Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
November 03, 2021
CASE NO(S).:
PL170100
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
1390226 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
1610341 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
1705823 Ontario Ltd. (c/o York Developments)
Appellant:
1739626 Ontario Ltd. (c/o York Developments); and others
Subject:
The London Plan
Municipality:
City of London
OLT Case No.:
PL170100
OLT File No.:
PL170100
OLT Case Name:
Lansink v. London (City)
Heard:
October 7, 2021 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
City of London
A. Anderson
V. R
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and
A. Beamish
Housing
All Remaining Appellants
as listed in Schedule 1
A. Baroudi P. Lombardi
(except below)
A Skinner
P. Duffy
A Rahim
John and Andrea Ross
B. Matthew*
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW ON OCTOBER 7, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Introduction
1This Case Management Conference (“CMC”) addressed various remaining appeals to the City of London’s (“City”) new Official Plan, known as the “London Plan.”
2On consent of the Parties, several hearing events were scheduled, including a further CMC, as set out below.
Remaining City-wide Appeals
3The Appellants agree to proceeding with a hearing on the remaining city-wide appeals (referred to as “Phase 4” from the Parties’ framework for hearings) on the understanding that the City will not be initiating a comprehensive official plan amendment to revisit the existing height and bonusing framework, and related policies in the London Plan, in advance of the changes to s. 37 of the Planning Act (“Act”) that become effective as of September 18, 2022. In this regard, the existing bonusing regime under repealed s. 37 could be replaced by a community benefits charge regime under the new s. 37 of the Act, at some time in the future. The City advised that while it has the jurisdiction to initiate an official plan amendment now related to the bonusing/community benefit charge issue, such is not being pursued at this time and the final policy hearing on the London Plan should proceed. The City also acknowledged that an amendment will be required at some time in the future to “clean up” legislative/policy references that refer to bonusing and which will not be applicable after September 18, 2022.
4The final Procedural Order (“PO”) for Phase 4, submitted on consent following this CMC, is approved as contained in Schedule 2. The PO implements the general timeline filed by the City on consent and marked as Exhibit 1. For the next CMC, the Parties may file settlement motions or a revised Issues List resulting from their continuing discussions. The City, with input from the Parties, is directed to provide a Hearing Plan for consideration of the Tribunal at the next CMC. Should fewer than 13 days be required for the hearing, dates may be removed from the Tribunal’s Calendar.
5The hearing of the remaining city-wide appeals will be held by video hearing for 13 days commencing at 10 a.m. on Monday, September 26, 2022.
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/501975085
Access code: 501-975-085
Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1 (888) 299-1889
Audio-only access code: 501-975-085
6Please see paragraphs [19] to [23] for general instructions.
Site-Specific Appeals
7The City filed on consent the list of remaining appeals, now marked as Exhibit 2. The Parties are in discussions to reduce issues or achieve settlements on several site-specific appeals. At the next CMC, the Parties may seek further direction on issues, scheduling of hearings, or may advance settlement motions where reached.
Hearing for Site-Specific Appeals 4 and 24
8For six separate appeals (Appeal 24 and five appeals under Appeal 4), the Parties requested that hearings be scheduled. For efficiency of the Tribunal’s calendar, and given that several of the appeals pertain to the same subject matter and witnesses, these appeals were scheduled for a collective hearing. The Parties will agree on the order of proceedings for these separate appeals through a Hearing Plan to be presented to the Tribunal at the next CMC.
9In the event that resolutions on these appeals reduce the hearing time required, the Parties to other appeals, on consent, may request at the next CMC that an appeal be added to this hearing.
10Appeal 24 and five appeals under Appeal 4 will be heard by video hearing over seven days commencing at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 6, 2022.
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/386748917
Access code: 386-748-917
Audio-only telephone line: 1 (647) 497-9391 or Toll Free 1 (888) 455-1389
Audio-only access code: 386-748-917
11Please see paragraphs [19] to [23] for general instructions.
Appeal 17
12The withdrawal of Appeal 17 is confirmed.
Appeal 20
13The property affected by Appeal 20 was sold to Benny Matthew by the Appellants and former owners, John and Andrea Ross. Mr. Matthew had difficulty connecting to the video conference but the Tribunal understands, from his email communication and from counsel for the former owners, that Mr. Matthew may wish to continue with the appeal and is considering retaining counsel.
14Without objection from any Party, the Tribunal directed Mr. Matthew, should he wish to continue with Appeal 20, to file the request with the Tribunal and the City well in advance of the next CMC.
