Camarro Developments Inc. v. Burlington (City), 2023 CanLII 92329

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 06, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000415

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

Applicant and Appellant: Camarro Developments Inc.

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

Description: To permit the construction of two residential towers of 30 and 32 storeys with a shared podium of 6 storeys and ground floor retail/commercial space

Reference Number: 505-08/22

Property Address: 1062-1074 Cooke Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000415

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000415

OLT Case Name: Camarro Developments Inc. v. Burlington (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Camarro Developments Inc.

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

Description: To permit the construction of two residential towers of 30 and 32 storeys with a shared podium of 6 storeys and ground floor retail/commercial space

Reference Number: 520-09/22

Property Address: 1062-1074 Cooke Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000416

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000415

Heard: September 01, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Camarro Developments Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”)	Chantal deSereville Denise Baker (in absentia)
City of Burlington (“City”)	Andrea Peebles Blake Hurley (in absentia)
Region of Halton (“Region”)	Brittany Maione Kelly Yerxa (in absentia)
Canadian National Railway Company (“CN”)	Jessica Jakubowski Katarzyna Sliwa (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ASTRID J. CLOS ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

1This was the first Case Management Conference (“CMC”) convened for appeals brought pursuant to s. 22(7) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and s. 34(11) for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) pursuant to the Planning Act (“Act”) due to the failure of council to make a decision within the statutory timeframe related to the property municipally addressed as 1062-1074 Cooke Boulevard (“Subject Property”) located in the City.

2On September 23, 2022, applications for an OPA and ZBA were filed on behalf of the Applicant/Appellant to allow for the redevelopment of the Subject Property. The City deemed the applications complete on November 11, 2022. The Applicant/Appellant subsequently appealed these applications to the Tribunal.

3The Subject Property has approximately 121 metres (“m”) of frontage on Cooke Boulevard and has an approximate area of 0.7 hectares (“ha”). The property is located at the intersection of Cooke Boulevard and Masonry Court in the community of Aldershot within the City.

4The applications proposed a two-phase development consisting of a north residential tower of 32 storeys and a south residential tower of 30 storeys, which will share a six-storey podium fronting onto both Cooke Boulevard and Masonry Court, with a three-storey podium facing the back of the property. A total of 809 residential units and 581 square metres of ground floor retail/commercial space are proposed.

5The Affidavit of Service sworn on July 26, 2023, was entered as Exhibit 1.

PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS

6In response to the notice, a request for Party status was received from the Region. The Tribunal found that this request raises reasonable grounds and genuine land use issues. With no opposition from the other Parties, the requested Party status was granted to the Region by the Tribunal.

7A request for Party status was also received from CN. Jessica Jakubowski, Counsel for CN submitted that her client has been actively engaged through the local planning process and provided written technical comments related to noise, vibration, air quality and safety in response to the circulation of the OPA and ZBA applications. Ms. Jakubowski stated that the Subject Property is located within 300 m of railway lines and that CN has a direct interest in ensuring that new sensitive land uses will be compatible with the function of the railway lines and rail yards. Ms. Jakubowski advised that CN intends to tender the evidence of two expert witnesses at the Merit Hearing.

8Chantal deSereville, Counsel for the Applicant/Appellant noted her client’s objection to Party status being granted to CN. Ms. deSereville argued that the request should be denied, as no supportable land use issues have been raised by CN. Ms. deSereville submitted that existing intervening residential uses already exist within the 300 m setback, including recently OLT approved apartment buildings and further that CN had been granted Party status in that recent hearing which CN then subsequently voluntarily withdrew. Ms. deSereville noted that railway lines and rail yards are treated differently in the various guidelines and argued that the OLT is not bound by these guidelines when making a decision.

9Counsel for the City and the Region advised that their clients had no objection to the request for Party status from CN. Andrea Peebles, Counsel for the City further submitted that CN’s involvement in this hearing is necessary to ensure that any potential impacts or required mitigation are able to be addressed and accommodated by the development proposal for the Subject Property.

