Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 21, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004020

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: 1077955 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: 2575950 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: 2595286 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: Carson Reid Homes Ltd. & South Edge Ltd.

Appellant: Gordon Street Inc.

Appellant: Ikonkar Group Inc. and 2298667 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: Neumann Group

Appellant: Options for Homes

Appellant: The Corporation of the Township of Puslinch

Appellant: Thomasfield Homes Limited

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 79

Municipality: City of Guelph

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004020

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004020

OLT Case Name: Carson Reid Homes Ltd. & South Edge Ltd. v. Guelph (City)

Heard: December 5, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel / Representative

The Corporation of the Township of Puslinch

Thomas Sanderson Steven O’Melia (in absentia)

2021 Gordon Street Inc., 2093 Gordon Street Inc., Michael and Sarah Watt (“Gordon Street Inc.”)

Shelley Kaufman Jennifer Meader (in absentia) Scott Snider (in absentia)

Herbert Neumann, Frank Cerniuk, Sieben Holdings Limited, H and J Produce Limited, McEnerny Industries Limited (“Neumann Group”)

Shelley Kaufman Jennifer Meader (in absentia) Scott Snider (in absentia)

2575950 Ontario Inc.

Shelley Kaufman Jennifer Meader (in absentia) Scott Snider (in absentia)

2595286 Ontario Ltd., Pinegrove Developments Inc.

Kevin Thompson Giovanni Guiga

Carson Reid Homes Ltd., South Edge Ltd.

Kevin Thompson Giovanni Guiga

Ikonkar Group Inc., 2298667 Ontario Inc.

Kevin Thompson Giovanni Guiga

Options for Homes for Non-Profit Corporation (Greater Toronto Area)

Matthew Schuman Cynthia MacDougall (in absentia) Giorgina Chum (Student-at-Law)

1077955 Ontario Inc.

Raj Kehar Denise Baker (in absentia)

Thomasfield Homes Ltd. Springfield Golf & Country Club

Brendan O’Callaghan Jasmine Fraser

City of Guelph

Peter Pickfield Allison Thornton (in absentia) Colin Leger (in absentia) Ian White (Student-At-Law) (in absentia)

Timberworx Custom Homes Inc.

Jonathan Minnes

Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc.

Laura McFalls* Paula Lombardi (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON DECEMBER 5, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY MATTERS

1This was the fourth Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to a number of appeals regarding the adoption by the City of Guelph (“City”) of Official Plan Amendment No. 79 through By-Law No. (2022)-20712 (“OPA 79”) introducing the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan (“Secondary Plan”). The appeals have been brought pursuant to s. 17(24) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by various entities and property owners affected by OPA 79.

2In advance of the CMC, the Parties advised the Tribunal that continued discussions had resulted in the scoping of the Issues List (“IL”) and requested that the Tribunal reduce the scheduled eight-week Hearing to a five-week Hearing. The Tribunal agreed and the Hearing is now set for five weeks, by video, commencing on February 12, 2024.

3At the commencement of the Hearing, Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc. advised the Tribunal it has retained Paula Lombardi as Counsel.

4Counsel for the City advised the Tribunal that the Parties, on consent, proposed the following agenda for the CMC:

a. provide the Tribunal with a status report on settlement discussions;

b. review a revised Procedural Order (“PO”) and IL with the Tribunal; and

c. request a date for a settlement hearing prior to the scheduled merit hearing.

SETTLEMENT STATUS REPORT

5The City submitted that the Parties engaged in extensive mediation over the past several months in addition to holding a number of meetings among experts and Counsel. The culmination of these efforts has resulted in a substantial settlement of the majority of the original 156 issues raised by the Parties.

6The Parties are currently working together to prepare global Minutes of Settlement and Site Specific Minutes of Settlement which will be filed with the Tribunal once finalized. The City submitted that the Parties still anticipated requiring a five-week hearing due to the technical nature of the evidence required to address the outstanding issues.

