Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 08, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001155
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Juliana Coladonato Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 162 Description: To permit a fourteen-storey apartment building with ground floor commercial space Reference Number: OPA 162 Property Address: 7085 Goreway Drive Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001155 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001155 OLT Case Name: Coladonato v. Mississauga (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Juliana Coladonato Subject: By-law No. 0156-2023 Description: To permit a fourteen-storey apartment building with ground floor commercial space Reference Number: OZ OPA 20-13 Property Address: 7085 Goreway Drive Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001156 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001155 OLT Case Name: Coladonato v. Mississauga (City)
Heard: March 25, 2024 by Video Hearing ("VH")
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Juliana Coladonato ("Appellant") | Self-represented |
| 7085 Goreway Properties Limited (Redwood Properties) ("Applicant") | Ira Kagan Sarah Kagan |
| City of Mississauga ("City") | Katie Pfaff |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY K.R. ANDREWS ON March 25, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1This appeal was brought by Juliana Coladonato, self represented, who identifies herself as a concerned area resident.
2The Appellant brings her appeals pursuant to sections 17(24) and 34(19) of the Planning Act ("Act"), as it relates to the City’s passing of By-law No. 0156-2023, a by-law to Adopt Mississauga Official Plan Amendment No. 162 ("OPA"), and By-law No. 0157-2023, a By-law to amend Mississauga’s comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 ("ZBA"). Council approved the passing of the contested OPA and ZBA, sought by the Applicant, 7085 Goreway Properties Limited (Redwood Properties), to permit a 14-storey apartment building with ground floor commercial space at 7085 Goreway Drive.
Appellant’s grounds of appeal
3The Appellant explains her grounds for the appeal as follows:
The reasons for filing [the Appeal] are the excessively large size of the this proposed complex (height, length and width), the number of proposed units, the changes in the location from its original proposal, the stark change in the landscape to the surrounding area and residences, the fact that it will be the largest structure in all of the Malton area, that the infrastructure in this area will be overburdened to an extreme, and the interruption to the peaceful flow of this neighbourhood (traffic, parking, and so-on).
4While some aspects of the Appellant’s expressed concerns may be capable of relating to various unspecified provincial and municipal policy objectives, as well as matters of provincial interest identified at section 2 of the Act, Ms. Coladonato failed to identify any specific policies or matters of provincial interest that she claims to be an issue. Relatedly, the Appellant also failed to explain in her Notice of Appeal how the subject OPA and/or ZBA are/is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS"), and/or fails to conform with or not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe ("Growth Plan") and Peel Region Official Plan ("Region OP"), which she is required to do pursuant to sections 17(25.1) and 34(19.0.1) of the Act.
5Counsel for the Applicant brought this issue to the Tribunal’s attention, submitting that it is not only contrary to the explicit statutory requirements cited above, but it is also prejudicial to the Applicant from a fairness standpoint because they are unable to sufficiently ascertain the scope/nature of the Appellant’s appeal. At this point, the Applicant asked the Tribunal whether it needed to actually present a case in response to the appeal.
6The Tribunal decided, given that the Applicant was clearly prepared and ready to present a responding case, that it would reserve an immediate decision on whether the Appeal should proceed due to the obvious deficiencies in the Appellant’s Notice. The Tribunal therefore directed the Applicant to proceed with its case in support of the impugned OPA and ZBA. The Applicant presented its case first, followed by the Appellant.
7The Applicant’s evidence was comprised of oral evidence from Scott Arbuckle, duly qualified as an expert in Land Use Planning. Mr. Arbuckle testified that the proposed development is planned to fit into the subject neighbourhood, albeit providing slightly larger and denser housing than what is found in the immediate area. He further testified that numerous reports have been provided to show that it can be adequately serviced by municipal services, public transit, and the area’s road network. He further opined that the development would provide the area with a greater supply, mix and range of housing, while also addressing the protection of an adjacent green space. A Holding Provision is also proposed to facilitate an eventual Development Agreement for the storm sewer outlet, vehicular and pedestrian easement, dedication of lands to the City and updated reports. In summary, he opined that the proposed development generally represents modest intensification and efficient use of a vacant land parcel in an established residential neighbourhood along a corridor that is well-suited for the development.
8In the context of the applicable provincial and municipal policy regime, Mr. Arbuckle opined that the subject OPA and ZBA correspondingly have regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in section 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the PPS, and conform to the Growth Plan, Region OP and (as it relates to the ZBA) the City of Mississauga Official Plan (as amended by the proposed OPA). Additionally, the subject OPA and ZBA otherwise reflect principles of good land use planning.
9The Appellant followed the Applicant’s case by providing a hand-drawn map and nine photos of the surrounding area. Her testimony was generally limited to emotional pleas about her desire to avoid changes to the neighbourhood and admitted a number of times that she had some of her facts wrong. Upon conclusion of her case, the Tribunal found that none of her evidence proved anything beyond superficial context, with no reference to planning policies whatsoever. Altogether, the Tribunal finds Ms. Coladonato’s evidence to be of no value.
10Upon hearing both parties’ cases, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant has not brought a legitimate planning ground in support of her appeal. Complaints, without reference to any planning policies, about the proposed building being too tall, too big, having too many units, or not otherwise being aesthetically pleasing, in her personal opinion, as well as claiming that it will disrupt her personal sense of peacefulness, are not legitimate planning grounds. Regarding the Appellant’s infrastructure concerns, she provided no evidence of any kind to dispute the numerous expert reports on record showing that there are no anticipated functional servicing issues that cannot be resolved.
11Turning its attention back to the sufficiency of the Notice of Appeal, the Tribunal finds that it does not comply with sections 17(25.1) and 34(19.0.1) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the appeal should be dismissed on this basis alone. However, given that the Tribunal heard the parties’ cases in full, the Tribunal also finds that the Appeal should be dismissed based on its lack of merit, with Mr. Arbuckle’s evidence overwhelmingly in support of the subject OPA and ZBA, and a lack of any meaningful evidence from the Appellant.
ORDER
12THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:
The appeal brought pursuant to section 17(24) of the Planning Act is dismissed and Amendment No. 162 to the Official Plan for the City of Mississauga is approved; and
The appeal brought pursuant to section 34(19) of the Planning Act against By-law No. 0157-2023 of the City of Mississauga is dismissed.
13The Member is not seized but may be spoken to through the Case Coordinator if any issues arise.
"K.R. Andrews"
K.R. ANDREWS
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.