Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 14, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002160 (Formerly PL210033)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: City Park (McLaughlin) Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Mississauga to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Residential Low Density II
Proposed Designated: Residential High Density
Purpose: To permit residential developments
Property Address/Description: 6616 McLaughlin Road
Municipality: City of Mississauga
Approval Authority File No.: OPA 20/014
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002160 Legacy Case No.: PL210033
OLT Lead Case No,: OLT-22-002160 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210033
OLT Case Name: City Park (McLaughlin) Inc. 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: City Park (McLaughlin) Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 - neglect of the City of Mississauga to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Residential one - R1
Proposed Zoning: RA2- XX and the open space area to OS1
Purpose: To permit a six storey residential condominium and five detached residential lots
Property Address/Description: 6616 McLaughlin Road
Municipality: City of Mississauga
Municipality File No.: OZ 20/014
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002162 Legacy Case No.: PL210034
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002160 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210033
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: City Park (McLaughlin) Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the City of Mississauga to make a decision
Purpose: To permit six storey residential condominium and five detached residential lots
Property Address/Description: 6616 McLaughlin Road
Municipality: City of Mississauga
Municipality File No.: T-M 20003 W11
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002163 Legacy Case No.: PL210035
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002160 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210033
Heard: March 24, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City Park (McLaughlin) Inc.
L. Longo
City of Mississauga
G. Walsh
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON ON MARCH 24, 2022 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This matter proceeded by Video Hearing (“VH”) and was conducted as a settlement hearing by the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT” or “Tribunal”).
2City Park (McLaughlin) Inc. (the “Applicant/Appellant”) had sought from the City of Mississauga (“City”) an amendment to the City’s Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 (“ZBA”) in relation to a proposed development consisting of a six-storey residential condominium and five detached residential lots (“Development”) at the Applicant/Appellant’s property municipally known as 6616 McLaughlin Road, in the City (“Subject Site”).
3After lengthy negotiations, the Parties reached substantial agreement with respect to the form and content of a draft OPA and draft ZBA pertaining to the Development, along with certain conditions relating to a plan of subdivision agreement and other matters concerning the Subject Site. These negotiations were finalized in early March, 2022, and culminated in a conditional approval granted by the City’s council on March 23, 2022, just one day prior to the VH.
4At the VH, counsel for both Parties presented a single planning witness, Andrea Dear, to testify to the planning instruments and their compliance with the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the “Act”); the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”); the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”) and Amendment No. 1 (2020); the Region of Peel Official Plan (“Peel OP”); and the City’s Official Plan (“City OP”).
5Ms. Dear is a registered urban planner in Ontario and has over 17 years of professional experience. She is currently employed since May 2021 by the City as a Planner, Development and Design, and had carriage of the file pertaining to the Development at all material times. She was qualified to provide opinion evidence at the VH to the Tribunal on land use planning matters, on consent of both Parties’ counsel.
6Ms. Dear opined as follows:
(a) the Development on the Subject Site represents an opportunity to modestly intensify and increase the range of housing in the surrounding City neighbourhood and demonstrates an efficient land use pattern that avoids environmental health or safety concerns and is therefore consistent with the PPS;
(b) the Development conforms to the Growth Plan as it is intensifying the underutilized Subject Site and utilizing existing municipal infrastructure to provide a range of housing choices in the neighbourhood;
(c) the proposed OPA and ZBA are in conformity with both the Peel OP and the City OP, based upon the following:
The Development represents intensification that is compatible with the neighbourhood context and conforms to both existing City OP and Peel OP policies with respect to compatibility and the provision of a range of housing types for City residents;
The Development provides an appropriate transition to the existing land uses and provides a range of residential built forms while continuing to respect the character of the area;
The proposed Class 4 Noise designation is appropriate to permit this Development; and,
The existing City municipal infrastructure is adequate to support the Development.
(d) Should the Appellant’s application be approved by the OLT, it would be appropriate to have that approval subject to the satisfaction of the City’s conditions of approval set out at pages 11 and 12 of Attachment 1, and in Schedule A thereto, as appended to this Decision (“Conditions”);
(e) that the Development, OPA, ZBA and draft plan of subdivision, agreed to by the Parties, pursuant to their agreed settlement represents good planning.
7The Parties’ counsel also advised the Tribunal that they have reached substantial agreement on the form and content of a draft OPA and ZBA, subject to the Conditions and the final revisions to the OPA and ZBA to be approved by the City.
8Based on the evidence of Ms. Dear, summarized in paragraph [6] above, and the submissions of counsel for the Parties, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Parties’ resolution of this proceeding meets the requirements of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan and also conforms to the applicable provisions of the Peel OP and the City OP.
9Therefore, the Tribunal allows the appeal in part and approves in principle the draft form and content of the OPA and the ZBA, and the draft plan of subdivision all as appended hereto as Attachment 1, which are subject to the satisfaction by the Applicant/Appellant of the Conditions set out therein.
10The Tribunal shall withhold its final Order in respect of the OPA, the ZBA and the draft plan of subdivision until such time as the Parties advise the OLT of the agreed final form and content of those instruments.
“William R. Middleton”
WILLIAM R. MIDDLETON
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.
ATTACHMENT 1