611428 Ontario Limited. et al. v. King (Township), 2023 CanLII 73699

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 10, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004723

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant(s): See Schedule 1

Subject: By-law No. 2022-053

Description: Rural Countryside Zoning By-Law

Reference Number: Z-2020-03

Property Address: Town Wide

Municipality/UT: Township of King/Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004723

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004723

OLT Case Name: 611428 Ontario Limited. et al. v. King (Township)

Heard: June 9, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Township of King	Tom Halinski, Jasmine C. M. Fraser
Multiple Appellants	Refer to Schedule 1 for Appearances by Appellants

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY BITA M. RAJAEE ON JUNE 9, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This was the second Case Management Conference (“Second CMC”) with respect to appeals under subsections 34(19) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by a number of appellants (“Appellants”), listed in Schedule 1 to this Decision, in relation to the replacement of the Township of King’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 74-53, which is to be replaced by Zoning By-Law No. 2022-053 (“ZBL 2022-053”). Council of the Township of King (“Township”) passed ZBL 2022-053 on September 26, 2022.

2ZBL 2022-053 is the result of the Rural Area Zoning By-law Review to: revise and update zoning standards; introduce broadened permissions for agricultural uses, including agriculture related and on-farm diversified uses to strengthen the rural economy; and to ensure the protection of environmental lands, particularly within the Greenbelt Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

3The first CMC took place on March 14, 2023 (“First CMC”), wherein it was confirmed that notice had been properly served, and no further notice was required.

4Subsequent to the First CMC, Heste Corporation, Appellant Number 5 in Schedule 1, brought a motion in writing to seek the Tribunal’s approval regarding a settlement of its appeal that it had reached with the Township. In the Decision and Order dated June 7, 2023, the Tribunal granted Heste Corporation’s motion and approved the settlement between Heste Corporation and the Township, without prejudice to any of the other Appellants or impact on the un-appealed portions of ZBL 2022-053.

PARTY/PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS

5At the First CMC, Participant Status was granted to Ray and Stacie Stanton.

6Prior to the First CMC, the Tribunal had received two Party Status requests from: Augustinian Fathers (Ontario) Inc. (“AFOI”); and collectively from Greg Thompson, Wellesley Thompson, and Shayna Belzycki (“TTB”). At the First CMC, the Tribunal was advised that the Township objected to these requests as the requesters would have to shelter under the issues raised by the current Appellants, in accordance with Rule 8.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), but it was not clear how they did so. It was contemplated that a motion under subsection 34(24.2) of the Act may be required. The Party Status requests were deferred to allow the Township and those requesting status to continue their discussions and determine whether a motion would be required.

7At the Second CMC, the Township’s counsel advised that fruitful discussions had taken place with AFOI and no motion was necessary at this time. However, the discussions were ongoing and no final agreement had been reached. As such, the Township and AFOI collectively requested that this Party Status request be held in abeyance until the discussions concluded.

8With respect to the Party Status request from TTB, the Township advised at the Second CMC that no further information or motion material had been received, and the sheltering issue had not been clarified. TTB’s Counsel explained that a number of appeals had yet to be scoped, and TTB was awaiting the finalization of the scoping exercises in order to determine which appeal it could shelter under. As those discussions were ongoing (discussed in further detail below), TTB requested that its Party Status request also be held in abeyance until at least the next CMC, wherein they would be in a better position to address this.

9The Tribunal enquired as to whether the lack of determination on these requests for status would negatively impact the upcoming procedural steps in this matter. With respect to AFOI’s request, both the Township’s Counsel and AFOI’s Counsel advised that it would not negatively impact the upcoming procedural steps, with the Township indicating that AFOI’s status request would likely be rendered moot in the near future. With respect to TTB’s request, TTB’s Counsel explained that, since TTB could only shelter under an existing appeal, procedural matters could be addressed despite their status as a Party remaining unknown. The Tribunal was persuaded by these explanations and, as such, these status requests will remain in abeyance until the next CMC. The Tribunal directed that AFOI and TTB advise the Tribunal as soon as practicable regarding their intentions in this matter.

SCOPING APPEALS, DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER, AND ISSUES LIST

10At the First CMC, the Township advised that three Appellants had filed Township-wide appeals and were asked to scope those appeals, or in the alternative, a motion may be required. Those three Appellants were, in accordance with the numerical chart at Schedule 1: Appellant 6, Appellant 8, and Appellant 10.

11At the Second CMC, the Township advised that discussions were ongoing between the Township and those three Appellants to finalize the scoping of those appeals on a property- or area-specific basis. The Township’s Counsel advised that no contested motion was expected, and the Parties were close to reaching an agreement on the scoping of those appeals. As such, the Township’s Counsel indicated, and the Parties agreed, that issues had been sufficiently identified to allow for procedural aspects, such as scheduling of the Hearings, to be addressed at this Second CMC.

12Of note, the Township’s Counsel advised that some of the issues raised by Appellant 10 deal with future residential zones, and may overlap with the same Appellant’s issues raised in the Township’s urban Bylaw matter before the Tribunal under case number PL170869. This would be dealt with under the urban Bylaw appeal and may have to be addressed in that case.

13Prior to the Second CMC, the Parties provided the Tribunal with a draft Procedural Order (“PO”) and Issues List (“IL”), which was reviewed at the Second CMC. It was clarified in the draft PO that two Phased Hearings would be required, with the appeals being grouped into two main groups.

