Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
May 19, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002219
(Formerly PL210040)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
1085 Clearview Limited Partnership
Appellant:
1246235 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
1602211 Ontario Ltd.
Appellant:
2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd. Et Al; and others
Description:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment for Burlington New Official Plan
Municipality:
City of Burlington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002219
Legacy Case No.:
PL210040
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002219
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210040
OLT Case Name:
1085 Clearview Limited Partnership v. Halton (Reg. Mun.)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Sofina Foods Inc.
Appellant:
Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
Appellant:
Reserve Properties Ltd.
Appellant:
Vrancorp Group; and others
Description:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 119
Municipality:
City of Burlington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002483
Legacy Case No.:
PL200150
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002483
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL200150
OLT Case Name:
Sofina Foods Inc. v. Burlington (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
Appellant:
Burlington Healthcare Centre Inc.
Appellant:
Better Life Development
Appellant:
Emshih Developments Inc.; and others
Description:
By-law No. 2020.418
Municipality:
City of Burlington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002484
Legacy Case No.
PL200151
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002483
Legacy Lead Case No.
PL200150
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, 1997, R.S.O. 1990, c. 27, as amended
Referred by:
Brookfield Properties, InterRent REIT and CLV Group Inc.
Subject:
Site Plan
Municipality:
City of Burlington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-21-001331
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-21-001331
OLT Case Name:
Brookfield Properties v. Burlington (City)
Heard:
May 9, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Regional Municipality of Halton
K. Yerxa
City of Burlington
A. Biggart B. Hurley
Appellants and Parties listed in Schedule 1
DECISION DELIVERED BY S. TOUSAW AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This further Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened for two related files being heard together for case management purposes:
OLT-22-002483, being Official Plan Amendment 119 (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 2020-418 (“ZBA”) passed by the City of Burlington (“City”) on January 30, 2020; and
OLT-22-002219, being a new Official Plan (“OP”) adopted by the City on April 26, 2018 and modified and approved by the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Region”) on November 30, 2020.
2The OPA and ZBA raise matters of an urban growth centre and major transit station area arising from a planning study during Interim Control By-law No. 2019-10 (“ICBL”). Based on previous Decisions of the Tribunal, the ICBL remains in effect only within the area to which the ZBA applies.
3Some of the appeals to the new OP relate to matters raised in the appeals to the OPA and ZBA. Appeals to the new OP also address many general and site-specific matters not associated with the OPA and ZBA. A Master Procedural Order (“MPO”) was approved on April 22, 2022 to guide the sequence of appeal hearings.
4Also heard together with the above matters at this CMC was an appeal (OLT-21-001331) by Brookfield Properties, InterRent REIT and CLV Group Inc. (“Fairview”) to the absence of a decision by the City on a Site Plan Application (“SPA”) affecting 2243 Fairview Street and abutting lands (“site”), Burlington. On the settlement of the Parties, the Tribunal modified and approved the ZBA, and approved the SPA with conditions, both pertaining to this site only.
UNAPPEALED OP POLICIES
5The City expects to file within the next 30 days, with consent of the Parties, a written Motion seeking the Tribunal’s approval of those OP policies that are not subject to appeal and therefore in effect under the Planning Act (“Act”). Such Motion may be filed in accordance with Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and will be heard in writing.
POTENTIAL FURTHER OP AMENDMENTS
6The City noted the likelihood for further necessary amendments to the OP arising from the Region’s recent amendments to the Region’s Official Plan (“ROP”) and potential further amendments to maintain conformity with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“GP”). Should appeals be lodged against further OP amendments, the Parties may seek that those matters be heard together or consolidated with the OP appeals underway here.
PHASE 1A PROCEDURAL ORDER
7The City had filed the draft Procedural Order (“PO”) for the Phase 1A hearing, to which David White, counsel for certain Appellants, opposed the Order of Evidence. Mr. White argues that the normal practice should be followed: the Appellants proceed in chief; followed by the City’s response; and the opportunity for the Appellants’ reply.
8The Tribunal will apply the hearing de novo concept to this question. In the course of a new hearing on the merits of a proposal, the originator of the proposal is often heard first, followed by the challenge of the other Parties, and any appropriate reply of the originator.
9Here, the City adopted an OP which constitutes the origin of the issues identified by the Appellants. It is appropriate for the Tribunal to first hear the purpose and intent of the OP as relates to the appeals in order to understand the context for the matters at issue. To the Appellants’ concerns for their inability to reply, the Tribunal accepts the City’s offer that, where appropriate in the circumstances, the Tribunal may hear a sur-reply from the Appellants out of an abundance of caution for fairness. The Tribunal further notes that the open exchange of witness statements and reply statements in advance of a hearing should leave little or no opportunity for an unexpected matter to be raised at the hearing.
