Infinity Development Group Inc. v. Burlington (City), 2023 CanLII 33415

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 21, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003813

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Infinity Development Group Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request Description: To permit a 29-storey, 295-unit mixed-use building Reference Number: 505-09/21 Property Address: 1029-1033 Waterdown Road Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-22-003813 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003813 OLT Case Name: Infinity Development Group Inc v. Burlington (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Infinity Development Group Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application Description: To permit a 29-storey, 295-unit mixed-use building Reference Number: 520-10/21 Property Address: 1029-1033 Waterdown Road Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-22-003814 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003813

Heard: September 7, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Infinity Development Group Inc. City of Burlington Region of Halton Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 416

Denise Baker Blake Hurley Brittany Maione Aaron Platt Grace O’Brien

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JATINDER BHULLAR ON SEPTEMBER 07, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Introduction

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”). There are two appeals. Infinity Development Group Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) appealed the refusal of the requested Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) by the City of Burlington (the “City”) pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act. Additionally, the Applicant/Appellant appealed pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act the City’s refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”).

2The Applicant/Appellant has property municipally known as 1029-1033 Waterdown Road (“Subject Property”), in the City. The Applicant/Appellant proposes to develop the Subject Property as a 29-storey mixed-use residential building.

3The Tribunal reviewed the Affidavit of Service (the “Affidavit”) sworn by Marie Wakefield on August 8, 2022. The Affidavit was confirmed to have been duly executed and Notice to have been appropriately served as directed. The Affidavit was marked as Exhibit 1 for the record.

Party and Participant Status

4The Tribunal received two requests for the granting of Party status in the two appeals. Having reviewed the submissions of the Parties at the CMC, and with consent of the statutory Parties, the following were granted Party status:

• Regional Municipality of Halton; and,

• Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 416.

5The Tribunal received one request for Participant status. After review at the CMC, and with consent of the Parties, Tom Muir was granted Participant status.

Mediation

6The Tribunal informed and then gauged the interest of the Parties about Tribunal-led mediation. The Parties informed the Tribunal that, as appropriate, they would be continuing in private consultations and would reach out to the Tribunal if its mediation might be of assistance.

Updates

7The Tribunal sought submissions from the Parties regarding the development of a Procedural Order (“PO”) inclusive of Issues List (“IL”). The initial IL was reviewed. The Tribunal encouraged the Parties to formulate the issues in the general top-to-bottom flow of statutes, policies and plans, as this directly links for adjudicative purposes to the statutory test that the Tribunal needs to assess the evidence against.

8The Parties informed the Tribunal that they intended to achieve their final agreed-to draft PO and provide the same to the Tribunal within three weeks. The Tribunal directed that the final draft of the PO be provided to the Tribunal by September 26, 2022. This has since been received.

9The Applicant/Appellant sought to set a Hearing on the merits. The Parties reviewed their plans of evidence and possible disciplines and numbers of witnesses. Based on this discussion, the Parties requested that a Hearing of approximately 15 days would be appropriate.

10The Tribunal Orders a Hearing set for a duration of 14 days commencing on Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 10 a.m. The Hearing will be conducted by video-conference.

11The Tribunal Orders that the Hearing will be governed by the Procedural Order as approved and attached in this decision as Schedule 1.

Hearing Technical Details

12The 14-day hearing by video will commence on Tuesday, August 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.:

https://meet.goto.com/660145013

Access Code: 660-145-013

13Parties 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

14Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1(647) 497-9373. The access code is 660-145-013.

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 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.

16There will be no further notice.

17This Member is not seized but will provide Case Management support should any issues arise prior to the start of the Hearing.

