Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 02, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002377
(Formerly) PL210104
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
30 Duke Street Limited
Subject:
Failure of Approval Authority to announce a decision respecting a proposed Official Plan Amendment
Reference Number:
OPA 20/005W/JVW
Property Address:
22 Weber Street West
Municipality/UT:
Kitchener/Waterloo
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002377
Legacy Case No.:
PL210104
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002377
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210104
OLT Case Name:
30 Duke Street Limited v. Kitchener (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
30 Duke Street Limited
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Reference Number:
20/013/W/JVW
Property Address:
22 Weber Street West
Municipality/UT:
Kitchener/Waterloo
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002378
Legacy Case No.:
PL210105
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002377
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210104
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 42(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18
Applicant/Appellant:
30 Duke Street Limited
Subject:
Appeal of the Decision of Council to issue a permit with terms and conditions to (alter/erect/demolish/remove) a building or structure
Reference Number:
HPA-2022-V-015
Property Address:
22 Weber Street West
Municipality/UT:
Kitchener/Waterloo
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004383
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002377
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210104
Heard:
October 26, 2022, by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel/Representative*
30 Duke Street Limited (“Applicant/Appellant”)
Jennifer Meader
City of Kitchener (“City”)
Lesley MacDonald
Region of Waterloo (“Region”)
Andy Gazzola
Friends of Olde Berlin Town (“FOBT”)
Hal Jaeger*
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1The Tribunal originally set this Case Management Conference (“CMC”) to organize for hearings of the merits of appeals filed regarding an official plan amendment (“OPA”) and zoning by-law amendment (“ZBA”) related to land owned by the Appellant. Another panel of the Tribunal has set down a four-week hearing to commence on March 13, 2023.
2The Tribunal was advised by Ms. Meader, counsel to the Appellant that the Subject Land is located within the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District (“CCNHCD”), are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and as such, any new development on the Subject Land is subject to the policies of the Civic Centre Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan (“CCNHCD Plan”) and therefore a Heritage Act permit is required.
3Although the CCNHCD Plan recognizes that this property is vacant, the City refused the Heritage Act Permit application and the Applicant appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”), pursuant to subsection 42(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18.
4The Tribunal was informed by Ms. Meader that the purpose of this CMC was to seek the Tribunal’s determination on a request to consolidate the heritage permit file (OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004383) with that of the OPA and ZBA file (OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002377) and to review the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) in relation to the Phasing of the hearing.
5The Subject Land is municipally known as 22 Weber Street West, Lot 5, Plan 390, in the City of Kitchener.
6The proposed development of the Subject Land can be described as construction of a new 19-storey multiple residential building, having 162 total units and 24 parking spaces.
7The Subject Land is designated ‘High Density Commercial Residential’ in the Civic Centre Secondary Plan. The High Density Commercial Residential designation permits a range of uses, including free standing multiple residential buildings at a maximum Floor Space Ratio (“FSR”) of 4.0. The OPA proposes to retain the existing designation but with an increased FSR permission of 8.0.
8The ZBA application requests the Subject land be rezoned Commercial Residential Three Zone with Site Specific Provisions in order to permit the development as proposed:
A minimum front yard setback of 0.8 metres is proposed along King Street East, whereas a minimum front yard of 3.0 metres is required.
A minimum rear yard setback of 15.0 metres is proposed, whereas a minimum setback of one half the building height is required.
A maximum Floor Space Ratio of 8.0 is proposed, whereas a maximum Floor Space Index of 4.0 is permitted.
A minimum landscape area of 8% whereas a minimum area of 10% is required. A minimum of 24 parking spaces whereas a minimum of 183 spaces are required.
PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST
9The Tribunal received a Participant status request from Kae Elgie, who has made presentations before City Council raising concerns with design guidelines as they relate to heritage conservation. Having canvassed the Parties and receiving no opposition, the Tribunal grants the requester Participant status.
PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
10The Tribunal considered the following Phasing Plan which was submitted on consent by the Parties that would have the matter proceed in two phases as a result of the addition of the Heritage Act permit:
Phase 1 – The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment; and
Phase 2 – The Ontario Heritage Act Permit to be scheduled upon issuance of the Tribunal’s written Decision in respect of Phase 1 as per, section 42 (1) of the Ontario Heritage Act which prescribes that no owner of property in a designated Heritage Conservation District may alter any part of a property or erect or demolish a building without obtaining approval from the municipality by way of a heritage permit.
11The Tribunal considered Rule 16.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure in granting the consolidation which states:
CONSOLIDATION
16.1 Combining Proceedings or Hearing Matters Together
The Tribunal may order that two or more proceedings be consolidated, heard at the same time, or heard one after the other, or stay or adjourn any matter until the determination of any other matter subject to any applicable statutory or regulatory restrictions.
12The Tribunal finds that a consolidation of the Applicant’s OPA and ZBA planning appeals (OLT Case No. OLT-22-002377) with the Heritage Act permit appeal (OLT-22-4383) is the most effective and expeditious manner in which to proceed.
13The consolidation of these appeals will not cause prejudice to any of the Parties; but rather, will allow for comprehensive planning considerations to be made in a two-phase hearing process, while at the same time effect efficiencies in the resources of the parties and the Tribunal.
14This manner will eliminate the need for a duplication of the evidence and avoids a situation where there are inconsistent findings of fact.
15The Tribunal having the benefit of an updated revised draft PO, inclusive of an Issues List containing issues related to sections 41.2.2, 42(1) and 68(3) of the Heritage Act, reviewed the contents and deems the PO as being final, in full force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing.
16The Tribunal also directs counsel to ensure that the PO includes submission of a hearing plan at least 30 days prior to the scheduled hearing.
17The Tribunal directs that Case Nos. OLT-22-002377 and OLT-22-004383 are consolidated.
ORDER
18The Tribunal confers Participant status on Kae Elgie.
19The Tribunal directs that Case Files Nos. OLT-22-002377 and OLT-22-004383 are consolidated.
20The Tribunal Orders that the Procedural Order, attached hereto as Attachment 1 shall be in force and effect for the purpose of governing the required procedures leading up to and including the hearing commencing on March 13, 2023.
21A 20-day merit hearing is scheduled to proceed by video hearing commence on Monday, March 13, 2023, at 10 a.m. Parties 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/719383509
Access Code: 719-383-509
22Parties 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.
23Persons 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: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The Access Code is as indicated above.
24Individuals 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 video hearing 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.
25This Procedural Order now applies to the consolidated hearing and provides direction on the organization of the hearing and requirements before the hearing.
26This Member may assist with case management, however, is not seized of the hearing.
27No further notice of the hearing is required.
“D. Chipman”
d. chipman
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.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.
OLT-22-002377 – Attachment 1
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(40) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
30 Duke Street Limited
Subject:
Failure of Approval Authority to announce a decision respecting a proposed Official Plan Amendment
Reference Number:
OPA 20/005W/JVW
Property Address:
22 Weber Street West
Municipality/UT:
Kitchener/Waterloo
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002377
Legacy Case No.:
PL210104
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002377
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210104
OLT Case Name:
30 Duke Street Limited v. Kitchener (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
30 Duke Street Limited
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Reference Number:
20/013/W/JVW
Property Address:
22 Weber Street West
Municipality/UT:
Kitchener/Waterloo
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002378
Legacy Case No.:
PL210105
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002377
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210104
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 42(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.22
Applicant/Appellant:
30 Duke Street Limited
Subject:
Appeal of the Decision of Council to issue a permit with terms and conditions to (alter/erect/demolish/remove) a building or structure
Reference Number:
HPA-2022-V-015
Property Address:
22 Weber Street West
Municipality/UT:
Kitchener/Waterloo
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004383
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002377
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210104
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.
Organization of the Hearing
- The hearing will proceed in two phases:
a. Phase 1 – The Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment; and
b. Phase 2 – The Ontario Heritage Act Permit, to be scheduled upon issuance of the Tribunal’s written Decision in respect of Phase 1.
