transit with the implementation of more intensive services in the general area such as a BRT line along Dundas Street West, the subject lands fall outside of the “Intensification designation” in the MOP.

30In conclusion, Mr. Davidson opined that while the intensification of the subject lands is consistent with the broad statement of promoting intensification throughout the City, the built form and intensity of the development lacks consistency with the PPS, and since the City has not identified the subject lands as part of a Strategic Growth Area, the OPA and ZBA do not conform to the Growth Plan.

31Mr. Goldberg took a more fulsome review of the Growth Plan in his testimony. He noted that the Growth Plan generally aims to revitalize Downtowns to become vibrant and convenient centres; create complete communities that offer more options for living, working, shopping, and playing; providing greater choice in housing types to meet the needs of people at all stages of life; reduce urban sprawl and protect farmland and green spaces, and improve access to a greater range of transportation choices. Relevant policy considerations include:

a. the subject lands are located within an area identified as “built up” area, which encompasses the entire City. In Mr. Goldberg's opinion, according to definitions found in the Growth Plan, the subject lands are located within a ‘Strategic Growth Area” as it is less than 800 m from a “Priority Transit Corridor” and within the area defined as a “Major Transit Station Area”. All of these areas are where the Growth Plan policies direct the most intensive forms of growth, and it encourages intensification in appropriate locations. The subject lands are located in an area where, for many decades, high-rise and high density residential developments have conventionally coexisted comfortably and compatibly with lower forms of development;

b. important policies relate to the creation of complete communities and optimizing the use of land and infrastructure. A diverse range and mix of housing options that are convenient to a range of transportation facilities, provide for a more compact built form and vibrant public realm are encouraged;

c. prioritize intensification and higher densities in strategic growth areas to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability. The proposed development will contribute to satisfying policies that encourage intensification near transit. It is very accessible to planned rapid transit stations, existing surface transit stops, it is well served by nearby shopping in services that are in close proximity to the subject lands;

d. support range and mix of housing options, including second units and affordable housing, to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households. The proposed development will contribute to the achievement of a complete community which will compliment other existing buildings in the area and will contribute to the evolution and maturation of this neighborhood;

e. municipalities are directed to undertake integrated planning in order to manage forecasted growth to the horizon of the growth plan. Integrated planning will assist in providing an urban form that will optimize infrastructure particularly along transit and transportation corridors, in an effort to support the achievement of complete communities through a more compact built form;

f. assists in the development of a complete community with a diverse mix of land uses by promoting a compact built form that is integrated in the community and with adjacent land uses;

g. it is important to optimize the use of existing urban land supply to avoid over-designating land for future urban development while allowing flexibility for local decision-makers to respond to housing market demand; and,

h. supports intensification to make efficient use of land and infrastructure is promoted; and makes efficient use of available infrastructure to accommodate growth.

32In conclusion, it is Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the proposed development has regard for s. 2 the Planning Act, is consistent with the policies of the PPS and conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan. The subject lands are in an appropriate and optimal location to accommodate the proposed stacked townhouse form of residential intensification.

33Mr. Famme directed the Tribunal to his analysis of how the proposed development conforms with the Growth Plan where he reviewed key policies relevant to the applications to ensure conformity. Important considerations for the Tribunal were development of complete communities, the priority of intensification, need to support a range and mix of housing options, the integration of land use planning and investment in infrastructure and the need to provide different approaches to manage growth that recognizes the diversity of communities.

34The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Messrs. Goldberg and Famme and finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA has appropriate regard for s. 2 the Planning Act, is consistent with the policies of the PPS and conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan.

Municipal Policy

Region of Peel Official Plan (“RPOP”)

35Schedule D of the RPOP designates the subject lands as “Urban Systems”.

36Mr. Davidson, in his review of the RPOP, is of the opinion that it does not provide any site-specific planning framework to assist in evaluating the proposed development or to assist in addressing the form or nature of the Applicant’s proposal. He did note that this section of Argyle Road and Dundas Street West is under the jurisdiction of the City.

37Mr. Davidson noted that the subject lands do not fall within a designated intensification area. In his opinion, the City has fulfilled the requirement to ‘facilitate and promote intensification’ and therefore has chosen not to designate the subject lands for intensification. There is no overriding planning basis in the RPOP, which supports the level of intensification as proposed nor is there an assessment of the affordability of the housing being produced.