14At the Second CMC, the Parties advised that the appeals were largely independent from each other, but there were certain factors that would allow them to be grouped together. The grouping of the appeals was still being finalized. The Parties requested that a Third CMC be scheduled, wherein the Parties could advise of the groupings of the appeals, and which appeal would be addressed at which Hearing. However, despite this uncertainty, the Parties were in agreement that the Hearings could be scheduled, and that they would be independent from one another, in the sense that one Hearing would not be dependent on the Decision from the other, and that Parties in one Hearing would not necessarily need to attend the other.

15Two Hearings have now been scheduled with further details provided below in this Decision.

16The Parties were instructed to provide a final version of the PO and IL to the Tribunal and have now done so. The PO and IL, attached to this Decision as Schedule 2, will govern these proceedings.

TOWNSHIP’S Motion REQUEST

17The Township requested that, once the scoping of the appeals of Appellants 6, 8, and 10 is finalized, the Township proceed to bring a motion pursuant to section 34(31) of the Act seeking an Order approving the portions of ZBL 2022-053 that are not under appeal, such that the uncontested parts of ZBL 2022-053 can be brought into force as soon as possible.

18The other Parties did not oppose this request and the request was granted by the Tribunal.

19A motion in writing was scheduled for July 17, 2023 to consider the Township’s request that the un-appealed portions of ZBL 2022-053 be approved and brought into force. The Parties were directed to submit any motion materials in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules.

MEDIATION AND SETTLEMENT

20The Tribunal raised the issue of opportunities for settlement discussions, reminding the Parties that, should they wish to pursue Tribunal-assisted mediation, they may make a written request to the Tribunal through the Case Coordinator for those services. The Parties advised that discussions were ongoing with the aim of resolving as many issues as are possible to resolve.

THIRD CMC

21The Township requested that a Third CMC be scheduled to address any settlements that may have been achieved by then, and to finalize the grouping of the appeals with respect to each of the phased Hearings. The other Parties agreed. As such, a third CMC was scheduled, and is to take place by video on Thursday, October 5, 2023, at 10 a.m.

22Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video CMC at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections using the following coordinates:

https://meet.goto.com/996288525

Access code: 996-288-525

23Parties 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.

24Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line: (Toll-Free): 1-888 455 1389 or (647) 497-9391. The access code is as indicated above.

25Individuals 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 CMC by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the CMC event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

PHASED HEARINGS

26As discussed above and clarified in the PO, it was proposed that the appeals be divided into two phases, such that related policy areas can be dealt with at the same time, but Parties are not compelled to attend portions of the hearing in which they have no interest. The phases could proceed independent of each other.

27Two Hearings were scheduled at this Second CMC, with the first phase to proceed on December 4 to 15, 2023, and the second phase to proceed on January 8 to 19, 2024. However, subsequent to the CMC, the Parties requested that the first phase hearing dates be vacated, with January 8 to 19, 2024 being utilized for the first phase hearing, and new dates to be obtained for the second phase. This request was granted.

28As such, the two Hearings are now scheduled as follows:

Phase One Hearing:

Monday, January 8, 2024, to Friday, January 19, 2024, spanning ten (10) days

Go To Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541

Access code: 638-422-541

Audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 or (647) 497-9373

Audio-only access code: 638-422-541

Phase Two Hearing:

Monday, March 11, 2024, to Friday, March 22, 2024, spanning ten (10) days

Go To Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365

Access code: 709-076-365

Audio-only telephone line: (Toll Free) 1-888-299-1889 or (647) 497-9373

Audio-only access code: 709-076-365

29Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video hearings at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections, and to join the event using the coordinates indicated at paragraph [28] of this Decision.

30Parties 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.

31Persons 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, as indicated above.

32Individuals 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 CMC event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

Appellant 15’s Consolidation of Appeals and second cmc

33At the First CMC, Appellant number 15 on Schedule 1, who is 2593033 Ontario Limited o/a Weston Garden Centre (“Appellant 15”), indicated that it had a site-specific appeal (Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Site Plan Approval) before the Tribunal under Tribunal case numbers OLT-22-004321 and OLT-22-004322. A first CMC had already taken place on those matters wherein all Parties and Participants had been identified and proper notice had been confirmed.

34At the First CMC for this subject appeal (OLT-22-004723), Appellant 15 sought a consolidation of its site-specific appeal with the Township-wide appeal, and this consolidation was granted in accordance with Rule 16 of the Rules.

35However, as Appellant 15 and the Township’s Counsels explained at the Second CMC, the consolidation had occurred in reverse. Namely, Appellant 15’s site-specific matters (OLT-22-004321 and OLT-22-004322) were added to the Township-wide Rural Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) proceeding (OLT-22-004723) instead of the other way around. Both Counsel requested that the consolidation be inverted, with the site-specific appeals being removed from the Township-wide appeal. The issues raised by Appellant 15 in the Township-wide appeal would be best dealt with in the site-specific appeal, and did not need to be dealt with at this Township-wide appeal.

36Upon further inquiry, Appellant 15 and the Township explained that the site-specific ZBA / Site Plan Appeal are to be the lead case with the Rural ZBL appeal being the child case. The Tribunal agreed that Appellant 15’s Township-wide appeal issues were tied to the site-specific matters, rather than the other way around, and the site-specific matters would be the main file to be addressed in a future Hearing, with the issues raised in the Township-wide appeal as part of that Hearing. In short, Appellant 15’s site-specific planning appeals (OLT-22-004321 and OLT-22-004322) are consolidated with Appellant 15’s appeal in OLT Case No. OLT-22-004723, and will no longer be adjudicated as part of this proceeding.

