Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 03, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004843

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

Applicant and Appellant: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the construction of two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys

Reference Number: OZ/OPA 22-10 W1

Property Address: 88 Park Street E

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004843

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004843

OLT Case Name: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited 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: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the construction of two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys

Reference Number: OZ/OPA 22-10 W1

Property Address: 88 Park Street E

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004844

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004843

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

Applicant and Appellant: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the construction of two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys

Reference Number: TM 22/02 W1

Property Address: 88 Park Street E

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004845

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004843

Heard: September 15, 2023 via Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

Mark Flowers Grace O’Brien

City of Mississauga

Lia Magi

Regional Municipality of Peel

Rachel Godley

Metrolinx

Signe Leisk Christie Gibson

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI ON september 15, 2023 AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This was the second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in relation to appeals brought under s. 22(7), 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited (“Appellant”) against the City of Mississauga (“City”) for failure to make decisions within the statutory timeframes on Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) applications (“Applications”) in relation to the property known municipally as 88 Park Street East (“Development Site”).

2The Applications are required to facilitate the construction of two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys.

3At the first CMC, Mr. Flowers advised the Tribunal that the Appellant had acquired a parcel of land from the City immediately adjacent to the Development Site, being a closed portion of Queen Street East (“Acquired Land”).

4Mr. Flowers advised the Tribunal that, in response to the Acquired Land being added to the Development Site, revised Applications were filed with the City on June 16, 2023. He noted that the revised Applications have since been circulated for comments by the City and some comments have already been received. The Parties were in agreement that no new applications are required as a result of the Acquired Land and, therefore, the need for related appeals and a consolidation request is moot.

5With respect to the potential jurisdictional issue raised by the City at the first CMC with respect to the Acquired Land, Mr. Flowers advised that the Appellant’s original OPA application included a request to amend policies of the City’s Port Credit Local Area Plan, related to ‘Site 12’ in the City’s Official Plan mapping, which includes the Acquired Land. As a result, since the Acquired Land is captured in the ‘Site 12’ policies already under appeal as part of the OPA application, the City is no longer raising a potential jurisdictional issue. Ms. Magi confirmed that the City agrees with Mr. Flowers’ submissions.

6Mr. Flowers also confirmed that the hearing dates do not need to be reconsidered.

7Mr. Flowers advised that the Development Site, together with the Acquired Land, continues to be proposed for the development of two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys. He provided a summary of the changes to the proposed development as a result of the addition of the Acquired Lands, including: an increase in the total gross floor area (“GFA”), an increase in the non-residential GFA, a reduction in the density, and an increase in the unit count.

8Additionally, Mr. Flowers advised that all Parties had provided additional issues related to the revised Applications, and that such additional issues are captured in the Issues List (“IL”) included in draft Procedural Order (“PO”) submitted to the Tribunal.

REQUESTS FOR STATUS

9At the first CMC on March 30, 2023, Party status was granted to the Regional Municipality of Peel and Metrolinx, and Participant status was granted to MPCT DIF 70 Park Street East LP in support of the Applications, and Peel Standard Condominium Corporation 787 (“Condo Corp 787”) in opposition to the Applications.

10At the first CMC, Melanie Grace was directed to provide the Tribunal with written authorization to act as agent on behalf of Condo Corp 787. The Tribunal is in receipt of such authorization, which also authorizes Jim Kuflowski and Karen Panetta to act as agents.

11The Tribunal clarified that the Act does not provide for additional Parties to a DPS appeal under s. 51(34) of the Act, and as such, only the Appellant and the City are Parties to the DPS appeal.

12The Parties were advised to ensure that their witnesses address the concerns of Condo Corp 787 in their witness statements.

13The Tribunal received no further requests for Party or Participant status.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

14The Tribunal advised the Parties of the option of Tribunal-led mediation and to contact the Case Coordinator to determine next steps if the need for mediation arises.

15The Parties are directed to advise the Tribunal in writing at the earliest opportunity should they reach a settlement with respect to some or all of the issues prior to the hearing.