38Mr. Goldberg, in his review of the RPOP, took a comprehensive view with respect to its policy directions. The RPOP conforms to the Growth Plan, so many of the policy themes are similar. The Tribunal will outline only the main focus of Mr. Goldberg’s evidence, in the establishment of his opinion, in an effort not to be repetitive. Key policy directions include:

a. to achieve healthy, complete urban communities that contain living, working and recreational opportunities;

b. achieve intensified and compact form and a mix of land uses in appropriate areas that efficiently use land, services, taking into account existing communities and services that are pedestrian-friendly and transit-supportive. To achieve a diverse and compatible mix of land uses including residential employment uses to support vibrant neighborhoods;

c. take into account characteristics of existing communities including support of the Urban System objectives and policies in this plan, and support the design of communities that minimize crime;

d. encourages planning for development of complete communities and a balance of jobs and housing. Complete communities are compact, well designed, transit oriented, and include a diverse mix of planned uses. This allows accommodation for people at all stages of life. A significant portion of growth is to be directed to built-up areas of the community through intensification, which will allow for the optimization of the existing and planned infrastructure and services;

e. intensify development on underutilized lands;

f. to reduce dependence on the automobile through the development of mixed-use, transit-supportive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments; and,

g. the RPOP promotes the provision of an appropriate range and mix of housing types, densities, sizes, and tenure to meet the required housing needs of current and future residents of the Region.

39In summary, Mr. Goldberg noted that the subject lands are within close walking proximity to surface transit routes and planned rapid transit. Intensification is encouraged to contribute to achieving population targets and other objectives of the RPOP; the location and context of the subject lands are excellent from a planning perspective to accommodate the degree and form of residential intensification as proposed by the Applicant; the subject lands are underutilized and the proposed development will contribute to reinvestment in and represents moderate intensification and will contribute to the optimization of the existing and planned infrastructure and available community services; contribute to the range of housing types and options within the neighborhood and thereby contribute to the Region's housing targets; and will provide a compact, land efficient, transit-support and pedestrian-friendly development that will contribute to a complete community.

40Mr. Famme testified that the proposed development applications were circulated to the Region, and the City was advised that the applications met the requirements for exemption from Regional approval. Therefore, no Regional Official Plan Amendment is required to accommodate the planning instruments. The Planner noted a number of key objectives found in the Urban Systems (s. 5.3.1) of the RPOP including achieving sustainable development, establishing healthy complete communities, achieving an intensified compact form and mix of land uses in appropriate areas that efficiently use land, services, infrastructure, and public finances, while taking into account the characteristics of existing communities and services and achieving an urban form and densities that are pedestrian friendly and transit supportive.

41Messrs. Goldberg and Famme are of the opinion that the OPA and ZBA conform to a large degree of support under the policies of the RPOP. The Tribunal agrees.

City of Mississauga Official Plan (“MOP”)

42The MOP designates the subject lands as Residential Low Density One as illustrated on Schedule 10 - Land Use Designations. This land use designation permits detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, and duplex dwellings. The subject lands are also located within the Cooksville West Neighbourhood Character Area. All planners made reference to a variety of policy sections that were referred to and reviewed in detail during the course of their evidence and are considered in this Decision and Tribunal findings.

43Mr. Davidson, in his evidence, opined that the Proposed development did not conform to the MOP for reasons including the following:

a. the subject lands are not identified as an Intensification Area as set out in the “City Structure”:

b. there are a number of policies directed towards the protection and conservation of the character of stable residential neighbourhoods. “Neighbourhoods will not be the focus for intensification and should be regarded as stable residential areas where the existing character is to be preserved”.

c. the proposed level of development and its built form is not in keeping with the existing character of the neighbouring low density land uses. It does not provide satisfactory transition from the high density uses to the north and the detached dwellings to the east and south. The proposed development is not context sensitive and does not respect the rear yard amenity areas associated with the adjacent detached dwellings to the south;

d. the proposed level of development and the impact of the proposed development on adjacent low density land uses has not been adequately considered. The proposed development is not compatible in built form or scale to the surrounding low density housing to the south and east;

e. the subject lands have not been identified in a local area review for higher density, is not located along a corridor and does not form part of an existing apartment site;

f. the proposed development is overdevelopment because it does not meet a 45 degree angular plane, the proposed height has minimal setbacks and introduces dwelling units that are below grade: and,

g. The location of the proposed stormwater retention tank may cause issues in the future with respect to maintenance of both the tank and sump pump facilities.