REVISED PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST

7The City advised the Tribunal that a revised PO and IL dated November 30, 2023 was being circulated and finalized among the Parties. The Parties jointly proposed that, once finalized, the revised PO and IL be filed with the Tribunal for review and approval and that the proceedings be governed by that revised PO and IL.

8In response to some concerns raised by Counsel, the City confirmed that failure of a Party to be listed next to an issue on the IL would not prohibit that Party from calling evidence on an issue at the Merit Hearing.

9The Tribunal directed the City to file a revised PO and IL with the Tribunal on or before December 8, 2023.

10Following the CMC, the City submitted the revised PO and IL, attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision, which has been reviewed and approved by the Tribunal and which shall govern these proceedings. For clarity, the PO and IL attached as Schedule 1 to this Decision will replace the previously approved PO appended to the Tribunal Decision issued September 26, 2023 and the previously approved IL appended to the Tribunal Decision issued March 14, 2023.

SETTLEMENT HEARING

11The City advised the Tribunal that the Parties were jointly requesting a partial Settlement Hearing to be scheduled in advance of the Merit Hearing to approve and bring into force and effect those policies of OPA 79 that are no longer in dispute.

12There were no objections raised by any Party to the scheduling of a partial Settlement Hearing towards the end of January 2024 with supporting materials filed with the Tribunal in advance. After some discussion, the Parties further agreed that a partial Settlement Hearing by video rather than in writing, would be more appropriate in this circumstance given the complexity of the proceeding.

13The Tribunal commended the Parties on working collaboratively in order to reach agreement on many of the issues originally on the IL. In accordance with the Parties’ request, a partial Settlement Hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 10 a.m.

14Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:

GoToMeeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/656004293

Access code: 656-004-293

15Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoToMeeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

16Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 656-004-293.

17Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the Hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

18The Tribunal directed the City to provide the Tribunal with settlement materials on or before Monday, January 22, 2024. The settlement materials must include, but not necessarily be limited to, an affidavit in support of the settlement, draft instruments (if applicable) and a draft Order.

ORDER

19The Tribunal orders that the Procedural Order and Issues List set out as Schedule 1 is approved and shall govern the proceedings.

20The Tribunal orders that a partial Settlement Hearing shall be held on January 25, 2024 commencing at 10 a.m. by video hearing. Parties shall file settlement materials with the Tribunal on or before January 22, 2024.

21No further notice will be given.

22The member is not seized but may be spoken to for case management purposes.

“C. Hardy”

C. HARDY MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO.: OLT-22-004020

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: 1077955 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: 2575950 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: 2595286 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: Carson Reid Homes Ltd. & South Edge Ltd.

Appellant: Gordon Street Inc.

Appellant: Ikonkar Group Inc. and 2298667 Ontario Inc.

Appellant: Neumann Group

Appellant: Options for Homes

Appellant: The Corporation of the Township of Puslinch

Appellant: Thomasfield Homes Limited

Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 79

Municipality: City of Guelph

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004020

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004020

OLT Case Name: Carson Reid Homes Ltd. & South Edge Ltd. V. Guelph (City)

PROCEDURAL ORDER (Draft - Revised December 4, 2023)

1. 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

2. The video hearing will begin on February 12, 2024 at 10 a.m. at : https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/442599157.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 5 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.

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

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

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. 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

9. On or before October 4, 2023 the City shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties the City’s proposed modified version of Official Plan Amendment 79.

10. 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 October 23, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 25 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. Also, on or before October 23. 2023 the parties shall file with the Tribunal a revised issues list for hearing.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before January 19, 2024 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting, the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues, and a Preliminary Hearing Plan with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 26, 2024. The Preliminary Hearing Plan must set out the proposed order of witness testimony, evidence areas covered by each witness, and preliminary estimates with respect to the other information set out in paragraph 23 below.

12. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 14 or 15 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.

13. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 14 or 15 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 14 or 15 below.

