Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 07, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-001274

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

Applicant and Appellant: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of the application

Description: To permit the development of two 40-storey mixed-use residential buildings containing approximately 852 residential units, connected by a 6-storey podium containing commercial space on the first two floors

Reference Number: PLAN 23 114260

Property Address: 8435 Woodbine Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Markham/ Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001274

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001274

OLT Case Name: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. v. Markham (City)

Heard: March 27, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. City of Markham

Daniel Artenosi Justine Reyes Maggie Cheung-Madar

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAVID BROWN ON MARCH 27, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference ("CMC") in respect of an appeal filed by Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. ("Appellant") pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act"), against the decision of the City of Markham ("City") that refused an Application to Amend the Official Plan ("OPA") and an Application to Amend the Zoning By-law ("ZBA").

2The lands that are the subject of the OPA and ZBA are located on the east side of Woodbine Avenue south of Highway 7 and known municipally as 8435 Woodbine Avenue ("Subject Lands"). The Subject Lands are bisected by Beaver Creek with the westerly portion occupied by an automobile dealership and the easterly portion utilized as a parking lot. The two portions are joined by a bridge structure located within a 7.0 metre easement. The easement is under private ownership and the Appellant has rights of access over the easement.

3The OPA and ZBA are being requested to facilitate the redevelopment of the Subject Lands with a mixed-use development comprised of two 40-storey buildings atop a common six-storey podium. The proposed development will accommodate 852 residential units and 3,941 square meters ("m²") of commercial floor space including an automotive sales use. The development proposes 408 underground vehicle parking spaces, 91 surface parking spaces, and 134 bicycle parking spaces. A total Gross Floor Area of 65,663 m² is proposed, resulting in a Floor Space Index of 6.53.

4An Affidavit of Service sworn March 8, 2024 confirming that Notice of this proceeding was provided in accordance with directions given by the Tribunal was marked as Exhibit 1.

5Party Status Request Forms were received from the each of the following:

1. 2226524 Ontario Inc. (Exhibit 2),
2. Knob Hill Farms Limited (Exhibit 3), and
3. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (Exhibit 4).

6A Participant Status Request Form was received from Smart Centres REIT and marked as Exhibit 5.

7Mr. Artenosi advised that the Appellant does not object to granting Party Status to the three requestors and Participant Status to Smart Centres REIT. Ms. Cheung-Madar confirmed that the City does not oppose the requests.

8The Tribunal reviewed the Status Request Forms and is satisfied that each requestor satisfies the Legislative tests necessary to be a Party and that their presence is necessary to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate effectively and completely on the issues in the proceedings.

9The Tribunal grants Party Status to 2226524 Ontario Inc., Knob Hill Farms Limited and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

10The Tribunal grants Participant Status to Smart Centres REIT.

11A Draft Procedural Order ("PO") was presented. Mr. Artenosi advised that he has had discussions with the added Parties and they will be providing their respective Issues Lists by the end of the week. He undertook to provide the Issues List to the Tribunal once it is finalized. Mr. Artenosi advised that his client understands the case to be made and requested that the Tribunal schedule 15 days for the Merit Hearing. Mr. Artenosi further advised that Tribunal-led Mediation would be appropriate for this matter.

12The Tribunal reviewed the process for requesting Tribunal-led Mediation with the Parties and encouraged the Parties to consider settlement opportunities including mediation.

13A further CMC was requested for mid-October, after the Parties have had an opportunity to explore mediation and in the event that mediation is not successful.

14The Tribunal scheduled a further CMC on Friday, October 18, 2024, at 10 a.m. by videoconference.

15The Tribunal has scheduled 14 days for the Hearing of the Merits of the Appeals by video conference commencing on Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 10 a.m. through until Friday, March 07, 2025.

16The Hearings are scheduled to proceed by video as follows: Case Management Conference: Friday, October 18, 2024 at 10 a.m. GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/709076365 Access code: 709-076-365 Audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 709-076-365 Merit Hearing: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 10 a.m. – Friday, March 07, 2025 (14 Days, 10 a.m. – 5 p.m.) GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885 Access code: 344-779-885 Audio-only line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or Toll-Free 1-888-299-1889 Audio-only access code: 344-779-885

17Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the Video Hearing at least 15 minutes before the start of the event to test their video and audio connections.

18Parties 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

19Persons 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.

20Individuals 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.

21The final PO, including the Issues List, was filed with the Tribunal following the CMC as directed. The Tribunal has attached the PO to this Order as SCHEDULE 1 and the PO shall govern the proceedings leading up to and including the Hearing for this matter.

