Wedgewood Columbus Limited v. Vaughan, 2024 CanLII 48200

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: May 24, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004652

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wedgewood Columbus Limited

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

Description: proposes to redesignate the Site to High-Rise Mixed-Use to permit the proposed maximum height of 51 storeys and the proposed density of 11.1 FSI

Reference Number: OP 19.015

Property Address: 7887 Weston Road

Municipality/UT: City of Vaughan/York Region

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004652

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004652

OLT Case Name: Wedgewood Columbus Limited v. Vaughan

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wedgewood Columbus Limited

Subject: to amend Zoning By-law 1-88

Description: to rezone the Subject Lands from “C7 Service Commercial Zone”, subject to site-specific Exception 9(754B) by Zoning By-law 1-88 with site-specific zoning exceptions to permit the development

Reference Number: Z.19.039

Property Address: 7887 Weston Road

Municipality/UT: City of Vaughan/York Region

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004653

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004652

OLT Case Name: Wedgewood Columbus Limited v. Vaughan

Heard: February 28, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Wedgewood Columbus Limited

Chris Tanzola

Michael Cara

City of Vaughan

Andrew Baker

Regional Municipality of York

Bola Ogunmefun

Home Depot of Canada Inc.

David Tang (in absentia)

Jesse White (in absentia)

PSI Solar Finance 1 Limited Partnership

Patrick Pinho

Annik Forristal (in absentia)

Talia Gordner (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARYN VINCENT ON FEBRUARY 28, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1At the request of the Parties, the Tribunal heard submissions on the request on consent to adjourn the Hearing scheduled for May of 2024 to consider the consolidated appeals brought by Wedgewood Columbus Limited (“Appellant/Applicant”) against the failure of the City of Vaughan (“City”) to make decisions with respect to the proposed redevelopment of 7887 Weston Road, to allow four mixed use towers of varying heights accommodating approximately 2300 residential units.

2The Parties are scheduled to engage in Tribunal lead Mediation with a view to scoping the issues originally scheduled for 24 days of Hearing time.

3The Tribunal notes that Dev-West Properties and Morguard Investments Limited have formally vacated the Party status conferred in February of 2023.

4The remaining Parties, on consent, and subject to the following terms, seek to have the Hearing rescheduled to commence in January of 2025:

1. The May to June 2024 Hearing dates will be adjourned to four (4) weeks of Hearing time commencing in January of 2025;

2. To avoid prejudice to the Applicant, the January 2025 Hearing dates will be peremptory, thereby barring any of the Parties from bringing any further adjournment motions in advance of the new Hearing dates;

3. The Issues List for the May 2024 Hearing will be carried forward to the January 2025 Hearing date. The procedural dates for the January 2025 Hearing will be set now, and the Parties on consent, request the Tribunal to issue a new Procedural Order (“PO”). The Parties will also have the opportunity to review and comment on the updated PO and revised witness lists if necessary (for clarity, all Parties confirm that there shall be no addition to the Issues List, no changes to Parties, and no further adjournments);

4. The Tribunal will be advised that the Parties are operating on the assumption that no new Parties will be added for the January 2025 Hearing, and the Parties will confirm to the Applicant, in writing that they do not support any motion by anyone seeking to obtain Party status;

5. The City, the Applicant and any other existing Party who chooses to do so will participate in Tribunal lead mediation; and

6. The City, the Applicant and any other existing Party who is choosing to participate in the mediation will attend a mediation devising session and advise the Mediator of the terms on which the May 2024 hearing dates have been adjourned to January of 2025.

5The Tribunal, having heard the submissions of the Parties in support of the rescheduling request, ordered the imminent Hearing and related Hearing events to be adjourned, and rescheduled a 20-day Merit Hearing to commence on Monday, January, 13, 2025 at 10 a.m. through to and including Friday, February, 7, 2025.

6Parties 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.

