Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 05, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000254
OLT-23-000255
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lucia Milani
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To facilitate the establishment of a residential subdivision
Reference Number:
OP.58.89
Property Address:
11641 Dufferin Street and 11490 Bathurst Street
Municipality/UT:
Vaughan/York
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000254
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000254
OLT Case Name:
Milani v. Vaughan (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
Lucia Milani
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To facilitate the establishment of a residential subdivision
Reference Number:
Z.127.89
Property Address:
11641 Dufferin Street and 11490 Bathurst Street
Municipality/UT:
Vaughan/York
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-000255
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-000254
Heard:
June 26, 2023 by Video Conference
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Lucia Milani
Matthew Di Vona
City of Vaughan
Bruce Engell
Effie Lidakis
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Tim Duncan
Muzzo Bros. Group Inc.
Signe Leisk
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY W. DANIEL BEST AND S. BRAUN ON JUNE 26, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Final Order
1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held for the purpose of organizing appeals brought by Lucia Milani (“Applicant”) against the failure of the City of Vaughan (“City”) to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment (“the Applications”) in relation to the property at 11641 Dufferin Street and 11490 Bathurst Street (“Subject Lands”).
2The purpose of the Applications is to redesignate the Subject Lands from Rural to Rural Residential and to rezone the Subject Lands from A-Agricultural to RR – Rural Residential to facilitate the establishment of a residential subdivision on the Subject Lands.
3The Applications were filed on October 13, 1989. On March 8, 2004, City Council passed a resolution declaring the Applications as open and considered “transitional” according to the definition under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act.
4The Affidavit of Service sworn May 23, 2023, is marked as Exhibit 1. No further notice is required.
5The Tribunal received written requests for Party Status from Muzzo Brothers Group Inc. (“Muzzo Brothers”) and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (“TRCA”). The requests are marked as Exhibits 2 and 3, respectively.
6No other written requests for Party or Participant status were received and no individuals appeared at the CMC requesting status of any kind. Accordingly, the Appeal will proceed with the involvement and participation of the Parties as noted below.
PARTY STATUS REQUESTS
Muzzo Brothers Request
7Muzzo Brothers owns approximately 90 acres located at the northwest corner of Bathurst Street and Gamble Road. According to the Notice of Case Management Conference key map, these land holdings are immediately south and west of the Subject Lands. It is noted in the written request for status that there is little in the way of supporting reports, documentation or detailed information in relation to the Applications, which were filed in 1989. In the absence of same, Muzzo Brothers seeks Party Status to ensure its interests as a neighbouring landowner are protected and the Applications represent good planning.
8Ms. Leisk, Counsel for Muzzo Brothers, submitted that, as a directly abutting landowner, her client will be directly affected by a decision on the present appeals. She explained that, although her client made efforts to inform itself on the nature of the Applications by contacting the Tribunal, the City and consulting the City’s archives to obtain the Municipal Record, an application form with no plans and no supporting information or reports represents the totality of the available public record. The Tribunal was informed that Muzzo Brothers intends to provide a more detailed Issues List later, following receipt of further information or material in relation to the nature of the proposed instruments; intends to provide expert evidence and witnesses to support its position; and is aware of its role as a Party, pursuant to Rule 8 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
9While there were no outright objections to this request for status, Mr. Di Vona, Counsel for the Applicant, raised some concerns noting that the written request fails to identify specific land use planning grounds or any specific objection to the Applications. Notwithstanding the foregoing, he acknowledged the relative lack of information in relation to the Applications and undertook to provide counsel for Muzzo Brothers with disclosure of such specifics within the next week. He indicated he would not oppose the granting of the request for status but wished to reserve the right to question whether any forthcoming issues raised by Muzzo Brothers are legitimate land use planning issues capable of being adjudicated by the Tribunal.
10Party Status was granted to Muzzo Brothers. As the adjacent landowners, it has a genuine and direct interest in the proceeding, will be impacted by the decision in relation to the appeals and will assist the Tribunal in making its decision. The Tribunal provided direction to the Parties with respect to any disputes which might arise in relation to items for inclusion on a future Issues List (“IL”), addressed in further detail below.
