Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
CORRECTION NOTICE
OLT CASE NO.:
OLT-22-002091 et al
DECISION ISSUE DATE:
July 25, 2022
CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE:
August 12, 2022
RE: Graham v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing)
Correction to: Appearances Section – to add the missing party represented by counsel
Parties
Counsel
Tribute (Lindsay 1) Limited and Tribute (Lindsay 2) Limited
Evan Barz
Correction to: paragraph [9], line 2 – to reflect the correct party name
Originally:
Corrected to:
BARNMAR/BMMB Holdings
BARMMAR/BMMB Holdings
“Euken Lui”
EUKEN LUI
ACTING REGISTRAR
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.
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
July 25, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002091
(Formerly) PL120217
OLT-22-002100
(Formerly) PL130063
OLT-22-002115
(Formerly) PL151086
OLT-22-002147
(Formerly) PL160076
OLT-22-002084
(Formerly) PL171407
OLT-22-002079
(Formerly) PL171408
OLT-22-002076
(Formerly) PL171409
OLT-22-002171
(Formerly) PL171515
OLT-22-002085
(Formerly) PL180303
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Kerry L.W. Doughty
Appellant:
Ferma Aggregates Inc.
Appellant:
Jennifer Graham; and others
Subject:
Official Plan
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-21-002091
Legacy Case No.:
PL120217
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-21-002091
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL120217
OLT Case Name:
Graham v. Ontario (Municipal Affairs and Housing)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 35
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002100
Legacy Case No.:
PL130063
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002100
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL130063
OLT Case Name:
J. Stollar Construction Ltd v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Subject:
By-law No. D06-18-103
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002108
Legacy Case No.:
PL130064
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002100
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL130063
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject:
Official Plan Amendment No. 15
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002115
Legacy Case No.:
PL151086
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002115
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL151086
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 17
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002147
Legacy Case No.:
PL160076
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002147
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL160076
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 13
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002084
Legacy Case No.:
PL171407
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002084
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171407
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely
Appellant:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Appellant:
William Westcott
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 14
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002079
Legacy Case No.:
PL171408
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002079
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171408
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 16
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002076
Legacy Case No.:
PL171409
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002076
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171409
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants:
Comhold Investments, Medlaw Corporation and Mason Burch
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Kawartha Lakes to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation:
Urban, Highway Commercial and Agricultural
Proposed Designation:
Urban
Purpose:
To permit the expansion of the existing Pinecrest nursing home and the development of 280 units within 6 four-storey condominium buildings
Property Address/Description:
3400 and 3418 CLK Road 36 and 91 Little Bob Drive
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
Approval Authority File No.:
D01-16-156
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002171
Legacy Case No.:
PL171515
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002171
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171515
OLT Case Name:
Comhold Investments v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants:
Comhold Investments et al
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 6-87 and 16-78 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Kawartha Lakes to make a decision
Existing Zoning:
General Rural (A1), Highway Commercial (C2), Community Facility (CF) and Urban Residential Type One (R1) Zone
Proposed Zoning:
Site Specific (TBD)
Purpose:
To permit the expansion of the existing Pinecrest nursing home and the development of 280 units within 6 four-storey condominium buildings
Property Address/Description:
3400 and 3418 CLK Road 36 and 91 Little Bob Drive
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality File No.:
D06-35-074
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-003781
Legacy Case No.:
PL171516
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002171
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171515
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants:
Comhold Investments et al
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the City of Kawartha Lakes to make a decision
Purpose:
To permit the expansion of the existing Pinecrest nursing home and the development of 280 units within 6 four-storey condominium buildings
Property Address/Description:
3400 and 3418 CLK Road 36 and 91 Little Bob Drive
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality File No.:
D05-35-019
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-003782
Legacy Case No.:
PL180414
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002171
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171515
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants:
Bromont Homes Inc., Bromont Investments Inc., Bromont Lindsay 2 Corp. and Bromont Lindsay 5 Corp.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan - Failure of the City of Kawartha Lakes to adopt the requested amendment
Existing Designation:
Highway Commercial, Tourist Commercial and Environmental Protection
Proposed Designation:
Highway Commercial, Mixed Use Gateway, Prestige Industrial and Parks and Open Space
Purpose:
To permit retail, service commercial and prestige employment uses with a collector street
Property Address/Description:
2387 Highway 7 and 332 Lindsay Street South
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
Approval Authority File No.:
D01-17-005
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002085
Legacy Case No.:
PL180303
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002085
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL180303
OLT Case Name:
Bromont Homes Inc. v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants:
Bromont Homes Inc., Bromont Investments Inc., Bromont Lindsay 2 Corp. and Bromont Lindsay 5 Corp.
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 93-90 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Kawartha Lakes to make a decision
Existing Zoning:
Agricultural (A), Highway Commercial (CH) and Open Space Exception Three (OS-3) Zones
Proposed Zoning:
Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose:
To permit retail, service commercial and prestige employment uses with a collector street
Property Address/Description:
2387 Highway 7 and 332 Lindsay Street South
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality File No.:
D06-17-020
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002088
Legacy Case No.:
PL180304
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002085
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL180303
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicants and Appellants:
Bromont Homes Inc., Bromont Investments Inc., Bromont Lindsay 2 Corp. and Bromont Lindsay 5 Corp.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of the City of Kawartha Lakes to make a decision
Purpose:
To permit retail, service commercial and prestige employment uses with a collector street
Property Address/Description:
2387 Highway 7 and 332 Lindsay Street South
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
Municipality File No.:
D05-17-002
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002090
Legacy Case No.:
PL180305
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002085
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL180303
Heard:
June 14, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
City of Kawartha Lakes
Denitza Koev
Bromont Homes Inc.
