Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
February 24, 2025
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-004584
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lightpoint (170 Lakeshore Road East Port Credit) Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the development of a 15-storey mixed-use building, including a 6-storey podium, with 147 purpose-built residential rental units
Reference Number:
OPA 21/16 W1
Property Address:
170 Lakeshore Road East
Municipality/UT:
City of Mississauga/ Regional Municipality of Peel
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004584
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004584
OLT Case Name:
Lightpoint (170 Lakeshore Road East Port Credit) v. Mississauga (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Lightpoint (170 Lakeshore Road East Port Credit) Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the development of a 15-storey mixed-use building, including a 6-storey podium, with 147 purpose-built residential rental units
Reference Number:
OZ 21/16 W1
Property Address:
170 Lakeshore Road East
Municipality/UT:
City of Mississauga/ Regional Municipality of Peel
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004584
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004585
Heard:
February 18, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Lightpoint (170 Lakeshore Road East Port Credit) Inc.
D. Bronskill
City of Mississauga
R. Kehar
B. Luo
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON FEBRUARY 18, 2025 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
BACKGROUND
1This Decision and Interim Order relate to a Hearing to consider a settlement proposal concerning appeals brought pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) from the failure of the City of Mississauga (“City”) to render decisions within the prescribed timelines regarding applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (together referred to as “applications”). The appeals were filed by Lightpoint (170 Lakeshore Road East Port Credit) Inc. (“Appellant”) regarding lands municipally known as 170 Lakeshore Road East (“Subject Property”).
2A six-day Hearing of the merits commenced on April 15, 2024 (“Merit Hearing”). On the second day of the Merit Hearing Counsel for the Appellant became ill, resulting in the adjournment of the Merit Hearing, which was rescheduled for July 17, 2024. During the intervening months between the adjournment and the rescheduled Hearing dates, the Parties continued discussions, and the Appellant, with the consent of the City, requested that the July dates be adjourned to allow the Parties to continue without-prejudice discussions. As a result of the Parties’ hard work and positive communications, the Appellant presented a settlement offer to the City on September 6, 2024, which was accepted and formally adopted by the City on September 11, 2024 by Council Resolution #0183-2024.
SETTLEMENT
3With the consent of the City, Jim Levac, a Registered Professional Land Use Planner retained by the Appellant, was duly qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. Levac prepared an affidavit in support of the settlement, which was entered as Exhibit 1 to the proceedings.
4The Parties filed Minutes of Settlement dated February 17, 2025 which were entered as Exhibit 2 to the proceedings. The Parties requested that the Tribunal issue an Interim Order allowing the appeals in part and approving the proposed OPA and ZBA substantially in the forms found at Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to this Interim Order.
5The City is supportive of the proposed settlement and provided brief submissions but did not present any evidence at the hearing
Site and Area Context
6On the first day of the Merit Hearing in April 2024, Mr. Levac had provided factual evidence setting out the site and area context. At the commencement of the Hearing to consider the settlement proposal, Mr. Levac providing a brief review of his factual evidence, referring to the Appellant’s Visual Exhibits, which the Tribunal entered as Exhibit 3 to the proceedings.
7The Subject Property is rectangular in shape and currently consists of a multi-tenant commercial structure with surface parking. It is approximately 0.28 hectares in size with approximately 59.5 metres of frontage along Lakeshore Road East and approximately 47.3 metres of frontage along Elmwood Avenue North.
8The lands surrounding the Subject Property consist of a variety of existing uses including low-rise residential and commercial / mixed-use. To the immediate north of the Subject Property is a 1.5 storey dwelling and further north are a mix of low-rise residential properties and Forest Avenue Public School. Immediately west of the Subject Property is a low-rise motor vehicle structure with surface parking and further west are a variety of land uses and built forms including a mid-rise retirement residence, car wash, restaurants and a tall apartment structure. Elmwood Avenue North is located immediately east of the Subject Property with a retail plaza and surface parking located further east. Lakeshore Road East is located immediately south of the Subject Property, while predominately forested areas and detached dwellings are located further south.
9Mr. Levac testified that the Subject Property has good locational attributes, and he focused on what he referred to as a “trifecta of transit infrastructure”. The Port Credit GO Station is located to the north of the Subject Property and the Hurontario light rail transit line (Hurontario LRT), which is currently under construction, is in close proximity and will terminate at the Port Credit GO station. In addition, there is a rapid transit line running along Lakeshore Avenue. As such, there is an abundance of existing and planned transit for the area in which the Subject Property is located.