GoToMeeting:

GoToMeeting: https://meet.goto.com/348282861

Access Code: 348-282-861

7Parties 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

8Persons 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) 1-888-299-1889 or +1 (647) 497-9373. The access code is as indicated above.

9Individuals 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.

ORDER

10THE TRIBUNAL HEREBY ORDERS that the Merit Hearing is rescheduled as set out in paragraph [5] above, and subject to the terms set out in paragraph [4] and shall be governed by the revised Procedural Order, attached hereto as Attachment 1, and forming part of this Order.

“Sharyn Vincent”

SHARYN VINCENT

VICE-CHAIR

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

CASE NO.: OLT-22-004652

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wedgewood Columbus Limited

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

Description: proposes to redesignate the Site to High-Rise Mixed-Use to permit the proposed maximum height of 51 storeys and the proposed density of 11.1 FSI

Reference Number: OP 19.015

Property Address: 7887 Weston Road

Municipality/UT: City of Vaughan/York Region

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004652

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004652

OLT Case Name: Wedgewood Columbus Limited v. Vaughan

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wedgewood Columbus Limited

Subject: to amend Zoning By-law 1-88

Description: to rezone the Subject Lands from “C7 Service Commercial Zone”, subject to site-specific Exception 9(754B) by Zoning By-law 1-88 with site-specific zoning exceptions to permit the development

Reference Number: Z.19.039

Property Address: 7887 Weston Road

Municipality/UT: City of Vaughan/York Region

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004653

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004652

OLT Case Name: Wedgewood Columbus Limited v. Vaughan

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 hearing will begin on Monday, January, 13, 2025 at 10 a.m. and will proceed by video.

3. The length of the hearing will be 20 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 listed in Attachment 2 to this Order.

5. The Issues are set out in the Issues List attached as Attachment 3 to this Order. 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 is 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 consent, subject to the Tribunal’s approval, or by Order of the Tribunal.

7. Any person intending to participate in the hearing shall provide a mailing address, email address and a telephone number to the Tribunal. Any such person who retains a representative must advise the other Parties and the Tribunal of the representative’s name, address, email address and the phone number.

8. If the hearing is to proceed electronically, 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. (https://olt.gov.on.ca/tribunals/lpat/).

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 at least one hundred and fifty (150) calendar days before the hearing (on or before Friday August 16, 2024). For expert witnesses, a Party is to identify the area of expertise in which the witness is proposed to be qualified and is to provide a copy of their curriculum vitae. 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 Monday August 26, 2024. [10 days after witness lists are exchanged]

10. Expert witnesses in the same discipline(s) shall have at least one meeting one hundred and twenty-four (124) calendar days before the hearing (on or before Wednesday September 11, 2024) to try to resolve or reduce the issues for the hearing. Following the experts’ meeting(s) the experts shall prepare a list of any agreed facts and the remaining issues to be addressed at the hearing, and provide this list to the Parties and the Tribunal at least one hundred and ten (110) calendar days before the hearing (on or before Wednesday March 13, 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, the acknowledgement of expert's duty and curriculum vitae. Copies of this must be provided, as in paragraph 14. 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 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 City, such report(s) shall be provided to the other parties at the same time as the delivery of expert witness statements, as in paragraph 14 below.

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 14 below.

13. At least ninety (90) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Tuesday October 15, 2024), a Participant shall provide copies of their written participant statement to the other Parties and to the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 21 below. A Participant cannot present oral submissions at the hearing on the content of their written statement, unless ordered by the Tribunal.

14. At least sixty (90) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Tuesday October 15, 2024), the Parties shall provide copies of their witness and expert witness statements to the other Parties and to the Tribunal case coordinator and in accordance with paragraph 21 below. The Parties shall also advise the Tribunal on or before Monday December 9, 2024 if it is possible to release any scheduled hearing dates.

