Sweid Holdings Inc. v. Middlesex Centre (Municipality), 2023 CanLII 58639

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 29, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000163

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

Applicant and Appellant: Sweid Holdings Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of 45 new residential units, being 15 single detached dwellings and 30 townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: OPA 57

Property Address: 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000163

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000163

OLT Case Name: Sweid Holdings Inc. v. Middlesex Centre (Municipality)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Sweid Holdings Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a Decision

Description: To permit the development of 45 new residential units, being 15 single detached dwellings and 30 townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: ZBA-16-2021

Property Address: 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000164

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000163

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Sweid Holdings Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit the development of 45 new residential units, being 15 single detached dwellings and 30 townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: SP05-2021

Property Address: 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000165

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000163

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Sweid Holdings Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a Decision

Description: To permit the development of 45 new residential units, being 15 single detached dwellings and 30 townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: 39T-MC-CDM2101

Property Address: 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000190

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000163

Heard: June 2, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Sweid Holdings Inc.

A. Baroudi

County of Middlesex, and Municipality of Middlesex Centre

D. Samuels

W. Meagher (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY STEVEN T. MASTORAS ON JUNE 2, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter is before the Tribunal as a first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) following the appeals of the Municipality of Middlesex Centre (“Municipality”) and County of Middlesex’s (“County”) failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) application and a refusal or neglect to make a Decision of a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) application pursuant to sections 22(7), and 34(11) of the Planning Act (the “Act”) respectively. Additionally, there are also the appeals of a refusal or neglect to make a Decision relating to a Site Plan Application (“SPA”) and a Draft Plan of Condominium (“DPC”) application pursuant to sections 41(12) and 51(34) of the Act respectively (together the “Appeals”). The Appeals have been filed by Sweid Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) regarding the properties municipally known as 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street (“Subject Lands”).

2The Subject Lands are approximately 2.035 hectares(5.02 acres) in area and located on the west side of Elmhurst Street and south of Glendon Drive (County Road 14) in Kilworth. The Subject Lands are legally described as Concession 1 S Part Lot 10 and Concession 1 Part Lot 10 RP 33R12238 Part 1, the Municipality (geographic Township of Lobo), the County.

3The purpose of the OPA application is to facilitate the proposed redevelopment of the Subject Lands and to re-delineate the Natural Environment designation to permit development. The proposed amendment reflects the Development Assessment Report completed by the proponent.

4The purpose of the ZBA application is to rezone the lands from ‘Urban Residential First Density exception 3 (UR1-3)’ to two new site-specific zones to facilitate development – ‘Urban Residential First Density (UR1-x)’ zone to permit townhouse dwellings.

5The purpose of the SPA and DPC applications is to provide for a total of forty-five (45) dwelling units within a vacant land condominium. Fifteen (15) units will be for the development of single detached dwellings, and thirty (30) units will be for the development of townhouse dwelling units. Each dwelling unit is proposed to have two (2) parking spaces. Eighteen (18) visitor parking spaces and a common amenity area are located at the centre of the proposed development. All lots will front onto an internal private road that will have one (1) access onto Elmhurst Street. The proposed servicing is a connection to the municipal water and municipal sanitary service system located along Kilworth Park Drive.

6The Affidavit of Service giving notice of this Hearing, was sworn on April 21, 2023, by Hesham Baroudi, and is considered as Exhibit 1. A minor typographical error relating to the file number at the top of the document was corrected at the start of the Hearing.

7There were no requests submitted for Party or Participant status received by the Tribunal.

CONSOLIDATION

8Although there is no Motion before the Tribunal, Counsel for the Appellant noted and requested that the Tribunal consolidate the Appeals and the Counsel for the County and Municipality concurred.

9The consolidation policy is to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, avoid inconsistent decisions and save expenses. In balancing the interests of expediency and convenience with potential prejudice to others, the Tribunal finds that no prejudice is caused to any party and concurs with this request. Therefore, the Tribunal administratively consolidates the matters under Lead Case No. OLT-23-000163, together with OLT-23-000164, OLT-23-000165 and OLT-000190 in accordance with Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedures.

PROCEDURAL ORDER, ISSUES LIST AND HEARING EVENT

10The Parties initially submitted a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and extensive Issues List (“IL”) on consent, but just prior to the CMC, the Tribunal was informed that some minor changes were proposed by the Municipality and the County. Counsel for the Appellant agreed to review these changes and to dialogue further with Counsel for the Municipality and the County. The revised final PO and IL are expected to be submitted to the Case Coordinator on or before June 16, 2023, and the Parties intend to commence a series of expert meetings to scope the IL further to prepare for a more expeditious hearing.