10The Tribunal approves the Phase 1A PO as compiled by the City and contained in Attachment 2. Based on the hearing dates contained in the last CMC Decision, the City is directed to add all necessary dates to the PO and circulate it (electronically) to all Parties and the Tribunal.
NEXT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
11The Parties requested a further CMC in the autumn to address POs and schedule hearings for the next phases or to hear settlements where achieved on certain appeals. The Tribunal encourages the Parties to file settlements for written hearings to expedite their completion, if possible, in advance of the next CMC.
12The next CMC is scheduled for Friday , October 28, 2022 at 10 a.m. by video conference. No further Notice will be given.
13Parties 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/656004293
Access code: 656-004-293
14Parties 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
15Persons 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 656-004-293.
16Individuals 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.
SETTLEMENT OF FAIRVIEW LP APPEALS
17An Appellant to the new OP and OPA/ZBA known as Fairview LP (“Fairview”) (consisting of Brookfield Properties, InterRent REIT, and CLV Group Inc.) has a related appeal for its Site Plan Application (“SPA”) at 2243 and 2269 Fairview Street and 846 Drury Lane (“site”). With consent of the Parties, Fairview sought approval of the ZBA, with modifications applicable to the site, and approval of its SPA with conditions.
18The Region, as an existing Party to the new OP and OPA/ZBA appeals, sought Party status for Fairview’s SPA hearing given that the proposed conditions to SPA address certain issues or responsibilities of the Region. With consent of the Parties, the Tribunal granted Party status to the Region.
19Fairview submitted that, should the ZBA and SPA be approved for this site, its appeals to the OP and OPA will be resolved and thus will be withdrawn in due course, other than remaining as a Party to monitor the proceedings should unexpected matters arise.
20Fairview proffered Dana Anderson, Registered Professional Planner, whom the Tribunal affirmed and qualified to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. The Tribunal summarizes Ms. Anderson’s thorough written and oral evidence as follows.
21This site of 3.43 hectares (“ha”) is located within the Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) of the Burlington GO Station. The site is the second property east of the GO Station, bounded by Fairview Street to the south, the railway corridor to the north, and Drury Lane to the east.
22Consistent with existing and proposed residential towers in the immediate area, the site is proposed for seven residential towers above mixed-use podiums, with total heights ranging from 29 to 37 storeys (plus mechanical structures), and over 2,500 residential units ranging in both size and tenure. Amenities will include a public park, private open space and walkways available to the public, as well as private terraces, balconies, mezzanines, recreation facilities, indoor parking, and pet areas.
23Within walking distance of the site are all manner of City amenities and necessities, including rapid transit, parks, schools, cycling routes, and retail/services including groceries.
24The ZBA, as modified to address the site’s design, is sought for the entire site, while the SPA applies only to the first phase of development. At the northwest corner of the site, Phase 1 involves two residential towers of 33 and 37 storeys, above a shared, mixed-use podium of 5 storeys. Phase 1 also includes conveyance of the site’s southwest corner to the City for a .17 ha public park.
25Ms. Anderson opines that the site design: enables public access and street connections; has suitable building separations, open space and parkland; provides a density and range of housing for an efficient land use served by, and supportive of, transit; includes mixed uses for retail/service convenience; and responds to the policy expectations for this neighbourhood in transition.
26Ms. Anderson attests that the ZBA as modified, and the SPA with conditions, satisfy all statutory requirements: suitable regard for the provincial interests of s. 2 of the Act; consistent with the PPS; conforms with the GP; conforms with the ROP; conforms with the in-force OP; reflects the intentions of OPA 119 and the new OP, although not yet in force; addresses the City’s Tall Building Guidelines; and satisfies the site plan requirements of s. 41 of the Act.
27On the thorough and uncontested evidence, the Tribunal agreed with Ms. Anderson that the development plans constitute good planning in the public interest, and approved the ZBA as modified, and the SPA with conditions. That oral decision took effect at the CMC on May 6, 2022 and is repeated below for confirmation.
28The Tribunal Orders that:
- The Site Plan and ZBA No. 2020.418 appeals are allowed in part, and the instruments, as agreed to by the Parties, are approved as follows:
a. ZBA 2020.418, being a by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 2020 as amended, as contained in Exhibit 1, Attachment 7, is approved on a site-specific basis as exception 514;
b. The Phase 1 Site Plan prepared by CORE Architects dated April 6, 2022, as contained in Exhibit 1, Attachment 5, is approved subject to fulfillment of the conditions, as contained in Exhibit 1, Attachment 6, to the satisfaction of the City of Burlington.