22The Tribunal Orders its directions and rulings as set out in this decision.

"David Brown"

DAVID BROWN 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.

SCHEDULE 1

CASE NO.: OLT-23-001274 OLT-23-001275

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

Applicant and Appellant: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Refusal of the application

Description: To permit the development of two 40-storey mixed-use residential buildings containing approximately 852 residential units, connected by a 6-storey podium containing commercial space on the first two floors

Reference Number: PLAN 23 114260

Property Address: 8435 Woodbine Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Markham/ Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001274

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001274

OLT Case Name: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. v. Markham (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal of the application

Description: To permit the development of two 40-storey mixed-use residential buildings containing approximately 852 residential units, connected by a 6-storey podium containing commercial space on the first two floors

Reference Number: PLAN 23 114260

Property Address: 8435 Woodbine Avenue

Municipality/UT: City of Markham/ Regional Municipality of York

OLT Case No.: OLT-23-001275

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-001274

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 ("video hearing") will begin on Tuesday, February 18, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. at:

GoTo Meeting Link: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/344779885

Access code: 344-779-885

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

Access Code: 344-779-885

3. The Parties’ ("parties’") initial estimation for the length of the Hearing ("hearing") is 14 days. The parties are expected to cooperate to reduce the length of the hearing by eliminating redundant evidence and attempting to reach settlements on issues, where possible. The procedural order deadlines are generally found in Attachment 1.

4. The parties and participants identified at the case management conference are set out in Attachment 2 to this Order (see the sample procedural order for the meaning of these terms).

5. The issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3. With the exception of removal or narrowing of the issues, there will be no changes to this list unless the Tribunal permits and/or the parties’ consent to the changes. A party who asks for changes to this list may have costs awarded against it.

6. 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.

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 at (https://olt.gov.on.ca/guides-videos/).

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 October 31, 2024 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. Any challenges to the witness, including qualifications of a witness to give opinion evidence in the area of expertise proposed shall be made by motion in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules and notice of same must be served on the other Parties on or before November 11, 2024.

10. Expert witnesses in the same field shall have a meeting on or before November 20, 2024 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 November 29, 2024.

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 December 16, 2024 the parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator in accordance with paragraph 22 below.

14. On or before December 16, 2024 a participant shall provide copies of their participant statement to the other parties and to the OLT case co-ordinator 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 January 14, 2025 the parties shall confirm with the Tribunal if all the reserved hearing dates are still required.

16. On or before January 27, 2025 the parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to all 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. Parties may provide to all other parties and the OLT case co-ordinator a written response to any written evidence on or before January 13, 2025 and 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 February 3, 2025.

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 on or before February 7, 2025 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 February 3, 2025 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 to the Tribunal, the parties and participants (if any). The Tribunal will be provided a hard copy of documents and materials in advance of the hearing event as soon as practicable should it request same. 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.

24. 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

DATE EVENT

October 31, 2024 (110 days prior to hearing) Exchange of witness lists

November 11, 2024 (99 days prior to hearing) Challenge of any witnesses to be brought by this date

November 20, 2024 (90 days prior to hearing) Experts meeting(s) prior to this date

November 29, 2024 (81 days prior to hearing) Deadline to File any Agreed Statement(s) of Facts

December 16, 2024 (64 days prior to hearing) Exchange of witness statements and experts reports, participant statements (if any), and summoned witness outlines (if any)

January 13, 2025 (31 days after exchange of witness statements) Exchange of reply witness statements (if any)

January 14, 2025 (35 days prior to hearing) Parties to advise if any hearing dates can be released

January 27, 2025 (22 days prior to hearing) Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

February 3, 2025 (15 days prior to hearing) Filing of Joint Document Book & Hearing Plan

February 18, 2025 Hearing commences (14 days)

ATTACHMENT 2

List of Parties and Participants

Parties

Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. Overland LLP 5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101 Toronto, ON M2N 6P4 Daniel B. Artenosi / Justine Reyes 416.730.0320 / 416.730.8377 dartenosi@overlandllp.ca / jreyes@overlandllp.ca

City of Markham BLG Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3400 Toronto, ON M5H 4E3 Pitman Patterson / Piper Morley Tel: 416-367-6109 / 416-367-6591 Email: ppatterson@blg.com / pmorley@blg.com -and- Legal Services Department 101 Town Centre Boulevard Markham, ON L3R 9W3 Maggie Cheung-Madar 905-477-7000 X3583 / mcheung-madar@markham.ca

