Northgate Land Corp. v. Waterloo (Region), 2021 CanLII 118962

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

November 16, 2021

CASE NO(S).:

PL130028

PL180119

PL180121

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant:

Northgate Land Corp.

Subject:

Proposed Official Plan Amendment

Municipality:

City of Waterloo

OLT Case No.:

PL130028

OLT File No.:

PL130028

OLT Case Name:

Northgate v. Waterloo (Region)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

1017081 Ontario Limited

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of the Region of Waterloo to make a decision

Property Address/Description:

Part of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT (Plan 58R et. al.

Municipality:

Region of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

30T-17401

OLT Case No.

PL180119

OLT File No.

PL180119

OLT Case Name:

1017081 Ontario Ltd. v. Waterloo (Region)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

1017081 Ontario Ltd.

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure the Region of Waterloo to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/Description:

Part of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT (Plan 58R et. al.)

Municipality:

Region of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

30CDM-17409

OLT Case No.:

PL180119

OLT File No.:

PL180120

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Gabriel Groff and 1017081 Ontario Ltd.

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1418 (now, Zoning By-law No. 2018-50) – Neglect of the City of Waterloo to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

“Agricultural (A)”

Proposed Zoning:

"G 1 - Green 1- Environmental"; "G2 - Green 2 - Parks and Other Municipal Facilities"; "FR - Flexible Residential"; "MD3 - Medium Density 3"; "MR6 - Multiple Residential - Six"; "MXR - Mixed use residential", "SD - semi-detached"

Purpose:

To permit the development of 614 - 835 dwelling units, including single-detached dwellings, street fronting town houses, multiple residential blocks and mixed use development

Property Address/Description:

S/W Corner of Conservation Dr. & Beaver Creek Rd.

Municipality:

City of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

Z-17-14

OLT Case No.:

PL180119

OLT File No.:

PL171494

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

1455136 Ontario Limited

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of the Region of Waterloo to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/Description:

Part Of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT

Municipality:

Region of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

30T-17402

OLT Case No.:

PL180121

OLT File No.:

PL180121

OLT Case Name:

1455136 Ontario Ltd. v. Waterloo (Region)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

1455136 Ontario Limited

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of the Region of Waterloo to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/Description:

Part of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT

Municipality:

Region of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

30T-17410

OLT Case No.:

PL180121

OLT File No.:

PL180122

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

Applicant and Appellant:

1455136 Ontario Limited

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law 1418 – Neglect of the City of Waterloo to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Agricultural ‘A’

Proposed Zoning:

“G 1 – Green 1 – Environmental”; “G2 – Green 2 – Parks and Other Municipal Facilities”, “FR – Flexible Residential”; “MD3 – Medium Density 3”, “MR6 – Multiple Residential – Six; MXR – Mixed use residential: ”SD – semi-detached”

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/Description:

Part Of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT

Municipality:

City of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

Z-17-15

OLT Case No.

PL180121

OLT File No.

PL171495

Heard:

November 3, 2021 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Regional Municipality of Waterloo

F. McCrea

City of Waterloo

S. O’Melia

Gabriella Groff 1017081 Ontario Limited 1455136 Ontario Limited Northgate Land Corp.

R. Howe

Activa Holdings Inc.

G. Murdoch

Mar-View Farms Limited 2550891 Ontario Inc.

P. Foran (in absentia) P. Harrington

2014707 Ontario Limited 2115881 Ontario Limited

D. Baker (in absentia) R. Kehar

John Brohman

E. Davis

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW ON NOVEMBER 3, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This further Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened for the last remaining appeal to the City of Waterloo (“City”) 2012 Official Plan (“OP”) and for appeals of site-specific applications in the City being heard together with the OP appeal.

2Specifically, appeals were lodged against the partial approval, with modifications, by the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (“Region”) to the City’s OP. The appeals being heard together with the OP are those lodged by the proponents of site-specific developments that appealed the absence of a decision by the City within the statutory timeframe for Zoning By-law Amendments (“ZBA”) and Plans of Subdivision (“SUB”) (“site-specific Appellants”).

