Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: December 24, 2021
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001108
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2772639 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 217 Harold Avenue
Municipality: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Municipal File No.: CA-21-04
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001108
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001108
OLT Case Name: 2772639 Ontario Inc. v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2772639 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 217 Harold Avenue
Municipality: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Municipal File No.: CA-21-05
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001108
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001109
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2772639 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 217 Harold Avenue
Variance from By-law: 2010-001-ZO
Municipality: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Municipal File No.: CA-21-15
OLT Lead No.: OLT-21-001108
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001110
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2772639 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 217 Harold Avenue
Variance from By-law: 2010-001-ZO
Municipality: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Municipal File No.: CA-21-16
OLT Lead No.: OLT-21-001108
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001111
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 2772639 Ontario Inc.
Subject: Minor Variance
Property Address/Description: 217 Harold Avenue
Variance from By-law: 2010-001-ZO
Municipality: Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville
Municipal File No.: CA-21-17
OLT Lead No.: OLT-21-001108
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001112
Heard: November 19, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
2772639 Ontario Inc. (“Appellant”) K. Sliwa K. Vergis-Mayo
Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville No one appeared (“Town”)
Memorandum of oral DECISION DELIVERED BY m. russo on November 19, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The Appellant had applied to the Town’s Committee of Adjustment (the “C of A”) to sever two lots from an existing residential lot at 217 Harold Avenue (the “subject lands”) resulting in three residential lots (two newly formed lots and one retained lot).
2The Appellant sought these Consents to facilitate the development and construction of three single-detached dwellings on the subject lands.
3Further required and sought by the Appellant were four Minor Variances (the “MVs”) for each of the three lots proposed and relief from the Town’s Zoning By-Law No. 2010-001-ZO (the “ZBL”) to allow for the construction of the three proposed dwellings.
4The table below identifies in column one, the four variances sought for each lot to accommodate the proposed dwelling. In Column 2, the ZBL requirement is identified. With Columns 3 to 5 respectfully identifying the MVs for each proposed lot.
5The C of A refused the applications of the Appellant at its April 14, 2021 meeting with its decision rendered in writing on May 12, 2021.
6The C of A cited reasons for refusal of the two Consent applications as follows:
…that the proposed streetscape and lot fabric abutting Harold Avenue is not compatible, thus the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are not desirable nor appropriate for the neighbourhood and for the residential use of the land.
7The C of A cited reasons for refusal of the three MV applications as follows:
the proposed variances are not minor nor desirable for the neighbourhood and for the residential use of the land.
8Town planning staff had recommended provisional approval of all the applications, subject to conditions, in its C of A Report dated April 14, 2021.
9The Appellant chose to exercise its statutory rights to appeal pursuant to the Planning Act (the “Act”), s. 53(19) and s. 45(12).
The hearing
10Counsel for the Appellant advised the Tribunal that through discussions with the Town, she was made aware that the Town will not be present at this hearing and is not taking a position on the matter.
11Two written requests for Participant status were received by the Tribunal from nearby residents. With no objections or concerns heard from Counsel and the Tribunal satisfied the requests met the requirements of Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure Rule 7.7, Shelley Mogdan and Lisa Jensen were granted Participant status.
12Counsel for the Appellant provided the Tribunal a brief opening submission and overview of the Consents and variances sought. Included was the historical evolution of the proposal which originally proposed four lots and dwellings that was supported by Town staff; however, Town staff preferred the three lot and dwelling proposal currently before the Tribunal and also recommended by the Appellant’s consultant.
13Following this overview, Counsel introduced two witnesses that were being called to support the Appellant’s current proposal.
i. Michael Smith – Land-use Planning
ii. David Stewart – Urban Design and Architectural Controls and Design.
14Provided to the Tribunal were the witnesses’ Curriculum Vitae (“CV”) and Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty Forms in Tabs 1 and 2 of the Revised Document Book (Exhibit 2). Having reviewed the contents provided and having heard a brief description of their qualifications and background, the Tribunal duly affirmed and qualified the witnesses to provide expert opinion evidence in the fields as noted.
Statutory Tests Required
15The Tribunal is tasked to determine if the Consents sought by these appeals have regard to Provincial interests set out in s. 2 of the Act and satisfy all applicable criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act. Also, the Tribunal must determine consistency of the proposal with Provincial interests as set out in the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”).
16The Tribunal must also determine that the variances sought are consistent with the PPS and further meet the four tests as set out by s. 45(1) of the Act.
17More specifically, the Tribunal must determine whether:
i. the variance meets the intent and purpose of the Town and Regional Official Plans (the “OPs”);
ii. the variance meets the intent and purpose of the Zoning By- Law;
iii. the variance is minor in nature; and
iv. the variance is appropriate and desirable.
Land-Use Planning Evidence
18Mr. Smith brought the Tribunal to Tab 24 of Exhibit 2, being the LPAT decision of Fairpark Homes Inc. v. Whitchurch-Stouffville (Town), 2019 LNONLPAT 1408 (Tribunal File No. PL190208) (“Fairpark Homes”). The Tribunal approved consents and variances affecting properties directly north and abutting the subject lands. Mr. Smith consulted on those applications and appeals as well. In rendering an opinion on the current proposal and subject lands, Mr. Smith opined that the similarities in context and character should be considered and felt one should have regard to the Tribunal’s previous decision on the adjacent lands in formulating an opinion of the subject lands.
