Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 12, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000261
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Branthaven Creditview Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the construction of 60 single-detached residential dwelling units Reference Number: OZS-2022-0014 Property Address: 8940 Creditview Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000261 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000261 OLT Case Name: Branthaven Creditview lnc. v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Branthaven Creditview Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of 60 single-detached residential dwelling units Reference Number: OZS-2022-0014 Property Address: 8940 Creditview Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000262 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000261
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Branthaven Creditview Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of 60 single-detached residential dwelling units Reference Number: 21T-22001B Property Address: 8940 Creditview Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000263 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000261
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Branthaven Creditview Inc. ("Applicant/Appellant") | Nancy Smith |
| City of Brampton ("City") | Brandon Carter |
| Kaneff Properties Limited | Mark Flowers |
| Credit Valley Residents Association ("CVRA") | Ramaljit Sandhu* |
AMENDING DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN
In accordance with Rule 24.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, whereby the Tribunal may at any time and without prior notice to the Parties correct a technical or typographical error made in a decision or order, the Decision and Order (“Decision”) issued on February 26, 2024 is hereby amended.
By deleting paragraph [5] from the Decision and replacing it with the following:
5As revised, the proposal consists of 57 lots for detached residential dwellings, the northerly extension of Classic Drive, a new public Street ‘A’, and a portion of the easterly extension of Classic Drive from its current terminus immediately west of the Branthaven Lands and the Queen Street Lands to the proposed northerly extension of Classic Drive on the Branthaven Lands (“Classic Drive Easterly Extension”), with a 0.3 metre reserve on the PoS. The revised draft PoS requires a conveyance from Kaneff to the City of land from the southerly portion of the Queen Street Lands to be combined with lands from the northerly portion of the Branthaven Lands to accommodate the Classic Drive Easterly Extension.
In all other respects, the Tribunal’s Decision remains the same.
“D. Chipman”
D. CHIPMAN 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.
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: February 26, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000261
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Branthaven Creditview Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the construction of 60 single-detached residential dwelling units Reference Number: OZS-2022-0014 Property Address: 8940 Creditview Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000261 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000261 OLT Case Name: Branthaven Creditview lnc. v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Branthaven Creditview Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of 60 single-detached residential dwelling units Reference Number: OZS-2022-0014 Property Address: 8940 Creditview Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000262 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000261
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Branthaven Creditview Inc. Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision Description: To permit the construction of 60 single-detached residential dwelling units Reference Number: 21T-22001B Property Address: 8940 Creditview Road Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000263 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000261
Heard: January 26, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel/Representative* |
|---|---|
| Branthaven Creditview Inc. ("Applicant/Appellant") | Nancy Smith |
| City of Brampton ("City") | Brandon Carter |
| Kaneff Properties Limited | Mark Flowers |
| Credit Valley Residents Association ("CVRA") | Ramaljit Sandhu* |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This matter involves a Settlement Hearing related to appeals brought under s. 22(7), s. 34(11), and 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. c. P13, as amended (“Act”), by Branthaven Creditview Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”), the owners of lands municipally known as 8940 Creditview Road (“subject lands”), in the City of Brampton (“City”), on the failure of the City to make a decision on applications to amend the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law, and on an application for a draft Plan of Subdivision (“PoS”) within the timeframes prescribed by the Act.
2Prior to the hearing, the Statutory Parties reached a settlement and are now seeking an Order from the Tribunal allowing the Appeals in part and approving, in principle, the revised OPA, ZBA, and draft PoS applications.
3A settlement of the issues raised by Kaneff had been reached prior to this hearing, and the Minutes of Settlement had been executed.
4The subject property is approximately 3.54 hectares and surrounded by single detached dwellings to the east, south, and west. The Lionhead Golf Club and Conference Centre is west and southwest of the subject property. To the north, the lands are currently vacant and designated for residential mixed-use development.
5For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal allows the appeals and approves, in principle, the Official Plan Amendment (Attachment 1), Zoning By-law Amendment (Attachment 2), and Plan of Subdivision (Attachment 3), subject to the Conditions set forth in Attachment 4. The final Order will be withheld until the City of Brampton is satisfied that the applications’ preconditions have been satisfied as per s. 58, at which time the City of Brampton will release final approval as per s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act.
REVISED PROPOSAL
6As revised, the proposal consists of 57 lots for detached residential dwellings, the northerly extension of Classic Drive, a new public Street ‘A’, and a portion of the easterly extension of Classic Drive from its current terminus immediately west of the Branthaven Lands and the Queen Street Lands to the proposed northerly extension of Classic Drive on the Branthaven Lands (“Classic Drive Easterly Extension”), with a 0.3 metre reserve on the PoS. The revised draft PoS requires a conveyance from Kaneff to the City of land from the southerly portion of the Queen Street Lands to be combined with lands from the northerly portion of the Branthaven Lands to accommodate the Classic Drive Easterly Extension.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
7When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 22(7), s. 34(11), and 51(34) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. Section 3(5) of the Act requires decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and, in this case, conform to A Place to Grow; Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, as amended (“Growth Plan”) as well as conforms to, or does not conflict with, any applicable Secondary Plans and City Guidelines.
8In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the planning instruments resulting from the Settlement represent good planning.
SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCE
9Evidence in support of the Settlement proposal was provided by the Applicant’s Planner, Sebastian Alzamora, a Registered Professional Planner in the Province of Ontario who was duly qualified by the Tribunal in the area of land use planning.