44Mr. Goldberg, in his evidence, opined that the proposed instruments conformed to the MOP for reasons that include the following:

a. is located in an area that is supported by higher order transit and is a moderately higher density, pedestrian oriented development that is serviced by existing infrastructure, services, and facilities: Population and employment growth is encouraged in these areas;

b. compact mixed-use development in appropriate locations is encouraged where there is existing or planned higher order transit. This will help reduce vehicular travel and minimize impacts on the environment and promote public health;

c. the proposed development represents infilling, adjacent to an apartment site, at a density that provides an appropriate and sensitive transition between the high density uses to the north and the low density uses to the south;

d. contributes to a mix of densities that will support transit usage, is pedestrian-oriented and will maximize the utilization of existing and planned infrastructure in an area where higher density development is planned and presently exists. It broadens the range of housing options thereby contributes to the stability of the broader neighbourhood;

e. is in a neighborhood where a mix of high rise apartments have coexisted for many decades with low density dwellings to the south and east. Therefore, it provides a more balanced transition between the properties of differing intensity in this neighbourhood;

f. ensuring that housing is provided in a manner that maximizes the use of community infrastructure and engineering services. Provides a range of housing choices in terms of type, tenure and price. The proposed development will deliver 101 residential units in a location, well served by rapid public transit and community services and facilities. It will contribute to a complete community and provide a form of housing that has been described as the “Missing Middle” within this neighbourhood:

g. the subject lands are located within a neighbourhood that are considered stable areas where limited growth is anticipated. They also could be considered to be within an Intensification Area due to their proximity to a major transit station.

h. new development in Neighbourhoods need not mirror existing development The MOP defines criteria for new development within Neighbourhoods, which include respecting existing lotting patterns, continuity of front, rear and side yard setbacks, the scale and character of the surrounding area, minimizing overshadowing and overlook on adjacent neighbours, incorporating stormwater best management practices, preservation of high quality trees and ensuring the replacement of the tree canopy and are designed respecting scale massing character and grades of the surrounding area. The design of the proposed development does respect the scale massing and character of the surrounding area, which is characterized by a mix of scales and densities and thereby, conforms with the policies for development in Neighbourhoods. The planning concept of ‘respect’ does not direct sameness or duplication but requires a sensitive and gradual approach to achieve compatibility;

i. the proposed development contains a substantial amount of landscaped area. This includes an area, at the rear of the subject lands, that is considered to be a Common Outdoor Amenity Area. Approximately 55% of the subject lands will be landscaped; and,

j. the proposed development will be compatible as it responds appropriately to the surrounding context and will enhance the public realm. To be compatible does not require duplication or sameness but should be scaled and designed to enable harmonious co-existence.

45Mr. Famme, in his testimony, directed the Tribunal to the relevant policies found in the MOP. This was articulated in his initial planning report, dated February 15, 2019 (Exhibit 1C, Tab 17). This evidence is combined with a very comprehensive analysis within this planning report submitted to City Council. His review is similar to that of Mr. Goldberg and some of his key considerations in forming his opinion with respect to the proposed development are:

a. it will not exceed the capacity of existing and planned engineering services, the City encourages compact, mixed-use development that is transit supportive in appropriate locations to provide a range of live/work opportunities;

b. intensification within Neighborhoods may be considered where the proposed development is compatible in built form and scale to surrounding existing uses. The proposed development is sensitive to the existing and planned context and has an appropriate transition in built form, density and scale while respecting the existing and planned character of the area;

c. housing is to be provided in a manner that maximizes the use of community infrastructure and engineering services in an effort to meet the housing needs and preferences of the City's residents. This means the provision of a range of housing choices in terms of type, tenure, and price;

d. new development need not mirror existing development but will respect the scale and character of the surrounding area, minimize over shadowing, and overlook on neighboring properties, and respect the continuity of front, rear and side yard setbacks found in the area;

e. provides outdoor on-site amenity areas that are suitable for the intended users. These amenity areas are to be at grade and be located and designed for physical comfort and safety;

f. the proposed buildings and overall site design, are compatible with the site conditions, the surrounding context and surrounding landscape of the existing and planned character of the area;

g. the proposed development was evaluated against criteria found in the MOP (s. 9.5.1.2) to ensure it is compatible and provides appropriate transition to existing planned development. Key elements, in this evaluation, include the enhancement of streetscapes, the size and distribution of building mass and height, the orientation of building and structures on the properties, views, sunlight and wind conditions, architectural character as represented by the rhythm, textures and building materials, privacy and overlook conditions.

h. lands located within a Neighborhood designation have a maximum building height of four storeys unless the Character Area policies specify alternative building height requirements; and,

i. the proposed development does not adversely impact or destabilize the goals and objectives of the MOP, the functioning of the remaining lands, which have the same designation, or neighbouring lands; is suitable for the proposed uses and compatible with existing and future uses of the surrounding lands; and there are adequate engineering services, community infrastructure and multi-modal transportation systems to support new residents.