“Jatinder Bhullar”

JATINDER BHULLAR

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

Schedule 1

Procedural Order OLT-22-003813

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003813

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Infinity Development Group Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of request Description: To permit a 29-storey, 295 unit mixed-use building Reference Number: 505-09/21 Property Address: 1029-1033 Waterdown Road Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-22-003813 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003813 OLT Case Name: Infinity Development Group Inc v. Burlington (City.)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of application Description: To permit a 29-storey, 295 unit mixed-use building Reference Number: 520-10/21 Property Address: 1029-1033 Waterdown Road Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton OLT Case No: OLT-22-003814 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003813

PROCEDURAL ORDER

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 August 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 14 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order 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 asks for changes 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. If the Applicant intends to seek approval of a revised proposal at the hearing, the Applicant shall provide copies of the revised proposal, including all revised plans and drawings, to the other parties on or before Friday, March 3, 2023. After that date, material revisions to the proposal shall be permitted only with the consent of all parties or at the discretion of the Tribunal.

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 Friday, March 17, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 23 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.

11. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, April 14, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday, April 24, 2023.

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 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 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 below.

14. On or before Friday, May 19, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

15. On or before Friday, May 19, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

16. On or before Friday, June 16, 2023 Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 23 below.

17. On or before Tuesday, June 20, 2023, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

18. On or before Friday, July 7, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 23 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

19. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, July 14, 2023.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, July 14, 2023 with a proposed schedule for the hearing that identifies, as a minimum, the parties participating in the hearing, the preliminary matters (if any to be addressed), the anticipated order of evidence, the date each witness is expected to attend, the anticipated length of time for evidence to be presented by each witness in chief, cross-examination and re-examination (if any) and the expected length of time for final submissions. The parties are expected to ensure that the hearing proceeds in an efficient manner and in accordance with the hearing plan. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the hearing plan at any time in the course of the hearing.

23. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. 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.

24. 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.

SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

DATE EVENT

Friday, March 17, 2023 Exchange of witness lists

Friday, April 14, 2023 Expert Witness Meetings

Monday, April 24, 2023 Agreed Statement of Facts

Friday, May 19, 2023 Exchange of Witness Statements, Summoned Witness Outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements

Friday, June 16, 2023 Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

Tuesday, June 20, 2023 Date to Notify Tribunal if Reserved Dates are Required

Friday, July 7, 2023 Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

Friday, July 14, 2023 Filing of Joint Document Book

Friday, July 14, 2023 Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal

Monday, August 8, 2023 Hearing commences

ATTACHMENT 1: PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Appellant/Party

Counsel

Contact

Infinity Development Group Inc.

Denise Baker

WeirFoulds LLP Suite 10, 1525 Cornwall Road Oakville, ON L6J 0B2 Phone: 416-947-5090 dbaker@weirfoulds.com

City of Burlington

Blake Hurley

Legal Department 426 Brant Street Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 Phone: 905-335-7600 ext. 7611 Blake.hurley@burlington.ca

Region of Halton

Brittany Maione

Legal Services Legislative & Planning Services Halton Region 905-825-6000 Brittany.Maione@halton.ca

Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 416

Aaron Platt Grace O’Brien

Davies Howe LLP The Tenth Floor 425 Adelaide Street West Toronto, Ontario M5V 3C1 416.977.7088 AaronP@davieshowe.com GraceO@davieshowe.com

Participant

Contact

Tom Muir

betty.muir@sympatico.ca

ATTACHMENT 2: ISSUES LIST

Note: the identification of an issue does not mean that all parties agree that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is appropriate or relevant to the determination of the Tribunal at the hearing. The extent to which the issues are appropriate, within the jurisdiction of the OLT, or relevant to the determination at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing.

CITY OF BURLINGTON

1. Do the proposed amendments have regard for matters of Provincial interest as outlined in The Planning Act?

2. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) given the location and context of the subject lands, and the level of intensification proposed?

3. Do the proposed amendments facilitate appropriate mixed use development by providing sufficient employment uses to support liveable and resilient communities in accordance with the policies contained in:

a. Section 1.3 of the PPS, and

b. Section 2.2.5 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019, as amended)(Growth Plan)?

4. Do the proposed amendments provide for a sufficient range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area in accordance with:

a. Sections 1.4.3 & 1.7 of the PPS;

b. Section 2.2.6 of the Growth Plan; and

c. Section 86 of the Halton Region Official Plan (ROP)?

