planning, design and development committee minutes for

Minutes Planning, Design and

Development Committee

Members Present:

Members Absent:

Staff Present:

Committee of the Council of The Corporation of the City of Brampton

June 13, 2011

Regional Councillor P. Palleschi – Wards 2 and 6 (Chair) City Councillor V. Dhillon – Wards 9 and 10 (Vice-Chair) (left at

2:35 p.m.) Regional Councillor E. Moore – Wards 1 and 5 Regional Councillor J. Sanderson – Wards 3 and 4 Regional Councillor G. Miles – Wards 7 and 8 Regional Councillor S. Hames – Wards 7 and 8 Regional Councillor J. Sprovieri – Wards 9 and 10 City Councillor G. Gibson – Wards 1 and 5 City Councillor J. Hutton – Wards 2 and 6 City Councillor B. Callahan – Wards 3 and 4

nil

Planning, Design and Development Department J. Corbett, Commissioner, Planning, Design and Development A. Smith, Director, Planning Policy and Growth Management D. Kraszewski, Director, Planning and Land Development

Services M. Won, Director, Engineering and Development Services K. Walsh, Director, Community Design, Parks Planning and

Development K. Ash, Manager, Development Services P. Snape, Manager, Development Services D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy H. Zbogar, Manager, Long Range Transportation Planning N. Nykyforchyn, Development Planner P. Aldunate, Development Planner T. Theocharidis, Development Planner P. Cooper, Policy Planner N. D’Sousa, Policy Planner J. Tang, Development Planner

Corporate Services Department S. Navascues, Legal Counsel E. Evans, Deputy Clerk C. Urquhart, Legislative Coordinator S. Pacheco, Legislative Coordinator

MINUTES Planning, Design and Development Committee

The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m., and adjourned at 11:08 p.m.

After due consideration of the matters placed before this Committee, the members beg leave to present its report as follows:

Item Recommendation

A. PDD112-2011 Approval of Agenda

B. Conflicts of Interest

C. Consent

D1. PDD113-2011 Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Korsiak & Company – Your Home Developments (Howden) Corporation – South-west corner of Dixie Road and Howden Boulevard – Ward 8 (File C03E07.012)

D2. PDD114-2011 Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Daniels LR Corporation – Davis Webb LLP – South-east corner of McVean Drive and Castlemore Road – Ward 10 (File C09E10.007)

D3. PDD115-2011 City of Brampton Initiated Proposed Official Plan Amendment to Implement the Vales of Humber Secondary and Block Plan – Mayfield Road to the north, Countryside Drive to the south, The Gore Road to the east and the West Humber River to the west – Ward 10 (File P26S 050

D4. PDD116-2011 Application to Amend the Zoning By-law – Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. – Kaneff Properties Limited – North of Highway 407 and west of Financial Drive – Ward 6 (File T04W13.008)

D5. PDD117-2011 Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. – Victor Szumlanski – 9610 McLaughlin Road – South-west corner of Williams Parkway and McLaughlin Road North – Ward 5 (File C02W09.011).

D6. PDD118-2011 City of Brampton Initiated Housekeeping Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 270-2004 – Kennedy Road South – Ward 3 (File P26S KE

2011 06 13 of 53


D7. PDD119-2011 Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Gagnon & Law Urban Planners Ltd. – c/o Peel Standard Condominium #767 – East of the Gore Road and North of Fogal Road – Ward 10 (File C10E05.018).

E1. PDD120-2011 MTO GTA-West Corridor Environmental Assessment (EA) – Response to Draft Transportation Development (File N01) (See Item G4).

E2. PDD127-2011 Amendments to Building By-law 387-2006 (File G02) (See Item I1)

E3. PDD128-2011 Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Royalwest Developments Inc. – 9435-9525 Mississauga Road – Ward 6 (File G02) (See Item I2).

E4. PDD129-2011 Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Hilton Garden Inn – 2648 Steeles Avenue East – Ward 8 (File G02) (See Item I3).

E5. PDD130-2011 Proposed New Pool Enclosure By-law (File G02) (See Item I4).

F1. PDD121-2011 Application to Amend the Zoning By-law and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision – Glen Schnarr and Associates Inc. – Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto, Canada – 8530 Chinguacousy Road – South of Queen Street West and West of Chinguacousy Road – Ward 6 (File C03W03.011)

F2. PDD122-2011 Application to Amend the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision – KLM Planning Partners Inc. – Garden Manor Construction Inc. – Sandringham Place Inc. – Wolverleigh Construction Ltd. – 655339 Ontario Inc. – Southwest corner of Dixie Road and Mayfield Road (File C03E16.002)

F3. PDD123-2011 City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Public Uses – All Wards (File: C111.002 )

G1. PDD124-2011 Proposed Norval Rezoning Application and Aggregate Resource License Application on-going Review – East side of Winston Churchill Boulevard, north of Old Pine Crest Road – Ward 6 (File C06W12.002)

2011 06 13 of 53


G2. PDD125-2011 Request to Initiate an Official Plan Amendment to Designate a Special Policy Area in the Bram East Secondary Plan – Southeast corner of the Gore Road and Ebenezer Road – Ward 10 (File P26 S41).

G3. PDD126-2011 Mississauga Road and Steeles Avenue West Gateway Beautification Program – Cost Sharing Arrangement – Ward 6 (File R17)

G4. MTO GTA-West Corridor Environmental Assessment (EA) – Response to Draft Transportation Development (File N01) (See Item E1).

H. Committee of Adjustment Reports

I1. PDD127-2011 Amendments to Building By-law 387-2006 (File G02) (See Item E2)

I2. PDD128-2011 Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Royalwest Developments Inc. – 9435-9525 Mississauga Road – Ward 6 (File G02) (See Item E3).

I3. PDD129-2011 Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Hilton Garden Inn – 2648 Steeles Avenue East – Ward 8 (File G02) (See Item E4).

I4. PDD130-2011 Proposed New Pool Enclosure By-law (File G02) (See Item E5).

J. Community Design - Parks Planning and Development Reports

K1. PDD131-2011 Subdivision Assumption – Dennison Avenue Extension Subdivision – Registered Plans 43M-1690 and 43R-29318 – North of Nelson Street between Haggert Avenue and McMurchy Avenue – Ward 5 (File C01W06.019)

K2. PDD132-2011 Subdivision Assumption – Lockspur Estates Subdivision – Registered Plan 43M-1737 – West side of The Gore Road between Cottrelle Boulevard and Castlemore Road – Ward 10 (File C09E09.002)

K3. PD133-2011 Subdivision Assumption – Brampton Summit Homes Subdivision – Registered Plan 43M-1703 – South-east corner of Williams Parkway and Chinguacousy Road – Ward 5 (File C02W08.005)

2011 06 13 of 53


L1. PDD134-2011 Brampton Heritage Board – May 17, 2011

M. Other/New Business/Unfinished Business

N1. PDD135-2011 List of Referred Reports – Planning, Design and Development Committee.

O. Deferred Matters

P. Notice of Motion

Q. PDD136-2011 Correspondence

R. Question Period

S. Public Question Period

T. Closed Session

U. PDD137-2011 Adjournment

_ Regional Councillor P. Palleschi, Chair

2011 06 13 of 53


A. Approval of the Agenda

PDD112-2011 That the agenda for the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, be approved, as amended as follows:

To add correspondence from the following re: Item D 1: Jim and Sheila Williamson, 17 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton Jagtar Ghuman Sean and Carol McCafferty, 5 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton John and Rebecca Altamira, 85 Hillside Drive, Brampton Arthur Gouge, 18 Lindhurst Street, Brampton Irene and Bob Osborne, 15 Lindhurst Street, Brampton Naquib Ekdawi, 42 Linden Crescent, Brampton Bruce Herman/Barb Millar, 12 Hawthorn Crescent, Brampton Leslie Brafield Robin Sandhu Mike and Helen Branov, 7 Heath Drive, Brampton Len Gilmore Dean Lising, 9 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton Harpreet Kaur, 61 Lord Simcoe Drive Jeff Gilmore, 7 Riggs Drive, Brampton S. Jeevanandam, 14 Langley Place, Brampton Deborah and Barry Hemmerling, 27 Hillside Drive, Brampton William C. Schultz, 1 Leander Street, Brampton Sarah-Anne Mitchell, 112 Lord Simcoe Drive, Brampton

To add correspondence from the following re: Item D 3 Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd., on

behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Jasvil Gill, 7377 Mayfield Road, Brampton

To add correspondence from the following re: Item D 7 Robert Blunt, Fraser Millner Casgrain, Toronto, on behalf of

landowner to the south of proposal - DDR Holborn Brampton GP

Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd., Brampton, on behalf of Peel Standard Condominium Corporation #767

To add correspondence from the following re: Item G 2 Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd.,

Brampton, on behalf of Peel Standard Condominium Corporation #767

Carried

2011 06 13 of 53


B. Conflicts of Interest

B 1. Regional Councillor John Sanderson declared a conflict of interest with respect to Items E 1 and G 4 as his parents’ estate is the owner of lands within the GTA West Corridor study area.

B 2. Regional Councillor Elaine Moore declared a conflict of interest with respect to Item I 4 as her husband has filed a Committee of Adjustment application that requires a pool enclosure permit.

C. Consent

* The following items listed with an asterisk (*) were considered to be routine and non-controversial by the Committee and were approved at one time.