PROCEDURAL ORDER and ISSUES LIST

16The Parties filed a draft PO in advance of the second CMC complete with exchange and deadline dates, and the IL. As Ordered by the Tribunal at the first CMC, the draft PO provides for at least 55 days prior notice to the Tribunal in the event that all of the Hearing days are not required for the Hearing of the merits.

17With consent of the Parties, the PO was deemed to be in its final form.

HEARING EVENT

18A 15-day hearing was scheduled at the first CMC to proceed by video on Monday, February 26, 2024, at 10 a.m. as follows:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/979388733 Access code: 979-388-733

19Parties and Participants are asked to log into the Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.

20Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available at: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html.

21Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.

22Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

23The Procedural Order, attached as Attachment 1 to this decision, is deemed to be in force and effect to govern the hearing of the merits.

24There will be no further notice and the Member is not seized of this matter.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

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

CASE NOS.: OLT-22-004843

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

Applicant and Appellant: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the construction of two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys

Reference Number: OZ/OPA 22-10 W1

Property Address: 88 Park Street E

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

O.L.T. Case No.: OLT-22-004843

O.L.T. Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004843

O.L.T. Case Name: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited 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: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the construction of two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys

Reference Number: OZ/OPA 22-10 W1

Property Address: 88 Park Street E

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

O.L.T. Case No.: OLT-22-004844

O.L.T. Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004843

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

Applicant and Appellant: Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the construction of two mixed-use residential buildings of 40 and 42 storeys

Reference Number: TM 22/02 W1

Property Address: 88 Park Street E

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

O.L.T. Case No.: OLT-22-004845

O.L.T. Lead Case No.: OLT-21-004843

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on Monday, February 26, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. by video.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 15 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the attachment for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. If the Applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposed at the hearing, the Applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans, drawings and proposed instruments, updated documents and reports to the other parties and the Tribunal on or before Friday, October 13, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

10. If the Applicant elects to seek approval of a revised proposal in accordance with paragraph 9 above, a Party may provide to the Tribunal and the other Parties a refined Issues List on or before Monday, October 23, 2023 in accordance with paragraph 24 below, and which shall be subject to the Tribunal’s approval.

11. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before Friday, October 27, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.

12. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Monday, November 20, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, and if the expert witnesses reach an agreement, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, December 1, 2023.

13. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 15 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

14. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 15 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 15 below.

15. On or before Monday, December 18, 2023 the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

16. On or before Monday, December 18, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

17. On or before Friday, December 22, 2023, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. On or before Monday, February 5, 2024, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Friday, January 26, 2024 and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.

20. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, February 16, 2024.

21. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

22. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal and the other parties at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

23. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Monday, February 5, 2024 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

24. All filings shall be submitted electronically, and in hard copy to the Tribunal if requested. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

25. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is not seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.

NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.

Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:

• direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
• direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
• cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
• re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
• another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1 – LIST OF PARTIES / PARTICIPANTS

Parties

DAVIES HOWE LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West, 10th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C1

Mark Flowers / Grace O’Brien Tel: (416) 977-7088 Email: markf@davieshowe.com / graceo@davieshowe.com

Lawyers for Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA 300 City Centre Drive Mississauga, Ontario L5B 3C1

Lia Magi Tel: (289) 971-0682 Email: lia.magi@mississauga.ca

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL 10 Peel Centre Drive, Suite A and B Brampton, Ontario L6T 4B9

Rachel Godley Tel: (905) 791-7800 ext. 7189 Email: rachel.godley@peelregion.ca

CASSELS BROCK & BLACKWELL LLP Suite 3200, Bay-Adelaide Centre – North Tower 40 Temperance Street Toronto, Ontario M5H 0B4

Signe Leisk Tel: (416) 869-5411 Email: sleisk@cassels.com

Lawyers for Metrolinx

Participants

MPCT DIF 70 Park Street East LP David Bronskill Goodmans LLP Tel: (416) 597-4299 Email: dbronskill@goodmans.ca

Peel Standard Condominium Corporation 787 Jim Kuflowski, President Tel: (647) 222-1952 Email: pscc787@gmail.com / jim_marg@sympatico.ca

ATTACHMENT 2 – ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is relevant or appropriate, or that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it. The identification of an issue by a party indicates that party’s intent to tender evidence and/or make submissions on it, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet.

