Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 22, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000064

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

Applicant and Appellant: Sheridan Retail Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit Reference Number: OZ/OPA 23-4 W8 Property Address: 2225 Erin Mills Parkway Municipality/UT: City of Mississauga / Region of Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000064 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000064 OLT Case Name: Sheridan Retail Inc. v. Mississauga (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Sheridan Retail Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit Reference Number: OZ/OPA 23-4 W8 Property Address: 2225 Erin Mills Parkway Municipality/UT: City of Mississauga / Region of Peel OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000065 OLT Case Name: Sheridan Retail Inc. v. Mississauga (City)

Heard: December 10, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Sheridan Retail Inc.	Michael Nemanic
City of Mississauga	Raj Kehar, Katie Pfaff
Regional Municipality of Peel	Rachel Godley

INTERIM DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BOBKA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1These appeals arise following the City of Mississauga’s (“City”) failure to render decisions within the required time period on applications by Sheridan Retail Inc. (“Applicant”) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendments (“ZBA”) with respect to the property municipally known as 2225 Erin Mills Parkway, in the City (“Subject Lands”).

2The Parties engaged in Tribunal-led mediation over three separate days in May and July 2024 and also engaged in additional without prejudice discussions, which resulted in a settlement between the Parties of all of the outstanding issues related to the appeals.

3The Parties appeared before the Tribunal to jointly present a settlement for consideration. The revised development is to facilitate partial redevelopment of the Subject Lands and proposes two 15-storey residential buildings, to be constructed in two separate phases: Phase 1 relates to Zone G and Phase 2 relates to Zone A.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

[4] The Subject Lands are approximately 12.12 hectares in size, with frontage on Erin Mills Parkway, Lincoln Green Way, and Fowler Drive, and are currently occupied by a retail mall, referred to as the ‘Sheridan Centre’, which is comprised of a partially two-storey, multi-tenant commercial structure and surface parking areas. (Exhibit 1, p. 1010)

5The Subject Lands are surrounded by the following land uses:

a. North: a segment of the established Sheridan Neighbourhood, which includes low-rise residential dwellings, parks, and forested areas;

b. South: a smaller scale local plaza (referred to as the ‘Van Mills Centre’), which includes various low-rise multi-tenant structures and surface parking areas, a selection of tall (14-storey) and mid-rise (6-, 7- and 12-storey) apartment structures, a low-rise townhouse development and the Queen Elizabeth Way (“QEW”);

c. West: a continuation of the established Sheridan Neighbourhood, which includes various low-rise residential dwellings and a park. A local retail plaza comprised of a multi-tenant structure and surface parking areas, a low-rise long-term care facility, three low-rise hotel structures, and a carpool surface parking lot are located to the southwest; and

d. East: forested areas, a park, and a segment of the Sheridan Neighbourhood, which includes low-rise residential dwellings.

6The Subject Lands are located within the Community Node component of the City Structure, within an Intensification Area (Schedule 2, Intensification Areas) and within the Sheridan Community Node Character Area (Schedule 9, Character Areas).

7The proposed OPA would re-designate a portion of the Subject Lands included in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 development application to High Density Residential.

8The proposed ZBAs seek to re-zone the portion of the Subject Lands included in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 development applications from the General Commercial (C3) to Residential Apartment (R4A) and introduce performance standards regarding building envelope, parking, bicycle parking, amenity space and landscaping.

9The modified ZBA for Zone A proposes:

a. a 15-storey residential building with a height of 52.10 metres (“m”) and a proposed unit count of 262 (including 40% one-bedroom; 52% two-bedroom; and 7% three-bedroom units (rounded));

b. a site area of 6,468.21 square metres (“sq. m”);

c. a residential gross floor area of 22,095 sq. m;

d. a floor space index (“FSI”) of 3.42;

e. a total of 5.2 m of indoor and outdoor amenity space per unit;

f. 452 vehicle parking spaces and 160 bicycle parking spaces; and,

g. an internal road network, which will be privately-owned but built to public standards with easements provided in favour of the City, in a form and on terms to the satisfaction of the City.

10The modified ZBA for Zone G proposes:

a. a 15-storey residential building with a height of 52.10 m and a unit count of 369 (including 33% one-bedroom; 66% two-bedroom; and 2% three-bedroom units (rounded));

b. a site area of 6,882.17 sq. m;

c. a residential gross floor area of 30,452 sq. m;

d. an FSI of 4.42;

e. a total of 4.8 m of indoor and outdoor amenity space per unit;

f. 413 vehicle parking spaces and 89 bicycle parking spaces; and,

g. an internal road network, which will be privately-owned but built to public standards with easements provided in favour of the City.