10The Tribunal reviewed the CN request for Party status and considered the submissions of the other Parties. The Tribunal concluded that in accordance with Rule 8.2 of the OLT Rules of Practice and Procedure that the presence of CN as a Party is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceeding. The Applicant/Appellant did not demonstrate any significant prejudice resulting from CN being provided Party status. The Tribunal finds that the public interest will be advanced by granting Party status to CN. Accordingly, Party status was granted to CN by the Tribunal.

11In response to the Notice, requests for Participant Status were received from the Aldershot Business Improvement Association, Erik Snyder, and Shatha Alnajar. The Tribunal found that these requests raise genuine land use issues and demonstrate an interest in this matter. With no opposition from the Parties, the Participant status requests were granted by the Tribunal.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

12The Tribunal directed that the Draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) be filed by the parties with the Case Coordinator. The Parties provided the Draft Procedural Order and Issues List to the Case Coordinator on Friday, September 15, 2023. The DPO has been reviewed and is approved by the Tribunal.

MERIT HEARING

13The Parties jointly requested a Merit Hearing for this matter, which they estimated would require 11 days. The Tribunal scheduled an 11-day hearing commencing on Monday, March 25, 2024 at 10 a.m. to April 11, 2024. March 29, 2024, April 1, 2024 and April 8, 2024 are dates that are excluded as hearing days.

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/996288525

Access code: 996-288-525

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: +1 (647) 497-9391 or (Toll-free) 1-888-455-1389. The access code is 996-288-525.

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 requested that the Parties advise the Case Coordinator as soon as it is known if issues have been scoped or a settlement has been reached to allow any unneeded hearing dates to be released from the Tribunal calendar. Hearing dates are a scarce resource that must be used effectively by the Tribunal.

19The Parties were reminded that Tribunal led mediation is available at their convenience by contacting the Case Coordinator.

ORDER

20THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that,

a. Party status is granted to the Regional Municipality of Halton and the Canadian National Railway Company,

b. Participant status is granted to the Aldershot Business Improvement Area, Erik Snyder and Shatha Alnajar,

c. The Draft Procedural Order and Issues List included as Schedule 1 is approved,

d. An 11-day Merit Hearing is scheduled by video commencing on March 25, 2024, at 10 a.m. to April 11, 2024 (excluding March 29, April 1, and April 8, 2024).

18This Member is not seized.

19No further notice will be provided.

“Astrid J. Clos”

ASTRID J. CLOS

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

CASE NO(S): OLT-23-000415

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

Applicant and Appellant: Camarro Developments Inc.

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

Description: To permit the construction of two residential towers of 30 and 32 storeys with a shared podium of 6 storeys and ground floor retail/commercial space

Reference Number: 505-08/22

Property Address: 1062-1074 Cooke Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000415

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000415

OLT Case Name: Camarro Developments Inc. v. Burlington (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Camarro Developments Inc.

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

Description: To permit the construction of two residential towers of 30 and 32 storeys with a shared podium of 6 storeys and ground floor retail/commercial space

Reference Number: 520-09/22

Property Address: 1062-1074 Cooke Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000416

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000415

PROCEDURAL ORDER

1. The Tribunal may vary or add to the directions in this procedural order at any time by an oral ruling or by another written order, either on the parties’ request or its own motion.

Organization of the Hearing

2. The video hearing will begin on March 25, 2024 (date) at 10:00 a.m. via the following link: https://meet.goto.com/996288525

Access code: 996-288-525

3. The parties’ initial estimation for the length of the hearing is 11 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues where possible.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 1 (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 2. There will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits, and a party who asks for changes may have costs awarded against it.