15. At least sixty (60) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Thursday November 14, 2024), the Parties shall provide copies of their written response(s) to any written evidence to the other Parties and to the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

16. At least twenty-five (25) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Thursday December 19, 2024), the Parties shall file with the Tribunal a detailed Work Plan that identifies the following, at a minimum: the Parties participating in the hearing, preliminary matters to be addressed (if any), the date a witness is intended to attend the Tribunal, the identified witness name/expertise, and the approximate time allotted for examination in chief, cross-examination and any re-examination (if any) (the “Work Plan”). The Work Plan should be adhered to guide the Hearing Event to the best ability of all the Parties, and any and all witnesses shall be available on the identified date(s), unless otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may, at its discretion, change or alter the Work Plan throughout the Hearing Event. In the event of a disagreement between the Parties about the Work Plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.

17. The Parties shall prepare a Joint Document Book on or before Thursday December 19, 2024 (25 days before the hearing is scheduled to commence), and which one (1) hard copy will be filed with the Tribunal as soon as practicable in advance of the Hearing. All Parties must be served with the Joint Document Book in paper or an accessible electronic format in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

18. At least twenty-five (25) calendar days prior to the scheduled commencement of the hearing (on or before Thursday December 19, 2024), the Parties shall provide copies of their visual evidence to the other Parties and the Tribunal in accordance with paragraph 21 below.

19. A person wishing to change written evidence, including witness statements, must make a written motion to the Tribunal in accordance with Rule 10 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

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

21. All filing shall be electronic and in hard copy. Electronic copies may be filed by email, an electronic file sharing service for documents that exceed 10MB, or as otherwise directed by the Tribunal. The delivery of documents by email shall be governed by Rule 7 of the Tribunal’s Rules.

22. No adjournments or delays will be granted before or during the hearing except for serious hardship or illness. Rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules shall apply to such requests.

23. The Tribunal may conduct mediation on consent of all Parties, on consent of those Parties who wish to participate in mediation, or if the Tribunal sees fit.

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

ATTACHMENT 1: SUMMARY OF DATES

DATE

EVENT

Friday August 16, 2024

(150 days prior to hearing)

Revisions to Witness Lists

Monday August 26, 2024

(140 days prior to hearing)

Deadline to Challenge Witnesses or Qualifications

Wednesday September 11, 2024

(124 days prior to hearing)

Experts meeting(s) prior to this date

Wednesday September 25, 2024

(110 days prior to hearing)

Deadline to File Any Agreed Statement(s) of Facts

Tuesday October 15, 2024

(90 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Witness Statements and Experts Reports, Participant Statements (if any), and summoned witness outlines (if any)

Thursday November 14, 2024

(60 days prior to hearing)

Exchange of Reply Witness Statements (if any)

Monday December 9, 2024

(35 days prior to hearing)

Parties to Confirm If Any Hearing Dates Can Be Released

Thursday December 19, 2024

(25 days prior to hearing)

Filing of Work Plan and Joint Document Book

Exchange of visual evidence (if any)

Monday January 13, 2025 –

Friday February 7, 2025

Hearing (20 Days)

ATTACHMENT 2: LIST OF PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS

A. PARTIES

Counsel/*Agent

Wedgewood Columbus Limited (Applicant/Appellant)

Chris Tanzola / Michael Cara

Overland LLP

Yonge Norton Centre

5255 Yonge Street, Suite 1101

Toronto, ON M2N 6P4

Email: ctanzola@overlandllp.ca / mcara@overlandllp.ca

Tel: 416.730.0645 / 416.730.8844

City of Vaughan

Andrew Baker / Julie Lesage

Borden Ladner Gervais

Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5H 4E3

Email: abaker@blg.com / jlesage@blg.com

Tel: 416.597.6250 / 416.367.6276

Colin Dougherty

City of Vaughan | Legal Services

2141 Major Mackenzie Drive Vaughan, ON L6A 1T1

Email: colin.dougherty@vaughan.ca

Tel: 416.832.8585

The Regional Municipality of York

Bola Ogunmefun / Samantha Whalen

Region of York | Legal Services

21 Dunlop Street Richmond Hill, ON L4C 2M6

Email: bola.ogunmefun@york.ca / samantha.whalen@york.ca Tel: 905.830.4444 ext. 71459

Home Depot of Canada Inc.