11The Parties also indicate there is a willingness to continue ongoing dialogue. The Tribunal is encouraged by these efforts and Counsel is advised that Tribunal-assisted mediation is available if agreed to by the Parties to pursue a further scoping of issues and any potential for settlement.

12The Parties were directed to submit a finalized PO and IL for the Tribunal’s review no later than Friday, June 16, 2023, which was extended to Monday, June 19, 2023, following a mutual request for additional time, and the Tribunal is now in receipt of the final PO/IL.

13The Parties also agreed that a hearing date could ideally be scheduled in early 2024, for a total of ten (10) days, allowing enough time for all witnesses expected to testify within this allocated time.

14The Tribunal canvassed non-available dates with Counsel and agreed to the request to establish a hearing date scheduled to commence on Monday, January 8, 2024, at 10 a.m. via Video Hearing for a period of 10 days.

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/660145013

Access code: 660-145-013

15Parties 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.

16Parties 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.

17Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.

18Individuals 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.

ORDER

19The Tribunal orders that:

1. The Appeals are consolidated under Lead Case No. OLT-23-000163 and includes OLT-23-000164, OLT-23-000165 and OLT-23-000190.

2. The Appeals will proceed to a hearing scheduled to commence at 10 a.m. on Monday, January 8, 2024, for 10 days.

3. The Procedural Order appended hereto as Attachment 1 shall govern these proceedings.

“Steven T. Mastoras”

STEVEN T. MASTORAS

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

ONTARIO LAND TRIBUNAL

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

Applicant and Appellant: Sweid Holdings Inc.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit the development of 45 new residential units, being 15 single detached dwellings and 30 townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: OPA 57

Property Address: 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000163

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000163

OLT Case Name: Sweid Holdings Inc. v. Middlesex Centre (Municipality)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Sweid Holdings Inc.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of 45 new residential units, being 15 single detached dwellings and 30 townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: ZBA-16-2021

Property Address: 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000164

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000163

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Sweid Holdings Inc.

Subject: Site Plan

Description: To permit the development of 45 new residential units, being 15 single detached dwellings and 30 townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: SP05-2021

Property Address: 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000165

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000163

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Sweid Holdings Inc.

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of 45 new residential units, being 15 single detached dwellings and 30 townhouse dwelling units

Reference Number: 39T-MC-CDM2101

Property Address: 6, 10 and 14 Elmhurst Street

Municipality/UT: Middlesex Centre/Middlesex

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000190

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000163

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 January 8, 2024, at 10 a.m.

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 10 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.

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. A Table of Deadlines is set out in Attachment 4.

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 July 1, 2023, and in accordance with paragraph 22 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 September 1, 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 September 15, 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 13 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 13 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 13 below.

14. On or before November 3, 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 22 below.

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

16. On or before December 7, 2023, the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence by December 1, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before December 15, 2023.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before December 15, 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.

22. 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.

23. 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 1 – PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

1. Appellant/Applicant - Sweid Holdings Inc.

Analee Baroudi – Counsel for Sweid Holdings Inc. Baroudi Law Professional Corporation 902 Thistleridge Crescent London ON N6K 0B8 Tel: (519)200-3776 Email: analee@baroudilaw.ca

2. County of Middlesex

Wayne P. Meagher – Counsel for County of Middlesex Middlesex County Barrister & Solicitor’s Office (MCBSO) 399 Ridout Street North London ON N6A 2P1 Tel: (519)434-7321 ext.2283 Email: wmeagher@middlesex.ca

3. Municipality of Middlesex Centre

Wayne P. Meagher – Counsel for Municipality of Middlesex Centre Middlesex County Barrister & Solicitor’s Office (MCBSO) 399 Ridout Street North London ON N6A 2P1 Tel: (519)434-7321 ext.2283 Email: wmeagher@middlesex.ca

ATTACHMENT 2 – ISSUES LIST

Planning Issues

1. Whether or not the proposed density is too high for the Subject Lands?

2. Whether or not the proposed density and proposed Official Plan change to Medium Density Residential, and Zoning change to new site-specific Urban Residential First Density (UR1) and Urban Residential Third Density (UR3) zones is compatible with surrounding development patterns and low-density residential lands to the north, south, east, and west of the Subject Lands?

3. Whether or not the proposed development meets all applicable building separation, site alteration, amenity space, site design, servicing, road improvements (both Glendon Drive and local roads), parking, paramedic, firefighting and garbage collection requirements and whether or not is it appropriate for a “Code Matrix” to be produced?