Ian Andres
J. Stollar Construction Ltd.
Denise Baker
Flato Lindsay Community Inc.
Katarzyna Sliwa
Diana Betlej
Comhold Investments Ltd., Medlaw
Tom Halinski (in absentia)
Corporation and Mason Burch
Patrick Harrington
(collectively Comhold)
Black Bear Estates Inc.
James Webster
Ibrans Developments Ltd.
Matthew Rutledge
Lindsay Square Mall Inc.
Meaghan McDermid
Lindbrook Commercial
Patrick Harrington
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T. PREVEDEL AND STEVEN COOKE ON JUNE 14, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Ontario Land Tribunal is a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) regarding a number of appeals related to the adoption of the City of Kawartha Lakes 2012 Official Plan (“CKLOP”) referred to as: Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) No. 13, OPA No. 14, OPA No.15, OPA No.16, OPA No.17 and OPA No.18.
2Phase 2 of the Hearings is now complete, and a Decision was issued by the Tribunal on April 5, 2022, to that effect.
3The Tribunal directed the Parties to provide a status report subsequent to a lawyer’s meeting which was scheduled for April 7, 2022.
4Ms. Koev advised the Tribunal, that the parties have been able to make significant progress over the course of the last several weeks, such that a Phase 3 hearing is no longer necessary. Specifically, the Appellant Parties that had identified issues for determination during Phase 3 (issues common to all secondary plans), when the phasing plan was originally set in 2019, have confirmed that, due to more recent developments in these proceedings:
several issues can be removed from the issues list; and,
the balance of the issues has been scoped to deal exclusively with the Lindsay Secondary Plan OPA, which is being dealt with in Phase 4.
5The purpose of this CMC is to obtain a status update from the Parties with respect to the Phase 4 Procedural Order and Issues List and address any preliminary matters associated with the Phase 4 Hearing.
Procedural Order and Issues List
6Ms. Koev advised that the Parties are working on refining the Procedural Order and Issues List, with the objective of scoping down some of the issues, and this should be available to forward to the Tribunal within the next two weeks.
7The Parties, on consent, have asked for a six (6) week Hearing to be scheduled in 2023, and a further CMC in the fall of 2022 to deal with any unresolved housekeeping issues.
8The Tribunal directed the Parties to submit the final Procedural Order and Issues List to the Case Coordinator by no later than June 29, 2022.
Confirmation of Party Status
9Matthew Rutledge, counsel for Ibrans Developments Ltd., advised that his client has recently acquired the former BARNMAR/BMMB Holdings and requested that Party status be transferred.
10On consent of the Parties, Ibrans Developments Ltd. was substituted and granted Party status under Rule 8.2 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Scheduling of the Case Management Conference and Hearing of the Merits
Case Management Conference
11A one-day CMC has been scheduled for Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 9 a.m. by video hearing:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 709-076-365
Hearing of the Merits
12A six-week Hearing has been scheduled to start on Monday, May 8, 2023 at 10 a.m. by video hearing:
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 687-587-165
13Parties 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.
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.
15Individuals 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.
16The Tribunal received the final Procedural Order and Issues List, which is attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision. As such, it is in full force and effect.
17The Members are not seized, however, may assist with case management, schedules permitting.
18No further notice will be given.
19So Orders the Tribunal
“T. Prevedel”
t. prevedel
MEMBER
“Steven Cooke”
steven cooke
VICE-CHAIR
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-21-002091 et al – Schedule 1
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Comhold Investments Ltd.; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. OPA 13
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002084
Legacy Case No.:
PL171407
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002084
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171407
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant:
2358493 Ontario Inc.
Appellant:
BARMMAR Investments Ltd. & BMMB Investments Ltd.
Appellant:
Bromont Homes Inc.
Appellant:
Catherine Gravely; and others
Subject:
Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 16
Municipality:
City of Kawartha Lakes
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002076
Legacy Case No.:
PL171409
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002076
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL171409
OLT Case Name:
Gravely v. Kawartha Lakes (City)
Procedural Order
PHASE 4
- 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 Phase 4 hearing will begin on Monday, May 8, 2023 at 10 a.m. at the following link. All of the parties shall attend the first day of the hearing.
GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/687587165
Audio-only telephone line: Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373
Access Code: 687-587-165
The time allotted for the Phase 4 hearing is six (6) weeks. 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 length of the hearing may be shortened as issues are resolved should settlement of some or all of the issues be achieved.
The parties for the purposes of this hearing phase are set out in Attachment 1. There are no participants.
The issues for the Phase 4 Hearing 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. This Order is without prejudice to the City’s right to challenge the validity of issues on the Issues List, by way of motion, in advance of the exchange of witness statements including, but not limited to, the right to take the position that an issue or issues are not appropriate, are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and/or have already been dealt with through a previous decision of the Tribunal.
