Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 03, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003430 (Formerly PL111148), OLT-22-003473 (Formerly PL131373)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Latiq Qureshi Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. P13-MOP 08.0 Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003430 Legacy Case No.: PL111148 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003430 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL111148 OLT Case Name: Qureshi v. Mississauga (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Latiq Qureshi Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of the City of Mississauga to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit a plan of subdivision and the retention of the Hammond House Reference Number: OZ 12/013 Property Address: 2625 Hammond Road Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003473 Legacy Case No.: PL131373 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003473 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL131373 OLT Case Name: Qureshi v. Mississauga (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Latiq Qureshi Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit a plan of subdivision and the retention of the Hammond House Reference Number: OZ-12/013 Property Address: 2625 Hammond Road Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003474 Legacy Case No.: PL131374 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003473 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL131373

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

Applicant and Appellant: Latiq Qureshi Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit a plan of subdivision and the retention of the Hammond House Reference Number: 21T-12004C Property Address: 2625 Hammond Road Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-22-003475 Legacy Case No.: PL131375 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-003473 Legacy Lead Case No.: PL131373

Heard: August 29, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Latiq Qureshi	Scott Snider
City of Mississauga	Micah Goldstein

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS ON AUGUST 29, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a settlement hearing regarding appeals brought by Latiq Qureshi (“Appellant”) regarding the failure of the City of Mississauga (“City”) to make decisions regarding the Appellant’s applications for proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and its application for a draft Plan of Subdivision to facilitate residential development on the lands located at 2625 Hammond Road (“subject property”).

2The subject property is roughly 0.87 hectares (“ha”) in size with 95.87 metres (“m”) of frontage on Hammond Road and 95.72 m of frontage on King Forrest Drive. A heritage dwelling (Hammond House), which is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act, is located on the southern portion of the subject property and the northern portion of the property includes a treed area and a watercourse, which forms part of Loyalist Creek.

3The subject property is presently designated as “Neighbourhood” on Schedule 1 (Urban System), “Green System” on Schedule 1 (Urban System) and Schedule 1a (Green System), “Public and Private Open Space” on Schedule 4 (Parks and Open Spaces), and “Greenlands and Residential Low Density II” on Schedule 10 (Land Use Designations) of the City’s Official Plan. The proposed Official Plan Amendments would reconfigure the Green System on Schedules 1 and 1a, add a “Natural Hazard Lands” designation on Schedule 3 (Natural System), reconfigure the Public and Private Open Space designation on Schedule 4, and reconfigure the Residential Low Density II and Green System designations on Schedule 10 for the subject property.

4The subject property is presently zoned as “Residential One (R1)” under the City’s Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 with the northern portion of the subject property zoned with a “Greenlands overlay”. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would rezone the main portion of the subject property to “Residential Three Exception 72 (R3-72)”, which would permit three detached dwellings on lots with site-specific frontages and setbacks, and would rezone the remaining portion of the property to “Greenlands – Natural Hazards (G1)”, which would permit natural areas conservation and flood control uses.

5On August 12, 2022, the Appellant informed the Tribunal that the Parties had reached a proposed settlement.

6The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing on August 29, 2022.

7The Appellant states that an associated official plan appeal (not the Official Plan Amendment appeal that is presently before the Tribunal) and an associated costs appeal are both being withdrawn as agreed to by the Parties in the proposed Minutes of Settlement regarding these proceedings.

ISSUES

8When adjudicating official plan and zoning by-law amendment appeals and draft plan of subdivision appeals, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed instruments:

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, as amended (“Growth Plan”)); and,

c) represent good planning.

9For a zoning by-law amendment appeal, the Tribunal must also determine whether the proposed amendment conforms with applicable official plans (in this case, the Official Plan of the Region of Peel (“Region”) and the City’s Official Plan).

10For draft plan of subdivision appeals, the Tribunal must have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and determine whether the proposed draft plan conditions are reasonable under s. 51(25) of the Planning Act.

11Further, for each of these types or appeals, 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 Planning Act.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

12The Appellant filed an affidavit in support of the proposed settlement sworn by Martin Quarcoopome, dated August 23, 2022. Mr. Quarcoopome is a land use planner. He also provided oral testimony at the settlement hearing. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

13The City supports the proposed settlement and did not provide evidence at the settlement hearing. The Credit Valley Conservation Authority did not attend the settlement hearing.