46Mr. Famme also reviewed sections of his report, dated January 31, 2020 (Exhibit 1C, Tab 22). He concentrated on the criteria for site specific official plan amendments listed in s.19.5.1 of the MOP, which is built on a framework of the following questions:

a. Will the proposal adversely impact or destabilize the overall intent, goals and objectives of the Official Plan; and the development or functioning of the remaining lands which have the same designation, or neighbouring lands?

b. Are the lands suitable for the proposed uses, and are the proposed land uses compatible with existing and future uses of the surrounding lands?

c. Are there adequate engineering services, community infrastructure and multi-modal transportation systems to support the proposed application?

d. Has a planning rationale with reference to MOP policies, other relevant policies, good planning principles in the merits of the proposed amendment in comparison with the existing designation being provided by the Applicant?

47His review is similar to that of Mr. Goldberg and some of his key considerations, in forming his opinion, with respect to the proposed development are;

a. Services and Infrastructure - based on the comments received from the applicable city departments and agencies, the existing infrastructure is adequate to support the proposed development. There's adequate transportation and transit routes, green space, and a variety of services in proximity to the subject property;

b. Urban Form - the proposed development will create a sense of enclosure along the street edge with heights appropriate to the surrounding context, provide medium density, residential uses as a transition between high density apartments to the north and low density residential dwellings to the south, conform to the four storey height limit within neighbourhoods and therefore, will not adversely impact or destabilize the intent, goals and objectives of the Official Plan;

c. Compatibility with the Neighbourhood and Transition - the proposed development will be compatible in built form and scale to the surrounding development and will be sensitive to the existing and planned context, which includes appropriate transitions in use, built form, density and scale, the building height of four storeys is permitted in neighborhoods, does not need to mirror existing development but it must minimize overshadowing and overlook on adjacent neighbours and is achieved through the provision of a 9 m building setback and 3.9 m landscape buffer along the south property line abutting the detached dwellings to the south and results in no shadow impacts, provides a form of housing currently not available in the area as a more affordable option than detached dwellings;

d. An exhaustive comparison approach of various sections of the MOP are also included in Mr. Famme’s planning document.

48Messrs. Goldberg and Famme are of the opinion that the OPA and ZBA conform and to a large degree support in the policies of the MOP.

49The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Messrs. Goldberg and Famme and finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA conforms to both the RPOP and the MOP.

City Guidelines and Master Plans

50The Dundas Connects Master Plan intends to create a priority transit corridor along Dundas Street, which includes a higher order transit service and an enhanced public realm. The corridor would be serviced by a Bus Rapid Transit system. The closest higher order transit stop to the subject lands is located within a walkable distance from the subject lands (approximately 414 m).

51It is Mr. Goldberg’s opinion that the proposed development as appropriate has regard for the Dundas Connects Master Plan. The Tribunal agrees.

52The City has Urban Design Guidelines for Back-to-Back and Stacked Townhouses. These guidelines are not statutory policy documents but serve to compliment and detail City OP policy.

53The guideline document provides suggested standards for a form of development that accommodates new growth through infill and development on vacant and underutilized sites in the City. They served to recognize a form of development that maximizes the utilization of infrastructure, community facilities and public transit. The intended purpose is to ensure that new townhomes are compatible with, and sensitive to, the established context and that minimum impacts on adjacent properties are minimized.

54Mr. Davidson, in his evidence, maintained his view outlined earlier in this Decision and confirmed that the proposed development does not have appropriate regard for these Guidelines. His key reasons for this opinion are that the proposed development does not meet the 45 degree angular plane on both the north and south property lines, and exceeds the maximum three storey height limit for back-to-back town houses. There is no minimum three metre wide landscape buffer around the subject lands, and below grade units are discouraged.

55Mr. Goldberg provided a very detailed review of these Guidelines in his WS. He also maintained his assessment outlined earlier in this Decision and is of the opinion that the proposed development demonstrates an appropriate transition in building heights between 13-storey apartment buildings to the north and detached dwellings to the south. With respect to the 45 degree angular plane, it is his view that this guideline provision is intended to minimize shadow and massing impacts of new developments. The orientation of the building is designed in such a way that it will result in no shadow impacts. The landscape buffer around the property generally exceeds 3 m in width and along the south boundary, the landscape buffer, that is unencumbered by the parking structure, also exceeds 3 m in width. There are partially below grade units, but these units are less than 50% below grade in keeping with the guidelines.

56Mr. Goldberg is of the opinion that the proposed development has appropriate regard for the City’s Urban Design Guidelines for Back-to-Back and Stacked Townhouses. The Tribunal agrees.

Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 as amended

57The Applicants presented a draft ZBA to BL 0225-2007 following standard City practices and rezones the subject lands to a RM9 - Exception Zone. The draft ZBA defines the various zone provisions required to implement the proposed development including: a maximum FSI; a maximum height and number of storeys, minimum yards of building and parking structure; maximum balcony projections; minimum landscape buffers and minimum number of parking spaces.

58Mr. Goldberg noted that the City planning staff have not confirmed the form of the proposed ZBA. Therefore, it is his recommendation that should the Tribunal approve in principle, the proposed development, its Order should include a condition along the following lines:

review of the draft Zoning By-law (ZBL) be undertaken by City Zoning staff to ensure the City is in agreement with the form and content of the by-law.

59There was some discussion around which zone category should be employed in this instance, given the combination of back-to-back and stacked townhouses. The suggestion of the RM8 zone category was discussed but Mr. Famme pointed out that all the properties in this zone category were eliminated and have been placed into exception zones with the creation of the RM9 and RM10 zone categories. In any event, a site specific exception is required and Mr. Famme was satisfied that the proposed development can work within the RM9 zone category. The Tribunal does find that the ultimate number of units needs to be inserted into the final form of the ZBA.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND SITE ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS

60Mr. Pernicky, on behalf of the Applicant, and Ms. Waugh, on behalf of the City, provided expert transportation evidence to the Tribunal.

61The City required a comprehensive Traffic Impact Study (“TIS”) to be prepared by the Applicant, in support of the proposed development (Exhibit 7A, Schedule 1). The Applicant also prepared two addendum TIS (Exhibit 7A, Schedule 2 and Schedule 3). A Parking Utilization Study was completed to inform the required parking provisions of the proposed ZBA. The TIS included a review of existing traffic conditions, future background conditions, generated site traffic, future total traffic conditions, parking assessment, site plan review considerations, and transportation demand management.

62Mr. Pernicky described the purpose of the various TIS documents. They served to assess the potential impact of the proposed development on the existing and future transportation network in the area. Other important considerations of the studies were an evaluation of the proposed access to the subject lands and appropriate transportation demand management requirements.

63With respect to the existing and proposed road network and transportation related services, Mr. Pernicky, in his evidence, opined that:

a. there is sufficient roadway capacity on Dunbar Road and Argyle Road to accommodate the proposed development. The TIS considered a number of intersections in the area including the proposed access to the subject lands, and found all are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service;

b. the evaluation of expected background traffic growth and the traffic generated by the proposed development, concluded there remains residual capacity available for future growth or variations in traffic volumes;

c. the intensity of the proposed development is appropriate and represents good transportation planning. The area has an excellent active transportation network including dedicated bike lanes on both sides of Confederation Parkway;

d. is well served by local bus service, is located approximately 755 m to the future Hurontario LRT - Major Transit Station Area and approximately 1.2 kilometres from the existing Cooksville GO station;

e. there are no transportation or pedestrian safety issues because the one main access point consolidates the three access points with no backing-up regress from the subject lands thereby improving pedestrian safety; and,

f. the location of the proposed access to the subject lands is appropriate and meets the minimum stopping sight distance. The existing curve on Dunbar Road serves to slow vehicle operating speeds significantly. There is a speed reduction warning sign depicting a 20 kilometres per hour (“km/h”) speed limit for southbound motorists in advance of the curve and it is suggested that a similar warning sign be installed for westbound motorists.

64With respect to recommended parking rates, Mr. Pernicky, advised the Tribunal that the proposed rates were addressed comprehensively in the TIS. In his opinion, these rates are appropriate and reasonable to accommodate the proposed development because the subject lands are well serviced by an excellent existing active transportation network, an existing bus local transit service, and are located close to the future Hurontario LRT - Major Transit Station Area. Therefore, the proposed parking rates support the existing and future transit investments by the Province and the City. He made special note that parking management is the best Transportation Demand Management measure to encourage future residents to take more sustainable modes of transportation such as walking, cycling and public transit.

65In conclusion, Mr. Pernicky stated that the proposed development as described in the OPA and ZBA is appropriate on the subject lands. The traffic impact is sufficient to accommodate existing and proposed development, and expected background traffic in the area, there is sufficient parking provided to ensure there will be no negative impacts on neighboring properties as well as meeting the needs of the residents of the proposed development and the proposed access arrangements present no pedestrian or vehicular safety issues.

66Ms. Waugh completed a comprehensive review of comments made by the City’s staff and Council along with relevant planning documents and transportation related studies to form her opinion. LEA Consulting Ltd. was retained originally by the City to provide peer review comments with respect to the Applicant’s various transportation studies.