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 who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.
Requirements Before the Hearing
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 Friday, September 9, 2022 and in accordance with paragraph 21 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 Friday, November 4, 2022 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. The experts must prepare a list of agreed facts, which must be provided to all of the parties and filed with the Tribunal Case Coordinator by Thursday, November 10, 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 paragraph 12 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 12 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 16 below.
On or before Friday, January 20, 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 21 below.
On or before Monday, December 19, 2022, a participant (if any) shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 21 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 Friday, April 28, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 21 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT Case Coordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Friday, March 3, 2023 in accordance with paragraph 21 below.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, April 7, 2023. Inclusion of any documents contained within the joint document shall be without prejudice to any party’s right to take a position with respect to the relevance or admissibility of the document. Each party shall bear its own costs associated with assembling the joint document book and shall bear an equal share of the cost associated with the preparation and delivery of the Tribunal’s hard copy of the joint document book.
General Requirements
Any documents which may be used by a party in cross examination of an opposing party’s witness shall be password protected and only be accessible to the Tribunal and the other parties if it is introduced as evidence at the hearing pursuant to the directions provided by the Tribunal.
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 Friday, April 7, 2023. The hearing plan shall contain 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 filing shall be electronic and 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 to Sample Procedural Order
Meaning of terms used in the Procedural Order:
A party is an individual or corporation permitted by the Tribunal to participate fully in the hearing by receiving copies of written evidence, presenting witnesses, cross-examining the witnesses of the other parties, and making submissions on all of the evidence. An unincorporated group cannot be a party and it must appoint one person to speak for it, and that person must accept the other responsibilities of a party as set out in the Order. Parties do not have to be represented by a lawyer and may have an agent speak for them. The agent must have written authorisation from the party.
NOTE that a person who wishes to become a party before or at the hearing, and who did not request this at the case management conference (CMC), must ask the Tribunal to permit this.
A participant is an individual or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may make a written submission to the Tribunal. A participant cannot make an oral submission to the Tribunal or present oral evidence (testify in-person) at the hearing (only a party may do so). Section 17 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act states that a person who is not a party to a proceeding may only make a submission to the Tribunal in writing. The Tribunal may direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions from the Tribunal on the content of their written submission, should that be found necessary by the Tribunal. A participant may also be asked questions by the parties should the Tribunal direct a participant to attend a hearing to answer questions on the content of their written submission.
A participant must be identified and be accorded participant status by the Tribunal at the CMC. A participant will not receive notice of conference calls on procedural issues that may be scheduled prior to the hearing, nor receive notice of mediation. A participant cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision, as a participant does not have the rights of a party to make such requests of the Tribunal.
Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing. These must have pages numbered consecutively throughout the entire document, even if there are tabs or dividers in the material.
Visual evidence includes photographs, maps, videos, models, and overlays which a party or participant intends to present as evidence at the hearing.
A witness statement is a short written outline of the person’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which he or she will discuss ; and a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing.
An expert witness statement should include his or her (1) name and address, (2) qualifications, (3) a list of the issues he or she will address, (4) the witness’ opinions on those issues and the complete reasons supporting their opinions and conclusions and (5) a list of reports or materials that the witness will rely on at the hearing. An expert witness statement must be accompanied by an acknowledgement of expert’s duty.
A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a statement of the participant’s position on the appeal; a list of the issues which the participant wishes to address and the submissions of the participant on those issues; and a list of reports or materials, if any, which the participant wishes to refer to in their statement.
Additional Information
A summons may compel the appearance of a person before the Tribunal who has not agreed to appear as a witness. A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons through a request. (See Rule 13 on the summons procedure.) The request should indicate how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the information provided in the request that the evidence is relevant, necessary or admissible, the party requesting the summons may provide a further request with more detail or bring a motion in accordance with the Rules.
The order of examination of witnesses is usually direct examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the following way:
direct examination by the party presenting the witness;
direct examination by any party of similar interest, in the manner determined by the Tribunal;
cross-examination by parties of opposite interest;
re-examination by the party presenting the witness; or
another order of examination mutually agreed among the parties or directed by the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1 – PARTY List
PHASE 4
Parties to OLT Case No. OLT-22-002076 (Legacy Case No. PL171409) – OPA 16 – Lindsay Secondary Plan
Appellant/Party
Name
Lawyer/Agent*
E-mail Address
Approval Authority
City of Kawartha Lakes
Denitza Koev
Stephen D’Agostino
Appellant G
Bromont Homes Inc.
Ian Andres
Rob Howe
Appellant M
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Denise Baker
Raj Kehar
Appellant P
Ibrans Developments Ltd. (formerly BARMMAR Investments Limited
BMMB Investments Limited)
Joel Farber
Matthew W. Rutledge
Appellant H
Lindsay 2017 Developments Inc. (formerly Craft Corporation and Mason Homes Limited)
Paul DeMelo
Appellant N
Flato Lindsay Community Inc. (formerly Vizatimet Farms Ltd. and Zemer Holdings Ltd.)
Katarzyna Sliwa,
Tom Halinski,
Diana Betlej
Appellant F
Tribute (Lindsay 2) Limited (formerly Ibrans Developments Ltd.)