6. The order of evidence shall be as set out in Attachment 3 to this Order. The Tribunal may limit the amount of time allocated for opening statements, evidence in chief (including the qualification of witnesses), cross-examination, evidence in reply and final argument. The length of written argument, if any, may be limited either on the parties’ consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing should provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal as soon as possible – ideally before the case management conference. Any person who will be retaining a representative should advise the other parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number as soon as possible.

8. Any person who intends to participate in the hearing, including parties, counsel and witnesses, is expected to review the Tribunal’s Video Hearing Guide, available on the Tribunal’s website.

Requirements Before the Hearing

9. A party who intends to call witnesses, whether by summons or not, shall provide to the Tribunal and the other parties a list of the witnesses and the order in which they will be called. This list must be delivered on or before November 27, 2023 (date – at least 120 days prior to the start of the hearing) and in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A party who intends to call an expert witness must include a copy of the witness’ Curriculum Vitae and the area of expertise in which the witness is prepared to be qualified.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before December 22, 2023 (at least 90 days before the hearing) 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 January 10, 2024 (date – at least 75 days prior to the start of the hearing).

11. An expert witness shall prepare an expert witness statement, which shall list any reports prepared by the expert, or any other reports or documents to be relied on at the hearing. Copies of this must be provided as in paragraph 13 below. Instead of a witness statement, the expert may file his or her entire report if it contains the required information. If this is not done, the Tribunal may refuse to hear the expert’s testimony.

12. Expert witnesses who are under summons but not paid to produce a report do not have to file an expert witness statement; but the party calling them must file a brief outline of the expert’s evidence as in paragraph 13 below. A party who intends to call a witness who is not an expert must file a brief outline of the witness’ evidence, as in paragraph 13 below.

13. On or before January 25, 2024 (date – at least 60 days prior to the start of the hearing), the parties shall provide copies of their [witness and] expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator and in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before January 25, 2024 (date – at least 60 days prior to the start of the hearing), a participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. A participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

15. On or before February 20, 2024 (date – at least 35 days prior to the start of the hearing) the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before March 11, 2024 ((date – at least 15 days prior to the start of the hearing)), the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all of the other parties in accordance with paragraph 22 below. If a model will be used, all parties must have a reasonable opportunity to view it before the hearing.

17. On or before February 26, 2024 (date – at least 30 days prior to the start of the hearing) Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

18. The parties shall cooperate to prepare a joint document book which shall be shared with the OLT case co-ordinator on or before March 15, 2024 (date – at least 10 days prior to the start of the hearing).

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal. See Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules with respect to Motions, which requires that the moving party provide copies of the motion to all other parties 15 days before the Tribunal hears the motion.

20. A party who provides written evidence of a witness to the other parties must have the witness attend the hearing to give oral evidence, unless the party notifies the Tribunal at least 7 days before the hearing that the written evidence is not part of their record.

21. The parties shall prepare and file a preliminary hearing plan with the Tribunal on or before March 18, 2024 (date – at least 7 days prior to the start 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.

22. All filings shall be submitted electronically and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB in size, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by the Rule 7.

23. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. The Tribunal’s Rule 17 applies to such requests.

This Member is [not] seized.

So orders the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY OF KEY DATES

Date	Hearing Event
November 27, 2023	Exchange of List of Witnesses
December 22, 2023	Expert Witness Meeting
January 10, 2024	Filing of Statement(s) of Agreed Facts and Issues
January 25, 2024	Exchange of Witness Statements
February 26, 2024	Exchange of Reply Witness Statements
January 25, 2024	Delivery of Participant Statements
March 11, 2024	Exchange of Visual Evidence
February 20, 2024	Confirmation to Tribunal if all reserved hearing dates are still required
March 15, 2024	Filing of Joint Document Book
March 18, 2024	Filing of Hearing Plan
March 25, 2024	Hearing Commences

