2467 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario

Transcription

1 ISSUE DATE: Sept. 7, 2007 DECISION/ORDER NO: 2467 Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l Ontario PL IN THE MATTER OF subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant: Subject: Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Dunpar Developments Inc. Proposed Official Plan Amendment City of Mississauga PL O IN THE MATTER OF subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended ` Applicant: Dunpar Developments Inc. Subject: By-law No Municipality: City of Mississauga OMB Case No.: PL OMB File No.: Z IN THE MATTER OF subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended Applicant: Subject: Property Address/Description Municipality: OMB Case No.: OMB File No.: Dunpar Developments Inc. Proposed Plan of Subdivision 1820, 1826, 1836 & 1850 Burnhamthorpe Road City of Mississauga PL O APPEARANCES: Parties Dunpar Developments Inc. City of Mississauga Radial Investments Ltd. Counsel Adam Brown Brian Duxbury Jason Park and Patrick Devine DECISION OF THE BOARD DELIVERED BY R. ROSSI AND ORDER OF THE BOARD Dunpar Developments Inc. (the Applicant) has appealed against the City of Mississauga s failure to make a decision regarding the Applicant s proposed plan of

2 - 2 - PL subdivision of 106 dwelling units in the Applewood District of Mississauga along Burnhamthorpe Road (east of Dixie Road), comprising 8 single-detached homes on the south side of Pagehurst Avenue; 22 semi-detached houses on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue (with their road access from the interior townhouse development); and 76 townhouse units on the northerly portion of the subject lands. A new connection between Pagehurst Avenue and Silverplains Drive is proposed to be built. Adam Brown represented the Applicant. Planner Peter Smith and Urban Design Planner Robert Glover provided expert evidence in support of the application. Jason Park represented Radial Investments Ltd. (Radial), the adjacent landowner which also seeks to develop townhouses on its own property with access through the Applicant s lands. Planner Mark Yarranton provided some evidence on two proposed conditions were the Board to approve the Applicant s proposed development. Brian Duxbury represented the City of Mississauga. Planner Robert Hughes, Urban Design Planner Erinma Chibututu and Development Engineering Technician (transportation) Darren Morita provided expert evidence in opposition to the application. All witnesses were qualified in their respective areas of expertise. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Brown advised the Board that the site plan has been appealed but that matter will depend on the outcome of this hearing. Mr. Brown noted that the City is expected to provide conditions for the site plan. Mr. Brown also told the Board that a number of issues between the Parties in this case have been resolved such as the servicing capacity and the functioning of the left-turning lane. He noted that there are no traffic volume issues and the proposed roads are able to accommodate the traffic generated by the development. At issue are differences about the built form standards and the number of townhouses proposed. As a result of earlier mediation efforts and in response to residents concerns, the Applicant changed the plans for the north side of Pagehurst Avenue from townhouses to semi-detached dwellings in an attempt to provide an appropriate transition between the townhouses to the north and single-family homes to the south. The City wishes to have only single-family homes on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue, however, proposing to have single-family homes instead of semidetached homes backing onto the townhouses.

3 - 3 - PL Mr. Brown explained that Radial owns the much thinner plot of lands abutting the west side of the Applicant s property. Radial opposes the proposed development of the Applicant s property if there are no conditions applied to the Applicant s proposal that would assist Radial with the future development of its own lands. While the Radial position was put forward midpoint during the hearing, the Board delivers its findings in respect of the Radial request at this point in the decision. The Board s findings and determination in respect of the Dunpar proposal follow thereafter. Radial opposes the Applicant s proposed development without the Board s imposition of Radial s suggested conditions on the Applicant and its proposal that would assist Radial with the future development of its own lands. Mr. Brown noted that the Applicant has indeed provided a design that will enable Radial to develop its lands and if desired, enter into cost-sharing arrangements with the Applicant regarding the proposed western road. Mr. Duxbury for the City explained that the City simply requires that the Applicant not thwart development of the adjacent property (belonging to Radial) or Radial s ability to proceed with a proposal. Radial filed materials that requested the Board to impose conditions to effectively grant easements from its property over the Applicant s proposed western road. Mr. Brown argued that the Board cannot impose conditions on the Applicant so as to assist Radial until such time as Radial sees fit to develop its abutting lands. Mr. Brown observed that a second party coming late to the table cannot enjoy a benefit such as free road access from another private interest in this case and thus, he argued, Radial must pay its fair share for the access. Mr. Park, representing Radial, noted that if Radial is not guaranteed access from the westerly road and if the Board approves the Applicant s proposal without conditions in favour of Radial, the Radial proposal (which is not before this Board) will be landlocked and the Board will no longer have jurisdiction to impose conditions. Mr. Brown argued that the Radial lands are not landlocked and that Radial can re-design its proposal to achieve road access from a point other than from the proposed westerly road. The Board noted in the staff report that Radial s proposal in its current configuration will not be permitted access to Burnhamthorpe Road. Radial concedes, however, that there are other access opportunities were the Radial proposal configured differently.

4 - 4 - PL Mr. Park of Radial argued that Mr. Brown s arguments on this point should have been made by means of a preliminary motion. Mr. Brown argued that Radial has known about the Applicant s proposal since June 2006; it has participated in the previous meetings to this Board hearing; and Radial was also a participant in the Board s mediation process. On this point, the Board determines it was entirely reasonable for Mr. Brown to express at this hearing his objection to Mr. Park s attempt to introduce planning evidence on Radial s conditions that it wished the Board to impose on the Applicant to secure easements onto the Applicant s lands for Radial s future development plans. Mr. Brown did not have to make a preliminary motion, as Mr. Park suggested, as the precise nature of Radial s case became known when Mr. Park sought to call evidence on the proposed Radial conditions. The issue before the Board is whether it can reasonably impose conditions on a private developer seeking to develop its private lands, in order to benefit another developer s future development of its lands. While both Messrs. Brown and Park provided case law to support their divergent positions, the determination of the Board, in accordance with accepted Board practice and a reading of the legislation, is that it cannot impose conditions on one private landowner to assist another private landowner with its future development. The case law provided by Mr. Park in no way supported Radial s position and the Board underlines here that there is no case law today that supports Radial s position. It would be unreasonable for the Board to impose conditions on the Applicant to provide future access to another private entity s lands and where those lands are currently undeveloped (although an application to develop those lands is before the City). The Board notes that the Applicant has already provided a westerly road that can assist Radial with its future development and all Parties agree that this road can work to provide efficient access to the westerly Radial lands. However, the matter of cost-sharing for this road s development is not before the Board and Radial s desire for easement rights to be secured through conditions imposed on the Applicant cannot be considered by the Board. Mr. Park had also suggested that the Board could order the conveyance of a portion of the Applicant s land to the municipality in order to enable the City to determine how to guarantee equitable treatment of both the Applicant and Radial in respect of access to the westerly road. The Board notes that the municipality opted not to comment on either Mr. Park s presentation of case law, on the Radial position, or on a proposition to convey lands to the municipality. By extension, the City has offered no