(F 1, F 2, F 3, G 1, G 3, K 1, K 2, K 3, L 1, N 1, Q 1) (Item G 2 was removed from Consent)

D. Statutory Public Meeting Reports

D 1. Report from K. Ash, Manager, Development Services, and T. Theocharidis, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Korsiak & Company – Your Home Developments (Howden) Corporation – South-west corner of Dixie Road and Howden Boulevard – Ward 8 (File C03E07.012).

The Chair acknowledged correspondence from the following residents expressing concerns regarding the subject proposal: Jim and Sheila Williamson, 17 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton Jagtar Ghuman Sean and Carol McCafferty, 5 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton John and Rebecca Altamira, 85 Hillside Drive, Brampton Arthur Gouge, 18 Lindhurst Street, Brampton Irene and Bob Osborne, 15 Lindhurst Street, Brampton Naquib Ekdawi, 42 Linden Crescent, Brampton Bruce Herman/Barb Millar, 12 Hawthorn Crescent, Brampton Leslie Brafield Robin Sandhu Mike and Helen Branov, 7 Heath Drive, Brampton Len Gilmore Dean Lising, 9 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton Harpreet Kaur, 61 Lord Simcoe Drive, Brampton

2011 06 13 of 53


Jeff Gilmore, 7 Riggs Drive, Brampton S. Jeevanandam, 14 Langley Place, Brampton Deborah and Barry Hemmerling, 27 Hillside Drive, Brampton William C. Schultz, 1 Leander Street, Brampton Sarah-Anne Mitchell, 112 Lord Simcoe Drive, Brampton

Members of the public requested a presentation on this item.

Jim Levac, Korsiak and Company, presented the proposal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit 81 stacked townhouse dwelling units at the subject site. He explained that the application was initially submitted in 2009 and revised in April 2011 and now proposes 8 smaller blocks of townhouses which he described as high end units. He highlighted the characteristics of the property and provided a description of the surrounding land uses. He provided details on the proposed setbacks, parking, and the road configuration. He noted that the site will be accessed from Howden Boulevard with an emergency access from Dixie Road.

Toula Theocharidis, Development Planner, City of Brampton, provided details of the current land use designation for the subject lands. She confirmed that an amendment to the Secondary Plan for the area is required to accommodate the proposed density and an amendment to the Zoning By-law is required to facilitate the proposal. The applicant has submitted several studies in support of the proposal which is still under review and available to the public for viewing. Staff will consider all the studies and the comments that are provided at this meeting and report back with a future recommendation report to Committee.

Following the presentations, residents addressed Committee as noted below.

Eric Kelday, 20 Langley Place, Brampton: commented that 4 different applications have been submitted on the

subject site questioned the size of the proposed units as it was not mentioned he has spoken to several area residents about the subject proposal

and they are unanimous in their objection to the proposed development which is not consistent with the existing community

the proposed structures are too tall for the site and will tower over the existing two storey homes

it is evident that the area is too small for the number of people anticipated for the site

the proposed units are too close to the existing property lines

2011 06 13 of 53


Howden Boulevard is very busy and the additional vehicles this proposal will generate will create further traffic congestion and possibly accidents at the intersection of Howden Boulevard and Dixie Road

safety of children who cross the road to walk to school should be considered

questioned the location of the emergency access and why it is necessary

suggested that reasonable single or semi-detached homes be considered for the site

Davinder Mangat, 11 Hazelwood Court, Brampton: the ‘Bramalea Woods’ area is an upscale residential community and a

proposal for 81 condominium town houses is inappropriate and out of character in the neighbourhood

proposed units are too close to the existing property lines questioned whether there will be a buffer zone between the proposed

units and the existing community suggested that no more than five single detached dwellings be

considered for the site will submit a petition to staff at a later date

Chris Skinner, 16 Langley Place, Brampton: he has lived there for 25 years and seen many changes the ‘Bramalea Woods’ area is an upscale residential neighbourhood

and a proposal for 81 condominium town houses is inappropriate and seems ‘extreme’ for the existing surroundings

wildlife on the subject lands will be in danger

Sean and Angela Hayes, 10 Langley Place: alarmed that a proposal of 81 residential units is being proposed for an

area of 3.8 acres which is zoned low density alarmed that an emergency exit is required and questioned whether

this is because of negative impacts anticipated in schools expressed concerns about traffic and safety of children at the busy

intersection of Dixie Road and Howden Boulevard this proposal is not the vision intended for ‘Bramalea Woods’

Dave Sheard, 98 Leeward Drive, Brampton: commented on the number of accidents at intersection of Dixie Road

and Howden Boulevard because it is so busy cars with noisy stereos travel at high speeds through the area Peel Regional police are constantly contacted to regulate traffic due to

volume

2011 06 13 of 53


referenced a similar type of development application on the south side of Vodden Street East and Laurelcrest Street that was refused by the City and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board

a proposal for 81 condominium stacked town houses is inappropriate and out of character in the neighbourhood

residents would welcome some greenspace in the community suggested a mix of 25 single detached residential units and a

commercial development such as the one at 375 Howden Boulevard would be more appropriate for the site

Walter Mikoleit, 11 Heath Drive, Brampton: exiting his driveway is difficult because of traffic volume described the design of the proposed structure as ‘awful’ and (likened)

compared it to a military tower at the entrance of the community the lands are designated low density and the designation should be

maintained moved to ‘Bramalea Woods’ because it is beautiful, well maintained

with highly priced homes; he feels as if he is living in the country in a City

consider the impact of the proposal on traffic and safety in the community

property values will deteriorate if this proposal is approved

Michael Branov, 7 Heath Drive, Brampton: expressed displeasure at the subject proposal ‘Bramalea Woods’ is a unique, mature and well established

neighbourhood and a high density town house proposal is inappropriate and out of character in the neighbourhood

questioned what amenities are available for children who are anticipated to move into the area

applicant stated that the proposed town houses are intended for empty nesters, but empty nesters do not want to climb stairs in 3-storey homes

stated that the applicant is conspiring with Members of Council on the application

traffic congestion at Howden Boulevard and Dixie Road is already a major concern and this proposal will create additional difficulty

Robert Nolan, 5 Heath Drive, Brampton: ‘Bramalea Woods’ is a nice and quiet neighbourhood that he enjoys;

he can hear the wildlife the quality of life and current density of the existing neighbourhood

should be maintained and this will attract professionals to the area he pays high taxes and he loves his home, however he will move if the

proposal is approved

2011 06 13 of 53


concerns about traffic as non-residents use the quiet streets in ‘Bramalea Woods’ as a thoroughfare to avoid the traffic congestion on Howden Boulevard and Dixie Road

the traffic patterns will change more dramatically once the proposal is approved as non-residents will enter Hazelwood Drive and travel through the subdivision at high speeds, making it difficult for residents to exit their driveways

Dean Lising, 9 Hazelwood Court, Brampton: traffic congestion makes Howden Boulevard and Dixie Road a

challenging intersection the high density proposal will add to the traffic congestion and become

more challenging for the community residents there are no sidewalks or speed bumps in ‘Bramalea Woods’ area residents and children often walk on the streets and additional

traffic in the area will become a safety issue he supports intensification as long as it does not adversely impact the

community referenced the Secondary Plan for the area and quoted clauses that

state that the density, scale, design and character of the proposed development should be compatible with the existing neighbourhood with no privacy or shadowing concerns

the applicant’s proposal is very disappointing he pays high property taxes and hopes to see a resolution on the

proposal that is reasonable and satisfactory to the existing residents of ‘Bramalea Woods’

John Ojalammi, 15 Linden Crescent, Brampton; referenced a previous proposal for 30 or 35 homes that was never

presented to Council the proposal is for 3 storey town houses, but what is presented is

actually 4 storeys stated that the subject proposal is driven by money feels that the proposal has brought total discord within the existing

community commented that a hill on Howden Boulevard makes it difficult to see

oncoming vehicles; would traffic lights be installed since traffic will significantly increase?

he was previously told that there would be no emergency access at the site

stated that there is no gradation from the proposed site to the existing community

suggested that homes less than 2300 square feet should not be considered for the site and the low density should be maintained

2011 06 13 of 53


Jeff Comeau, 7 Hunters Cove, Brampton: expressed concerns about traffic congestion which will significantly

increase with this proposal Dixie Road cannot accommodate any additional traffic Indicated his preference for 2 storeys instead of 3 storeys, if the

proposal is considered disagree with the proposal as presented and suggested that a park or

other community use would be more appropriate

Sean McDowell, 6 Holly Place, Brampton: he has seen the proposed plan and concluded that the town houses

are ‘dead ugly’ for the existing community does not want the proposed development next to his property

Michel Defays, 104 Lord Simcoe Drive, Brampton: he lives across the street from the site and if the proposal is approved

he will be looking at four levels (storeys) from his back yard bought his home many years ago knowing that it was low density and

now that this proposal is being considered, he feels cheated he was present at three other meetings at City Hall with respect to

proposals for this site he does not support the proposal and will take measures to prevent it there have been several accidents on the subject site because of

speeding cars safety of children would become an issue with additional traffic the proposal is against the City’s policies and should be refused

Brian Cheadle, 13 Hazelwood Court, Brampton: does not support the proposal and agrees with the previous comments,

but reinforced some of the points that were mentioned has lived in ‘Bramalea Woods’ for 33 years and agrees that property

taxes are high, however he enjoys the quiet neighborhood ‘Bramalea Woods’ is considered to be an upscale residential

community and the subject proposal is not consistent with the neighbourhood

residents will see a decrease in value of their property if the proposal is approved

proposal will generate additional traffic at Howden Boulevard and Dixie Road which is already at maximum capacity

convinced that non-residents will use the quiet streets in ‘Bramalea Woods’ as a thoroughfare to avoid the intersection of Howden Boulevard and Dixie Road

expressed concerns about the sightlines and the loss of privacy and questioned whether those issues would be addressed with fencing, and, if so, commented that the fence will have to be very high

2011 06 13 of 53


Chand Mangat, 11 Hazelwood Court, Brampton: lived in the area for 17 years and has seen a lot of changes the subject lands are presently used by young people as a ‘hang-out’

for partying and drinking would like to see some type of development that is compatible with

the community a proposal for 81 condominium stacked town houses is inappropriate

for the site and will negatively impact the neighbourhood

James Barlas, 3 Heath Drive, Brampton: his family has lived there for many years and the bought the home

because of the community Heath Street is a small street with a high traffic volume; it is difficult to

make a left turn onto Howden Boulevard there is a high school at the intersection of Howden Boulevard, North

Park Drive and Williams Parkway and many students walk to school; with the additional traffic and population anticipated, there is the potential for fatal accidents

proposal should be reconsidered because the density is not consistent with the existing community

commented that the applicant is interested only in maximum profits

Committee explained the procedure with respect to the processing of development applications. Staff confirmed that the concerns raised at the meeting will be addressed in the recommendation report which will be presented to Committee at a future date.