ATTACHMENT 2: PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

Appellant/Party	Counsel	Contact
Camarro Developments Inc.	Denise Baker Chantal deSereville	WeirFoulds LLP Suite 10, 1525 Cornwall Road Oakville, ON L6J 0B2 Phone: 416-947-5090 dbaker@weirfoulds.com cdesereville@weirfoulds.com
City of Burlington	Andrea Peebles	Legal Department 426 Brant Street Burlington, ON L7R 3Z6 Phone: 905-335-7600 ext. 7611 andrea.peebles@burlington.ca
Region of Halton	Kelly Yerxa	Legal Services Legislative & Planning Services Halton Region 905-825-6000 kellyg.yerxa@halton.ca
Canadian National Railway Company	Katarzyna Sliwa Jessica Jakubowski	Dentons Canada LLP Suite 400, 77 King Street West Toronto 416 863 4682 437 223 6814 Kat.sliwa@dentons.com Jessica.jakubowski@dentons.com

Participant	Contact
Shatha Alnajar	9055200716 OR 2894892065 shatha7@yahoo.ca
Erik Snyder	647 701 9660 standingset@gmail.com
Andrea Dodd	andrea@aldeshotbia.ca

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 argument at the hearing.

CITY OF BURLINGTON

1. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have regard for matters of Provincial interest as outlined in The Planning Act?

a) 2 (h), (j), (k), (o), (p), (r)

2. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) given the location and context of the subject lands, and the level of intensification proposed?

a) Managing and Directing Land Use to Achieve Efficient and Resilient Development and Land Use Patterns – 1.1.1 b) c)

• Include more range of unit types as per housing study.

• Ensure shadow study is complete for all 4 months.

• Inclusion of parks

b) Sewage, Water and Stormwater – 1.6.6.1

• The mains along Cooke Blvd. are undersized and need to be upgraded accordingly

c) Public Spaces, Recreation – 1.5.1 a), b)

• Is a comprehensive block planning exercise that includes park space needed

d) Land Use Compatibility – 1.2.6.1

• Comments from CN require revisions to Noise Study to address stationary sources.

3. Do the proposed amendments facilitate appropriate mixed use development by providing sufficient employment uses to support liveable and resilient communities in accordance with the policies contained in:

a) Section 1.3 of the PPS, and

b) Section 2.2.5 of A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019, as amended)(Growth Plan)?

4. Do the proposed amendments provide for a sufficient range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents of the regional market area in accordance with:

a) Sections 1.4.3 & 1.7 of the PPS;

b) Section 2.2.6 of the Growth Plan; and

c) Section 86 of the Halton Region Official Plan (ROP)?

5. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with the Growth Plan, given the proposed scale of development and proposed transition of built form to adjacent areas, specifically considering policies 1.2.1, 2.2.1, 2.2.2(3), 2.2.4, 4.2.10, 5.2.5(6), 5.2.5(8), 5.2.7?

6. Are the proposed non-employment sensitive land uses considered compatible with the major facilities located in proximity to the subject lands in accordance with:

a) Section 1.2.6 of the PPS; and

b) Section 2.2.5(8) of the Growth Plan?

7. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment conform to policies in the Regional Official Plan with specific consideration for the following policies?

a) Development Criteria – Part III, 58

b) Regional Urban Structure – Part III, 78.1

c) Strategic Growth Areas – Part III, 79

d) Urban Growth Centres – Part III, 80

e) Major Transit Station Areas – Part III, 81

f) Proposed Major Transit Station Areas – Part III, 81.2

g) Definitions – Part VI

8. Is the introduction of non-employment uses appropriate and in conformity with the City’s Official Plan?

9. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the City’s New Official Plan, as approved by Halton Region on November 30, 2020 and currently under appeal:

• Chapter 2 – 2.3.1, 2.4.2;

• Chapter 3 – 3.1.1(2), 3.1.3;

• Chapter 4 – 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.6.2, 4.7.2;

• Chapter 5 – 5.1, 5.4.7, 5.4.8;

