January 3 was booked as the first of three days for an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Pre-Hearing Conference to consider a raft of appeals on a long list of matters, but it was all over by 1 p.m. So while everything hummed along smoothly, the last hour produced a nasty surprise.
At issue were the appeals of
– OPA 150, approved by Council in December 2013 but derailed by the successful Taggart/Walton motion (heard in August 2015, decision issued in February 2016)
– OPAs 140 & 141, corrections to OPA 150;
– OPA 180, containing the updates the Board imposed as requested by Taggart/Walton, approved by Council in January 2017;
– OPA 179, the new Significant Woodlands policy; and
– OPA 136, a site-specific appeal that for a reason unclear is being lumped in with these Official Plan appeals; a zoning by-law appeal; and a Plan of Subdivision appeal.
Further, a settlement with Taggart on its appeal of OPA 150 was requested to be endorsed by the Board. Mattamy and Minto were poised to oppose the settlement but became agreeable when the City and Taggart agreed to delete one clause from the settlement (i.e., that one remains under appeal)(*).
The City proposed a grouping of issues (phasing of the hearings) under the following headings:
- Agriculture
- Building Height, Design and Intensification [incl. OPA 136]
- Employment Land
- Mineral Aggregates
- Natural Systems [incl. OPA 179]
- Rural Servicing
- Transportation
- Urban Expansion
Sheila Perry on behalf of FCA expressed interest in the Building Heights, Natural Systems, Transportation and Urban Expansion phases.
The GA as an appellant is already part of the Natural Systems phase but, to be sure, Paul Johanis on behalf of the GA requested Party status for the OPA 179 appeals and also for the Urban Expansion phase. Rod MacLean was accepted as a Participant for Urban Expansion.
Note was taken of a significant number of withdrawals:
Karen Wright on behalf of CHNA | Taggart Realty Management | Trinity | Walton | and three other developers. With the settlement, Taggart Group of Companies has scoped remaining appeals way down, as has another developer.
With all that, the specter of facing an appeal of “everything” has receded. Long lists of Who-has-appealed-what were distributed last week. When finalized, their mirror-image — what is not or is no longer appealed — will result in certain parts of OPA 150 etc. finally coming into force.
Finalization of the Sunset Lakes decision is left to the Member presiding over that hearing; that will bring a few other clauses into force.
There will be another Pre-hearing Conference on May 4, by which time issues lists, parties and duration estimates are to have been sorted out.
The last hour was devoted to a request by the lawyer for Mattamy & Minto (who are appealing OPA 180) that the Board direct the City to produce certain documents. He tabled four letters of correspondence with City and Ministry ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ) arguing that a June 2017 study by IBI (6.6 MB) commissioned by the appellants should be considered; the study reached the preliminary conclusion that Ottawa needs, net, another 500 hectares of urban land. The Ministry consulted the City and, in August, approved OPA 180 without the requested changes.
They didn’t get anywhere today either. Though Member Makuch made some noises about doing everything possible to be efficient, he expressly did not ask the City to do anything.
They wanted staff’s opinion about the IBI study and hoped to see the matter return to Council for a decision to as yet expand the urban boundary.
Update – Feb 1: Today, the Board issued its decision, confirming that it will not order the City to produce the requested opinion outside the normal course of preparing for the upcoming hearings.
Update to the Update – May 2: Today, the Board issued a revised decision, correcting a number of technical errors. The cover letter and revised decision are here.
Comment: The option of as yet expanding the urban boundary as part of the 2014 Comprehensive Review is available only if one adheres to the discredited notion that the words “dealt with” in section 17(50.1) of the Planning Act mean that if Council considered something, they’ve “dealt with” it, even if they rejected it. A decision by a Divisional Court notwithstanding, Member Conti gave it credence in his Sunset Lakes decision. Bill 139 (not yet in force) has done away with the silliness by clarifying that it means “added, amended or revoked”. Really, what other words come to mind besides “outrageous” for this last-gasp attempt to expand the urban boundary?
Not to speak of the likelihood that Council, in an election year, would come back on a December 2013 decision not to open the boundary, affirmed in a January 2017 decision, and give in to these developer demands.
But then, don’t discount outrageous.
Erwin (edited from a January 3 posting to the GA List)
(*) Among the criteria to determine if an expansion of the urban boundary is required (section 2.2.1 of the OP), this one is withheld for further discussion/settlement/hearing:
a. Avoid lands designated ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ unless there is no reasonable alternative on lands which avoid ‘Agricultural Resource Area’ or the lands contain primarily poorer quality agricultural soils within such ‘Agricultural Resource Areas’;