Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 03, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004205
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Georgian Mayfield Inc Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a residential development with a mix of single-detached dwellings and townhouse dwellings, including back-to-back Reference Number: OZS-2019-0014 Property Address: 6875 & 6889 Mayfield Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No: OLT-22-004205 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004205 OLT Case Name: Georgian Mayfield Inc. v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Georgian Mayfield Inc Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a residential development with a mix of single-detached dwellings and townhouse dwellings, including back-to-back Reference Number: OZS-2019-0014 Property Address: 6875 & 6889 Mayfield Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No: OLT-22-004206 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004205
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Georgian Mayfield Inc Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a residential development with a mix of single-detached dwellings and townhouse dwellings, including back-to-back Reference Number: OZS-2019-0014 Property Address: 6875 & 6889 Mayfield Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No: OLT-22-004207 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004205
Heard: April 19, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Georgian Mayfield Inc. | Patrick Harrington |
| City of Brampton | Anthony-George D’Andrea |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND S. deBOER ON APRIL 19, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1Georgian Mayfield Inc. (“Appellant”) filed appeals pursuant to s. 22(7), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the City of Brampton (“City”) for failure to make decisions within the statutory timeframes on applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“Draft Plan”) for the properties municipally known as 6875 and 6889 Mayfair Road (“Subject Lands”) in Brampton.
2The Subject Lands have a total site area of 3.24 hectares (“ha”); a total frontage of 200.5 metres along Mayfield Road and are currently vacant. The Subject Lands are designated “Residential” and “Open Space” in the City of Brampton Official Plan (“OP”). The Subject Lands are within Special Policy Area 4A, Vales of Humber Secondary Plan (“HSP”).
3The Subject Lands have a designation of both a “Designated Greenfield Area” and a “Communities” designation. Designated Greenfield Areas in the City are contemplated to achieve a density of 50 residents and jobs combined per ha by 2031. New communities in this area will help in the formation of complete communities.
4The Subject Lands are zoned “Residential Rural Estate Holding (REH)” by Zoning By-law No. 270- 2004 as amended. This designation permits a single detached dwelling, supportive housing residence Type I as well as non-residential purposes accessory to other permitted purposes.
5The surrounding land uses include to the north of Mayfield Road and beyond, single detached dwellings and residential land uses that are in the Town of Caledon; a Natural Heritage System, future public park, a street extension beyond which will be future residential uses; a Natural Heritage System area and future residential uses to the east; and a Natural Heritage System, beyond which are existing residential uses.
6The Appellant’s proposed OPA proposes to amend Schedule A1, Executive Housing Policy Areas in the OP to identify a “Special Policy Area 4B” and site-specific provisions. An amendment to the Secondary Plan is required to permit additional dwelling types that are proposed in the application. It is also needed to permit additional density. An amendment to the Block Plan is required to revise the designation as “Special Policy Area 2” to be consistent with the Secondary Plan.
7The Appellant’s proposed ZBA is needed to permit the proposed dwelling types of the application and other associated standards to implement the built form objectives of the contemplated development. The proposed ZBA would permit three site-specific residential zoning categories for the three dwelling types contemplated for the application. Open Space and Floodplain zoning designation is also proposed for the Natural Heritage Systems on the site.
8On April 12, 2023, the Tribunal was informed that all parties had reached a proposed settlement of the appeal.
9On April 19, 2023, the Tribunal held a settlement hearing to address the proposed settlement.
ISSUES
10When adjudicating official plan amendment appeals, the Tribunal must determine the proposed amendments:
a. are consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”).
b. conform with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”).
c. conforms with applicable official plans (in this case, the Region (“ROP”) and City Official Plan (“OP”); and
d. represent good planning.