• Chapter 6 – 6.2.2(2), 6.2.4, 6.2.9(2), 6.2.10;

• Chapter 7;

• Chapter 8 – 8.1, 8.1.2, 8.1.2(3), 8.1.3, 8.1.3(8);

• Chapter 12 – 12.1.1(3) i), 12.1.2(2 to 2.2, excluding 2.2d), 12.1.3;

• Chapter 13 – Definitions (definitions included in the aforementioned policies)

10. Are the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment in conformity with, and do they maintain the intent of, the policies of the City’s Official Plan, including:

• Part I – 3.0 (a, b, e, h)

• Part II – 2.7, 2.8, 2.11, 3.0 (3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.9), 5.0, 6.0 (6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6)

• Part III - 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 2.6, 5.0 (5.2, 5.3, 5.3.4)

• Part VIII – Definitions (definitions included in the aforementioned policies)

11. Is the proposed level of intensification (i.e. building height, FAR, and density) appropriate for the subject lands?

12. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the Council-endorsed land use vision and built form concept for the Aldershot GO Area-Specific Plan and the Cooke Commons Precinct?

13. Does the proposed development represent appropriate urban design in addressing matters including height, density, built form, massing, scale, siting, transitions, building articulation, setbacks, stepbacks, and spacing having regard for the site and the character of the surrounding lands?

14. Does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the applicable Council-approved design guidelines, including the Tall Building Design Guidelines (2017), Sustainable Building and Development Guidelines (2018)?

15. Does the proposed development provide for appropriate streetscapes along Cooke Boulevard and Masonry Court; adequate setbacks (above and below grade) for vegetation, utilities, street furniture, and clear paths of travel?

16. Are the proposed setbacks to the underground parking structure sufficient to support mature landscaping and provide an adequate visual and spatial buffer?

17. Would the proposed development result in excessive and/or inappropriate shadow impacts on the subject property, adjacent and nearby public realm, or nearby residential properties, and does the proposed development have appropriate regard for the City’s Shadow Study Guidelines and Terms of Reference (2020)?

18. Does the proposed development cause negative impacts on the ability of adjacent properties to redevelop comprehensively in accordance with the land use designations and policies of the new Official Plan and /or ongoing area-specific planning for the Aldershot GO MTSA?

19. Does the proposed development represent good land use planning?

20. Would the proposed development result in any unacceptable negative impacts to the subject property and/or the adjacent properties relating to stormwater, groundwater, and related matters?

21. Does the proposed development comply with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Park NPC-300 Environmental Noise Guidelines for a Class 1 property?

22. Have matters of site contamination and remediation been adequately addressed to ensure the appropriateness of the proposed use on the subject property, and to ensure no negative impacts on the surrounding properties?

23. Does the design of the proposed development provide appropriate landscaping contributing to a high quality of urban design?

24. Does the proposed development maximize vegetation and pervious surfaces, integrate green infrastructure, appropriately preserve existing public and private trees, and provide adequate new and/or replacement trees?

25. Does the proposed development provide sufficient vehicular and bicycle parking? Is there sufficient justification for the proposed reduced parking rates?

26. Does the submitted Transportation Impact Study provide sufficient analysis and information to support the proposed development?

27. Are local roadways and intersection able to accommodate the proposal? What upgrades are required to the intersections? Are all entrances to the site able to function in way they are proposed? Are revisions to the submitted Transportation Impact Study required?

28. Does the proposed full moves vehicular access to Masonry Court provide functional, safe, and efficient movement with acceptable level of service and traffic operations?

29. Although not within the MTO permit Area, are upgrades to the 403 intersection required to support the proposal?

30. Does the proposed design of the ground floor and underground parking garage of the proposed development allow for appropriate ramp slopes, visibility, width, size, and location of parking spaces (including accessible parking), drive aisle widths, structural column spacing, pedestrian crossings/connections?

31. Does the proposed development provide opportunities to comply with the City’s site plan design guidelines including with respect to loading, circulation, and related matters?