14. On or before November 20, 2023, the appellant parties, and any non-appellant parties, shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements and visual evidence to the Corporation of the City of Guelph (the “City”) and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 25 below.

15. On or before December 1, 2023 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before December 18, 2023, the City shall provide copies of its witness and expert witness statements, and visual evidence, to the appellant parties, non-appellants party and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 25 below.

17. A fourth case management conference was convened on December 5, 2023 commencing at 10:00 am.

18. If the appellants and/or non-appellant parties wish to reply to any issues raised in the witness statements of the City , they shall provide reply witness and expert witness statements, and reply visual evidence, to the City and to the OLT case co-ordinator on or before January 12, 2024 in accordance with paragraph 25 below.

19. On or before January 12, 2024 a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 25 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

20. If a model will be used as visual evidence, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing as of the time of servicing and filing of the visual evidence.

21. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before February 7, 2024.

22. 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.

23. 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.

24. The parties shall prepare and file a final hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before February 7, 2024 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

25. All filings shall be served electronically on the parties and submitted electronically and in hard copy to the Tribunal unless the Tribunal indicates that a hard copy is not required. 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.

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

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

SUMMARY OF DATES (Revised November 2023)

DATE

EVENT

October 4, 2023

City to provide modified version of OPA 79 (para.9)

October 23, 2023

Exchange List of Proposed Witnesses (para. 10) Revised Issues List filed with Tribunal (para.10)

November 20, 2023

Deadline for Witness Statements, Expert Witness Statements and visual evidence of Appellants and Non-Appellant Parties (para. 14)

December 1 , 2023

Deadline for advising the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are required (para. 15) Preliminary Hearing Plan (para. 11)

December 5, 2023

4th Case Management Conference

December 18, 2023

Deadline for Witness Statements, Expert Witness Statements and visual evidence of Respondent City and any like interested parties (para. 16)

January 12, 2024

Deadline for Reply Witness Statements (if any), Reply Expert Witness Statements (if any) and Reply visual evidence (if any) of Appellant and Non-Appellant Parties, Deadline for Participant Statements (paras. 18 and 19)

January 19, 2024

Deadline for Expert Witness Meeting (para. 11)

January 26, 2024

Deadline for Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues and Updated Preliminary Hearing Plan (para. 11)

February 7, 2024

Deadline for Joint Document Book (paras. 21)

February 7, 2024

Deadline for Final Hearing Plan (para. 24)

February 12, 2024

Commencement of Hearing

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF PARTIES

PARTIES

COUNSEL

City of Guelph

Garrod Pickfield 9 Norwich St. W. Guelph, ON N1H 2G8 Peter Pickfield Email: Pickfield@garrodpickfield.ca Tel: 519.837.0500 City of Guelph Legal Department 1 Carden Street Guelph, ON N1H 3A1 Allison A. Thornton Email: allison.thornton@guelph.ca Tel: 519.822.1260, ext. 2438 (Co-Counsel)

Township of Puslinch

Miller Thomson LLP 295 Hagey Boulevard, Suite 300 Waterloo, ON N2L 6R5 Steven O’Melia Email: somelia@millerthomson.com Tel: 519.593.3289

2021 Gordon Street Inc. and 2093 Gordon Street Inc. and Michael and Sarah Watt (“Gordon Street Inc.”)

Turkstra Mazza Associates 15 Bold Street Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3 Scott Snider Email: ssnider@tmalaw.ca Shelley Kaufman Email: skaufman@tmalaw.ca Jennifer Meader Email: jmeader@tmalaw.ca Tel: 905.529.3476

Herbert Neumann, Frank Cerniuk, Sieben Holdings Limited, H and J Produce Limited and McEnery Industries Limited (“Neumann Group”)

Turkstra Mazza Associates 15 Bold Street Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3 Scott Snider Email: ssnider@tmalaw.ca Shelley Kaufman Email: skaufman@tmalaw.ca Tel: 905.529.3476 Jennifer Meader Email: jmeader@tmalaw.ca Tel: 905.529.3476