5 - 5 - PL such condition in the documentation or submissions before the Board seeking conveyance of the Applicant s lands; and there was no evidence before the Board to suggest it could order the conveyance of the Applicant s lands to the municipality for the purpose of providing easement guarantees in favour of Radial. The Board agreed to hear evidence from Radial s Planner, Mark Yarranton who provided a brief overview of Radial s proposal for 22 townhouse units on its lands. That project, which is not before the Board, is also seeking a change from low to medium density (Medium Density Residential I). Mr. Yarranton proffered evidence on two of Radial s conditions (Exhibit 20). First, he opined that the Radial proposal needs a mechanism to ensure that the three part lots on the Radial/Applicant boundary are given to Radial in case the Applicant applies for a permit to get development of the three part lots in conjunction with their lands (Condition 3). Second, Mr. Yarranton proposed that the Applicant build its concrete sidewalk to the westerly block line (Condition 4). Mr. Yarranton opined that these two conditions represent good planning, are appropriate and are reasonable to ensure the ultimate development of the Radial lands in an orderly manner. The Board viewed this evidence as an extension of the initial Radial position which is to impose conditions on the Applicant to assist in its own private future development. In this regard, the Board declined to hear Mr. Yarranton s evidence about the proposed over servicing of the Applicant s lands to assist Radial s development at a later date. The Board notes that Radial has been aware of the Applicant s proposed development of its lands since June 2006 and yet Radial has never sought to consolidate its proposal with the Applicant nor has it brought a motion before the Board in respect of its concerns. Section 51(25) of the Planning Act states: The approval authority may impose such conditions to the approval of a plan of subdivision as in the opinion of the approval authority are reasonable, having regard to the nature of the development proposed for the subdivision In the case at hand, the imposition of conditions on one private landowner to provide guarantees or assurances to another private landowner for future development of its lands is both unreasonable and without planning justification. The Board determined, therefore, that it would not hear evidence from Radial s witnesses who sought to provide planning evidence on the appropriateness of the Radial conditions and instead confined itself to the merits of the Dunpar (Applicant) proposal and the

6 - 6 - PL Applicant s evidence in support of, and the City s professional evidence in opposition to the development. With no legal justification for the Board to set the aforementioned conditions, Radial withdrew from the balance of the hearing but remained a Party to these proceedings in order to receive the Board s determination of these matters. Planner Peter Smith provided planning evidence in support of the application. He first provided the Board with contextual evidence and explained that the proposal would extend Pagehurst Avenue through the southerly portion of the subject site to connect with Silverplains Drive. Mr. Smith told the Board that homes on the south side of Pagehurst Avenue to the east are large single-family homes on large lots and Burnhamthorpe Road is a major arterial road in the City of Mississauga. He described the site and the surrounding uses. He opined that as a result of the site s physical context and road access, the subject lands can accommodate a more intensified form of residential development than the low-density residential area that exists to the south and east. Mr. Smith told the Board that at issue is a lack of agreement between the Applicant and the City on the geographic extent of the lands to be developed as singlefamily lots in order to achieve an appropriate interface; the remaining issues deal with development standards. Mr. Smith s review of the details of the proposed built forms is contained in his witness statement (Exhibit 2). Mr. Smith provided a detailed review of the relevant policies for the application. He opined that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction set out in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the Region of Peel official Plan and the Mississauga Plan, all of which support residential intensification; that is, the intensified and compact forms of residential development that use land and urban services efficiently. Mr. Smith noted that these policies are comparatively recent, in that the need to intensify to help mitigate outward sprawl was not generally recognized, or in the applicable planning policy documents, at the time that this area was initially developed (paragraph 13 of Exhibit 2). These policies were cited and included the following: Mr. Smith referenced and detailed relevant policies from the PPS (Exhibit 1, Tab 8): Settlement Areas (1.1.3 / a / / ); Housing (1.4.3 a/b2/d); Transportation Systems ( ) and Energy and Air Quality policies (1.8.1 a/b); and although the Growth Plan (Tab 2) is not directly applicable in this case, Mr. Smith referenced the section on Managing Growth (1a/b). Mr. Smith also referred to several

7 - 7 - PL policies in the Region of Peel Official Plan (Tab 3) ( / b/c) and he noted the subject lands are designated as Urban System in the Regional Plan. Mr. Smith noted that the Mississauga Plan (Tab 4) designates the subject site Residential Low Density I and the lands are located in the Applewood District Plan (p.49). He reviewed the Mississauga Plan s Housing Goals ( ) and Objectives ( / / ); and the Residential policies ( ) which reveal an anticipated pattern of order of density ( / ). The latter policy is relevant as a result of the timing of the filing of this application. Mr. Smith told the Board that the Applewood District policies are not undermined by this proposal. In the Residential designations at page 51, the semi-detached homes are permitted as a built form in the Low Density I but the townhouses are not. The Applicant is seeking the Residential Medium Density I designation for the northerly portion of the site to include the townhouses and semi-detached houses as a sitespecific exemption. He also explained that in terms of the Pagehurst Avenue connection, the proposed road right-of-way transitions from 17 metres to 20 metres. Mr. Smith reviewed the Plan s Development Applications Policies ( a) and the criteria for site-specific Official Plan Amendments ( ) and he opined that the proposal is not out of keeping with these policies and criteria. Mr. Smith reviewed the new comprehensive Zoning By-law 5500 (Exhibit 1, Tab 6). He noted that the subject site is zoned R3 which permits detached dwellings and a minimum 15-metre lot frontage. The Applicant proposes to rezone the southerly portion of the lands from R3 to R4 (12) which permits 12-metre detached lots with some sitespecific provisions; and to rezone from R3 to RM5 which permits both street row dwellings and row dwellings. The proposed zoning for the site is depicted in Exhibit 1, Tab 18, p Mr. Smith made reference to the City staff reports regarding the proposed development and told the Board that they wanted the degree of intensification curtailed on the northern portion by virtue of the current policy and physical context supporting intensification. Mr. Smith was critical of this recommendation, advising that such a recommendation was based on 40-year-old-plus suburban standards for development and he situated this in terms of the concept of compatibility. He noted that most of the City s witnesses were seeking certain numerical standards in their respective

