Main Street Developments Inc. v. City of Brampton, 2024 CanLII 126832

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement

du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

December 23, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-24-000810

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Main Street Developments Inc.

Subject:

Minor Variance

Description:

To permit the development of a mixed-use residential and commercial project.

Reference Number:

A-2024-0109

Property Address:

277 & 229 Main Street

Municipality/UT:

City of Brampton

OLT Case No.:

OLT-24-000810

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-24-000810

OLT Case Name:

Main Street Developments Inc v. Brampton (City)

Heard:

December 2, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Main Street Developments Inc.

Gerard Borean

City of Brampton

Maanas Rautela

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION BY T.F. NG ON December 2, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal by Main Street Developments Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) of a Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) decision approving the variances subject to 11 conditions, which effectively, refused one variance (variance 13), partly refused another (variance 16) while modifying the final variance (variance 18) out of 18 minor variances pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) in the City of Brampton (“City”).

2Although styled as an appeal of the conditions and only the two denied variances (variance 13 and part of variance 16), the matter being a hearing de novo, all variances from the Application were in issue at the Hearing.

3The property’s municipal addresses are 227 and 229 Main Street (“Subject Property/Site”). The Application is to facilitate a Mixed – Use residential and commercial development on the Subject Property.

BACKGROUND

Past Approvals

4Applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) were submitted and approved permitting a High-Rise Mixed –Use Development on the Subject Property.

5By-law No. 26-2023 adopting OPA No. 2006-234 was approved by the City Council on February 8, 2023 (the “OPA”). This OPA amended the designation of the Subject Property to High Density Residential with specific requirements related to providing for commercial uses on the main floor and residential uses above, subject to the maximum height being with a 45-degree angular plane from the rear property line (adjacent to the lower density neigbourhood) to a maximum height of 76 meters (“m”).

6On February 8, 2023, City Council enacted and passed By-law No. 27 – 2023 which implemented OPA 2006-234 with a site-specific ZBA subject to Holding Provisions including:

1. A requirement to complete a Traffic Impact Study to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Public Works and Engineering, and

2. Hold a Community Meeting with interested area residents and area Councillors to review the development proposal and address community questions and issues to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Building and Growth Management.

7These matters have been completed and the holding conditions have been satisfied.

8The approved OPA and ZBA were based on a development proposal submitted prior to the announcement of the extension of the Hurontario Light Rail Transit (“LRT”) and planned transit stop at Charolais Boulevard. This announcement alters the planned context of the area and site, making it more appropriate to allow for increased heights and density. Further, at the time of the applications and approvals, the Regional Municipality of Peel only had servicing capacity for a maximum of 400 units on the site which limited the development options for the site. The Region has informed the landowner that servicing allocation has been increased and the site can now accommodate a greater number of units.

9A Minor Variance application (“MVA”) was submitted on April 11, 2024 to request variances from a site-specific By-law that would allow for revisions to an approved high-rise mixed-use development located at the Subject Property.

10City Staff prepared a Staff Report for the June 16, 2024 COA hearing (the report generally supported all of the variances except for, tower separation (variance 13); parking rate reduction (variance 16) and the continuous street wall (variance 18) subject to a number of conditions.

11The MVA was approved on July 16, 2024, with conditions and exclusions.

12The Appellant appealed the COA decision on August 1, 2024.

13The Notice of Appeal specifically indicates issues with the COA’s decision regarding Variance 13 – refusing a reduction of the minimum tower separation to 20 m from 25 m; Variance 16 – refusing a reduction on visitor parking from 0.20 spaces per unit to 0.15 spaces per unit; and the Conditions of Approval. The Notice of Appeal does not raise issues with any of the variances that were approved by the COA including the amendment to Variance 18 with respect to the continuous street wall.