MOTION WITHDRAWN

3The City confirmed that it had withdrawn its Motion prior to this CMC, following its review and discussions with the Parties. The City had sought to geographically scope the OP appeal to the Appellant’s property, but now agrees that such matter is better addressed through a full hearing on the merits.

PROCEDURAL ORDER

4As directed at the last CMC, the Appellants presented a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) on consent of the Parties for the hearing scheduled for 20 days commencing on October 3, 2022, by Video Hearing. In addition to standard document exchange requirements, the PO includes provisions for the exchange of potential conditions to draft approval and associated meetings of witnesses, all in an effort to reduce or scope the Issues List where possible. Participants are reminded to note the date by which their statement is required to be filed.

5The hearing is scheduled by video, although some Parties may prefer an in-person hearing, if possible, at that time. The City advised that it will ensure space is reserved now in a suitable location in the event the hearing format is changed to in-person. The Tribunal agreed to enable the Parties to raise this issue again at the next CMC.

6The Tribunal agreed to the Appellants’ request, on consent of the Parties, to update the Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) reference in the Title of Proceedings. The appealed Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) applications reflected then ZBL No. 1418, which has since been replaced by the City with ZBL No. 2018-050. The Parties agree that the current City ZBL is the appropriate reference now for the ZBAs and have reflected same in the PO.

7The Tribunal approved the PO as contained in Attachment 1.

NEXT CMC

8The Parties requested the scheduling of a further CMC, now placed in the Tribunal’s Calendar as set out below. Should the CMC not be necessary, the Parties, on consent, may advise the Case Coordinator in advance.

9The next CMC will be held by video and is scheduled for Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10 a.m.

10Parties and participants 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:

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/204426741

Access code: 204-426-741

11Parties 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

12Persons 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: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1 (888) 299-1889. The access code is 204-426-741.

13Individuals 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 hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case. 

14No further notice will be given.

ORDER

15The Tribunal Orders its directions and orders contained in this Decision.

16This 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL

PROCEDURAL ORDER

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant:

Northgate Land Corp.

Subject:

Proposed New Official Plan

Municipality:

City of Waterloo

OMB Case No.:

PL130028

OMB File No.:

PL130028

OMB Case Name:

Activa Holdings Inc. v. Waterloo (Regional Municipality)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Gabriella Groff and 1017081 Ontario Limited

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the Region of Waterloo to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/Description:

Part of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT (Plan 58R et. al.)

Municipality:

Region of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

30T-17401

OMB Case No.:

PL180119

OMB File No.:

PL180119

OMB Case Name:

1017081 Ontario Ltd. v. Waterloo (Region)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

Gabriella Groff and 1017081 Ontario Limited

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure the Region of Waterloo to make a decision to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/Description:

Part of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT (Plan 58R et. al.)

Municipality:

Region of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

30CDM-17409

OMB Case No.:

PL180119

OMB File No.:

PL180120

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

Applicant and Appellant:

Gabriella Groff and 1017081 Ontario Ltd.

Subject:

Application to amend City of Waterloo Zoning By-law No. 2018-050 - Neglect of the City of Waterloo to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Zone Change Application (ZC)

Proposed Zoning:

Parks and Recreation (OS1), Conservation (OS3), Residential One (R1), Residential Five (R5), Residential Eight (R8) and Residential Nine (R9), subject to site specific provisions

Purpose:

To permit the development of 614 - 835 dwelling units, including single-detached dwellings, street fronting town houses, multiple residential blocks and mixed use development.