David Tang / Jesse White

Miller Thomson LLP

40 King Street West, Suite 5800 P.O. Box 1011 Toronto, ON M5H 3S1

Email: dtang@millerthomson.com / jwhite@millerthomson.com

Tel: 416.597.6047 / 416.597.4371

PSI Solar Finance 1 Limited Partnership

Annik Forristal / Patrick Pinho

McMillan LLP

181 Bay Street, Suite 4400 Toronto, ON M5J 2T3

Email: annik.forristal@mcmillan.ca / patrick.pinho@mcmillan.ca

Tel: 416.865.7292 / 416.865.7041

B. PARTICIPANTS

Counsel/*Agent

Anna Zeppieri

*Elena Zeppieri

211 Fiori Drive

Vaughan, ON, L4L 4P8

Email: ezeppieri10@yahoo.ca

Tel: 416.524.4143

ATTACHMENT 3: ISSUES LIST

NOTE: The identification of an issue on the Issues List does not constitute an acknowledgement by the Tribunal or any Party that the issue is either relevant or appropriate. 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 Tribunal 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 Tribunal.

Planning Act

1. Do the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments (the “Proposed Development”) have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act, including (f), (h), (i), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q) and (r)?

Provincial Policy Statement

2. Is the Proposed Development consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), as required by Section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.1.3.6, 1.1.3.7, 1.2.1 (including subsections (a) and (d)), 1.2.4, 1.2.6.2, 1.3.1, 1.4.1, 1.5.1, 1.6.1, 1.6.6.1, 1.6.7.1, 1.6.7.4, 1.6.8.1, 1.6.8.3, 1.6.11.1, 1.7.1, and 4.6 reading the Provincial Policy Statement (2020) in its entirety and applying the relevant policies to this situation?

Growth Plan

3. Does the Proposed Development conform with and not conflict with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019), as required by Section 3(5)(b) of the Planning Act, including but not limited to Sections 1.2.1, 2.2.1.4 (including subsections (a), (c), and (e)), 2.2.3.2, Schedule 4, 2.2.4.9, 2.2.4.10, 2.2.6.1, 2.2.6.2, 2.2.6.3, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.2.1, and 3.2.2.2 (f), reading the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) in its entirety and applying the relevant policies to this situation?

Region of York Official Plan

4. Does the Proposed Development conform with the policies and mapping of the Region of York Official Plan (2010), including but not limited to Sections 1.2.1, 2.3.41, 3.5, 3.5.4, 4.1, 4.2.1, 4.2.4, 4.2.6, 4.2.7, 4.4, 4.4.8, 5.2, 5.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.6, 5.3.34, 5.4, 5.4.1, 5.4.6, 5.4.8, 5.4.9, 5.4.11, 5.4.16, 5.4.28, 5.4.31, 5.4.33, 7.2.33, 7.2.54, 8.3.3, 8.3.4, 8.3.8, and 8.4.9 and Maps 1, 10, 11, and 12?

5. Are the policies of the Region of York Official Plan (2022) applicable to the Proposed Development even though the application was submitted prior to its approval by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on November 4, 2022? If so, does the Proposed Development conform with the policies and mapping of the Region of York Official Plan (2022), including but not limited to Sections 2.3.2, 4.1.1, 4.1.3, 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.4.1, 4.4.9, 4.4.10, 4.4.11, 4.4.25, 4.4.36, 4.4.38,6.1.3, 7.4.13, and Appendix 2, and Maps 1, 1A, 1B, 9A, 10, and 11?