10Both Mark Jamieson and Matthew Cory were qualified by the Tribunal to provide evidence in support of the Settlement proposal on behalf of Kaneff Properties Limited. Mr. Jamieson was qualified in the fields of transportation planning and traffic engineering, and Mr. Cory provided land use planning evidence.
EXHIBITS
11The Tribunal received and recorded all Exhibits to the Hearing, which were identified and assigned an Exhibit number during the Hearing.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 2020 (“PPS”)
12Mr. Alzamora stated that the subject lands are located within a Settlement Area under the PPS and are currently underutilized. The proposed development will promote an efficient form of development through the intensification of land located within the Region's “Urban System.” He opined that 57 units represent an appropriate amount of intensification that is designed to use existing infrastructure and municipal services, achieving a cost-effective development pattern. He added that the subject lands are within walking distance of public transportation and multi-use pathways to support active transportation options.
GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE
13The Tribunal heard that the subject lands are located within the Delineated Built-up Area of the Growth Plan. The proposed development will provide convenient access to public service facilities, commercial, and institutional services to facilitate a complete community by intensifying a parcel designated for residential purposes.
APPLICABLE OFFICIAL PLANS
14The Region of Peel Official Plan (“ROP”), the City Official Plan (“OP”), and Credit Valley Secondary Plan are aligned with the PPS and the Growth Plan policies for development, including promoting the development of complete communities, protecting the natural environment and resources, conserving cultural heritage, and respecting the scale, physical character, and context of established neighbourhoods.
15It was explained that an existing pond is located on the Kaneff Golf Course lands, which, together with related infrastructure, will function as a stormwater management pond that will accommodate storm drainage from the surrounding lands.
16The subject lands are located within the Credit Valley Secondary Plan area and are designated ‘Executive Residential’. The Tribunal heard that the purpose of the OPA is to change the designation with respect to the Secondary Plan to Low Density 1, with the requirement that some of the upscale executive housing policies associated with 'Executive Residential' zoning will be permitted.
17Section 4.2.3, which establishes the goal of “Providing a residential community with a significant executive housing component that is compatible with and will benefit from the visual and environmental features of the natural landscape of the area”. The Tribunal heard that the proposal contemplates an upscale residential design that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood with minimal impacts on the existing natural landscape of the area.
18Mr. Alzamora stated that the proposed development will have access to the City’s master pathways system, existing transit routes, which will include pedestrian sidewalks and local roads to give priority to public transit and pedestrians.
19Mr. Jamieson stated that the provision of a stub road connection within the Branthaven development will facilitate a road connection to a future residential redevelopment on the Kaneff lands. He opined that with the protection of a road connection plus an emergency access connection to the residentially designated Kaneff lands from the west side of the Branthaven lands, the proposed development would achieve the goal of creating an integrated approach that will appropriately accommodate future residential development west of the Branthaven lands.
20Mr. Cory explained that the revised proposal demonstrates that road access and emergency access to the Kaneff lands can be accommodated while maintaining the same number of units and unit mix on the Branthaven Lands. In his opinion, the revised proposal provides a reasonable and appropriate development plan that reflects a coordinated, integrated, and comprehensive planning approach in relation to future residential development on the adjacent Kaneff lands to the west of the Branthaven Lands.
PLANNING ACT, SECTION 51(24)
21The Tribunal heard that the draft Plan of Subdivision implements the proposed development by subdividing the lands to establish the proposed residential lots as well as the road network with sufficient regard for the matters included in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act.
COMMUNITY CONCERNS
22The CRVA raised questions regarding a retaining wall, truck routing during construction, and the removal of trees. The Applicant stated that these concerns would be addressed at the site plan stage and that the CVRA comments would be taken into consideration at that time.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
23The Tribunal accepts the evidence and uncontroverted professional opinions of Mr. Alzamora and the further endorsements of the revised plan by both Messrs. Jamieson and Cory.
24The Tribunal is satisfied that Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act has been considered in the Settlement Proposal.
25The Tribunal finds that the proposal is designed to prioritize active transportation, transit-supportive development, and intensification in appropriate locations, and is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal achieves these objectives.
26The Settlement proposal maintains the intent of the OP and the Credit Valley Secondary Plan (Area 45), as it is compatible and integrates with adjacent plans of subdivision, including the easterly and northerly extensions of Classic Drive. The internal public rights-of-way have been designed to ensure adequate and safe vehicular circulation and to accommodate the required infrastructure.
27The Tribunal finds that the draft PoS, subject to Conditions, has had appropriate regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) in the conditions to be reasonable and appropriate for the proposed development pursuant to s. 51 (25) of the Act.
28The Tribunal recognizes the commitment of the Applicant to address the concerns raised by CVRA through the site plan stage to ensure due consideration.
29In consideration of the above, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.
ORDER
30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, in part, and that the Official Plan for the City of Brampton is amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.
31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal against By-law 270-2004 of the City of Brampton is allowed in part, and By-law 270-2004 is amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order.
32THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Glen Schnarr and Associates dated December 5, 2023, comprising 8940 Creditview Road, Part of Lot 5, Concession 4, W.H.S., City of Brampton, Regional Municipality of Peel as Attachment 3, is approved subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out in Attachment 4 to this Order.
33AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that, pursuant to subsection 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City of Brampton shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of subsection 51(58) of the Act. In the event that there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
“D. Chipman”
D. CHIPMAN MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4