Property Address/Description:

S/W Corner of Conservation Drive and Beaver Creek Road

Municipality:

City of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

Z-17-14

OMB Case No.:

PL180119

OMB File No.:

PL171494

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

1455136 Ontario Limited

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the Region of Waterloo to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/Description:

Part of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT

Municipality:

Region of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

30T-17402

OMB Case No.:

PL180121

OMB File No.:

PL180121

OMB Case Name:

1455136 Ontario Ltd. v. Waterloo (Region)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

1455136 Ontario Limited

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the Region of Waterloo to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/ Description:

Part Of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT

Municipality:

Region of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

30T-17410

OMB Case No.:

PL180121

OMB File No.:

PL180122

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

Applicant and Appellant:

1455136 Ontario Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend the City of Waterloo Zoning By-law No. 2018-050 - Neglect of the City of Waterloo to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

Zone Change Application (ZC)

Proposed Zoning:

Parks and Recreation (OS1), Conservation (OS3), Residential One (R1), Residential Five (R5), subject to site specific provisions

Purpose:

To permit the creation of a new residential neighbourhood with parks and protected open space

Property Address/Description:

Part of Lot 28 GERMAN COMPANY TRACT

Municipality:

City of Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

Z-17-15

OMB Case No.:

PL180121

OMB File No.:

PL171495

1. 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

2. The hearing will begin on October 3, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. using the following electronic meeting platform:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/510233477

Audio-only telephone line: 1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll Free 1 (888) 299-1889

Access code: 510-233-477

While the hearing is currently scheduled to be conducted by video conference, the potential to instead hold an in-person hearing will be considered at the case management conference to be held on May 20, 2022.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 20 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see definitions of terms attached).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. 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.

7. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

8. On or before February 18, 2022, the Appellants, and any other party choosing to do so, will provide to all other parties a draft of proposed conditions of draft plan of subdivision and draft condominium approval.

9. On or before March 11, 2022, each party shall provide to the other parties their comments on or proposed revisions to the proposed conditions of draft plan of subdivision or draft condominium approval provided by the other parties; and (other than the Appellants) the draft plans of subdivision and condominium, and the proposed zoning by-law, it being recognized that these comments may be addressed, amended or augmented as experts’ meetings take place. On or before April 8, 2022, each party shall provide to the Tribunal and to the other parties any scoped issues, or revisions to its issues list arising from the conditions of draft plan approval provided pursuant to paragraph 8.

10. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the other parties a preliminary list of witnesses on or before. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and to the other parties a list of witnesses on or before March 11, 2022, and confirmation of their list of witnesses and the order in which they will be call on or before June 30, 2022. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified with its witness list.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall meet and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The meetings of experts shall commence no later than April 1, 2022. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before June 30, 2022.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14. 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.

13. 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 paragraph 14. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 14.

14. On or before August 5, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23.

15. On or before August 5, 2022, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before September 16, 2022, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. On or before September 9, 2022, the parties may provide a written response to any written evidence to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before September 23, 2022.

19. Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing, pursuant to the directions provided by the OLT case co-ordinator, on or before September 30, 2022. Additional cross-examination documents identified after that date will be provided in the same manner as soon as practicable prior to the cross-examination of the witness in question.

20. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. (See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.)

21. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before September 23, 2022 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically, and in hard copy if requested by the Tribunal. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by Rule 7.

24. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:

A 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. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and 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 authorisation 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 case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.

A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.

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.

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 a list of reports or materials 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 supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.

Additional Information

A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.

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 1

PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Party

Contact Information

Gabriella Groff, 1017081 Ontario Ltd. 1455136 Ontario Inc. Northgate Land Corp. (Appellants)

Goodmans LLP 3400 – 333 Bay Street Toronto ON M5H 2S7

Robert Howe rhowe@goodmans.ca

416-5975158

Ian Andres iandres@goodmans.ca

416-597-5160

City of Waterloo (Municipality)

Miller Thomson LLP 300 - 295 Hagey Boulevard Waterloo ON N2L 6R5

Steven O’Melia somelia@millerthomson.com

519-593-3289

Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Municipality)

Region of Waterloo Legal 150 Frederick Street 3rd Floor Kitchener ON N2G 4J3

Fiona McCrea FMcCrea@regionofwaterloo.ca 519-575-4518

Activa Holdings Inc.

Sorbara, Schumacher, McCann LLP 31 Union Street East Waterloo Ontario N2J 1B8

Greg Murdoch gmurdoch@sorbaralaw.com

519-749-4608

Mar-View Farms Limited 2550891 Ontario Inc.

Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street Suite 1800, Box 754 Toronto ON M5J 2T9

Patricia Foran pforan@airdberlis.com

416-865-3425

2014707 Ontario Limited 2115881 Ontario Limited

WeirFoulds LLP 1525 Cornwall Road, Suite 10 Oakville ON L6J 0B2

Denise Baker dbaker@weirfoulds.com

416-947-5090

John Brohman

Miller Thomson LLP 300 - 295 Hagey Boulevard Waterloo ON N2L 6R5

Eric Davis edavis@millerthomson.com

519-593-3282

Participant

Contact Information

Kevin Thomason

kevinthomason@mac.com

Greg Michalenko

gcmichal@uwaterloo.ca

Deb Swidrovich

deswid@gmail.com

ATTACHMENT 2

ISSES LIST

Note: The identification of an issue on this Issues List does not mean that all parties agree that such an issue, or the manner in which it is expressed, is appropriate or relevant for the proper determination of the appeals. The extent of the appropriateness and/or relevance of the issue may be a matter of evidence and/or argument at the hearing.

CITY OF WATERLOO OFFICIAL PLAN APPEAL

1. Does the wording of policy 5.4.4 of the Official Plan inappropriately, and contrary to good land use planning, restrict the potential development of new private roads required for appropriate development? In doing so, does the policy support the development of efficient land use and development patterns as required by the Provincial Policy Statement [including Part IV: Vision, and Part V: Policies 1.0, 1.1.1(a), 1.1.3, 1.1.3.2(a) and (b), 1.1.3.6, 1.4.3(b) and (d), 1.7.1(c), and related definitions]? Is the wording of the policy sufficiently clear? Should the policy recognize private roads as part of the infrastructure system, in conformity with the policies of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan (definition of “infrastructure”)?

2. Do the policies of the Official Plan pertaining to infrastructure and roads within or adjacent to Core Natural Features, and in particular policies 8.2.4(c), 8.2.4(13), and 8.2.4(14):

(a) fail to provide clear policy direction through the use of vague or unclear language,

(b) inappropriately, and contrary to good land use planning, restrict the installation of infrastructure, including private roads, required for development,

(c) achieve consistency with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the protection of natural features [policies 2.1.5 and 2.1.8 and related definitions],

(d) appropriately balance the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan that require the protection of natural features, and the policies requiring the efficient use of land, the development of efficient land use and development patterns, the provision of a full range of housing options, and a range and mix of employment, institutional and mixed uses? [PPS: Part III, Part IV: Vision, and Part V: Policies 1.0, 1.1.1(a), (c) and (h), 1.1.3, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2(a) and (b), 1.1.3.6, 1.3.1, 1.4.3(b) and (d), 1.7.1(c), and related definitions] | [Growth Plan: policies 1.2.3, 2.1, 2.2.1.4(c), 2.2.6.1(a), 4.1],

(e) conform to the policies of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan regarding the protection of Core Environmental Features [policies 7.C.9 to 7.C.13 and related definitions],

(f) represent good land use planning?

3. Do the policies and mapping of the Official Plan pertaining to Restoration Areas, and in particular policies 8.2(second paragraph), 8.2.2(1) and (2), and 8.2.6, and the note on Schedule A4:

(a) contemplate the potential expansion of the Natural System without clear criteria or policy guidance regarding the identification and function of such areas, or the process for identifying such areas,

(b) achieve consistency with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the protection of natural features [policies 2.1.2, 2.1.5 and 2.1.8 and related definitions],

(c) appropriately balance the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan that require the protection of natural features and the policies requiring the efficient use of land, the development of efficient land use and development patterns, the provision of a full range of housing options, and a range and mix of employment, institutional and mixed uses? [PPS: Part III, Part IV: Vision, and Part V: Policies 1.0, 1.1.1(a), (c) and (h), 1.1.3, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2(a) and (b), 1.1.3.6, 1.3.1, 1.4.3(b) and (d), 1.7.1(c), and related definitions] | [Growth Plan: policies 1.2.3, 2.1, 2.2.1.4(c), 2.2.6.1(a), 4.1],

(d) conform to the policies of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan regarding the protection of Core Environmental Features and Supporting Environmental Features [policies 7.A, 7.C, 7.E.1 and 7.E.2 and related definitions],

(e) represent good land use planning.

