ISSUE DATE:
July 26, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002361
(Formerly PL210136)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
City Park (Lakeshore) Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure of the City of Mississauga to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation:
Mixed Use
Proposed Designated:
Residential High Density and to change the maximum height permitted
Purpose:
To permit retail and residential development
Property Address/Description:
1381 Lakeshore Rd. E.
Municipality:
City of Mississauga
Approval Authority File No.:
OPA/OZ/20/018
OLT Case No.:
Legacy Case No.:
OLT-22-002361
PL210136
OLT Lead Case No.:
Legacy Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002361
PL210136
OLT Case Name:
City Park (Lakeshore) 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:
City Park (Lakeshore) Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 – neglect of the City of Mississauga to make a decision
Existing Zoning:
C4 (Mainstreet Commercial)
Proposed Zoning:
RA5-Exception (Apartments – Exception)
Purpose:
To permit retail and residential development
Property Address/Description:
1381 Lakeshore Rd. E.
Municipality:
City of Mississauga
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 26, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002361
(Formerly PL210136
Approval Authority File No.:
OPA/OZ/20/018
OLT Case No.:
Legacy Case No.:
OLT-22-002362
PL210137
OLT Lead Case No.:
Legacy Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002361
PL210136
Heard:
June 30, 2022 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City Park (Lakeshore) Inc.
Leo Longo
City of Mississauga
Michal Minkowski
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. ARPINO ON JUNE 30, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
[1] The City Park (Lakeshore) Inc. is the owner of the property known municipally as 1381 Lakeshore Road East (“Property”). It seeks to construct an eight to 15 storey building with ground floor retail use on the Property (“Proposed Development”). The Property is located in the City of Mississauga (“City”).
[2] The Lakeview Local Area Plan policies of the City Official Plan (“City OP”) identify the Property within the Lakeshore Corridor, which restricts building heights to a maximum of four storeys. City Park (Lakeshore) Inc. (“Applicant”) submitted an application to amend the City OP (“OPA”).
[3] The Property is zoned Mainstreet Commercial pursuant to Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007 (“Zoning By-law”), the Proposed Development does not accord with the Zoning By-law.
[4] The Applicant submitted an application to amend the Zoning By-law (“ZBA”).
[6] The City and the Applicant undertook mediation to resolve the Appeals. The Tribunal convened a settlement hearing at the request of the Parties.
[7] The Tribunal had before it a Document Book (Exhibit 1), a draft Zoning By-Law (Exhibit 2), and a draft OPA (Exhibit 3).
[8] The draft Zoning By-Law and draft OPA represent the Settlement Proposal, which was proffered on consent of the Parties for consideration and approval of the Tribunal (“Settlement Proposal”).
[9] The Applicant called one land use planning witness, in support of the Settlement Proposal. Jim Levac was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the discipline of Land Use Planning.
[10] Mr. Levac described the general neighbourhood around the Property. He testified that the City recently approved construction of a 12-storey building near the Property. There is an existing 10-storey apartment building. He stated that, east of the Property, there is a parcel that is proposed to be developed with two blocks of four-storey stacked townhouses with ground floor retail. He opined that the Proposed Development is compatible with the neighbourhood.
[11] Mr. Levac testified that the Proposed Development is strategically located near major transit. He noted that the historical arsenal building is proposed to be redeveloped as a Community Centre and Park, which would provide amenities in the neighbourhood of the Proposed Development. [12] Mr. Levac reviewed each of the proposed ZBA and the proposed OPA in detail.
[13] Overall, it was Mr. Levac’s evidence that the Settlement Proposal has regard for matters of Provincial Interest as identified in s. 2 of the Planning Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”), as amended. He opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the Region of Peel Official Plan (“Regional OP”) and the City OP.
[14] Mr. Levac recommended that the Settlement Proposal be approved.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
[15] The Tribunal finds on the uncontradicted planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Levac that the Settlement Proposal warrants approval.
[16] The ZBA and the OPA are consistent with the policy direction of the PPS, conforms to the planning directives of the Growth Plan, the Regional OP and the City OP.
[17] The Settlement Proposal has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest.
ORDER
[18] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed and City of Mississauga’s Zoning By-law No. 0225-2007, as amended, is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Decision. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Mississauga to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes. [19] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the City of Mississauga Official Plan is amended as set out in Attachment 2.
“M. Arpino”
M. ARPINO
MEMBER
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.