Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 22, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000363
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Appellant: 2794857 Ontario Inc.
Applicant: Gagnon Walker Domes Ltd.
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: Zoning By-Law and Subdivision
Reference Number: OZS-2022-0021
Property Address: 0 and 8265 Churchville Road (North of Steeles Avenue West, east of Creditview Road)
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000363
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000363
OLT Case Name: Essence Holdings lnc. v. Brampton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Reference Number: OZS-2022-0021
Property Address: 0 and 8265 Churchville Road
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000364
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000363
Heard: April 9, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
Essence Holdings Inc.
J. Alati G. O’Brien N. Gunawardana (in absentia)
City of Brampton
E. Bashura S. Ross (in absentia)
Jubin Abuwalla
A. Ciccone (in absentia)
Sukhwant Baidwan
Self-represented*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI ON april 9, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1The Tribunal conducted a Settlement Hearing related to appeals filed by Essence Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 34(11) and 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”), against the failure of the City of Brampton (“City”) to make a decision on Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) applications (“Applications”) within the prescribed timeframe. The Applications apply to the lands known municipally as 0 and 8265 Churchville Road and legally described as Part of Lot 2, Concession 3, W.H.S. (Geographic Township of Chinguacousy), City of Brampton (“Property”).
2The Property is located north of Steeles Avenue West and east of Creditview Road, on the north side of Churchville Road. It is irregular in shape with an area of approximately 3.32 hectares (“ha”), frontage of approximately 161 metres (“m”) on Churchville Road, and a depth of approximately 340 m. The south half of the Property is occupied by a vacant single-detached dwelling and accessory buildings. The north half of the Property is mainly composed of a manicured lawn area with a central naturalized grouping of trees.
3The east portion of the Property is occupied by a narrow private driveway called Walnut Road providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the property known municipally as 8261 Walnut Road, owned by Mr. Abuwalla. It has a total length of approximately 305 m, is surrounded by walnut trees, and is subject to three easements as follows:
an access and passage easement in favour of 8261 Walnut Road;
a municipal services easement in favour of the Region of Peel (“Region”); and
a hydro services easement in favour of Alectra Utilities.
4Surrounding land uses include:
to the north – natural heritage features and single-detached dwellings;
to the south – Churchville Road and single-detached dwellings;
to the east – single-detached dwellings and a railway line; and
to the west – natural heritage features and single-detached dwellings, Creditview Road, the Credit River and associated valleylands.
5The Property is designated ‘Core Areas’, ‘Urban System’, and ‘Built Up Area’ on Schedules A, D and D4, respectively, in the Region Official Plan (“ROP”). It is part of the urbanized lands where the ROP directs a significant portion of new growth to occur.
6In the City Official Plan (“COP”), the Property is designated: ‘Communities’ and ‘Open Space’ within the ‘Built Boundary’ on Schedule 1: City Concept; ‘Residential’ and ‘Open Space’ on Schedule A: General Land Use Designation; ‘Upscale Executive Housing Special Policy Area 2’ on Schedule A1: Upscale Executive Housing Special Policy Areas; and ‘Valleyland/Watercourse Corridor’ and ‘Woodland’ on Schedule D: Natural Heritage Features and Areas.
7The Credit Valley Secondary Plan (“CVSP”) designates the Property ‘Low Density 1 Residential’, ‘Primary Valleyland’, and ‘Special Policy Area 1’ on Schedule SP45(A). A Community Block Plan implements the policies of the CVSP for the area within which the Property is located.
8The Property is subject to Zoning By-law No. 270-2004, as amended, which zones the Property ‘Agricultural (A)’.
THE APPLICATIONS
9As applied for, the Applications were to facilitate the development of 30 single-detached lots, a natural heritage system block, a buffer block, a parkette, a residential reserve block, and a new local road.
10The Applications were filed with the City on March 24, 2022, and deemed complete as of April 6, 2022. Subsequent to community consultation and in response to feedback received through the review of the original proposal, the Appellant filed a revised submission on April 13, 2023.
11The Applications were appealed on April 24, 2023, after which further refinements were made to the proposal. A third submission (“Revised Proposal”) was filed on February 23, 2024, which resulted in a full settlement of the issues with the City and Mr. Abuwalla.
12The Revised Proposal includes 35 single-detached freehold condominium dwellings with common elements, including a parkette, open space, a road and a servicing block, as well as blocks for the Natural Heritage System (“NHS”), a NHS buffer to be conveyed to the City, and an open space block to be conveyed to the City at a later date.
SETTLEMENT
13The Tribunal received correspondence from the Appellant in advance of the Hearing, advising that the Parties had reached a Settlement and requesting that the Tribunal convert the proceedings to a Settlement Hearing. The Parties in attendance confirmed that they consented to the conversion of the proceedings.