8 - 8 - PL statements versus whether such standards make sense and should be applied to this proposal. Mr. Smith told the Board that the townhouse development proposed is not the typical form seen in the City to date. Mr. Smith added that he has seen no identification on the part of the City of any negative impacts with regard to the proposal. He added that given the public policy of intensification of sites like this and no demonstrated incompatibility with the surrounding community, the Board should approve the proposal. Regarding Issue 1, Mr. Smith opined that townhouses are an appropriate built form on the north side of the new Pagehurst Avenue extension. He noted that the Applicant had revised his proposal to incorporate semi-detached dwelling forms on the north side of the Pagehurst Avenue extension in order to address concerns raised by residents in the surrounding area. Mr. Smith also reviewed the City s alternate design for the subject lands (Exhibit 9) and he referenced other townhouse developments in the area. The Board noted that the City has proposed only single-family homes along both sides of the Pagehurst Avenue extension versus the Applicant s plan for singles along the south side of the Pagehurst Avenue extension and semi-detached homes along the north side. Mr. Smith noted that the City has thus proposed single-family homes backing onto the northerly townhouses. Mr. Smith noted that the incidence of semi-detached houses facing singlefamily homes across a street are very common relationships and have less potential for negative impacts in contrast to townhouses backing onto single-family dwellings (privacy and overlook impacts created). Mr. Smith opined that the City s plan creates negative impacts by putting single-family homes on the north side of the road backing onto townhouses which he called an inconsistent practice. Mr. Smith also told the Board that the Applicant s proposal will achieve more green space because there will be no driveways to break up the landscape boulevard on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue (driveways will be accessed from the internal townhouse roads versus the City concept plan which put ten additional individual driveways on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue). Mr. Smith noted that a six-metre setback as required by the R4(12) standard has been provided for all of the proposed detached lots with the exception of the proposed house for lot 7 where a 3.75-metre setback is proposed to the northwest corner of the garage (resulting from the curvature of the proposed Pagehurst Avenue extension). Mr. Smith opined that it was a better design to place the house in line with the curvature of

9 - 9 - PL the street versus lining up the rear yards. Mr. Smith added that the City has used a suburban approach to subdivisions to create the front and rear yards whereas the Applicant s approach is not only more modern but also less wasteful of land. Regarding Issue 2, Mr. Smith opined that the proposed standards for the townhouse blocks, the landscaping, the open space and the width of the condominium road are appropriate and create no negative impacts on adjacent development and achieves policy objectives related to intensification. Mr. Smith reiterated that the Applicant s approach is a more urban one versus the City s dated suburban approach which sought a reduction in the number of units based on the 50 units per hectare specified in the Residential Medium Density I designation. Mr. Smith was quick to note, however, that the City has previously permitted site-specific exemptions to other developments in the City that exceed 0.5 times density permitted by the RM5 zoning and which reduce the minimum 40% landscaped open space requirement. Mr. Smith said that the City was able to approve such exemptions after analyzing those applications on a site-specific basis and Mr. Smith proffered his view that the City has thus approved other development standards that are inconsistent with what the Applicant is seeking in the case at hand. He took the Board to other examples of townhouse developments that did not create an imposing building mass; where very deep decks were approved and which match what the Applicant has proposed (at 1100 Islington); and where these units are identical template to what the Applicant has proposed. The 55 Fieldway Road development in Etobicoke was built by the same developer and was approved. As for the per-hectare density (68 units/hectare proposed versus the City s desire for 50 units/hectare), Mr. Smith noted that the City has not treated that as an upper limit elsewhere. He told the Board that the City has used other limits in other districts. On a site-specific basis, the City has allowed higher densities up to 76 units (at College Way and Colonial). Mr. Smith opined that what is proposed in this case is an appropriate result of a design-based exercise. He said that simply reducing numbers to achieve a numerical standard, which is not even a consistent standard applied in the City, is an inappropriate way to deal with intensification. In his opinion, Mr. Smith said that the resulting built form relationships will be entirely appropriate and consistent with creating a good living environment, citing the undesirability of the City s desire to impose density and gross floor area limitations in an arbitrary fashion and contrary to the spirit of

10 PL Provincial, Regional and City policies supporting residential intensification (Exhibit 2, page 10 of his witness statement). Mr. Smith considered the minimum 40% landscaped open space requirement to continue the City s dated suburban approach to the proposal. He noted that the extra green space only serves to buffer the townhouse development. Mr. Smith suggested that this type of design approach requires a different approach to calculation of landscaped open space versus a suburban approach which in fact is the approach the City has taken elsewhere. He cited 60 Rosewood (pictures in Exhibit 10) as a similar form of development to what is proposed here and the City allowed a site-specific exemption to 35% landscaped open space on this site. Mr. Smith told the Board he had also identified other exemptions where the City required landscaped open space as low as 24%. Mr. Smith reiterated the need for a design approach versus a numbers approach. Mr. Smith also opined that it was inappropriate for the City to require 8 units per townhouse block where it has also approved buildings of greater length and 12 units, and these are neither overly long nor imposing (see Exhibit 10, photographs 23 and 24 and the City s approvals of 17 units at Port Credit Village and blocks of 9 and 10 units at 4222 Dixie Road). Despite the concerns of City witness Darren Morita (Development Engineering Technologist with the Transportation & Works Department) with how snow removal and waste collection on the internal dead-end roadways will function, Mr. Smith countered that the proposed development is a typical layout. He briefly reviewed the manner in which garbage trucks will travel through the complex in a full forward motion with no back up motions required and he noted that the Applicant could include a central collection point for garbage. Mr. Smith noted that the Applicant is willing to take on garbage pick up as a private service but in any event, such a concern should not drive the design. He noted that both Silverplains Drive and Pagehurst Avenue are dead-end streets and garbage trucks have to travel up these streets for garbage and then back down the streets at longer lengths than the Applicant s proposed circular situation. He added that the Applicant s proposal will rectify these situations. Regarding Issue 3, Mr. Smith opined that the proposed 17-metre right-of-way width is appropriate. He added that the right-of-way tapers from 20 metres where it connects with the existing Pagehurst Avenue and Silverplains Drive and is 17 metres

11 PL wide only in the middle section. He noted that the tapering will have no discernible impacts, given that the pavement width will remain constant at 8 metres throughout. He added that the 17-metre width is a typical width found along other such developments. Regarding Issue 6, Mr. Smith opined that the conditions of draft plan approval are appropriate with the three exceptions and one addition that are consolidated at Tab 19 of Exhibit 1. Regarding Issue 7, Mr. Smith opined that the proposed development would be compatible with the proposed Radial development and has been designed to provide for appropriate relationships in terms of internal roadways, access points and built form. Mr. Smith opined that the draft Official Plan Amendment (Exhibit 1, Tab 17) and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment (Tab 18) represent good planning and should be approved. Mr. Duxbury noted that there will be less landscaping on the proposed development than on the surrounding established lands. In the Board s determination, the matter of the maturity of landscaping can be assigned little weight. Every new development brings with it its own landscaping features and design possibilities, but there is a reasonable expectation that new plantings will grow and mature, just as they did when this older neighbourhood first started out in the 1960s. The character of a neighbourhood is in part defined by its landscaping and its growth invariably contributes to the maturation and evolution of the character and feel of a neighbourhood. The same can be said for the neighbourhood s growth along the new Pagehurst Avenue connection. The Board determines that the proposed landscaping is sufficient for the development plans of the Applicant and will in time mature, just as the trees and vegetation have done on the adjacent properties and surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Smith confirmed for Mr. Duxbury that the subject site is on the periphery of a residential community and this development does not change the neighbourhood s character. The Board has also determined that Mr. Duxbury s review of the Mississauga Plan with Mr. Smith as well as the City s definition of compatibility (which Mr. Smith did not disagree with) did not detract from Mr. Smith s professional planning opinion on that the proposed development represents good planning. Mr. Smith added that while the