- The Phase 1 video hearing will begin on Monday, March 13, 2023 at 10 a.m. at the following link:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/719383509
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 719-383-509
A further case management conference or telephone conference event may be scheduled if a party or the Tribunal wishes to convert the hearing to an in-person event. Any request for a further case management conference shall be made on or before 75 days prior to the scheduled video hearing.
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the Phase 1 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.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conferences are set out in Attachment 1.
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 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 the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, 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 – ideally before the case management conference. 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, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
In the event of consolidation with further appeals, all Parties and Participants accepted at any CMC shall be conferred standing at the consolidated hearing without the need for any further applications.
Requirements Before the Phase 1 Hearing
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 on or before November 21, 2022 and in accordance with paragraph 24 below. 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 December 16, 2022 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the Tribunal case co-ordinator on or before January 13, 2023.
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 16 below. 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 paragraph 16 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 paragraph 15 below.
On or before January 27, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the Tribunal Case Coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
On or before January 27, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.
On or before February 24, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 24 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing. All models shall be shared electronically.
On or before February 17, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their reply witness statements and expert’s reply witness statements to the other parties and to the Tribunal case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 24 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the Tribunal Case Coordinator on or before March 3, 2023.
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.
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.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before January 6, 2023 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.
All filings shall be submitted electronically. 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 the Rule 7.
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.
ATTACHMENT 1
list of parties AND PARTICIPANTS
A. PARTIES
PARTIES
COUNSEL/REPRESENTATIVE
30 Duke Street Limited
Turkstra Mazza Associates 15 Bold Street Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3 Jennifer Meader Email: jmeader@tmalaw.ca Tel: (905) 529-3476
City of Kitchener
Legal Services Department 200 King Street West, 4th Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4G7 Lesley MacDonald Email: Lesley.MacDonald@kitchener.ca Tel: (519) 741-2200 ext. 7267 Katherine Hughes Email: katherine.hughes@kitchener.ca Tel: (519) 741-2200 ext. 7266
Region of Waterloo
Legal Services Department 150 Frederick Street, 3rd Floor Kitchener, ON N2G 4J3 Fiona McCrea Email: fmccrea@regionofwaterloo.ca Tel: (519) 575-4518
Friends of Olde Berlin Town
55 Margaret Avenue Kitchener, ON N2H 4H3 Hal Jaeger Email: obtfriends@gmail.com Tel: (519) 341-6007
B. PARTICIPANTS
Daniel Ariza
Neil Baarda
Ilona Bodendorfer
synergistic_solutions@sympatico.ca
Richard Buck
Taijwant (Tony) Greer
Cathryn Harris
Bob Janzen
Adam Joncas
Gail Pool
North Waterloo Region Branch of Architectural Conservancy Ontario
Donna Kuehl
Peter Eglin
Trudy Wagner
Simon Euteneier
Sally Gunz
Roy Cameron
Monica Weber
Social Development Centre of Waterloo Region
John Ryrie
Kathryn Forler
Maaike Asselberg
Kathryn Forler
Neil Jensen
Kae Elgie
ATTACHMENT 2
ISSUES LIST
Note: The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which the issues are appropriate, within the jurisdiction of the OLT, or relevant to the determination at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.
Matters of Provincial Interest (Section 2 of Planning Act)
Party
1
Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications (the “proposed applications”) have sufficient regard to the matters of provincial interest listed in section 2(d), (n), (p) and (r)?
FOBT
Provincial Policy Statement
2
Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications (the proposed applications) consistent with the PPS, including but not limited to, policies 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 2.6 and 4.6?
City FOBT
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe
3
Do the proposed applications conform to the Growth Plan, including but not limited to, Guiding Principle 1.2.1, and policies in sections 2.2.2, 2.2.4, 2.2.6, 4.1, and 4.2.7?
City FOBT
Region of Waterloo Official Plan
4
Do the proposed applications conform to the Region of Waterloo Official Objective 3.8?
FOBT
5
Do the proposed applications conform to the Urban Area Development policies in chapter 2.D (2.D.1, 2.D.2, 2.D.6, 2.D.10)?