HEARING

11The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed, and considered the following materials and submissions:

a. the oral testimony and comprehensive sworn Affidavit of Jim Levac, a Registered Professional Planner retained by the Applicant;

b. the attached Exhibits to the sworn Affidavit of Jim Levac;

c. the Minutes of Settlement dated November 15, 2024;

d. the Participant Statements of Brenton Chen and Loan La;

e. the Parties’ oral submissions in support of the settlement;

f. the draft planning instruments, submitted by the Parties, on consent; and

g. the draft Order, submitted by the Parties, on consent.

12Upon review of his Curriculum Vitae and signed Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty form, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Levac, who is a Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners with over 30 years experience, to provide opinion evidence in land use planning.

13It was the uncontroverted summary opinion of Mr. Levac that the proposed instruments before the Tribunal have regard for the matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act, and conform with the Region of Peel’s Official Plan (“ROP”) and the City’s Official Plan (“OP”). The Tribunal also heard evidence that the proposed instruments are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”). Mr. Levac provided a comprehensive policy analysis throughout his oral and written evidence, and stated that the settlement proposal and proposed instruments represent good planning and are in the public interest.

14Mr. Levac opined that the proposed instruments represent “appropriate development on the Subject Lands given the existing use of the Site, planned evolution of the Subject Lands and surrounding context.” He highlighted that the adjacent Sheridan Mall will provide a range of commercial and retail amenities, which will service the proposed residential buildings.

15Mr. Levac stated that the proposal:

a. can be adequately serviced by existing municipal services;

b. will not create adverse impacts to existing uses or the surrounding area;

c. is in keeping with the character and planned context of the Sheridan community, and it provides an opportunity for contextually appropriate intensification within the City’s Built-Up Area where intensification is to be directed; and,

d. upholds the overall City Structure and further implements the development objectives as identified by the OP.

16He also stated that the proposal implements many aspects of the Reimagining the Mall Directions Report, fits within the existing and planned context of the Sheridan Community Node Character Area, and was informed by the design vision of the Sheridan Master Plan.

17Mr. Levac highlighted several significant changes to the proposal for each zone:

ZONE A

a. the FSI was decreased to 3.42 through the expansion of the Zone Boundaries to include, among other things, additional public realm improvements;

b. the Region’s requested road widening (2.39 m) was surveyed, protected for in the Settlement Plans, and will be conveyed to the Region at site plan approval;

c. the amount of encumbered and unencumbered soft landscaping has been increased to improve the condominium’s transition to the public realm. Increased setbacks were provided to accommodate additional landscaping and the proposed road widening;

d. the amount of amenity space was increased to 5.2 sq. m per unit; and,

e. the supply of vehicular parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces was increased to meet a minimum residential parking supply of 1 space per unit; 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit; and 0.4 bicycle parking spaces per unit.

ZONE G

a. the FSI has been decreased to 4.42 through the expansion of the Zone Boundaries to include additional public realm improvements;

b. the amount of encumbered and unencumbered soft landscaping has been increased to improve the condominium’s transition to the public realm. Increased setbacks were provided to accommodate additional landscaping;

c. the amount of amenity space was increased to 4.8 sq. m per unit; and,

d. the supply of vehicular parking spaces and bicycle parking spaces was increased to meet a minimum residential parking supply of 0.9 space per unit; 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit; and 0.2 bicycle parking spaces per unit.

18Regarding the Participant Statements, Mr. Levac explained that both Mr. Chen’s and Ms. La’s properties back onto Erin Mills Parkway. The Participants expressed concerns about negative impacts from the proposal related to traffic noise and reduced privacy.

19Mr. Levac opined that the proposal will not cause unacceptable impacts to the surrounding lands. He explained that:

the potential for the Subject Lands to accommodate additional built forms was previously established and was subject to extensive public consultation during the preceding Reimagining the Mall process … [The current proposal] is further implementing the general development objectives, including buildings that are within the maximum permitted building height provisions, established by the Reimagining the Mall initiative and in-effect Mississauga Official Plan policy. (Exhibit 1, page 10, paragraph 62)

20He further explained that the proposal has incorporated generous setbacks from the Erin Mills Parkway street line, landscaped open spaces along the street line, and architectural treatments, which minimize the number of openings along the Erin Mills Parkway public realm.

