Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 02, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003292
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Jaspreet Kaura et al
Property Owner: Creditview 4-P Holdings Inc.
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation: Village Residential
Proposed Designation: Low and Medium Residential and remove that portion of the subject lands from the Village of Churchville Heritage Conservation District
Description: To permit a residential development
Reference Number: T04W14.013
Property Address: 7614, 7624, 7650, 7662 Creditview Road
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003292
Legacy Case No: PL170679
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003292
Legacy Lead Case No: PL170679
OLT Case Name: Kaura v. Bramprton (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Jaspreet Kaura et al
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Residential Hamlet Two (RHm2)
Proposed Zoning: Residential Single Detached B (R1B)
Description: To permit a residential development
Reference Number: T04W14.013
Property Address: 7614, 7624, 7650, 7662 Creditview Road
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003293
Legacy Case No: PL170680
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003292
Legacy Lead Case No: PL170679
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: Jaspreet Kaura et al
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description: To permit a residential development
Reference Number: 21T-16019B
Property Address: 7614, 7624, 7650, 7662 Creditview Road
Municipality/UT: Brampton/Peel
OLT Case No: OLT-22-003294
Legacy Case No: PL171194
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003292
Legacy Lead Case No: PL170679
Heard: April 11, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Creditview 4-P Holdings Inc.
Michael Cara
City of Brampton
Chris Barnett
Angelo Riccio
Jonathan Frustaglio
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY David Brown ON APRIL 11, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to Creditview 4-P Holdings Inc.’s (“Appellant”) Appeals of Applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and a Plan of Subdivision (together the “Applications”) and the Appeal of the adoption of the Churchville Heritage Conservation District (“Churchville HCD”) by the City of Brampton (“City”).
2The lands that are the subject of the Applications are located on the west side of Creditview Road, south of Hallstone Road, within the Churchville HCD, and known municipally as 7614, 7624, 7650, and 7662 Creditview Road (“Subject Lands”). The Appellant is seeking the approval of the Applications to facilitate the development of the Subject Lands with new residential building lots fronting on to an extension of Edmonton Street from the west onto the Subject Lands and four lots fronting onto Creditview Road.
3Mr. Cara advised the Tribunal that the Appellant and City have resolved their outstanding issues and have negotiated a full settlement of the appeals between the City and the Appellant. The Appellant has filed revised planning instruments with the City, Mr. Riccio, and the Tribunal, which include a draft Zoning By-law, a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”), and the proposed Conditions of Approval for the DPS.
4Mr. Cara explained that, while Mr. Frustaglio acknowledged receipt of the instruments on behalf of Mr. Riccio, no response to the settlement has been provided by Mr. Riccio. In light of the lack of response, Mr. Cara advised that the Appellant has continued to fulfill the requirements of the Procedural Order issued by the Tribunal and filed an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) on April 3, 2024, prepared by the Appellant’s Planner and the City’s Planner. Mr. Riccio’s Planner did not attend the Expert’s Meeting and subsequently did not participate in the preparation of the ASF. Further, Mr. Cara noted that when the Appellant’s Engineer contacted Mr. Riccio’s Engineer he was advised that he had not been engaged by Mr. Riccio, and therefore the Expert’s Meeting of the Engineers did not occur.
5Mr. Frustaglio advised that he has reviewed the instruments submitted in support of the Settlement with the City and confirmed that most of Mr. Riccio’s issues have been resolved. There is one outstanding matter arising from the ASF prepared by the Planners. The issue pertains to the inference that Mr. Riccio will be required to enter into an agreement with the City and the Appellant to address cost sharing, and he questioned whether there are any conditions or restrictions attached to the dedication of Block 18 as shown on the DPS.
6After a fulsome discussion, Mr. Barnett confirmed that the dedication of Block 18 is a requirement set out in the Conditions of DPS that have been submitted in support of the Settlement. The City requires that a clear title be provided for any lands to be dedicated to the City and the Conditions of Approval for the DPS describe the lands as an open space block. He confirmed that once lands are in the ownership of the City, should the City wish to dispose of the lands there is a process that the City has created and must follow, and there is no obligation on the part of the City to transfer the lands back to the Appellant. The conveyance of City owned lands is subject to a process, which includes public consultation and Council approval.
7It was noted that the statements of the Planners included in the ASF are the opinions of the Planners who prepared the ASF and are not binding on the Tribunal or Mr. Riccio. The Tribunal explained that should the Applications ultimately be approved as set out in the Settlement, the Conditions of Approval for the DPS will be attached to the decision of the Tribunal and not the statements contained in the ASF.
8Mr. Frustaglio confirmed that, based on the discussions and position of City, his clients’ concerns have been addressed.
9The Tribunal directed that Mr. Frustaglio confirm if his clients now consent to the Settlement between the City and the Appellant in writing. Further, should a settlement be achieved, the Tribunal directed that Parties confirm with the Tribunal that they have a global Settlement, request the Tribunal to set a Settlement Hearing date, and release the balance of the hearing dates from the Tribunal’s calendar. It was suggested that the Parties consider a written hearing and advise the Tribunal of the outcome of their discussions in that regard.
10The Tribunal orders the directions contained within this decision.
“David Brown”
DAVID BROWN
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.