The Variance Application

14The Appellant’s variance application requested the following variances to ZBL No. 270-2004:

1. To permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling. Whereas the By-law does not permit the use. (s.3667.1)

2. To provide no commercial uses within the first storey of any building with a wall adjacent to Hurontario/Main Street and Charolais Blvd. Whereas the By-law requires any portion of the floor area within the first storey of any building with a wall adjacent to Hurontario/Main Street and Charolais Blvd shall be used for commercial purposes. Notwithstanding the above, entrances, lobbies and uses accessory to the apartment dwelling are permitted provided that no more than 30% of the wall facing the street is occupied by entrances or lobbies. (s.3667.3.y)

3. To permit a rear yard depth of 6.0 m to a proposed back-to-back townhouse dwelling. Whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 25 m for any portion of the building less than or equal to a height of 7.5 m, and 35 m to any portion of the building taller than 7.5 m. (s.3667.3.j) i) and 3667.3.j) ii)

4. To permit a front yard setback of 60 m to a proposed back-to-back townhouse dwelling. Whereas the by-law does not permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling. (s. 3667.3)

5. To permit an interior side yard setback of 1.8 m to a proposed back-to-back townhouse dwelling. Whereas the by-law does not permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling. (s. 3667.3)

6. To permit an exterior side yard setback of 1.8 m to a proposed back-to-back townhouse dwelling. Whereas the by-law does not permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling. (s. 3667.3)

7. To permit a 0.0 m tower stepback from the edge of the podium at front yard. Whereas the by-law requires a minimum tower stepback of 3.0 m from the edge of podium at the front yard. (s.3667.3 p)

8. To permit a 0.0 m tower stepback from the edge of the podium at side yard. Whereas the by-law requires a minimum tower stepback of 2.5 m from the edge of podium at the side yard. (s.3667.3.q)

9. To permit all portions of the building with the exception of the elevator core to be located within the height limits set by a line that extends upward at a 45-degree angle from the rear property line, to a maximum height of 80 m. Whereas the by-law requires all portions of a building must be located within the height limits set by a line that extends upwards at a 45-degree angle, or lower, from the rear property line to a maximum height of 76 m. (s.3667.3.l)

10. To permit a maximum height of 11.8 m for the back-to-back townhouse dwelling. Whereas the by-law does not permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling (s.3667.3)

11. To permit a maximum podium height of 41.0 m. Whereas the by-law permits a maximum podium height of 27.0 m. (s.3667.3 m)

12. To permit a maximum Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 48,500 square metres (“m²”). Whereas the by-law permits a maximum GFA of 39,000 m². (s.3667.3.b)

13. To permit a tower separation of 20 m. Whereas the by law requires a tower separation of 25 m. (s.3667.3.o)

14. To permit a maximum Floor Space Index (“FSI”) of 7.62. Whereas the by-law permits a maximum FSI of 3.0. (s.29.2.3.a)

15. To permit a minimum landscaped open space of 24.9% of the lot area, including landscaped hard surfaces. Whereas the by-law requires a minimum landscaped open space of 35% of the lot area, including landscaped hard surfaces. (s.3667.3.w)

16. To permit parking to be calculated at a rate of 0.2 spaces per unit for residents and 0.15 spaces per unit for visitors. Whereas the by-law requires that parking be calculated at a rate of 0.38 spaces per unit for residents and 0.20 spaces per unit for visitors. (s.3667.3.s)

17. To permit the first storey of any back to back townhouse wall adjacent to a street, to have a minimum 10% of the gross area of the portion of the wall above grade shall have windows and/or doors. Whereas the by-law requires the first storey of any wall adjacent to a street, a minimum 70% of the gross area of the portion of the wall above grade shall have windows and/or doors. (s.3667.3.z)

18. To permit a continuous street wall at grade level must occupy at least 95% of the entire available frontage facing Main Street and 95% of the entire available frontage facing any other public street. For the purposes of this subsection, “available frontage" means the total frontage excluding any required side yard setbacks, approved pedestrian and vehicular access locations, privately-owned publicly accessible spaces, required rear yard setback to the back-to-back townhomes and the length of frontage occupied by the back to back townhomes along Charolais Blvd. This shall be limited to only apply to the Charolais Boulevard frontage. Whereas the by-law requires that a continuous street wall at grade level must occupy at least 95% of the entire available frontage facing Main Street and 95% of the entire available frontage facing any other public street. For the purposes of this subsection, "available frontage" means the total frontage excluding any required side yard setbacks, approved pedestrian and vehicular access locations, and privately-owned publicly accessible spaces. (s.3667.3.aa).