Appeal 37, Participant Request
15For Appeal 37, Annamaria Valastro filed a written request for Participant status as a resident of the North Talbot neighbourhood concerned with protecting its historical character. During this CMC, Ms. Valastro expressed her wider concerns for planning across the City and requested that she be granted Participant status for the entire PL170100 proceedings remaining under appeal.
16The City and Appellant 37 did not oppose the Participant request for Appeal 37, but opposed the wider request given that these appeals have been underway for years through some 14 CMCs, with many appeals resolved or decided and more scheduled for hearings.
17The Tribunal granted Participant status to Ms. Valastro for Appeal 37 only. Should Ms. Valastro continue to seek similar status on all remaining appeals, she is directed to file a further request in writing and include the issues and reasons for the request. If submitted, the Tribunal will consider such request at the next CMC.
Next Case Management Conference
18The next CMC will be held by video hearing at 10 a.m. on Monday, May 2, 2022.
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/560446229
Access code: 560-446-229
Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-Free) 1 (888) 455-1389
Audio-only access code: 560-446-229
19Statutory Parties and anyone seeking Party or Participant status are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.
20Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html
21Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line with the access code provided.
22Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the CMC hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing events may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
ORDER
23The Tribunal Orders its directions, rulings and orders as contained in this Decision.
24No further notice will be given.
25This Member is not seized but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator for case management purposes.
“S. Tousaw”
S. tousaw
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
SCHEDULE 1
All Remaining Appellants
Appeal No.
Counsel
Address
Appellant Name
Status as of October 7, 2021 CMC
17
Lombardi
4545 Scotland
Farhi
Has been withdrawn.
20
Vikas Sharma
1957 Sunningdale
John Ross
Adjourned to May 2, 2022 CMC to address new owner’s intentions and potential status request.
22
Lombardi
Victoria/ Wilton Grove
London Dairy
Adjourned to May 2, 2022 CMC to either resolve or file PO and Issues List and set hearing date.
24
Lombardi
Commissioners
Margaret Ross
2-day hearing scheduled for June 13-14, 2022.
4
Baroudi
1885 Fanshawe E
Auburn
1-day hearing scheduled as part of 5-day block June 6-10, 2022.
4
Baroudi
1284&1338 Sunningdale
Auburn
1-day hearing scheduled as part of 5-day block June 6-10, 2022.
4
Baroudi
2065 Kilally
Auburn
1-day hearing scheduled as part of 5-day block June 6-10, 2022.
4
Baroudi
108 Exeter Rd
Auburn
1-day hearing scheduled as part of 5-day block June 6-10, 2022.
4
Baroudi
3924 Colonel Talbot
Auburn
1-day hearing scheduled as part of 5-day block June 6-10, 2022.
4
Baroudi
1924 Adelaide St N
Auburn
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
8
Baroudi
186&188 Huron
KAP
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
12
Baroudi
240 Waterloo
1610341 Ontario Inc.
No instructions
18
Baroudi
Grosvenor/ St. George./ St. James
Grosvenor Development Corp.
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
29
Baroudi
Richmond/ Windermere
Richmond North MCC675
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
1
Duffy/ Cheng
560-562 Wellington
Auburn
Hold pending disposition of development application currently in process.
15
Duffy/ Cheng
193-199 College Ave
York
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
19
Duffy/ Cheng
1192 Highbury Ave N
York
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
36
Duffy/ Cheng
175-199 Ann St
York
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
37
Duffy/ Cheng
550 Ridout St N
York
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
41
Duffy/ Cheng
3080 Bostwick
York
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
27
Duffy/ Cheng
1299 Oxford St E
Westdell
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
4
Duffy/ Cheng
135 Villagewalk/ Upper Richmond Village
Auburn / York
Hold pending disposition of Phase 4.