City of Vaughan Official Plan

6. Does the Proposed Development conform with the policies of the City of Vaughan Official Plan, including but not limited to Sections 1.5 – Goal 8, 2.1.1.1, 2.1.3.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.1.2, 2.2.5, 4.2.1, 4.2.2.13, 4.2.3, 4.3.2.2, 4.3.3, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.2, 5.2.3, 7.2.3, 7.3.2, 7.5, 7.5.1.2, 8.1.1.6, 8.1.1.7, 8.5, 9.1, 9.1.1, 9.1.1.1, 9.1.13, 9.1.1.10, 9.1.2, 9.1.2.1, 9.1.2.7, 9.1.2.9, 9.2, 9.2.1.9, 9.2.1.12, 9.2.2.3, 9.2.2.4, 9.2.2.5, 9.2.2.6, 9.2.3.5, 9.2.3.6, 10.1.1, 10.1.1.1, 10.1.1.3, 10.1.1.4, 10.1.1.5, 10.1.1.6, 10.1.1.8, 10.1.1.9, 10.1.1.10, 10.1.1.12, 10.1.1.13, 10.1.1.14, 10.1.2.5, 10.1.2.6, 10.1.2.8, 10.1.2,9 and 10.1.2.20, 10.1.3.4, 10.1.3.6, 10.2.1.1, 10.2.1.5, 10.2.1.8, and Figure 6; and Schedules 1, 1A, 9, 10, 13, and 14A, reading the City of Vaughan Official Plan in its entirety and applying the relevant policies to this situation?

7. Does the Proposed Development comply with the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks, Environmental Noise Guideline Publication NPC-300 Guidelines?

Prematurity

8. Is the Proposed Development premature in the absence of an adopted and in-effect Weston 7 Secondary Plan and associated Transportation Master Plan? In this regard, does it conform with the City of Vaughan official plan?

9. Is the Proposed Development premature considering the required deliverables of the Weston 7 Secondary plan study, including but not limited to, community consultation, the draft land use plan to determine the appropriate land uses, built form, building height limits, density and building typologies consistent with the City-Wide Urban design guidelines to support the proposed MTSAs and the Regional Intensification Corridor, analysis of parkland requirements in intensification areas, the transportation network assessment and evaluation, and associated Transportation Master Plan?

Land Use Compatibility and Built Form

10. Is the proposed mix of land uses appropriate for the site?

11. Are the proposed residential uses and the proposed built form, including the location and orientation of living spaces, balconies and outdoor amenity spaces of the proposed development appropriate and compatible with the current uses on the Home Depot property located at 140 Northview Boulevard and any future expansion or operational changes to the Home Depot store, including as it relates to traffic, access, and noise?

12. Is the proposed building height, base building height, building form, massing, scale, and siting, stepbacks, setbacks, tower separation, spacing, intensification and density appropriate, considering the site, the policy context, and the character of the surrounding lands?

13. Does the proposed development provide sufficient space for adequate landscaping and open space on the site?

14. Is the Proposed Development compatible with its physical context? Does the Proposed Development fit appropriately and compatibly within the existing and planned context and area character, and does it represent good planning?

15. Does the Proposed Development establish an appropriate relationship to the public realm and to abutting properties?

16. Would the Proposed Development result in adverse impacts due to the existing adjacent land uses?

17. Have the shadow impacts of the proposed building been adequately minimized?

18. Given the context within the Weston & 7 Secondary Plan, are the proposed land use designations and the related policies suggested by the Owner appropriate?

19. Are the proposed people and job projections for the northeast corner of Weston Road & Highway 7 reasonable, appropriate and achievable in consideration of the existing and planned infrastructure for the area?

20. Does the proposed OPA and ZBA have regard to the Design Priorities set in the City-Wide Urban Design Guidelines (2018)?

21. Does the proposed Amendments have regard to the City-Wide Urban Design Guidelines (2018) (including but not limited to Performance Standard No. 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.2 (continued) 5.2.5, 5.2.6, 5.3.2, 5.3.2 (continued), 5.3.7, 6.2.1, 6.2.3, 6.2.5, 6.2.8, 7.2.1.