2575950 Ontario Inc. (“Mattamy”)

Turkstra Mazza Associates 15 Bold Street Hamilton, ON L8P 1T3 Scott Snider Email: ssnider@tmalaw.ca Shelley Kaufman Email: skaufman@tmalaw.ca Tel: 905.529.3476 Jennifer Meader Email: jmeader@tmalaw.ca Tel: 905.529.3476

2595286 Ontario Ltd. And Pinegrove Developments Inc.

SV Law P.O. Box 1240 Guelph, ON N1H 6N6 Eric Davis Email: edavis@svlaw.ca Tel: 519.837.2100, ext. 304 Kevin Thompson Email: kthompson@svlaw.ca Tel: 519‑821‑4146

Carson Reid Homes Ltd. and South Edge Ltd.

SV Law P.O. Box 1240 Guelph, ON N1H 6N6 Eric Davis Email: edavis@svlaw.ca Tel: 519.837.2100, ext. 304 Kevin Thompson Email: kthompson@svlaw.ca Tel: 519‑821‑4146

Foundation for the Support of International Medical Training Inc.

Baroudi Law Professional Corporation Analee Baroudi Email: analee@baroudilaw.ca Tel: 519-200-3776

Ikonkar Group Inc. and 2298667 Ontario Inc.

SV Law P.O. Box 1240 Guelph, ON N1H 6N6 Eric Davis Email: edavis@svlaw.ca Tel: 519.837.2100, ext. 304 Kevin Thompson Email: kthompson@svlaw.ca Tel: 519‑821‑4146

Options for Homes Non-Profit Corporation (Greater Toronto Area)

McCarthy Tétrault LLP PO Box 48, Suite 5300 Toronto Dominion Bank Tower Toronto, ON M5K 1E6 Cynthia MacDougall Email: cmacdoug@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416.601.7634 Matthew Schuman Email: mschuman@mccarthy.ca Tel: 416.601.4319

1077955 Ontario Inc.

WeirFoulds LLP 1525 Cornwall Rd Oakville, ON L6J 0B2 Denise Baker Email: dbaker@weirfoulds.com Raj Kehar Email: rkehar@weirfoulds.com Tel: 905.829.8600

Thomasfield Homes Ltd. and Springfield Golf & Country Club

Aird & Berlis Brookfield Place 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Eileen Costello Email: ecostello@airdberlis.com Brendan O’Callaghan Email: bocallaghan@airdberlis.com Jasmine Fraser Email: jcmfraser@airdberlis.com Tel: 416.863.1500

Timberworx Custom Homes Inc. (Non-Appellant Party)

Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP 345 King Street West, Suite #600 Kitchener ON N2G 0C5 Canada Jonathan Minnes Email: Jonathan.minnes@gowlingwlg.com Tel: 519 569 4561

ATTACHMENT 2

REVISE ISSUES LIST (December 8, 2023)

ISSUES ¹

PARTIES ²³

GLOBAL ISSUES (Secondary Plan Area Wide)

Open Space and Parkland

a. Are the parkland policies appropriate? b. Should the parkland policies incorporate a broader definition of what may be included as parkland dedication, e.g. trails or Moraine Ribbon lands?

Pinegrove Thomasfield

Is the amount of parkland, location and types of parks identified in the CMSP appropriate and feasible?

Pinegrove Thomasfield Support of International Medical Training Inc. (“Foundation”)*

Is the proposed Community Park within the Secondary Plan needed?

Pinegrove Thomasfield

a. Before adopting sections 11.3.7.1, 11.3.7.2 and 11.3.7.3 of OPA No. 79, did the local municipality prepare and make available to the public a parks plan that examines the need for parkland in the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan Area in accordance with Section 42 (4.1) of the Planning Act, as amended? b. Is the amount of parkland proposed to be provided in OPA No. 79 in compliance with the Planning Act, as amended?