67Based on this review, Ms. Waugh determined that the minimum sight stopping distance was deficient for the proposed access to the subject lands to the south. She submitted that there are alternative locations along the frontage that would present safer access locations to the proposed development. It is Ms. Waugh’s opinion that the proposed access location is inappropriate given it does not meet the minimum stopping or intersection sight distance. Therefore, the issue of access is best addressed at the zoning stage as the location of an access may impact other elements of the site layout.

68With respect to the presented traffic analysis, she had the following observations:

a. it underestimates the peak hour trip volumes generated by the proposed development;

b. the conceptual site plan does not sufficiently provide facilities to ensure a safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement into and through the site;

c. based on the materials before her, she concluded that there is sufficient capacity on the road network for the proposed development. This being said, the traffic analysis should be updated to incorporate a higher trip generation for the subject lands. The Multi-family Housing (Low-Rise) Land Use Code would be a more appropriate standard given the proposed development that contains townhouse units, which have a higher number of residents per dwelling unit than found in a mid-rise apartment; and,

d. does not provide for the needs of people with disabilities, as the proposed parking plan incorporates accessible parking spaces that do not facilitate access to the ground floor.

69In conclusion, Ms. Waugh opined that the access location for the proposed development to Argyle Road does not meet City transportation policies and does not allow for sufficient sightlines. Therefore, it should be addressed at the rezoning stage. The traffic capacity analysis should be updated to reflect a higher trip generation rate for the subject lands. The parking plan for accessible parking should be reviewed to ensure it complies with zoning by-law requirements for minimum aisle widths and be provided in close proximity to the main entrances to the building.

70Mr. Pernicky argued that although Ms. Waugh’s use of The Multi-family Housing (Low-Rise) Land Use Code, if accepted, may add to the trip count, the difference was negligible and would not change the findings of the report. The accessible parking requirement is a mute point because of the current deign of the buildings. Along the perimeter of the proposed buildings, the only access is either a walk up or down to access the units. The better location for the accessible parking is in the underground garage in this case. He also disagrees with the notion that there isn’t safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement, given the only sidewalk location on Argyle Road is along the west side, directly in front of the proposed development, connecting directly to the internal layout.

71Mr. Pernicky is of the opinion that the proposed development represents good transportation planning, acceptable access arrangements and appropriate parking utilization rates.

72In cross-examination, Mr. Pernicky was presented with other TIS reports but none of these reports mirrored the existing factors present in front of the subject property. Mr. Pernicky’s evidence was tested fully in cross-examination and remained consistent throughout.

73Much discussion was based around the stopping distance in front of the proposed development, in the location of the proposed access. The whole focus was based on the required stopping distance in a 50 km zone and, on this basis, the required sightline is not available when leaving the site, turning left, with oncoming traffic approaching from the South, off of Dunbar Road. The Tribunal found this argument flawed given the radius of the curve existing on Dunbar Road onto Argyle Road.

74There was no argument that the approximate sightline at the exit of the proposed driveway, looking south is roughly 45 m. There was also no argument that the stop distance for a vehicle in a 50 km/hr zone was roughly 65 m, as stated by Ms. Waugh and upwards to 85 m, as stated by Mr. Pernicky (based on a speed of 40 km/hr with a 20 km/hr tolerance built in). But either stop distance is based on traveling along a straight section of City street. Ms. Waugh did put forward the argument that in the 50 Km/hr zone that if the tolerance of 20 km/hr is built in then the stop distance increases even further.

75The whole issue is that there is a 90-degree change in direction from Dunbar Road onto Argyle Road and the Tribunal finds that these stopping distances do not apply. All of the examples put to Mr. Pernicky, in cross-examination, did not have the existing road pattern and were not helpful to the Tribunal. As Mr. Pernicky explained, if the speed is assumed at the unposted rate of 50 km/hr and the tolerance of 20 km/hr, as suggested by Ms. Waugh, is built into the calculation for the radius of the curve from Dunbar Road onto Argyle Road would require a design standard radius of 200 m, whereas the current radius at the intersection of Dunbar Road and Argyle Road is approximately 25 m, not 200 m.

76The Tribunal also heard evidence from both witnesses about their own personal testing of the curve by attempting to navigate the curve at a speed that, in their opinion, was tolerable. This also was not helpful to the Tribunal as this does not represent what one would consider “normal” circumstances, nor any proper gauge, reasonable measurement or outcome as it relates to the potential stopping distance when first navigating a 25 m radius curve on the approach to the proposed entrance.