Chris Barnett
Evan Barz
Appellant R
Tribute (Lindsay 1) Limited (formerly the Orsi Land Group)
Chris Barnett
Evan Barz
Appellant S
Lindbrook Developments Inc.
David Neligan
Patrick Harrington
Party
Lindsay Square Mall Inc.
Meaghan McDermid
Parties to OLT File No. PL171407 – OPA 13, only as it relates to the outstanding appeals of Policy 18.4.4 by Appellants M and N
Appellant/Party
Name
Lawyer/Agent*
E-mail Address
Approval Authority
City of Kawartha Lakes
Stephen D’Agostino
Denitza Koev
Appellant G
Bromont Homes Inc.
Ian Andres
Robert Howe
Appellant M
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Denise Baker
Raj Kehar
Appellant N
Flato Lindsay Community Inc. (formerly Vizatimet Farms Ltd. and Zemer Holdings Ltd.)
Katarzyna Sliwa
Tom Halinski
Diana Betlej
Appellant O
Comhold Investments Ltd., Medlaw Corporation and Mason Burch (collectively Comhold)
Tom Halinski
Appellant P
Ibrans Developments Ltd. (formerly BARMMAR Investments Limited
BMMB Investments Limited)
Joel Farber
Matthew W. Rutledge
Appellant H
Lindsay 2017 Developments Inc.
(formerly Craft Corporation and
Mason Homes Limited)
Paul DeMelo
Party
Lindsay Square Mall Inc.
Meaghan McDermid
ATTACHMENT 2 – PHASE 4 ISSUES LIST
Parties with Issues:
Tribute (Lindsay 2) Limited (Appellant F), Bromont Homes Inc. (Appellant G),
J. Stollar Construction Limited (Appellant M), Flato Lindsay Community Inc. (Appellant N),
Tribute (Lindsay 1) Limited (Appellant R), and Lindbrook Developments Inc. (Appellant S)
Phase Issue No.
Issue No. Assigned by City
Issue
Section/Policy Reference
OPA 16 Secondary Plan – General Issues
M
Does OPA 16 incorporate amendments to the CKLOP that apply specifically to lands outside the Lindsay urban area? Was adequate notice of this intention provided?
General
301-M
Does OPA 16 as drafted comply with and achieve the Goals as set out in Section 31.2.1.2?
General
302-M
Are the policies in OPA 16 that address the management of growth development during the planning period consistent or compatible with the growth projections in Sections 18.4.1 and 18.5.1 of the CKLOP (as adopted by Council via OPA 13)? Do those policies take proper account of the challenges posed by that projected growth?
General
304-M
Does OPA 16 provide an appropriate land use planning policy-regime to guide the future growth and contribute to the future well-being of the Lindsay urban area as well as the City of Kawartha Lakes?
General
305-M
Is it appropriate that OPA 16 contains policies that are not directly and specifically applicable to the Lindsay urban area?
General
515-M
Does the Lindsay Secondary Plan “identify effective and efficient development patterns and opportunities and take into account current municipal conditions, reflect Provincial land use planning policy as outlined in the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), and co-ordinate with and implement the policies of the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan (OP)” as set out in Section 1.1 of OPA 13?
General
520-M
Does Council’s consideration and adoption of the amendments incorporated into OPA 16 comply with the requirements of Section 35.1 of the CKLOP, which requires the provision of a “complete justification for the proposed change”, and further stipulates that “[All] Amendments should conform to the Goals and Objectives contained herein?”
General
247-F,
296-R
The OPA does not contain policies for the former Jennings Creek Secondary Plan Area requiring that property owners contribute equally towards the provision of community facilities such as:
The costs of community use lands such as school sites and parkland, as well as the costs for preparation of parkland for dedication;
Local infrastructure, roads and works adjacent to community use lands;
Other local infrastructure which is demonstrated to benefit more than one individual development;
Entry features; and,
Area wide studies required to support approval.
Should landowners within a new development area, such as the Jennings Creek Secondary Plan Area, be required to enter into an agreement among benefiting landowners to ensure these costs are equitably apportioned?
General
OPA 16 Secondary Plan – Employment Policy Issues
311-M
Is it appropriate that OPA 16 collapses the existing Lindsay Secondary Plan’s (LSP’s) General Employment and Prestige Employment Designation into a single generic Employment Designation?
General
312-M
Is it then appropriate that OPA 16 proposes separate policies for “Prestige Employment uses” and “General Employment uses” by distinguishing those properties that abut arterials, collectors, CKL roads, and provincial highways from those that do not?
General
313-M
Is it appropriate that those properties that abut arterials, collectors, CKL roads, and provincial highways are precluded from having outdoor storage of any type in any location?
General
314-M
Are the policies which regulate the manner in which an industrial site and/or an industrial building is configured appropriate, and are they compatible with the manner in which industrial operations function?
General
315-M
Do the propose policies have the effect of potentially precluding the development or continuation of large-scale industrial buildings or operations? If so, does such an outcome represent good planning? Are such policies consistent with the PPS and do they conform to the Growth Plan and the CKLOP?
General
316-M
For those lands that have been converted from employment to non-employment designation in OPA 16, have the policies in the PPS and Growth Plan been complied with?