37Appellant 15’s Counsel subsequently requested that a Second CMC for the consolidated matter be scheduled in order to address procedural matters in the appeals of Appellant 15’s issues in OLT-22-004321, OLT-22-004322, and OLT-22-004723. The Tribunal granted this request, and a second CMC is scheduled for this matter to address procedural issues and prepare that matter for a Hearing. The Tribunal notes that the consolidation between these files is to be confirmed by the Adjudicator presiding over the Second CMC, when all three files (OLT-22-004321, OLT-22-004322, and OLT-22-004723) are before the Tribunal.

38The second CMC has now been scheduled to take place by video on Friday, October 6, 2023, at 10 a.m. The Parties are directed to provide a draft Procedural Order and Issues List, for the Tribunal’s review and consideration, by Friday, September 29, 2023.

39Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video CMC at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections using the following coordinates:

https://meet.goto.com/996288525

Access code: 996-288-525

40Parties 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.

41Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoToMeeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to the event by calling into an audio-only telephone line (Toll-Free): 1-888 455 1389 or (647) 497-9391. The access code is as indicated above.

42Individuals 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 CMC by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the CMC event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.

ORDER

43The Tribunal Orders as follows:

a. The Party Status requests for Augustinian Fathers (Ontario) Inc. and collectively from Greg Thompson, Wellesley Thompson, and Shayna Belzycki will remain in abeyance. The Parties are to provide a status update to the Tribunal on or before the Third Case Management Conference with respect to these requests.

b. The Township is to bring a motion in writing seeking approval of the un-appealed potions of Zoning By-Law No. 2022-053, and the motion is scheduled to take place on Monday, July 17, 2023.

c. A third Case Management Conference is scheduled to take place on Thursday, October 5, 2023, at 10 a.m., by video hearing, and one day has been set aside.

d. The Procedural Order and Issues List, attached as Schedule 2 to this Decision, shall govern this proceeding.

e. The Phase One Hearing in this matter will be held by video, starting on Monday, January 8, 2024 commencing at 10 a.m., and ten (10) days have been set aside.

f. The Phase Two Hearing in this matter will be held by video, starting on Monday, March 11, 2024 commencing at 10 a.m., and ten (10) days have been set aside.

g. Tribunal file numbers OLT-22-004723 and OLT-22-004321/OLT-22-004322 remain consolidated in keeping with Rule 16 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. However, the Tribunal further orders that the consolidation has been inverted, and OLT-22-004321/OLT-22-004322 have been removed from the herein matter, with Appellant 15’s particular issues being dealt with separately.

i. A second Case Management Conference is scheduled to address procedural matters pertaining to OLT-22-004321, OLT-22-004322, and Appellant 15’s issues under OLT-22-004723, and is to take place on Friday, October 6, 2023 at 10 a.m., by video hearing. One day has been set aside.

ii. A draft Procedural Order and Issues List is to be provided to the Tribunal by Friday, September 29, 2023.

44The Member is not seized, but may be contacted through the Case Coordinator should procedural issues arise.

“Bita M. Rajaee”

BITA M. RAJAEE MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE 1

Appellant	Counsel/Representative*:

1. Vito Pacifico | Milovan Prelevic
2. Robert Scheinberg B & D Love Inc. | Steven Ferri, Alexandra Whyte, Brendan Ruddick
3. 2731961 Ontario Inc. | Michael Cara, Justine Reyes
4. 1186675 Ontario Ltd. | Steven Ferri, Alexandra Whyte, Brendan Ruddick
5. Heste Corporation | Steven Ferri, Alexandra Whyte, Brendan Ruddick
6. Deborah and David Solomon Weis | Steven Ferri, Alexandra Whyte, Brendan Ruddick
7. Len Payne, Rideau Leasing Corp. | David White
8. Zao Wang, 84 Charing Cross International Inc. | Amber Stewart, Barry Horosko
9. Lloydtown Farms Ltd. | Steven Ferri, Alexandra Whyte, Brendan Ruddick
10. 611428 Ontario Limited | Steven Ferri, Alexandra Whyte, Brendan Ruddick
11. Leading Edge Property Developments Inc. | David White
12. Intentionally left blank | David White
13. Shawn Peebles, Northern Wide Plank Flooring Inc. | David White
14. Tony Nicoletti | Self-represented*
15. 2593033 Ontario Limited (c/o Weston Garden Centre) | Alex Lusty
16. Penwest Holdings Limited | Michael Cara, Justine Reyes
17. Bill and William Bowles Harris | Steven Ferri, Alexandra Whyte, Brendan Ruddick

SCHEDULE 2

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004723

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: See Schedule 1

Subject: By-law No. 2022-053

Description: Rural Countryside Zoning By-Law

Reference Number: Z-2020-03

Property Address: Town Wide

Municipality/UT: Township of King/Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004723

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004723

OLT Case Name: 611428 Ontario Limited. et al. v King (Township)

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 hearing will be divided into two phases, as follows:

• Phase 1:

i. Rural and Agricultural Zones (including Rural Employment Greenbelt Zone) (Part 7)

ii. Oak Ridges Moraine Zones (Part 8)

iii. Highway 11 Corridor

• Phase 2:

i. Hamlet Zones (Part 6)

ii. Other Zones (Part 9)

iii. General Regulations (Parts 1 to 5)

iv. Site-specific matters not dealt with above

3. The video hearing for Phase 1 will begin on January 8, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at the following link: <https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541>

4. The length of the Phase 1 hearing is 10 days (from January 8 to 19, 2024, inclusive). 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 generally found in Attachment 1.

5. The video hearing for Phase 2 will begin on March 11, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at the following link: < https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365>

6. The length of the Phase 2 hearing is 10 days (from March 11 to 22, 2024, inclusive). 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 generally found in Attachment 1.