5. Do the proposed amendments support energy conservation and efficiency, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and preparing for the impacts of a changing climate through land use development patterns in accordance with:

a. Section 1.8 of the PPS;

b. Section 4.2.10 of the Growth Plan; and

c. Section 2.7 of the City’s Official Plan?

6. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with the Growth Plan, given the proposed scale of development and proposed transition of built form to adjacent areas, specifically considering policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2(3), 2.2.4, 4.2.10, 5.2.5(6), 5.2.5(8), 5.2.7?

7. Are the proposed non-employment sensitive land uses considered compatible with the major facilities located in proximity to the subject lands in accordance with:

a. Section 1.2.6 of the PPS; and

b. Section 2.2.5(8) of the Growth Plan?

8. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to policies in the Regional Official Plan with respect to principle of land use, servicing, land use compatibility, contamination/remediation, and waste management?

9. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to Regional Official Plan Amendment 48, as approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on November 10, 2021?

10. Does the Development support the local role and function of, or reflect, the place of the subject lands in the hierarchy of Strategic Growth Areas identified in the Regional Urban Structure policies of the Halton Region Official Plan?

11. Is the introduction of non-employment uses (in accordance with Part III Section 5.3.4 (k) of the City’s Official Plan) appropriate and in conformity with the City’s Official Plan, given that new non-employment land use designations have not yet been established through the City’s New Official Plan (2020) (under appeal) or the on-going comprehensive Area-Specific planning process for the Aldershot GO Major Transit Station Area?

12. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the City’s New Official Plan, as approved by Halton Region on November 30, 2020 and currently under appeal:

• Chapter 2 – 2.3.1, 2.4.2;

• Chapter 3 – 3.1.1(2), 3.1.3;

• Chapter 4 – 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.6.2, 4.7.2;

• Chapter 5 – 5.1, 5.4.7, 5.4.8;

• Chapter 6 – 6.2.2(2), 6.2.4, 6.2.9(2), 6.2.10;

• Chapter 7;

• Chapter 8 – 8.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.2(3), 8.1.3, 8.1.3(8);

• Chapter 12 – 12.1.1(3) i), 12.1.2(2 to 2.2, excluding 2.2d), 12.1.3;

• Chapter 13 – Definitions (definitions included in the aforementioned policies)

13. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with, and do they maintain the intent of, the policies of the City’s Official Plan, including:

• Part I – 3.0 (a, b, e, h)

• Part II – 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 3.0 (3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9), 5.0, 6.0 (6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6)

• Part III - 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.6, 5.0 (5.2, 5.3, 5.3.4)

• Part VIII – Definitions (definitions included in the aforementioned policies)

14. Is the Proposed level of intensification (i.e. building height, FAR, and density) appropriate for the subject lands?

15. Does the Proposed Development have appropriate regard for the Council-endorsed land use vision and built form concept for the Aldershot GO Area-Specific Plan and the Cooke Commons Precinct?

16. Does the Proposed Development have appropriate regard for City Official Plan Amendment #119?

17. Does the Proposed Development represent appropriate urban design in addressing matters including height, density, built form, massing, scale, siting, transitions, building articulation, setbacks, stepbacks, and spacing having regard for the site and the character of the surrounding lands?

18. Does the Proposed Development have appropriate regard for the applicable Council-approved design guidelines, including the Tall Building Design Guidelines (2017), Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (2020), Sustainable Building and Development Guidelines (2018)?

19. Does the Proposed Development provide for appropriate streetscapes along Waterdown Road with a pedestrian scale supported by appropriate built form; adequate setbacks (above and below grade) for vegetation, utilities, street furniture, and clear paths of travel; appropriate land uses at grade with consideration for the site’s context; and appropriate public-private interface, with consideration for the site’s context and the proposed land uses at grade?

20. Are setbacks to the underground parking structure sufficient to support mature landscaping and provide an adequate visual and spatial buffer?

21. Would the Proposed Development result in excessive and/or inappropriate shadow or wind impacts on the subject property, adjacent and nearby public realm, or nearby residential properties, and does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the City’s Pedestrian-Level Wind Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (2020) and Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (2020)?