General
388-M
Are the over-all framework as well as the various individual policies being applied to the Employment Designation appropriate? Are they consistent with the PPS and comply with the Growth Plan and the CKLOP?
31.2.3.3
389-M
Is the distinction as applied within this designation between “Prestige Employment uses” and “General Employment uses” appropriate? Is it clear? Does it provide the necessary guidance as to the properties that would fall under each of these headings and the policies and restrictions that would accordingly apply to them?
31.2.3.3
390-M
To the extent that this Section proposes to distinguish between these two categories and apply differentiated policies and restrictions to them, is it appropriate that there is only a single Employment Designation on Schedule F-1?
31.2.3.3
391-M
It is appropriate to remove the existing permissions for outside storage under the existing LSP?
31.2.3.3.3,
31.2.3.3.5(g)
392-M
What is the justification for removing these existing permissions?
31.2.3.3.3,
31.2.3.3.5(g)
393-M
Is the adoption of this prohibition consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the CKLOP or with the Growth Plan and the PPS?
31.2.3.3.3,
31.2.3.3.5(g)
394-M
Is the policy that requires that “Employment uses shall… have all operations conducted entirely within an enclosed building” appropriate?
31.2.3.3.9
395-M
Does this policy conflict with subsection 31.3.3.5(g)?
31.2.3.3.9
396-M
Given that such a restriction would preclude the majority of the Industrial uses that are currently permitted in the implementing ZBL’s General Employment (GE) Zone that applies to the properties in OPA 16’s proposed Employment Designation, is the intention that these uses be no longer permitted anywhere in the Lindsay Secondary Plan area?
31.2.3.3.9
397-M
Is such a Secondary Plan area-wide prohibition consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan and the CKLOP?
31.2.3.3.9
294-N
Given that the applicant has carried out a market analysis to demonstrate that there is adequate demand for a particular type of retail development on the subject lands, would it be appropriate to include a site-specific provision within the Secondary Plan to recognise and codify the results of this study at this time?
31.2.3.3.11
OPA 16 Secondary Plan – Parking in Various Designations
317-M
Is it appropriate to restrict the location of parking and loading spaces to either the rear or the side of buildings on a generic basis through Official Plan policies? Should such a restriction not consider the circumstances that may apply to individual properties or sub-categories of properties, thereby making such restrictions more appropriate for inclusion in zoning by-law?
General
M
Do such policies conform to other policies within the CKLOP?
General
OPA 16 Secondary Plan – Other Section-Specific Issues
332-M
Are additional policies needed to address considerations that arise in connection with the promotion of residential intensification, namely policies which would establish allocation priorities as between intensification and Greenfield development when the municipality encounters constraints resulting from servicing capacity deficiencies?
31.2.2.1.1
to
31.2.2.1.3
(Housing)
288-N
Policies 31.2.2.2.1-4 are almost exclusively related to the development of Downtown/main street Lindsay. Is this appropriate and does it provide adequate direction for development of commercial lands outside of the Downtown/main street Lindsay?
31.2.2.2.1
To
31.2.2.2.4
(Economic Development)
333-M
Are these policies appropriate for inclusion in an Official Plan?
31.2.2.5.1
(Urban Design)
334-M
Is the requirement specified in the second sentence appropriate?
31.2.2.5.1
(Urban Design)
340-M
Does this policy allow the City to make proximity to a transit stop a precondition for approval of a development? If so, is such a policy appropriate? Does it represent good planning? Is it consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan and the CKLOP?
31.2.2.7.7.10(b)
(Transportation and Public Transit)
341-M
Has Council adopted consistent Design Standards, Guidelines and Criteria, which are referred to in this policy? In the absence of such adopted Design Standards, Guidelines and Criteria, is this policy appropriate?
31.2.2.8.4
(Infrastructure and Services)
347-M
348-M
Are the design policies in these sections appropriate for inclusion in an Official Plan?
Are the specific policies themselves appropriate?
31.2.3.1.2.1
31.2.3.1.2.2
31.2.3.1.2.3
(Low, Medium, and High Density Residential Development)
349-M
Are the criteria set out in this section appropriate, warranted or justified as applied to all forms of medium density development?
31.2.3.1.2.2
(Medium Density Residential Development)
350-M
Is it appropriate to leave it up to the City’s discretion as to whether parking for a particular freehold townhouse development is to be permitted in front of the building without any criteria establishing when such parking will or will not be permitted?
31.2.3.1.2.2
(Medium Density Residential Development)
351-M
Notwithstanding this section’s appearing to allow for flexibility in the location of parking for freehold townhouse units, is the presumption nevertheless (in accordance with Section 18.16.11 of the CKLOP) that parking will be located at the rear?
31.2.3.1.2.2
(Medium Density Residential Development)
246-F
Are the development policies related to the Neighbourhood Commercial Uses appropriate and do they represent good planning, particularly with regards to the limitation on size and the number of commercial units?
31.2.3.1.3
(Neighbourhood Commercial Uses)
358-M
What is the Heritage District to which these policies apply?
31.2.3.1.6
(Heritage District)
359-M
If there is not yet such a Heritage District, is it not premature to establish policies governing such a Heritage District prior to the studies required under the Ontario Heritage Act to be completed?