HALTON REGION

1. Do the proposed Local Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendment (hereinafter the “Amendments”) conform with the growth management policies in the Regional Official Plan, including but not limited to Sections 48, 77(5), 79.3(3) and 81.2(4), which direct local municipalities to prepare Area-Specific Plans or policies for major growth areas and Strategic Growth Areas and Major Transit Station Areas?

2. Is the proposed increase in density on the subject lands appropriate, considering the Strategic Growth Area and Major Transit Station Areas policies in the Regional Official Plan?

3. Do the Amendments conform to the policies of the Regional Official Plan regarding Regional Structure, Regional Urban Structure and Urban Areas?

4. Do the Amendments conform to the policies of the Regional Official Plan with regards to the employment area/lands?

5. Do the Amendments conform to the range and mix of housing and affordable housing provisions of the Regional Official Plan, 2009 (i.e. Section 84, 85 & 86) including the adequate provision of a range and mix of unit types and sizes, range and mix of affordability, in addition to identifying if portions of the development are intended for rental purposes or special needs housing?

6. 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 Amendments, specifically the following?

a) Halton’s Regional Structure: Sections 50.2 (1), 51.3 (1), 55.1, 55.4, Table 1, Table 2,

b) Urban Area and the Regional Structure: Sections 72.1, 75, 77(2.1), 77 (2.3), and 77(5)

c) Regional Urban Structure: Sections 78.1(5)

d) Strategic Growth Area: Sections 79.3 (12) and,

e) Employment Areas: Sections 83.2(1), 83.2(5), 83.2(6), 83.2(7)c).

7. Is the proposed use and built form compatible with, or mitigated from land use impacts from adjacent major facilities (i.e. industrial uses to the west and northwest of the subject) and transportation facilities (i.e. CN/Metrolinx railway corridor) as required by Provincial and Regional planning policy and any implementing Guidelines?

8. Are the Amendments and built form supported by adequate servicing analysis (Functional Servicing Report future or revised), in accordance with Policies 58 (1.1), Policy 77(5)(m) and 89 of the Regional Official Plan, which:

a) Demonstrates an adequate supply of water and treatment of wastewater and conveyance of wastewater for the proposed use can be secured and connected to the satisfaction of the Region; and,

b) Conforms with the Area Servicing Plan prepared in support of the Area Specific Plan for this Major Transit Station Area.

9. If the proposed development is approved, have the appropriate Holding provisions been put in place to address the Region’s servicing capacity, treatment and conveyance related matters for both water and wastewater systems identified as part of the Area Servicing Plan/Comprehensive Planning for this growth area as supported by 77(5)(m)?

10. Has the potential for contamination on the subject lands been adequately assessed and appropriately addressed in accordance with Section 57, 58 (1), 59 and 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. In addition, if the proposed development is approved have the appropriate Holding provisions been put in place to address the Region’s Site Contamination policies under section 147(17)?

11. Is the proposed built form being considered through the Amendments appropriately designed to permit 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 the proposed development is approved, what are the appropriate zoning provisions that address and protect for the safe and efficient collection of solid waste. If the proposed development is approved, what are the appropriate zoning provisions that address and protect for the safe and efficient collection of solid waste?

Issues of Canadian National Railway Company

Planning Act and Planning Policies

1. Do the proposed Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) have sufficient regard to matters of provincial interest as outlined in sections 2 (l), (m), (n), (o), (p) and of the Planning Act?

2. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA take into consideration matters addressed by the Places to Grow Act, 2005, in particular section 14(4)?