4. Do the policies and mapping of the Official Plan pertaining to Linkages, and in particular policies 8.2(second paragraph), 8.2.2(1) and (2), and 8.2.7, and the note on Schedule A4:

(a) fail to provide clear criteria or policy guidance regarding the identification and function of environmental linkages, or the process for identifying and managing environmental linkages,

(b) achieve consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement regarding the protection of natural features [policies 2.1.2, 2.1.5 and 2.1.8 and related definitions],

(c) appropriately balance the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan that require the protection of natural features and the policies requiring the efficient use of land, the development of efficient land use and development patterns, the provision of a full range of housing options, and a range and mix of employment, institutional and mixed uses? [PPS: Part III, Part IV: Vision, and Part V: Policies 1.0, 1.1.1(a), (c) and (h), 1.1.3, 1.1.3.1, 1.1.3.2(a) and (b), 1.1.3.6, 1.3.1, 1.4.3(b) and (d), 1.7.1(c), and related definitions] | [Growth Plan: policies 1.2.3, 2.1, 2.2.1.4(c), 2.2.6.1(a), 4.1],

(d) conform to the policies of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan regarding Linkages [policies 7.E.6 and 7.E.7 and related definitions], and

(e) represent good land use planning.

5. Should policy 12.5(5) and (6) be modified to reflect the approval of the Region of Waterloo Official Plan by the Ontario Municipal Board.

6. Should Schedules A, A3 and A4 be modified to show the actual limits of the Core Natural Feature on the subject lands.

DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION AND REZONING APPEALS

CITY OF WATERLOO REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO

Note: The purpose of this list is to consolidate the issues of the City of Waterloo and the Region of Waterloo into a single list. The identification of an issue on this list does not necessarily mean that both the City and the Region will present evidence on each issue.

Planning Act, PPS, Growth Plan, Official Plans, District Plan

1. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision and condominium and related zoning bylaw amendments (the “Applications”) have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest set out in section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended (the “Planning Act”)?

2. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision and condominium have appropriate regard to the criteria and matters required to be considered pursuant to section 51 of the Planning Act?

3. Are the Applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), including without limitation policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.2.4, 1.2.6, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.6, 3.1 and 4.0?

4. Do the Applications conform to “A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe” (2020) including without limitation policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 4.2 and 5.2?

5. Do the Applications conform to the Region of Waterloo Official Plan, including without limitation policies 2.D.1, 2.D.16 to 2.D.20, 2.G.10, 2.G.13, 2.G.14, 2.G.18, 3.G.9, 3.G.10, 5.A.3, 5.B.2, 5.C.3, 7.A, 7.C, 7.F.7, 7.I.8, 7.I.10 and 8.B?

6. Do the Applications conform to the City of Waterloo Official Plan, including without limitation policies 1.4, 2.3(20), 3.1, 3.3(6), 3.4, 3.5, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.10, 3.11, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 6.1, 6.4, 6.7(1)(a)-(d), 7.5, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.7.3, 10.1, 10.5, 11.1.62(2), 12.2.1, 12.2, and 12.7.1?

7. Do the Applications appropriately implement the North Waterloo Scoped Subwatershed Study (Ecoplans, et. al., 2013) and any approved addenda?

8. Do the Applications conform to the Beaver Creek Meadows District Plan (2016) and any modifications subsequently approved, including without limitation policies 1.3.1, 3.1.2, 3.4.5, 3.8, 3.10, 5.2.1 and Appendix Table A?

Density

9. Do the Applications adequately demonstrate that the proposed density of development is consistent with and conforms to all applicable planning policy documents?

Design

10. Do the Applications create an appropriate road network that is adequately located, sized, and designed?

11. Do the Applications create appropriate lots and blocks that are adequately sized, oriented, and configured?

12. Do the Applications adequately accommodate utilities and telecommunication services, including without limitation the burial of hydro services?

Parkland

13. Do the Applications provide for appropriate parkland having regard for amount, use, location, design, configuration, and encumbrances?