PDD 113-2011 1. That the report from K. Ash, Manager, Development Services, and T. Theocharidis, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Korsiak & Company – Your Home Developments (Howden) Corporation – South-west corner of Dixie Road and Howden Boulevard – Ward 8 (File C03E07.012) be received; and,

2. That following correspondence to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Korsiak & Company – Your Home Developments (Howden) Corporation – South-west corner of Dixie Road and Howden Boulevard – Ward 8 (File C03E07.012) be received:

2011 06 13 of 53


Jim and Sheila Williamson, 17 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton Jagtar Ghuman Sean and Carol McCafferty, 5 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton John and Rebecca Altamira, 85 Hillside Drive, Brampton Arthur Gouge, 18 Lindhurst Street, Brampton Irene and Bob Osborne, 15 Lindhurst Street, Brampton Naquib Ekdawi, 42 Linden Crescent, Brampton Bruce Herman/Barb Millar, 12 Hawthorn Crescent, Brampton Leslie Brafield Robin Sandhu Mike and Helen Branov, 7 Heath Drive, Brampton Len Gilmore Dean Lising, 9 Hazelwood Drive, Brampton Harpreet Kaur, 61 Lord Simcoe Drive, Brampton Jeff Gilmore, 7 Riggs Drive, Brampton S. Jeevanandam, 14 Langley Place, Brampton Deborah and Barry Hemmerling, 27 Hillside Drive, Brampton William C. Schultz, 1 Leander Street, Brampton Sarah-Anne Mitchell, 112 Lord Simcoe Drive, Brampton; and,

3. That staff be directed to report back to Planning, Design and Development Committee with the results of the public meeting and a staff recommendation, subsequent to the completion of the circulation of the application and a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal.

Carried

D 2. Report from K. Ash, Manager, Development Services, and P. Aldunate, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 26, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Daniels LR Corporation – Davis Webb LLP – South-east corner of McVean Drive and Castlemore Road – Ward 10 (File C09E10.007).


Jeff Robinson, Daniels Corporation, presented the proposal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed-use development of retail and service commercial and 162 residential units consisting of townhouses, semi-detached and detached dwellings on the subject site. He provided details and the characteristics of the surrounding land uses. He highlighted the key aspects of the proposal, which included details of the proposed commercial block, parking, access to the site, road

2011 06 13 of 53


configuration, landscape and streetscape, urban design, amenities, lot and unit sizes, density and housing types. Mr. Robinson explained that the proposal is intended to be a pedestrian-friendly community with a mix of commercial and residential uses with upscale townhouses that are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and the City’s urban design guidelines. He stated that the proposal meets the context of the overall Block Plan and is consistent with the Official Plan policies. He noted that several studies have been submitted in support of the proposal.

Paul Aldunate, Development Planner, City of Brampton, provided details of the current land use designation for the subject lands. He confirmed that an amendment to the Official Plan is required to implement the proposed commercial uses and that an amendment to the Secondary Plan for the area is required to accommodate the residential and commercial uses. A Zoning By-law amendment is required to facilitate the proposed residential, retail and service commercial uses. The applicant has submitted several studies in support of the proposal which is still under review and available to the public for viewing. Staff will consider all the studies and the comments that are provided at this meeting and report back with a future recommendation report to Committee.


Grazia Aquino, Brampton, gave a presentation as follows: stated that the residents of Castlemore are opposed to the density

being proposed for the site the vision for the area was to attract business professionals to the area

which is considered to be upscale the area is zoned for low density residential units and currently

consists of large estate and upscale executive homes of high quality a proposal for town houses and retail and service commercial is not

compatible with the existing community rezoning the site to medium density will be viewed as a precedent for

future proposals by the applicant to request a change in the zoning to condominium or rental units

the proposed development is in the heart of the upscale community which is considered a gateway to the community

resale of existing homes will be impacted as the proposed development will create a negative first impression of the community for potential purchasers

if the proposal is approved the subject site will have to be redeveloped because there is very little lighting

Bram East was well planned with a good mix of housing types and other developers have followed the City’s policies to maintain the density

2011 06 13 of 53


the subject proposal should not be considered as the applicant is interested only in maximizing his profits

Mahzulfah Uppal, 36 Janetville Street, Brampton: she has lived in the area for 13 years and was told when she

purchased that it was an upscale community she considers the area to be upscale, diverse and integrated the existing community comprises upscale single family homes that are

well maintained the density being propose by the applicant will not be compatible with

the existing multi-million dollar homes in the community residents who purchase the proposed units will not maintain them the existing residents paid high prices for their homes and they would

appreciate a proposal that will reflect the entire community and the promise that the community will remain upscale

cited concerns about possible increased noise and traffic congestion resulting from additional residents

the objective of the developer is to sell as many homes as possible in order to maximize profits

Preet Shahi, 7 Fanfare Place, Brampton: advised that she lives north-east of Cottrelle Boulevard agrees with the previous residents who expressed concerns about the

proposal stated that residents are looking forward to the City’s support on the

refusal of proposal reiterated the need for a proposal that is complimentary to the

community submitted a petition on behalf of residents on Fanfare Place,

Midsummer Drive and Garry Oaks Drive who are opposed to the proposal

Manoj Sharma, 10 Garry Oaks Drive, Brampton: purchased his home in this community because of the low density was informed that it was an upscale neighbourhood feels that changing the density to rental units and condominiums will

adversely impact the community

Harjit Jaswal, 5 Lexington Road, Brampton: stated that he is opposed to the proposal for semi-detached and town

houses but he supports the proposed commercial uses the area is zoned for low density residential units and currently

consists of large estate and upscale executive homes of high quality the proposal for semi-detached and town houses is not in the best

interest of the community and will benefit the applicant only

2011 06 13 of 53


advised that he is a realtor and he informs potential purchasers that the area is upscale but it would be wrong when there are semis and town houses

he cited overcrowding of schools, environmental issues, and reduced property values as the long-term effect of the proposal

other developers in the area have followed the City’s policies with respect to development in the area

the applicant in this proposal is the only one to request an amendment; the City should refuse the amendment

Corletta Hamilton and Frederick Walsh, 69 Blufford Crescent, Brampton: advised that they moved to the area from Pickering because of the

exclusiveness of the neighbourhood expressed the opinion that the proposal will impact property values,

demographics in the area, traffic volume and safety in the neighbourhood

urged Committee to reconsider the proposal because of the negative impacts

Frank Perri, 1 Glenbrook Boulevard, Brampton: stressed that the proposed density is not appropriate for the site questioned how the applicant could consider a proposal such as the

one presented for the subject location stated that residents spend large sums of money on their homes to

maintain the area as an upscale community he equated the applicant’s proposal to the ‘Jane and Finch’ area expressed the opinion that there are sufficient restaurants and Tim

Hortons in the area other developers have constructed beautiful subdivisions in the area

and referred to this proposal as a ‘dump’ suggested that the proposal not be approved because it is wrong

Tony Moracci, 38 Valleyside Trail, Brampton: he has lived in Brampton for 30 years and is furthest from the subject site the existing community is comprised of upscale executive homes that are

well maintained and the subject proposal is not an appropriate fit for the neighbourhood

stated that the City did a great job and the area is now considered a corridor from the City of Vaughan

changing the density would detract from the appearance of the area into Brampton

the size of the homes, density and nature of the area should remain compatible with the existing community.