By operation of s. 38(6.1) of the Planning Act, this Order releases the Fairview LP lands from Interim Control By-law No. 2019-10.
This Tribunal Member may continue to be spoken to if any issues arise in the implementation of the conditions to approval.
The Site Plan and ZBA 2020.418 appeals for the subject lands are otherwise dismissed, without costs.
The site-specific amendments to ZBA 2020.418 for the Fairview LP lands are without prejudice to the outstanding appeals of the other appellants to ZBA 2020.418 which remain before the Tribunal.
ORDER
29The Tribunal Orders its rulings and directions as set out in this Decision.
30This Member is not seized but is available 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.
OLT-22-002219/OLT-22-002483 – Schedule 1
PL210040 Appellant Name(s)
Number
Does the Appellant have an appeal under File PL200150 OPA 119 & ZBA?
Counsel/ Representative
Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (OSSGA)
1
David White and Marc Kemerer
United Burlington Retail Portfolio Inc.
2
Aaron Platt/ Samantha Lampert
Crystal Homes
3
Michael Melling/ Alex Lusty
Landform Development Group and 2413350 Ontario Inc.
4
Yes
Denise Baker
1085 Clearview Limited Partnership (1085 Clearview GP Inc.)
5
Denise Baker
West End Home Builders Association
6
Yes
Denise Baker
440 Elizabeth Street Holdings Ltd
7
Yes
Denise Baker
2084 Lakeshore Holdings Ltd. and 2084 Lakeshore (2048) LP Ltd
8
Yes
Denise Baker
Emshih Developments Inc. (800 Burloak Drive)
9
Nancy Smith/ Jennifer Meader
Emshih Developments Inc. (895-901 Brant and 2250 Fairview Street)
10
Yes
Nancy Smith/ Jennifer Meader
Emshih Developments Inc. (372-380 and 433-439 Brant Street)
11
Yes
Nancy Smith/ Jennifer Meader
Carriage Gate Homes Inc., Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc. and Old Lakeshore (Burlington) Inc.
12
Yes
Scott Snider
1820473 Ontario Inc. and Molinaro Group of Companies
13
Scott Snider
Victoria-Brant Ltd., 2022 Victoria Avenue Inc., 2018 Victoria Avenue Inc., and 1664450 Ontario Inc.
14
Scott Snider
Renimmob Properties Ltd.
15
Yes
Scott Snider
Penta Properties Inc., Paletta International Corporation and P&L Livestock Ltd.
16
Scott Snider
Brookfield Properties, InteRent REIT and CLV Group Inc. (Fairview Limited Partnership)
17
Yes
Scott Snider/ Shelley Kaufman
Withdrew appeal
18
New Horizon Development Group
19
Patrick Harrington/ Leo Longo
Brad Wilson
20
Self-represented
Wal-Mart Canada Corp.
21
Yes
Roslyn Houser
Millcroft Greens Corporation
22
Patrick Harrington/ Leo Longo
RK (Burlington Mall) Inc.
23
Joel D. Farber
Withdrew Appeal
24
Pine Street Burlington Corp.
25
Yes
Denise Baker
Adi Developments (Masonry) Inc.
26
Yes
Denise Baker
Withdrew Appeal
27
Withdrew Appeal
28
RioCan Holdings Inc.
29
Joel D. Farber
335 Plains Holdings Inc. and 355 Plains Holdings Inc.
30
Denise Baker
Camarro Developments Inc. (789-795 Brant Street)
31
Denise Baker
Camarro Developments Inc. (519-527 Brant Street)
32
Denise Baker
Camarro Developments Inc. (1062 and 1074 Cooke Blvd)
33
Denise Baker
Infinity Developments Group Inc.
34
Denise Baker
Spruce Partners Inc. and Amico Properties Inc.
35
Yes
Denise Baker
5135 Fairview Holdings Inc.
36
Denise Baker
S & G Consulting Inc., Branthaven 735 Oval Inc., and Branthaven Development Corp.
37
Yes
Denise Baker
1602211 Ontario Ltd.
38
Denise Baker
William Love
39
Self-Represented
Nelson Aggregate Co.
40
David White and Marc Kemerer
Mac’s Convenience Stores Inc.