14At the settlement hearing, Mr. Quarcoopome stated that the proposed development would consist of three new detached dwellings on three new lots. He said the heritage dwelling (Hammond House) would be retained on a new separate lot and a 3,300 square metre block in the northern portion of the subject property would be designated “Greenlands”, “Public and Private Open Space” and “Natural Hazard Lands” and conveyed to the City.

15Mr. Quarcoopome opined that the proposed instruments are consistent with the PPS. He said the proposed instruments would promote growth and development within an existing settlement area, provide for an efficient development and land use pattern, and provide for a range of residential lot sizes and housing options. He said the subject property has access to existing infrastructure and public services and is close to public transit. He also said the proposed instruments provide for open space to protect natural features and protects and conserves the Hammond House heritage building.

16Mr. Quarcoopome opined that the proposed instruments conform with the Growth Plan. He said the proposed instruments facilitate the provision of a variety of residential options in the area, protect natural heritage features and built cultural resources, and contribute to the local housing supply. He reiterated that the subject property is located close to nearby commercial uses and public services and facilities and public transit, and has access to municipal infrastructure and services.

17Mr. Quarcoopome opined that the proposed instruments conform with the Region’s Official Plan. He stated that the subject property is designated as “Urban Area” under Map 1 (Regional Structure) and “Other Rapid Transit Corridor” under Map G (Rapid Transit Corridors) of the Region’s Official Plan. He said the proposed instruments would facilitate development in the Urban Area designated area, provide for intensification along a transit corridor, and facilitate the efficient use of existing services and infrastructure on a property located close to local amenities and services. He reiterated that the proposed instruments preserve and protect the natural and cultural heritage resources on the subject property.

18Mr. Quarcoopome opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the City’s Official Plan. He reiterated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would preserve and protect the natural heritage features and built cultural heritage resources on the subject property. He said it would facilitate housing on lands that have access to municipal infrastructure and services and are close to local amenities and services. He said the proposed development would respect the existing development pattern by adding lots that are similar in size to existing neighbouring lots and by having appropriate setbacks. He said it would provide built form that complies with the Official Plan’s requirements for the local Sheridan Neighbourhood Character Area. He said the proposed development would provide for a density of 7.5 units per net residential hectare, which he opined is appropriate for a low-density residential area such as that in which the subject property is located. He stated that given the small size of the proposed development, local traffic is not expected to be impacted by it.

19Mr. Quarcoopome stated that in assessing the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision he had regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act. He opined that the draft Plan of Subdivision addresses the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities, and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality. He said the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision conforms with the applicable official plans and adjacent development, uses a suitable site for development, connects with the existing road network, and uses existing municipal services.

20Mr. Quarcoopome opined that the proposed conditions for the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision are standard conditions and are reasonable in accordance with the requirements in s. 51(25) of the Planning Act. He noted that the completion of a functional servicing and stormwater management report is a condition for the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision.

21Mr. Quarcoopome stated that he has had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including those in relation to: the protection of ecological systems; the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, historical, archaeological or scientific interest; the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; accessibility for persons with disabilities; the adequate provision of a full range of housing; the appropriate location of growth and development; and the promotion of appropriate built form.

FINDINGS

22Based on Mr. Quarcoopome’s opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed instruments are consistent with the PPS and conform with the Growth Plan and the Region’s Official Plan. It also finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the City’s Official Plan. The Tribunal has had regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and finds that the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision is appropriate. It also finds that the proposed conditions of draft Plan of Subdivision are reasonable and in accordance with s. 51(25) of the Planning Act. The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act as well as the information and materials that City Council received in relation to these matters. The Tribunal finds that the proposed instruments constitute good planning.

ORDER

23The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed, in part.

24The Tribunal orders that the City of Mississauga’s Official Plan is amended in the manner set out in Attachment 1 to this Order and Decision.

25The Tribunal orders that the City’s Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 is amended in the manner set out in Attachment 2 to this Order and Decision. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

26The Tribunal orders that the proposed draft Plan of Subdivision, dated March 30, 2022, and attached as Attachment 3 to this Order and Decision is approved subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in Attachment 4 to this Order and Decision.

“Hugh S. Wilkins”

HUGH S. WILKINS VICE-CHAIR

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

ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENT 4