Khush Sandhu, 61 Purebrook Crescent, Brampton:

2011 06 13 of 53


she is not in support of the proposal for townhouses at the subject site the focus should be a healthier community school portables should be taken away she does not object to paying high taxes as long as the community

remains well maintained

Sandeep Dhupar, 32 Janetville Street, Brampton: searched and found the home he wanted in Brampton and for which he

paid over a million dollars suggested that the proposal be reconsidered

Pradeep Rajah, 4 Clark Haven Drive, Brampton: stated that the community is very diverse with upscale homes commented that as a businessman the applicant should have

proposed more suitable homes for the area and suggested that he returns with a proposal that shows upscale homes

suggested that in future this types of public meeting be held in a school in the area of the development to accommodate the residents who have to work

submitted a petition on behalf of the residents of Castlemore Drive and McVean Road area who are opposed to the proposal

Ninnu Dhupar, 32 Janetville Street, Brampton: she is 17 years old and attends school in the area the proposal will bring more families with young children in the

community and they will need schools in the neighbourhood the existing schools are full to capacity and having more children in the

classroom will affect children’s grades and their future as they may not receive enough attention

Brijender Singh, 58 Purebrook Crescent, Brampton: does not support the proposed town houses as they are inappropriate

for an area with luxury homes regarded the design of the townhouses as poor and suggested that the

Committee visit the area and see the proposal he questioned where the children will attend school when they move

into the neighbourhood felt the developer is looking to maximize profits

Fabio Baldessara, 67 Imperial Lakes Drive, Brampton: he has lived in the area for four years and he moved there because it

is considered to be an upscale community after four years he feels the potential of the area has changed if the proposal for town houses is approved, people will move away

from the area

2011 06 13 of 53


Amandeep Thiara, 74 Long Meadow Road, Brampton: stated that 5 years ago there were no high schools in the area Calderstone has13 portables and is already congested Red Willow has no soccer field the existing amenities in the area cannot support additional residents the community needs more gardens and parks, not more residents advised Committee that there were more residents in the atrium who

would like to express concerns

Committee explained the procedure with respect to the processing of development applications. Staff confirmed that the concerns raised at the meeting will be addressed in the recommendation report which will be presented to Committee at a future date.

PDD114-2011 1. That the report from K. Ash, Manager, Development Services, and P. Aldunate, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 26, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Daniels LR Corporation – Davis Webb LLP – South-east corner of McVean Drive and Castlemore Road – Ward 10 (File C09E10.007) be received; and,

2. That the petitions from the following residents to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Daniels LR Corporation – Davis Webb LLP – South-east corner of McVean Drive and Castlemore Road – Ward 10 (File C09E10.007) be received: Preet Shahi, 7 Fanfare Place, Brampton Pradeep Rajah, 4 Clark Haven Drive, Brampton; and


Carried

2011 06 13 of 53


D 3. Report from D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy, and P. Cooper, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, re: City of Brampton Initiated Proposed Official Plan Amendment to Implement the Vales of Humber Secondary and Block Plan – Mayfield Road to the north, Countryside Drive to the south, The Gore Road to the east and the West Humber River to the west – Ward 10 (File P26S 050).

The Chair acknowledged correspondence from Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd., on behalf of Mr.& Mrs. Jasvil Gill, 7377 Mayfield Road, Brampton.

Members of the public requested a presentation on the proposal.

Pam Cooper, Policy Planner, presented the proposal to amend the Official Plan to implement the Vales of Humber Secondary Plan and Block Plan. She noted that extensive public consultation was undertaken between City staff and the Landowners Group. She highlighted the Planning Vision for the area and noted that it is intended to create upscale executive housing, protect the natural heritage systems, which will be integrated into Brampton’s broader urban structure through appropriate interfacing of lot sizes and densities. Ms Cooper provided details of the proposed collector road systems, recreational open space, landscape features, place of worship and schools sites, commercial uses, stormwater management ponds density and lot sizes. She outlined the key issues that remain outstanding which include final alignments with arterial roads, location and configuration of roundabouts and overall density and housing mix. Ms. Cooper explained that an amendment to the Official Plan is required to implement the proposed land use change. The next steps of the process will be to report back with the results of the public meeting and a staff recommendation.

Paul Lowes, Sorensen Gravely Lowes, Planning Associates, Toronto, on behalf of the Landowners’ Group, advised that he is supportive of the staff report and the proposed plan. However he is concerned about a few of the policies which he described as over prescriptive. He will continue to work with staff and is confident that the issues will be addressed.

In response to a question from Committee about housing type, Mr. Lowes confirmed that the Landowners’ Group is committed to an upscale executive community within the proposed plan.

PDD115-2011 1. That the report from D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy, and P. Cooper, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: City of Brampton Initiated Proposed Official Plan

2011 06 13 of 53


Amendment to Implement the Vales of Humber Secondary and Block Plan – Mayfield Road to the north, Countryside Drive to the south, The Gore Road to the east and the West Humber River to the west – Ward 10 (File P26S 050) be received; and,

2. That the correspondence from Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd., on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Jasvil Gill, 7377 Mayfield Road, Brampton, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: City of Brampton Initiated Proposed Official Plan Amendment to Implement the Vales of Humber Secondary and Block Plan – Mayfield Road to the north, Countryside Drive to the south, The Gore Road to the east and the West Humber River to the west – Ward 10 (File P26S 050) be received; and,

3. That staff report back to Planning, Design and Development Committee with the results of the public meeting and the results of the agency circulation and a staff recommendation, with respect to the draft Official Plan Amendment and Block Plan.

Carried

D 4. Report from P. Snape, Manager, Development Services, and O. Lababidi, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Zoning By-law – Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. – Kaneff Properties Limited – North of Highway 407 and west of Financial Drive – Ward 6 (File T04W13.008).

Members of the public did not wish to address Committee on this item.

PDD116-2011 1. That the report from P. Snape, Manager, Development Services, and O. Lababidi, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Zoning By-law – Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. – Kaneff Properties Limited – North of Highway 407 and west of Financial Drive – Ward 6 (File T04W13.008) be received; and,

2011 06 13 of 53



Carried

D 5. Report from P. Snape, Manager, Development Services, and J. Tang, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. – Victor Szumlanski – 9610 McLaughlin Road – South-west corner of Williams Parkway and McLaughlin Road North – Ward 5 (File C02W09.011).


Jason Aphonso, Glen Schnarr & Associates, presented the proposal to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit site specific commercial uses, which include a private school, nursing home and an animal hospital on the subject property. He outlined parking and access to the site, highlighted the characteristics of the property and provided a description of the surrounding land uses.

Julius Tang, Development Planner, provided details of the current land use designation of the subject site. He confirmed that amendments to the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law are required to permit commercial uses on the site. Staff will consider comments that are provided at this meeting and report back with a future recommendation report to Committee.


Elaine Barnes, 33 Wheatfield, Brampton: advised that she has lived in the area for 14 years and she works on

McLaughlin Road she has not seen the proposed plan she is concerned about traffic volume and accessibility to site, given

that both Williams Parkway and McLaughlin Road are busy roads questioned whether there will be more commercial uses permitted and

the impact of these uses on existing property values expressed concerns regarding the green space around the property

2011 06 13 of 53


Sheryl Papasidero, 10 Brookview Road, Brampton: she enjoys the view of the green space and would like it to remain

unchanged concerned about the impact of the proposal on the wildlife in the area questioned how all the uses mentioned will be accommodated on the

subject property

Yuvraj Dhinjal, 43 Pebblestone Circle, Brampton: commercial use will bring additional traffic congestion to the

intersection of Williams Parkway and McLaughlin Road suggested that the subject property remain residential as there are

other commercial plazas in the vicinity

Tony Papasidero, 10 Brookview Road, Brampton; expressed concerns regarding the green space around the property

and suggested that it remains unchanged commercial use will bring additional traffic congestion to the

intersection of Williams Parkway and McLaughlin Road questioned whether the property may be rezoned for other uses at a

later date if it is sold

Staff clarified that the property will be used for only one of the uses mentioned in the presentation and there is no proposal for additional gross floor area. There will be additional parking to support the use that will be permitted. With respect to a future rezoning application, staff explained that under the Planning Act, everyone has the right to file an application, and the City will follow the process as required.

PDD117-2011 1. That the report from P. Snape, Manager, Development Services, and J. Tang, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 13, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Glen Schnarr & Associates Inc. – Victor Szumlanski – 9610 McLaughlin Road – South-west corner of Williams Parkway and McLaughlin Road North – Ward 5 (File C02W09.011) be received; and


Carried

2011 06 13 of 53


D 6. Report from D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy, and N. D’Souza, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, re: City of Brampton Initiated Housekeeping Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 270-2004 – Kennedy Road South – Ward 3 (File P26S KE).


PDD118-2011 1. That the report from D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy, and N. D’Souza, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: City of Brampton Initiated Housekeeping Amendment to Comprehensive Zoning By-law 270-2004 – Kennedy Road South – Ward 3 (File P26S KE) be received; and,

2. That staff report back to Planning, Design and Development Committee with a staff recommendation following the public meeting, with respect to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment attached to the subject report as Appendix 6.

Carried

D 7. Report from P. Snape, Manager, Development Services, and R. Nykyforchyn, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 18, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Gagnon & Law Urban Planners Ltd. – c/o Peel Standard Condominium #767 – East of the Gore Road and North of Fogal Road – Ward 10 (File C10E05.018).


The Chair acknowledged correspondence on the subject proposal from the following: Robert Blunt, Fraser Millner Casgrain, Toronto, on behalf of landowner

to the south of proposal - DDR Holborn Brampton GP Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd., Brampton, on

behalf of Peel Standard Condominium Corporation #767

2011 06 13 of 53


PDD119-2011 1. That the report from P. Snape, Manager, Development Services, and R. Nykyforchyn, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 18, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Gagnon & Law Urban Planners Ltd. – c/o Peel Standard Condominium #767 – East of the Gore Road and North of Fogal Road – Ward 10 (File C10E05.018) be received; and,

2. That correspondence from the following to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law – Gagnon & Law Urban Planners Ltd. – c/o Peel Standard Condominium #767 – East of the Gore Road and North of Fogal Road – Ward 10 (File C10E05.018) be received: Robert Blunt, Fraser Millner Casgrain, Toronto, on behalf

of landowner to the south of proposal - DDR Holborn Brampton GP

Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd., Brampton, on behalf of Peel Standard Condominium Corporation #767; and,


Carried

E. Delegations/Presentations

E 1. Mr. Jin Wang, Project Coordinator, Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Mr. Neil Ahmed, Project Manager, McCormick Rankin Corporation, re: GTA West Corridor Environmental Assessment - Draft Transportation Development Strategy (See Item G 4).