31.2.3.1.6
(Heritage District)
244-F
Is it appropriate to prohibit development adjacent to the Lindsay airport explicitly to permit its expansion and is this consistent with development approvals and infrastructure in the former Jennings Creek Community Development Plan area? Would it be more appropriate for these policies to apply to lands outside of the urban boundary? Further, should the policy be updated to reflect that Transport Canada no longer approves NEF/NEP studies?
31.2.3.7
(Airport Lands)
400-M
In light of the conclusions reached in the most recent Growth Management Strategy undertaken by the City, is the application of any designation that would permit urban development on the lands in the “Gateway Area” appropriate? How has it been justified?
31.2.3.8
(Policy #2 – Gateway Area)
401-M
Are the extensions of the corresponding uses and designations at this time and under these circumstances consistent with the PPS, and do they conform to the Growth Plan and the CKLOP?
31.2.3.8
(Policy #2 – Gateway Area)
402-M
Is the proposed extension of the Lindsay Urban Servicing boundary to encompass these lands at this time appropriate? Is it consistent with the PPS, and does it conform to the Growth Plan and the CKLOP?
31.2.3.8
(Policy #2 – Gateway Area)
403-M
Are the policies under this Section premature in the absence of an updated Growth Management Strategy and Official Plan Review as mandated under Sections 18.4.3 and 18.4.4 of the CKLOP?
31.2.3.8
(Policy #2 – Gateway Area)
G
Should OPA 16 be modified to reflect:
(a) the uses and related development standards permitted by the Minister’s Zoning Order for Bromont’s Gateway lands pursuant to Ontario Regulation 40/22? (the “Bromont MZO”); and
(b) the approved Urban Settlement Boundary designation on Schedule A-3 of the City of Kawartha Lakes Official Plan?
31.2.3.8
(Policy #2 – Gateway Area) and Schedule F-1
G
If so,
(a) How should the policies in Section 31.2.3.8 be modified to reflect the range of residential and non-residential uses permitted on Bromont’s Gateway lands pursuant to the Bromont MZO? and,
(b) How should the land use designations on Schedule F-1 be modified for Bromont’s Gateway lands in light of the approved Urban Settlement Boundary designation on Schedule A-3 and the range of land use permissions that have been established for the lands pursuant to the Bromont MZO?
31.2.3.8
(Policy #2 – Gateway Area) and Schedule F-1
R
Should this policy expressly state that the delineation of Environmental Constraint Areas can occur through site specific applications without further amendment to the Official Plan?
31.2.2.6
(Environmental & Natural Heritage)
R
Are Site Specific policies warranted for the “Institutions and Community Facilities” in the Jennings Creek Community Plan area that would allow for such designations to revert to residential land uses in the event that a designated “Institutions and Community Facility” site is not required by a School Board?
31.2.3.4
(Institutions & Community Facilities)
R
Does this policy provide for additional flexibility with respect to the exact location, configuration, and boundaries of New Parks?
31.2.3.5.7
(New Park)
OPA 16 Secondary Plan – Commercial Issues
306-M
Is it appropriate that OPA 16 redesignates a previously-diversified set of properties into a single generic Commercial Designation which carries forward none of the site-specific permission-restrictions that resulted from previously adopted OPAs?
General
307-M(b)
Does applying the generis Commercial Designation to all of these properties, which in many instances results in existing tenancies no longer being permitted, comply with the Goals and Objectives of the CKLOP? Is such an outcome consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan? Does it represent good planning?
General
308-M
Is the application of the Commercial Designation to various small properties scattered around the Lindsay urban area, specifically those properties whose size precludes their meeting that Designation’s preconditions for their existing uses, appropriate?
General
309-M
Should all types of office uses be permitted in the Commercial Designation or at least on certain properties to which this Designation is being applied in OPA 16? If not, is it appropriate to restrict office uses to just professional offices in the Commercial Designation?
General
310-M
Is it appropriate to remove the existing entitlement to business and administrative offices that currently applies to existing large-scale commercial developments in Kent Street West Policy Area?
General
84-M
Does the Lindsay Secondary Plan in fact establish a “retail hierarchy and planned function”?
General
525-M
Are the proposed changes to the entitlements and restrictions that currently apply to commercial uses on individual properties and within specific commercial areas under the existing and Lindsay Secondary Plan appropriate? Are those changes consistent with Section 18.4.4 of the CKLOP?
General
526-M
Are the proposed changes to the existing commercial hierarchy under the Lindsay Secondary Plan appropriate? Does making those changes at this time conform to Section 18.4.4 of the CKLOP?
General
289-N
Given that the Growth Management Strategy (May 2011) did not include a comprehensive review of the commercial hierarchy nor include a full commercial land study, on what basis have the various permitted land uses in Section 31.2.3.2 been allocated? Would it not be more appropriate to allow market forces to allocate commercial uses in Lindsay until such time as a comprehensive review of the commercial hierarchy and a full commercial lands study has been completed?
31.2.3.2
360-M
Are the four commercial Policy Areas identified on any of the Schedules to OPA 16 so that their identifiable character can be assessed?
31.2.3.2.1
(Commercial Structure)
361-M
How do the policies in 31.2.3.2.6 to 31.2.3.2.8, related to the Policy Areas in 3.2.3.2.1?