HEARING

15The City and Appellant have agreed to a settlement that would revise the conditions required based upon changes to the plans. Variance 13 was abandoned by the Appellant (meaning tower separation is now 25 m).

16Joshua Chitiz, the expert witness called on behalf of the Appellant was qualified to give expert opinion evidence in land use planning matters. The Appellants Document Brief was marked as Exhibit 1; the Revised Context Map as Exhibit 2; and the Coloured Site Plan as Exhibit 3.

17As this is a de novo hearing and despite Counsel informing the Tribunal that the Parties have resolved the matter, s.45(1) of the Act establishes the ‘four tests’ that the Tribunal must be satisfied that the variances:

a. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

b. maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;

c. are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and

d. are minor in nature.

18In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal's Decision to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as for the decision of the COA and the information considered in the course of making its decision, as set out in s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

19Where conditions are applicable, the appeal must also be consistent with s. 45(18) of the Act, which allows the Tribunal to make any decision the COA could have made with conditions in its decision pursuant to s. 45(9) of the Act:

(9) Any authority or permission granted by the committee under subsections (1), (2) and (3) may be for such time and subject to such terms and conditions as the committee considers advisable and as are set out in the decision.

(9.1) If the committee imposes terms and conditions under subsection (9), it may also require the owner of the land to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with some or all of the terms and conditions, and in that case the requirement shall be set out in the decision.

Site Context

20The Subject Property is located at the north-west corner of Main Street South and Charolais Boulevard. The Subject Property comprised two parcels with a combined frontage of approximately 92.37 m along Main Street and approximately 87.8 m along Charolais Boulevard with a total site area of 6,346 m².

21The Subject Property is currently occupied by existing office buildings. The office buildings will be demolished as part of the Subject Property’s redevelopment.

22The surrounding land uses are:

1. North: Amica Peel Village seniors housing (nine- storeys).

2. South: Charolais Boulevard and beyond are a Petro Canada Gas Station and Shoppers World Mall.

3. East: Main Street South and beyond are Kiwanis Memorial Park and single detached dwellings.

4. West: single detached dwellings on Hodgson Street.

Public Transit

23The major Gateway Terminal for Brampton Transit is located approximately 500 m southeast of the site at the northwest corner of Main Street and Steeles Avenue. It is a Transit Hub for the Zum BRT lines on the Steeles Avenue and Hurontario/Main Street, and the proposed northern terminal station for the Hurontario LRT. The station is currently considered a Mobility Hub Gateway, and will be designated as a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) as a result of the Municipal Comprehensive Review processes currently taking place in Peel Region and the City. This is important context, as the site’s proximity to higher order transit means that there is a substantial amount of existing and new policy at the Provincial, Regional, and Municipal level supporting intensification of the site.

24It is expected that with the extension of the LRT and a planned transit station at Charolais Boulevard (in front of the Site), that a new MTSA would be created for the area around the transit stop which would include the site. This would support and permit higher heights and density for development on the site.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

25The proposal is for a high-rise mixed-use development with two residential towers of 25 Storeys and two blocks of back to back townhomes, with a total of 812 residential units. The Towers will front onto Main Street on the eastern part of the site. This will frame the street while providing space for vehicle entrance/exit points on the southwest side of the Site. The tower development will have a 12-storey podium with the two towers terracing from the highest point along Main Street towards the interior of the site providing architectural detail and character.

26The proposed development incorporates low-rise townhouses at the rear/western part of the property. These townhomes will provide for a built form transition and buffer to the low-rise residential neighbourhood to the west.

