OLT Week 3 Recap: The City’s Case

Monday March 18th, 2024

Week 3 of the hearing commenced a little behind schedule with Mr. Wellings, the planner for Millcroft Greens presenting on Monday.  We believe Mr. Wellings is familiar to the community as he has presented at community meetings and Council meetings in the past.  Mr. Wellings’ presentation was similar in content to what we have seen before, however his demeanor was far more subdued and beholden.  He made the case that these “compatible” homes (5,200 sq. ft. on smaller lots than the existing homes) would suit the Province’s goals of intensification. The City’s lawyers continue to represent the community well, highlighting that the proposed housing is not answering the criteria for intensification and that this proposed development does not achieve the goals of growth in transit-oriented locations.

Tuesday March 19th, 2024

The City’s case started with Mr. Manett, a Registered Professional Planning consultant, who presented a compelling case during his evidence in chief. However, cross examination proved difficult for this witness.  We have learned during this hearing that Millcroft Greens lawyers have a strategy of taking pieces of a document, presenting them to a witness to confirm, although it is usually out of context without the surrounding text.  Mr. Suriano, lawyer for Millcroft Greens, painted the planning argument as a NIMBY situation.

Wednesday March 20th, 2024

The stormwater aspect of the case kicked off with Mr. Scheckenberger (Mr. S as we will refer to him) who is a Water Resources Engineer. He is well known in the City of Burlington as a result of his extensive consulting projects including the forensic investigation of the 2014 Flood.  He presented a significant analysis of the flood in a 2017 report while he was employed by Amec Foster Wheeler.  This report identified in an insert from Conservation Halton, that the golf course lands performed as designed to accept the runoff from the neighbourhood and become the “flooded” area.  Mr. S. spoke to the water volume issues and suggested to the Tribunal that more extensive work and design solutions need to be considered before the application should be approved.  The current proposal may impede more comprehensive solutions to managing stormwater in the community.  Mr. S. has also been involved in establishing the City’s stormwater guidelines and advised the Tribunal that climate is an emerging situation. He spoke to the precipitation guidelines that were determined in 2019 and that due to the City’s state of climate emergency would be reviewed every five years.  To clarify, the stormwater guidelines established in 2020 will be reviewed in 2025 (next year).

Mr. Donnelly, MGA’s lawyer, cross-examined Mr. S. asking him about the precipitation guidelines currently in place and which are being used by Millcroft Greens to justify their case.

Thursday March 21st, 2024

Stormwater functional design was highlighted by Mr. Chipps, another Water Resources Engineer and consultant hired by the City.  He spoke about the significant engineering lapses in the current application and that if not addressed, could result in ponding and potential flooding in areas B, C and D.  Mr. Harrington, Millcroft Greens lawyer, asked Mr. Chipps if, in his 28 years’ experience he had ever completed such a detailed analysis.  Mr. Chipps answered that he hadn’t, which helps to confirm the extreme sensitivity of the area.

During cross-examination, Daintry Klein of Millcroft Greenspace Alliance asked Mr. Chipps if the detailed analysis he prepared was as a result of the sensitivity of this site.  He responded ‘yes’.

Friday March 22nd, 2024

The schedule was altered slightly on Friday with Ms. Torchia’s evidence.  As a forestry preservation expert for the City of Burlington, Ms. Torchia spoke to the City’s concerns about the significant number of large trees that would be removed as a result of Millcroft Greens development proposal.  She also spoke about the benefits of trees for cooling, and stormwater mitigation.

Daintry Klein cross-examined Ms. Torchia, asking where the City stands with respect to its tree canopy goal of 35%.  Ms. Torchia answered that the City is currently at 22% within the urban boundary.  We also asked if “parkland” trees, currently located on the Millcroft major parks and open space, offered a bigger benefit to the tree canopy than street trees.  Ms. Torchia answered that the trees on the golf course offer more tree canopy than the houses proposed will.

Millcroft Greens lawyer, Mr. Suriano, cross-examined Ms. Torchia in his typical fashion, trying to obtain agreement to specific information that would be out of context.  Mr. Suriano was arguing that Millcroft Greens had made efforts to preserve more trees by removing proposed lots on Area A showing a concept drawing to the Tribunal. After pointing out that Conservation Halton had requested the removal of the lots due to regulatory requirements, Ms. Torchia was very astute to request that they look at the initial arborist report compared to the revised arborist report. It was effectively time for a lunch break which accommodated Ms. Torchia’s ability to compare the two reports.  After the break, Mr. Suriano conveniently wanted to move to a different topic, and Ms. Torchia reminded him to revisit the preservation comment on Area A.  She then identified that the preservation benefits Mr. Suriano referred to were limited to one tree “with injury”.  Ms. Torchia represented our community and the City very well!

Mr. Malik, the City’s stormwater engineer, finished off the week.

Mr. Malik identified that the engineering solutions provided in the application were significantly incomplete and that his responsibility is to ensure that the proposed tanks are both situated suitably in location and size.  During Mr. Malik’s presentation he also spoke about the Millpond which has been discussed by numerous witnesses – Will it or won’t it exist?  Is it a storage pond or an irrigation pond? Will it be a pond or a brown pit?  The City’s position is that they don’t want to own it.

During cross-examination a few points came to light.  First, Mr. Malik emphasized that the City, not CH, is responsible for flood response.  Second, the City has an issue during flood response with the fact that the Millpond is privately owned.  Mr. Harrington pointed out that the proposed pond would be more accessible by the proposed road than the existing pond.  Mr. Malik identified that the proposed development is an opportunity for the City to improve its situation with respect to the Millpond.

And that comment wrapped it up for the week!