31.2.3.2.1
(Commercial Structure)
M
Has policy 31.2.3.2.7 appropriately identified the Kent Street West Policy Area?
31.2.3.2.1
(Commercial Structure)
M
What is the intended purpose of identifying the four commercial Policy Areas insofar as there is no policies that specifically apply to these Policy Areas recognising their “identifiable character”?
31.2.3.2.1
(Commercial Structure)
M
Would it be appropriate to prepare a specific policy regime applicable to the Kent Street West Area which reflects the area’s specific character and make-up, as well as its distinguishability from the other properties with which it is currently proposed to share the generic Commercial Designation?
31.2.3.2.1
(Commercial Structure)
M
Would it be appropriate to prepare a specific policy regime applicable to the Future Commercial Area long Highway 5 corridor which reflects the area’s specific character and make-up, as well as its distinguishability from the other properties with which it is currently proposed to share the generic Commercial Designation?
31.2.3.2.1
(Commercial Structure)
366-M
To which new retail uses would this policy apply, given that the full range of retail uses is permitted in the Central Business District designation?
31.2.3.2.2.4(g)
(Central Business District)
368-M
Do the policies under the Commercial Designation meet the objective cited in Section 31.2.3.2.1.2 – namely achieving “appropriate and flexible land use policies”?
31.2.3.2.4
(Commercial)
369-M
Is it appropriate to have only one single Commercial designation covering this diversely situated and circumstanced set of properties, as opposed to the multiple distinct designations under which they fall in the existing LSP?
31.2.3.2.4
(Commercial)
370-M
Are the policies in this section appropriate? Are they consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan and the CKLOP? Do they represent good planning for commercial lands within the Lindsay Secondary Plan Area?
31.2.3.2.4
(Commercial)
R
Does the commercial policy in general impose an undesirable limitation on commercial development on the Subject Lands? Should it be revised to provide greater flexibility for the size, nature and type of commercial development on the Subject Lands?
31.2.3.2.4
(Commercial)
290-N
Policies within these sections denote that both designations are generally intended to service automotive traffic outside of the historic downtown. As such, what is the rationale for two separate designations, with two separate policy frameworks, and are they appropriate, especially given the lack of comprehensive review of the commercial hierarchy and a full commercial lands study?
31.2.3.2.4 (Commercial)
and
31.2.3.2.9 (Highway Commercial)
283-S(a)
283-S(b)
Should the proposed permission for “professional office” be revised to “office?
If the answer to (a) is “no”, what forms of office will be permitted under the proposed permission for “professional office”? Should “professional office” be a defined term?
31.2.3.2.4.1
371-M
It is appropriate to use the term “predominant use” in this policy? What is intended by the use of this term?
31.2.3.2.4.1
372-M
For the purposes of applying the added entitlement in Sections 31.2.3.2.4.4 and 31.2.3.2.4.5, are the uses itemized in this section as falling under the “predominant use” to be regarded as being “permitted uses in the Commercial designation”? If not, what are the “permitted uses in the Commercial designation”?
31.2.3.2.4.1
373-M
Is the definition of Shopping Centres as requiring “at least two major anchor tenants” appropriate?
31.2.3.2.4.2
(Large Format Retail Uses and Shopping Centres)
374-M
Does this definition conflict with the definition of Shopping Centre in Section 30 of the CKLOP? If so, what is the justification for the different definitions?
31.2.3.2.4.2
375-M
Is the cross reference to Section 18.7 of the CKLOP appropriate as it pertains to Large Formal Retail Uses and Shopping Centres?
31.2.3.2.4.2
376-M
Insofar as the development of new Shopping Centres had been highly restricted in both the 1986 LOP and the 2000 LOP – in both cases requiring an OPA and having their own Designation – is it appropriate to have eliminated this designation and the corresponding requirement?
31.2.3.2.4.2
377-M
Does this policy conflict with Section 17.7.1 of the CKLOP, and if so, is it appropriate?
31.2.3.2.4.2
378-M
Is this policy’s restricting “small scale service commercial uses” to being “developed in conjunction with the permitted uses of this designation on the same site” appropriate? Is it appropriate to restrict such uses to “15% of the total gross floor leasable floor space that is to be developed”?
31.2.3.2.4.5
284-S(a)
How do the proposed restrictions on “small scale service commercial uses” as expressed in this policy reconcile with the general permission for “service commercial” under Policy 31.2.3.2.4.1?
31.2.3.2.4.5
284-S(b)
What is the rationale for limiting “small scale service commercial uses” to 15% of total gross leasable floor space? Should the limit be increased to 50%?
31.2.3.2.4.5
R
Does this policy have the potential to impose an undesirable limitation on the size, nature and type of commercial development of the Subject Lands by limiting the amount and form of commercial space on the Subject Lands? Should the policy be revised to provide for greater flexibility with respect to the size, nature and type of commercial development on the Subject Lands?
31.2.3.2.4.5
379-M
Are the provisions in this section – which set out the preconditions that would apply when changing uses or expanding an existing use on an already-developed Commercial properties – appropriate? Is this policy consistent with the PPS and does it conform to the Growth Plan or the CKLOP?
31.2.3.2.4.7
285-S
Should these proposed policies be revised to provide the City with discretion to exempt new or expansion proposals from the requirement of providing a Traffic Impact Assessment and/or a market study where such studies are deemed to be unnecessary?