7. The Parties and Participants identified at the Case Management Conference are set out in Attachment 2.

8. The Issues for Phases 1 and 2 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. An issue can be removed from the Issues List without a formal order of the Tribunal with the consent of all Parties.

9. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 4 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.

10. 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.

11. 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

Phase 1

12. A party who intends to call witnesses with respect to Phase 1, 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 Tuesday October 10, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 33 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.

13. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday October 20, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the Phase 1 hearing. Following the experts’ meeting the Parties must prepare and file a Statement of Agreed Facts and Issues with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Monday October 30, 2023.

14. 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 16 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. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the Township, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements.

15. 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 16 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence.

16. On or before Friday November 10, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and/or expert witness statements for Phase 1 to the other Parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 33 below.

17. On or before Friday November 10, 2023, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement for Phase 1 to the other Parties. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

18. On or before Friday December 8, 2023, the Parties may provide to all other Parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence for Phase 1.

19. On or before Friday December 15, 2023, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 33 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

20. The Parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday December 15, 2023.

Phase 2

21. A party who intends to call witnesses with respect to Phase 2, 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 Tuesday December 12, 2023 and in accordance with paragraph 33 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.

22. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before Friday December 22, 2023 and use best efforts to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the Phase 2 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 Wednesday January 17, 2024.

23. 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 25 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. For greater certainty, each expert witness statement must comply with the minimum content requirements specified in Rule 7.4 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. If the expert witness has prepared any report(s) that he/she intends to rely on at the hearing, and which did not form part of the submissions made to the Township, such report(s) shall be provided to the other Parties at the same as the delivery of expert witness statements.

24. 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 16 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 16 below.

25. On or before Friday January 26, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and/or expert witness statements for Phase 2 to the other Parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 33 below.

26. On or before Friday January 26, 2024, a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement for Phase 2 to the other Parties in accordance with paragraph 33 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

27. On or before Monday February 26, 2024, the Parties may provide to all other Parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence for Phase 2 in accordance with paragraph 33 below.

28. On or before Friday March 1, 2024, the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other Parties. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

29. The Parties shall cooperate to prepare a Joint Document Book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before Friday March 1, 2024.

Requirements for Both Phases

30. A party 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.

31. 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.

32. The Parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal at least 10 days prior to the start of each phase of the hearing 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.

33. All filings shall be submitted electronically and, where feasible, 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.

34. 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.

35. The purpose of this Procedural Order and the meaning of the terms used in this Procedural Order are set out in Attachment 5.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF DATES

PHASE 1

DATE	EVENT
Tuesday October 10, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Friday October 20, 2023	Experts Meeting (if any)
Monday October 30, 2023	Agreed Statement of Facts
Friday November 10, 2023	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Friday December 8, 2023	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Friday December 15, 2023	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
By motion – Materials to be served by moving party 15 days prior to motion date	Change in written evidence, including witness statements (if any)
Friday December 15, 2023	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
Friday December 15, 2023	Finalize Joint Document Book
January 8-19, 2024	Hearing

PHASE 2

DATE	EVENT
Tuesday December 12, 2023	Exchange of witness lists (names, disciplines and order to be called)
Friday December 22, 2023	Experts Meeting (if any)
Wednesday January 17, 2024	Agreed Statement of Facts
Friday January 26, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements, summoned witness outlines, Expert Reports and Participant Statements
Monday February 26, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)
Friday March 1, 2024	Exchange of visual evidence (if any)
By motion – Materials to be served by moving party 15 days prior to motion date	Change in written evidence, including witness statements (if any)
Friday March 1, 2024	Final Work Plan filed with the Tribunal
Friday March 1, 2024	Finalize Joint Document Book
March 11-22, 2024	Hearing

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF PARTIES/PARTICIPANTS

PARTIES

Township of King c/o Tom Halinski (thalinski@airdberlis.com) and Jasmine C.M. Fraser (jcmfraser@airdberlis.com)

1. Vito Pacifico c/o Milovan Prelevic: mprelevic@mlawc.com

2. B&D Love Inc. c/o Steven Ferri: sferri@loonix.com

3. 2731961 Ontario Inc. c/o Michael Cara: mcara@overlandllp.ca

4. 1186675 Ontario Ltd. c/o Steven Ferri: sferri@loonix.com

5. Heste Corporation c/o Steven Ferri: sferri@loonix.com

6. Deborah and David Solomon Weiss c/o Steven Ferri: sferri@loonix.com

7. Rideau Leasing Corp. c/o David White: david.white@devrylaw.ca

8. 84 Charing Cross International Inc. Amber Stewart: amber@amberstewartlaw.com

9. Lloydtown Farms Ltd. c/o Steven Ferri: sferri@loonix.com

10. 611428 Ontario Limited c/o Steven Ferri: sferri@loonix.com

11. Leading Edge Property Developments Inc. c/o David White: david.white@devrylaw.ca

12. [intentionally removed]

13. Northern Wide Plank Flooring Inc. c/o David White: david.white@devrylaw.ca

14. Tony Nicoletti: tonynicoletti@rogers.com

15. [intentionally removed]

16. Penwest Holdings Limited c/o Michael Cara: mcara@overlandllp.ca

17. Bill and William Bowles Harris c/o Steven Ferri: sferri@loonix.com

PARTICIPANTS

1. Ray and Stacie Stanton

ATTACHMENT 3 ISSUES LIST

Note: The identification and wording of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any party that the issue is relevant, appropriate, accurately-worded, or that the Tribunal has jurisdiction over it. The identification of an issue by a party indicates that party’s framing of the question and intent to tender evidence and/or make submissions on it, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other parties the case they need to meet.