Proposed Settlement
10In September 2024, the Appellant presented the City with a settlement proposal, which was ultimately accepted by the City. The settlement proposal is based on a revised proposal which would be implemented through the proposed OPA and ZBA. The OPA and ZBA are required to re-designate and re-zone the Subject Property to achieve a number of things, including: facilitating the development of a mix of uses; revising building envelope standards; revising development standards; revising parking standards; revising amenity area standards; and revising landscaping standards.
11Mr. Levac set out the “highlights” of the revisions from the original proposal to the settlement proposal, which included:
a building re-design from a tower to slab construction;
height reduction from 15 storeys (considered 17 with the rooftop) to 12 storeys;
increased unit count from 148 units to 173 units with a Floor Space Index of 5.4;
changes to the setbacks and stepbacks to improve the design of the building;
a purpose-built rental building, which is the first of its kind proposed in Port Credit in a number of decades and includes a commitment for affordable rental units;
reduction in the number of underground parking levels and the parking rate; and
inclusion of an unencumbered 3 metre landscape buffer along the northerly perimeter
12To facilitate the proposed settlement, an OPA and ZBA are required substantially in the forms set out in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2. Mr. Levac explained that the draft OPA was set up in three parts. Part 1 sets out the purpose, location and description of the site and basis for the OPA. Part 2 details the proposed land use plan changes. Part 3 describes the Special Site policy that will be added to the Special Sites of the Port Credit Local Area Plan (“PCLAP”).
13Mr. Levac went through a detailed review of the ZBA, explaining that it was set up based on the standard template of the City for site-specific ZBAs. He noted that the draft ZBA would undergo a review with the internal committee at the City and as a result the draft set out in Attachment 2 may require some changes to mapping or content. The holding provision (“H”) is required as the Subject Property is changing from commercial to residential use. The H will ensure that any technical studies that require updating or amending will be completed and approved by the City before the H can be removed. Mr. Levac also pointed out the ZBA Schedule, which maintains a 3 metre landscaping buffer along the north perimeter, which is unencumbered, thereby preventing the underground parking garage from being built below the buffer. This will ensure sufficient soil depth and volume to allow trees and landscaping features to grow.
14Counsel for the Appellant reviewed the Minutes of Settlement with the Tribunal, acknowledging that, while Minutes of Settlement cannot be approved by the Tribunal, it was important to explain how these minutes tie in to the proposed OPA and ZBA. He explained that this is an innovative settlement proposal which the Parties drafted to attempt to secure careful control to ensure the revisions to the proposal were captured in the ZBA, such as the unencumbered landscaping buffer and the delivery of residential rental housing units and affordable housing units.
15Counsel for the City explained that the delay in reaching a settlement was partly due to the complicated technical and legal issues encountered in determining how to structure the settlement and draft the planning instruments to secure revisions such as the rental housing units and the affordable housing units.
EVIDENCE
16In his affidavit, Mr. Levac provided a comprehensive contextual and planning rationale in support of the settlement proposal and the implementing planning instruments.
17Mr. Levac noted that the proposed OPA and ZBA will have sufficient regard for matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act. Mr. Levac pointed to a variety of subsections set out in s.2 including: s. 2(f), benefitting from existing municipal services; ss. 2(h) & (p), the redevelopment of an underutilized site in a busy urban area with a transit-oriented development which is accessible to many amenities and multi modal transit; and s. 2(j) the provision of affordable housing units. Mr. Levac opined that the proposed settlement facilitated by the OPA and ZBA meet Provincial interests set out under s. 2 of the Act.
18Mr. Levac explained that the planning justification report prepared by his firm referred to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, which was in force at the time the report was drafted. However, he reviewed the report in reference to the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”) which is now in force, and concluded that the report is consistent with the PPS as many of the policies were carried forward. The PPS emphasizes the Provincial goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2031, establishing complete communities, and prioritizing compact and transit-supportive housing. Mr. Levac opined that the settlement proposal and implementing OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS for a number of reasons, including being supportive of multi-modal transportation services, providing for greater housing choice, intensification of a site within a Built-Up Area in close proximity to higher-order transit and helping to establish complete communities.
19In his affidavit, Mr. Levac explained that the Mississauga Official Plan (“MOP”) policies state that further guidance for land, like the Subject Property, which is within the Port Credit Neighbourhood Character Area and the Port Credit Community Node Character Area, is provided in the PCLAP. He opined that the settlement proposal and the proposed OPA and ZBA conform with the intent of the MOP by providing a compact pedestrian-oriented development in an appropriate location for development. This is a good example of intensification of a currently underutilized site. In his viva voce evidence, Mr. Levac focused on the polices set out in Chapter 5 of the MOP and opined that, reading the policies as a whole, the Subject Property is appropriate for the proposed development as it abuts a Community Node and a Major Transit Station Area where intensification is directed to occur. It was his opinion that the proposed development facilitated by the OPA and ZBA conform with the MOP policies and meet the planning objectives of the MOP.