City FOBT
6
Do the proposed applications conform to the Liveability in Waterloo Region policies in chapter 3 (3.A, 3.B, 3.C, 3.G.1, 3.G.6)?
City FOBT
7
Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and proposed Zoning By-law Amendment implement all requirements to address noise from stationary and transportation sources in conformity with the Regional Official Plan, including Sections 2.G.10, 2.G.13, 2.G.14, 2.G.15 and 2.G.16, including but not limited to an appropriate holding provision?
Region
City of Kitchener Official Plan
8
Do the proposed applications conform to the Urban Structure policies in Part C (3.C.2.9, 3.C.2.10, 3.C.2.17, 3.C.2.20, and 3.C.2.22)?
City FOBT
9
Do the proposed applications conform to the Housing policies in Section 4 (4.C.1.7, 4.C.1.8, 4.C.1.9, 4.C.1.13, and 4.C.1.19)?
City FOBT
10
Do the proposed applications conform to the Private Greenspace and Facilities policies in Section 8 (8.C.1.21 and 8.C.1.23)?
City FOBT
11
Do the proposed applications conform to the Urban Design objectives in Section 11 (11.1.1 through 11.1.8)?
City FOBT
12
Do the proposed applications conform to the Urban Design policies in Section 11 (11.C.1.4, 11.C.1.11, 11.C.1.12, 11.C.1.21, 11.C.1.29, 11.C.1.30, 11.C.1.31, 11.C.1.32, and 11.C.1.33).
City FOBT
13
Do the proposed applications conform to the Cultural Heritage Resources objectives in Section 12 (12.1.2)?
City FOBT
14
Do the proposed applications conform to the Cultural Heritage Resources policies in Section 12 (12.C.1.1, 12.C.1.10,12.C.1.14, 12.C.1.19, 12.C.1.21, 12.C.1.23, 12.C.1.26, 12.C.1.27, and 12.C.1.29??
City FOBT
15
Do the proposed applications conform to the Active Transportation objectives in Section 13 (13.1.1, 13.1.3, and 13.1.7)?
City
16
Do the proposed applications conform to the Transportation policies in Section 13 (13.C.1.4.d, 13.C.1.6, 13.C.1.13, 13.C.3.12, 13.C.7.3, 13.C.7.4, 13.C.8.2, and 13.C.8.4)?
City
17
Do the proposed applications conform to the City of Kitchener Official Plan objective 3.2.5?
FOBT
City of Kitchener Civic Centre Secondary Plan
18
Do the proposed applications conform to the General Policies in Section 13.1.1 (13.1.1.1, and 13.1.1.7)?
City FOBT
19
Do the proposed applications conform to the Land Use Designation policies in Section 13.1.2 (13.1.2.8)?
City FOBT
Kitchener Zoning By-law
20
Are the proposed on-site required and visitor vehicle parking rates, appropriate for the scale, proposed use, and number of dwelling units proposed with the development?
City
21
Are the proposed on-site secured and visitor bicycle parking rates appropriate for the scale, proposed use, and number of dwelling units proposed with the development?
City
22
Do the requested site specific zoning regulations address compatibility between the proposed development, the existing community, and the planned function of the immediate area, including: adequate setbacks from existing low density uses, maximum building heights and step backs regulations to regulate built form, setbacks for surface parking facilities from the public realm, as well as setbacks and step backs from other properties? Do the requested site specific zoning regulations address adequate setbacks and driveway visibility triangles? Does the driveway width comply with zoning regulations and Regional Requirements for Access By-law and policy?
City FOBT Region
Kitchener Urban Design Manual
23
What weight should be given to the Kitchener Urban Design Manual?
Applicant
24
Does the proposed development complement adjacent built form through compatible height, scale, massing, and materials?
City FOBT
25
Does the base of the proposed development meet the built form guidelines for a Tall Building?
City FOBT
26
Does the proposed development achieve sufficient transition to the adjacent existing and planned built form of the adjacent properties? Is there a suitable transition in scale, massing, building height, building length and intensity through setbacks, step backs, landscaping, and compatible architectural design/material selection?