Knob Hill Farms Limited Papazian Heisey Myers Barristers & Solicitors 121 King Street West, Suite 510 P.O. Box 105 Toronto, ON M5H 3T9 Alan Heisey 416.993.5115 / heisey@phmlaw.com

2226524 Ontario Inc. Loopstra Nixon LLP 130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 2800 Toronto, ON M5H 3P5 Aaron I. Platt 289.904.2370 / aplatt@LN.Law

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Fogler, Rubinoff LLP TD Centre North Tower 77 King Street West, Suite 3000 P.O. Box 95 Toronto, ON M5K 1G8 Tim Duncan 416.941.8817 / tduncan@foglers.com

Participants:

SmartCentres REIT Kagan Shastri DeMelo Winer Park LLP 250 Yonge Street, Suite 2302 P.O. Box 65 Toronto, ON M5B 2L7 Jason Park 416.645.4572 / jpark@ksllp.ca

ATTACHMENT 3

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the OLT or any Party that such issue, or the manner in which the issue is expressed, is either appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing. The extent to which these issues are appropriate or relevant to the determination of the OLT at the hearing will be a matter of evidence and argument at the hearing. The identification of an issue on this list by a Party indicates that Party’s intent to lead evidence or argue that the issue is relevant to the proceeding, for the purpose of fairly identifying to the other Parties the case they need to meet and shall not be construed as the OLT having jurisdiction over such matters in each circumstance. Accordingly, no Party shall advance an issue not identified on the Issues List without leave of the OLT.

CITY OF MARKHAM

Planning

1. Does the Proposed Development have regard for matters of Provincial Interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including but not limited to:

(a) the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions;

(f) the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing;

(k) the adequate provision of employment opportunities;

(o) the protection of public health and safety; and,

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development.

2. Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) as required by Section 3(5) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to sections:

• 1.1 (Managing and Directing Land Use to Achieve Efficient and Resilient Development and Land Use Patterns);

• 1.1.3 (Settlement Areas)

• 1.3.1 (Employment - promoting economic development and competitiveness)

• 1.6.7 and 1.6.8 (Transportation System and Transportation and Infrastructure Corridors);

• 2.1 (Natural Heritage);

• 3.1 (Natural Hazards); and,

• 4.0 (Implementation and Interpretation).

3. Does the Proposed Development conform to or not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as required by Section 3(5)(b) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to sections:

a. 2.0 (Where and How to Grow);

b. 3.0 (Infrastructure to Support Growth);

c. 4.2 (Policies for Protecting What is Valuable); and,

d. 4.2.5 (Public Open Space).

4. Does the Proposed Development conform to the 2022 York Region Official Plan, in particular policies, including but not limited to:

• 2.0 (Foundation for Complete Communities);

• 3.0 (A Sustainable Natural Environment);

• 4.0 (An Urbanizing Region); and,

• 6.0 (Serving our Communities).

5. Does the Proposed Development conform to and/or have appropriate regard for the 2014 Markham Official Plan, including but not limited to the following sections:

a. 2.0 (Framework for Sustainable Growth)

b. 3.1 (Greenway System)

c. 3.4 (Environmental Hazards)

d. 7.1 (Transportation System)

e. 8.1 (General Land Use)

f. 8.3 (Mixed Use)

g. 8.4 (Commercial)

h. 8.6 (Greenway)

i. 8.10 (Transportation and Utilities)

6. Is it premature to decide on the Proposed Development while the Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update study is underway?

7. Does the Proposed Development appropriately reflect the City’s vision for the area as reflected in the Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update study in the Recommended Development Concept plan?

8. Is the proposed mix of land uses appropriate for the subject lands?

9. Does the Proposed Development detract from the planned function and municipal structure of the 2014 Markham Official Plan?

10. Does the Proposed Development detract from the role of the established Commercial designation in the 2014 Markham Official Plan?

11. Does the Proposed Development represent good planning and is it in the public interest?

12. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part and permits residential uses:

a. Are the heights of the proposed buildings, including heights of the podiums, and is the density of the Proposed Development, appropriate and compatible with the lands surrounding the subject lands?

b. Does the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment appropriately address issues of use, massing, density, location, size, setbacks, character, tower separation, commercial and office floor areas and other matters pertaining to site configuration, functionality, and operation, including compatibility with adjacent uses?

c. Does the Proposed Development include an appropriate amount of and mix of residential, including affordable housing, and non-residential uses?