20The PCLAP is a secondary plan that identifies the long-term framework for how growth and development is to be managed. Mr. Levac explained that the policies in the PCLAP are supportive of the principles of directing intensification through infill development along the Lakeshore Road corridor. Further, the housing-related policy framework in the PCLAP is consistent with the MOP which provides that a range of housing choices are to be encouraged, and the proposal does this by offering purpose- built rental units. Mr. Levac opined that the proposal conforms with the PCLAP.
21Mr. Levac reviewed the concerns raised by the Participants, which included concerns related to infrastructure capacity constraints, groundwater, traffic, privacy and shadow. He explained that many of the concerns had been addressed through the functional servicing report. As noted above, traffic concerns have been mitigated through the re-designed settlement proposal, which includes a reduced parking garage and reduced parking ratio due to the locational attributes of the Subject Property being in close proximity to amenities and transit, thereby reducing car dependency and traffic. The slab construction of the redesigned building along with the revised setbacks and stepbacks will provide appropriate transition to the neighbourhoods to the north and east and mitigate any impacts from the development. In Mr. Levac’s opinion, the redesigned development addresses the policies of the MOP and has addressed the concerns raised by the Participants.
22Mr. Levac opined that the OPA and ZBA that will facilitate the proposed settlement will not jeopardize the City structure, will contribute to the achievement of the City’s planning objectives, will satisfy all requisite legislative tests and, overall, are representative of good planning and in the public interest.
ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION
23The Tribunal accepts the uncontested opinion evidence of Mr. Levac and finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS and are appropriate instruments to implement the Municipal and Provincial policy directions. The Tribunal has had regard for applicable policies and matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act and finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA constitute good land use planning. The Tribunal considered the information and materials that the City received in relation to the applications.
24In considering the matter, the Tribunal accepts Mr. Levac’s opinion that the OPA and ZBA which will facilitate the proposed settlement represent a compatible form of development in an area with existing infrastructure and services. There is a need for additional housing options in the Province, and the settlement proposal is a form of appropriate intensification which will assist the City in achieving its intensification targets.
25The Tribunal accepts Mr. Levac’s opinions proffered regarding concerns raised by the Participants. The Tribunal was persuaded that the locational attributes of the Subject Property combined with the reduced underground parking levels and parking ratio will encourage active transportation, thereby having little to no impact on traffic in the area. The redesigned slab construction with setbacks, stepbacks and other features will adequately mitigate any adverse impacts to surrounding areas.
26The Tribunal commends the Parties on working collaboratively to reach a unique and innovative revised proposal. As explained to the Tribunal through the submissions of Counsel and the evidence of Mr. Levac, the Parties faced complex issues in crafting the settlement and were able to draft the proposed OPA and ZBA to tie in the important clauses to the City which were set out in the Minutes of Settlement.
27The Tribunal accepts Mr. Levac’s evidence and opinions and similarly finds that the proposed settlement is an appropriate and desirable use of the Subject Property and in conjunction with the OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS, conform with the MOP and PCLAP, have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, and overall represent good land use planning.
INTERIM ORDER
28THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals of the Appellant are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 29 below, and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment substantially in the forms set out in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 respectively to this Interim Order are hereby approved in principle.
29The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City of the following pre-requisite matters:
The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Official Plan Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City;
The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City;
The Tribunal is advised that the Owner/Appellant has entered into an agreement with the City to secure: (i) the rental tenure of the residential units; and (ii) the two (2) affordable residential rental units, as defined in the Minutes of Settlement filed as Exhibit 2 with the Tribunal, such agreement to be registered on title to the Subject Property, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor or their designate, which agreement shall include, but not be limited to, the terms and conditions set out in Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Minutes of Settlement; and
The Tribunal is advised that the Restrictive Covenants referenced in Clause 8 of the Minutes of Settlement are registered on title to the Lands.
30The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.
31Within six (6) months of the issuance of this Interim Order, the Parties will either provide the Tribunal with a status update or submit final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order have been satisfied and will request issuance of the Final Order.
32The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties to determine additional timelines and deadlines for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.
“C. Hardy”
c. hardy
VICE CHAIR
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.