Flintshire Building Group Corp. v. Brampton (City), 2022 CanLII 11823

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

February 16, 2022

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-001935

(Formerly PL170607)

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Flintshire Building Group Corp.

Subject:

Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Brampton to adopt the requested amendment

Existing Designation:

“Low Density”, “Low Density 1”, “Upscale Executive Housing Policy Area” and “Private Commercial Recreation”

Proposed Designated:

“Executive Residential” and “Low Density 2”

Purpose:

To permit 67 single-detached dwellings and the conveyance of the balance of the site to the City for the protection of natural heritage features

Property Address/Description:

South Side of Country Dr. East of Airport Rd

Municipality:

City of Brampton

Approval Authority File No.:

C07E15.015

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-001935

Legacy Case No.:

PL170607

OLT File No.:

OLT-22-001935

Legacy File No.:

PL170607

OLT Case Name:

Flintshire Building Group Corp. 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:

Flintshire Building Group Corp.

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Brampton to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Recreational Commercial “RC” Zone

Proposed Zoning:

Site Specific Residential Single Detached Zones “R1A”, R1B” and “R1C, modified , Open Space zone “OS” and Flood plain zone “F”

Purpose:

To permit 67 single-detached dwellings and the conveyance of the balance of the site to the City for the protection of natural heritage features

Property Address/Description:

South Side of Country Dr. East of Airport Rd

Municipality:

City of Brampton

Municipality File No.:

C07E15.015

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-001935

Legacy Case No.:

PL170607

OLT File No.:

OLT-22-001935

Legacy File No.:

PL170608

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Flintshire Building Group Corp.

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of City of Brampton to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit 67 single-detached dwellings and the conveyance of the balance of the site to the City for the protection of natural heritage features

Property Address/Description:

South Side of Country Drive East of Airport Rd

Municipality:

City of Brampton

Municipality File No.:

21T-16005B

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-001935

Legacy Case No.:

PL170607

OLT File No.:

OLT-22-001935

Legacy File No.:

PL170609

Heard:

January 27, 2022 by video hearing (“VH”)

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Flintshire Building Group Corporation (“Flintshire”)

Paul DeMelo

City of Brampton (“City”)

Steven Ross

2585426 Ontario Inc. (“Residents Association”)

Steven Kirby

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON JANUARY 27, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Flintshire owns lands that were operated by the previous owner as the Castlemore Golf and Country Club (“Club”). The Club ceased operation in 2014, prior to Flintshire acquiring the lands in 2015. The lands are located south of Countryside Drive and east of Airport Road. Over the years, single family residential subdivisions have been developed in and around the former Club property.

2The Flintshire lands are 19.74 hectares (“ha”) and include the West Humber River and valley lands (collectively the “Valleylands”). The Valleylands formed part of the former Club property and cut diagonally on an approximate southeast course from north of Countryside Drive.

3Flintshire wishes to develop three irregularly shaped parcels, known as Parcels A, B and C, for single family residential development. These three residential parcels total 6.1 ha. The remaining 13.64 ha, being the Valleylands, are made up of a valley block, associated buffer blocks, compensation blocks and a walkway block. The intended result of these blocks is to have the Valleylands appropriately buffered from development while providing a walking trail access to the Valleylands that was previously inaccessible for the public.

4Parcel A is located on the east side of the Valleylands and is 2.20 ha. Parcels B and C are on the west side of the Valleylands. Parcel B is located within and is surrounded by an earlier subdivision development. South of Parcel B is Parcel C. Parcel C has existing subdivision development to the north, west and south. It overlooks the Valleylands to the east.

5In support of its wish to develop these three parcels, Flintshire applied for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), an associated Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a draft Plan of subdivision (“Plan”). The City failed to make a decision on these applications and Flintshire appealed the matters to the Tribunal.

6In a decision issued May 8, 2019, the Tribunal allowed the appeals (the “2019 Decision”).

7The present hearing arises from Flintshire’s request to vary the Plan pursuant to s. 35 of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act. The request includes bringing a revised Plan before the Tribunal for adjudication, and that the Order clause of the 2019 Decision be varied to reference a revised Plan. The request for consideration was granted by correspondence dated April 26, 2021. A revised ZBA is also required to implement the revised Plan.

8Leading up to the present hearing, Flintshire and the City had discussions regarding the provision of additional parkland and examined options that would provide for that, which resulted in a further updated Plan. All three parties have indicated that they endorse the resulting Plan, which is now before the Tribunal for consideration.