SCHEDULE 2
Local Planning Appeal Tribunal
Procedural Order
CASE NO(S). PL170100
Appellant: 560 Wellington Holdings Inc. Appellant: 1390226 Ontario Inc. Appellant: A&W Food Services Appellant: Auburn Developments Inc. & Crich Holdings and Buildings Limited Appellant: Corlon Properties Inc. Appellant: Kapland Inc. & Kap Holdings Inc. Appellant: McDonald’s Restaurants Appellant: Ontario Restaurant Hotel & Motel Association Appellant: The TDL Group Appellant: 1610341 Ontario Inc. Appellant: 1705823 Ontario Ltd. (TKG-Storagemart Partners Canada III, ULC) Appellant: Chazim Appellant: College Avenue Lofts Inc.(c/o York Developments) Appellant: ESAM Construction Limited Appellant: Farhi Holdings Corporation Appellant: Grosvenor Development Corp Appellant: Highbury North Centre Inc. (York Developments) Appellant John D. Ross Appellant: Jug Manocha Appellant: London Dairy Appellant: London Land Developers Association Appellant: Margaret Ross & Darvic Appellant: Norquay Developments Ltd. and Norquay Property Management Limited Appellant: Old Oak Properties Inc. Appellant: Oxbury Centre Inc. Appellant: Paramount Appellant: Richmond North & MCC 675 Appellant: Rygar Appellant: Sam Katz Holdings Limited Appellant: Schlegel Villages Inc. Appellant: Sifton Properties Limited Appellant: Textbook Appellant: York Developments Appellant: Ridout and Kent Block Inc. (c/o York Developments) Appellant: 1767306 Ontario Ltd. (TKG-Storagemart Partners Canada III, ULC) Appellant: 1739626 Ontario Ltd. (c/o Westdell Development Corporation) Appellant: Westfield Village Estates Inc. (c/o York Developments) Appellant: 731675 Ontario Ltd. (c/o York Developments) Appellant: York Developments (TKG – Storagemart Partners Canada III, ULC) Subject: City of London New Official Plan Municipality: City of London LPAT Case No.: PL170100
PROCEDURAL ORDER All general, City-wide appeals
- The Tribunal may vary or add to these rules at any time, either on request or as it sees fit. It may alter this Order by an oral ruling, or by another written Order.
Organization of the Hearing
The hearing will be comprised of phases by subject matter. This Procedural Order contains requirements with respect to the final block of hearing time, comprised of the remaining parts of Phase 1B (hereinafter referred to as Phase 4).
The parties and participants (see Attachment 1 for the meaning of these terms) identified at the case management conference are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
Documents shall be delivered electronically, with hard copy to the Tribunal only, or otherwise as the Tribunal may direct. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Tribunal’s Rules 7.11 to 7.13 on this subject. Material delivered by mail shall be deemed to have been received five business days after the date of registration or certification.
No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rules 17.1 to 17.5 applies to such requests
Organization and Requirements of Phase 4 of the Hearing
A case management conference will occur on Monday, May 2, 2022 at 10:00 a.m.
Phase 4 will begin on Monday, September 26, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. and will proceed electronically. The format of the hearing may be re-visited by any party or the Tribunal if circumstances regarding COVID-19 permit a change in format.
The length of Phase 4 will be 13 days. The length of the hearing may be shortened as issues are resolved or settlement is achieved.
The City will provide any alternative policy language and map changes being sought for approval on or before Wednesday, December 22, 2021.
The Appellants will provide any alternative policy language and map changes being sought for approval on or before Wednesday, February 9, 2022.
The parties will provide the Tribunal with an updated Issues List, on consent, Monday, July 11, 2022.
If the parties are unable to produce an Issues List for Phase 4 on consent:
a) Any party may request that the Tribunal be spoken to as soon as the Tribunal’s calendar permits but not if it has the effect of unreasonably delaying other dates in this Procedural Order; or,
b) The Original Issues Lists, Attachment 3 to this Order, will be advanced.
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered Monday, July 22, 2022. For expert witnesses, a party is to include a copy of the curriculum vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified.
An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, that shall include: an acknowledgement of expert’s duty form, the area(s) of expertise, any reports prepared by the expert, and any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in section 16. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.
Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence, as in section 16.
On or before Friday, August 12, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the Tribunal and the other parties, or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing.
A participant must provide to the Tribunal and the parties a participant statement no later than Friday, August 12, 2022, or the participant may not give oral evidence at the hearing.
On or before Friday, August 19, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. If a model is proposed to be used the Tribunal must be notified before the hearing. All parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and file with the Tribunal a written response to any written or visual evidence on or before Monday, September 12, 2022.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules 10.1 to 10.5.
A party who provides the written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have that witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the Tribunal and parties are notified on or before Monday, September 19, 2022 that the written evidence is not part of their record.
The parties shall review the hearing work plan, make any necessary adjustments to same, and provide a copy to the Tribunal on or before Monday, September 19, 2022. If agreement among the parties cannot be reached with respect to the hearing work plan, then the Tribunal may be spoken to at the outset of the hearing.