11In making a determination, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and have regard to the information and materials that City Council received in relation to the matters under s. 2.1(2) of the Act.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
12The Tribunal marked the following Exhibit at the Hearing:
a. Exhibit 1 – Settlement Record
13The Tribunal heard from one witness, Jason Afonso, Planning Consultant for the Appellant. Mr. Alfonso was affirmed and qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning in this matter by the Tribunal. The City appeared in support of the proposed settlement but did not provide independent evidence at the settlement hearing.
14Mr. Afonso presented the Tribunal with a description of the development proposal that would allow for the development of 107 residential dwelling units within a proposed Plan of Subdivision. The Proposed Plan of Subdivision (the "Draft Plan") is comprised of:
a. One Residential Land Use Block intended for Condominium Back-to-Back Townhouse Dwelling Units.
b. One residential Land Use Block intended for Condominium Detached and Townhouse Dwelling Units.
c. One Entry Feature Block.
d. Two Natural Heritage System Blocks.
e. Two Natural Heritage System Buffer Blocks.
f. One Open Space Block.
g. A Road Widening Block.
h. Three 0.3-metre Reserve Blocks.
i. A 20-metre Public Road.
15Mr. Afonso advised that the Draft Plan was prepared in support of the proposed OPA and ZBA that identifies the two residential blocks as follows:
Block One - located on the west side of Street A
a. 84 Three-Storey Back-Back Townhouse Dwellings with an internal private road and ramp to an underground parking garage.
b. A total of 143 proposed parking spaces on site.
c. Of the 143 parking spaces, 136 are underground parking spaces made up of 126 resident parking spaces and 10 visitor parking spaces.
d. Seven visitor parking spaces provided at-grade.
e. A 280m2 Outdoor Common Amenity Space proposed central to the Block.
Block Two - located on the east side of Street
a. 13 Three-Storey Rear-Lane Townhouse Dwellings facing Street A
b. Two Three-Storey Rear-Lane Semi-Detached Dwellings flanking onto Street A and facing Mayfield Road.
c. Eight Two-Storey Rear-Lane Single Detached Dwellings facing onto an existing public road to the east, known as Jura Crescent.
d. Access to an internal private driveway for all dwelling units within the Block.
e. Four parking spaces (two on a private driveway and two in a private garage) for each of the detached and semi-detached dwellings.
f. Four parking spaces (two on a private driveway and two in a private garage) for all but one of the townhouse units, which will provide one parking space on a private driveway and two in a private garage.
g. No visitor parking spaces proposed because on-street parking will be available on the adjacent public roads.
16Further to the description of the Subject Lands listed above, Mr. Afonso gave expert planning evidence concerning the Planning Act, the PPS, the ROP, the OP and ZBA.
17Mr. Afonso gave opinion that the proposed development has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in the s. 2 of the Planning Act:
(2) The Minister, the council of a municipality, a local board, a planning board, and the Tribunal, in carrying out their responsibilities under this Act, shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest such as,
(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions.
(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems.
(I) the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural, and recreational facilities.
(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing.
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development.
(r) the promotion of built form that,
(I) is well-designed,
(ii) encourages a sense of place, and
(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.
The Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (“PPS”)
18In Mr. Afonso’s opinion, the proposal is consistent with the PPS as it represents growth within a settlement area through an efficient development pattern that accommodates a range and mix of housing and land uses. The proposed development makes efficient use of existing and planned services and transportation infrastructure and avoids environmental, public health and safety hazards. The relevant policies relating to the PPS are:
Section 1.1.1 Healthy, livable, and safe communities are sustained by:
a) promoting efficient development and land use patterns which sustain the financial well-being of the Province and municipalities over the long term.
b) accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types (including single-detached, additional residential units, multi-unit housing, affordable housing, and housing for older persons), employment (including industrial and commercial), institutional (including places of worship, cemeteries, and long-term care homes), recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs.
e) promoting the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments, and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs.
Section 1.1.3.2 Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which:
a) efficiently use land and resources.
b) are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion.
e) support active transportation.
f) are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed.
Section 1.1.3.3 Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs.