3. Are the proposed OPA and ZBA:

a) consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) specifically whether or not a planning authority is required to protect for the ultimate capacity of that rail facility and major goods movement facility in an ultimate configuration, and Part III, Part IV and Part V policies 1.0, 1.1.1 (a), (c), (e) and (g); 1.1.3.2 (g), 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1 a), b) and d), 1.2.3, 1.2.6, 1.3.1 (b) and (c); 1.3.2.1, 1.3.2.6, , 1.4.3(f), 1.6.1, 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.2, 1.6.7.3, 1.6.8.1, 1.6.8.2, 1.6.8.3, 1.6.9.1, 1.7.1 a), c), g); 1.8, 3.0, 4.5 and associated definitions;

b) conform with the A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Growth Plan 2020 (“Growth Plan”) specifically sections: 1.2.1, 1.2.3, 2.1, 2.2.1.3(c), 2.2.1.4 (b), 2.2.2.3, 2.2.5.1, 2.2.5.2, 2.2.5.5, 2.2.5.7 c), 2.2.5.8, 2.2.5.13, 3.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.4, 3.2.1.5, 3.2.2.1, 3.2.2.2, 3.2.4, 3.2.5.1, 3.2.5.2, 5.2.3.1, 5.2.4.5, 5.2.5.1, 5.2.5.4, 5.2.5.6, 5.2.5.8 and associated schedules and definitions;

c) conform with and have regard to the 2051 Greater Golden Horseshoe Transportation Plan; and

d) Conform with the City of Burlington Official Plan 1997 (Office Consolidation, December 2019) (in-force), specifically sections: Part I: 3.0 b), c), e) f), g) Part II: 2.7.3 b), n), o); 3.2 e), f); 3.7; 6.5; Part III: 5.3.2 e), g); 5.3.4 f). Part VI: 1.2 a); 1.3 c); 2.1.2 c), f); 2.2 and associated schedules and definitions.

e) conform with the City of Burlington Official Plan (2020), specifically sections: 2.2.2 a), b), c); l; 2.3.7, 2.4.1 b), 2.4.2(1)(b), 3.1.3(2) b), 4.1.2(a)(xiii), 4.6, 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 5.1.2 , 5.4.7, 5.4.8 a), 6.1.2 j), 6.2.1(1) g), 6.2.5(1) a), 6.2.5(2) b), c), d), e), f), and g); 7.1.1 h) and k); 7.1.2 b), 7.3.2(1)(i)(i), 7.4.1(b), 8.1.2(1)(n) and (u); 8.1.2(2)(g), 8.1.2(3) c) and j), 8.1.3(1) b), 8.1.3(1) f), 8.1.3(1) g), 8.1.3(2) p), 8.1.3(8.1) a), 8.1.3(8.1) b), 8.1.3(8.1) c), 8.1.3(8.2) a), 8.1.3(8.2) l), 8.6, 12.1.2(2), 12.1.2(2.2), 12.1.3(4) m), 12.1.5, and associated schedules and definitions;

f) conform with the Halton Region Official Plan Office Consolidation (November 2021), specifically sections: 34, 35, 61(1), 72, 72.1(1), 72.1(6), 72.1(10), (10.1), 77(5) (f.1), 79(1), 79(3), 79(11)(b),79.3(10.1), 79.3(12), 79.3(13), 81(5), 81(6), 81.2(4)(f), 81.4(4), 83.2(7), 142(8), 143(9), 143(10), 143(11), 143(12), 143(13), 169(1.4), 170(4.2), 172 (14.1), 172 (15), 173(1), 173 (1.1), 173 (1.2), 173 (30.1), 173 (31),173 (32), Table 3 and associated schedules and definitions.

g ) conform with the Halton Region Official Plan (November 2022), specifically sections: 34, 35, 61(1) and (2), 72, 72.1(1), 72.1(6), 72.1(10), (10.1); 77 (5) (f.1), 79(1), 79(3), 79(11)(b), 79.3 (10.1), 79.3 (12), 79.3(13), 81(5), 81 (6), 81.2(4)(f), 81.4(4), 82.3, 82.4, 82.5, 82.6, 82.7, 83.2 (7), 83.2 (8), , 142 (8), 143 (9) (a,b,c), 143 (10), 143 (11), 143 (12) (a, b), 143 (13), 169 (1.4), 170(4.2), 172 (14.1), 172 (15), 173(1), 173 (1.1), 173 (1.2), 173 (30.1), 173 (31),173 (32), Table 3 and associated schedules and definitions