TRCA Request
11TRCA’s written request for status indicates that the Subject Lands are located within a flood hazard, which is a natural hazard as defined in the Provincial Policy Statement , 2020 (“PPS”). Specifically, it is noted that TRCA’s current mapping and analysis identifies several natural hazards on and adjacent to the Subject Lands, including a valley corridor with associated hazardous lands including floodplain, erosion hazard and top of slope. Accordingly, TRCA seeks Party Status to ensure that the Tribunal’s decision under the Planning Act (“Act”) is consistent with the PPS and conforms to natural hazard policies in provincial plans.
12Mr. Di Vona did not oppose the granting of Party Status to TRCA but raised some concerns with the request. He submitted that granting the request raises issues with respect to natural hazard policies in both the PPS and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. He submitted that this runs afoul of recent legislative changes in Bill 23 intended to limit the conservation authorities’ mandate to natural hazard policies in the PPS.
13Mr. Di Vona requested the Tribunal limit the TRCA to raising issues within its legislative mandate, being natural hazard policies in the PPS, and further requested that issues raised be limited geographically based on the land area that the TRCA has identified as its regulated area in accordance with its current mapping but acknowledged the applicable mapping had not been submitted to the Tribunal.
14Mr. Duncan, Counsel for TRCA, submitted that the request for Party Status is consistent with the recently brought-into-force provisions of subsection 1(4.1) of the Act, which limits conservation authorities to seeking party status on matters respecting natural hazards. He further submitted that, as there are natural hazards at issue in the present appeal, there are reasonable grounds to add the TRCA as a Party under ss. 17(44.1) and 34(24.2) of the Act. He further submitted that it would be inappropriate to limit the TRCA’s involvement at this stage of the proceeding, as this would require the Panel to delve into the substantive issues for the hearing.
15The Tribunal, having been satisfied that there are reasonable grounds, given the natural hazards at issue in the present appeal, granted Party Status to TRCA. The Tribunal declined to limit the TRCA’s involvement at this time and instead directed the Parties to work together on a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and IL to be submitted in advance of the next hearing event.
NEXT STEPS
16Mr. Di Vona informed the Tribunal that the City and his client have been actively working toward a settlement of some or all the issues and it is their intention to continue such discussions with the added Parties. He expressed optimism that such discussions could result in the ability to present a full settlement at a future hearing event.
17The Parties are reminded of the availability of Tribunal assisted mediation and are further reminded that they may reach out to the case coordinator for assistance, should they wish to avail themselves of this resource in the future.
18Mr. Di Vona requested the Tribunal schedule a further CMC for the purposes of further organizing these appeals. In accordance with the Tribunal’s direction for the Parties to collaborate on a draft PO and IL, he expressed cautious optimism that these would be submitted on consent but advised that the Parties might require some direction from the Tribunal on disputed items for inclusion on the IL, specifically as it relates to the TRCA and its legislative mandate.
19The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC, which will be by video hearing at 10 a.m. on Thursday, September 21, 2023. Should the ongoing discussions amongst the Parties result in a settlement, the Parties are directed to provide materials in support thereof to the Case Coordinator and request that the CMC be converted to a settlement hearing.
20Should a settlement not be reached, the Parties are directed to submit to the Case Coordinator a draft PO and IL no later than Thursday, September 14, 2023. If there is any outstanding dispute with respect to items for inclusion on the IL, the Parties are further directed to submit a list of the items which are being challenged, the Parties’ respective positions on same and, if appropriate, suggested alternative wording of the challenged items, such that the Panel presiding over the next CMC may be able to provide any necessary direction.
21The Tribunal inquired as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed which might assist in the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this matter. The Parties indicated there were none.
22The hearing is scheduled to proceed by video on Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 10 a.m.
23Parties 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://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173
Access code: 519-389-173
24Parties 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
25Persons 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 519-389-173.
26Individuals 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
27The Tribunal Orders the directions contained in this Decision.
28There will be no further notice.
29The Panel Members are not seized and may be spoken to through the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator if there are any issues with respect to the implementation of this Order.
“W. Daniel Best”
W. DANIEL BEST
MEMBER
“S. Braun”
S. BRAUN
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.