22. Does the proposed development cause negative impacts on the ability of adjacent properties to redevelop comprehensively in accordance with the land use designations and policies of the new Official Plan and /or ongoing area-specific planning for the Aldershot GO MTSA?

23. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning?

24. Would the Proposed Development result in any unacceptable negative impacts to the subject property and/or the adjacent properties relating to stormwater, groundwater, and related matters?

25. Does the proposed development provide sufficient space to allow for all elements of the proposed development (including underground components such as shoring wall, wall piles and caissons, tie-backs and anchors, stormwater tank, exterior drainage systems, etc.) to be contained within the subject property?

26. Does the proposed development comply with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Park NPC-300 Environmental Noise Guidelines for a Class 1 property?

27. Does the proposed design provide for appropriate grading, drainage, and servicing?

28. Would the proposed development result in any unacceptable negative hydrogeological impacts on the subject property or the surrounding area, and can the City’s municipal storm sewer discharge criteria be met?

29. Would the proposed development result in any unacceptable negative geotechnical impacts on the subject property or on the surrounding area?

30. Have matters of site contamination and remediation been adequately addressed to ensure the appropriateness of the proposed use on the subject property, and to ensure no negative impacts on the surrounding properties?

31. Does the proposed development comply with any easements, constraints, or encumbrances that are registered on the property?

32. Does the design of the proposed development provide appropriate landscaping in addressing matters such as stormwater management, environmental impacts, and contributing to a high quality of urban design?

33. Does the proposed development maximize vegetation and pervious surfaces, integrate green infrastructure, appropriately preserve existing public and private trees, and provide adequate new and/or replacement trees?

34. Does the proposed development provide sufficient vehicular and bicycle parking? Is there sufficient justification for the proposed reduced parking rates?

35. Does the proposed design of the ground floor and underground parking garage of the proposed development allow for appropriate ramp slopes, visibility, width, size, and location of parking spaces (including accessible parking), drive aisle widths, structural column spacing, pedestrian crossings/connections?

36. Does the proposed development provide opportunities to comply with the City’s site plan design guidelines including with respect to loading, circulation, and related matters?

HALTON REGION

1. Sections 77(5) and 81.2(4) of the ROP identify standards that must be addressed in planning for Strategic Growth Areas. Therefore, how does the proposal advance the comprehensive planning for the MTSA?

2. Has the development proposal implemented the targets in Table 2A and 2B, in addition to completing an analysis as to how the development proposal will not negatively impact the ability of the City to achieve these targets for the immediate surrounding areas?

3. Has the proposed development implemented the Regional Phasing targets of Table 2A, without negatively impacting the City’s need to achieve these targets for the immediate surrounding areas?

4. Does the proposal promote a land use pattern and mix of uses that contain the requisite community infrastructure to enable a compact, transit-supportive, walkable, community that is supported by local facilities for social, cultural, recreational, educational and religious purposes?

5. Does the proposal address the Housing policies of the ROP including the adequate provision of a range and mix of unit types and sizes, range and mix of affordability, in addition to identifying if portions of the development are intended for rental purposes or special needs housing?

6. What regard, if any, is to be had to the policies of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 49? If regard is to be had, what are the implications of those policies on the amendments, specifically the following?

a. Halton’s Regional Structure: Sections 50.2 (1), 51.3 (1), 55.1, 55.4, Table 1, Table 2;

b. Urban Area and the Regional Structure: Sections 72.1, 75, 77(2.1), 77 (2.3), and 77(5);

c. Regional Urban Structure: Sections 78.1(5);

d. Strategic Growth Area: Sections 79.3 (12);

e. Employment Areas: Sections 83.2(1), 83.2(5), 83.2(6), 83.2(7)c).

7. Is the proposed use and built form compatible with, or mitigated from land use impacts from adjacent major facilities and transportation facilities as required by Provincial and Regional planning policy and any implementing Guidelines?