27To accommodate the proposed development, variances from the existing site-specific Zoning By-law are required related to the height, floor area, setbacks, parking and the townhouse use.

28The revised plans were created to support the new planning context and intensification for the area associated with the announcement of the Hurontario LRT extension incorporating a planned stop directly in front of the site. The planned rapid transit expansion sets the stage for a development with greater height and density to make efficient use of the transit infrastructure and support the investment by the Province, Region, and Municipality. The main development concept will generally remain the same with two towers fronting on Main Street and now includes townhouses at the rear that provides a transition and buffer to the residential neighbourhood to the west. The orientation and height of the towers have been revised to allow for a more efficient development of the site and provide for more housing along Main Street, which is an intensification corridor.

Mr. Chitiz’s testimony and evidence

29Mr. Chitiz opined and the Tribunal agrees that the Applications have regard for matters of provincial interest, since they propose high- density, mixed-use development where intensification is envisioned and acceptable, implement Provincial Policies 2(h) and 2(q) of the Act and represent orderly development in a location suitable for growth and development.

30The proposed development is consistent with the updated PPS that came into effect in October 20, 2024, which has merged the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

31The proposed development conforms to the Region of Peel Official Plan (“ROP”).

32In the Brampton Flower Town Secondary Plan, the Subject Property is designated as “High Density Residential”.

33The Secondary Plan provides a land use framework for the existing residential neighbourhoods and local commercial uses in the Secondary Plan Area. The High Density Residential policies indicate:

1. S. 1.4.1 – Uses permitted on lands designated High Density shall be developed in accordance with the New Housing Mix and Density Category of Section 4.2.1.2 of the Official Plan.

2. S. 1.4.2 – Notwithstanding the requirements in 1.4.1, the lands municipally known as 227 and 229 Main Street shall be subject to the following:

a. Mixed-use development shall be permitted with ground floor commercial uses and residential uses above; and

b. All portions of a building must be located within the height limits set by a line that extends upwards at a 45 degree angle, or lower, from the rear property line to a maximum height of 76 m.

Mr. Chitiz concluded that the variances meet the four tests and represent good planning. He further confirmed that the conditions of approval are appropriate.

TESTS FOR MINOR VARIANCES

Maintain the General Intent of the City Official Plan (OP)

34The site is designated High Density Residential in the OP with site specific Exceptions that were prepared specifically for the proposed development. The OP permits high density residential development on the site.

35The OPA added section 1.4.2 to section 1.4 – High Density Residential, which includes the following site-specific policies:

i. Mixed-use development shall be permitted with ground floor commercial uses and residential uses above; and,

ii. All portions of a building must be located within the height limits set by a line that extends upwards at a 45 degree angle, or lower, from the rear property line to a maximum height of 76 meters.

36The Subject Property is located along a ‘Primary Intensification Corridor’ on Schedule 1 City Concept and is in close proximity (500 m) to the Gateway Terminal Transit Hub. The OP indicates that Primary Intensification Corridors are planned to accommodate intense mixed-use development at higher densities supported by the City’s highest level of transit service.

37The Hurontario LRT is planned to be extended north to Downtown Brampton. The Hurontario LRT extension study envisions a station at the corner of Main Street South and Charolais Boulevard (adjacent to the site).

38The conformity with the OP is based upon the location of the proposed development being within an area designated for significant intensification as it is within walking distance to rapid transit, is connected to active transportation and is in close proximity to park uses, commercial uses and other services. The site will support a complete community and the proposed development efficiently uses existing infrastructure.

39The site-specific amendment was based upon the development plans at the time and was adopted prior to the announcement of LRT Extension, which will permit higher heights and density on the site. The general intent and purpose of the site-specific amendment is to ensure that there is an appropriate transition between the high-rise development and the residential neighbourhood to the west. The inclusion of the townhomes has created a built form transition that negates the need for the angular plane. Further, the angular plane is only slightly encroached into by the mechanical and elevator shafts of the Tower which are permitted height encroachments in the City ZBL.

