Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2021
CASE NO(S).: PL210310
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 731 to permit a residential development with 36 single detached cluster dwelling units and 10 townhouse dwellings
Property Address/Description: 101 Meadowlily Road South
Municipality: City of London
Municipal Reference Number: OPA 731 (C.P.-1284vv-129)
OLT Lead Case No.: PL210310
OLT Case No.: PL210310
OLT Case Name: Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association v. London (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. LPA 35 to permit a residential development with 36 single detached cluster dwelling units and 10 townhouse dwellings
Property Address/Description: 101 Meadowlily Road South
Municipality: City of London
Municipal Reference Number: LPA 35 (C.P.-1512(ai)-130)
OLT Lead Case No.: PL210310
OLT Case No.: PL210311
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant: Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association
Subject: Proposed By-law Amendment No. Z.-1-212923 to permit a residential development with 36 single detached cluster dwelling units and 10 townhouse dwellings
Property Address/Description: 101 Meadowlily Road South
Municipality: City of London
Municipal Reference Number: Z.-1-212923
OLT Lead Case No.: PL210310
OLT Case No.: PL210312
Heard: October 26, 2021 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association | Alex Ciccone |
| 2690015 Ontario Inc. | Analee Baroudi |
| City of London | Aynsley Anderson Vanetia R |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON OCTOBER 26, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) in this matter. The appeals are made by Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association (“FMWCA”), an incorporated non-profit organization. There are three appeals in the matter against City of London (“City”) approval of two Official Plan Amendments (“OPA”), OPA Nos. 35 and 731, under s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”) and an appeal under s. 34(19) of the Act regarding approval of a Zoning By-law Amendment No. Z-1-212923.
2The approvals were granted by the City to 2690015 Ontario Inc. (the “Applicant”). The Applicant, as result of these approvals, plans to develop lands municipally known as 101 Meadowlily Road South (the “Site”). The Site is 5.20 hectares (12.85 acres) in size and irregular in shape with 271 metres of frontage along Meadowlily Road South; 271 metres (889.1 feet) depth (South side); 183.8 metres (603 feet) depth (North side); and 224 metres (744.75 feet) width at the rear. The Applicant’s proposal calls for the development of 88 dwelling units made up of single detached and townhomes.
3The Affidavit of Service for the first CMC duly served is on file and marked as Exhibit 1.
PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
4The Applicant with direct interest in the matter was granted party status. There were no additional requests for party status and none were granted.
5A number of individuals submitted requests for participant status. These were reviewed at the CMC by the Tribunal, with input from the parties. The individuals were granted participant status and are enumerated in the Procedural Order (“PO”) issued with this Decision.
UPDATE
6Prior to this CMC, the parties provided a draft PO to the Tribunal. The information in the PO was reviewed at the CMC. Some of the issues that the parties had differences of opinion, for their inclusion, were reviewed and the Issues List for the PO to be issued by the Tribunal was finalized.
7The parties presented an overview of their plans for calling evidence. Each party plans to call a land use planner.
8The Appellant additionally plans to call an expert in traffic engineering.
9The Applicant plans to call the second witness to be a sanitary engineering expert.
10The City plans to call two additional witnesses as a traffic engineering expert and a sanitary engineering expert.
11The parties, having reviewed the revisions to the Issues List at this CMC, proposed that the Tribunal set a merit hearing for a duration of five days.
12Having considered all the material and input from the parties, the Tribunal set a hearing to commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, July 4, 2022 and to be continued for five consecutive days. The hearing will be conducted using video conferencing.
13The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the PO as approved and issued with this Decision (Attachment 1).
14Parties 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/245817133
Access code: 245-817-133
15Parties 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
16Persons 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 245-817-133.
17Individuals 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.
18There will be no further notice.
19This Member is not seized.
20This Member may be contacted for case management purposes.
21The directions in this Decision are so ordered.
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR
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.
CASE NO(S).: PL210310, PL210311, PL210312
PROCEEDING COMMENDED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P13, as amended.
Appellant: Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 731
Municipality: City of London
OLT Case No.: PL210310
OLT File No.: PL210310
OLT Case Name: Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association v London (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENDED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P13, as amended.
Appellant: Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. LPA 35
Municipality: City of London
OLT Case No.: PL210310
OLT File No.: PL210311
PROCEEDING COMMENDED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P13, as amended.