4. Are the proposed Applications consistent with the following sections of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020: 1.0, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.6, 1.4, 1.6, 1.6.2, 1.6.6, 1.6.6.7, 2.1?

5. Do the proposed applications have regard for Matters of Provincial Interest as set out I section 2 of the Planning Act?

6. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in the Middlesex County Official Plan: 2.3.8, 2.3.7, 2.3.10, 2.4.2, 2.4.5, 3.2?

7. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan? Section 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.2.3, 5.7.1, 5.7.4, 5.7.9, 5.7.11, 5.7.12, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 8.4, 9.3.1, 10.1?

8. To what extent should the Tribunal have regard for the following policies in the Middlesex County Official Plan, which were adopted on July 19, 2022 through OPA No.3 but have not yet been approved: 2.2.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.1.3, 2.4.2.1, and 2.4.2.2?

9. To what extent should the Tribunal have regard for the following policies in the Middlesex Centre Official Plan, which were adopted on May 18, 2022 through OPA No.59 but have not yet been approved: 5.3.1, 5.8.4, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 8.4?

Natural Heritage Issues

10. Whether or not permitting the condominium development and proposed removal of trees in a Significant Woodland and natural features on the Subject Lands and in the proximity to a Significant Woodland are appropriate and/or will not impact the Significant Woodland?

11. Are the proposed Applications consistent with the following sections of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020: 2.1?

12. Do the Applications conform to Middlesex County’s Official Plan: 2.3.10?

13. To what extent should the Tribunal have regard for the following policies in the Middlesex County’s Official Plan, which were adopted on July 19, 2022 through OPA No.3 but have not yet been approved: 2.3.10?

14. Is the Applicant required to have an application under County of Middlesex Woodlands in force By-law #5738, as amended or replaced (passed under the authority of section 135(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001) before planning approvals on the lands can be granted?

15. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in the Middlesex Centre Official Plan: Section 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, and 5.7.9?

16. Whether or not sufficient detail has been provided in the Application to demonstrate how Unit 15 (single detached dwelling), Units 16, 17, 28, 39, and 40 (townhouse dwellings) or any other development on the Subject Lands will not encroach upon or impact the woodland and natural heritage features, and how the future owners and tenants adjacent to the woodland are made aware of its protection and it not being a private amenity area?

17. Whether or not the considerable amount of tree (non-woodland) loss proposed by the development is proposed to be replaced on the landscaping plan and if such replacement is necessary and appropriate?

18. Whether or not proposed snow-storage locations have been reviewed in detail to ensure snowmelt and runoff will not negatively woodland and other natural heritage features on or adjacent to the Subject Lands?

Servicing Issues

Drinking Water and Potable Water

19. Whether or not there are adverse impacts of the development on the drinking water wells in the area?

20. Are potential impacts on drinking water wells in the area required to be considered prior to making a planning determination on density and will the proposed development have adverse impacts on the drinking water wells in the area?

21. Whether or not groundwater monitoring needs to be undertaken for a minimum of one (1) year to ensure the high water groundwater elevation and infiltration design is based upon an appropriately extensive record?

22. Whether or not proposed snow-storage locations have been reviewed in detail to ensure snowmelt and runoff will not negatively impact abutting property owners and their potable water supply?

Municipal Water

23. Whether or not the Application provides sufficient detail in its servicing plan and sufficient analysis/modelling to confirm that the proposed development will be serviced by municipal water and that the existing watermain has the capacity to service the proposed development and adjacent properties, including without limitation, requirements for firefighting water, flow rates, etc.?

24. Whether or not the construction and costs of a private main within the right-of-way can be forced upon a municipality?

25. Whether the cost of any watermain extension should be fully borne by the development, being caused by development?

Sanitary Services

26. Whether or not the proponent in its Application, has provided sufficient details in its servicing plan to confirm that the proposed development can be serviced by municipal sanitary services?

27. Whether or not the construction and costs of a forcemain or gravity sewer within the right-of-way can be compelled upon a municipality?

28. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated that a gravity sewer system is a viable alternative, in light of design of the proposed sewer, including without limitation, connections to existing lots and demonstration that the existing downstream sewers have sufficient capacity to accept the proposed flows of the proposed development?

29. Whether the cost of any gravity sewer extension within the right-of-way should be fully borne by the development, being caused by development?

30. Whether the cost of any municipally required larger or deeper sewer than otherwise required is an oversizing cost properly borne by the Municipality?

31. Is the Applicant’s sanitary sewer design required to give consideration to future sanitary flows from upstream properties and if so, has consideration been given to allowing future sanitary flows from upstream properties and satisfaction of the potential future needs of the Municipality?

32. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in the Middlesex Centre Official Plan: 5.7.11, and 9.3.1?

Downstream Drainage/Stormwater Management

33. Whether or not the Applicant is required to provide sufficient detail in its servicing plan and if so, has the Applicant provided sufficient detail in its servicing plan to confirm sufficient stormwater management for the proposed development meets the CVC Low Impact Development Manual to allow the proponent to control a 100 year 24 hour storm event and confirm the impacts of a 250 year event?

34. Whether or not the Applicant has provided and if it is necessary for the Applicant to provide actual measures infiltration rates on-site to verify the theoretical infiltration rate values?

35. Whether or not there are likely to be adverse impacts on existing private servicing on adjacent and downstream properties?

36. Whether or not stormwater runoff with no outlet for the Subject Lands, with runoff flow from backyards of single detached dwellings to open bottom catchbasins located in rear yards and runoff from fronts of houses and townhouses flowing to the private internal road and catchbasins to private internal road catchbasins is sufficient and appropriate and/or causes adverse impacts?

37. Are the proposed Applications consistent with the following sections of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020: 1.6, 1.6.2, 1.6.6, 1.6.7?

38. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in the Middlesex County Official Plan: 2.4.5?

39. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in the Middlesex Centre Official Plan: 5.7.11, and 9.3.1?

40. Whether or not the Applicant is required to demonstrate and if so, has the Applicant demonstrated that the proposed downstream drainage/stormwater management proposed servicing plan is feasible in light of Middlesex Centre’s in force Building By-law #2012-008, as amended or replaced, the Building Code (plumbing), and MECP standards?

Traffic Issues

41. Whether or not the proposed density of the development is incompatible with the road network in the immediate area?

42. Whether or not the proposed Application would cause adverse traffic impacts and flow issues?

43. Whether or not the Applicant is required to contemplate and if so, has the Applicant sufficiently contemplated traffic generation from the Subject Lands and connectivity in the immediate area?

44. Whether or not the single access proposed to the development and dead-end areas at the end of a private road, as proposed in the Application, are sufficient and appropriate?

45. Whether or not the required right-turn lane and consideration of a cycling route along the paved shoulder at the intersection of Elmhurst Street and Glendon Drive, as required by the Glendon Drive Environmental Assessment, have been contemplated and provided for in the Application?

46. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in the Middlesex County Official Plan: 2.4.2, and 3.2?

47. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in Middlesex Centre’s Official Plan? Section 5.7.12 and 9.4?

48. To what extent should the Tribunal have regard for the following policies of the Middlesex County Official Plan, which were adopted on July 19, 2022 through OPA No.3 but have not yet been approved: 2.4.2.1, 2.4.2.2, 2.4.5?

Design Issues

49. Whether or not the proponent in its Application, has provided sufficient details in its plans concerning sidewalks, landscaping, lighting, fire hydrant locations, turnarounds for fire trucks, road width, street parking, snow storage, and density analysis/impacts for the proposed Application to be approved?

50. Whether or not a sidewalk along the frontage of the single detached dwelling units and sidewalks between the townhouse dwelling units are appropriate?

51. Whether or not sidewalks for safe access from all units to Elmhurst Street are necessary?

52. Whether or not there is sufficient accessible public and private open space for the density proposed?

53. Whether or not further consideration of housing form and the function (inter and intra) of the overall development is required to ensure the townhouse dwellings provides ample outdoor space for the wellbeing of future residents and has a sufficiently detailed private amenity area or communal amenity areas been considered and provided in the developer’s plans?

54. Do the Applications conform to the following sections in the Middlesex Centre Official Plan: 6.2, 6.3, and 6.4?

55. Whether or not the Site Plan approval submitted (SP05-2021) with the application is premature for approval?

56. Whether or not it is premature to approve a Plan of Condominium (File: 39T-MC-CDM2101)?

*** The Parties do not necessarily agree that all of the issues on the list are applicable to this proceeding or appropriately worded. Objections relating to the issues list may be addressed through witness statements or a motion prior to the hearing.

ATTACHMENT 3 – ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Applicant/Appellant

2. County of Middlesex

3. Municipality of Middlesex Centre

4. Reply Evidence by the Applicant/Appellant

ATTACHMENT 4 – TABLE OF DEADLINES

Item

Deadline

Witness lists

July 1, 2023

Experts Meeting

September 1, 2023

Agreed Statement of Facts

September 15, 2023

Updated Issues List (If any)

September 18, 2023

Witness Statements

November 3, 2023

Reply Witness Statements

December 1, 2023

Visual Evidence

December 7, 2023

Hearing Plan and Joint Document Brief

December 15, 2023