Vito and Marianne Pacifico, Appeal No. 1

1. Have the lands at 12490 Mill Road been zoned properly in the King Township Rural Countryside Zoning By-law?

2. Have the above-referenced lands been down-zoned from Rural General (RU1) Zone pursuant to former Zoning By-law 74-54 to Greenbelt Natural Heritage (GNH) Zone pursuant to King Township Rural Countryside Zoning By-law? If yes, is King Township justified in down-zoning the above-referenced lands?

3. What is the appropriate zoning for the above-referenced lands?

B&D Love Inc. and Robert Scheinberg, Appeal No. 2

4. Should Zoning By-law No. 2022-053 be put into effect on 1265 and 1405 19th Sideroad without revision?

2731961 Ontario Inc., Appeal No. 3

5. Should a site-specific exception be added to Township of King By-law No. 2022-053 (the “By-law”) to identify the uses at 13235 11th Concession Road (the “Property”) that lawfully existed prior to the adoption of the By-law (a residential dwelling that contains one (1) apartment unit, a converted barn that contains eleven (11) apartment units, and accessory structures).

6. Does Section 3.27 of the By-law provide appropriate recognition and permission for uses that lawfully existed prior to the adoption of the By-law, as referenced in Issue 5, to continue?

7. Are the proposed permitted uses and development standards for the Property unduly restrictive?

8. Should Section 7.5 of the By-law be amended to include “Additional Residential Units” and “Converted Dwellings” as permitted uses under the Agricultural (A) Zone?

9. Is it appropriate for Section 1.17.3 of the By-law to provide that the “Transition” provisions of the By-law shall automatically lapse and be deleted three years after the date of the passing of the By-law?

10. Is the By-law consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) including but not limited to the promotion of efficient land use and development patterns (Policy 1.0 of the Provincial Policy Statement) and accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types and housing options (Policies 1.1.1 and 1.4.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement)?

11. Does the By-law conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) including but not limited to the development of a range and mix of housing options such as additional residential units and affordable housing units (Policy 1.2.1 of the Growth Plan) and higher density housing options that can accommodate a range of household sizes in locations that can provide access to transit and other amenities (Policy 2.1 of the Growth Plan).

12. Does the By-law conform with the Region of York Official Plan (2010) including but not limited to policies that encourage a range of housing options for low and moderate income thresholds (Policy 3.5.7 of the Official Plan), building designs that facilitate the creation of additional housing units (Policy 3.5.18 of the Official Plan), and the creation of additional rental units with a full mix and range of unit sizes including family-sized and smaller units (Policy 3.5.20 of the Official Plan).

13. Does the By-law have appropriate regard for the Region of York Official Plan (2022) including but not limited to those policies that promote affordable housing options and additional residential units (Policy 2.3 of the Official Plan)?

14. Is the By-law consistent with the Township of King Official Plan including but not limited to those policies that promote the broadening of housing options that are available in the Township of King (Policy 3.4 of the Official Plan), the use of secondary residential uses as a key source of potential affordable housing units (Policy 3.4.1.8 of the Official Plan), the efficient use of infrastructure within the Township to effectively manage growth and minimize climate change impacts (Policy 1.3 of the Official Plan), and the recognition of legally existing uses in the Township’s Zoning By-laws (Policy 9.1 of the Official Plan)?

15. Does the By-law have sufficient regard for the matters of Provincial interest set out under Section 2 of the Planning Act including the adequate provision of a full range of housing (s. 2(j) of the Planning Act) and the minimization of waste (s. 2(g) of the Planning Act)?

16. Does the By-law constitute good planning?

Deborah and David Solomon Weiss, Appeal No. 6 *

• Issues scoped to only the lands bounded by King Street, Strawberry Lane and Edward Avenue to the north, Dufferin Street to the east, Jane Street to the west, and Highway 9 to the south.

17. Should the permitted uses in the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) and Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core and Linkage (ORL) zone and general provisions specifically, under the Proposed Zoning By-law ("ZBL"), permit the continuation of the existing long-established event venue as an on-farm diversified use on the 17900 Dufferin Street, King Township ("Subject Lands")?

18. Is the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) and Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core and Linkage (ORL) zone under the ZBL more restrictive than the Oak Ridges Moraine polices and permitted uses under Section 13 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan ("ORMCP") for lands within Prime Agricultural Area? If so, is this appropriate and represent good land use planning?

19. Does the ZBL conform with Part 1, Section 6(1) of the ORMCP in terms of providing permission for existing uses, buildings, and structures that were lawfully established on November 15, 2001?

20. Is the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) and Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core and Linkage (ORL) zone under the ZBL consistent with Sections 1.1.4.1(a)(f)(g)(i), 1.3.1, 1.7.1 (a)(c)(h), 2.3.2, and 2.3.3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS")?

21. Is the ZBL required to conform or be consistent with applicable Provincial Guidelines (including the Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas, publication 851)? If so, does it conform or is it consistent? If not, should regard be had to the Provincial Guidelines and if so, has appropriate regard been had?

22. Do the existing uses at the Subject Property comply with the PPS and applicable Provincial Guidelines? If so, should such use be specifically permitted under section 8.2 of the By-law?

23. Does the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) and Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core and Linkage (ORL) zone under the ZBL conform with Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of the 2010 Region of York Official Plan (“2010 Region OP”)?

24. Is the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) and Oak Ridges Moraine Natural Core and Linkage (ORL) zone under the Proposed ZBL more restrictive than the land use permissions under the approved Official Plan (Our King) ("King OP") land use designation on Schedule E - Agricultural Area?