41
Max Laskin/ Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
Core FSC Lakeshore GP Incorporated
42
Yes
David Bronskill/ Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
Vrancorp Group
43
Yes
David Bronskill/ Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
Reserve Properties Ltd.
44
Yes
David Bronskill/ Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
2584979 Ontario Inc.
45
David Bronskill/ Matthew Lakatos-Hayward
Burlington Healthcare Centre Inc.
46
Yes
Andrew Jeanrie
Emshih Development Inc. (901 Guelph Line)
47
Nancy Smith
Mattamy James Street Limited Partnership
48
Withdrawn
Scott Snider
Added Parties
Fairview GO Ltd.
Jennifer Meader/ Scott Snider
Conserving Our Rural Ecosystems of Burlington Inc. (“CORE”)
Denisa Mertiri / David R. Donnelly
Millcroft Greenspace Alliance
Daintry Klein (Rep.)
Metrolinx
Adriana Pilkington
Participants
Tom Muir
Self-Represented
Anne and David Marsden
Self-Represented
Millcroft Coalition Against Development
Kirk Robinson (Rep.)
Additional Appellants for PL200150 Only
Sofina Foods
1
Calvin Lantz
Welwyn Interests Inc.
8
Denise Baker
Adi Developments (Masonry) Inc.
13
Denise Baker
850 Brant Street Properties Inc.
22
Scott Snider
SCHEDULE 2
PROCEEDING COMMENDED UNDER 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellants:
1085 Clearview Limited Partnership
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment for Burlington New Official Plan
Municipality:
City of Burlington
OLT Case No.:
PL210040
OLT File No.:
PL210040
OLT Case Name:
1085 Clearview Limited Partnership v. Halton (Reg. Mun)
PROCEDURAL ORDER
(Phase 1A – Agriculture)
- 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 will begin on ___________________ at 10:00 a.m., at ________________________. The Parties will work together when preparing the hearing Work Plan to accommodate any identified scheduling constraints.
The length of the hearing will be ____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 procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.
The Parties and Participants are listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.
The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits it. A party who seeks changes to this list may have costs awarded against it.
The order of evidence is tentatively set out in Attachment 4 to this Order and shall be confirmed between the Parties and reflected in the hearing Work Plan. 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. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and phone number.
If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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 (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).
Requirements Before the 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 _________________. For expert witnesses, a party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified and a copy of their curriculum vitae.
Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting before the hearing to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to all of the Parties and the Tribunal on or before ________________, if agreement is reached.
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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided as in Section 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. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in Section 14.
A witness or participant must provide to the Tribunal and the Parties a witness statement or participant statement, respectively, on or before _______________, or the witness may not give oral evidence at the hearing and the participant’s statement may not be considered by the Tribunal. Participants are only permitted to provide written evidence to the Tribunal, unless otherwise permitted by the Tribunal.
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 14.
On or before _______________, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness statements and expert witness statements (in accordance with section 11 herein) to the other Parties and to the Tribunal.
On or before ________________, the Parties may provide to all other Parties a written response to any written evidence.
On or before ___________________, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. The Tribunal and all Parties shall be notified if a model will be used, all Parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the scheduled commencement of the hearing.
A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. Such a motion shall be in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rule 10, which requires that the moving Party provide copies of the motion to all other Parties at least 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.
A Party who provides a witness’ written evidence 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.
On or before _______________, the Parties shall prepare and file a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the identified Parties participating in the Hearing Event, preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for Examination in Chief, Cross Examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event.
The Parties undertake to make best their efforts to avoid duplicative evidence to the extent possible.
The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before _________________ and one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in an accessible electronic format in accordance with Section 23.
If a Party intends to seek approval of revised official plan policies at the hearing, the Party shall provide copies of the revised policy language to the other Parties with their witness statements as exchanged in accordance with Section 14.
All filing of documents and materials shall be electronic to the Tribunal, the Parties and Participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable. 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. All documents to be filed with the Tribunal shall be organized, tabbed and digitally searchable and such materials will be filed in accordance with directions contained in the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, dated July 2, 2020, or as may be amended. Section 23 applies regardless if the hearing event is in-person or electronic.
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.
The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, or on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.
The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.
This Member is [not] seized. So orders the Tribunal.