Section 1.4.3 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 of the regional market area by:
b) permitting and facilitating:
all housing options required to meet the social, health, economic and well-being requirements of current and future residents, including special needs requirements and needs arising from demographic changes and employment opportunities; and
all types of residential intensification, including additional residential units, and redevelopment in accordance with policy 1.1.3.3.
Places to Grow: The Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe
19Mr. Afonso gave opinion through his Affidavit that he agrees with City planning staff that the proposal conforms to the Places to Grow; The Growth Plan for the Greater Horseshoe because it provides for a sustainable development pattern that supports the achievement of complete communities. The proposal also supports active transportation by providing multi-modal connectivity through sidewalks and trails while providing a transit-oriented built form. Approval of the proposal will result in a compact, well-designed built form that provides for enhanced public open space features, makes efficient use of existing infrastructure, and will support the overall development of the surrounding Secondary Plan/Block Plan community.
Region of Peel Official Plan (“ROP”)
20In Mr. Afonso’s opinion, the proposal addresses several development and environmental issues. The Region’s Key Natural Heritage System are addressed through the proper buffering from the development. The proposal demonstrates a compact greenfield development while providing for walkability within the surrounding area.
Brampton Official Plan (“OP”)
21Mr. Afonso gave opinion that the policies as presented will provide site-specific density and dwelling types which will provide a mix of housing types and densities that are appropriate for the area.
22Further to his evidence, Mr. Afonso provided the following summary of the proposed OPA:
a. Section 3.1(1) amends the main Brampton Official Plan by adding this Amendment to the list of Official Plan Amendments maintained within the Official Plan.
b. Section 3.1(2) amends the Executive Housing Policy Area Schedule of the Official Plan to identify a new Special Policy Area "48".
c. Section 3.1(3) adds a new policy associated with Special Policy Area "48" to allow a wider range of housing types with a requirement to incorporate executive housing elements and design policies objectives of the Upscale Executive Housing designation.
d. Section 3.2(1) amends the Vales of Humber Secondary Plan Land Use Schedule to identify the subject lands as "Special Policy Area 2".
e. Section 3.2(2) adds a new policy associated with Special Policy Area 2 to:
i. Allow for townhouse, semi-detached, and detached dwelling types.
ii. Allow for a maximum density of 61 units per net hectare.
iii. Requires appropriate transition and interface with existing and/or proposed residential uses to the east.
iv. Requires detached dwellings to have a minimum lot frontage of 12.2 m (40 ft).
v. Allows rear-lane townhouse dwellings to have a minimum lot frontage of 6.4 metres with a maximum of 8 units per block.
vi. Allows a maximum of 16 units per block for back-to-back townhouses; and
vii. Requires development to be characterized by high-quality architecture, landscaping and urban design that supports the objectives of the Upscale Housing designation.
f. Section 3.3 amends the Vales of Humber Block Plan to identify the lands as Special Policy Area 2.
Vales of Humber Secondary Plan (“VSP”)
23Mr. Afonso opined that the ZBA meets the intent of the VSP as the proposal would generate a density of 17.5 units per ha which is below the maximum permitted density of 19.7 units per ha. The proposal will provide the appropriate buffering and integration needed in the existing community.
24In his evidence, Mr. Afonso provided the following summary of the proposed ZBA:
a. Section 1 of the ZBA has the effect of changing the zoning designation of Subject Lands from the existing "Residential Rural Estate Holding" Zone (REH Zone) to 5 different zones:
i. Residential Townhouse C - Special Section 3643 (R3C-3643).
ii. Residential Townhouse A(4) - Special Section 3644 (R3A-3644).
iii. Residential Single Detached F -12.2 - Special Section 3645 (R1F-12.2-2645).
iv. Open Space Zone (OS Zone); and
v. Floodplain (F).
b. Section 2 of the ZBA has the effect of establishing site-specific zoning provisions for each of the new zoning designations.