Evidence and description of the proposed changes

9A summary of the proposed changes to the Plan are as follows:

• The revised Plan eliminates the cul-de-sac at the south end of Street ‘B’ and adds the connection of Street B to the Block 109 “road stub”;
• The use of Block 109 as a road connection results in the land (otherwise used for pavement of the cul-de-sac) now being used as open space for the community. This results in the introduction of a 0.17-hectare Parkette (Block 81);
• Introduction of Block 83 (Future Development Block) which is intended to be added to Block 99 (Road stub block);
• In comparison to Version 1, the lotting pattern is exactly the same with the exception of Lot 25 in which the southerly side lot line was straightened as a result of removing the cul-de-sac and introducing the Parkette;
• When combining Park Block 80 and 81, there is now a total of 0.37 hectares of Parkland, which is an over-contribution of 0.074 hectares (about 25% extra) pursuant to the City’s Parkland Dedication By-law.

10Richard Pernicky was duly qualified on consent as an expert in transportation engineering. He provided opinion evidence in support of the proposed revised Plan.

11Jason Afonso was duly qualified on consent as an expert in land use planning. He also provided opinion evidence in support of the proposed revised Plan.

Configuration of the Plan

12Mr. Pernicky opined that the elimination of the cul-de-sac at the south end of Street ‘B’ and connection of Street B to the Block 109 “road stub” provides for a better road configuration by eliminating the need for a cul-de-sac and improving connectivity more generally. He further opined that the road configuration, including the intersection points between Streets B and Donwoods Court and Street C and Donwoods Court meet all required sightlines and provide for an appropriate and functioning road connection. He further confirmed that it was his opinion that no changes are required to provide any additional daylight roundings at these intersection points because of the nature of the local roads, including the new Streets B and C, and the expected volumes on these roads.

13Mr. Afonso opined that the revised Plan represents an improvement to the community over that which was previously approved by the Tribunal, by increasing the physical parkland provided and improved connectivity.

14The Tribunal accepts Mr. Pernicky’s and Mr. Afonso’s evidence associated with the proposed configuration of the roads and general layout of the Plan and similarly finds that the new Plan is an improvement over the previously approved Plan.

Conformity with the OPA approved pursuant to the 2019 Decision

15Regarding conformity with the OP, Mr. Afonso opined that no changes are required to the OPA approved pursuant to the 2019 Decision, which designates the lands as “Executive Residential” and “Low Density 2”, to implement the new Plan.

16He testified that the “Executive Residential” designation which applies to the lands on east side of the valley (Parcel A) allows for detached dwellings with a minimum lot width of 15 metres (“m”) and lot depth of 30 m, and the proposed lots of the Plan conform to this requirement.

17Mr. Afonso also testified that the “Low Density 2 Residential” designation which applies to the lands on the west side of the valley (Parcels B and C) allows for minimum 13.7-m lot widths, which the proposed lots of the Plan conform to as well.

18In summary, Mr. Afonso opined that the proposed Plan conforms to the approved OPA and allows for the creation of appropriate residential lots. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Afonso’s evidence and finds the same.

Conformity with the ZBA approved pursuant to the 2019 Decision

19Mr. Afonso testified that the revised Plan requires a revision to the ZBA approved pursuant to the 2019 Decision.

20He testified that, previously, to implement the prior approved Plan, five different residential zone categories were required in the ZBA to provide for site-specific lot provisions arising from the configuration of the parcels which has now been eliminated by the revised road pattern. Now, given the improved configuration of new Plan, it can be implemented with a ZBA featuring two existing residential zone categories (the R1A-1758 and R1B-2038 Zones), plus Future Development, Open Space and Floodplain Zones.

21Mr. Afonso noted that:

• R1A-1758 Zone applies to the 13.7 and 15.24-m lots and represents an existing zone that is used in the neighbourhood
• R1B-2038 Zone applies to the 17.38-m lots east of the valley and also represents an existing zone that is used in the neighbourhood
• Future Development zoning is proposed for “Future Development Block 83”.
• Open Space zoning is proposed for the open space areas and buffers; and
• Floodplain zoning is proposed for the Stormwater Management Pond and the Valleylands.

22In summary, Mr. Afonso opined that the proposed revised ZBA both implements the Plan and provides zoning regulations that are more consistent with existing zoning in the area. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Afonso’s evidence and finds the same.