40The Tribunal finds that the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP.

Maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law (“ZBL”)

41City Council enacted and passed By-law No. 27 – 2023 on February 23, 2023, which implemented a site-specific ZBA for the development concept at that time. The By-law was created based on the development plans at that time. With changes to the planned context for the site, due to the future LRT extension, and an increased servicing allocation from the Region, a more intense form of development is appropriate for the Subject Property.

Townhouse Variances

42Variance 1 is requested to permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling, whereas the by- law does not permit the townhome use. Townhomes were not considered in the previous design and were therefore not included in the site-specific By-law. The by- law restricts certain uses within a particular zone to ensure that all developments align with the intended character and purpose of the area. In this case, back-to-back townhouses are proposed as an additional use for the site and will provide a transition between the high-rise towers along Main Street and the detached homes to the west, providing a more compatible form of housing between these different built-form types.

43The intent of Variances 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10 are to provide development standards regulating the applicable townhouse setbacks and height to ensure sufficient separation between structures and compatibility with the surrounding area. The requested standards are appropriate for a townhouse development and meet the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Sitewide Development Variances

44Variances 2, 7, 8, and 11 are sitewide development standards that have been altered to allow for the revised design. The variances are required as the design has changed, and the previous by-law included regulations to control the development being considered at the time. The requested variances are appropriate for a high-density use along Main Street incorporating townhouses as a component of the overall site development.

45Variance 9 is requested to permit all portions of the building with the exception of the elevator shaft and mechanical rooftop equipment to be located within the height limits set by a line that extends upward at a 45-degree angle from the rear property line, to a maximum height of 80 m, whereas the bylaw requires that all portions of a building must be located within the height limits set by a line that extends upwards at a 45 degree angle, or lower, from the rear property line to a maximum height of 76 m. The intent of this regulation is to control building heights to ensure adequate light, air, and privacy for neighboring properties while maintaining a consistent and appropriate urban form. This variance seeks to permit a 4.0-m increase in building height and an exception to the 45-degree angle requirement for the elevator shaft and mechanical rooftop equipment.

46Section 6.16 of the ZBL, which pertains to the general provisions for all zones, states that height regulations do not apply to elevator shafts and mechanical rooftop equipment which would allow for the plans as shown. However, a variance is required due to specific wording in the amendment that refers to "all portions of a building". Given the scale of the requested increase and the limited portions of the building that would exceed the angular plane, no negative impacts are anticipated from this variance. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

47Variance 12 is requested to permit a maximum Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 48,500 m², whereas the By-law permits a maximum GFA of 39,000 m². This regulation was based on the site-specific development plans that were proposed at the time. The intent of the maximum GFA is to control the density based on the availability of municipal servicing allocation and ensure consistency with broader goals and objectives outlined in an area’s planning framework. The variance is intended to facilitate a more efficient use of land located next to an MTSA and adjacent to a future LRT station at Charolais Boulevard which is consistent with the broader goals and objectives in the area’s planning framework and additional servicing allocation.

48Variance 13 has been abandoned.

49Variance 14 is requested to permit a maximum FSI of 7.62, whereas the by-law only permits a maximum FSI of 3.0. The intent of this regulation is to prevent excessive density that could affect adjacent properties by controlling development intensity through FSI, which is the ratio of a building's gross residential floor area to the lot area. The previous proposal had a FSI of 6.1, but the site specific Zoning By-law mistakenly did not address the 3.0 FSI limit, thereby defaulting to the Hurontario Corridor Mixed Use One zoning provisions. City Staff supported the increased density in their staff report. The proposed increase to 7.62 is consistent with the planning policies for the area, providing for appropriate height and massing that meets the ZBL's intent to control height and massing.