Thomasfield Pinegrove

Should section 11.3.7.8 of OPA No. 79 be revised to conform with the current Guelph Official Plan policy 7.3.2 which permits natural areas to be located in parks?

Thomasfield Pinegrove

Community Park (2054 Gordon Street, Guelph)

a. Is the provision for a Community Park in section 11.3.7 of the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan appropriate or is it appropriate to develop the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan area without the Community Park? b. Does the existing South End Community Park including the planned South End Recreation Centre, provide the community level of recreational services required for the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan area; and if so is a second Community Park required in the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan area?

Thomasfield Pinegrove Foundation* (Issue 39 a. only)

a. If the need for a Community Park is established, what is the appropriate size of a Community Park for the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan area? b. Do the population growth numbers assumed by the City to the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan support the size of the parkland proposed?

Thomasfield Pinegrove

1. Does the Community Park location in OPA No. 79 meet the locational criteria established by the City for a Community Park through the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan process?
2. Is the proposed location of the parkland appropriate and is it supported by parks planning principles or is there a more appropriate location?
3. Is the location of the Community Park, as recommended by City staff in the Committee of the Whole report, a superior location which meets the established criteria and good planning when compared with the Community Park location approved by Council?
4. Will the Community Park location in OPA No. 79 cause traffic levels to be generated on local residential streets which are not in conformity with current Official Plan policies?
5. Is it appropriate to locate a Community Park in a low density residential area of the Clair-Maltby Secondary Plan area?

Thomasfield Pinegrove Options for Homes (a.–c. only) Foundation*

Should the Community Park be shown as a symbol in the OPA No. 79 mapping similar to the Neighbourhood Parks?

Thomasfield Pinegrove

a. Is the Community Park contemplated by OPA No. 79 on the southern portion of 1968 & 1992 Gordon Street, Guelph consistent with the OPA No. 42 Settlement Agreement? b. Further, is a Community Park at that location necessary to achieve parkland dedication targets? If not removed from OPA No. 79, should not the Community Park be changed to a Neighbourhood Park and reduced in size?

Pinegrove

Land Use Planning - General ⁴

Provincial Policy Statement

Are the proposed policies, schedules and appendices in OPA No. 79 consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (PPS), in particular but not limited to the following sections: 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.1 e), 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.3.6, 1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.3, 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.6, 1.6.1, 1.6.2, 1.6.6, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.6.7, 1.6.7, 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.4, 1.7.1, 2.1, 2.1.2, 2.2, 2.6, 2.6.1, 3.1, 4, 4.2?

Pinegrove Thomasfield Options for Homes

A Place to Grow – Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

Do the proposed policies, schedules and appendices in OPA No. 79 conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (Growth Plan), in particular but not limited to the following sections: 1.2.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.3 c), 2.2.1.4 c), 2.2.1.4, 2.2.6, 2.2.6.1 a) and e), 2.2.7, 2.2.7.1, 2.2.7.2 a), 2.2.7.3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.2, 3.2.6, 3.2.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.2.5, 4.2.7

Pinegrove Thomasfield Options for Homes

City of Guelph Official Plan

Do the proposed policies, schedules and appendices conform with the City of Guelph Official Plan (“COP”) and policies 3.1, 3.2, 4.1.3.6, 4.1.3.8, 4.1.3.8.10, 4.1.3.9, 4.2, 4.8, 7.3, 10.16 in particular?

Pinegrove Thomasfield Options for Homes

Planning Act

Does OPA No. 79, including the policies, schedules and appendices, have regard to matters of provincial interest in section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to the matters set out in ss. (a), (b), (f), (h), (i), (j), (n), (p), (q) & (r)?

