Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
September 29, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-000548
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment
Description:
To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number:
OZS19-016
Property Address:
35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT:
Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-000548
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-000548
OLT Case Name:
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited v. Guelph (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description:
To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number:
OZS19-016
Property Address:
35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT:
Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-000549
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-000548
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Subject:
Proposed Plan of Subdivision–Failure of Approval Authority to make a decision
Description:
To permit the redevelopment of the brownfield to a new mixed-use neighbourhood
Reference Number:
OZS19-016
Property Address:
35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South
Municipality/UT:
Guelph/Wellington
OLT Case No:
OLT-23-000550
OLT Lead Case No:
OLT-23-000548
Heard:
September 19, 2023 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc.
Tom Halinski
City of Guelph
Allison Thornton and Ian White (Student-at-Law)
Canadian National Railway Company
Kevin Pirak
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY N. Eisazadeh ON september 19, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on an appeal filed by Silvercreek Guelph Developments Limited and 2089248 Ontario Inc. (the “Appellants”) of the failure by the City of Guelph (“City”) to make a decision within the legislative time frame pursuant to s. 22(7) on an application to amend the Official Plan (“OPA”), s. 34(11) for an amendment to the Zoning By-law (“ZBA”), and s. 51(34) for a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) under the Planning Act (“Act”), pertaining to the properties municipally known as 35, 40 and 55 Silvercreek Parkway South, in the City (“Subject Land”).
2The applications under appeal seek to permit the redevelopment of the currently vacant brownfield site, more commonly known as the former Lafarge quarry, to a new mixed-use neighbourhood.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
3The Parties advised there were no issues known to them respecting the service of the notice of this CMC. The Affidavit of Service of Natalie Hickey, sworn on August 24, 2023, was marked as Exhibit 1.
STATUS REQUESTS
4The Tribunal received three written requests seeking Party/Participant status.
5The first Party status request was from Canadian National Railway Company (“CN Rail”) dated September 7, 2023. The Tribunal is satisfied that the Subject Land abuts a CN Rail line and that, as a result, CN Rail has a direct interest in the Proposed Development to address any potential conflict between the railway operations and the adjacent land uses. The statutory Parties not opposing, the Tribunal orders that CN Rail is granted Party Status in this proceeding.
6The second Party status request was filed by Ron Foley, on behalf of the Howitt Park Neighbourhood Residents’ Association (“HPNRA”), of which he is President. Mr. Foley was not in attendance at the CMC. However, Mr. Halinski advised that Mr. Foley’s absence may be due to a medical appointment that posed a scheduling conflict. Mr. Halinski further advised that he is familiar with Mr. Foley as the long-time head of the HPNRA who have been involved as a Party in prior Ontario Municipal Board proceedings occurring in 2008 and 2019, involving the same Subject Lands. Mr. Halinski took no issue with HPNRA’s Party status request. The Tribunal accepted the HPNRA as having a direct interest in this Appeal as neighbouring landowners and residents. The other Parties not opposing, the Tribunal orders that the HPNRA, represented by Mr. Foley, is granted Party Status in this proceeding.
7The final request for Participant status was filed by Michael White. While Mr. White was not in attendance at the CMC, the Parties accepted the presumption that Mr. White is a resident in close proximity to the Subject Lands, thereby having a direct interest in these proceedings. With Mr. Halinski’s undertaking to verify Mr. White’s residential information, and the Parties not opposing, the Tribunal orders that Mr. White be granted Participant Status in this proceeding.
RELATED APPEAL
8Mr. Halinski raised a preliminary point regarding a City initiated review of its Comprehensive Zoning By-law (“COB”) as well as a companion OPA, to which his clients are also Appellants, and the appeal is currently proceeding separately before this Tribunal under OLT Case No.(s). OLT-23-000462 (“Related Appeal”). The point was raised for the benefit of the Tribunal, being mindful that reconciliation of the separate processes would be required to ensure the most efficient use of resources and to avoid potentially inconsistent rulings.
9It was proposed by Mr. Halinski, with the agreement of the other present Parties that this issue could more appropriately be addressed at the next CMC for the Related Appeals either by way of a request for a consolidation order or a request for the Related Appeal to be put in abeyance pending the final outcome of the current Appeal. The Tribunal agreed that this was an appropriate course of action and that further direction on this issue was not required on the current Appeal at this time.
MERIT HEARING
10Given the various iterations and resubmissions of the development proposal from that within the original application, Counsel for the City advised that the City remained in the process of formulating its Issues List (“IL”), which would subsequently be circulated among the Parties and finalized. The City requested sufficient time to afford the respective and involved Planners an opportunity to conduct meetings in order to scope and draft a meaningful IL.
11Given the lengthy history behind the original application and the appeal from a non-decision, Mr. Halinski requested that the filing date for the IL be reduced to 45-days to ensure that the Parties are kept on a forward-moving path in these proceedings.
12The Tribunal agreed that 45 days was a reasonable length of time for the Parties to formulate a finalized IL. The Tribunal saw no reason why the issues could not be resolved, scoped or narrowed further, where possible, even after the filing of an IL. Accordingly, the Tribunal directed that a final Procedural Order (“PO”), inclusive of the IL, shall be filed with the Tribunal by Friday, November 10, 2023. Should the Parties find themselves unable to comply with this directive for any reason, the Tribunal directed a written Status Update with an explanation to be filed with the Case Coordinator by Friday, November 10, 2023. It was agreed that a second CMC may be convened to address any issues that may arise.
13The Parties, having a good understanding of the general matters at issue despite the pending finalization of the IL, agreed that they would require between 12 to 14 days for a hearing on the merits. The Tribunal accepted this as a reasonable estimate and ordered a 14-day hearing by video, to commence on Monday, May 27, 2024 at 10 a.m.
14Parties and Participants are asked to log into the video hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections:
https://meet.goto.com/357283957
Access code: 357-283-957
15Parties 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.
16Persons 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 +1 (647) 497-9391. The access code is the same as indicated above.
17Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the hearing by video to ensure that they are properly connected to the event at the correct time. Questions prior to the hearing event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator having carriage of this case.
18The Tribunal reminded the Parties that should they wish to avail themselves of Tribunal-assisted Mediation services, those arrangements may be made by contacting the Case Coordinator.
19On inquiry as to whether there were any other matters to be addressed by the Tribunal, that might assist in the fair, just and expeditious resolution of this matter, the Parties indicated there were none.
20There will be no further notice.
21The presiding Tribunal Member is not seized but may be spoken to, scheduling permitting, should any issues arise.
“N. Eisazadeh”
N. EISAZADEH
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.