50Variance 15 is requested to permit a minimum landscaped open space of 24.9% of the lot area, including landscaped hard surfaces, whereas the by-law requires a minimum landscaped open space of 35% of the lot area, including landscaped hard surfaces. The intent of this regulation is to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between the built environment and open space to accommodate landscaping. In this case, the 35% figure originated from the previous proposal that incorporated a landscaped area where the townhomes are now proposed. The proposed townhouses will now occupy part of the landscaped area and will serve as the transition between different built forms thereby reducing the amount of landscaped space. There is still sufficient landscaping on the site for a high density development along an intensification corridor, now incorporating a townhouse component.

51Variance 16 - The site specific Zoning By-law requires a minimum resident parking rate of 0.38 spaces per unit and the proposed development will have a parking rate of 0.20 spaces per unit. The ZBL also requires a minimum visitor parking rate of 0.20 spaces per unit and a visitor parking rate of 0.15 spaces per unit will be provided.

52Nextrans Engineering prepared a Parking Justification Letter dated May 30, 2024, that supports a reduced parking rate for the site. The justification for the reduced parking rate includes the planned LRT extension and the recently adopted City Zoning By-law Amendment No.45-2021 to the ZBL No. 270-2004 for the Downtown, Central Area and Hurontario/Main Street Corridor, which removed a minimum parking requirement for any use within specific boundaries. The proposed development is located just immediately north of these boundaries, and it is expected that the new revised MTSA boundary will be expanded to include the site in the future, with revisions to accommodate the LRT Extension. Therefore, no minimum parking requirement should be applied to the proposed development and the variances for a reduction in the parking rates are appropriate.

53Variance 17 is requested to permit the first storey of any back-to-back townhouse wall adjacent to a street, to have a minimum 10% of the gross area of the portion of the wall above grade to have windows and/or doors, whereas the by-law requires that for the first storey of any wall adjacent to a street, a minimum 70% of the gross area of the portion of the wall above grade shall have windows and/or doors. The regulation in the by-law provision was meant to apply to the ground floor of the tower to create transparency and contribute to an attractive urban form at a pedestrian level. Since townhouses are also proposed on the site, the provision applies to them as well. The variance will reduce the amount to 10% only for the townhouse portion of the site only, which is appropriate for a low-rise residential building. The regulation still applies to the podium and tower. The variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

54Variance 18 is related to the zoning provision that a continuous street wall at grade level must occupy at least 95% of the entire available frontage facing Main Street and 95% of the entire available frontage facing any other public street. The intent of the by- law is to ensure that the proposed tower maintains a continuous and active street frontage. It is not a typical requirement for townhouses. Given that the requirement was meant to apply to the towers only and not townhouses, a condition of approval is recommended that the variance be limited to only apply to the Charolais Boulevard frontage in order to preserve the primary objectives of the zoning by-law for Main Street, ensuring a continuous and active street wall, while providing necessary flexibility for practical design on Charolais Boulevard.

55The Tribunal finds that the variances, subject to conditions of approval, maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure

56The proposed development is based upon a previously approved development with a similar general layout plus the addition of the townhouses, that create built form transition to the residential neighbourhood to the west. The revisions provide for greater height and density that can now be achieved due to the extension of the Hurontario LRT and additional servicing allocation provided by the Region. It is the direction from all levels of Government to make the most efficient use of land with high density development near existing and planned infrastructure. The proposed revisions to the approved high-rise development will allow for a higher density development that is suitable for a site adjacent next to a transit station, the proposed Charolais Station.

57The reduced parking rates will result in the promotion of additional car-free households which is being supported in other areas of the City near transit stations. The reduced parking rate also lowers the cost of housing, which makes these units more affordable than units with parking. The proposed development implements the long-term vision for Main Street and the future transportation network in the City. The proposed development represents an appropriate use of land by providing a compact form of housing that is compatible with the area context and supports the City’s vision of directing intensification towards growth areas.

58The Tribunal finds that the variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the Subject Property.