21Mr. Levac highlighted that the proposal is supported by a number of studies, including (but not limited to):

a. a Noise Impact Assessment to determine potential noise sources that could impact the proposal and recommend mitigation measures, which found the proposed development to be feasible with the integration of noise control measures;

b. a Transportation Impact Study to assess traffic impacts, which found that the intersections would have suitable capacity; and,

c. an Urban Design Brief to assess the proposal in relation to the design directions in the OP, which found the proposal to be consistent with the City’s urban design goals and objectives and to represent a high-quality built form.

22Mr. Levac stated that any adverse privacy and overlook concerns are mitigated by a generous public Right-of-Way on Erin Mills Parkway (currently more than 37 m), landscaped open space on the west side of the street line, and the existing privacy fencing and rear yard private amenity spaces of the properties on Springfield Drive (which back onto Erin Mills Parkway). Moreover, he stated that when considered together the “approximate separation distance between the nearest residential structure to be constructed along the eastern side of Erin Mills Parkway and the public Right-of-Way limit on the western side of Erin Mills Parkway is more than 52 metres.”

23Speaking to the “H” hold conditions (““H” conditions”), Mr. Levac explained that there are several “H” conditions proposed in the ZBAs which he opined are all appropriate. These include:

a. the execution of a development agreement (including warning clauses);

b. the conveyance of public easements over the requisite driveways and the MiWay Bus Shelter;

c. the preparation of the required Parking Utilization Study and Parking Justification Letters;

d. the preparation of an updated Noise Study, an updated Quantitative Wind Study, an updated Stormwater Management and Functional Servicing Report, and an updated Hydrogeological Study;

e. the preparation of a Phase Two Environmental Site Assessment and implementation of a remediation plan, and, if required, as a condition of site plan approval, the filing of a Record of Site Condition with supporting documentation; and,

f. the finalization of the draft planning instruments.

24Mr. Levac highlighted that when the Applicant seeks a final Order from the Tribunal regarding the ZBAs, the final instruments should only list those “H” conditions which remain outstanding; if none remain outstanding, then no “H” conditions would be required.

25Mr. Levac concluded that the draft instruments before the Tribunal warrant approval in principal.

FINDINGS

26The Tribunal reviewed the Participant Statements of Mr. Chen and Ms. La, who raised concerns regarding privacy and traffic noise. As explained by Mr. Levac, the proposal will facilitate high-quality, compact built forms and thoughtful site design that provide for appropriate transition to, and integration with, the surrounding community, and will mitigate traffic noise and privacy impacts. The Tribunal is satisfied that the settlement proposal sufficiently addresses the concerns raised by the Participants.

27The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Levac, and finds that the proposed OPA and ZBAs have regard to the applicable matters of Provincial interest as found in s. 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS 2024, and conform to the ROP and OP.

28The Tribunal finds that the proposal supports residential intensification, will create a desirable mixture of housing units in a suitable location planned for growth, and is of an appropriate type and scale. In addition, the proposal features well-designed built forms, which are pedestrian-oriented and transit-supportive, and will efficiently utilize existing and planned municipal infrastructure.

29The Tribunal finds that the proposed instruments meet the required legislative tests, represent good planning, are in the public interest, and warrant approval, in principle.

INTERIM ORDER

30THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [31] below, and that:

a. the Official Plan Amendment as set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order is hereby approved in principle; and,

b. the Zoning By-law Amendments as set out in Attachment 2 (for Zone A) and Attachment 3 (for Zone G) to this Interim Order are hereby approved in principle.

31The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order of:

a. The Official Plan Amendment: until it has received and approved the Official Plan Amendment, submitted in a final form which is confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor, on consent of Sheridan Retail Inc.;

b. The Zoning By-law Amendment for Zone A: until it has received and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment for Zone A, submitted in a final form which is confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor, on consent of Sheridan Retail Inc.; and,

c. The Zoning By-law Amendment for Zone G: until it has received and approved the Zoning By-law Amendment for Zone G, submitted in a final form which is confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor, on consent of Sheridan Retail Inc.

32The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final drafts of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and the issuance of the Final Orders.

33If the Parties do not submit the final instruments for approval within 120 days of the date of this Interim Order, the Parties are directed to provide the Tribunal with a written update as to the expected timing of the final forms of the instruments.

34The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event of any matters arising on the implementation of this Interim Order.

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA 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

Attachment 3