Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: July 28, 2023
CASE NO.: OLT-22-004149
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Millcroft Greens Corporation
Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description: to permit the redevelopment of parts of a golf course to construct a total of 90 single family units and 130 apartment units in four areas
Reference Number: 505-07/20
Property Address: 2155 Country Club Drive and 4274 Dundas Street
Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004149
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004149
OLT Case Name: Millcroft Greens Corporation v. Burlington (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Millcroft Greens Corporation
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: to permit the redevelopment of parts of a golf course to permit a total of 90 single family units in four areas
Reference Number: 520-07/20
Property Address: 2155 Country Club Drive and 4274 Dundas Street
Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004150
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004149
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: Millcroft Greens Corporation
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of Approval Authority to permit the redevelopment of parts of a golf course
Description: to permit the redevelopment of parts of a golf course to permit a total of 90 single family units in four areas
Reference Number: 510-02/20
Property Address: 2155 Country Club Drive and 4274 Dundas Street
Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton
OLT Case No: OLT-22-004151
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004149
BEFORE:
SHARYN VINCENT VICE-CHAIR
Friday, 28th day of July, 2023
THESE MATTERS having come before the Tribunal for a Case Management Conference on November 7, 2022 and March 7, 2023;
AND THE TRIBUNAL having received the requested copy of the Procedural Order, on consent,
THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Procedural Order attached hereto as Schedule 1 is in full force and effect.
“Euken Lui”
EUKEN LUI ACTING REGISTRAR
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.
PROCEDURAL ORDER
- 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
The video hearing will begin on March 5, 2024 at 10 at the following location:
[Link to GoToMeeting]
The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 19 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. The procedural order deadlines are found in Attachment 1.
The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2. Unless the Tribunal directs otherwise, a person who wishes to become a party or participant at the hearing who Is not listed in Attachment 2 must make the necessary motion to the Tribunal. The Tribunal may refuse to grant such status.
The issues to be adjudicated at the hearing are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. 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.
The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 5 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.
The meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are identified in Attachment 6.
Any person granted status 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.
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
A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of their intended witnesses. This list must be delivered on or before Friday, August 4, 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.
Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday, October 13, 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 Friday, October 27, 2023.
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 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.
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 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 15 below.
On or before Friday, November 24, 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.
On or before Friday, November 24, 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.
Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before Friday, December 15, 2023, and in accordance with paragraph 23 below.
On or before Friday, December 15, 2023, the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.
On or before Friday, January 12, 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.
The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday, January 19, 2024.
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.
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.
The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before Friday, February 9, 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.
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.
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.
BEFORE:
Name of Member:
Date:
TRIBUNAL REGISTRAR
ATTACHMENT 1 SUMMARY OF DATES
| DATE | EVENT |
|---|---|
| Friday, August 4, 2023 | Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines, CVs included) |
