Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 12, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000484

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Appellant: 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit five apartments, 46, 43, 43, 39, and 34 storeys

Reference Number: OZ/OPA 22-19 W7

Property Address: 0, 25 Hillcrest Avenue and 3154, 3168 Hurontario Street

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000484

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000484

OLT Case Name: 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp. v. Mississauga (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit five apartments, 46, 43, 43, 39, and 34 storeys

Reference Number: OZ/OPA 22-19 W7

Property Address: 0, 25 Hillcrest Avenue and 3154, 3168 Hurontario Street

Municipality/UT: Mississauga/Peel

OLT Case No: OLT-23-000485

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000484

Heard: January 13, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp.

David Bronskill Rodney Gill

City of Mississauga

Mark Joblin Katie Pfaff Alexandra Whyte Quinto Annibale (in absentia)

Metrolinx

Isaac Tang

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. MOLINARI AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Interim Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This matter involves a settlement hearing related to appeals filed by 33HC TAS LP, 33HC Corp., 3168HS LP and 3168HS Corp. (“Appellant”) pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) against the failure of the City of Mississauga (“City”) to make decisions within the statutory time frame regarding the Appellant’s Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) applications (collectively “Applications”) relating to four properties known municipally as 0 and 25 Hillcrest Avenue, and 3154 and 3168 Hurontario Street (“Property”).

2The purpose of the Applications, as filed, was to facilitate the redevelopment of the Property with a mix of uses, including five residential towers ranging from 34 to 46 storeys in height.

3The Property is located within the Downtown Cooksville area of the City, on the west side of Hurontario Street, north of Hillcrest Avenue and south of John Street. It has an area of approximately 2.14 hectares, with frontage on Hurontario Street, Hillcrest Avenue, John Street and GO Access Road.

4The Property is currently developed with a local retail plaza and surface parking areas. To the north is the Cooksville GO Station and surface parking area as well as a rail corridor. To the east are retail plazas and surface parking areas, low-rise apartment buildings and townhouse dwellings, and John C Price Park. Immediately south of the Property are a mixture of uses including mid-rise apartment buildings, a secondary school site, a park, low-rise residential dwellings, and low-rise commercial buildings. To the west of the Property, is a surface parking area and parkade structure associated with the Cooksville GO Station, four high-rise apartment buildings, and Confederation Parkway.

5The Property is within a designated Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) and is well-served by existing and planned transit including the Cooksville GO Station, Mississauga Transit (MiWay) and GO transit bus routes. Additional rapid transit is currently under construction including the Hurontario Light Rail Transit Line with a planned stop directly in front of the Property and higher-order transit planned along Dundas Street.

6The Property is currently designated ‘Residential High Density’ on the west and ‘Mixed Use’ on the east. It is also identified as being within the ‘Downtown’, an MTSA, and the Dundas Street ‘Intensification Corridor’ in the City Official Plan (“COP”). Under Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007, the Property is currently zoned Commercial ‘C4’ fronting Hurontario Street, Apartment exception zone ‘RA5-33’ in the southwest corner, and Development ‘D’ in the northwest corner.

7Metrolinx and the Regional Municipality of Peel (“Region”) were added as Parties to the appeals, but the Region has since withdrawn their Party status. There are no Participants to the appeals. As such, only the Appellant, the City and Metrolinx are Parties to the appeals.

8The Tribunal received correspondence from the Appellant in advance of the Hearing, advising that the Parties had settled the issues and requesting that the Tribunal convert the proceedings to a settlement hearing. The Parties submitted their Minutes of Settlement (“MOS”) setting out the conditions of settlement (“Settlement Proposal”).

9In accordance with Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Tribunal convened the proceedings as a hearing on the terms of the Settlement Proposal.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

10When considering appeals filed pursuant to ss. 22(7) and 34(11) of the Act, the Tribunal must have regard to the relevant 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 Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Applications conform with the Region Official Plan (“ROP”) and the COP.