Parkland

13. Are the community amenities, including parks and amenity space, sufficient to accommodate the proposed density?

14. Does the Proposed Development provide sufficient parkland dedication?

Natural Heritage

15. Is it appropriate for the Proposed Development, in whole or in part, to be located within the Greenway System, and in particular, within the natural heritage features associated with Beaver Creek and its vegetation protection zone?

16. Has a satisfactory Environmental Impact Study been submitted to demonstrate conformity with the Greenway System policies of the 2014 Markham Official Plan?

17. Have the vegetation protection zones been correctly delineated, and will they be secured, restored and managed in accordance with the 2014 Markham Official Plan?

18. Should the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment be revised to reflect the limits of the Greenway System as identified in the Environmental Impact Study?

19. Should the Greenway System lands be conveyed into public ownership as encouraged by Section 3.1.2.4 and as required by Section 3.4.1.7 of the 2014 Markham Official Plan?

Natural Hazard

20. Is the Proposed Development located, in whole or in part, within the Regulated Area of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority or the natural (erosion or flood) hazards associated with Beaver Creek?

21. Does the Proposed Development conform with the natural hazard policies of the 2014 Markham Official Plan and the 2022 York Region Official Plan, and is it consistent with the natural hazard policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (2020)?

22. Have the comments and requirements of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority been satisfactorily addressed?

Transportation

23. Is the Transportation Impact Assessment including Transportation Demand Management Plan and Parking Study submitted by the Appellant in September 2023 satisfactory?

a. Is the proposed number of parking spaces appropriate?

b. How does the Proposed Development address the additional parking reduction if the proposed surface parking spaces on the east side of Beaver Creek located within floodplain area are not approved?

c. Is the proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan appropriate?

24. Should the Proposed Development protect for the Clegg Road extension that is recommended in the emerging Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update study?

25. Can the existing bridge between the surface parking lot to the proposed building properly accommodate increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic associated with the Proposed Development and the planned developments to the east in the emerging Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update?

26. Does the Proposed Development coordinate with the adjacent lands to provide for an appropriate interconnection?

Other Technical Issues

27. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, is it appropriate to apply a Holding Provision to the Zoning By-law Amendment to address matters, including but not limited to the following:

a. Execution of any agreement(s) required for the Proposed Development;

b. Submission of any required technical studies to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Development Services;

c. Servicing allocation;

d. Community Benefits Charges; and

e. Provision of affordable housing.

28. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeal in whole or in part, should the Final Order be withheld pending the City Solicitor advising the Tribunal that:

a. the final forms of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are received to the satisfaction of the City.

2226524 ONTARIO INC.

29. Has the City sufficiently assessed potential impacts to natural heritage features on the City’s suggested (but unadopted and unapproved) extension of Clegg Road westerly to Woodbine Avenue – as such extension will need to bisect both the Rouge River and Beaver Creek valleys?

30. Does the City’s Markham Centre Secondary Plan Update and the City’s July 2023 "Recommended Development Concept" provide adequate justification for an extension of Clegg Road westerly to Woodbine Avenue? Is the extension of Clegg Road westerly to Woodbine Avenue required in the overall transportation network for the surrounding area?

31. How has the City reconciled its Natural Heritage staff’s opinion that "proposed encroachments along with private trail use into Vegetation Protection Zones may have a cumulative impact on the ability to protect natural heritage features and mitigate long term negative impacts," with the City’s identified intention to require an extension of Clegg Road, "a major collector road", cutting through that valley land?

TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

32. Would a decision permitting redesignation and development of lands have regard to matters of provincial interest, as set out in Section of the Planning Act, including subsections 2 (h), (m), (o) and (p)?

33. Are the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, including policies 1.1.1c), 1.1.3.4, 1.2.1f), 3.1.1 (b), 3.1.2 c), 3.1.2 d), 3.1.7?

34. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment conform with Section 3.4.1 of the City of Markham Official Plan policies dated April 9, 2018?

35. Does the proposed development, Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment have appropriate regard for the policies contained in the 2014 Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, including policies 7.3.1.3, 7.4.1, 7.4.2, 7.4.3, 8.4.5b, 8.4.8, 8.4.9, 8.4.10, 8.4.11 8.4.13.

36. Does the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment conform with Section 3.5 Natural Hazards of the York Region Official Plan (Consolidated June 2023)?

ATTACHMENT 4

Order of Evidence

1. Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd.
2. Knob Hill Farms Limited
3. 2226524 Ontario Inc.
4. City of Markham
5. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
6. Eastside Chevrolet Buick GMC Ltd. (in reply, if necessary)

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.