| Friday, October 13, 2023 | Experts meeting prior to this date |
| Friday, October 27, 2023 | Agreed Statement of Facts |
| Friday, November 24, 2023 | Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements |
| Friday, December 15, 2023 | Exchange of response to Witness Statements (if any) |
| Friday, December 15, 2023 | Deadline to advise OLT of any reductions in hearing time. |
| Friday, January 12, 2023 | Exchange of visual evidence (if any) |
| Friday, January 19, 2024 | Finalize & submit Joint Document Book |
| Friday, February 9, 2024 | Hearing Plan filed with the Tribunal |
| March 5, 2024 [19 days] | Hearing commences |
ATTACHMENT 2 LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS
Parties
Millcroft Greens Corporation Patrick Harrington & Meaghan Barrett Aird & Berlis LLP Brookfield Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 1800 Toronto, ON M5J 2T9 Tel: 416-863-1500 Fax: 416-863-1515 Email: pharrington@airdberlis.com mbarrett@airdberlis.com
City of Burlington Isaac Tang & Brett Davis Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide St. West, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Tel: 416-367-6000 Fax: 416-367-6749 Email: ITang@blg.com BDavis@blg.com
Region of Halton Kelly Yerxa & Brittany Maione 1151 Bronte Road Oakville, ON L6M 3L1 Tel: 905-825-6000 Fax: Email: KellyG.Yerxa@halton.ca Brittany.Maione@halton.ca
Halton Conservation Authority Konstantine Stavrakos O’Connor MacLeod Hanna LLP 700 Kerr Street Oakville, ON L6K 3W5 Tel: 905-842-8030 Fax: 905-842-2460 Email: stavrakos@omh.ca
The Millcroft Coalition Against Bad Development Chantal de Sereville Weir Foulds LLP TD Bank Tower 66 Wellington St. West, Suite 4100 Toronto, ON M5K 1B7 Tel: 416-365-1110 Fax: 416-365-1876 Email: cdesereville@weirfoulds.com
Millcroft Greenspace Alliance Daintry Klein daintry.klein@gmail.com
Participants:
Active Community Teamwork (A.C.T.) Leslie Barbetta -leslieandjim@cogeco.ca
Adrianne Marsh adriannemarsh14@gmail.com
Alan Green alanrichardgreen@gmail.com
Alan Tanner alan@jointsolutions.ca
Allan Briskin allansb@sympatico.ca
Anne Weremi Conrad abweremi@gmail.com
Anthony (Tony) Lo Presti alopresti@sympatico.ca
Armando Mastrangelo opmc1999@yahoo.ca
Barry Wyner wynbar69nip@gmail.com
Beverly Fiddian-Green bev.fiddiangreen@gmail.com
C.W. Kay ckay.ca@gmail.com
Caroline Buckland N/A
Chris Coholan chriscoho@gmail.com
Chris Skirrow chris_skirrow@hotmail.com
Christopher Nicholson cpnicholson@cogeco.ca
Colleen Hutter colleenlyn@hotmail.com
Condominium Corporation HCC329 Ross Siemms (N/A)
Crystal Masterson crys@mastersonlaw.ca
Dan Duncan dan.duncan14@icloud.com
Darcy Hagan dhagan73@icloud.com
David Cliff djc@dlrc.com
Dennis Parass dennis@parass.com
Domenico Pio dpio@bell.net
Dominic Rapini dom.rapini@gmail.com
Douglas Bache douglas.bache@sympatico.ca
Dwayne Boecker dwayneboecker@gmail.com
Elizabeth Matecki elizabeth.matecki@gmail.com
Ethan McQueen andreamcqueendesign@outlook.com
Eunice Gorman egorman@uwo.ca
Fern Petrie fernpetrie@gmail.com
Frank Glenfield theglenfields@yahoo.com
George Chu gchu@cogeco.ca
Gerard & Helen Burke gerry.burke@outlook.com
Glen Bowker bowkerglen@gmail.com
Gayle Gregory gregorygayle@netscape.net
Gregory Taylor greh@smi.com
Hal Hirte hwhirte@gmail.com
Hans & Anna Paffrath paffrath76@gmail.com
James Fisher jrf.installs@gmail.com
Jamie Reusch jreusch@cogeco.ca
Jeff Penman jeffpenmanburl@gmail.com
Joanna Board joanna.board@cogeco.ca
Judith Wilson jdavidwilson@sympatico.ca
Judy Cooper cooperju3@gmail.com
Judy Dainton jadcampbell67@hotmail.ca
Kathryne Hebb kaghebb@hotmail.com
Kim Elliott soldbykim@live.com
Kirk Robinson kirk@robinsonautomotive.com
Krista O'Gorman ogormankrista@gmail.com
Laura Evans evanslaura315@gmail.com
Liaghati Navid liaghati@gmail.com
Lila Foley N/A
Lifeng Zhang bettyzhang5467@gmail.com
Lydia MacIntosh lydiamac1994@gmail.com
Marilyn Lavigne marilyn@proply.com
Mathew McQueen N/A
Mark Berkovitz markberkovitz@hotmail.com
Meena Andiappan meena.andiappan@utoronto.ca
Michelle Berkovitz mhunt9@cogeco.ca
Mike Card mike@gogranite.ca
Mohamed Shahin mshahin@softmills.com
Monty Baker mbaker37@cogeco.ca
Oleksiy Nadashkevych soarer1000@gmail.com
Paul Davidson tightlines1144@gmail.com
Paul Petit PAULJPETIT@gmail.com
Peter Shanahan pshanahan@toromont.com
Ramon Miguel Tejada migueltejada@gmail.com
Rhonda Kovacs rhonda.kovacs@gmail.com
Richard Fiddian-Green richard.fiddiangreen@gmail.com
Rob McGavin rsmcgavin@gamil.com
Ron Bottos ron.bottos@gmail.com
Smith Lynnda lj88smith@aol.com
Sonia Robinson soniacrobinson@gmail.com
Stanley Hannaford stan.hannaford@gmail.com
Stephen Dyment stephen.heidi.email@gmail.com
Steve Haggarty steve.haggarty@outlook.com
Taorang Zhang andyzhang51@gmail.com
Timothy O'Gorman timp.ogorman@gmail.com
Valarie Kay valrkay@gmail.com
Vaughn Lavigne vl@proply.com
William Johnson wajohnson@cogeco.ca
Yannick Ruiz yrcheca@gmail.com
ATTACHMENT 3 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/or argument at the hearing.