11In consideration of the statutory requirements set out above, the Tribunal must also be satisfied that the Settlement Proposal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

THE PROPOSAL

12The Settlement Proposal includes five residential towers ranging from 35 to 42 storeys in height, 7,240 square metres of non-residential space, underground parking with approximately 1,522 parking spaces, and an estimated residential unit count of 2,341, including a component of affordable housing.

13The Appellant advised that a revised functional servicing report and waste management plan will be submitted to the Region as requested in their email withdrawing their Party status.

WITNESSES

14Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal received the Affidavit of Pino Di Mascio in support of the Settlement Proposal. The Tribunal qualified Mr. Di Mascio, on consent of the Parties, to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

LAND USE PLANNING EVIDENCE

15Mr. Di Mascio provided background information on the Property, the surrounding area, the proposed use, and the history and processing of the Applications and opined that the Settlement Proposal meets the applicable regulatory and policy requirements, represents good land use planning and should be approved.

16In addition, Mr. Di Mascio submitted that, through mediation, issues with the City and Metrolinx were able to be resolved resulting in:

• “Improvements to John Street extension lands, following the gratuitous conveyance of these lands from Metrolinx to the City”;
• “The realignment of the internal streets to provide greater distance from existing intersections”;
• “The relocation of the primary open space from the centre of the block to the southwest corner”;
• “The redeployment of building heights so the tallest buildings are located on the Hurontario Street frontage, stepping down towards the southwest corner of the site”; and
• “The provision of a continuous 6-storey podium on Hurontario Street, with first storey of the linear building frontage reserved for non-residential uses…”.

The Planning Act

17Mr. Di Mascio opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard to the applicable matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act, as the Property is located both within an identified intensification area and an MTSA and therefore the proposed densities are appropriate for the existing and planned transit in the area. In addition, the Settlement Proposal includes a component of affordable housing and a public park.

Provincial Planning Statement 2024

18Mr. Di Mascio proffered that the Settlement Proposal meets the PPS policies relating to residential intensification, the redevelopment of underutilized commercial sites for residential uses, prioritizing transit-supportive development within MTSAs, and promoting complete communities. He opined that the PPS is supportive of a high-density infill development on the Property and that the Settlement Proposal, and the OPA and ZBA, are consistent with the PPS.

Region Official Plan

19It was Mr. Di Mascio’s testimony that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the ROP as it supports the achievement of the Region’s MTSA density target and conforms to the various policy priorities that guide the intensification of strategic growth areas in the Region.

City Official Plan

20Mr. Di Mascio noted that the Property is on an identified ‘Intensification Corridor’ in the COP, is within an MTSA and is adjacent to existing and planned higher-order transit as well as existing frequent bus service along Hurontario Street and Dundas Street. He opined that the Settlement Proposal meets the City-wide policies in the COP as it supports the achievement of the intensification objectives for the Downtown, an Intensification Corridor, and an MTSA.

21Mr. Di Mascio proffered that the proposal conforms to the urban design policies in the COP as the tallest buildings are located closest to Hurontario Street, and a continuous street wall with a podium height of six storeys helps to animate and enclose Hurontario Street. He further noted that a streetscape plan for the boundary streets implements the City’s design objectives and creates an appealing and comfortable experience for pedestrians and that adverse impacts from shadow and wind have been minimized through building orientation and design.

22It was Mr. Di Mascio’s opinion that, as the Mixed Use designation permits a wide array of uses and residential uses are required to be provided in conjunction with other uses, the Settlement Proposal, with both residential and commercial uses, maintains the intent of the Mixed Use policies in the COP. He furthered that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the COP policies requiring mixed use development to be pedestrian-oriented, street related, and compatible in scale.

23Mr. Di Mascio opined that the Settlement Proposal implements several policy objectives of the COP in contributing to the urbanization of an MTSA on an ‘Intensification Corridor’ with a mix of uses and new public amenities. It was his opinion that the Settlement Proposal conforms with, and maintains the general intent of, the COP, including the City’s draft MTSA policies in OPAs no. 143 to 146.

