Notice under section 47 of the Environmental Bill or Rights– Appeal under another Act.

This notice is given by the appellant in accordance with section 47 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993. The notice was prepared by the appellant and represents its position. It does not represent or reflect the views of the Government of Ontario, nor does the Government of Ontario make any representations about the accuracy of the content of this notice.

Description of decision

On October 10, 2025, the City of Burlington’s Official Plan Amendment 2 (By-law No. 45-2024) was approved with modifications, updating the 2020 Official Plan to guide future development within three Protected Major Transit Station Areas.

Grounds for leave to appeal are as follow:

A number of policies and schedules in OPA 2 are completely detrimental to the redevelopment of the Property, are inconsistent with the policies of the PPS, and do not conform to the Region of Halton's Official Plan, which is now an Official Plan of the City of Burlington. These include:

1. The Property is identified as Queensway Commons Precinct on Schedule F. The vision for this Property as Queensway Commons is inconsistent with the policies of the Provincial Planning Statement and in particular, policies 2.1.6, 2.2, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.3, 2.4.,2.9, 3.1, and 3.2 in that this designation fails to optimize investments in existing infrastructure, and in particular existing transit infrastructure and should more properly be in the Burlington GO Central Precinct. In addition, the Queensway Commons Precinct does not conform to, among others, policies 79, 79.3 (7.2), (7.3), (9), and 81 of the Region of Halton Official Plan which is now an Official Plan of the City of Burlington.
    
2. Schedule F-1 in so far as it identifies the property as subject to "Further Study" in accordance with 8.1.2(5.2) of OPA 2. There is no clarity as to when this further study will take place or who is responsible for this further study and whether such further study will serve to delay the development potential of these lands.
    
3. Schedule F-2 in so far as it references policy 8.1.2(8.2).
    
4. Schedule F-3 and the policies of 8.1.2 (10.1) requiring the preparation of a tertiary plan is inappropriately burdensome for the Property by forcing significant public service facilities on lands which should be used to optimize the existing transit infrastructure. In addition, the requirement for a Tertiary plan, which among other things, is to be prepared to the satisfaction of the region which doesn’t even have land use planning responsibilities, will unnecessarily delay the development of the Property. Likewise, the requirement for cost sharing agreements in order to proceed with the redevelopment of the Property is entirely inappropriate in this context. The City is limited in what it can require as developer contributions as set out in the Planning Act, and the Development Charges Act. A Tertiary Plan is not an appropriate mechanism for the City to try to secure the type of infrastructure it is seeking to secure through the Tertiary plan policies.
    
5. The complete application requirements for properties subject to Tertiary Plan policies are entirely inappropriate. Moreover, pushing the details of these requirements to the Community Planning Permit By-law, which has yet to be approved, is bottom up planning.
    
6. Policy 8.1.2(2.2) a) as it relates to the Queensway Commons vision is unclear, particularly as it relates to the "avoidance" of "large, single use buildings".
    
7. Policy 8.1.2 (10.4) Complete Application requirements. A number of the complete application requirements are entirely unclear and will result in significant delays in having applications deemed complete in the City of Burlington. For example, requiring a shoring system design or construction and mobility Management plans at the OPA and Zoning stage is entirely premature. More certainty is required with respect to the listing of Complete Applications requirements.
    
8. The policies in OPA 2 pertaining to Community Planning Permit Systems found in 12.1.4 in so far as they do not conform to the Planning Act and Regulation 173/16.
    
9. Such further and other reasons as counsel may advise and the Tribunal may permit.

Additional details may be found on the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Case Status page.

Notice under section 47 of the Environmental Bill or Rights – Appeal under another Act.

This notice is given by the appellant in accordance with section 47 of the Environmental Bill of Rights, 1993. The notice was prepared by the appellant and represents its position. It does not represent or reflect the views of the Government of Ontario, nor does the Government of Ontario make any representations about the accuracy of the content of this notice.

Description of the decision:

On October 10, 2025, the City of Burlington’s Official Plan Amendment 2 (By-law No. 45-2024) was approved with modifications, updating the 2020 Official Plan to guide future development within three Protected Major Transit Station Areas.

Grounds for leave to appeal are as follow:

1. The Subject Property Can Support a Tall Building.
2. Land Use Compatibility Policies Are Too Onerous and Discretionary.
3. Minimum Unit Sizes Should Not Be Regulated.
4. Requirements to Replace Existing Employment Functions Are Overly Restrictive.
5. OPA 2 Does Not Have Sufficient Regard for Matters of Provincial Interest.
6. OPA 2 Is Not Consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement.

Additional details may be found on the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Case Status page.