Legend: City – City of Burlington Region – Region of Halton CH – Halton Conservation Authority MAD – The Millcroft Alliance Against Bad Development MGA – Millcroft Greenspace Alliance
Unless otherwise indicated, Issues apply to Areas A – E.
Policy Documents and Legislative Scheme
Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“the Application”) have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest enumerated in section 2 of the Planning Act, including, but not limited to sections 2(a), 2(h), 2(j), 2(l) 2(m), 2(n), 2(o), 2(p), 2(q), 2(r), and 2(s)? City; CH (s. 2(o) only); MAD; MGA.
Is the Application consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) including, but not limited to Policies: a. 1.1 (Managing and Directing Land Use to Achieve Efficient and Resilient Development and Land Use Patterns); b. 1.1.3 (excluding 1.1.3.8 & 1.1.3.9) (Settlement Areas); c. 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.4 (Coordination); d. 1.2.6 (Land Use Compatibility); e. 1.5 (Public Spaces, Recreation, Parks, Trails and Open Spaces); f. 1.6 (excluding 1.6.9 and 1.6.11) (Sewage, Water and Stormwater); g. 1.7.1 (k) (Long-Term Economic Prosperity); h. 1.8.1 (Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change); i. 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.1.8 (Natural Heritage); j. 2.2.1, 2.2.2 (Water); k. 3.1.1 – 3.1.7 (Natural Hazards). l. 4.6 (Implementation and Interpretation) City; Region (b-f only); CH (s. 3.1.1-3.1.7 only); MAD; MGA.
Does the Application conform to the A Place to Grow, Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) including, but not limited to: a. 1.2.1 (Guiding Principles); b. 2.2.1 (4) (Managing Growth); c. 2.2.2 (Delineated Built-up Areas); d. 2.2.6.1, 2.2.6.2, 2.2.6.3 (Housing); e. 3.2.1 (Integrated Planning); f. 3.2.2 (Transportation – General); g. 3.2.6 (Water and Wastewater Systems); h. 3.2.7 (Stormwater Management); i. 4.2.2 (Natural Heritage System); j. 4.2.5 (Public Open Space) k. 5.2.3 (Coordination); l. 5.2.4 (Growth Forecasts); m. 5.2.5, 5.2.5(8) (Targets). City; MAD; MGA.
Does the Application conform with all of the policies of the Region of Halton Official Plan including, but not limited to Sections: a. 25, 26, 27(3), 30, 31, 33 (Halton’s Planning Vision); b. 58 (Development Criteria); c. 77 (Urban Area and the Regional Urban Structure); d. 84 (Housing) e. 89(3) (Urban Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Services); f. 113 – 118, 201 (Natural Heritage System, Regional Natural Heritage System); g. 140 (Environmental Quality, Goal and General Policies); h. 142, 143(9), 143(12a) (Environmental Quality, Air and the Ambience); i. 144(4), 145(6b,c,d,l), (8),(10),(12),(17) (Water); j. 146(6), (7), (10), 147(3) (Land); k. 173(8) (Transportation) with respect to Area E. City; Region; MAD; MGA.
What regard, if any, is to be had to the policies of the Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 48? If regard is to be had, what are the implications of those policies on the Application? Region
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 Application? Region
Does the Application maintain the intent and principles of, and does it generally conform with, the policies of the City of Burlington Official Plan including, but not limited to Sections: a. Part I, Sections 3.0 (Guiding Principles), 4.0 (Land Use Vision), 4.3 (Policy Framework); b. Part II, Sections 2.3 (General Policies), 2.4 (Natural Heritage), 2.7 (Sustainable Design and Compatibility), 2.10 (Watershed Management), 2.11 (Storm Water Management), 2.13.2 (Golf Course), 6.0 – 6.3 (Design); c. Part III, Sections 2.2.1 (Residential Area, Objectives), 2.2.2 (General Policies, Residential Areas), 2.5.1, 2.5.2 (Housing Intensification, Residential Areas), 2.9 (Neighbourhood Parks), 2.12 (Neighbourhood Character Areas), 6.1 (Natural Features and Open Space, Principles), 6.3 (Major Parks and Open Space Designation), 6.4 (Watercourses) d. Part VI, Section 2.7 (Parkland Dedication). City; MAD; MGA.