Planning Act Section 51(24)

23Regarding adherence to s. 51(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”), Mr. Afonso identified the following subsections and testified as follows:

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;

• The proposed plan of subdivision protects the existing valley system and features an efficient development pattern which makes efficient use of infrastructure.

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

• This matter was addressed through the original Tribunal hearing and the Tribunal has already made a decision to approve the development of the subject lands. The updated instruments simply allow for development to now proceed in an improved manner.
• The development is in the public interest as it makes use of urban lands and avoids uneconomical expansion and consumption of land beyond the urban boundary.

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

• The proposed development conforms to the approved OPA and represents a development form that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

• The proposed plan of subdivision is for generally low-density residential uses which are compatible with the existing surrounding neighbourhood.

(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

• The proposed roads within the Plan are local roads which are low volume and adequate for the number of dwelling units. Street “B” has been reconfigured to make use of the existing road stub at Block 109.

Street “A” continues to have a cul-de-sac but with an appropriate connection to Donwoods Court that Mr. Pernicky advised will work appropriately.

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

• The proposed lots are generally consistent with the rest of the neighbourhood and are sized for large detached dwellings and are intended to be regulated with zoning that is consistent with what already exists in the neighbourhood.

(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

• There are no restrictions. The Valleylands are placed in their own development block and compensation lands have also been provided and will be maintained in an Open Space Zone and will be transferred to public ownership. The configuration of the Valleylands and compensation blocks have not changed.

(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

• The Valleylands have been identified and placed in a block to be conveyed to the City. Flood control is achieved through stormwater management and protection of the Valleylands.

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

• Services are available to the site from the streets and there are no limits or constraints arising from any servicing matters.

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

• Schools exist within the neighbourhood and the school boards have reviewed and commented on the Plan and have not indicated a need for additional school sites. The conditions of draft plan approval contain specific provisions from the school boards that have not been changed since the original proposal.

(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

• The Valleylands are to be conveyed to the municipality at subdivision registration and the proposed public parkland areas exceed the parkland dedication requirement.

(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy;

• The plan optimizes the use urban lands, which helps to mitigate expansion of settlement areas, which in turn reduces energy use for public transportation and commuters.

(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area;

• This is not applicable as the subject lands are not subject to site plan control.

24In summary, Mr. Afonso opined that the revised Plan has sufficient regard and consideration for the elements enumerated at s. 51 (24) of the Act. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Afonso’s evidence and finds the same.

conditions of DRAFT Plan approval

25Mr. Afonso opined that the Conditions of the revised Plan’s approval are appropriate to implement the proposed Draft Plan, given that it stipulates:

• Requirement to enter into a Subdivision Agreement which will stipulate requirements for securities, other financial obligations, meeting various engineering and design standards, as well as the use of Block 109 as a road connection with the consent of the City;
• Requirement associated with lands that are to be conveyed to the municipality, which includes the expansion of Block 99 with a dedication by the owner of Block 83 to the City;
• Requirement associated with parkland dedication and specifically the provision of an over dedication by the owner;
• Requirement associated with studies and plans as part of the subsequent detailed design stage;
• Warning clause requirements for home purchasers;
• School Board Notice signage requirements;
• Requirements associated with various Public Agencies and Utility Companies.

26The Tribunal accepts Mr. Afonso’s evidence and opinions regarding the proposed conditions, and similarly finds it appropriate to implement the proposed Draft Plan.

Costs

27The parties jointly submitted a request that the Tribunal order the parties to bear their own costs. The Tribunal will include such an Order to reflect this consensus.

ORDER

28THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:

1. The appeal is allowed in part and the instruments, as agreed to by the parties, are approved as follows:

a) The Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Glen Schnarr and Associates Inc. dated January 27, 2022 attached to this Order as Attachment 1, is approved subject to fulfillment of the conditions attached to this Order as Attachment 2. Pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Brampton shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act;

b) The modifications to Zoning By-law No. 2020.432, being a by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 2020 as amended, attached to this Order as Attachment 3, are approved. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Burlington to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

2. The Tribunal may continue to be spoken to if: any issues arise in order to allow the Appellant to seek minor modifications to the previously approved zoning as the details of the site plan and construction development are finalized; in the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval; or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan as a result of any issues arising in the implementation of the conditions to approval.

3. The parties shall bear their own costs of this matter.

“K.R. Andrews”

K.R. ANDREWS

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.