8. Are the Amendments and built form supported by adequate servicing analysis (Functional Servicing Report future or revised), in accordance with Policies 58 (1.1), Policy 77(5)(m) and 89 of the Regional Official Plan, which:

a) demonstrates that an adequate supply of water and treatment of wastewater and conveyance of wastewater for the proposed use can be secured and connected to the satisfaction of the Region; and

b) conforms with the Area Servicing Plan prepared in support of the Area Specific Plan for this Major Transit Station Area.

9. If the proposed development is approved, have the appropriate Holding provisions been put in place to address the Region’s servicing capacity, treatment and conveyance related matters for both water and wastewater systems identified as part of the Area Servicing Plan/Comprehensive Planning for this growth area as supported by 77(5)(m)?

10. Has the potential for contamination on the subject lands been adequately assessed and appropriately addressed in accordance with Section 57, 58 (1), 59 and 147(17) of the Region of Halton’s Official Plan, 2009 (as amended) and the Region’s Guideline (Protocol) for Reviewing Development Applications with Respect to Contaminated or Potentially Contaminated Sites. In addition, if the proposed development is approved have the appropriate Holding provisions been put in place to address the Region’s Site Contamination policies under section 147(17)?

11. Is the proposed built form being considered through the Amendments appropriately designed to permit waste collection In accordance with Section 148 of the Region of Halton’s Official Plan, 2009 (as amended), and the Region’s Development Design Guidelines for Source Separation of Solid Waste? If the proposed development is approved, what are the appropriate zoning provisions that address and protect for the safe and efficient collection of solid waste?

i.

Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 416

1. Does the proposal have regard to subsections 2(f), (h), (k), (q) and (r) of the Planning Act?

2. Is the proposal consistent with policies 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2 (e) and the last paragraph), 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.5, 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7, 1.3.1, 1.4.3, 1.5.1(a) and (b), 1.6.1, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.7 and 1.7.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

3. Does the proposal conform to policies 2.2.1.2 (c), 2.2.1.4, 2.2.4.9, 2.2.6.4 of the Growth Plan (2020)?

4. Does the proposal conform to policies 79.3, 81, 81.2(4), 81.3 and 81.4 and 86(11), (13), (20), (23), 156(1) of the Halton Region Official Plan (2021)?

5. Does the proposal conform to Part I, policies 3 a), b) e), h), Part II, policies 3.2.1, 3.6, 6.1, 6.2e)-g), 6.3 d)-e), 6.4d), 6.5 and Part III policies 5.3.4 g), h), k) of the City of Burlington’s Official Plan (1997)?

6. Is overall block planning required to ensure appropriate and efficient development of the lands bounded by Waterdown Road, Masonry Court, Cooke Boulevard and Plains Road East relative to planning, urban design, servicing and transportation matters?

7. Does the proposal negatively impact the ability of adjacent lands, and specifically 1026 Cooke Boulevard, to develop in a similar intensified manner, as is appropriate for lands within a proposed MTSA? In particular:

a. Does the proposal conform to policy 2.2.4.9 of the Growth Plan?

b. Does the proposal conform to sections 81, 81.2(4), 81.3 and 81.4 of the Halton Region Official Plan?

8. What is the appropriate ground and podium relationship between the proposal and a future redevelopment of 1026 Cooke Boulevard including setbacks, stepbacks, window conditions, etc.?

9. Is the proposed tower component of the proposal appropriately setback from the common property line with 1026 Cooke Boulevard?

10. What arrangements are required between the proponent and 1026 Cooke Boulevard to enable construction to occur as proposed? Is it appropriate for these arrangements to be secured at this time or through an “H” provision in the proposed Zoning By-law to ensure proper planning and design occurs?

11. Given the location of the proposal in a proposed MTSA, will the proposed height and density sufficiently meet the current and future height and density targets of the City and, in particular, for MTSAs?

ATTACHMENT 3: ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Infinity Development Group Inc.

2. City of Burlington

3. Region of Halton

4. Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 416

5. Infinity Development Group Inc., in reply

Attachment 4

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.