Does the Application maintain the intent and principles of, and does it generally conform with, the policies of the new City of Burlington Official Plan (2020) including, but not limited to Sections: a. 2.3.4 (Residential Neighbourhood Areas); b. 2.3.5 (Natural Heritage System, Major Parks and Open Space); c. 3.3 (Parks, Recreation and Open Space); d. 4.2 (Natural Heritage System); e. 4.3 (Urban Forestry); f. 4.4 (Water Resources); g. 7.2 (The Public Realm), 7.3.2 (Urban Design and Built Form, Existing Community Areas), 7.3.2(2) (Urban Design and Built Form, Established Neighbourhood Areas), h. 8.3 (Residential Neighbourhood Areas), 8.3.1 (Residential Neighbourhood Areas); 8.3.3 (Residential Low-Density), 8.3.4 (Residential Medium-Density), 8.3.6 (Neighbourhood Character Areas); i. 8.4 (Natural Heritage System, Parks and Open Space); j. 12.1.1(2) (Implementation and Interpretation, Policies), 12.1.1(3) (Implementation and Interpretation, Official Plan), 12.1.16 (Parkland Dedication). City; MAD; MGA.
Planning and Urban Design
Is the Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the lands comprising Areas A-D from “Major Parks And Open Space” to “Residential-Low Density” appropriate, taking into consideration the history of the Millcroft neighbourhood and integral nature of the Millcroft Golf Course to the neighbourhood character? City; MGA.
Are Areas A-D appropriate locations for intensification, based on the nature of the “intensification” proposed by the Application? City
Is the Official Plan Amendment to redesignate the land comprising Area E from “Residential-Medium Density” to “Residential-High Density” appropriate? City
Is the development proposed in Areas A-D appropriate and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character in terms of: a. built form; b. height; c. density; d. setbacks, including front and rear yard setbacks; e. lot coverage; f. site massing; g. scale; h. parking? City; MAD; MGA.
Will the proposed Application result in a loss of open space for the community and the City? If so, is the loss of open space consistent with the original objectives established for the Millcroft community in the 1980’s that the open space afforded by the golf course use was to be a permanent feature or resource even if the golf course ceded operation? MAD
Does the proposed lot coverage include accessory structures, and if not, would the additional lot coverage from accessory structures be compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood character? City; MGA.
Does the proposed Application provide for a sufficient amount of parkland to be dedicated to the City of Burlington? City
Is it appropriate for the Applicant to dedicate to the City of Burlington as parkland the 6 metre buffer being proposed in Areas A-D between the existing neighbourhood lots and the proposed lots, instead of maintaining the buffer with appropriate restrictions registered on title on its use? City
What assurances are provided such that the proposed 6m buffer will be maintained with restrictions? MGA
Will the grading and drainage plans at rear lot lines of existing properties be sufficient to manage the impacts of climate change? Should the 6m buffer be allocated to existing properties for grading, maintenance and security purposes as originally discussed by the developer and the community? What assurances does the community have with this buffer? MGA
Has the Applicant appropriately considered the width of the proposed private roads servicing Areas A-D and their capability to accommodate on-street parking? City; MGA.
Natural Heritage, Engineering and Stormwater Management
Has the Application appropriately considered flood risks associated with Appleby Creek and Sheldon Creek, including whether the flooding hazards have been adequately assessed, and limits delineated, in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Technical Guide – River and Stream Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit (2002)? (Areas A, B, D)? City; CH; MGA MAD
Given the embedded creeks in Areas A-D, was it a government oversight, that the lands are not designated as Natural Heritage? MGA
Has the Application appropriately considered whether the proposed grading will conform with Section 116.1 of the Halton Regional Official Plan with respect to boundary refinements to the Regional Natural Heritage System? (Areas A, B, D) City; Region (A and B only).