The order of evidence shall be generally as listed in Attachment 4 to this Order. Adjustment may be made, if necessary, based on the remaining issues for adjudication and the participating parties in the Phase 2/3 hearing.The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on consent or by Order of the Tribunal.
The Parties shall prepare a joint document book, electronically book-marked and hyperlinked, double sided in hard copy. The City will circulate a draft index no later than Tuesday, September 6, 2022. The Appellants will provide all additional documents for inclusion no later than Tuesday, September 13, 2022. The City will prepare the document book for circulation to all Parties and the Tribunal no later than Monday, September 19, 2022.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address, and telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible (preferably before the prehearing conference). Any such person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address and phone number as soon as possible.
This Member is not seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms
The Tribunal recommends that the parties meet to discuss this sample Order before the prehearing conference to try to identify the issues and the process that they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear the parties’ comments about the contents of the Order at the conference.
Prehearing conferences usually take place only where the hearing is expected to be long and complicated. If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by obtaining the Guide to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, and the Tribunal’s Rules, from the Tribunal Information Office, 15th Floor, 655 Bay Street, Toronto, M5G 1E5, 416-327-6800, or from the Tribunal website at http://elto.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/legislation-and-rules/.
Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:
Party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer, and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorization from the party.
NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the prehearing conference, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing. Such persons may also be identified at the start of the hearing. The Tribunal will set the time for hearing this statement. NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as parties can. If a participant does not attend the hearing and only files a written statement, the Tribunal will not give it the same attention or weight as submissions made orally. The reason is that parties cannot ask further questions of a person if they merely file material and do not attend.
Written and Visual Evidence: Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material. Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
Witness Statements: A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing. A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, if any, which the participant will refer to at the hearing.
Additional Information
Summons: A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the parties. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.
The order of examination of witnesses: is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal; cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 2
LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
Phase 4:
1- 560 Wellington Holdings, J. Cheng and P. Duffy
4 – Auburn and Crich, A. Baroudi
8 – KAP, A. Baroudi
23- LDI, A. Baroudi
25 – Norquay, A. Baroudi
33 – Sifton, A. Skinner and D. Neligan
42 – York, J. Cheng and P. Duffy
Michael Cattrysse & Sari Belzycki, L. English
City of London, A. Anderson
Participants:
Ayerswood Development Corp.
940 On the Park Limited
Drewlo Holdings Inc.
Perry Sempecos
Southside Construction Management Ltd.
ATTACHMENT 3
List of Policies, Tables and Maps to be Litigated
86 (Appellant 4)
94 (Appellant 4)
96 (Appellant 4)
209 (Appellant 4, 33)
790 (Appellant 4)
791 (Appellant 4)
813 (Appellant 4)
828 (Appellant 4)
829 (Appellant 4)
837 (Appellant 4)
839 (Appellant 4)
840 (Appellant 4)
920 (Appellant 4)
935 (Appellant 4)
954 (Appellant 4,25,33)
955 (Appellant 4,23,25,33)
956 (Appellant 4,23,25,33)
957 (Appellant 4,23,25,33)
958(Appellant 4,23,25,33)
959 (Appellant 4,25,33)
1033 (Appellant 1,4)
1034 (Appellant 1,4)
1638 (Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1639(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1640(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1641(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1642(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1643(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1644(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1645(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1646(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1647(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1648(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1649(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1650(Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1651 (Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1652 (Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1653 (Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1654 (Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1655 (Appellant 4,23,33,42)
1780 (Appellant 4)
Map 1 (Appellant 4,23,25)
Map 2 (Appellant 4,23,25)
Map 7 (Appellant 4)
Table 7 (Appellant 4)
Table 8 (Appellant 4,39,42)
Table 9 (4,8,39,42)
Table 11(4,8,23,25,33,39,42)
Table 12 (Appellant 4)
ISSUES LIST
Height/Intensity Framework
Policies: 86, 94, 96, 790, 791, 813, 828, 829, 837, 839, 840, 920, 1638-1655, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, Table 11, Table 12, Map 1, Map 2, Map 7
Are the remaining policies and Tables under appeal overly prescriptive and inappropriate for an Official Plan?
Should the remaining policies and Tables under appeal relating to the height framework be modified to add greater flexibility?