Emergency Response

14. Do the Applications provide for safe and effective emergency response, including fire response, in accordance with good emergency response practice and the provisions of all relevant policy documents?

Environmental

15. Are the boundaries of the wetland and associated buffer (within approximately 50 metres of Conservation Drive in Block 2, Stage 5 and Block 4, Stage 2 of the proposed Northgate Draft Plan of Subdivision) appropriate and consistent with the revised Environmental Impact Study submitted in support of the Applications (the “EIS”)?

16. Has the EIS adequately assessed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed development? Do the mitigation measures identified in the EIS adequately protect environmental features and functions, and does the EIS adequately assess the maintenance, enhancement and restoration of the environmental features and functions?

17. Has the EIS adequately demonstrated that the proposed development will not result in any ‘adverse environmental impacts’, as defined by the Regional Official Plan and the City’s Official Plan?

18. Has the EIS adequately demonstrated that:

(a) the proposed installation of infrastructure associated with Stage 5 of the proposed Northgate Draft Plan of Subdivision and Condominium will not result in widespread adverse environmental impacts to the Core Environmental Features or their functions, or result in long-term damage to their significant features and functions?

(b) the proposed installation of infrastructure associated with Stage 5 of the proposed Northgate Draft Plan of Subdivision and Condominium will not result in widespread adverse environmental impacts to the Core and Supporting Natural Features or their functions, or result in long-term damage to their significant features and functions?

19. Do the proposed planning instruments adequately protect:

(a) the Core Environmental Features and associated buffers on and around the subject lands; and

(b) the Core and Supporting Natural Features and associated buffers on and surrounding the subject lands?

Pumping Stations

20. Have the proposed Pumping Station Blocks (Stage 1, Block 16 and Stage 3, Block 27) been adequately sized and configured, having appropriate regard for all relevant legislation, planning/development documents and technical guidelines?

Stormwater Management

21. Is the proposed stormwater management design/strategy for the development appropriate and adequate, and in accordance with all relevant legislation, planning/development documents and technical guidelines?

22. For Stages 1 and 2 of the Northgate Draft Plan of Subdivision, do the Applications propose an adequate and appropriate stormwater management design/strategy, and in accordance with all relevant legislation, planning/development documents and technical guidelines?

23. Is proposed stormwater management Block 28 in Stage 3 of the Northgate Draft Plan of Subdivision adequately sized, configured, and located, and in accordance with all relevant legislation, planning/development documents and technical guidelines?

Condominium Servicing and Stormwater

24. Is the proposed servicing and stormwater management design/strategy for the proposed condominiums appropriate and adequate, and in accordance with all relevant legislation, planning/development documents and technical guidelines?

Staging

25. Is the proposed staging of the development appropriate for orderly growth and development?

26. Do the proposed planning instruments contain appropriate and adequate provisions to prohibit the use of the subject lands and the erection of buildings and structures on the subject lands until Beaver Creek Road and Conservation Drive are reconstructed to a municipal urban standard?

Proposed Zoning By-laws

27. Do the proposed zoning by-laws conform to applicable planning policies and provide for appropriate land uses, densities, lot and block sizes and frontages, setbacks, built form, landscaped open space, parking, environmental protection, and all other relevant matters authorized under the Planning Act?

28. Does the proposed zoning contain appropriate and adequate provisions to prohibit the use of the subject lands and the erection of buildings and structures on the subject lands unless:

(a) municipal services are available to service the lands, buildings and structures (except as specified in subsection 28(b) below);

(b) for the proposed condominiums, sufficient services are available to service the condominium lands, buildings and structures in accordance with all relevant legislation, planning/development documents and technical guidelines?

Conditions and Good Planning

29. If the Applications are approved in whole or in part, what conditions of draft plan approval, zoning provisions and/or agreements are necessary to ensure orderly development and good planning?

30. Do the Applications represent good planning and are they in the public interest?

2014707 ONTARIO LIMITED 2115881 ONTARIO LIMITED

1. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw have regard for section 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c. P.13, as amended, (the “Act”) including but not limited to subsections (f), (h), (m), (n), and (o)?