12 PL Mississauga Plan shows sensitivity of its policies to character, scale and compatibility, one must look at a balance of those policies with the intensification objectives in a compatible way without negative impacts. Mr. Smith noted that this was his analysis and this is also what the Plan says a balance of the proposal with the policies and intensification objectives. Robert Glover provided urban design evidence in the case at hand. Mr. Glover opined that the proposed development is appropriate, desirable and compatible in the context of the neighbourhood; is in keeping with the urban design policies of the Mississauga Plan; and in terms of current urban design practice, it constitutes good urban design practice. Mr. Glover also provided contextual evidence and noted that the predominant urban design character of most low-density residential neighbourhoods built during the 1960s is primarily that of automobile-oriented, low-rise detached houses located on relatively large residential lots located on curvilinear streets designed to discourage or prohibit through traffic. He opined that the fact that a neighbourhood possesses certain characteristics does not mean that a neighbourhood remains static and communities evolve. In assessing the compatibility and context, Mr. Glover opined that one should not take a view that certain elements should not change. This particular area is not heritage area and does not contain heritage structures. He added that the north side of Pagehurst Avenue at present is different from the south side and the area has a preexisting diversity of conditions that must be recognized. Mr. Glover provided the Board with his view of the area s general urban design strategy. He told the Board that the site has a less intensely developed southerly portion centres on Pagehurst Avenue, with free-hold single-family detached homes and lots on the south side abutting the existing neighbourhood lots and houses, and semidetached houses on the north side of the street abutting and providing a compatible relationship and transition between the proposed townhouses to the north and the existing residential neighbourhood to the south; and a more intensely developed northerly portion related to Burnhamthorpe Road East (a transit corridor) and consisting of more intense development in the form of townhouses with vehicular access taken from and limited to Burnhamthorpe Road East. Mr. Glover opined that from an urban design perspective, the semi-detached homes proposed for the north side of Pagehurst Avenue create transition. The proposal

13 PL envisions the south side of Pagehurst Avenue having smaller single-family homes on smaller lots than what exists in the older surrounding neighbourhood but with rear yards abutting rear yards. He added that the proposal here establishes absolutely normative relationships. On the north side of Pagehurst Avenue, 11 buildings (22 semi-detached homes) will create part of the gradual transition. Semi-detached homes were proposed after review with area residents, but also because the Mississauga Plan permits them and contemplates this built form through rezoning. They do not abut single-family homes on the north side of the street. In terms of the general building characteristic, the overall physical building size is roughly equivalent to the single-family homes with the semi-detached homes provided a built form transition through their minimal increase in height. Mr. Glover noted that whereas the houses on the south side pick up the pattern of two-car driveways, the proposed semi-detached homes on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue will not utilize driveways and instead provide rear access parking from the northerly condominium road, providing certain benefits such as increased landscaping possibilities along the north side of Pagehurst Avenue. Mr. Glover reviewed the second transition area that of the transition between the semi-detached homes and the townhouse units. The urban design policies encourage some of these blocks facing north onto Burnhamthorpe Road. While the majority of house form buildings put a wall up against Burnhamthorpe Road, this proposal will provide an opportunity to create a positive street front image as envisioned by the City s policy direction. He opined that the two townhouse blocks oriented west to east along Burnhamthorpe Road do not create a monolithic frontage. As for the roadway, Mr. Glover suggested that the 6-metre roads work fine and it is not important whether the road is 6 or 6.5 metres. He opined that the southern blocks conform to the City s standards for road width. He showed the Board the public open space south of the townhouse blocks and relatively central to the overall townhouse area and from a public safety issue, 12 of the townhouses will look directly onto it. The middle part of the block has other four blocks of townhouses (8, 7, 7 and 6 units respectively) and these lengths are within those recommended by Mississauga in its guidelines. Frontages are created on short streets and the rear access emphasizes the front and creates smaller private space at the rear in the form of a deck. Mr. Glover made extensive reference to the urban design policies of the Mississauga Official Plan (Exhibit 1, Tab 4) including Mississauga will develop

14 PL a compact and orderly urban form; Objective To strengthen the role of urban design in the achievement of the urban form of City; less focus on the numbers and more on compatibility, fit, flexibility; support a high level of transit usage and provide flexibility in land use and building form to address development. Mr. Glover cited these policies as they help to understand the intent of the Plan. While Mr. Duxbury took Mr. Glover to other policies relating to themes of a neighbourhood s distinctiveness ( maintain a distinct identity for each local community and maintain established historic character ), Mr. Glover responded that while this is an attractive neighbourhood, it has no distinct identity from other neighbourhoods built in this era. He added that in terms of a common design theme, one does not find a common distinct design theme here. In terms of scale, it is a low-rise residential neighbourhood and the proposed development is compatible and would satisfy this policy. As for the historic aspect, Mr. Glover said this might apply to other parts of Mississauga that have a distinct historic character but not here. Mr. Glover supported the City s definitions of compatible and enhance and he offered that the aesthetic appearance of the neighbourhood will be enhanced and bring intrinsic value, as in the provision of homes for people and increased value of homes in the area. Mr. Glover opined that the proposal satisfies Sections and of the Plan s Residential policies and the urban design matters of Context (3.15.2); Places (3.15.3); Urban Form (3.15.4); Streetscape (3.15.5); Pedestrian Activity (3.15.6); Spaces (3.15.7); and Scale (3.15.9) and he detailed these policies with his opinions in his witness statement (Exhibit 13 pp.6-9). Mr. Glover also considered the application of the urban design guidelines in the context of the planning process and took issue with the term required as many of the witness statements in opposition stated. Mr. Glover said it is better to recommend than require in that one needs flexibility as the policies state. He said the urban design guidelines have been misconstrued by the City s witnesses as requirements. Regarding Issue 1, Mr. Glover opined that the use of semi-detached homes is appropriate. While the lot sizes on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue for these homes are smaller than the single-family homes on the south side, the difference is largely imperceptible by virtue of the way the semi-detached homes sit on their lots as

15 PL combined buildings. The semi-detached homes will have a combined frontage of 9.74 metres versus metres for the house form building on the south side. He noted that both the building sizes and the lot frontages have characteristics (dimensions) are not problematic). Mr. Glover added that while the semi-detached homes are slightly taller than the single-family homes, the heights are appropriate as they are low rise. The side yard setbacks are also minor and appropriate and provide an appropriate level of visual articulation. The front yard set backs are also appropriate because there is no worry about parking a car off of Pagehurst Avenue and these front yards can be used for landscaping. Mr. Glover opined that the overall differences between the singlefamily homes and the semi-detached homes are minor and the proposed development will create an appropriate building and open space pattern on both sides of the street. This would also create an appropriate urban design transition between the existing neighbourhood and the proposed townhouse development north of the proposed semidetached houses. Regarding Issue 2 and from an urban design perspective, Mr. Glover opined that the proposed setbacks and facing distances between the townhouse rows are appropriate from an urban design perspective to their circumstance based on his experience as they achieve acceptable facing distances and acceptable conditions of light, view and privacy for the future residents. Regarding Issue 3, Mr. Glover opined that the most important issues are the character of the open space between building faces and between building faces and the road pavement. In the case at hand, the change from 20 meters to 17 metres occurs at the curves and is visually and functionally compatible; the proposed open space on the south side is compatible with the adjacent existing open space in terms of character and dimension; the pavement width of the extension is the same as the existing street pavement (at 8 metres); and on the north side the open space improves the pedestrian amenity of the street and is compatible with the church-related open space adjacent. Regarding Issue 7, Mr. Glover opined that from an urban design perspective, the two property owners (Dunpar and Radial) have carried out the appropriate coordination which will result in a coherent and functional site plan. Mr. Glover provided his concluding opinion that although Official Plan and Zoning Amendments are required to permit the proposed development, the urban design of this proposal is appropriate for its urban design context; creates an appropriate relationship