14The Tribunal was advised that Meetu Mahendra and Manesh Patel had each withdrawn their Party status, and Sukhwant Baidwan had withdrawn his Issues List.
15In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a Settlement Hearing on the terms of the Settlement.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
16When considering appeals filed pursuant to s. 34(11) and 51(34) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, and the criteria for draft plans of subdivision pursuant to s. 51(24) 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 with the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Applications conform with the ROP and the COP.
17Further, in consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applications represent good land use planning and are in the public interest.
EVIDENCE
18Prior to the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal received an Affidavit and Supplementary Affidavit of Marc De Nardis in support of the Revised Proposal. On consent, the Tribunal qualified Mr. De Nardis to provide opinion evidence pertaining to this matter in the area of land use planning.
19With respect to the regulatory and policy context, Mr. De Nardis opined that the Applications have regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act and the criteria for draft plans of subdivision pursuant to s. 51(24) of the Act, and support the policies in the PPS and the Growth Plan, including policies pertaining to the efficient use of urban land with existing services and planned or existing transit, policies for meeting a broad range of housing types and densities, and the provision of a complete community. In addition, he opined that the Revised Proposal meets the policies of the ROP, the COP and the CVSP, and does not require amendments to the policy documents.
The Planning Act
20It was Mr. De Nardis’ opinion that the Revised Proposal has regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, including those related to the protection of ecological systems, the adequate provision of services, the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the provision of housing, the appropriate location for growth and development, the promotion of sustainable development, and well-designed built form. His evidence supported and justified this assertion in detail.
21Mr. De Nardis also opined that the Revised Proposal has appropriate regard to, and satisfies, the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act as follows:
the DPS is proposed on lands intended for residential land use and has no adverse impact on matters of provincial interest;
the DPS follows a comprehensive planning process and is not premature. The Revised Proposal will contribute to the City’s housing stock, is in the public interest and conforms with the policies contained within the ROP and the COP;
the DPS conforms with the policies of the ROP and COP, and is compatible with adjacent Plans of Subdivision;
the Property has been planned for urban residential land use, is suitable for the development of single-detached dwellings, and the Revised Proposal represents an optimization of underutilized lands;
the Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) demonstrated that the DPS does not present any concerns with regard to the adequacy of the roadway network. The TIS concluded that the Revised Proposal will introduce only minimal traffic to the road network, and the intersection movements will operate within capacity;
the shape and dimensions of the proposed lots are appropriate for the intended residential land use and are comparable in size and shape to others located in the immediate area;
the DPS does not present any concerns with regard to future buildings or structures. The ZBLA, building permits, and architectural control will ensure that the proposed dwellings are appropriate in the local context;
as outlined in the Environmental Impact Study, the DPS does not present any concerns with regard to flood control and the conservation of natural resources;
the DPS does not present any concerns with regard to the adequacy of existing or proposed utilities and municipal services or with regard to school sites, as the projected pupil yield will be minimal and the school boards have no objections to the Revised Proposal;
the DPS does not present any concerns related to conveyances for public purposes;
the DPS optimizes the use of urban lands, assisting in mitigating the expansion of settlement areas, which in turn reduces energy use for public transportation and commuters; and
the DPS will facilitate the development of the Property for the planned residential land use. Future detail design will be subject to architectural control ensuring that the structures are appropriate in the local context.
22Mr. De Nardis proffered that, for the reasons provided in paragraph [21], it was his professional planning opinion that the Revised Proposal, and in particular, the DPS and the Draft Plan Conditions (“Conditions”), have sufficient regard for the criteria found in s. 51(24) of the Act.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
23Mr. De Nardis opined that the Revised Proposal is consistent with the PPS, and in particular, supports policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.3 to 1.1.3.6, 1.4.3, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.6.2, and sections 1.6.7, 2.1, and 3.1 of the PPS, pertaining to promoting efficient development and land use patterns, accommodating a range of housing types, requiring residential intensification, densities and a mix of land use that efficiently use resources, infrastructure and services, promoting active transportation and transit, protecting significant natural heritage features, and directing development away from areas of natural hazards.
A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
24Mr. De Nardis further opined that the Revised Proposal conforms with the Growth Plan, including several of the guiding principles in section 1.2.1 and sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.6, and 4.2.2 of the Growth Plan, pertaining to directing growth to settlement areas with existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems, the achievement of complete communities and the minimum intensification target, encouraging intensification within the delineated built-up area, supporting a diverse range and mix of housing options and densities, and maintaining the diversity and connectivity of the natural heritage system.
Region of Peel Official Plan
25Mr. De Nardis noted that the ROP directs urban development and redevelopment to the Urban System and within the Built-Up Areas, and that the Revised Proposal is a compact, transit-supportive form of development that will make efficient use of available services. He added that the Revised Proposal will assist the City in achieving its Built-Up Area development target.
