Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: April 24, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004797
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant: North Development Corporation
Appellant: Parrish & Heimbecker Limited
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment
Description: To facilitate the development of three residential buildings ranging from 14-16 storeys with ground floor commercial space
Reference Number: OR07/21
Property Address: 255 King Street West
Municipality/UT: City of Cambridge/ Region of Waterloo
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004797
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004797
OLT Case Name: Parrish & Heimbecker Limited v. Cambridge (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Description: To facilitate the development of three residential buildings ranging from 14 -16 storeys with ground floor commercial space
Reference Number: OR07/21
Property Address: 255 King Street West
Municipality/UT: City of Cambridge/ Region of Waterloo
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000135
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004797
Heard: April 19, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| Parrish & Heimbecker Limited | Katie Butler Pittman Patterson, in absentia |
| North Development Corporation | Analee Baroudi |
| City of Cambridge | Nicole Auty |
| Regional Municipality of Waterloo | Andy Gazzola Fiona McCrea, in absentia |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON APRIL 19, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This Decision relates to an appeal brought by Parrish & Heimbecker Limited (“Appellant”) pursuant to s. 17(36) and s. 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) with respect to applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”). The OPA and ZBA applications were filed by North Development Corporation (“Applicant”) regarding its property located at 255 King Street West, Cambridge (“Subject Property”).
2The Subject Property is approximately 2.4 hectares (“ha”) and irregular in shape with approximately 80 metres (“m”) of frontage on King Street West and 100 m of frontage on Fountain Street North. The Subject Property is currently vacant with the exception of driveway access to 237 King Street West which is proposed to remain.
3The Appellant intends to redevelop the Subject Property with three (3) residential buildings consisting of a total maximum of 600 dwelling units, maximum building height of 16 storeys with a commercial retail unit at grade level (“Proposal”).
4A Staff Recommendation Report of the City of Cambridge (“City”) dated September 27, 2022 recommended that City Council adopt the requested OPA and approve the requested ZBA with a Holding Provision.
5On September 27, 2022 the City passed the ZBA and passed By-law No. 22-058 to adopt the OPA. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo (“Region”) is the approval authority for the OPA and approved the OPA without modification.
6On April 19, 2023, the Tribunal held its first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) at which it addressed procedural issues, the identification of Parties and Participants, review of a draft Procedural Order and Issues Lists and scheduling of hearing dates.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
7The Tribunal confirmed with the Parties that there were no issues with service of Notice for the CMC and as such, no further notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service of Rachel Greene dated March 6, 2023, which was marked as Exhibit 1.
STATUS REQUESTS
8Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party status or Participant status. In response to the Tribunal’s inquiry, there were no other persons or entities present at the CMC requesting Party or Participant status.
9Although not raised by the Parties, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant is not a Party in appeals brought pursuant to s. 17(36) and s. 34(19) of the Act. In response to the Tribunal’s inquiry, there were no concerns raised by the statutory Parties and the Tribunal granted Party status to the Applicant on consent.
SETTLEMENT OPPORTUNITIES
10The Appellant and the Applicant jointly advised the Tribunal that they are engaged in ongoing without-prejudice discussions. The Applicant noted that it would prefer to continue discussions directly with the Applicant and was not seeking mediation at the present time.
DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER AND ISSUES LIST
11The Parties submitted a first draft of a Procedural Order and Issues List in advance of the CMC, which was reviewed by the Tribunal. The Parties advised that exchange dates and details in the Procedural Order will be finalized once hearing dates were set.
12The Parties advised the Tribunal that they are continuing to work on the Issues List as it is lengthy and contains issues that are technical in nature. The Tribunal agreed that the Issues List is somewhat robust, and it is hoped that continued discussions will result in further refinement and scoping of the Issues List.
13After some discussion at the CMC, the Parties agreed that an amended draft Procedural Order and Issues List would be submitted to the Tribunal by the Applicant for review and approval on or before Friday, June 2, 2023. In the event the Parties are unable to come to an agreement on the Issues List, the Tribunal directed that on or before Friday, June 2, 2023 each Party will provide written submissions as to their respective position on each issue that is in contention in order to assist the Tribunal in effectively determining the Issues List.
HEARING DATES
14The Applicant requested that the Tribunal schedule a ten (10)-day merit hearing for the appeal. The Applicant advised the Tribunal that collectively, the Parties intend to call approximately nine (9) witnesses and this number will not change if the Issues List is scoped. The Applicant also requested that the Tribunal schedule a second CMC in order to settle any outstanding issues on the Issues List.
15The Appellant submitted that due to the technical and complex issues to be adjudicated, including compatibility from both a technical and planning perspective, ten (10) days would not provide enough time to examine all of the witnesses. The Appellant noted that it may be premature to set hearing dates prior to the finalization of an Issues List, but did agree with the Applicant that the number of required witnesses would not change if the Issues List was scoped. The Appellant suggested that a second CMC would be necessary if the Tribunal did not schedule a merit hearing at this CMC.
16The City and the Region took no position on scheduling the merit hearing at this CMC or at a later date. They did agree with the Appellant that a ten (10)-day merit hearing would not provide enough time to fully adjudicate the appeal and suggested 13 to 15 days would be more appropriate.
17The Tribunal noted that generally speaking, it is appropriate to set hearing dates only after the Procedural Order and Issues List are in final draft form. Upon considering the submissions of the Parties, the Tribunal agreed that any refinements to the Issues List would not impact the number of witnesses to be examined at the merit hearing. Further, the Tribunal found that the Parties are working collaboratively on the Issues List and provided the direction to the Parties set out in paragraph 13 above if any issues remained contentious. As such, the Tribunal determined that it would be efficient to schedule a merit hearing at this CMC.
18The Tribunal scheduled a 13-day video hearing commencing Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10 a.m.
19Parties and participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
https://meet.goto.com/348282861
Access code: 348-282-861
20Parties 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
21Persons 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 -889. The access code is 348-282-861.
22Individuals 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.
ORDER
23The Tribunal orders that North Development Corporation is a Party in this proceeding.
24The Tribunal directs the Applicant to submit to the Case Coordinator a final draft Procedural Order and Issues List on or before Friday, June 2, 2023. If the Parties are unable to reach agreement on the issues, on or before Friday, June 2, 2023 each Party will provide written submissions to the Tribunal in support of its position on the contentious issues.
25The Tribunal orders that the hearing in this matter will be held by video hearing commencing on Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 10 a.m. Thirteen days have been set aside.
26The Member is not seized, however, will remain available for case management subject to the Tribunal’s calendar.
27No further notice will be given.
“C. Hardy”
C. Hardy 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.