Mr. Jin Wang, Project Coordinator, Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Mr. Neil Ahmed, Project Manager, McCormick Rankin Corporation gave a presentation on the GTA West Corridor Planning and EA Study - Stage 1: The following was highlighted: The Preliminary Study Area

2011 06 13 of 53


Unique Approach includes: - unprecedented two-stage approach EA process - builds on other transportation plans - such as Metrolinx, York Viva

and Brampton Zum Study Process – Stage 1 Challenge of Managing Growth:

- Greater Golden Horseshoe - GTA West Study Area

Building on Other Initiatives: - GO 2020 Strategic Plan - Metrolinx RTP

Building Block Approach: Key Steps - Develop reasonable combination alternatives to address problems

and opportunities - Assess combinations to identify advantages and disadvantages

Recommend Draft Transportation Development Strategy - Key elements of the strategy - Key elements of the recommended new corridor

Optimizing the Existing Transportation Network: - Transportation System Management (TSM) Initiatives

New/Expanded Non-Road Infrastructure Long-term Transit Network Widening of Existing Highways New Transportation Corridor and North-South Link Key North-South Connections Coordination with HPBATS Key factors of Recommendation:

- Environmental Feature Avoidance - Impact Reduction and Mitigation

Preliminary Route Planning study Area for Stage 2EA Development Pressures within Preliminary Route Planning Area Consultation on Transportation Development Strategy (TDS)

- Municipal and stakeholder consultation underway Next Steps include: Finalize the TDS report based on input and

comments received.

Discussion took place and the delegation responded to questions and comments that included the following: o Ownership of the rights of way of along 400 series of highways o Suggestion that high speed rail be considered for Highway 407 o Timelines with respect to the finalization of the GTA West Corridor o Whether MTO will cooperate and participate with respect to the

transportation corridor planning in Northwest Brampton o The Region of Halton and Town of Halton’s support for the North-

South Halton / Peel Freeway

2011 06 13 of 53


o City does not agree that with MTO’s option that the North-South Transportation Corridor should be a dedicated truck facility; the City’s position is that motor vehicles must be accommodated

o Concern about potentially freezing approximately one-third of the employment lands in the area of Mayfield Road and Highway 50

o Concern about including the area in Countryside Villages adjacent to Hwy 410 within the study area.

Mr. Wang responded to the questions and comments raised by Committee and advised that information on the ownership of the 400 series of highways was previously forwarded to staff. He indicated that the City’s efforts on the HPBATS study will be not be disregarded and that MTO staff would participate in planning processes in both north west and north east Brampton. With respect to the concerns raised about lands on the east side of Brampton, he explained that the lands are required as part of the preliminary route study area for the development strategy. Mr. Wang confirmed that all the comments provided at this meeting will be considered by the Province.

Item G4 was brought forward at this time.

The following motion was considered:

PDD120-2011 1. That the report from H. Zbogar, Manager, Long Range Transportation Planning, and D. Kuperman, Transportation Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 18, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: MTO GTA-West Corridor Environmental Assessment (EA) – Response to Draft Transportation Development (File N01) be received; and,

2. That staff’s comments to MTO on the GTA West Corridor EA Transportation Development Strategy, appended to the staff report, be endorsed as Brampton’s official response to the Ministry of Transportation on this matter, in particular:

a) That the Province move expeditiously to allocate the necessary funding to proceed with Stage 2 of the EA;

b) That MTO expedite the GTA West EA process to advance to Stage 2 as soon as feasible, recognizing the current state of development and transportation planning for areas in North West Brampton (SP 52 and 53, and including the HPBATS corridor) and the Highway 427 Industrial Area (SP 47), that fall within the GTA West Preliminary Route Planning Study Area;

2011 06 13 of 53


3.

4.

c) That given the near term development proceeding in west and east Brampton, the Province be requested to expedite that component of Stage 2 that includes corridor planning in designated urban areas of Brampton, including scoping down the Route Planning Study Area as soon as possible;

d) That MTO participate in Brampton land use and transportation planning studies for those areas of the municipality potentially affected by the GTA West EA, with the intent of refining the limits of corridor protection areas and facilitating approval of secondary plans, potentially prior to the completion of the GTA West EA;

e) Recognizing that EA completion and construction of a GTA West Corridor facility is many years away and that there are transportation demands on the provincial highway network that require immediate attention, that MTO and Metrolinx expedite other highway and transit improvements to provide necessary capacity and congestion relief, including widening of highways 410 and 401, extension of Highway 427, implementation of transitways, GO rail improvements, and Hurontario and Queen rapid transit improvements;

f) That the area at the north end of Highway 410 in Brampton within the Countryside Villages Secondary Plan (SP 48) be removed from the Preliminary Route Planning Study Area, since Highway 410 has been constructed and the adjacent lands are within an industrial Draft Plan of Subdivision.

That staff continue to participate in negotiations to finalize a Memorandum of Understanding with Peel Region, Halton Region, and Town of Halton Hills to implement the HPBATS recommendations, and proceed with development of a work plan to facilitate planning for the Halton-Peel Freeway; and,

These comments also be circulated for information to Region of Peel, Region of Halton, Region of York, City of Mississauga, Town of Halton Hills, Town of Milton, and Metrolinx; and,

2011 06 13 of 53


5. That the delegation of Mr. Jin Wang, Project Coordinator, Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Mr. Neil Ahmed, Project Manager, McCormick Rankin Corporation, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: GTA West Corridor Environmental Assessment - Draft Transportation Development Strategy, be received.

Carried

E 2. Possible Delegations, re: Notice of the Intention to Amend Building By-law 387-2006, as amended – Building Permit Fees and Housekeeping Amendments (File G02) (See Report Item I 1).

Committee Chair, Regional Councillor Palleschi announced that in accordance with City By-laws, public notice to consider this matter was published on the City’s website on May 24, 2011 and Brampton Guardian on May 25, 2011.

In response to the Chair’s inquiry, it was indicated that no one was present to address the subject matter.

See Recommendation PDD126-2011

E 3. Possible Delegations, re: Application for a Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Royalwest Developments Inc. – 9435-9525 Mississauga Road – Ward 6 (File G02) (See Report Item I 2).

Committee Chair, Regional Councillor Palleschi announced that in accordance with City By-laws, public notice to consider this matter was published in the Brampton Guardian on June 3, 2011.



E 4. Possible Delegations, re: Application for a Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Hilton Garden Inn – 2648 Steeles Avenue East – Ward 8 (File G02) (See Item I 3).

2011 06 13 of 53


Committee Chair, Regional Councillor Palleschi announced that in accordance with City By-laws, public notice to consider this matter was published in the Brampton Guardian on June 3, 2011. In response to the Chair’s inquiry, it was indicated that no one was present to address the subject matter.


E 5. Possible Delegations, re: Notice of the Intention to Repeal By-law 95-92 and Adopt a New Pool Enclosure By-law (File G02) (See Item I 4).

Committee Chair, Regional Councillor Palleschi announced that in accordance with City By-laws, public notice to consider this matter was published in the Brampton Guardian on June 3, 2011.


See Recommendation PPD129-2011

F. Development Team Reports

* F 1. Report from K. Ash, Manager, Development Services, and M. Gervais, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 25, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Zoning By-law and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision – Glen Schnarr and Associates Inc. – Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto, Canada – 8530 Chinguacousy Road – South of Queen Street West and West of Chinguacousy Road – Ward 6 (File C03W03.011).

PDD121-2011 1. That the report from K. Ash, Manager, Development Services, and M. Gervais, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 25, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Zoning By-law and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision – Glen Schnarr and Associates Inc. – Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation for the Diocese of Toronto, Canada – 8530 Chinguacousy Road – South of Queen Street West and West of Chinguacousy Road – Ward 6 (File C03W03.011) be received; and,

2. That the application be approved in principle and staff be directed to prepare the appropriate amendment to the Zoning By-law in accordance with recommendation 3, but

2011 06 13 of 53


only after the satisfaction of the “prior to the issuance of draft plan approval” conditions as set out in recommendation 4;

3. That the Zoning By-law be amended:

to change the Agricultural (A) zone to a Residential Single Detached F zone to reflect the proposed single detached residential dwellings;

4. That the following shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of draft plan approval:

4.1 final comments and/or conditions of draft plan approval from external circulated agencies and internal City departments shall be received and any appropriate “prior to conditions of draft plan approval” and conditions of approval, including revisions to the plan and physical layout resulting from these comments, shall be accommodated;

4.2 the following agreements are required to be executed by the owner to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Design and Development Department, the City Solicitor, and the Commissioner of Works and Transportation:

the Spine Servicing Agreement the Creditview Road Single Source Agreement the James Potter Road Single Source Agreement

for the provision of the portion of James Potter Road to be constructed from Queen Street West to approximately 30 metres south of the Orangeville Railway Development Corporation right of way to connect with the Altone subdivision south of Block 5

James Potter Road Expropriation Agreement;

4.3 the applicant shall sign the Credit Valley Master Cost Share Agreement and the Sub-area 5 Cost Share Agreement, and provide the City with a written acknowledgement from the Trustee appointed pursuant to the agreement that the applicant has signed the agreement and has delivered the deeds or made the payments required by the agreement, and that the plan may be released for draft approval;

2011 06 13 of 53


4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

the Functional Servicing Report prepared by RAND Engineering shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Development Services, the Region of Peel and the Credit Valley Conservation;

the Preliminary Environmental Noise Report prepared by Jade Acoustics shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Development Services.