BEFORE:
Name of Member: Date:
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF DATES
DATE
EVENT
(60 days prior to hearing)
Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
(50 days prior to hearing)
Last date to challenge identification of expert witness
(50 days prior to hearing)
Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
(20 days prior to hearing)
Exchange of Reply Statements (if any)
(14 days prior to hearing)
Exchange of visual evidence (if any), Joint Document Book (with 1 hard copy to Tribunal) and Agreed Statement of Facts filed with the Tribunal (if agreement)
(10 days prior to hearing)
Hearing Plan
Hearing commences
ATTACHMENT 2
LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS
Parties
Counsel/Representative
Appellant
Property
City of Burlington
Andrew Biggart / Christina Kapelos Ritchie Ketcheson Hart & Biggart LLP 1 Eva Road
Toronto, ON M9C 4Z5
Blake Hurley
City of Burlington – Legal
426 Brant Street
Burlington, ON L7R 3L1
Regional Municipality of Halton
Kelly Yerxa
Halton Region – Legal Services
1151 Bronte Road
Oakville, ON L6M 3L1
Penta Properties Inc., Paletta International Corporation and P&L Livestock Ltd.
Scott Snider/Shelley Kaufman
Turkstra Mazza
15 Bold Street
Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3
t. 905.529.3476
16
Various
Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (OSSGA) /
Nelson Aggregate Co.
David White / Marc Kemerer
Devry Smith Frank LLP
95 Barber Greene Rd #100 Toronto, ON M3C 3E9
1/40
N/A
ATTACHMENT 3 ISSUES LIST
Note 1: The identification of an issue on this Issues List is intended to provide notice to all parties that a party will lead evidence and/or argument on the matter. This identification does not serve as an acknowledgement of relevancy to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. Any party may adopt/address any issue regardless of who raised the issue. An issue will not be removed from the Issues List unless all parties are in agreement.
Note 2: The starred (*) issues have both agricultural and natural heritage components. The Parties agree these issues will be dealt with in Phase 1A insofar as they relate to the Agricultural policies of the Burlington Official Plan.
Note 3: The starred (**) issues have both agricultural and aggregate components. The Parties agree these issues will be dealt with in Phase 1A insofar as they relate to the Agricultural policies of the Burlington Official Plan.
Penta Properties Inc., Paletta International Corporation and P&L Livestock Ltd. (“Penta”)
- Are the following proposed City of Burlington Official plan policies in conformity with Halton Region Official Plan, 1995 (as amended), the Growth Plan and consistent with PPS 2020 policies:
4.2.1(e)
4.2.1(f)
*4.2.1(g)
*4.2.3(l)
*4.2.5(e)
*4.3.2(f)
5.5.1
9.1.1 a)
9.2.2 c)
9.2.3 a) (i)
9.3.2(c)
12.1.12(4.1)(d)(v)
How do the proposed policies protect and promote all forms of agriculture and normal farm practices?
How do the proposed implementation policies that limit surplus farm dwelling severances through prescriptive policies, achieve the fundamental purpose of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020’s lot creation policies?
How might adding an additional objective to policy 5.5.1 promote a proper balance between agricultural viability and natural heritage policies that impact farming?
*What rationale did the City utilize to claim that buffer lands and vegetation protection zones near Natural Heritage System form part of that System? How does this promote and protect agriculture?
*Does Section 4.3.2(f) provide sufficient direction or should it specifically consider whether tree removal was done legally or in accordance with normal farm practices?
7
Does the Burlington Official Plan 2020 represent good planning and is it in the public interest as it relates to agriculture and normal farm practices?
Do the proposed modifications have regard for matters of Provincial Interest identified in the Planning Act, in particular Part I, section 2?
Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (“OSSGA”) / Nelson Aggregate Co. (“Nelson”)
Should 5235 Cedar Springs Road be included within the “Agricultural Area” and “Agricultural Land Base” designations on Official Plan Schedules I, J and M?
**Do the policies of Chapter 4 of the Growth Plan apply within the Greenbelt Area, which includes the Greenbelt Plan Area and Niagara Escarpment Plan Area?
**Are/do the following sections of the Official Plan:
1.4.4 b)
2.1
2.2.1(c)
2.2.3
5.5
9.1
9.2
a) consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, including, but not limited to policies 1.2.6 and 2.3;
b) conform to the Growth Plan, including, but not limited to subsection 1.2.3 and Chapter 4 (if deemed applicable); and
c) conform to the Niagara Escarpment Plan, including but not limited to subsections 1.5 and 2.8?
Should the definition of ‘Prime Agricultural Area’ in Chapter 13 of the Official Plan be revised to be consistent with the PPS and other applicable Provincial Plans?
Should the ‘Greenbelt Area’ by a defined term in the Official Plan?
ATTACHMENT 4 ORDER OF EVIDENCE
City of Burlington
Penta
OSSGA/Nelson
City of Burlington (in reply, if any)
ATTACHMENT 5
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.