Does the Application conform with the direction in Sections 115.3, 115.4 and 118(2) of the Halton Regional Official Plan to use a systems approach to protecting and enhancing natural features and functions? (Area A) Region
Does the Application protect Key Features within the Regional Natural Heritage System as identified in Section 115.3(1) and shown on Map 1G of the Halton Regional Official Plan? (Area A) Region
Does the Application conform with Sections 139.11 and 139.12 with respect to Key Features within the Regional Natural Heritage System as shown on Map 1G of the Halton Regional Official Plan? (Area A) Region
Is it appropriate to use underground storage tanks as a part of the stormwater management system? If so, are the proposed underground storage tanks appropriately sized to accommodate the anticipated flows? (Areas A and B) City; MAD; MGA.
Who will be responsible and accountable for the ongoing maintenance and functionality of the underground storage tanks? MGA
Have adequate and appropriate sized buffers been proposed from all Key Features where development or site alteration is proposed within features or on adjacent lands in accordance with an approach considered acceptable by the Region? (Area A) Region
Has the Application provided an adequate Restoration and Management Plan for the Appleby Creek with consideration of the Region’s vision and objectives for the Natural Heritage System? (Area A) Region
Has the Application appropriately considered the stormwater impacts that will occur as a result of the proposed development in Areas A-D? City; MAD; MGA.
It is appropriate to alter the stormwater management design for the original community plan that relies on the open space of the fairways as open storage for stormwater runoff? MAD
How will the community be compensated for damages in the event of an engineering failure relating to stormwater management? MGA
Is it appropriate to turn Mill Pond from an online pond into an offline pond, and the intended use of the reconfigured Mill Pond as an irrigation source for the Millcroft Golf Course? City; MGA.
With respect to ‘Area A’ and ‘Area B’, does the Draft Plan of Subdivision Proposal demonstrate that the proposed stormwater management outfall is “essential” as per Policy 233 of the Halton Regional Official Plan? Does the proposed infrastructure result in no negative impacts to the Regional Natural Heritage System. Can all impacts be appropriately mitigated? City; Region.
Has the Applicant conducted the Updated Natural Heritage and Hazards assessment and does the Application and associated studies adequately: a. identify the risks related to natural hazards (flooding and erosion hazards); b. demonstrate that the risks related to natural hazards, including the prevention or mitigation of those risks, have been addressed and that there is no risk to public health or safety or of property damage; c. demonstrate that the proposal will not create new or aggravate existing hazards, as well as extend Conservation Halton’s regulation limits onto neighbouring lands? d. demonstrate compliance with Ontario Regulation 162/06 and Conservation Halton’s Policies and Guidelines for the Administration of Ontario Regulation 162/06 and Land Use Planning Policy Document, 2020, as it relates to natural hazards and wetlands, with associated regulatory allowances and other areas? (Areas A, B, D) City; CH; MGA.
Have all components of the Regional Natural Heritage System been adequately identified in accordance with an approved Terms of Reference and protected in accordance with the Halton Regional Official Plan? Region
Has the Applicant appropriately considered restoring the low-flow channel of Appleby Creek prior to any development taking place in order to appropriately limit any ecological impacts to Appleby Creek? City
Has the Applicant appropriately considered erosion risks associated with Appleby Creek and Sheldon Creek and have the erosion hazards been adequately assessed, and limits delineated in accordance with the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Technical Guide – River and Stream Systems: Erosion and Hazard Limit (2002) and Geotechnical Principles for Stable Slopes (1998)? (Areas A, B, D) City; CH; MGA.
Has the Applicant provided sufficient details around the biofiltration island systems proposed to be installed within the rights of way within Areas A and B which will drain to Appleby Creek? City
Has the Applicant appropriately considered the ecological impacts of development of Areas A-D and Appleby Creek? MGA
Has the Application appropriately considered and provided sufficient details to determine how Areas A-D will connect to the existing watermains and wastewater mains in the Millcroft neighbourhood, including how the existing wastewater main will need to be extended in order to appropriately service Area C; and have the appropriate Holding provisions been implemented to ensure that an extension of municipal services can be secured and approved? City
Has the Application appropriately considered and provided sufficient details to determine how Area E will connect to existing watermains and wastewater mains taking into account the necessity of extending infrastructure under Dundas Street; and have the appropriate Holding provisions been implemented to ensure that an extension of municipal services can be secured and approved? City
Has the Applicant conducted the requested transportation and noise impact analysis and provided sufficient noise mitigation measures? City
Has the Applicant appropriately evaluated the proposed tree removals and provided sufficient justification for the tree removals and replacement and/or compensation? City; MGA.