Minor in Nature

59The proposed development requires variances from the site-specific By-law to allow for a more efficient development on the site, consistent with the direction from the Province, Region, and City. Many of these variances are required to enable the townhouse use that was not part of the previous proposal and will have no adverse impact on adjacent lands or the neighbourhood. Many of the other site-wide development standards require alterations as the existing by-law was designed to enable the development at the time. Thus, the revised plans require minor variances. The increase in GFA is minor and has been supported by City staff. The reduced parking rates are supported by a Parking Justification Letter and are consistent with other developments located near transit stations in the City. The increase in height of 4 m provides for a building that is similar to (or lower than) other developments along Main Street and within MTSAs. The height variance is required for the elevator shaft and mechanical penthouse, which are permitted in the Parent By-law. There are no height and density limits proposed for sites within MTSAs and near transit stations within the City, which indicates that what is being requested will be provided for as-of- right in the future.

60The revised development will not create any adverse impacts on neighbouring properties and will further advance the long-term vision of the City. The conditions of approval for the MVA are appropriate for the development and represent good planning.

61The Tribunal finds that the variances are minor in nature.

DISPOSITION

62The Tribunal considered the uncontested testimony of Mr. Chitiz, the documentation and counsel’s submissions.

63The Tribunal has carefully considered the several variance requests and concludes that these variances meet the ‘four tests’ of s. 45(1) of the Act, are consistent with the PPS and have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal does have regard for the decision of the COA and the information considered in the course of making its decision, as set out in s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

64The Tribunal finds that the proposed development and the variances are consistent with the PPS policies for strategic growth areas, specifically the mixed use, apartment and townhomes “support the achievement of complete communities, a range and mix of housing options, intensification… “(PPS s.2.4.1.2).

65The Tribunal finds that the proposed development and variances conforms to the ROP objectives in particular, s.5.4.18.1 to achieve efficient and compact built form; and s.5.4.18.2 to optimize the use of existing infrastructure and services.

66While the variances were wide in their scope and specific in the variances to the ZBL requirements, the Tribunal determined that considering the Applications background off the back of the site specific OPA and ZBA that preceded the MVA, in the context of the overall Application, the multiple variances are justifiable, reasonable, and are considered variances that are desirable to facilitate the proposed development.

67The Tribunal finds that the variances requested are compatible with the character of the area without adverse impacts and represent good planning.

68Mr. Chitiz’s comprehensive analysis regarding the different variances that relate to aspects of the development proposal was of particular assistance to the Tribunal in coming to the Decision. Specifically, the fact that the site can now absorb the higher residential and servicing capacity because of the prospective MTSA designation resulting from the Hurontario LRT station at the Charolais frontage. The Tribunal approves the variances, subject to the imposed conditions that form part of the Order.

ORDER

69THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part and the Minor Variances to the City of Brampton Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 are authorized subject to conditions for the Subject Property, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

70THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that failure to comply with and maintain any of the conditions shall render the variances approvals null and void.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG

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

1THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal is allowed in part and the minor variances to the City of Brampton Zoning By-law 270-2004 are authorized for the Subject Property as follows:

1. To permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling, whereas the By-law does not permit the use;

2. To provide no commercial uses within the first storey of any building with a wall adjacent to Hurontario/Main Street and Charolais Blvd, whereas the By-law requires any portion of the floor area within the first storey of any building with a wall adjacent to Hurontario/Main Street and Charolais Blvd shall be used for commercial purposes. Notwithstanding the above, entrances, lobbies and uses accessory to the apartment dwelling are permitted provided that no more than 30% of the wall facing the street is occupied by entrances or lobbies;

3. To permit a rear yard depth of 6.0 metres to a proposed back-to-back townhouse dwelling, Whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard depth of 25 metres for any portion of the building less than or equal to a height of 7.5 metres, and 35 metres to any portion of the building taller than 7.5 metres;

4. To permit a front yard setback of 60 metres to a proposed back-to-back townhouse dwelling, Whereas the by-law does not permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling;

5. To permit an interior side yard setback of 1.8 metres to a proposed back-to-back townhouse dwelling, whereas the by-law does not permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling;