Transportation and Parking

22. Having regard to the current and emerging planning context, including the work being done through the Weston and 7 Secondary Plan process and related Transportation Master Plan, is the proposed development appropriate from an area-wide traffic capacity and road network perspective?

23. Does the proposed development allow for an appropriate multi-modal transportation network and improvements? Will it preclude any multi-modal transportation network improvements that may ultimately be recommended by the Weston & 7 Secondary Plan?

24. Are the proposed vehicular and loading accesses appropriately located and consolidated?

25. Does the proposal provide an appropriate parking rate? Are the proposed resident vehicular parking rates appropriate or excessive in encouraging multi-modal travel and minimizing impacts to traffic operations?

26. Does the proposal provide adequate accessible parking?

27. Are the active transportation and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) facilities and measures (i.e. car-share spaces, bike-share stations, etc.,) proposed appropriate and satisfactory to encourage multi-modal travel and minimize traffic impacts?

28. Has the Applicant provided an appropriate Transportation Impact Study (“TIS”) for the proposed development, having regard to the recommendations of York Region’s Transportation Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications (November 2016) and does the TIS identify the traffic impacts of existing and proposed development(s) in the surrounding area?

29. Has the TIS adequately identified the impacts of the proposed development on the transportation infrastructure in the vicinity of the development, including but not limited to the driveway accesses to the Home Depot of Canada Inc. property to the east, intersections in the vicinity and the shared (with the Home Depot of Canada Inc. lands) driveway located on the site and identified adequate and appropriate resolutions to such impacts?

30. Does the TIS appropriately address the transportation infrastructure needs of the proposed development, such as improvements to Regional intersections, improvements to boundary roadways and a fine grid road network?

31. Has the Applicant identified and provided an appropriate Transportation Demand Management Plan to address the impacts of the proposed development on the existing transportation network?

32. Does the submitted Transportation Mobility Plan adequately capture existing traffic, the impacts of background development, and the impacts of proposed development and identify the multi-modal transportation improvements required to facilitate acceptable operations?

33. Has the Applicant provided a safe and efficient access configuration from an operations and safety perspective, including but not limited to the shared driveway with the neighbouring property? Specifically:

(a) Should the eastbound left-in movement from Northview Boulevard to the proposed access onto Northview Boulevard be restricted to reduce the impact on the Regional intersection of Weston Road and Northview Boulevard?

(b) Should the proposed development access onto Chrislea Road be restricted to right-in/right-out, given its proximity to the Regional intersection of Weston Road and Chrislea Road?

(c) is the width and configuration of the driveway on the east of the development site adequate?

Servicing

34. Is it appropriate that the Owner front-end finance and construct or contribute its proportionate share of the cost(s) associated with implementing the recommended municipal servicing infrastructure improvements identified in the Weston Road and Highway 7 Secondary Plan Area Functional Servicing Strategy Report to accommodate ultimate build-out of the Weston Road and Highway 7 Secondary Plan Area, per the conclusions and recommendations of the City’s on-going Integrated Urban Water Master Plan Class Environmental Assessment, to the satisfaction of the City?

35. Having regard to the current and emerging planning context, including the work being done through the Weston and 7 Secondary Plan process, is the Proposed Development appropriate from an area-wide servicing perspective?

36. Is there sufficient existing municipal infrastructure capacity to service the Proposed Development with water, sewer and stormwater management facilities? If not, are appropriate improvements proposed by the Owner?

37. Has a satisfactory revised Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report been provided to address the storm and sanitary sewer servicing needs of the Proposed Development?

Noise, Vibration, and Air Quality

38. Has a satisfactory revised Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report been provided to address the storm and sanitary sewer servicing needs of the Proposed Development?

39. Does the Proposed Development appropriately address all matters related to compatibility including but not limited to; Noise, Vibration and D-6 Land Use Compatibility/Air Quality impacts?