Railway Operations

4. Do the OPA and ZBA give consideration to CN’s statutory rights, obligations and the legislation that governs CN operations including sections 5, 95, 95.1, 95.2, 95.3 and 98 of the Canada Transportation Act (S.C. 1996), c. 10 and sections 8(1), 19, 47.1 of the Railway Safety Act (1985, c.32) and associated guidelines and regulations? Specifically, in relation to its mandate to carry products, including dangerous goods, operate a railway, noise, vibration and odour emissions, and its ability to add additional infrastructure on railway lands?

5. Do the OPA and ZBA consider the appropriate assumptions in modelling the complete utilization of the Aldershot Rail Yard’s (the “Yard”) capacity in assessing environmental impacts from the Yard?

Freight Supportive Guidelines

6. Does the proposed development meet the requirements of the Province of Ontario’s Freight Supportive Guidelines including policies 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.4.1, 1.4.1.1, 1.4.1.2, 1.4.1.3, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, Figure 1.4, 1.4.3.2, 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.4, 2.0, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4 – Planning for Employment Areas, Figure 2.4, 2.2.5, 2.4, 2.4.1, 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5?

D-Series Guidelines

7. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard to the D1 and D6 Guidelines, including their applicability with provincial policy and the OP, and that the Yard is a Class III Industrial Facility?

FCM/RAC Guidelines

8. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard to the FCM/RAC Guidelines and how should they be applied?

Noise/NPC-300/Federal Guidelines

9. Should the acoustic assessment take into consideration the frequency content/character of the noise sources and the following federal documents:

• “Guidelines for the Resolution of Complaints Concerning Railway Noise and Vibration”, Canadian Transportation Agency, October, 2008;

• “Railway Noise Measurement and Reporting Methodology”, Canadian Transportation Agency, August 2011; and

• “Guidance for Evaluating Human Health Impacts in Environmental Assessment: NOISE”, Health Canada, January 2017?

10. Do the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard to NPC-300 and its requirements, including acoustic assessment and feasibility under Class 1 in the context of the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency in addressing noise complaints?

Air Quality/Hazard

11. Has Air Quality been appropriately studied in conformance with MECP D-6 Series and related guidelines and statutes to address potential fugitive emissions and compatibility with surrounding land uses, with particular focus on current and future locomotive use, adverse effects from diesel locomotives, assessment of receptors (doors, windows, outdoor amenity areas, and so on) and location of residential units?

Appropriate Setback

12. What is the appropriate setback distance for residential and other sensitive land uses on the Subject Lands from the Yard considering:

a) The D1 and D6 Guidelines;

b) The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and Railway Association of Canada Guidelines (the “FCM/RAC Guidelines”);

c) Environmental impacts from the Yard including rail noise, odour and air emissions, and the accidental release of substances from rail cars;

d) Federal Rail Noise and Vibration Guidelines, related to complaint investigations against the railway company;

e) Rail safety considerations including the consequences of a possible derailment;

(h) complete utilization of the Yard’s capacity in an ultimate configuration; and

(i) current predictable worst-case assumptions?

Mitigation/Implementation

13. Does the proposed development consider appropriate mitigation measures from recommendations of technical studies and how will these be secured and enforced by the municipality on all or part of the lands (i.e.: OPA, ZBLA, SPA, condo declarations, private agreements under NPC-300, environmental easements and agreements)?

ATTACHMENT 4

ORDER OF EVIDENCE

Camarro Developments Inc.

City of Burlington

Region of Halton

Canadian National Railway Company

Camarro Developments Inc., in reply