6. To permit an exterior side yard setback of 1.8 metres to a proposed back-to-back townhouse dwelling, whereas the by-law does not permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling;

7. To permit a 0.0m tower stepback from the edge of the podium at front yard, whereas the by-law requires a minimum tower stepback of 3.0 metres from the edge of podium at the front yard;

8. To permit a 0.0m tower stepback from the edge of the podium at side yard, whereas the by-law requires a minimum tower stepback of 2.5 metres from the edge of podium at the side yard;

9. To permit all portions of the building with the exception of the elevator shaft and mechanical rooftop equipment to be located within the height limits set by a line that extends upward at a 45-degree angle from the rear property line, to a maximum height of 80 metres, whereas the bylaw requires all portions of a building must be located within the height limits set by a line that extends upwards at a 45 degree angle, or lower, from the rear property line to a maximum height of 76 metres;

10. To permit a maximum height of 11.8 metres for the back-to-back townhouse dwelling, Whereas the bylaw does not permit a back-to-back townhouse dwelling;

11. To permit a maximum podium Height of 41.0 metres, whereas the By-law permit a maximum podium height of 27.0 metres;

12. To permit a maximum Gross Floor Area of 48,500 square metres, whereas the By-law permits a maximum gross floor area of 39,000 square metres;

13. INTENTIONALLY DELETED.

14. To permit a maximum FSI of 7.62, whereas the by-law permits a maximum FSI of 3.0.

15. To permit a minimum landscaped open space of 24.9% of the lot area, including I and scaped hard surfaces, whereas the by-law requires a minimum landscaped open space of 35% of the lot area, including landscaped hard surfaces;

16. To permit parking to be calculated at a rate of 0.20 spaces per unit for residents and 0.15 spaces per unit for visitors, whereas the by-law requires that parking be calculated at a rate of 0.38 spaces per unit for residents and 0.20 spaces per unit for visitors;

17. To permit the first storey of any back-to-back townhouse wall adjacent to a street, to have a minimum 10% of the gross area of the portion of the wall above grade shall have windows and/or doors, whereas the by-law requires the first storey of any wall adjacent to a street, a minimum 70% of the gross area of the portion of the wall above grade shall have windows and/or doors; and

18. To permit a continuous street wall at grade level that must occupy at least 95% of the entire available frontage facing Main Street and 95% of the entire available frontage facing any other public street. For the purposes of this subsection, "available frontage" means the total frontage excluding any required side yard setbacks, approved pedestrian and vehicular access locations, privately-owned publicly accessible spaces, required rear yard setback to the back-to-back townhomes and the length of frontage occupied by the back to back townhomes along Charolais Blvd, whereas the by-law requires that a continuous street wall at grade level must occupy at least 95% of the entire available frontage facing Main Street and 95% of the entire available frontage facing any other public street. For the purposes of this subsection, "available frontage" means the total frontage excluding any required side yard setbacks, approved pedestrian and vehicular access locations, and privately-owned publicly accessible spaces.

2THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the following conditions are ordered:

1. That the extent of the variances be limited generally in keeping with the sketch attached to this Order as Schedule 'A', unless as may be refined/amended during the site plan approval process to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services;

2. That the Appellant shall submit a Functional Servicing Report, meeting the applicable Terms of Reference, to the Region of Peel as part of a Site Plan application to model proposed water and wastewater demands/flows and to determine the adequacy of the existing infrastructure for the proposed development;

3. That architectural strategies be implemented during the site plan approval stage, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, that ensure effective mitigation of the impacts of the reduced stepbacks and increased podium (variances 7, 8 and 11) to meet the intended goals of providing sufficient light, air, privacy, building design and streetscape quality;

4. That the Appellant shall submit a shadow study and wind study, meeting the applicable terms of reference, as part of a site plan application;

5. To maintain a tower separation distance of 25 metres; and

6. That failure to comply with and maintain the foregoing conditions shall render the approval null and void.