25. Does the proposed zoning of the property conform with policies 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 6.3, 6.3.1.7, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.8.1, 7.4, and 7.5 of the King OP?

26. Is the proposed Zoning By-law as it applies the Subject Property overly restrictive?

27. Does the proposed Zoning By-law represent good planning?

Len Payne (Rideau Leasing Corp), Appeal No. 7

28. Is the proposed Greenbelt Natural Heritage (GNH) zone consistent with the approved policies of the Township of King Official Plan “Our King”, specifically, Section 6.12.2 and the Special Policy Area #2 for the Highway #11 Corridor?

29. Is the Future Use (F) zone more appropriate for the land given the stated intent to undertake a special land use study for the Highway 11 corridor area including the subject property?

30. Is the Future Use zone consistent with and does it carry forward the current Transition (T) zone under Zoning By-law 74-53 as provided for under the Transitional policies of the Greenbelt Plan (Section 5.2.1)?

84 Charing Cross International Inc., Appeal No. 8 *

• Issues scoped to only the lands identified on Schedule E to the Township’s Our King Official Plan 2019 as the Countryside Site-Specific Policy Area 2 (C-SPPA-2) (i.e., the Highway 11 Corridor Area).

31. [No issues submitted prior to circulation of procedural order]

Lloydtown Farms Ltd., Appeal No. 9

32. Is the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) zone under the Proposed Zoning By-law ("ZBL") more restrictive than the Oak Ridges Moraine polices and permitted uses under Section 13 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan ("ORMCP") for lands within Prime Agricultural Area? If so, is this appropriate and represent good land use planning?

33. Is the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) zone under the ZBL consistent with Sections 1.1.4.1(a)(f)(g)(i), 1.3.1, 1.7.1 (a)(c)(h), 2.3.2, and 2.3.3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS")?

34. Is the ZBL required to conform or be consistent with applicable Provincial Guidelines (including the Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas, publication 851)? If so, does it conform or is it consistent? If not, should regard be had to the Provincial Guidelines and if so, has appropriate regard been had?

35. Does the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) zone under the ZBL conform with the Region of York Official Plan 2010 (“2010 Region OP”), including Section 6.3.2, 6.3.10, 6.3.14?

36. Does the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) zone under the ZBL conform with Section 5.1 of the 2022 Region of York Official Plan (“2022 Region OP”)? Should the ZBL conform with Section 5.1 of the 2022 Region OP? If not, should regard be had to Section 5.1 of the 2022 Region OP?

37. Is the proposed Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside (ORC) zone under the ZBL more restrictive than the land use permissions under the approved Official Plan (Our King) ("King OP") land use designation on Schedule E - Agricultural Area?

38. Does the proposed zoning of the property conform with policies 3.8.1, 3.8.2, 6.3, 6.3.1.7, 6.3.2, 6.3.3, 6.8.1, 7.4, and 7.5 of the King OP?

39. Is the Proposed Zoning By-law as it applies to the Subject Property overly restrictive?

40. Does the Proposed Zoning By-law represent good planning?

611428 Ontario Limited, Appeal No. 10 *

• Issues scoped to (i) the lands municipally known as 4670 18th Sideroad, (ii) all lands zoned Future Use (F) by the Township’s Zoning By-law, and (iii) the lands municipally known as 13760 Keele Street.

** Issues 41 to 46 below will be moved to the joint hearing with appeal of Zoning By-law 2017-66 in OLT Case No. OLT-22-003300 (formerly PL170869) and the wording will be finalized through that process.

*** Issue 54 below may be challenged at a future Case Management Conference, if the party status request by Augustinian Fathers Ontario Inc. is not withdrawn.

41. Does the "Future Use" zone in King Township Zoning By-law No. 2022-053 conform to the Planning Act, including sections 2 and 26? **

42. Does the proposed "Future Use" zone in King Township Zoning By-law No. 2022-053 conform to applicable Provincial plans, including the Growth Plan, Greenbelt Plan, and Oak Ridges Moraine Plan? **

43. Is the proposed "Future Use" zone in King Township Zoning By-law No. 2022-053 consistent with applicable Provincial policies, including the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020? **

44. Does the proposed "Future Use" zone in King Zoning By-law 2022-053 conform to the applicable municipal policies of the York Region Official Plan 2010 and King Township Official Plan? **

45. Does the proposed "Future Use" zone in King Township Zoning By-law No. 2022-053 represent good planning and is it in the public interest? **

46. Is the proposed "Future Use" zone in King Township Zoning By-law No. 2022-053 overly restrictive? **

47. If Issues 41 to 45 above are answered in the negative and/or if Issue 46 above is answered in the positive, what modifications to King Township Zoning By-law No. 2022-053 are required?

48. Does the "Hamlet Rural" zoning of the 611428 Ontario Limited lands in conform to applicable Provincial plans, including the Growth Plan?

49. Is the "Hamlet Rural" zoning of the 611428 Ontario Limited lands consistent with applicable Provincial policies, including the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020?

50. Does the proposed "Hamlet Rural" zoning of the 611428 Ontario Limited lands conform to the applicable municipal policies of the York Region Official Plan and King Township Official Plan?

51. What additional uses should be permitted in the proposed "Future Use" zone and "Hamlet Rural" zone of the 611428 Ontario Limited lands? What should the applicable zoning standards of same be?

52. Is it appropriate to zone the 611428 Ontario Limited lands HR2 (Hamlet Residential 2) in a manner consistent with the zoning of the adjacent lands? If so, does the HR2 conform to 6.1.10.1 of the Official Plan?