16 PL to its neighbours; it has minimal and acceptable impacts on the adjacent areas; it meets the relevant Official Plan policy objectives concerning urban design; represents good urban design practice on the site; and he recommended approval of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment. The Board also gave consideration to Exhibit 14 which is an artist s rendering of a westerly view along Pagehurst Avenue of the streetscape relationship between the semi-detached homes and the single-family homes. The Board found this depiction to be persuasive of the successful relationship between the transitioning built forms that can be achieved by the proposed development. As Mr. Glover opined, the transition begins with the single-family homes on the south side of Pagehurst Avenue and continues through the southerly and northerly portions of the subject lands. He did not like the City s proposed transition from rear yards of single-family homes onto rear yards of townhouses and he called that plan an inferior one in terms of urban design. The Board determines that Mr. Duxbury s questioning of Mr. Glover did not shake his opinion on the proposed development and how it achieves the City s Official Plan policies. Mr. Glover opined that the Applicant has proposed a more contemporary type of townhouse unit than what is depicted in the City s guidelines in Exhibit 15. Mr. Glover added that in seeking to apply a maximum number of dwellings per townhouse block, the City is making an aggressive use of the guidelines. He countered that one can give consideration to the guidelines as the Plan directs, but they are not a regulatory tool in the same fashion that a Zoning By-law functions. Mr. Duxbury opened the City s case by arguing that the City recognizes that more than single-family dwellings are possible in this area; there is a need for intensification; and the City can tolerate a more intense development on this site but it takes a very different position on the balance of the types of built forms to be constructed. He submitted that more sensitivity must be shown for the interface between the upper level of development and the single-family home that currently exists (in terms of scale, massing and character). Mr. Duxbury argued that only single-family homes should be built along the Pagehurst Avenue extension and that the transition that should take place between the lower and higher densities should occur behind the northerly single-family homes, out of the eye of passers by. Planner Robert Hughes provided planning evidence in opposition to the proposed development. He noted that the City developed its own alternate conceptual

17 PL design for the subject lands in April 2007 after City staff had refused the application. Mr. Hughes detailed that alternate plan (p.173) which proposes a density of 50 units/net hectare, the maximum allowed in the Medium Residential Density I designation, and all townhouse development to take place behind a row of single-family homes (no semidetached homes are proposed). In terms of the upper tier planning instruments, Mr. Hughes concurred with Mr. Smith reading of the relevant excerpts from PPS, from the Growth Plan and from the Region of Peel Plan. He noted that the City s plan is in keeping with the Region s Urban System policy Mr. Hughes disagreed with Messrs. Smith s and Glover s view that standards are flexible and that one must take a flexible approach to modern urban development. Mr. Hughes opined that minimal standards are important because they ensure viable communities and one needs to draw the line because one can end up with inappropriate development; and standards speak to the longevity of the plan as well as to the visual survival of a plan. He said he understands the need to be flexible on a plan but at the same time, the Mississauga Plan does not allow the flexibility sought. Landscape standards are needed to break up the hard surface of a plan and provide areas of enjoyment and good for the environment. Density standards help to avoid an overbuilt condition, allows for green space and a site plan that works. Setback standards provide a visual break and space for the development, allowing movement and maintenance of buildings and room for people to be active. Mr. Hughes also referred to policy (p.36) regarding the scale and massing of the semi-detached homes proposed along Pagehurst Avenue. He opined that the reduction in standards has gone too far and it is the cumulative effect of that reduction that the City opposes. Referring to policy (p.36), Mr. Hughes characterized the development as an intrusion into the neighbourhood ( ). He opined that in respect of the Mississauga Plan s urban design objectives, the scale of the semidetached dwellings is beyond what is in the existing community and as per policy , and this proposed built form does not reinforce the existing scale. The City sought to distinguish between the type of condominium development Dunpar was proposing and suggested various standards apply depending on whether the Applicant is proposing a standard condominium plan or a common element plan. As Mr. Brown correctly noted, however, the type of tenure is irrelevant to the proceedings and the Board has made its determination of the features of this proposal

18 PL in light of the City s planning policies and its guidelines for condominium-type developments. Mr. Hughes opined that with semi-detached dwellings along the north side of Pagehurst Avenue, transition is not achieved as the height and density are too great; the houses will be situated too close together and too close to the street line; and the introduction of semi-detached homes goes in a different direction from what the Mississauga plan envisions. By extension, policy d is not achieved as there is no land use compatibility. Like Messrs. Smith and Glover, Mr. Hughes also referred to Policy Medium and High Density Development: New development should not exceed the height of any existing buildings on the property, and should be further limited in height so as to form a gradual transition in massing when located adjacent to low density residential development. Buildings immediately adjacent to low density housing forms should be limited to 3 storeys. In situations where the low density housing forms are separated from the high density development by a public road, park, utility corridor or other permanent open space feature, 4 to 5 storeys may be compatible. However, Mr. Hughes opined that this policy does not apply because it is meant for situations where a building already exists. Messrs. Smith and Glover made reference to the latter part of this policy only. Mr. Brown said that a strict interpretation of this policy would mean that the Applicant would first have to erect a bungalow on the subject property in order to comply with this policy. Mr. Hughes countered that the policy is not clearly written and he said one should interpret it to apply to situations such as a tower in the park. Mr. Brown said no such interpretation can reasonably be had from a reading of this policy. The Board has determined that the policy cannot be read in portions (such as the Applicant s witnesses relying on the latter portion) or on the City s suggestion as to what types of situations are supposed to be covered by it. The Board will not consider Policy regarding medium densities in assessing the appropriateness of the application before it as both the Applicant and the City were unable to provide a persuasive interpretation of its application to the proposed development. As for Issue 1, Mr. Hughes opined that the north side of Pagehurst Avenue should not be developed with semi-detached dwellings because the massing and rhythm of those buildings will not be in scale or harmony with nearby existing detached