Will the proposed development result in adverse impacts associated with the loss of open space including, but not limited to the loss of tree canopy, increased runoff due to additional roads, buildings and hard surfaces and the loss of natural features? MAD
Has the Applicant appropriately addressed the issues identified by the Wood Water Resources Team as detailed in their Memos dated September 15, 2021 and July 5, 2022? City
Has the potential for contamination on the subject lands been adequately assessed and appropriately addressed in accordance with Section 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. If approved, have the appropriate Holding provisions been put in place to address the Region’s Site Contamination policies (Section 147(17))? Region
General
Does the Application appropriately consider whether there are sufficient community services to accommodate the development? City
Does the Application appropriately consider whether there is sufficient capacity from the Halton District School Board to accommodate the development? City
With respect to ‘Area A’ through Area ‘D’ (inclusive), has the proposed development layout and proposed internal private driveway appropriately designed to permit Regional 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 approved, what are the appropriate zoning provisions that address and protect for the safe and efficient collection of solid waste. Region
With respect to ‘Area E’, is the proposed built form being considered through the Application appropriately designed to permit Regional 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 approved, what are the appropriate zoning provisions that address and protect for the safe and efficient collection of solid waste? Region
If approved, have the appropriate Holding Provisions been implemented to address and ensure the extension of municipal services to Area ‘C’ and Area ‘E’ have been secured and approved? Region
If approved, are appropriate conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval in accordance with Subsection 51(25) of the Planning Act being implemented to address matters of a Regional interest as supported by Regional Official Plan policy and implementing Guidelines including, but not limited to matters related to: provision of municipal services and any required servicing improvements, required Regional Road improvements, regional road noise mitigation and warning clauses, waste management collection, protection and restoration of the natural and regulated features, financial obligations, requirement for a regional subdivision agreement, and a Record of Site Condition? City; Region.
Does the development proposal represent good land use planning and is it in the public interest? MAD
Area E Specific Issues – Six-Storey Midrise Building
Does the proposed building represent an overdevelopment of the subject site? City
Does the proposed building have the appropriate height, density, scale and massing? City
Are the setbacks appropriate, including the proposed front yard setback to Dundas Street and setback for the underground parking? City
Are there sufficient parking spaces to support the proposed mid-rise building? City
Is there sufficient amenity space to support the proposed mid-rise building? City
Does the Proposed Development have appropriate regard for the applicable Burlington City Council approved design guidelines, including the Design Guidelines for Mixed-Use and Residential Mid-Rise Buildings (“The Mid-Rise Guidelines”, 2019), Pedestrian-level Wind Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (2020), Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (2020), Stormwater Management Design Guidelines (2020) and Sustainable Building and Development Guidelines (2018)? City
Area E Specific Issues – Townhouses
What townhouse concept is the Applicant advancing for approval? City
Does the proposed townhouse development represent an overdevelopment of the subject site? City
Does the proposed townhouse development have the appropriate height, density, scale and massing? City
Are the setbacks for the proposed townhouse development appropriate, including the proposed front yard setback to Dundas Street? City
Are there sufficient parking spaces to support the proposed townhouse development? City
Is there sufficient amenity space to support the proposed townhouse development? City
Has the Applicant completed the following studies appropriate to a townhouse development: a. Noise Study; b. TIS; c. Arborist Report; d. Tree Protection Plan; e. Concept Landscape Plan. City
Has the Applicant provided sufficient information to support the following elements of the proposed townhouse development: a. Floor plans and elevation; b. Dimensions of the proposed road widening; c. Dimensions of the site plan including all setbacks, parking spaces and unit widths; d. Amenity space per unit and location of amenity space for dual frontage units; e. Privacy space per unit and location of privacy area for all units; f. Whether the dual frontage units will contain balconies or rooftop amenity space; g. Is the proposed greenspace (triangle area) going to be used for amenity space; h. Why some of the proposed townhouses are dual-frontage units; i. The location of internal roadways; j. Whether an internal sidewalk will be required. City
ATTACHMENT 4
CONTEXT PLAN
ATTACHMENT 5
ORDER OF EVIDENCE
- Millcroft Greens Corporation
- City of Burlington
- Halton Region
- Halton Conservation Authority
- The Millcroft Coalition Against Bad Development
- Millcroft Greenspace Alliance
- Millcroft Greens Corporation reply, if any
ATTACHMENT 6
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.
52621707.2