Zoning By-law

24As submitted by Mr. Di Mascio, the settlement proposes to rezone the Property to a Residential Apartment 5 exception zone ‘RA5-XX’, introducing site-specific performance standards based on the built form (“Settlement ZBA”). The Settlement ZBA will include minimum outdoor and indoor amenity space provisions, contiguous non-residential uses on the first storey along the Hurontario Street frontage, minimum commercial office space to be confirmed through a market study, and provisions for affordable housing in accordance with the City’s inclusionary zoning requirements under Zoning By-law No. 0213-2022.

25Mr. Di Mascio advised that the Settlement ZBA includes a holding provision (“H”) requiring the execution of a development agreement, securing streetscape improvements, providing an easement for public access over the proposed private streets, and the execution of an agreement to secure affordable housing as part of the development. The foregoing conditions are to be met prior to the removal of the H through a rezoning application.

Conclusions

26It was Mr. Di Mascio’s view that the Property is an ideal location for high-density development, given its location within the downtown and its proximity to higher-order transit.

27Mr. Di Mascio opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS, and conforms with the ROP and the COP. Based on the foregoing, it was Mr. Di Mascio’s opinion that the Settlement Proposal represents good land use planning, is in the public interest and should be approved.

28Further, it was Mr. Di Mascio’s opinion that the appeals should be allowed in part, and that the OPA and ZBA be approved in principle, subject to finalization in accordance with the MOS.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

29The Tribunal accepted the uncontroverted testimony and evidence of Mr. Di Mascio. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Settlement Proposal has sufficient and proper regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal was further satisfied that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS and is in conformity with the ROP and the COP, represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

30The Tribunal found that the H is appropriate for the ZBA and will ensure any outstanding technical matters are adequately addressed prior to the proposed development being permitted.

31The Parties did not submit draft OPA or ZBA instruments for consideration and approval at the hearing, but undertook to submit them by Friday, February 28, 2025. The Tribunal thus made an oral decision to approve the OPA and ZBA in principle, conditional on the receipt, review, and approval of the instruments once submitted.

32The Tribunal has since reviewed and approved the OPA and ZBA instruments as submitted and attached hereto.

INTERIM ORDER

33THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals under subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [34] below, and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

34The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:

a. the form and content of the implementing official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment are finalized to the satisfaction of the City and Metrolinx. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the zoning by-law amendment will include requirements that:

i. the first storey of the linear building frontage along Hurontario Street, except for exit staircases and lobby areas (including to secondary accesses to residential uses), shall only be used for non-residential uses. Secondary accesses to residential uses will not exceed 10% of the linear building frontage on Hurontario Street, with an individual access not exceeding 2.5m in width; and

ii. A minimum 60% of the first storey of the linear building frontage along Hurontario shall be contiguous with a minimum total non-residential floor area of 920 square metres, but may be developed as multiple non-residential units. The contiguous frontage may be interrupted by exit staircases where minimum to allow for contiguous unit area.

b. the John Street extension lands (except for lands required for the delivery of the Hazel McCallion LRT, identified in Schedule “B”, which are to be conveyed to the City upon completion of the Hazel McCallion LRT) abutting the north side of the Site (the “John Street Lands”) have been conveyed gratuitously from Metrolinx to the City as a public street upon finalization of the terms of the gratuitous conveyance as agreed between the City and Metrolinx, including in respect of treatment of existing infrastructure;

c. the City has completed the peer review of the market analysis report by an external consultant, the cost of which shall be reimbursed by the Applicant, in respect of the proposed minimum of 3,866 square metres of commercial office space shown on the Revised Plans, and the amount of commercial office space required by the zoning by-law amendment has been either confirmed or increased accordingly;

d. submission of a revised Traffic Impact Study, with updated site statistics and layout, to confirm necessary roadway improvements, including but not limited to appropriate storage length and taper lengths to the satisfaction of the City and Metrolinx; and

e. submission of an updated wind study and where appropriate update wind-responsive design with improved conditions, to the satisfaction of the City, to address exceedances and improve conditions at-grade and above-grade, with appropriate matters to be incorporated into the final zoning by-law amendment or where appropriate secured as part of any application for site plan control.

35If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Monday, July 28, 2025, the Parties shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the amendments and request for issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

36The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments.

37The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ATTACHMENT 2