19 PL dwellings; the setbacks are inappropriate; and the density is beyond what is contemplated in the Mississauga Plan which provides for a maximum of 17 units per hectare. Mr. Hughes also took the Board through the Common Element Road Condominium Dwelling Zone Regulations (Exhibit 24) and the Proposed Zoning Standards for townhouses (Exhibit 1, Tab 9, p.153). Despite his concerns that the Applicant s proposed semi-detached houses and townhouses do not meet the City s standards, the Board notes that the City of Mississauga has approved other condominium developments that also did not meet these minimum standards. In respect of Issue 2, Mr. Hughes opined that the density be capped for the townhouses at 50 units versus 68 units per hectare. He said the landscaped open space should be at 20% but the Applicant is only proposing 23.4% on the surface (although the City considers it appropriate to add the deck space to achieve the proposed 33.5%). While the Applicant has proposed a 3-metre setback of the townhouse blocks from Burnhamthorpe Road, Mr. Hughes opined that a minimum of 4.5 metres be required to provide an appropriate transition to Burnhamthorpe Road; to accommodate room for safe ingress/egress from the townhouses; and room for street tree planting, growth and servicing. Mr. Hughes opined that the road width of 17 metres as proposed does not represent good planning. He also spoke to Issue 6 and the conditions of approval for the draft plan of subdivision (Exhibit 1, Tab 19). Mr. Hughes suggested that Condition 3 be changed to leave the details of draft plan requirements to the City to decide as is part of the City s customary practice. The Applicant has alternately proposed that the latter part of this condition read as follows: The details of these requirements shall be consistent with the plans as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board. As the Board is hearing the case at hand and must make its final determination in these matters, the Board accepts the Applicant s proposed wording for condition 3 to the Draft Plan of Subdivision. Mr. Hughes was critical of the Applicant s photographs of other developments as contained in Exhibit 10 by stating that pictures do not always give the full context, like the width of the street and what is located across the street. Mr. Brown noted that the townhouses proposed by the City are actually taller than what the Applicant has proposed. The City has proposed a transition of 10.7 metres to 13.6 metres from the north single-family homes to the rear townhouses. The

20 PL Board notes that the proposed transition from the semi-detached homes to the singlefamily homes is less than what the City has proposed for the single-family homes to the townhouses. The Applicant has proposed a lesser difference across Pagehurst Avenue in terms of height than what the City has proposed for a backyard to backyard condition. The Board noted that Mr. Hughes did not take issue with the height of the proposed semi-detached homes. While Mr. Brown pointed out that both Mr. Hughes and the City s urban design planner had made recommendations for semi-detached homes along the proposed road connection, and Mr. Brown noted nothing has changed in the planning regime, the Board accepts the evidence of Mr. Hughes and the urban design planner that they did not have the benefit of a site plan and they had not yet made a full and comprehensive review of the Applicant s proposal before them when they recommended semi-detached homes. The Board takes no negative inference with this explanation. Erinma Chibututu, an urban design planner since January 2004, provided urban design evidence in opposition to the application. She reviewed the Mississauga Plan s urban design policies. She opined that the Applicant s design creates an abrupt end to the streetscape of the established neighbourhood. She said that nothing on the north side of the connection road reinforces the scale of the community which also includes the human scale. She also opined that the townhouses facing out to Burnhamthorpe Road should have a minimum landscaped front yard that provides a 4.5-metre setback and a boulevard. She opined that the proposed 2.1-metre setback for the semidetached dwellings along Pagehurst Avenue, especially adjacent to the 12.4-metre height, is inappropriate. Ms Chibututu referenced several policies dealing with the importance of a neighbourhood s character. Ms Chibututu disagreed with Messrs. Smith and Glover s reading of the design guidelines. She opined that a greater number of units per townhouse block create greater visual redundancy as well as monotony. She opposed the 1.5-metre break between the buildings and said this distance is insufficient to provide the visual relief that the City requires. She suggested a distance of 4.84 metres is more appropriate. Ms Chibututu opined that a 20-metre road width will preserve the character of the area. She opined that the collective effect of the Applicant s proposal is what creates the problem. She agreed that Pagehurst Avenue is a zone of transition but semi-

21 PL detached homes are not an appropriate building response type as it reduces the front yard setbacks to 2.1 metres from 4.5 metres. Ms Chibututu also disagreed with the proposed townhouse design. She opined that the development does not achieve the intended urban design goals and objectives and principles of infill development as expressed in the Mississauga Plan, its design guidelines and design reference notes. Mr. Brown noted that there is no Official Plan policy or zoning requirement that states that one cannot have more than a certain number of units in a townhouse block and that the City s number is a guideline only. Mr. Brown also noted that the City has previously approved other designs in the City including 17-metre-wide public roads. Mr. Brown was also surprised that Ms Chibututu held the view that the City s proposed development, showing townhouses backing onto single-family homes, is appropriate. Darren Morita is a Development Engineering Technician for the City of Mississauga with expertise in the road design standards for the City of Mississauga. He spoke about the proposed road connection. The City wants 20 metres while the Applicant proposes 17 metres. Pavement width transitions from 8.8 to 8.5 from Pagehurst Avenue to Silverplains Drive remain relatively constant. Mr. Morita was concerned that a sidewalk is only proposed on one side of the street. He told the Board that the City has a 17-metre standard but this is used for cul-de-sacs, buffer roads and other limited applications. He opined that a north sidewalk will not fit and will conflict with the required utility corridor (there will be no utility corridor on the north side but he noted that it will be up to the utility companies to approve it). Mr. Morita acknowledged that the proposed roads will operate safely. He also acknowledged for Mr. Brown other examples in the City where it has allowed dish drainage systems for the roads, whether at 7 or 5 metres and these work. The Board was shown an example in Port Credit Village (Exhibit 10, picture 24). Mr. Morita noted that the City does not use dish drainage anymore as concrete is used for its greater rigidity over asphalt. Stephen Field appeared under summons as Supervisor of waste collection (since 1994) for the Region of Peel. He reviewed the proposed development and expressed a concern that a garbage truck would have to back up the full length of the northerly internal road of the complex (approximately metres) because the road will have a dead end with no provision for turnaround. Referring to one of the aerial photographs, however, Mr. Field told Mr. Brown that in theory, the Region s garbage trucks likely have

22 PL a greater distance to back up when collecting garbage along the existing Silverplains Drive which is a dead end public road (although there may be opportunities for a threepoint reverse turn but Mr. Field was unsure about that possibility on Silverplains Drive). The new extended road will provide a connection to Pagehurst Avenue as has been explained, removing the need for that back up movement on Silverplains Drive. As for the garbage collection along the northerly internal road, the Board notes that such examples exist in other residential developments and the reverse manoeuvre can be completed by many vehicles of varying sizes, including garbage trucks. The Board notes that despite the City s indication that it prefers not to have private garbage pickup service, such service is possible and as Mr. Glover noted, garbage arrangements can be satisfactorily arranged at the site plan stage and this aspect of service does not present a sufficient reason to deny the proposed development. Several interested participants spoke in opposition to the application and these area residents provided their speaking notes to the Board for its consideration. The three residents provided detailed reasons for their objection to the Dunpar development and expressed their preference for the City s alternate concept design for the subject lands. Andrew Schmaus is the president of the Fleetwood Village Homeowners Association which encompasses over 210 homes and 500 residents. Mr. Schmaus provide the Board with a thoughtful presentation and explained that residents want the road connection completed with single-family homes on both sides of it in order to be consistent with the neighbourhood s character. He told the Board that single-family homes on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue will meet City guidelines and represent intelligent planning. Lane Steinhauer provided an overview of the proposal from a resident s perspective by means of a visual presentation that showed various homes in the surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Steinhauer also supported the City s alternate concept proposal. James Nicoll is secretary of the Fleetwood Village Homeowners Association and he shared the concerns of the other two interested participants. Mr. Nicoll also spoke at length on his interpretation of the concept of intensification and how it should be applied to the subject lands. Mr. Nicoll accused the Applicant of exhibiting a total disregard for the neighbourhood in offering its proposal. The Board assigns no weight to that comment. As the Board noted, all Parties agreed that the Applicant is a skilled