53. Is it appropriate to include a holding symbol to demonstrate 6.2.10.1 (2) prior to lot creation?

54. Should section 1(a) of exception No. 243 be amended to include “Long Term Care Home” and uses accessory to a “Long Term Care Home” as additional permitted uses? ***

2516487 Ontario Inc (Leading Edge Property Developments Inc.), Appeal No. 11

55. Would a broader range of uses in the proposed Rural Employment Greenbelt (RMG) zone be consistent with Section 2.3.6 of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020)?

56. Is the proposed Rural Employment Greenbelt (RMG) zone under the New ZBL more restrictive than the Greenbelt Plan (2017) policies and permitted uses for lands within Prime Agricultural Area (Section 3.1.3)?

57. Is the proposed Rural Employment Greenbelt (RMG) zone under the New ZBL consistent with Section 5.2.1 paragraph #2 of the Greenbelt Plan (2017) for lands which were specifically zoned for specified permitted uses prior to December 16, 2004?

58. Is the proposed Rural Employment Greenbelt (RMG) zone and limitations consistent with the policies of the Region of York Official Plan (2010) Section 4.8.25?

59. Does the proposed Rural Employment Greenbelt (RMG) under the New ZBL restrict the land use permissions under Section 6.9.2 of the approved Township of King Official Plan?

60. Does the proposed Rural Employment Greenbelt (RMG) zone under the New Zoning By-law remove a number of "as-of-right" permitted uses in the current M2 zone under Bylaw 74-53?

61. Does the limitation of the permitted uses under Section 7.2 of the New Zoning By-law renders existing uses essentially as "legal non-conforming" with the implied intention that such use cease to exist in the long run?

62. Do the provisions of Section 7.9 of the New Zoning By-law and the limitation to permit only existing uses represent hardship in terms of both the continuation and expansion of previous lead authorized non-residential uses?

63. Does Section 7.9 of the New By-law limit legally existing uses, to the existing floor area, area of parking, open storage and any other outdoor activity associated with the legally existing uses and effectively render affected RMG zoned properties as legal nonconforming which is contrary to the intent and purpose of the Transitional policies of the Greenbelt Plan as well as the policies of the Township of King and Region of York Official Plan (2010)?

Northern Wide Plank Flooring Inc. - 5930 Lloydtown Aurora Road - Appeal No. 13

A. General Issues related to the Township’s Countryside By-law 2022-053

64. Does the proposed planning instrument have appropriate regard to the Greenbelt Plan (Section 5.2), particular as it relates to the specific issues listed below?

65. Does the proposed planning instrument have appropriate regard to Section 8.4.25 of the Region’s 2010 Official Plan, particular as it relates to the specific issues related below?

66. Does the proposed planning instrument have appropriate regard to Sections 6.9.2.1 and 6.9.2.3 of the Township’s Official Plan, particular as it relates to the specific issues related below?

67. What are the appropriate permitted uses for the subject land given the historical Industrial General zoning?

B. Specific Issues related to the Township’s Countryside By-law 2022-053

68. Section 7.2 and Table 7-2 of the Countryside By-law only permit: Agricultural uses, Legally existing uses and On-Farm diversified uses. The Countryside By-law does not consider the long standing permitted uses under the Industrial General (M2) zoning. Given the long standing existing zoning and the established use of the subject land, is it not appropriate to permit additional uses as contemplated in the Greenbelt Plan, Region Official Plan and Town Official Plan?

69. Section 7.3 and Table 7-3 of the Countryside By-law for a minimum Side Yard setback of 9.0m(1). Special provision (1) provides that where a Rural Employment or Rural Employment Greenbelt zone abuts a residential uses or Future Use zone, the minimum required yard where the zone so abuts shall be 30.0m. Given the existing and approved use of the subject land has a setback less than 30.0m to the easterly side lot line, where a dwelling is located would it not be more appropriate to recognize the existing setback to the easterly side lot line?

70. Section 7.9 a) of the Countryside By-law reference Section 24 (Transition) of the Greenbelt Act. Section 24 of the Greenbelt Act speaks to the Time of commencement for applications, matters or proceedings. Is this an appropriate reference in the Countryside By-law?

71. Section 7.9 b) of the Countryside By-law limits legally existing uses (not otherwise permitted in the zone) to the existing floor area, area of parking, open storage and any other outdoor activity associated with the legally existing use and shall not be increased. This provision effectively makes any legally existing use, legal non-conforming. Is this appropriate given the long standing Industrial General zoning of the subject land and the transition polices found within the Greenbelt Plan, Region Official Plan and Town Official Plan?

72. Section 7.9 c) of the Countryside By-law provides “Expansions to existing buildings and structures, including accessory buildings, structures and uses, conversions of uses, new buildings, structures and uses shall not be permitted without an approval under Section 34/41 and/or 45 of the Planning Act”. This just affirms the legal non-conforming status noted in #70 above. Is this appropriate given the long standing Industrial General zoning of the subject land, the transition polices found within the Greenbelt Plan, Region Official Plan and Town Official Plan, and the fact that any expansion would require an application under Section 41 of the Planning Act?

Tony Nicoletti , Appeal No. 14

73. Should an exception zone be added to Township of King By-Law No. 2022-053 (the “By-Law”) for the property 675 Kettleby Rd, to identify site specific zoning exceptions such as the uses, setbacks, coverages and other zoning permissions that lawfully existed prior to the adoption of the By-Law and any additional uses and development standards that would be consistent and in conformity with provincial, regional, township policies and plans?