77The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Pernicky and finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA are based on good transportation planning, traffic management, and parking standards that are appropriate for the proposed development. Access to the subject lands was of considerable debate at the hearing and the Tribunal finds that Mr. Pernicky’s evidence, supported by a series of TIS documents stood the test of cross-examination to be in the appropriate location. This being said, it does not mean that the access point and other suggestions of Ms. Waugh can be further refined during the site plan approval stage.

TRIBUNAL FINDINGS

78The Tribunal heard the evidence from three qualified land use planners, two qualified transportation planners and has the benefit of material provided in a series of Joint Document Books, which included a number of Participant statements. Intensification and change in existing neighbourhoods present an ongoing challenge but such evolution has found and will continue to find its way to the City. With this reality in mind, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Messrs. Goldberg, Famme and Pernicky.

79The Tribunal finds the City has a well established planning policy for the area surrounding the subject property and City staff followed a careful, complete, and comprehensive planning review of the OPA and ZBA. Upon completing this analysis, found comfort in recommending approval to City Council. The Tribunal is impressed with the detail of analysis presented by the City planners with respect to the OPA and ZBA and therefore, the content and conclusions of the recommendation report have weight in the Tribunal’s Decision.

80Ontario has a provincially led planning policy regime and, the responsibility of being consistent with or complying to Provincial policy is not deferred to the municipal Official Plan. The revised proposal speaks directly to many, if not all the relevant, policy objectives of the Province whether it be focusing growth in designated built up areas, encouraging compact urban form, making efficient use of land, infrastructure, and existing transit resources, and providing a range and mix of housing units that includes a large percentage of much needed family sized units.

81The Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA align with the established principles of relevant provincial policy; the RPOP and the MOP. The proposed development of the subject lands is appropriate for reasons that include the following:

a. are located within an area identified as “built up” area, which encompasses the entire City. They are less than 800 m from a “Priority Transit Corridor” defined as a “Major Transit Station Area”. A significant portion of growth is to be directed to built-up areas of the community through intensification, which will allow for the optimization of the existing and planned infrastructure and services. It is in the general area where planning policies direct the most intensive forms of growth and encourages intensification in appropriate locations;

b. are located in an area where, for many decades, high-rise and high density residential developments have conventionally coexisted comfortably and compatibly with lower forms of development;

c. align with policies that relate to the creation of complete communities and optimizing the use of land and infrastructure. Helps to enhance a diverse range and mix of housing options that are convenient to a range of transportation facilities, provide for a more compact built form and vibrant public realm;

d. prioritize intensification and higher densities in built up areas to make efficient use of land and infrastructure, and support transit viability. The proposed development will contribute to satisfying policies that encourage intensification near transit. It is very accessible to planned rapid transit stations, existing surface transit stops, it is well served by nearby shopping in services that are in close proximity to the subject lands;

e. are underutilized and the proposed development will contribute to reinvestment and represents moderate intensification and will contribute to the optimization of the existing and planned infrastructure and available community services;

f. supports range and mix of housing options, The proposed development will contribute to the achievement of a complete community, which will compliment other existing buildings in the area and will contribute to the evolution and maturation of this neighborhood. Helps to achieve a diverse and compatible mix of land uses including residential employment uses to support vibrant neighbourhoods;

g. the City has undertaken integrated planning in order to manage forecasted growth to the horizon of the Growth Plan, to assist in providing an urban form that will optimize infrastructure particularly along transit and transportation corridors, in an effort to support the achievement of complete communities through a more compact built form.

h. assists in the development of a complete community with a diverse mix of land uses by promoting a compact built form that is integrated in the community and with adjacent land uses;

i. supports intensification in order to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and makes efficient use of available infrastructure to accommodate growth. It serves to optimize the use of existing urban land supply to avoid over-designating land for future urban development while allowing flexibility for local decision-makers to respond to housing market demand;

j. is compatible in built form and scale to surrounding existing uses. The proposed development is sensitive to the existing and planned context, and has an appropriate transition in built form, density and scale while respecting the existing and planned character of the area;

k. was thoroughly evaluated against criteria found in the MOP (s. 9.5.1.2) to ensure it is compatible and provides appropriate transition to existing planned development; and,

l. does not adversely impact or destabilize the goals and objectives of the MOP or the functioning of the remaining lands, which have the same designation of neighbouring lands. It is suitable for the proposed uses and compatible with existing in future uses of the surrounding lands in a location where there are adequate engineering services, community infrastructure and multi-modal transportation systems to support new residents.

82The Tribunal finds that proposed OPA and ZBA development have appropriate regard for the Dundas Connects Master Plan and the City’s Urban Design Guidelines for Back-to-Back and Stacked Townhouses.