23 PL developer who possesses substantial experience in Ontario homebuilding and who is known for quality finishes and constructing similar high-quality developments that work well in Mississauga and beyond the City s borders. City Counsel Mr. Duxbury characterized the policies contained in the Mississauga Plan as having themes of compatibility, scale, massing and intensification that contribute to the character of the community. He submitted that the character is the aggregate of the features and attributes. Unlike the urban environment portrayed in the visual examples of 1100 Islington Avenue and Port Credit Village, he said that this neighbourhood is not such an environment and it has its own character, and this proposal is out of character with the neighbourhood. He submitted that the most important and sensitive issue for the City in this case was how best to complete the Pagehurst Avenue connection. The challenge, he said, was to measure the impact of the proposed semi-detached housing on one side of the new street in an area of single-family housing. He argued that the City concept was a more acceptable one since it provides greater setbacks, creates openness and more space and pushes the transition that has to occur into the townhouse development. Juxtaposing semis onto Pagehurst Avenue for the neighbourhood interface is the wrong place for that transition to happen he argued as the semi-detached homes will have no form of engagement with the neighbourhood. Mr. Duxbury argued that Messrs. Glover and Smith saw this as a design exercise and had little regard for standards. He argued that a municipality has standards and policies that create a certain fabric for what is intended to be built. It was Mr. Duxbury s contention that if this were only a design exercise, one could simply disregard the Mississauga Plan. He submitted that a request to change Mississauga s vision and the Applicant s case must be compelling. The standards deliver certain important features of light, openness, space and are planning and urban-designed based features of the Mississauga Plan. Mr. Duxbury submitted that the townhouse development is over development of the subject lands. He argued there has been adverse impact on the character and the visual aspect of the neighbourhood and the homes create a wall from many perspectives.

24 PL The Board has considered all of the evidence before it and determines that the proposed development does not undermine the character of the surrounding neighbourhood. Further, the development makes an efficient use of the subject lands. The Board also determines that the proposed development implements the relevant policies of the Mississauga Plan. In this regard, the Board preferred the evidence of the Applicant s two witnesses to those of the City. In respect of the planning evidence, Mr. Smith provided the Board with a more persuasive interpretation of the relevant policies of all of the planning documents. His reading of the policies as they relate to the proposal demonstrated persuasively that the proposed development represents appropriate intensification of the subject lands and introduces a thoughtful and workable design that presents an acceptable transition between the existing older neighbourhood and the newer higher density homes to the north of the Pagehurst Avenue connection with Silverplains Drive. The Board agrees with the City that the concept of townhouses along the north side of the proposed road connection is undesirable as these blocks would be situated directly across from single-family homes on the south side of Pagehurst Avenue and this would not provide an appropriate transition. However, the Board does not consider the City s alternative to be a viable one in that it places single-family homes on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue but backing directly onto townhouses. This also does not create an appropriate transition in the Board s view one supported by Mr. Smith s planning evidence. The diversity in the two built forms single-family homes versus townhouses juxtaposed together on these lands and in this manner, would create an inappropriate and unattractive separation of the subject lands into two distinct halves: one half that simply continues the single-family built form along Pagehurst Avenue with no sense of the broader new development to the north, and the other half that creates a northerly enclave of townhouses that provides no transition to the homes to the south. Further, it is evident that the City and some residents who spoke wish to see a different type of transition occurring along Pagehurst Avenue than what the Applicant has proposed. The residents would support a continuation of only single-family homes along both sides of the road connection but in the Board s review of the evidence, and as stated above, this only serves to create what might be called a separate and distinct community in the northerly portion of the subject property. This then leaves the Board to consider the appropriate type of transition to occur in the form of the semi-detached homes on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue as proposed. The Board determines this

25 PL built form to be an appropriate and successful approach to linking the entire development to the community through the provision of a gradual transition from singlefamily homes through semi-detached units to townhouses. As Mr. Glover noted in his urban design evidence, neighbourhoods and communities evolve. The introduction of semi-detached homes and townhouses represents the evolution of this neighbourhood in response to the needs of a growing City population and a desire for choice in built form in both new and older communities. Neither the City nor the residents who spoke provided any persuasive evidence to the Board to identify this community as distinct or that it has special features or attributes that prevent the construction of semi-detached houses along Pagehurst Avenue or the consideration of contemporary and/or designbased approaches to the development of the lands such as the Applicant has provided. Moreover, the Applicant proposed the semi-detached built form in response to the residents concern that townhouses had been originally proposed along Pagehurst Avenue. The Board determines the semi-detached homes to be an acceptable response by the Applicant to their concerns within the bounds of the City s policies and guidelines. Neither the City nor the residents provided any compelling reason to polarize the subject property by using two distinct built forms to separate it. In doing so, the Board determines that the placement of single-family homes back to back with a higher density built form does not create an appropriate transition. Rather, the Board determines the Applicant s use of semi-detached homes along the north side of Pagehurst Avenue to achieve the City s urban design objectives, create a more acceptable transition, links more cohesively the varied built forms proposed over the whole of the lands, contributes to the evolution of the community and safeguards the larger neighbourhood s character as a stable residential community. In the Board s view, these are important benefits to the Applicant s development proposal that cumulatively represent good planning for the subject lands. Mr. Brown argued that the City s witnesses provided no evidence that the proposal demonstrates adverse impacts or that the development is inappropriate. Mr. Duxbury countered that the adverse impact is on the character of the neighbourhood. The Board has made its finding that the character of the neighbourhood is unaffected by this development. Practically speaking, the neighbourhood cannot remain static. The fact that the original plan for these lands was 27 single-family homes is irrelevant and represents in the Board s view a concept out of step with the reality of increased