the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd. shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Director of Engineering and Development Services.

the applicant shall prepare a preliminary homebuyer’s information map and the Sub-area 5 Homebuyer’s Information Map shall be revised to include the subject lands. These Homebuyer’s Information Maps shall be posted in a prominent location in each sales office where homes in the subdivision are being sold. These maps shall contain the applicable information prescribed within the City of Brampton List of Standard Conditions of Draft Approval for Residential Plans of Subdivision as it pertains to Sales Office Homebuyer’s Information Maps including City approved street names and the possible temporary location of Canada Post mailboxes, including the number and duration;

the owner shall execute a preliminary subdivision agreement to the satisfaction of the City. The preliminary subdivision agreement shall include a schedule identifying all of the notice provisions for all of the lots and blocks within the plan of subdivision;

the application shall receive development cap allocation for the proposed 26 residential units;

the applicant shall agree in writing to the form and content of an Implementing zoning by-law for the subject applications;

2011 06 13 of 53


5. That staff be authorized to issue the notice of draft plan approval at such time as all items approved by Council to be addressed prior to draft plan approval have been addressed to the satisfaction of the City, subject to the following:

(i) any necessary red-line revisions to the draft plans identified by staff and/or identified in comments; and,

(ii) all conditions contained in the City of Brampton List of Standard Conditions of Draft Approval for Residential Plan of Subdivision, or derivatives or special applications of said conditions and any other appropriate conditions shall be referenced to ensure the implementation of the Spine Servicing Agreement, Creditview Road Single Source Agreement, the James Potter Road Single Source Agreement, the James Potter Road Expropriation Agreement and the approved Growth Management Staging and Sequencing Report for Sub-area 5, as determined by the Commissioner of Planning, Design and Development and the Commissioner of Works and Transportation Department;

6. That this decision be considered null and void and a new development application be required, unless a zoning by-law is passed within 36 months of the Council approval of this decision.

Carried

* F 2. Report from A. Parsons, Manager, Development Services, and C. Caruso Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 12, 2011, re: Application to Amend the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision – KLM Planning Partners Inc. – Garden Manor Construction Inc. – Sandringham Place Inc. – Wolverleigh Construction Ltd. – 655339 Ontario Inc. – Southwest corner of Dixie Road and Mayfield Road (File C03E16.002).

PDD122-2011 1. That the report from A. Parsons, Manager, Development Services, and C. Caruso, Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 12, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011re: Application to Amend the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision – KLM Planning Partners Inc. – Garden Manor

2011 06 13 of 53


2.

3.

4.

Construction Inc. – Sandringham Place Inc. – Wolverleigh Construction Ltd. – 655339 Ontario Inc. – Southwest corner of Dixie Road and Mayfield Road (File C03E16.002) be received; and,

That prior to the approval of the Official Plan Amendment, the following matters are to be addressed

a) The principles of the Countryside Villages Community Cost Sharing Agreement are required to be prepared to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Design and Development;

That the subject application be approved and staff be directed to prepare appropriate amendments to the Countryside Villages Secondary Plan, in general accordance with the following:

a) That a Special Policy Area be created for a portion of the subject lands which includes policies for the establishment of an auto mall (car sales), a highway commercial use (gas station), a “village commercial centre” including limited retail, institutional (place of worship and ambulance station), a funeral parlour and office uses.

b) That policies be included that address the location, range and gross floor area (GFA) of the auto mall use and retail commercial uses in order to maintain the viability of the employment lands, in accordance with the City’s Growth Plan Official Plan Amendment and the employment targets in the Secondary Plan.

c) That policies be included to encourage higher order, higher density employment uses on the remaining employment lands in the Secondary Plan, which may include limiting lower density uses such as warehousing, logistics and transportation terminals.

d) That policies be included that ensures the protection of Natural Heritage features.

That prior to the enactment of the Zoning By-law, a staging & sequencing analysis shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, Design and Development, which shall establish the detailed timing and staging of

2011 06 13 of 53


development relative to the sequential delivery of required infrastructure, including roads, stormwater management and other engineering services

5. That prior to the enactment of the Zoning By-law, street names for the proposed subdivision be approved by Council.

6. That staff be directed to prepare appropriate amendments to the Zoning By-law for enactment by City Council, subsequent to issuance of draft approval and receipt of written confirmation from the applicant that they are agreeable to the form and content of the zoning by-laws, in general accordance with the following:

a) Permit the following uses:

i. Prestige industrial uses;

ii. An auto mall use being limited in land area (generally in conformity with the lands identified in Figure 2 of this report) and floor area;

iii. A highway commercial use being limited in floor area and land area (generally in conformity with the lands identified in Figure 2 of this report);

iv. Commercial uses being limited in land area (generally in conformity with the lands identified as “village commercial centre” in Figure 2 of this report) and retail uses not exceeding 1000 square metres of total floor area;

v. Office uses; and

vi. Institutional uses (including a place of worship and an ambulance station).

b. Implement zoning provisions that will have the effect of maximizing the number of employment jobs on portions of the remaining employment lands. These provisions may include limiting the extent of land that permit uses such as warehousing, distribution, logistics and transportation terminals.

2011 06 13 of 53


c. Zone all environmentally sensitive areas, associated compensation and buffer areas, natural hazard lands, natural heritage areas and stormwater management facilities as open space and floodplain as appropriate.

d. Include requirements for maximum building setbacks from property lines to require buildings to be located prominently on important development blocks (ie. at the gateways of the subdivision, at the Dixie Road and Mayfield Road intersection).

e. Include appropriate building heights.

7. That the following shall be satisfied prior to the issuance of draft plan approval:

a) A decision from Council regarding the proposed Official Plan Amendments is finalized.

b) Outstanding final comments and/or conditions of draft plan approval from external circulated agencies and internal City departments shall be received and any appropriate “prior to the issuance of draft plan approval” and conditions of approval, including revisions to the plan and physical layout resulting from these comments, shall be accommodated;

c) The Cost Sharing Agreement Trustee shall confirm in writing that the owner has signed the Landowner’s Cost Sharing Agreement and that the owner has delivered the deeds or made the payments required by the agreement, and that the plan may be released for draft approval;

d) Any necessary revisions identified by the City to be undertaken to the Functional Servicing Report prepared by Schaeffers Consulting Engineers, dated December 2010, shall be completed by the proponent, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning Design and Development, in consultation with the Region of Peel and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The FSR shall include but not be limited to the following:

i. Feature based water balances that include existing wetlands, compensation wetlands and the Spring Creek Tributary.

2011 06 13 of 53


e)

f)

ii. Identification of specific Low Impact Development measures and their conceptual locations as appropriate to address both site and feature-based water balance deficits to maintain the groundwater system, and a natural seasonal wetland and fisheries hydrology.

iii. Confirmation of how the proposed Low Impact Development measures will support the natural seasonal hydrology of wetlands and the wetland compensation block.

The applicant shall revise the Traffic Impact Study prepared by MMM Group, dated January 2011, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning Design and Development, in consultation with the Region of Peel and the Ministry of Transportation;

The applicant shall revise and finalize the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated November 2010, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning Design and Development in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The EIS shall include but not be limited to the following:

i. Compensation and mitigation measures shall be undertaken to ensure ecological and hydrological connections between the plan’s natural heritage features, including Wetland Blocks 11 and 12 and Spring Creek Channel Block 8, and to protect, restore and enhance natural heritage system linkages.

ii. Detailed phasing for wetland loss and compensation that includes requirements to obtain the appropriate permits from the TRCA in accordance with Ontario Regulation 160/06.

iii. An evaluation and the rationale for the location, sizing and design of the proposed Wetland Compensation Blocks 15 and 16. This shall include a conceptual plan that demonstrates the form and function of the wetland, including its water budget, wetland linkage and the restoration work to be performed.

2011 06 13 of 53


g)

iv. An Executive Summary that outlines how the Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) recommendations have been addressed and further identifies any EIS recommendations that are to be addressed through draft plan conditions.

v. Satisfactory justification for relocating the MESP recommended stormwater management facility adjacent to the Spring Creek Channel block to west of Dixie Road (i.e. Block 6 to Block 7).

vi. Conservation of Wetland Block 12 with regard to evaluating and rationalizing potential modifications to the wetland size and shape, and the provisions of wetland Buffer Block 13.

vii. Identification of the natural channel form and corridor functions of the Spring Creek Channel Block 8 as it relates to both fish habitat and wetland creation.

viii. Recommendation for the restoration and enhancement measures including planting criteria for the wetland, Compensation Blocks 16 and 17 and Buffer Blocks 13 and 14, and Channel Block 8.

ix. Additional detail indicating how the Official Plan policies as they relate to environmental features have been addressed by the development proposal.

x. A detailed assessment including a constraint map and features map that indicates tableland vegetation, including specimen trees; hedgerows and heritage landscape.

xi. A monitoring plan that outlines short, medium and long term monitoring activities and responsibilities.

The applicant shall revise the Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment with respect to 11098 Dixie Road and 11960 Dixie Road prepared by Scarlett Janusas

2011 06 13 of 53


h)

i)

Archaeological and Heritage Consulting and Education, dated December 27, 2010 to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning Design and Development. The Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment shall include but not be limited to the following:

i. An evaluation of the heritage value of the properties based on the criteria outlined in Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Heritage Act.

ii. Clear preservation and mitigation options proposed for all buildings of heritage value.

iii. Should the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Impact Study necessitate the preservation of a heritage building in situ, the draft plan shall be revised accordingly to indicate the building in situ or in a revised location on the subject property to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning Design and Development.