74. Is the HU zone an appropriate zone designation for 675 Kettleby Rd?

75. Does the HU zone, more specifically as it pertains to 675 Kettleby Rd, a property located within hamlet of Kettleby, conform to General Hamlet Policies of the Township of King Official Plan?

76. Is a 3-metre front and exterior yard setback appropriate for 675 Kettleby Rd?

77. Is an 11-metre height for agricultural buildings appropriate for 675 Kettleby Rd?

78. Is 60% coverage for greenhouses appropriate for 675 Kettleby Rd?

79. Should the uses provided by a RU1 zone in the previous enacted By-Law 74-53, such as allowing for agricultural produce storage facilities and commercial greenhouses be maintained for 675 Kettleby Rd?

80. Would pre-zoning for 675 Kettleby Rd be appropriate and consistent with the Planning Act and other provincial policies where pre-zoning is the application of a zone that mirrors exactly the permissions contained in an Official Plan?

81. Should a definition for “vertical farm” be defined in the By-Law and would it be an appropriate use for 675 Kettleby Rd where a definition for a vertical farm be similar to a definition as provided in the City of Vaughan's zoning by-law, that a “Vertical Farm: means a building or part of a building used for the indoor production, harvesting, processing, storage and distribution of agricultural crops”?

82. In respect to 675 Kettleby Rd, a property located in a settlement area as defined by provincial policies, does the By-Law:

(a) act consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement issued under section 3(1) of the Planning Act;

(b) conform with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;

(c) conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan;

(d) conform with the applicable York Region Official Plan; and

(e) conform with the Township of King Official Plan?

83. Does the By-Law constitute good planning in respect to 675 Kettleby Rd?

Penwest Holdings Limited, Appeal No. 16

84. Should Township of King By-law No. 2022-053 (the “By-law”) be modified as it relates to the lands municipally known as 945 15th Side Road (the “Property”) to expressly permit legally existing uses and buildings/structures that were approved for the lands (Township File No. SPD-2010-04).

85. Does Section 3.27 of the By-law provide appropriate recognition and permission for uses that lawfully existed prior to the adoption of the By-law to continue?

86. Are the proposed permitted uses and development standards for the Property unduly restrictive?

87. Is it appropriate for Section 1.17.3 of the By-law to provide that the “Transition” provisions of the By-law shall automatically lapse and be deleted three years after the date of the passing of the By-law?

88. Is the By-law consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020)?

89. Does the By-law conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020)?

90. Does the By-law conform with the Region of York Official Plan (2010)?

91. Does the By-law conform with the Township of King Official Plan?

92. Does the By-law have sufficient regard for the matters of Provincial interest set out under Section 2 of the Planning Act?

93. Does the By-law constitute good planning?

94. Do the provisions of Section 7.9 of the New Zoning By-law require applications under Section 34 and/or 45 of the Planning Act for any change of the use or expansion and does this create an unduly onerous process for RMG zoned properties relative to other available processes or mechanisms such as Site Plan Control?

Bill and William Bowles Harris, Appeal No. 17

95. Is the proposed OS zone and the associated permitted uses consistent with the range of permitted uses in Prime Agricultural areas as established under Section 2.3.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement?

96. Is the proposed OS zone and Proposed Zoning By-law ("ZBL") required to conform or be consistent with applicable Provincial Guidelines (including the Guidelines on Permitted Uses in Ontario's Prime Agricultural Areas, publication 851)? If so, does it conform or is it consistent? If not, should regard be had to the Provincial Guidelines and if so, has appropriate regard been had?

97. Is the proposed OS zone under the ZBL more restrictive than the policies and permissions outlined in the Greenbelt Plan (2017) and permitted uses for lands within Prime Agricultural Area? Is the proposed OS zone in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan (2017)?

98. Does the proposed (OS) zone conform with the Agricultural designation in the 2010 Region of York Official Plan (“2010 Region OP”) and the permitted uses under Sections 6.2 and 6.3 the 2022 Region OP?

99. Does the proposed (OS) zone conform with the Agricultural designation in the 2022 Region of York Official Plan (“2022 Region OP”) (Map 1A) and the permitted uses under Section 5.1.4.and 5.1.5 of the 2022 Region OP? Should the ZBL conform with Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the 2022 Region OP? If not, should regard be had to Sections 5.1.4 and 5.1.5 of the 2022 Region OP?

100. Is the proposed OS zone under the ZBL more restrictive than land use permissions and permitted uses under Section 6.3.2 & 6.3.3 of the Township of King Official Plan ("King OP") land use designation on Schedule E - Agricultural Area? Does the OS zone conform with the King OP?

101. Should the permitted uses in the proposed OS zone and general provisions of the ZBL permit new, or the continuation of existing established, agricultural uses, agricultural-related uses, and on-farm diversified uses on the lands?

102. Should the proposed OS zone under the ZBL remove a number of "as-of-right" permitted uses in the current OS zone under By-law 74-53, as amended?

103. Does the limitation to permit only existing uses as defined in the ZBL present an undue hardship to the ownership in terms of both the continuation and expansion of both residential and agricultural uses in the various landholdings where the OS zone is proposed to be applied?

104. Are the permitted uses in the proposed OS zone too restrictive in that they do not include agricultural uses, agricultural related uses and on-farm diversified uses as provided for in the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), the Greenbelt Plan (2017) as well as the approved land uses designations of the King OP and the 2022 Region OP/2010 Region OP?

105. Is the Greenbelt Natural Heritage (GNH) zone category more appropriate zoning for the subject lands?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

1. Township of King

2. Parties in support of above

3. Parties in opposition

4. Reply by Township of King

ATTACHMENT 5

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.

53179723.7