31.2.3.2.4.7(b) and (c)
291-N
Is it appropriate to require that ever new commercial development include a market study to demonstrate that the proposed commercial floor space is warranted both in size and type of commercial use? If this is required what as-of-right development permissions are provided for in the Commercial Designation?
31.2.3.2.4.7(c)
R
Does this policy have the potential to impose an undesirable limitation on the development of the Subject lands by requiring a site-specific Official Plan Amendment to expand the size of existing or proposed commercial uses beyond 3000 square metres? Should this policy be revised to remove the requirement to secure an Official Plan Amendment, while maintaining the requirement for a Zoning By-law Amendment?
31.2.3.2.4.7(d)
322-M
Does the priority accorded to development within the Northwest Trunk sewershed in the 4th bullet in Section 1.5 conflict with the policies in the Growth Plan, PPS, and CKLOP? Is there any justification for the according of such priority? Does it represent good planning?
Section 1.5 and
31.2.3.2.4.8
323-M
Is Section 31.2.3.2.4.8 consistent with the PPS and does it conform with the policies of the Growth Plan, and the CKLOP? Does it impose a standard that cannot be met?
31.2.3.2.4.8
292-N(a)
Is this policy consistent with the Strategic Directions of the Lindsay Secondary Plan, specifically policy 31.2.1.3 a) & e)?
31.2.3.2.4.8
292-N(b)
Given that the Growth Management Strategy (May 2011) did not include a comprehensive review of the commercial hierarchy nor include a full commercial lands study, on what basis are the lands within the Jennings Creak commercial area (JCAA) being supported ahead of all other serviced commercial lands within Lindsay?
31.2.3.2.4.8
292-N(c)
Does this policy represent good planning? Does it support the creation of a complete community and use of alternative modes of transportation on the east side of Lindsay?
31.2.3.2.4.8
R
For clarity of interpretation, should this policy, or policy 31.2.3.2.1.1, be amended to clarify that the portion of the Tribute South lands which are designated “commercial” form part of the Jennings Creak Commercial Area?
31.2.3.2.4.8
R
What rationale has been provided for the designation change from “residential” in the Jennings Creek Community Development Plan to “Commercial” in Official Plan No. 16? The Town has not updated its commercial hierarchy policy in the interim to address this designation. The policy contemplates a land use designation that is predicated on some future condition that may or may not be able to be fulfilled. Should the land use designation and Special Policy Area refer to “residential”, in accordance with the Jennings Creek Community Development Plan?
31.2.3.2.5
(Policy #1 – Future Commercial Area)
286-S
Should the Kent Street West policy area description include reference to the myriad of service commercial, restaurant and office uses existing within the existing corridor?
31.2.3.2.7.1
(Policy Area –
Kent Street West Area)
293-N
Are the permitted uses within the Highway Commercial designation appropriate and do they represent good planning? On what basis have these uses been determined given the lack of a comprehensive review of the commercial hierarchy and a full commercial lands study?
31.2.3.2.9
(Highway Commercial)
287-N(a)
Is the range of uses permitted by the Highway Commercial designation appropriate for the development of the subject lands?
Schedule F-1
287-N(b)
Does the Highway Commercial designation represent good planning and does it provide for adequate retail commercial opportunities and services for the community on the east side of Lindsay?
Schedule F-1
287-N(c)
Is the exclusion of any “commercial” Lands on the east side of Lindsay consistent with the Strategic Direction of the Lindsay Secondary Plan, specifically policy 31.2.1.3 a) & e), being:
“a) Attract people and new businesses; …
e) Maintain equality throughout Lindsay”
Schedule F-1
248-F,
296-R
Are the land uses, environmental features, and road networks shown on these plans appropriate for the development of the Subject Lands and the former Jennings Creek Secondary Plan Area and do they represent good planning?
Schedule F-1,
Schedule G-1,
Schedule H-1
N
Should OPA 16 be modified to reflect the uses and related standards permitted by the Minister’s Zoning Orders for the subject lands pursuant to Ontario Regulations 771/21 and 163/22? If so, how should OPA 16 be modified?
General
Official Plan Amendment 13 - Issues Relating to Policy 18.4.4
71-M
Do the amendments that have been implemented through OPA 13 conform with the acknowledgements and policies set out in Sections 18.4.4, insofar as the referenced studies have not yet been undertaken and the other preconditions set out therein have not yet been met?
OPA 13 18.4.4
42-N
Inasmuch as this policy has the potential to stagnate commercial growth in the City by freezing current permissions without any qualification for when it would be appropriate for an amendment to occur, is this policy appropriate and does it represent good planning?
OPA 13 18.4.4
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
The Order of Evidence for the Phase 4 hearing shall be as follows:
The City of Kawartha Lakes.
The appellants, having issues in this proceeding:
J. Stollar Construction Limited
Tribute (Lindsay 2) Limited
Tribute (Lindsay 1) Limited
Flato Lindsay Community Inc.
Bromont Homes Inc.
Lindbrook Developments Inc.
Any other parties identified in Attachment 1 who intend to speak to issues identified in Attachment 2 that remain in dispute in this proceeding as at the commencement of the hearing.
The City of Kawartha Lakes in Reply.