Parks

40. Does the Proposed Development provide adequate parkland for the proposed community?

41. Will the Proposed Development impede any future recommendations for parkland that may ultimately be outlined in the Weston & 7 Secondary Plan?

42. Does the Proposed Development comply with the City’s applicable parkland dedication by-law (currently By-law 168-2022)?

Implementation

43. In the event that the Tribunal allows the appeals in whole or in part, should the Proposed Development be subject to a Holding Provision (“H”) to require, among other things, the following to the City’s satisfaction:

(a) A Record of Site Condition (RSC) filed on the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks (MECP) Environmental Site Registry for the proposed change to a more sensitive land use?

(b) Submission of a detailed noise impact assessment and provision of any recommended noise control measures?

(c) Submission of a D-6 Land Use Compatibility/Air Quality study?

(d) The Owner has successfully obtained approval of a Site Development Application, to the satisfaction of the City.

(e) The Owner has contributed its share of the cost of infrastructure works and/or undertaken the necessary improvement works and entered into a Development Agreement (if required) with the City, for the works associated with implementing the municipal servicing improvements for the ultimate build-out of the Weston Road and Highway 7 Secondary Plan Area based on the conclusions and recommendations of the on-going Integrated Urban Water Master Plan Environmental Assessment and latest Functional Servicing Strategy Report, as required to the satisfaction of the City.

(f) Vaughan Council adopts a resolution allocating sewage and water supply capacity in accordance with the City’s approved Servicing Capacity Distribution Policy.

(g) Appropriate Stormwater management and/or transportation improvements.

Form of Amendments

44. Is the form and content of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 1-88 appropriate?

45. Is the form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment appropriate?

ATTACHMENT 4: ORDER OF EVIDENCE

NOTE: Where Parties of like interest have issues in common, they shall make reasonable efforts to coordinate their examinations-in-chief and cross-examinations so as to minimize any duplication or overlap of evidence. The Order of Evidence will be described in greater detail in the Work Plan that is filed with the Tribunal.

1. Wedgewood Columbus Limited (Applicant/Appellant)

2. Parties in Support of Wedgewood Columbus Limited

3. Parties in Opposition of Wedgewood Columbus Limited

4. Reply by Wedgewood Columbus Limited (if necessary)

ATTACHMENT 5: Purpose of the Procedural Order and Meaning of Terms

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. If an unincorporated group wishes to become a party, 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 authorization 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, must ask the Tribunal to permit this.

Participant is an individual, group or corporation, whether represented by a lawyer or not, who may attend only part of the proceeding but who makes a written statement to the Tribunal on all or some of the issues in the hearing in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

NOTE that such persons will likely not receive notice of a mediation or conference calls on procedural issues. They also cannot ask for costs, or review of a decision as parties can.

Written and Visual Evidence:

Written evidence includes all written material, reports, studies, documents, letters and witness statements which a party 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 intends to present as evidence at the hearing.

Witness Statements:

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 the witness will discuss and the witness’ opinions on those issues; and a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

An expert witness statement should include the expert’s (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 for the opinions and (5) a list of reports that the witness will rely on at the hearing.

A participant statement is a short written outline of the person’s or group’s background, experience and interest in the matter; a list of the issues which the participant will address and a short outline of the evidence on those issues; and a list of reports, relied upon, if any, which the participant will provide to the Tribunal for consideration of the written statement at the hearing.

Additional Information:

Summons: A party must ask a Tribunal Member or the senior staff of the Tribunal to issue a summons. This request must be made before the time that the list of witnesses is provided to the Tribunal and the parties (see Rule 13 on the summons procedure). If the Tribunal requests it, an affidavit must be provided indicating how the witness’ evidence is relevant to the hearing. If the Tribunal is not satisfied from the affidavit, it will require that a motion be heard to decide whether the witness should be summoned.

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.