Pinegrove Options for Homes Thomasfield

Does OPA No. 79 represent good planning and is it in the public interest? [to be re-scoped based on restrictions to the unresolved substantive issues]

Options for Homes Thomasfield Pinegrove

Bill 23

a. What, if any, changes are required to OPA 79 as a result of Bill 23, the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 including but not limited to changes with respect to parkland conveyance requirements; b. Are the proposed locations and sizes of Open Space System including Moraine Ribbon, Trails and Parks appropriate, since they may now be subject to new legislative revisions, and if not, what modifications to the Secondary Plan are required?

Pinegrove Thomasfield

Schedules and Appendices

What mapping modifications to the following Schedules and Appendices should be made, if any, to address the issues raised above?

• Schedule A – Community Structure
• Schedule B – Land Use Plan
• Schedule C – Mobility Plan
• Schedule D – Built Form and Open Space System Elements

Pinegrove Thomasfield Options for Homes

SITE-SPECIFIC ISSUES – Options for Homes These Issues are only maintained as they apply to the property at 2162 Gordon Street for which Options for Homes has an agreement to purchase (“Options Lands”)

Does the Secondary Plan accommodate the appropriate portion of the City’s population and employment forecasts?

Options for Homes

Are the natural heritage features proposed on the Options Lands as part of the Clair Maltby Secondary Plan (“CMSP”) in OPA No. 79, in relation to Ecological Linkages appropriate and justified?

Options for Homes

Should the Secondary Plan, including but not limited to Policies 11.3.3.2.2 and 11.3.3.2.3, be modified to include additional site-specific policies for the Options Lands that could potentially remove, refine or update the Natural Heritage System, including Ecological Linkages and Wildlife Crossings, within the Secondary Plan area based on site specific environmental studies, consistent with Policy 4.2.1.2 of the City of Guelph Official Plan?

Options for Homes

Are the parameters for regulating the density (e.g., height and floor space index) of the Options Lands specified by Clair-Maltby High Density Residential (policy 11.3.8.6.4) and Mixed-Use (policy 11.3.8.6.5) designations appropriate?

Options for Homes

Should the Secondary Plan be modified to accommodate additional height and density on the Options Lands, including:

• a maximum height of 18 storeys and a maximum net density of 300 units per hectare and up to 3.0 FSI within the High Density Residential land use designation;
• a maximum height of 10 storeys and a maximum net density of 150 units per hectare within the Medium Density Residential land use designation;
• replacement of the Low Density Greenfield Residential land use designation with the Medium Density Residential land use designation; and
• the permission for increases to both height and density without amendment to the Secondary Plan to be permitted through a re-zoning approval process and subject to achieving compatibility and requiring support through studies to address sufficient servicing and community infrastructure (collectively, “Options Proposed Heights and Densities”)?

Options for Homes

Do Options Proposed Heights and Densities represent good and appropriate land use planning with respect to the following: a. Planning Act: Do Options Proposed Heights and Densities have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (e), (f), (h), (i), (n), (p), (q) and (r)? b. Provincial Policy Statement (2020): Are Options Proposed Heights and Densities consistent with the PPS, including policies 1.1.1 b) and e), 1.1.3.6, 1.4.1 a), 1.4.3 b)1, 1.4.3 d), and 1.4.3 f), and 4.2 c. Growth Plan: Do Options Proposed Heights and Densities conform to the Growth Plan, including Section 1.2.1, Policy 2.2.1.3 (c), Policy 2.2.1.4 (c), Policy 2.2.6.1 (a) and (e), Policy 2.2.6.2, and Policy 4.2.5. d. City of Guelph Official Plan: Do Options Proposed Heights and Densities implement the provisions of the Official Plan, as set out in Policy 10.2.3?

Options for Homes

Do Options Proposed Heights and Densities provide for optimization of the use of land and existing and planned infrastructure, and address objectives for new housing in the context of community benefits charges, other provincial and City planning objectives and good planning otherwise?