c. Subsection 3643 of the ZBA is the zoning category assigned to the proposed semi-detached and townhouse dwellings and includes provisions for:
i. permitted purposes (townhouses and semi-detached dwellings).
ii. minimum building setbacks.
iii. maximum building height.
iv. garage control.
v. visitor parking.
vi. yard encroachments.
vii. private amenity area.
viii. minimum landscape area; and
ix. fencing provisions.
d. Subsection 3644 of the ZBA is the zoning category assigned to the proposed back-to-back townhouse dwellings and includes provisions for:
i. permitted purposes (back-to-back townhouses).
ii. minimum building setbacks.
iii. maximum building height.
iv. lot coverage.
v. minimum landscape area.
vi. yard encroachments.
vii. private amenity area.
viii. common outdoor amenity area.
ix. visitor parking; and
x. maximum units count.
e. Subsection 3645 of the ZBA is the zoning category assigned to the proposed detached dwellings and includes provisions for:
i. minimum building setback.
ii. maximum building height.
iii. garage controls.
iv. lot coverage.
v. yard encroachments; and
vi. visitor parking.
25In his evidence, Mr. Afonso provided the following key elements of the Draft Plan Conditions (“DPC”):
a. Identification of the Draft Plan of Subdivision to which the final plan shall conform.
b. Requirement to enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City and Region, which will stipulate requirements for securities, other financial obligations and meeting various engineering and design standards.
c. Requirement to pay processing and administration fees.
d. Requirement to convey easements and land dedications within the Plan as well as within external lands, where applicable.
e. Parkland dedication requirements.
26The Subject Lands are located within Peel's Urban System, Designated Greenfield Area and Settlement Area Outside the Greenbelt. Mayfield Road is also identified as a Major Road. Mr. Afonso opines that the Subject Lands are in a location, and are designated in a manner, that the Region is actively encouraging for the type of residential development contemplated by the proposal.
27In Mr. Afonso’s opinion, the proposal also addresses several other development and environmental stewardship policies maintained by the Region. There are two portions of Peel's Key Natural Heritage System that are appropriately recognized and buffered from the proposed development. Within the developable portion of the Subject Lands, the application proposes the type of compact greenfield development (small blocks comprised of a variety of housing types) that is encouraged by the Region, while also providing for integration and walkability with the surrounding area.
28The Revisions to the OPA and ZBA are the result of direct settlement discussions between the Appellant and the City, resulting in slightly revised versions of the OPA, ZBA, Draft Plan and DPC prepared to the satisfaction of representatives of the Appellant and the City.
Conclusionary Opinion
29Mr. Afonso summarized his evidence by adopting the findings of the Recommendation Report as providing a comprehensive review of the planning merits of the proposal. He opines that the OPA, the ZBA, the Draft Plan and the DPC, constitute good land use planning in accordance with applicable Provincial, Regional and Local policies and is in the greater public interest.
30The City was in agreement with the opinions and evidence provided by Mr. Afonso.
FINDINGS
31Based on the uncontested opinion evidence of Mr. Afonso, The Tribunal finds that the proposal is a matter of provincial interest as per s. 2 of the Planning Act. The proposal before the Tribunal is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, ROP, and OP.
32The Tribunal has given regard to the materials that City Council received in relation to the matter. The Tribunal finds that the proposal before the Tribunal constitutes good land use planning.
ORDER
33THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part, and with the consent of the Parties, the following planning instruments are hereby authorized:
a. the Official Plan Amendment attached hereto as Attachment A.
b. the Zoning By-law Amendment attached hereto as Attachment B.
c. the Draft Plan of Subdivision attached hereto as Attachment C; and
d. the Draft Plan Conditions attached hereto as Attachment D.
29No costs are sought by either Party and no costs shall be awarded in respect of this Order.
30The Panel will remain seized and may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator concerning issues arising from the implementation of this Order.
“W. Daniel Best”
W. DANIEL BEST
MEMBER
“S. deBoer”
S. deBOER
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.