Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 04, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000612

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

Applicant and Appellant: 210 Calvin Street GP Inc. Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of no more than 100 residential units Reference Number: UHOPA-20-013 Property Address: 210 Calvin Street Municipality: City of Hamilton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000612 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000612 OLT Case Name: 210 Calvin Street GP Inc. v. Hamilton (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 210 Calvin Street GP Inc. Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of no more than 100 residential units Reference Number: ZAC-20-017 Property Address: 210 Calvin Street Municipality: City of Hamilton OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000613 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000612 OLT Case Name: 210 Calvin Street GP Inc. v. Hamilton (City)

Heard: September 6, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
210 Calvin Street GP Inc.	Jennifer Meader
City of Hamilton	Peter Krysiak
Craigforth Inc.	George Limberis

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. I. MOLINARI ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) with respect to appeals filed pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”) by 210 Calvin Street GP Inc. (“210 GP Inc.”) against the City of Hamilton (“City”) for its failure to make a decision on Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications (“Applications”) within the timeframe prescribed by the Act.

2The purpose of the Applications is to facilitate a 100-unit residential development for the property at 210 Calvin Street (“Property”).

NOTICE

3An Affidavit of Service affirmed on August 7, 2024, attesting to the giving of notice for this proceeding, was marked as Exhibit 1. There were no concerns raised regarding the notice, and the Tribunal was satisfied that proper notice of this CMC had been provided. In this regard, no further notice is required for the appeals.

PARTY / PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUESTS

4In advance of the CMC, a request for Party status was received from Craigforth Inc. (“Craigforth”), a neighbouring property owner of lands to the west of the Property, citing concerns relating to access to the Craigforth property, the proposal for a bridge and a stormwater management pond abutting the Craigforth property, protection of the ravine lands, and the incorporation of a portion of the Craigforth property into the proposed development.

5Ms. Meader advised that 210 GP Inc. has no concerns related to the Party status request, with the caveat that Craigforth not be permitted to add issues to the Issues List (“IL”) that would require additional expert witnesses or lengthen the merit hearing, as she was seeking to have the merit hearing scheduled at this CMC. She noted that without this caveat, 210 GP Inc. would be prejudiced since both Craigforth and the City have had sufficient time to determine their issues.

6Mr. Limberis was not agreeable to limiting the scope of Craigforth’s issues, noting prejudice to his client. Mr. Krysiak noted that he does not have instructions from City Council at this time in order to finalize the IL or to determine the number of days required for the merit hearing, but that he will have such instructions after a scheduled City Council meeting on October 18, 2024. Mr. Krysiak did not voice concerns related to Craigforth’s Party status request.

7The Tribunal found that Craigforth has a genuine and direct interest in the matter and could assist the Tribunal in making its decision at the merit hearing.

8Party status was granted to Craigforth with no restrictions on the IL, the number of expert witnesses, or the required length for the merit hearing, given that the Tribunal determined it prudent to schedule a second CMC in order to finalize the draft Procedural Order (“DPO”) and IL, and to schedule the merit hearing.

9The Tribunal also received requests for Participant status from Cal and Lorianne Mendola, Dan Stewart, David Pentland, Jim Enos, Kevin Dunn, and Tandi Construction Ltd., collectively citing concerns related to the environment, the submitted studies, the proposed bridge design, neighbourhood compatibility, traffic, density, drainage and flooding, the use of Calvin Street for access during and post construction, access for the property owned by Tandi Construction Ltd., regard for s. 2 of the Act, consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020, and conformity with the Official Plan, among other concerns.

10With the consent of the Parties, Participant status was granted to all requestors listed in paragraph [9] as they each have a genuine and direct interest in the matter and could assist the Tribunal in making its decision at the merit hearing.

11There were no additional requests for Party or Participant status during the CMC.

12The Tribunal advised the Parties to ensure that their witnesses address the concerns of the Participants in their evidence.

DRAFT PROCEDURAL ORDER

13The Tribunal was in receipt of a DPO with a draft IL, but as indicated above, the City and Craigforth were not in a position to finalize the IL at this time.

14To ensure a fair and just resolution of the appeals, the Tribunal determined it prudent to defer finalization of the DPO and IL to a second CMC as scheduled below, with an amendment to paragraph 17 of the DPO related to the number of days referenced, and with the IL in its final form.

15With agreement from the Parties, the Tribunal directed Craigforth and the City to circulate final ILs amongst the Parties by Monday, October 14, 2024 and Tuesday, October 22, 2024 respectively, and 210 GP Inc. to submit the final DPO with the final IL to the Case Coordinator by Wednesday, October 23, 2024 for finalization and approval at the second CMC.

16The Parties should incorporate any required modifications in the final IL due to the coming into force of the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 on October 20, 2024.

NEXT STEPS

17The Tribunal engaged the Parties in a discussion about the next steps in the process, including the need for a second CMC given the issues noted above with respect to the IL.

18Ms. Meader noted that she was not averse to scheduling a second CMC, provided that an eight-day merit hearing also be scheduled at this time in order to not further delay the appeals.

19Both Craigforth and the City were opposed to scheduling a merit hearing date given the uncertainty of the IL and the required number of expert witnesses.

20The Tribunal determined that it was prudent to defer the scheduling of the merit hearing to the second CMC, given that a second CMC could be scheduled in October 2024, after Mr. Krysiak has obtained instructions from City Council, resulting in only a short delay to the scheduling of the merit hearing.

HEARING EVENTS

21The Tribunal scheduled a second CMC for Thursday, October 24, 2024, at 10 a.m. by video hearing.

22Parties and Participants are asked to log in to the event at least 15 minutes before it begins to test their video and audio connections:

GoTo Meeting: https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/519389173

Access Code: 519-389-173

23Parties and Participants are asked to access and set up the application well in advance of the event to avoid unnecessary delay. The desktop application can be downloaded at GoTo Meeting or a web application is available: https://app.gotomeeting.com/home.html

24Persons who experience technical difficulties accessing the GoTo Meeting application or who only wish to listen to the event can connect to it by calling in to an audio-only telephone line: +1 (647) 497-9373 or (Toll-Free) 1-888-299-1889. The access code is: 519-389-173.

25Individuals are directed to connect to the event on the assigned date at the correct time. It is the responsibility of the persons participating in the event to ensure that they are properly connected at the correct time. Questions prior to the event may be directed to the Tribunal’s Case Coordinator.

MEDIATION

26The Tribunal advised the Parties of the option of Tribunal-led mediation and to contact the Case Coordinator to determine next steps if the need for mediation arises.

ORDER

27THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a) Party status is granted to Craigforth Inc.;

b) Participant status is granted to Cal and Lorianne Mendola, Dan Stewart, David Pentland, Jim Enos, Kevin Dunn, and Tandi Construction Ltd.;

c) A second Case Management Conference will be held by video hearing as scheduled above; and

d) The Parties are to circulate the final Issues Lists amongst the Parties and to submit the final draft Procedural Order with the final Issues List to the Case Coordinator for finalization and approval at the second CMC, as directed above.

28No further notice is required.

29The Member is not seized of this matter.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

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.