26It was Mr. De Nardis’ opinion that the Revised Proposal and implementing ZBA and DPS conform with the relevant ROP policies and that an amendment to the ROP is not required. He noted that the Region supports the Revised Proposal and has provided its conditions for DPS approval.
27Mr. De Nardis advised that the Province approved a new ROP (“New ROP”) on November 4, 2022, but that, given the ROP was in force at the time the Applications were submitted and deemed complete, the ROP policies continue to apply. He added that the designations remain unchanged under the New ROP, and, as such, the Revised Proposal meets the intent of the designations and corresponding policies of the New ROP.
City of Brampton Official Plan / Credit Valley Secondary Plan
28Mr. De Nardis opined that the Revised Proposal conforms with the COP ‘Residential’ designation and the CVSP ‘Low Density 1 Residential’ designation and that the proposed land use, built form, and density are permitted in both policy documents.
29In his Affidavit, Mr. De Nardis noted that the Revised Proposal is located within the Built-up Area of the City and will deliver 35 single-detached dwellings assisting the City in achieving its intensification and housing targets as per policies 3.2.2.1 and 4.2.1.6 of the COP.
30With respect to the residential density and housing mix policies in section 4.2.1.2 of the COP, Mr. De Nardis advised that the Property is located within an area of the City that is subject to the ‘New Housing Mix and Density Guidelines’ and that the proposed density of 18.51 units per net residential ha (“units/ha”) is below the maximum prescribed.
31Mr. De Nardis added that a key consideration in the COP for infill development in existing Built-Up Areas is compatibility as it relates to the context of the site and the surrounding neighbourhood, and that the overriding design consideration shall be to ensure that a proposal is harmoniously integrated within the surrounding neighbourhood. It was his opinion that the Revised Proposal is not anticipated to cause any adverse effects on adjacent development and/or lands and that it properly responds to adjacent grading, drainage, access, circulation, privacy and views.
32With respect to the CVSP, Mr. De Nardis advised that primarily single-detached units are permitted in areas designated Low Density 1 Residential and the proposed density of 18.51 units/ha is below the maximum prescribed. He proffered that the single-detached dwellings are consistent with the predominant built form typology intended for areas designated Low Density 1 Residential. He furthered that the proposed lot widths of 11.60 m are considered to be sufficient to accommodate the detached residential built form, and that, while smaller than those within its immediate vicinity, the proposal is to include upscale architectural treatments that will complement the existing neighbourhood.
33Mr. De Nardis opined that the Revised Proposal conforms with the applicable CVSP development policies as it:
delivers an upscale executive residential subdivision design, architecture, built form, landscaping, and fencing;
preserves and protects the Credit River and its environmental components;
maintains the character of Churchville Road;
provides for a range of housing options;
creates a distinct and attractive built form which will reinforce a high standard of quality and a positive visual image;
is supported by site-specific technical studies, reports, and plans; and
will satisfy the necessary Cost Sharing Agreement obligations through the Conditions, as appropriate.
34In conclusion, it was Mr. De Nardis’ opinion that the Revised Proposal and implementing ZBA, DPS and Conditions conform with the relevant COP and CVSP policies and that amendments to the COP and CVSP are not required. He noted that the City supports the Revised Proposal and has provided its conditions for DPS approval.
Conclusions and Recommendations
35Mr. De Nardis proffered his professional planning opinion that the Revised Proposal and corresponding planning instruments have appropriate regard to matters of provincial interest, are consistent with the PPS, conform with the Growth Plan and the relevant policies of the ROP, the COP and the CVSP. He furthered that the ZBA and DPS are appropriate, represent good planning, and are in the public interest.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
36The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted testimony and evidence of Mr. De Nardis.
37The Tribunal finds that the Revised Proposal will fit harmoniously with the existing and planned built form context and will enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site which is well-served with municipal infrastructure.
38The Revised Proposal will result in an efficient use of the Property and will support the achievement of the PPS and Growth Plan policy directions promoting intensification within a built-up urban area.
39In consideration of the evidence of Mr. De Nardis and the revisions resulting in the Revised Proposal, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ZBA and DPS have sufficient and proper regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. The Tribunal finds that the ZBA and DPS are consistent with the PPS, conform with the policies of the Growth Plan, the ROP, the COP and the CVSP, represent good land use planning and are in the public interest.
40The Tribunal, therefore, approves the ZBA and the DPS, subject to the Conditions, as set out in the Order.
ORDER
41THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and Zoning By-law No. 270-2004 of the City of Brampton is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Brampton to assign a number to this By-law and insert dates for record-keeping purposes.
42THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the draft plan shown on the plan prepared by Gagnon Walker Domes dated November 30, 2023, comprising Part of Lot 2, Concession 3, W.H.S. (Geographic Township of Chinguacousy) City of Brampton as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order, is approved, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order.
43AND 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 Planning 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.
“C. I. Molinari”
C. I. MOLINARI
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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