Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 18, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000702
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Forgione Investments
Subject: Zoning By-law Application – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: To facilitate 10 back-to-back townhouse units
Reference Number: OZ 20-011 W11
Property Address: 86 Thomas Street
Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-24-000702
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-24-000702
OLT Case Name: Forgione Investments v Mississauga (City)
Heard: December 13, 2024
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Forgione Investments | Meaghan McDermid Liam Valgardson |
| City of Mississauga | Baiqing Luo |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS, ON DECEMBER 13, 2024, AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This matter was recently converted from a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to a Hearing on a settlement between the Parties, related to an Appeal submitted by Forgione Investments (“Applicant/Appellant”) pursuant to Section 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”), from the refusal or neglect to make a decision by the City of Mississauga (“City”).
2The Appeal is specific to an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) proposed for the property address municipally known as 86 Thomas Street (“Subject Property”).
3The Applicant is seeking the Tribunal’s approval of a Settlement Proposal (“Settlement”) on consent of the Parties, consisting of a proposed draft ZBA, with detailed conditions under a Holding Provision, permitting the Applicant to develop the Subject Property consisting of 10 back-to-back townhouses, all with a height of three-storeys, and an overall density of 62.9 units per hectare, through an Interim Order allowing the Appeal.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
4The Tribunal was in receipt of a sworn Affidavit and Witness Statement from Mark Jacobs, an Associate of the Biglieri Group Ltd. (dated December 9, 2024), who was duly qualified to provide uncontested expert land use opinion evidence relating to the Settlement, marked as Exhibit 1. The Tribunal also noted that the combined submission of a draft Order and draft ZBA, was marked as Exhibit 2.
5The Tribunal heard that the Settlement evolved between the Parties during the period following the first CMC, heard on September 16, 2024, in the lead up to a design resubmission on November 6, 2024, which included changes to overall height, access, and porch design. The final revisions, supported by City staff, were ultimately approved by City Council on November 27, 2024. City Council also provided direction to City’s staff to appear before the Tribunal in support of the Settlement.
6The Tribunal also noted that with the elimination of the requirement for a Site Plan Application as a result of “Bill 23 - More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022”, there may be a need for some further administrative review of the final draft ZBA between the Parties, which may result in some modification prior to final approval from the Tribunal. The Parties further submitted that this process is expected to come to a conclusion in early January 2025, with the final draft ZBA submitted to the Tribunal for its review and consideration on or before January 24, 2025.
DECISION AND ORDER
7The Tribunal accepted the uncontested “high-level” oral testimony and written opinion evidence of Mr. Jacobs, as well as his detailed Witness Statement. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement, in its present form: has regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in Section 2 of the Act; is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024; conforms to both the Peel Region Official Plan; and the City’s Official Plan; has appropriate regard for Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 and for relevant City Design Guidelines.
8The Tribunal is also satisfied that following further review and coordination between the Parties, the draft Holding Provisions submitted in the proposed draft ZBA, should advance the opportunity for final approval of the redevelopment of the Subject Property, respectful of good planning policy, in the public interest.
INTERIM ORDER
9THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
- The Appeal by Forgione Investments under subsection 34(11) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c