City FOBT
27
Does the proposed development meet the tower separation guidelines for a Tall Building?
City FOBT
28
Does the proposed development exceed the target overlook guidelines for a Tall Building?
City
29
Does the proposed development provide a sufficient step back from the base to mitigate the potential wind impact on the public realm?
City
30
Does the proposed development include a sufficient shared outdoor amenity area?
City FOBT
31
Is the proposed building height compatible and aligned with adjacent neighbouring properties?
City FOBT
32
Does the proposed development appropriately mitigate the unwanted microclimate impact on surrounding properties, such as wind and shadow impacts?
City FOBT
33
Do the proposed applications respect the Major Transit Station Area guidelines, including but not limited to the following guidelines? a) Compatibility (section 02.2.6, p. 5, items 2 and 4) b) Cultural and Natural Heritage (section 02.2.7, p. 5, item 1) c) Built Form (section 02.3.1, p. 6, items 2 and 4) d) PARTS Central (section 02.4.2, p. 12, item 7)
FOBT
34
Do the proposed applications respect the Tall Buildings guidelines, including but not limited to the following guidelines? a) Relative Height, For towers adjacent to low-rise surrounding areas (p. 6) b) Compatibility (p. 15) c) Heritage, When a tall building is adjacent to a built heritage resource (p. 16, items 1, 3 and 4)
FOBT
35
Do the proposed applications respect the City-Wide guidelines, including but not limited to the following guidelines? a) Focal Points & Gateways (section 01.2.5, p. 15, item 4), b) Cultural & Natural Heritage (section 01.2.8, p. 18, item 7) c) Built Form (section 01.3.1, p. 19, item 9) d) Site Function (section 01.3.3, p. 23, items 8 and 9)
FOBT
Civic Centre Neighbourhood, Heritage Conservation District Plan (HCD Plan)
36
Are the proposed applications consistent with the Heritage District Objective, Principles, and Policies in the HCD Plan (Section 3.1, 3.2, 3.3.3, and 3.3.5.2, Recommendation 4.2.1 on “High Density Commercial Residential Designation” and Bullets 2 and 7 of Guideline 6.9.4)?
City FOBT
37
Are the proposed applications consistent with the Architectural Design Guidelines in the HCD Plan (Section 6.6 and 6.9.4)?
City FOBT
38
Does the proposed development provide a 45 degree angular plane measured from the rear property line to provide transition in scale from proposed development down to adjacent lands?
City FOBT
Other
39
What consideration, if any, should be given to: a) the policies proposed for the Civic Centre Secondary Plan via the Secondary Plan Review, including but not limited to policies 16.D.2.2, 16.D.9.4, 16.D.9.6 and 16.D.9.9; b) Region of Waterloo Official Plan Amendment No. 6 as adopted; and c) The PARTS Central Plan?
FOBT Applicant
40
Do the proposed applications represent good planning and are they in the public interest?
FOBT
Phase 2: Ontario Heritage Act Permit
41
Is there sufficient information before the Tribunal to issue a Heritage Permit pursuant to section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act?
City
42
Do the proposed applications have sufficient regard to the Ontario Heritage Act, including but not limited to, sections 41.2.2, 42(1) and 68(3)?
FOBT
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
30 Duke Street Limited
Friends of Olde Berlin Town
City of Kitchener
Region of Waterloo
30 Duke Street Limited in reply
ATTACHMENT 4
SUMMARY OF FILING DATES
EVENT
DATE
List of Witnesses
November 21, 2022
Expert Witness Meetings
December 16, 2022
Hearing Plan
January 6, 2023
Agreed Statement of Facts & Remaining Issues
January 13, 2023
Participant Statements
January 27, 2023
Witness and Expert Witness Statements
January 27, 2023
Reply Witness Statements
February 17, 2023
Visual Evidence
February 24, 2023
Joint Document Book
March 3, 2023
OLT Hearing Commences
March 13, 2023
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.