Appellant: Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association
Subject: By-law No Z.-1-212923
Municipality: City of London
OLT Case No.: PL210310
OLT File No.: PL210312
The Tribunal orders that:
- 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 video hearing (the “Hearing”) will begin on July 4.
The length of the hearing will be approximately Five days. The length of the hearing may be shortened as issues are reordered as settlement is achieved.
The Parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see Attachment 3 for the meaning of these terms).
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.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, direct evidence (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.
Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.
Any person who intends to participate in the Hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, are expected to review the Tribunal’s “Video Hearing Guide”, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Requirements Before the Hearing
A list of witnesses must be provided to the Parties and to the Tribunal by March 14, 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.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before March 18, 2022 to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts must prepare a list of agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the Hearing and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal by April 11, 2022.
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 section 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file their 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 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in section 13 below.
By April 25, 2022 the Appellant shall provide copies of its expert witness statements and visual evidence to the other parties and to the Tribunal.
By April 25, 2022 a participant shall provide copies of any written participant statement to the Parties and to the Tribunal. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
By May 23, 2022 the Applicant and City shall provide copies of their expert witness statements and visual evidence to the other parties and to the Tribunal.
By June 6, 2022 the Appellant may provide to the other Parties and to the Tribunal, a written reply to any witness or expert witness statement submitted by the City or the Applicant.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal.
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 seven days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.
A joint document book, witness statement brief, and hearing plan must be filed with the Tribunal by June 24, 2022. The City of London will prepare a draft of the joint document book and witness statement brief by June 13, 2022. Parties will advise of any changes to these documents by June 20, 2022.
All filling shall be electronic between the Parties. Both electronic and hard copies of the joint document book, witness statement brief, and hearing plan will be provided for the Tribunal. Electronic copies may be filed by email, file sharing service, or as directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
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.
This Member is not seized.
So orders the Tribunal.
Summary of Key Dates
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 14, 2022 | Exchange witness list |
| March 18, 2022 | Meeting of like experts |
| April 11, 2022 | Exchange Agreed Statement of Facts |
| April 25, 2022 | Appellant delivers expert witness statements and visual evidence |
| April 25, 2022 | Participant statements due |
| May 23, 2022 | City and Applicant deliver witness statements and visual evidence |
| June 6, 2022 | Appellant delivers reply statements |
| June 24, 2022 | File document book, hearing plan, and witness statement brief |
| June 27, 2022 | Notify the Tribunal if a witness is not to provide oral evidence |
| July 4, 2022 | Hearing start date |
Attachment 1: Parties and Participants
| Party | Representation |
|---|---|
| City of London | Aynsley Anderson City of London 300 Dufferin Ave London, ON N6B 1Z2 T: 519.639.7408 aanderso@london.ca |
| 2690015 Ontario Inc. | Analee Baroudi Baroudi Law 150 Dufferin Ave, Suite 702 London, ON N6A 5N6 T: 519.438.3776 analee@baroudilaw.ca |
| Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association | Alex Ciccone Garrod Pickfield LLP 9 Norwich St W Guelph, ON N1H 2G8 T: 519.778.4247 aciccone@garrodpickfield.ca |
| Participant | Contact Information |
|---|---|
| ACO London | c/o Kelley McKeating 519.432.8078 Kelley.mckeating@sympatico.ca |
| Aislinn Bradley | 226.222.5258 aislinnkmbradley@gmail.com |
| Adam Salt | 519.521.9292 adamsaltrealtor@gmail.com |
| Anna Maria Valastro | 519.434.6897 bettyboop07@execulink.com |
| Arla and Gary Longhurst | 519.680.2911 arla@gslworx.ca |
| Barbara Symington | 519.643.6952 barbarasymington@gmail.com |
| Bruce Richardson | 416.804.7049 info@meadowlilyfarm.com |
| Cynthia Faubert | 519.701.8066 Cynthia.faubert@gmail.com |
| Dennis Weir | 226.777.3695 dengweir@yahoo.ca |
| Diane Bolter | 519.312.7098 windowstothegarden@yahoo.ca |
| Gary and Susan Smith | 519.680.7488 hopemailsmith@yahoo.ca |
| Gloria Thomson | 519.686.0813 gloria.thomson71@gmail.com |
| Guido Mulder | 519.914.1678 mulder.guido@gmail.com |
| Jennifer Martin | 519.636.8823 jenn@legacypartners.ca |
| Joanne Crockett | 519.520.0424 info@meadowlilywoods.com |
| Julie Weir | 226-777-3695 julieweir006@yahoo.ca |
| Marianne Larsen | 519.850.9449 marianne0909@gmail.com |
| Melanie Oudshoorn | 519.859.3310 laughinglilypad@yahoo.com |
| Nancy Tausky | 519.697.7451 ntausky@tausky.ca |
| Nathan Maudsley | 519.868.0207 mmauda@hotmail.com |
| Susan High | |
| Rosemary Boyd | 519.857.3631 rosemaryboyd003@gmail.com |
Attachment 2: Issues List
Are the site-specific OPA, LPA and ZBA (the “Proposed Applications”) consistent with the following policies of the PPS:
- Part IV, “Vision for Ontario’s Land Use Planning System”
- 1.1.1 a): Promoting efficient development patterns
- 1.1.1 c): Avoiding development which may cause public health and safety concerns (transportation)
- 1.1.1 f): Accessibility for persons with disabilities
- 1.1.1 g): Ensuring that necessary infrastructure is available to meet current and projected needs
- 1.1.3: Promoting efficient development patterns, effective use of infrastructure and minimize unnecessary public expenditures.