26 PL population growth, a provincial policy that promotes intensification and new approaches to design and built form. Even as it was evidenced to the Board, the design of the road system in the 1960s contemplated linkages of the various roads at some future date to provide for the growth and expansion of the neighbourhood. The City and the residents have provided no persuasive evidence to suggest that in linking up the roadways through the neighbourhood, only single-family homes can exist along the streets. If the Applicant were only developing along street fronts, the Board might say that the character is maintained by continuing the single-family home on both sides of the connection and stop there. However, this is not the case. The Applicant is in fact developing beyond the street front to the whole property, creating several inner roads and creating built forms facing out to Burnhamthorpe Road East to the north. It is a larger land development with faces on several streets; it is situated next to a large religious facility; its design contemplates and accommodates the future development of the western lands (as the Board heard, another higher density development is proposed); and it presents workable and acceptable transitions not only within the property but also to the adjacent low-density residential neighbourhood. Clearly, it is reasonable to contemplate an evolving planning approach as well as an evolving nature of house design, construction, landscape and aesthetic built form appeal as the City grows without undermining the character of the area in which it sits. In the case of this proposal, the development is workable, attractive, and responsive to the City s policies and standards while introducing flexibility to recognize the changing face of development in the context of this community yet protecting its residential feel and character. As for the Pagehurst Avenue connection to Silverplains Drive, the widths as proposed are acceptable and workable and most importantly, will function safely. There is no issue with traffic volume and Mr. Morita was forthright in agreeing that the public road and the internal roads will be safe and will meet the required parking standards. Most compelling for the Board was Exhibit 14 that presented an artist s rendering of how the semi-detached homes will relate to the proposed single-family homes along Pagehurst Avenue. Even disregarding the illustrated depiction of mature vegetation and plantings (although the landscape will mature and develop over time), the homes stand as attractive built forms in relation to one another today and will enhance the character of the street in the Board s view. As stated, the Board finds the semi-detached homes on the north side of the street to transition more effectively to the northerly townhouses than would single-family homes. The Board also found Exhibit 14 to be more

27 PL persuasive than Ms Chibututu s geometric rendering of how semi-detached homes might look along the street. In addition to getting the actual number of proposed dwellings wrong on the rendering, the Board was not satisfied that hers was an accurate portrayal of the built form appearance on the street, although Ms Chibututu stated that she used numbers provided by the Applicant. The Board has preferred the Applicant s visual depiction of the streetscape to that of the City for these reasons. Regarding Issue 1, the Board determines that semi-detached homes are an appropriate and compatible built form on the north side of Pagehurst Avenue, and the proposed townhouses are an appropriate built form beyond this area of transition. There are no negative impacts on adjacent and existing detached homes in terms of shadowing, rear yard privacy or loss of view. In terms of the proposed development standards, the Board finds the 12-metre frontages for the single-family homes to be appropriate, as is the R4 (12) zoning category in Zoning By-law The reduction in the minimum lot area from 365 square metres to 325 square metres is derived from the proposed lot depth of metres versus the 30.4-metre standard in the R4 (12) zoning category. These depths are appropriate as the category s minimum front and rear yard setbacks are provided. As Mr. Smith wrote, while the depth of the dwelling is less than what would be permitted on a deeper lot, there is no impact on adjacent properties. The Board determines the single front yard setback exception (all others will meet the 6-metre standard) in the case of Lot 7 is solely the result of the curvature of the proposed Pagehurst Avenue connection. The Board agreed with Messrs. Smith and Glover that it was better to reduce this one home s front yard slightly to appear visually and aesthetically in harmony with the roadway s curvature at the front, rather to line up the home at the rear yard. The Board noted an interesting divergence of views regarding the appropriateness of standards, with the Applicant s witnesses preferring a more contemporary and urban, design-based approach to their assessment versus the City s analysis of the proposal in light of the established suburban approach to this older neighbourhood. On this point, the Board has preferred the more design-based approach of the Applicant s witnesses to the development proposal and determines the City s witnesses interpretation to be too rigid and inflexible with no sufficient reason to do so. In essence, the City analyzed the proposal in the context of another time where

28 PL standards where developed for another predominant built form large single-family homes on large lots with generous setbacks. This approach to the design at hand is neither supportable nor sustainable in the Board s view. One must have regard for the evolving nature of neighbourhoods and communities and it is indeed possible to introduce and apply a flexible approach to standards that ultimately realizes a more contemporary and intense design that can also maintain the character of the adjacent neighbourhood. The Board determines the more contemporary and urban, designbased approach employed to be appropriate for this development and prefers it to the suburban approach used by the City s witnesses. In respect of the proposed side yard setback reduction from 4.5 to 1.2 metres, the Board accepts the Applicant s witnesses both opined that the 4.5-metre standard in the existing R4 (12) zoning category is based on the aforementioned suburban approach with wide corner lots and large flankage yards that typically serve no functional purpose. The Board determines these reduced setbacks to be appropriate as they facilitate the Applicant s provision of wider 12.5-metre-wide lots across the southern limit of the plan instead of the typical 12-metre-wide lots. The heights are appropriate as presented and acceptable for the proposed development and the City s planners did not take issue with the heights. In respect of the townhouses, the proposed standards are appropriate and the proposed front yard setbacks of 3 metres along Burnhamthorpe Road and the 2.1-metre setback of the semi-detached homes along the north side of Pagehurst Avenue are appropriate and will contribute to a pleasant and positive streetscape relationship as already evidenced. The main entrances face the respective streets, they provide strong pedestrian connections and the setbacks are, in the Board s determination, consistent with the urban design policies of the Mississauga Plan. Setbacks of 4.5 metres as the City s witnesses suggested would be unable to effectively accommodate landscaping and servicing, especially in combination with the adjacent boulevards within the public road right-of-way. Regarding Issue 3, the Board determines the 17-metre right-of-way to be appropriate for the reasons already stated. Regarding Issue 6, the Board determines the conditions for draft plan approval as evidenced in Exhibit 1, Tab 19 to be appropriate and will be attached to approval of the development proposal.

29 PL Lastly, regarding Issue 7, the Board determines solely from the evidence proffered that appropriate arrangements have been made to coordinate the Applicant s proposal with Radial s proposed future development of their lands to the immediate west regarding matters of street access, servicing layout, maintenance and the exchange of lots. The Board determines that the Applicant s proposed development will be compatible with the proposed Radial development and has been designed to provide for appropriate relationships in terms of internal roadways, access points and built form. Having considered all of the evidence, the Board prefers the planning and urban design evidence of the Applicant s planners to that of the witnesses in opposition. The Board determines that the Official Plan Amendment to change the designation of the subject parcel of land from Low Residential Density I to Medium Residential Density II is appropriate, as is the site-specific policy applicable to those lands and to the parcel to the south of the site which will remain designated Residential Low Density I. For the reasons stated, the Board approves the proposed development and allows the appeals, amends the Mississauga Official Plan as per the proposed Official Plan Amendment in Exhibit 1, Tab 17, amends Zoning By-law 5500 as per the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment in the same Exhibit at Tab 18 and attaches the conditions for draft plan approval as outlined in the same Exhibit at Tab 19. The site plan will implement this proposal. The Board may be spoken to in respect of any issues arising from the site plan up to 45 days after the issuance of this decision. The Member will remain seized for this purpose alone. So orders the Board. R. Rossi R. ROSSI MEMBER

30 PL060571

31 PL060571

32 PL060571

33 PL060571