The applicant shall revise the Archaeological Assessment prepared by This Land Archaeology Inc. to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism and Culture and the Commissioner of Planning Design and Development.

The applicant shall revise the Community Design Guidelines prepared by MBTW/Watchorn, dated December 1, 2010, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning Design and Development. The Guidelines shall include details that will include a description of the following:

i. The community structuring elements and special character areas that will include an explanation of the proposed street network, views and vistas, open space systems and amenities, focal points, edges, and gateways.

ii. Site plan and built form principles proposed for the subject lands including a description of building elevations, building entrances, pedestrian circulation, vehicular access,

2011 06 13 of 53


parking and service areas, and how sufficient built form and massing will be provided along arterial roads and Highway 410.

iii. Landscape elements and principles.

8. That in recognition of the importance of these employment lands, staff be directed to initiate the review of the engineering submissions.

9. That staff be authorized to issue the notice of draft plan approval at such time as all items approved by Council to be addressed prior to draft plan approval have been addressed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning Design and Development, subject to the following:

a) Any necessary redline revisions to the draft plans identified by staff and/or identified in comments; and

b) All conditions contained in the City of Brampton List of Standard Conditions of Draft Approval, or derivatives or special applications of said conditions, as determined by the Commissioner of Planning, Design and Development.

10. That the street names for the subdivision be approved by Council prior to the enactment of the implementing zoning by-law.

11. That the landowner shall enter into an agreement with the City which will contain the following provisions:

a) Prior to the issuance of site plan approval, a site development plan, a landscape plan, a grading and drainage plan, elevation drawings and an engineering and servicing plan shall be approved by the City and the Region of Peel, according to their areas of jurisdiction. Appropriate securities shall be deposited with the City and the Region to ensure the implementation of these plans in accordance with the City’s site plan review process.

b) The applicant shall agree to implement the recommendations and principles of the following approved studies:

2011 06 13 of 53


i. Traffic Impact Study;

ii. Environmental Impact Study;

iii. Functional Servicing Study;

iv. The Cultural Heritage Impact Study; and

v. The Community Design Guidelines.

c) The applicant shall prepare a Stormwater Management Report that addresses matters with respect to stormwater management to the satisfaction of the City;

d) The applicant shall grant easements, as may be required, to the appropriate authority for the installation of utilities and municipal services;

e) All lighting shall be design and oriented so as to minimize glare on adjacent properties.

12. That this decision be considered null and void and a new development application be required, unless a zoning by-law is passed within 36 months of the Council approval of this decision.

Carried

* F 3. Report from P. Snape, Manager, Development Services, and T. Plaxton , Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, and dated May 18, 2011, re: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Public Uses – All Wards (File: C111.002 ).

PDD123-2011 1. That the report from P. Snape, Manager, Development Services, and T. Plaxton , Development Planner, Planning, Design and Development, and dated May 18, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: City Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment for Public Uses – All Wards (File: C111.002 ) be received; and,

2011 06 13 of 53


2. That staff be directed to undertake the process to amend the Zoning By-law to facilitate the provision of the city of Brampton Public Uses and Region of Peel Essential Emergency Services.

Carried

G. Policy Planning Reports

* G 1. Report from D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy, and N. D’Souza, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, re: Proposed Norval Rezoning Application and Aggregate Resource License Application on-going Review – East side of Winston Churchill Boulevard, north of Old Pine Crest Road – Ward 6 (File C06W12.002).

PDD124-2011 1. That the report from D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy, and N. D’Souza, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Proposed Norval Rezoning Application and Aggregate Resource License Application on-going Review – East side of Winston Churchill Boulevard, north of Old Pine Crest Road – Ward 6 (File C06W12.002) be received; and,

2. That staff be directed to schedule a public meeting with local area residents and stakeholders to present the results of the peer reviews and the Brampton Brick proposal and receive feedback and comments; and,

3. That staff be directed to release the peer review reports to make them available for public comment in advance of the public meeting; and,

4. That staff report back to Council with the results of the public meeting, and,

5. That the City Clerk forward a copy of the subject staff report and Council resolution to the Ministry of Natural Resources, Region of Halton, Town of Halton Hills, Region of Peel, Credit Valley Conservation Area and Brampton Brick, and those area residents/stakeholders who have expressed an interest in the proposed quarry who contacted the City of Brampton.

Carried

2011 06 13 of 53


G 2. Report from D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy, and N. D’Souza, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, re: Request to Initiate an Official Plan Amendment to Designate a Special Policy Area in the Bram East Secondary Plan – Southeast corner of the Gore Road and Ebenezer Road – Ward 10 (File P26 S41).

The Chair acknowledged correspondence from Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd., Brampton, on behalf of Peel Standard Condominium Corporation #767, owner of property located at 8887, 8897, 8907 and 8917 The Gore Road.

Committee suggested that staff consider the property west of Ebenezer Road and The Gore Road for a potential commercial block. Committee commented that there have been complaints from area residents about ponding water and mosquitoes and suggested that the owner be requested to regrade the property in the mean time. Staff advised that they will need to look at the neighbourhood retail designation and the configuration of the lands before addressing the issue.

The following motion was considered:

PDD125-20111. That the report from D. Waters, Manager, Land Use Policy, and N. D’Souza, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Request to Initiate an Official Plan Amendment to Designate a Special Policy Area in the Bram East Secondary Plan – Southeast corner of the Gore Road and Ebenezer Road – Ward 10 (File P26 S41) be received; and,

2. That a City initiated official plan amendment be prepared and presented to a statutory public meeting that proposes to implement a Special Policy Area in the Bram East Secondary Plan Area to permit an expanded range of retail/commercial uses for the area bounded by Ebenezer Road to the north, Nexus Avenue to the east, Fogal Road to the south and The Gore Road to the west; and,

3. That staff report back to Planning Design and Development Committee with a final recommendation that includes the results of the statutory public meeting and agency circulation.

4. That correspondence from Michael Gagnon, Gagnon and Law Urban Planners Ltd., Brampton, on behalf of Peel

2011 06 13 of 53


Standard Condominium Corporation #767, owner of property located at 8887, 8897, 8907 and 8917 The Gore Road, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Request to Initiate an Official Plan Amendment to Designate a Special Policy Area in the Bram East Secondary Plan – Southeast corner of the Gore Road and Ebenezer Road – Ward 10 (File P26 S41) be received.

Carried

* G 3. Report from J. Given, Manager, Growth Management and Special Policy, and A. Powell, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated April 27, 2011, re: Mississauga Road and Steeles Avenue West Gateway Beautification Program – Cost Sharing Arrangement –

Ward 6 (File R17).

PDD126-2011 1. That the report from J. Given, Manager, Growth Management and Special Policy, and A. Powell, Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated April 27, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Mississauga Road and Steeles Avenue West Gateway Beautification Program – Cost Sharing Arrangement – Ward 6 (File R17) be received; and,

2. That staff be directed to add a condition to future planning approvals of applications within the lands shown on appendix “A” to the staff report, at Mississauga Road and Steeles Avenue, which requires the first application to receive development approval in each quadrant to pay the full amount of $179,312 prior to final approval.

Carried

G 4. Report from H. Zbogar, Manager, Long Range Transportation Planning, and D. Kuperman, Transportation Policy Planner, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 18, 2011, re: MTO GTA-West Corridor Environmental Assessment (EA) – Response to Draft Transportation Development (File N01) (See Item E 1).

Dealt with under Item E1. Recommendation PDD120-2011

2011 06 13 of 53


H. Committee of Adjustment Reports - nil

I. Building and Zoning Reports

I 1. Report from B. Campbell, Director of Building and Chief Building Official, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, re: Amendments to Building By-law 387-2006 (File G02) (See Item E 2).

PDD127-2011 1. That the report from B. Campbell, Director of Building and Chief Building Official, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 11, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Amendments to Building By-law 387-2006 (File G02) be received; and,

2. That a by-law be passed to amend Building By-law 387-2006 as amended, as outlined in ‘Appendix A’ to the staff report.

Carried

I 2. Report from C. Hammond, Sign Coordinator, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 10, 2011, re: Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Royalwest Developments Inc. – 9435-9525 Mississauga Road – Ward 6 (File G02) (See Item E 3).

PDD128-2011 1. That the report from C. Hammond, Sign Coordinator, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 10, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Royalwest Developments Inc. – 9435-9525 Mississauga Road – Ward 6 (File G02) be received; and,

2. That a by-law be passed for a site specific amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended, to permit signage at 9435-9525 Mississauga Road (Royalwest Developments Inc.), as detailed in the subject report; and,

3. That the applicant be responsible for the cost of the public notification.

Carried

2011 06 13 of 53


I 3. Report by C. Hammond, Sign Coordinator, Planning, Design and Development, dated April 7, 2011, re: Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Hilton Garden Inn – 2648 Steeles Avenue East – Ward 8 (File G02) (See Item E 4).

PDD129-2011 1. That the report by C. Hammond, Sign Coordinator, Planning, Design and Development, dated April 7, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Site Specific Amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended – Hilton Garden Inn – 2648 Steeles Avenue East – Ward 8 (File G02) be received; and,

2. That a by-law be passed for a site specific amendment to Sign By-law 399-2002, as amended, to permit signage at 2648 Steeles Avenue East (Hilton Garden Inn), as detailed in the subject report; and,

3. That the applicant be responsible for the cost of the public notification.

Carried

I 4. Report from B. Campbell, Director of Building and Chief Building Official, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 19, 2011, re: Proposed New Pool Enclosure By-law (File G02) (See Item E 5).