83With respect to issues related to transportation and site access, the Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the principles of good transportation planning for reasons that include:

a. evidence demonstrated that there is sufficient roadway capacity on Dunbar Road and Argyle Road to accommodate the proposed development. All intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service;

b. an evaluation of expected background traffic growth and the traffic generated by the proposed development, demonstrates there is residual capacity available for future growth or variations in traffic volumes;

c. the intensity of the proposed development is appropriate and represents good transportation planning. The area has an excellent active transportation network including dedicated bike lanes on both sides of Confederation Parkway, is well served by local bus and future BRT and existing GO services;

d. transportation or pedestrian safety issues have been thoroughly evaluated and the one main access point consolidates the three access points with no backing-up regress from the subject lands thereby improving pedestrian safety; and,

e. the location of the proposed access to the subject lands is appropriate and meets the minimum stopping sight distance. The existing curve on Dunbar Road serves to slow vehicle operating speeds significantly. There is a speed reduction warning sign depicting a 20 kilometre/hour speed limit for southbound motorists in advance of the curve and it is suggested that a similar warning sign be installed for westbound motorists.

84The Tribunal understands that upon approval of the OPA and the ZBA applications, a site plan application is to be filed with the City. This application is to be in keeping with the architectural plans dated December 24, 2019, prepared by architecture unfolded and found in Exhibit 1A, Tab 4a. The Proposed ZBA will require some work to capture the various elements of these plans. The Tribunal realizes that, upon submission of the Site Plan application, minor amendments may be required to the draft ZBA to avoid applications for Minor Variance. The Tribunal expects the parties to work together but can be spoken to in the event input is required.

85For all of the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that the OPA and ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest. It has appropriate regard to s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the PPS 2020 and is in conformity with both the RPOP and the MOP. Therefore, the proposed development as implemented by the OPA and ZBA is not considered to be overdevelopment of the subject lands.

86The Tribunal believes it is important to reiterate that the courts have (Minto Communities Inc. v. Ottawa (City), 2009 CanLII 65802 (ON SCDC), 2009 CarswellOnt 7349) determined that the Municipal Council is the first to determine the public interest but “…the appeal process before the Ontario Municipal Board is not merely a lis between parties, but a process requiring the OMB to exercise its public interest mandate...”

87The Tribunal is prepared to give an Interim Order approving in principle, the OPA and ZBA. It is therefore appropriate that the City Solicitor and Applicant confirm that the draft OPA and ZBA has been reviewed by City Planning and Zoning staff to ensure the City is in agreement with the form and content of the proposed planning instruments found in Exhibit 1 c), Tabs 28 and 29 respectively. The Tribunal was made aware of a clerical error in the draft OPA, in two locations, where the FSI is stated as a range from “1.5-2.9”, whereas the proper range is “0.5-1.5”. As stated in paragraph 84, the Tribunal does expect modifications to the ZBA, to accommodate minor amendments required from the final and accepted Site Plan Control application and list the maximum number of units.

INTERIM ORDER

88Accordingly, the Tribunal Orders:

89THAT the appeals pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act are allowed in part; and,

a. the proposed amendment to the City of Mississauga Official Plan, as amended, is approved in principle in the manner set out in Exhibit 1C, Tab 28 (with minor amendments, in Paragraph 87 above) of this proceeding; and,

b. the proposed amendment to the City of Mississauga Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, is approved, in principle, in the manner set out in Exhibit 1C, Tab 29, in this proceeding, with minor amendments mentioned above.

90THAT the Final Order amending the City of Mississauga Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, is withheld by the Tribunal pending written confirmation from the City Solicitor and the Applicant that the proposed Official Plan Amendment have been reviewed and approved with respect to form and content. The City of Mississauga expects that the submission of a Site Plan Control application by the Applicant, which is in keeping with the drawings presented at the hearing, with the inclusion in the ZBA of a maximum of 101 units. The City of Mississauga may administratively assign by-law numbers where applicable. The Official Plan and Zoning By-law will be provided to the Tribunal for review and approval, and will be attached to the Final Order.

91THAT upon receipt of such written confirmation with respect to paragraph 90, the Final Order will issue.

92If the Parties do not provide confirmation that all contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order, as set out in paragraph 90 above, have been satisfied, and request that the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, April 28, 2023, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Amendments and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

93The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of the issuance of the Final Order and with respect to the Provisional Interim Order set out above. In the event any matters arise, which are related to the implementation of this Interim Order, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

“G.C.P. Bishop”

G.C.P. BISHOP ALTERNATE-CHAIR

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.