- 1.1.3.2 a): Efficiently use land and resources
- 1.1.3.4: Appropriate standards which facilitate redevelopment while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety (transportation issue)
- 1.6.6.1 d): Integrating servicing and land use considerations at all stages of the planning process (sanitary issue).
- 1.6.6.2: Municipal sewage services are the preferred form of servicing.
- 1.6.7: Transportation system policies
Do the Proposed Applications have regard to matters of provincial interest as required by section 2 of the Planning Act, specifically:
a. 2 f): The adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management services (sanitary and transportation)
b. 2 h): The orderly development of safe and healthy communities (transportation)
c. 2 h.1)The accessibility for persons with disabilities to all facilities, services and matters to which this Act applies (transportation - sidewalk)
d. 2 o): The protection of public health and safety (transportation)
e. 2 p): The appropriate location of growth and development
f. 2 q): The promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians? (transportation – sidewalk)Does the proposed ZBA conform with the London Plan, including the following policies:
a. Direction #6: Place a new emphasis on creating attractive mobility choices i. 60_1 b. Direction #7: Build Strong Healthy and attractive neighbourhoods for everyone i. 61_3 c. 62_ “Direction #8 Make wise planning decisions”, including: i. 62_3 ii. 62_9 iii. 62_10 (transportation) iv. 62_11 d. Mobility Policies i. 307_ What is Mobility ii. 313_ What we are trying to achieve iii. 346_ Active Mobility iv. 349_ Sidewalks e. Infrastructure Policies i. 460_ “Policies for All Infrastructure” (sanitary) ii. 473_9 “Sanitary and Sewage Infrastructure” iii. 476_ “Temporary Servicing” f. 697_8 and 697_11 “How are we going to achieve this?” g. Neighbourhood Place Type Policies i. 916_ Vision, Neighbourhood Place Type ii. 921_ Permitted Uses iii. 937_ Intensification h. Future Growth Place Type Policies i. 1153_ Future Growth Place Type ii. 1158_ Future Community Growth Place Type iii. 1160_ Secondary Plan i. 1557_1 and 1557_2 “Where Secondary Plans May Be Applied” j. 1709_1 and 1709_2 “Vacant Land Condominium Policies”
Should the Tribunal have regard for policies 920 (Table 10-1) and 935 (Form) of The London Plan, which are under appeal?
Should a holding provision “h-5” be added to the ZBA to require a public site plan meeting?
Do the Proposed Applications conform with the 1989 Official Plan, including the following policies:
- 3.1.1: General Objectives for Residential
- 3.1.2: General Objectives for Low Density Residential
- 3.2: Low Density Residential i. 3.2.1: Permitted Uses ii. 3.2.2: Scale of Development iii. 3.2.3: Residential Intensification
- 9.4: Urban Reserve policies
- 9.4.4: Site Specific Amendments
- 17.2.4: Temporary Services
- 18.1: Transportation
Attachment 3: 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 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, group 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). Subsection 33.2 of the Local Planning Appeal 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 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 wishes to address and the submission of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
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 4: Order of Evidence
Order of Evidence
- City of London – Overview only
- Friends of Meadowlily Woods Community Association (“FOMWCA”)
- 2690015 Ontario Inc.
- City of London
- Reply by FOMWCA