PDD130-2011 1. That the report from B. Campbell, Director of Building and Chief Building Official, Planning, Design and Development,

dated May 19, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Proposed New Pool Enclosure By-law (File G02) be received; and,

2. That a by-law be passed to require the construction and maintenance of fences and gates around privately owned outdoor pools sufficient to promote a secure environment and provide a minimum level of safety for the protection of the public, and to repeal By-law 95-92, as amended, as outlined in ‘Appendix A’ to the staff report.

Carried

J. Community Design - Parks Planning and Development Reports - nil

2011 06 13 of 53


K. Engineering and Development Services Reports

* K 1. Report from M. Won, Director, Development Engineering Services, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 6, 2011, re: Subdivision Assumption – Dennison Avenue Extension Subdivision – Registered Plans 43M-1690 and 43R-29318 – North of Nelson Street between Haggert Avenue and McMurchy Avenue – Ward 5 (File C01W06.019).

PDD131-2011 1. That the report from M. Won, Director, Development Engineering Services, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 6, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Subdivision Assumption – Dennison Avenue Extension Subdivision – Registered Plans 43M-1690 and 43R-29318 – North of Nelson Street between Haggert Avenue and McMurchy Avenue – Ward 5 (File C01W06.019) be received; and,

2. That the Dennison Avenue Extension Subdivision – Registered Plans 43M-1690 and 43R-29318 be forwarded to City Council for assumption by the City, once all departments have provided clearance for assumption by the City.

Carried

* K 2. Report from M. Won, Director, Development Engineering Services, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 18, 2011, re: Subdivision Assumption – Lockspur Estates Subdivision – Registered Plan 43M-1737 – West side of The Gore Road between Cottrelle Boulevard and Castlemore Road – Ward 10 (File C09E09.002).

PDD132-2011 1. That the report from M. Won, Director, Development Engineering Services, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 18, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Subdivision Assumption – Lockspur Estates Subdivision – Registered Plan 43M-1737 – West side of The Gore Road between Cottrelle Boulevard and Castlemore Road – Ward 10 (File C09E09.002) be received; and,

2. That the Lockspur Estates Subdivision – Registered Plan 43M-1737 be forwarded to City Council for assumption by the City, once all departments have provided clearance for assumption by the City.

Carried

2011 06 13 of 53


* K 3. Report from M. Won, Director, Development Engineering Services, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 18, 2011, re: Subdivision Assumption – Brampton Summit Homes Subdivision – Registered Plan 43M-1703 – South-east corner of Williams Parkway and Chinguacousy Road – Ward 5 (File C02W08.005).

PDD133-2011 1. That the report from M. Won, Director, Development Engineering Services, Planning, Design and Development, dated May 18, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Subdivision Assumption – Brampton Summit Homes Subdivision – Registered Plan 43M-1703 – South-east corner of Williams Parkway and Chinguacousy Road – Ward 5 (File C02W08.005) be received; and,

2. That the Brampton Summit Homes Subdivision – Registered Plan 43M-1703 be forwarded to City Council for assumption by the City, once all departments have provided clearance for assumption by the City.

Carried

L. Minutes

* L 1. Brampton Heritage Board – May 17, 2011

PDD134-2011 That the Minutes of the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, Recommendations HB043-2011 to HB055-2011, be approved as printed and circulated.

Carried

The recommendations were approved as follows:

HB043-2011 That the agenda for the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011 be approved as amended as follows:

To add:

L 5. Discussion at the request of Michael Avis, Board Member, re: Proposed Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program (File G33).

2011 06 13 of 53


HB044-2011 That the following Brampton Heritage Board Members be elected to the position of Co-Chair for the term ending November 30, 2014, or until successors are named: Lynda Voegtle Paul Willoughby

HB045-2011 That the Minutes of the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of April 19, 2011, to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, be received, as amended, to correct references to “Dale Estates” to read “Dale Estate”.

HB046-2011 That the following Brampton Heritage Board Sub-Committees be established for the term ending November 30, 2014, or until successors are named: Heritage Resources Sub-Committee Outreach and Marketing Sub-Committee

HB047-2011 1. That the Minutes of the Churchville Heritage Committee Meeting of May 10, 2011 (File G33CH), to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, be received, as amended to correct the mover of the Approval of the Agenda motion; and,

2. That the following recommendations outlined in the subject minutes be endorsed:

That Peter Alexeeff be elected to the position of Chair of the Churchville Heritage Committee for the term ending November 30, 2014, or until a successor is named; and,

That Marianne Galliford be elected to the position of Vice-Chair of the Churchville Heritage Committee for the term ending November 30, 2014, or until a successor is named.

That the heritage permit for the demolition of the home located at 60 Victoria Street be approved and that the erection of a new home be approved with the following conditions: That there be sash windows in the dormer That the front double doors be comprised of a

minimum of 50% glass That no vegetation be removed

2011 06 13 of 53


HB048-2011 That the following be appointed as the Brampton Heritage Board Members on the Churchville Heritage Committee for the term ending November 30, 2014, or until successors are named: Jim Leonard Ken Wilde

HB049-2011 1. That the Heritage Impact Assessment prepared by Unterman McPhail Associates for SNC-Lavalin Inc., dated March 2011, to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, re: 8500 Mississauga Road – Ward 6 (File G33) be received; and,

2. That the Staff Comments from Antonietta Minichillo, Heritage Coordinator, Planning, Design and Development, undated, to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, re: Heritage Impact Assessment – 8500 Mississauga Road – Ward 6 (File G33) (File G33) be received; and,

3. That the demolition of 8500 Mississauga Road be allowed due to the lack of sufficient cultural heritage value of the property, subject to the following mitigation strategies: A qualified built heritage consultant prepare a list of

salvageable elements of the residence and a reputable contactor salvage the building in a reasonable time;

The Region of Peel provide a copy of the subject Heritage Impact Assessment report to the Region of Peel Archives and the Chinguacousy Branch of the Brampton Public Library.

HB050-2011 hat the advisory from Maureen Baker, Administrative Assistant, Planning and Development, Town of Caledon, to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, re: Joint Peel Heritage Committee Meeting – Friday, June 24, 2011 – 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. – Town of Caledon (File G33) be received.

HB051-2011 1. That the request from Susan Robertson, Project Manager, Watershed Planning, Toronto and Region Conservation (TRCA), to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, re: Request for Letter from Brampton Heritage Board in support of TRCA’s Nomination of Humber Watershed Alliance/Heritage Sub-Committee for a Heritage Canada Foundation National Achievement Award (File G33) be received; and,

2011 06 13 of 53


2. That the Brampton Heritage Board provide a letter in support of the subject nomination to be signed by the Co-Chairs, subject to review and finalization by one of the City’s Heritage Coordinators, Planning, Design and Development.

HB052-2011 That the verbal advisory from Penny Young, Heritage Coordinator, Planning, Design and Development, to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, re: Main Street South Heritage Conservation District – First Public Information Session – City Hall Atrium – Wednesday, June 8, 2011 or Tuesday, June 14, 2011 (File G33) be received.

HB053-2011 1. That the report from Antonietta Minichillo, Heritage Coordinator, Planning, Design and Development, to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, re: Heritage Report: Reasons for Heritage Designation – 10416 Airport Road – Ward 10 (File G33), be received; and,

2. That the Brampton Heritage Board endorses heritage designation of the subject property; and,

3. That the Heritage Coordinator, Planning, Design and Development, be directed to proceed with the next steps for heritage designation of the subject property.

HB054-2011 That, further to discussions at the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of May 17, 2011, staff be requested to report back to the Brampton Heritage Board Meeting of October 18, 2011 on the status of the proposed Heritage Property Tax Rebate Program.

HB055-2011 That the Brampton Heritage Board do now adjourn to meet again on Tuesday, June 21, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. or at the call of the Chair.

Carried

M. Other/New Business/Unfinished Business - nil

N. Referred Matters

* N 1. List of Referred Reports – Planning, Design and Development Committee.

2011 06 13 of 53


PDD135-2011 That the List of Referred Reports – Planning, Design and Development Committee to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011 (File P45GE) be received.

Carried

O. Deferred Matters - nil

P. Notice of Motion - nil

Q. Correspondence

* Q 1. Correspondence from the Town of Caledon dated May 5, 2011, re: Caledon Official Plan Amendment 226 and Regional Official Plan Amendment 20, 22, and 24 – Ontario Municipal Board Hearing – External Legal Counsel Commuter Rail Service – Feasibility Study (File G65).

PDD136-2011 That the correspondence from the Town of Caledon dated May 5, 2011, to the Planning, Design and Development Committee Meeting of June 13, 2011, re: Caledon Official Plan Amendment 226 and Regional Official Plan Amendment 20, 22, and 24 – Ontario Municipal Board Hearing – External Legal Counsel Commuter Rail Service – Feasibility Study (File G65) be received.

Carried

R. Councillors Question Period

R 1. In response to a question from Regional Councillor Hames with respect to listing reports on Amendments to the Sign By-law on this agenda, staff advised that in the future, the reports will be listed on the Planning, Design and Development Committee agenda for the afternoon meetings.

S. Public Question Period - nil

T. Closed Session - nil

2011 06 13 of 53


U. Adjournment

PDD137-2011 That the Planning, Design and Development Committee do now adjourn to meet again on Monday, June 20, 2011 at 1:00 p.m. or at the call of the Chair.

Carried

2011 06 13 of 53

planning, design and development committee minutes for

Documents