Do the intensification policies and development standards in The London Plan identify appropriate locations and sufficiently promote opportunities for intensification and redevelopment consistent with the policies of the PPS, including 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.4.1, and 1.4.3?
Do the intensification policies and development standards of The London Plan have due consideration for the existing development context?
Are prescriptive policies regulating height appropriate for controlling intensity and promoting intensification under the PPS?
Do the Corridor policies, including the Corridor interpretation policies, provide sufficient flexibility to achieve the Official Plan’s intensification objectives, and are these policies consistent with the PPS, including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.4.1, and 1.4.3?
Does limiting greater height and intensity to properties only along the corridors as part of Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type make the best use of transit infrastructure and transit support per the PPS, including Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.4.3, 1.6.7, 1.7.1 and 1.8?
Is limiting an uplift in height to properties designated Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type that are within 100 metres of rapid transit stations consistent with contemporary transit-oriented development practice, and does it make best use of transit infrastructure and transit support per these PPS policies?
Does policy 791 provide sufficient clarity on what criteria or considerations are involved in establishing a maximum height for a site? Should the considerations in policy 791 be more clearly expressed to provide a level of understanding for property owners from the outset?
Is there a sufficient direction as to what constitutes a “large floor plate, single use building” in Policy 837?
Is the statement concerning “a form of development very similar to Rapid Transit Corridors, but at a slightly lower intensity” in Policy 828 accurate for Urban Corridors recognizing the latter Place Type benefits from no intensity uplift for immediate proximity to rapid transit stations?
Is the Plan inconsistent and/or illogical in how it addresses intensity, use and form in anticipation of conditions beyond the 2035 timeframe of the Plan?
Should the bonusing policies in The London Plan be deleted or modified? What modified or new policies are required to replace the bonusing policies and to reflect appropriate height permissions throughout the London Plan that meet provincial policy?
Neighbourhoods Place Type
Policies: 920, 935, Map 1
Do the Neighbourhoods Place Types policies unnecessarily constrain development including intensification?
Are the Neighbourhoods Place Type policies internally inconsistent and contradictory?
High Density Residential Overlay
Policies: 954,955,956,957,958,959, 1780, Map 1, Map 2
Will the removal of previously designated high density residential lands undermine the existing and planned functions of the areas and communities in which they are situated, and is this approach consistent with the PPS including policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4.1, and 1.4.3?
Does the HDR Overlay adequately protect existing development permissions, and are the related policies of The London Plan consistent with the PPS including Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4.1 and 1.4.3?
Does the HDR Overlay policy structure represent good land use planning, and is this consistent with the PPS including Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.4.1, and 1.4.3?
Is it appropriate to abandon the previously planned and approved high density residential (HDR) locations from the Official Plan?
Does the proposed HDR overlay represent a removal of development rights previously established through comprehensive planning studies or through Provincial Tribunal decisions?
Will the proposed HDR overlay result in the down zoning of previously zoned HDR sites and, if so, is this legally permissible, consistent with the PPS, and does it represent sound land use planning?
Will the proposed HDR overlay have an impact on the ability to provide affordable housing alternatives in the City?
Have all properties currently designated High Density Residential in the 1989 Official Plan and in secondary plans as contemplated by proposed policy 1558 been appropriately and consistently included on Map 2?
Is it appropriate, does it represent good planning, and is it in the public interest to have a policy in the London Plan that would downzone/limit the height and density of sites already planned and zoned for higher height and density than the proposed London Plan would otherwise permit outside of the Primary Transit Area?
Are the HDR policies and mapping appropriate taking into account other policies in the London Plan related to height and density, and provincial policies with respect to same?
Woodfield Neighbourhood
Policies: 1033, 1034, Table 11, Map 1
Does the “Woodfield Neighbourhood” characterization in Policies 1033 and 1034 correctly describe the existing nature and composition of this neighbourhood, including both existing nature and composition of this neighbourhood, including both existing land uses, forms and intensity as well as intended different Place Types?
Does the characterization of the Woodfield Neighbourhood in policies 1033, 1034, and the related application of Map 1 and Table 11 inappropriately constrain intensification and uses that are appropriate for an area close to Downtown per the intensification and redevelopment policies of the PPS, including Policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, and 1.6.7? Do these policies introduce ambiguity?
ATTACHMENT 4
Order of evidence for Phase 1A
- Appellants
- City of London
- Appellants Reply Evidence
Precise order of evidence including order of Appellants and integration of Participant statements will be determined through the Work Plan
37980657.1