City of Mississauga

PROVINCIAL POLICIES:

1. Does the proposed development demonstrate consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, including but not limited to Section 1.1.3 Settlement Areas?

2. Does the proposed development conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, including but not limited to:

a. Policy 2.2.2.3 – All municipalities will develop a strategy to achieve the minimum intensification target and intensification throughout delineated built-up areas

b. Policy 5.2.5.6 – Municipalities will develop and implement urban design and site design official plan policies and other supporting documents that direct the development of a high quality public realm and compact built form?

3. Does the existing Port Credit Local Area Plan policy regime allow for the achievement of minimum density targets prescribed in, but not limited to, Policy 2.2.4.3 of the Growth Plan?

REGION OF PEEL OFFICIAL PLAN:

4. Does the proposed development conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan 1996 (Office Consolidation 2021), Section 5.3 Urban System, respecting the characteristics of existing communities, including but not limited to policies 5.3.1.3; 5.3.1.4; 5.3.1.7; and 5.3.2.6?

5. Does the existing Port Credit Local Area Plan policy regime allow for the achievement of minimum density targets prescribed in, but not limited to, Policy 5.6.19.10 and associated Table 5 of the new Region of Peel Official Plan effective November 4, 2022?

MISSISSAUGA OFFICIAL PLAN:

6. Does the proposed development conform to the Mississauga Official Plan, including but not limited to policies in:

a. Chapter 4: Vision – Section 4.4 Guiding Principles;

b. Chapter 5: Direct Growth - Sections 5.3 City Structure, 5.3.3 Community Nodes, 5.4 Corridors, 5.5 Intensification Areas;

c. Chapter 6: Value the Environment – Sections 6.10 Noise, 6.10.4 Rail Noise, Safety and Vibration;

d. Chapter 7: Complete Communities – Section 7.2 Housing;

e. Chapter 9: Build a Desirable Urban Form – Sections 9.2.1 Intensification Areas, 9.5 Site Development and Buildings;

f. Chapter 19: Implementation – Sections 19.4 Development Applications, 19.5 Criteria for Site Specific Official Plan Amendments;

PORT CREDIT LOCAL AREA PLAN & BUILT FORM GUIDE:

7. Does the proposed development conform to the Port Credit Local Area Plan, including but not limited to policies in:

a. Chapter 5.0: Vision – Sections 5.1 Guiding Principles and 5.2 Community Concept, 5.2.2 Community Node

b. Chapter 6.0: Direct Growth – Sections 6.1 Community Node Character Areas

c. Chapter 8.0: Complete Communities – Section 8.1 Housing

d. Chapter 9.0: Multi-Modal City – Section 9.3 Mobility Hub

e. Chapter 10.0 Desirable Urban Form – 10.1 General Policies, 10.2.1 Community Node Character Area General Policies, 10.2.2 Central Residential Precinct

f. Chapter 13.0: Special Sites – Section 13.1.12 Site 12

g. PCLAP Schedule 2B – Port Credit Community Node Height Limits

h. Built Form Guide – Section 2.1 Contextual Building Heights, 2.2 Planned Building Heights, 2.3.2 Central Residential Precinct, 2.4.1 Building Floor Plates and Orientation, 2.4.2 Building Separation Distances, 2.4.3 Skyline, 2.4.5.1 Shadow Impacts, 2.4.5.2 Wind Comfort, 2.4.6 At Grade Commercial Requirements, 2.4.7 Building Setback, 2.4.10 Pedestrian Realm and Streetscape, 2.5 Scenic Routes, Key Sites and Views, 2.6 Place Making Opportunities

PLANNING, DESIGN & LANDSCAPE ISSUES:

8. Does the proposed development conform to the Mississauga Official Plan City Structure – Urban Hierarchy?

9. Does the proposed development respect the existing and planned character of the Central Residential Precinct and does it provide appropriate transition?

10. Will the proposal destabilize the intent of the building heights as prescribed in the Height Schedule?

11. Does the proposed development incorporate appropriate amenity space, landscaped area and buffers?

12. Does the proposal appropriately address the transition and interface with the Hurontario LRT and Port Credit GO Station?