2. Are the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (“PPS”) including but not limited to policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.4, 1.6, 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 1.6.8, 1.7 ?

3. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw conform with the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”) including but not limited to policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1.3, 2.2.2.3, 2.2.6.4, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.5, 3.2.6, 3.2.7?

4. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw conform with the Region of Waterloo Official Plan including policies 2D.1and 2D.17?

5. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw conform with the City of Waterloo Official Plan including but not limited to policies 3.5, 3.9, 5.1.1, 5.1.3, 5.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.4, 10.1, 10.1.1(7), 10.1.1 (10), 12.2.1, 12.2.3, 12.2.13?

6. Are the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw consistent with the Beaver Creek Meadows District Plan (“District Plan”) including but not limited to sections 1.3.1, 3.1(c), 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.8.9, 3.10, 4.4.5, 6.0.1-6.0.5; 6.1.1?

7. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision implement the approved Subwatershed Study, dated November 2013 and any modifications/addendums subsequently approved?

8. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision implement the approved Beaver Creek Road and Conservation Dr. Upgrades and Extension of Municipal Services Class EA, dated December 14, 2015?

9. What agreements between the landowners in the District Plan area and/or the municipalities are required in order to support approval of the draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw?

10. What conditions of draft plan approval, zoning provisions and/or agreements are necessary to ensure that infrastructure, including road widenings and sanitary and stormwater management services, including the timing of conveyances, are available to service the subject lands and other development lands within the District Plan area, in a timely manner?

11. Do the draft plans of subdivision have appropriate regard to the matters set out in subsection 51(24) of the Act?

MAR-VIEW FARMS 2550891 Ontario Inc.

1. Are the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 (“PPS”) including but not limited to policies 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.2.1, 1.4, 1.5.1, 1.6, 1.6.6, 1.6.7, 1.6.8, 1.6. 10, 1.7 ?

2. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”) including but not limited to policies 2.2.1.3, 2.2.1.4, 2.2.2, 2.2.6, 3.1, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 5.2.4.5?

3. Do the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw conform with the Region of Waterloo Official Plan including policies 2D.1, 2D.2 and 2D.17? Do they conform with the City of Waterloo Official Plan including but not limited to policies 5.1.1, 5.1.3,5.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.4, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.4, 12.1, 12.2.1, 12.2.3, 12.2.13, 12.2.14 (4), 12.2.14(5)?

4. Are the proposed draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw consistent with the Beaver Creek Meadows District Plan (“District Plan”) including but not limited to sections 3.1(c), 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.8.9, 3.10, 4.4.5, 6.0.1-6.0.5; 6.1.1?

5. What agreements between the owners of land in the District Plan area and/or the municipalities (or other instruments) are required in order to support approval of the draft plans of subdivision and related zoning bylaw? What conditions of draft plan approval, zoning provisions and/or agreements are necessary to ensure that infrastructure, including road widenings and sanitary and stormwater management services, are available within the District Plan area to service the subject lands and other development lands in the District Plan area in a timely manner?

6. Do the draft plans of subdivision address the provisions of sections 2, 3, 34 and 51 of the Planning Act?

JOHN BROHMAN

1. Is the location of the access onto Conservation Drive in the vicinity of the Brohman lands appropriate?

ACTIVA HOLDINGS INC.

[Additional issues, if any, to be inserted]

NORTHGATE LAND CORP. GABRIELLA GROFF 1017081 ONTARIO LIMITED 1455136 ONTARIO LIMITED

1. What are the appropriate conditions of draft plan approval for the proposed subdivisions.

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Gabriella Groff, 1017081 Ontario Ltd., 1455136 Ontario Inc., Northgate Land Corp.

Mar-View Farms Limited 2550891 Ontario Inc. 2014707 Ontario Limited 2115881 Ontario Limited Activa Holdings Inc. John Brohman

City of Waterloo Regional Municipality of Waterloo

Reply Evidence of Gabriella Groff, 1017081 Ontario Ltd., 1455136 Ontario Inc., Northgate Land Corp.

7174898