Options for Homes

Should the policies of the CMSP be modified to support development by a non-profit developer to support the production of a range and mix of market-based housing, as contemplated by, among other policies, policy 1.4.1 of the PPS? Is it in the public interest to support non-profit development which has as its objective to deliver housing for a range of incomes?

Options for Homes

Is the area identified as Ecological Linkages the appropriate designation of the lands, given that the Gordon Street Corridor is the central spine of Clair-Maltby and where higher density residential development is to be concentrated, if not, what modifications to the Plan are required? Should the area identified as Ecological Linkages be removed and replaced with High-Density Residential along Gordon Street and Medium Density Residential on lands set back from the Gordon Street Corridor?

Options for Homes

Is the area identified as Ecological Linkages the appropriate designation of the lands, given it is an objective of the Secondary Plan to provide a range and mix of unit types and sizes to address housing affordability, and where higher density residential development is to be located on collector and arterial roads with the highest densities being located on Gordon Street per Principle 2, Objective 3?

Options for Homes

Will the area identified as Ecological Linkages, and shown to be crossing Gordon Street across almost all of the frontage of the Options Lands, inappropriately impact the potential development of the Options lands; should the Ecological Linkage be removed or modified?

Options for Homes

Is the mix of land uses and densities with respect to the Options Lands appropriate, and if not what modifications to the proposed land use policies and designations should be made to provide for an appropriate mix?

Options for Homes

Are the density, built-form policies, and the designation boundaries with respect to the Options Lands appropriate for the purpose of optimizing the use of land and existing and planned infrastructure, and to address objectives for new housing, in the context of other provincial and City planning objectives and good planning otherwise? If not, what modifications to the Plan are required?

Options for Homes

ATTACHMENT 3

ORDER OF EVIDENCE ⁵⁶

A. Secondary Plan Overview by City of Guelph (factual planning evidence only, no opinion evidence or factual evidence in dispute)

B. Community Park and Related Issues

1. Objecting Appellants
2. City of Guelph
3. Appellants in Support of City Position
4. Reply (if any)- Objecting Appellants

C. Options for Homes – Site Specific Issues

1. Objecting Appellants
2. City of Guelph
3. Appellants in Support of City Position
4. Reply (if any)- Objecting Appellants

ATTACHMENT 4

PURPOSE OF PROCEDURAL ORDER

Case Management Conferences are scheduled by the Tribunal to organize the Hearing. This sample procedural order is provided to identify who may participate in the Hearing, the issues in dispute, and the matters that are required to be carried out before the Hearing. The attachment to this sample procedural order explains the meaning of a number of terms in the sample procedural order, such as a Party or a Participant.

The Tribunal recommends that the appellant, municipality, the applicant (if applicable), or those who wish to seek party status in this proceeding, meet, remotely if necessary, to discuss this sample procedural order before the date of the Case Management Conference and try to identify the issues and process they want the Tribunal to order following the conference. The Tribunal will hear submissions on the content of this sample procedural order at the Case Management Conference and issue a procedural order at a later date.

If you are not represented by a lawyer, you should prepare by reviewing the Tribunal’s Video Hearings Guide, and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), particularly Rule 20, which are available on the Tribunal’s website.

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.

Footnotes

1. 1The identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which 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.
2. 2Parties to the hearing not shown in this column will be permitted to call evidence and make submissions in relation to these issues, but such evidence and submissions cannot oppose modified OPA as proposed by the City.
3. 3Note that parties shown with an asterisk (*) are Non-appellant Parties.
4. 4Each party to issues in this category (Issues 11 – 17) will scope its evidence to only those policy provisions and schedules that are relevant to the outstanding substantive issues of that party as identified for other issues within this Revised Issues List.
5. 5Subject to refinement in Preliminary and Final Hearing Plan
6. 6Notwithstanding the parties listed in column 3 of the Issues List, parties to the hearing not listed in column 3 will be permitted to call evidence and make submissions in relation to all issues, but such evidence and submissions cannot oppose modified OPA as proposed by the City