13. Does the proposal maintain and address City standards with respect to Shadow Impacts, Pedestrian Wind and Safety and Noise Feasibility?

14. Does the proposal appropriately address the housing affordability goals and objectives of the City?

15. Has the applicant appropriately demonstrated that City requirements, such as accommodating street trees, can be achieved within the public ROW of the Ann Street and Park Street frontage?

SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT ISSUES

16. Has the applicant adequately justified the proposed reduction in parking rates for the development?

17. Has the applicant satisfied Metrolinx and the rail safety requirements?

18. Has the applicant demonstrated that there is sufficient water and wastewater servicing to accommodate the additional density on site?

19. Is approval of the proposal premature until the following is provided to the City’s satisfaction or, alternatively, is the use of an “H” Holding Symbol appropriate, should the Tribunal allow the appeal in whole or in part:

a. Development Agreement

b. Arrangements for land dedications, utility relocations and appropriate building setback to achieve the required streetscape

c. Landscape Plan

d. Streetscape Feasibility Study

e. Quantitative Wind Study

f. Sun/Shadow Study

g. Satisfactory Grading and Servicing Plans

h. Noise Study

i. Functional Servicing Report, Environmental Site Screening Questionnaire and Declaration Form, Phase One ESA

j. Traffic Impact Study

k. Arrangements with the Region of Peel with respect to waste management and site servicing?

20. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, should the Final Order be withheld pending the City Solicitor advising the Tribunal that the Owner and City have agreed to the final form of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment?

SUMMARY:

21. Does the proposed development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

Metrolinx

22. Are the Official Plan amendment, the Zoning By-Law amendment, and the Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications (the “Applications”) consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including but not limited to the following policies as they relate to rail safety:

23. 1.1.1a), c), e), and i)

24. 1.1.3.2a), b), c), d), and f)

25. 1.1.3.3

26. 1.1.3.4

27. 1.4.3d), and e)

28. 1.6.8.1

29. 1.6.8.3

30. 1.7.1c), k)

31. 1.8.1?

32. Do the Applications conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, including but not limited to the following policies as they relate to rail safety:

a. 2.2.1.2a) iii) and c) iii

b. 2.2.1.3c)

c. 2.2.1.4d), and e)

d. 2.2.4?

24. Do the Applications conform to the City of Mississauga’s Official Plan, including but not limited to policies 6.10, 8.1.2, 8.2.1, 8.8 and 9.5.1?

25. Do the Applications conform to Peel Region’s Official Plan (Office Consolidation September 2021), including but not limited to policy 5.9?

26. Do the Applications have appropriate regard to Peel Region’s Official Plan, including but not limited to 2022 policies 1.1, 5.3.3, and 5.10.38.8?

27. Do the Applications appropriately consider the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks’ NPC 300 Guidelines and the D-Series Guidelines?

28. Do the Applications give appropriate consideration to and meet the standards set out in the Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations developed by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Railway Association of Canada, and the Metrolinx Adjacent Development Guidelines (GO Transit Heavy Rail Corridors)?

29. Do the Applications provide appropriate building site orientation and setbacks to the GO Station Lands and rail corridor, and LRT Station Lands?

30. Do the Applications take into account the planned expansion of the rail corridor?

31. Do the Applications provide an appropriate public realm relationship to the GO Station and LRT Station Lands and appropriate permeability for safe pedestrian movement?

32. Do the Applications provide appropriate bicycle infrastructure?

33. Do the Applications satisfy the technical review comments submitted by Metrolinx to the City of Mississauga, dated June 1, 2022?

Region of Peel

34. Has the applicant submitted a satisfactory FSR?

35. Is there sufficient servicing capacity for the waste water generated by the site? If not, how will the sanitary servicing capacity be addressed and on what timeline?

36. Has a satisfactory waste management plan been submitted to the Region in accordance with the Region’s Waste Collection Design Standards Manual?

Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited

37. In the event that the Tribunal approves the Draft Plan of Subdivision Application, what are the appropriate associated conditions of approval?

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited
2. City of Mississauga
3. Regional Municipality of Peel
4. Metrolinx
5. Reply by Edenshaw Queen Developments Limited