19Mr. Smith in his oral evidence provided a brief overview of what is existing currently and a brief account of the evolution of the applications.
20Currently on the subject lands is a single detached dwelling on the north side of Harold Avenue and facing south. The dwelling has vehicular access from both Harold Avenue and William Street.
21Mr. Smith brought attention to the fact that the subject lands are comprised of two whole lots and a part lot. This is significant in the opinion of Mr. Smith as this allows the owner of the lands the ability and option to obtain permissions to construct two dwellings on the subject lands as-of-right and only subject to building permit requirements if other zoning requirements are met. This strengthened the opinion of Mr. Smith that the three-lot proposal before the Tribunal is appropriate and minor.
22It was Mr. Smith’s opinion that the four lots previously proposed at the initial pre-consultation between Town planning staff and himself was supportable; however, the reduction to three lots was better, and more in keeping with the character of the area and the evolving lot fabric with approvals to the lands to the north of the subject lands.
23Further having regard to the Fairpark Homes decision, Mr. Smith opined that the lot orientation and frontages of all three lots proposed, be best provided with dwelling frontages all on William Street and exclusive William Street vehicular access and driveway orientation.
Sections 2 and 51(24) of the Planning Act
24Mr. Smith provided the Tribunal his opinion that the proposal has taken direction and has had regard to Provincial interest and relevant subsections in s. 2 and also s. 51(24) of the Act.
25Pertaining to s. 2 of the Act, Mr. Smith cited:
(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing;
(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;
(r) the promotion of built form that,
(i) is well-designed,
(ii) encourages a sense of place, and
(iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant;…
26In reference to s. 51(24), Mr. Smith cited relevant subsections as follows:
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
27It was Mr. Smith’s opinion that all relevant Provincial interests have been met and achieved by the proposal. He opined and focused on the proposal being a very modest infill development supporting Provincial, Regional and Town direction. It is located in a settlement area that is well serviced and suitable for the proposed scale of development. Mr. Smith opined the proposal is well designed, encourages a sense of place, is high quality, attractive and vibrant. He also opined the proposal is accessible and maintains a safe environment (providing a proposed daylight triangle at the corner of William Street and Harold Avenue, and proposing vehicular parking and access from William Street).
28In speaking to some criticisms heard during the public process pertaining to the lack of sidewalks, Mr. Smith opined that this is in keeping with Town OP policies that discourages such inclusions in areas not originally providing sidewalks and in keeping with the character of the area.
The Provincial Policy Statement
29It was the opinion of Mr. Smith that the proposal is consistent and maintains Provincial interest as required to the PPS.
30Mr. Smith opined that the proposal was consistent to s. 1.1.3.1 of the PPS that states, “Settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development”. With the proposal being a very minor and appropriate level of infill development, it is in keeping with the character of the established area.
31Section 1.1.3.3 was opined to be relevant and consistent with the proposal. It was Mr. Smith’s opinion that the proposal has been identified by the local planning authorities to be a proper location of growth and being quite transit-supportive with both GO rail and bus service routes a short walk away to the subject lands, and active transport and pedestrian connections already well established.
32Mr. Smith also believed that the proposal was consistent to policy 1.4, Housing and relevant subsections. In his opinion, the proposal provided a modest but appropriate range and mix of housing, that is in keeping with the existing character of the area, while offering desired updating to the area’s housing inventory. This being done in a manner that efficiently uses under utilized land in an area that already provides the infrastructure, transit options and public service facilities to serve the proposal.
33Mr. Smith brought the Tribunal to s. 1.6.6.2 and opined the subject lands and proposal are consistent with this policy and promote and utilize municipal water and sewage services already existing.
34The proposal is consistent to s. 1.8, Energy Conservation, Air Quality and Climate Change in the opinion of Mr. Smith. Although modest in density, the proposal implements a compact built form that will capitalize on modern building practices and codes to ensure energy efficiency of the dwellings, as well as its proximity to transit and municipal parks and trails promotes active transport and less vehicular dependency.
The Official Plans
35Mr. Smith noted that the subject lands fall within the settlement area of the Region of York’s OP where intensification is to occur.
36In the Town OP, Mr. Smith identified the subject lands fall within the area the Town has designated as “Existing Residential Area”.
37Mr. Smith opined the proposal meets the objectives cited in the Town OP in s. 12.2.3, and support the community development principles:
i) To encourage a community form and design at all levels of development, which provides opportunities for communication between residents, and, in particular, allows for pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular access between different residential neighbourhoods, and between Residential Areas and activity areas such as the core, the arena/high school complex and the mixed use area at the western entrance to the community.
ii) To provide for new development which will be respectful of the heritage of the community and its relationship with the surrounding rural area through appropriate design.
iii) To protect the heritage of the community through the preservation and enhancement of heritage buildings, streetscapes and other features.
iv) To provide for a linked open space and trail system, including natural features and parkland, as a central feature of the community which will reinforce its special character.
v) To provide for development, including housing forms and densities, which is consistent with the character of the community, while recognizing that outside of existing residential areas, this may include significant intensification of existing development.
38The Town OP, in s. 12.3.1, Purpose, identifies the lands as Residential Areas; however, further to this structural element, Schedule “F” forms the basis for the Town’s community growth management and intensification strategy that identify the subject lands to be within ii) Built Area Boundary.
39Mr. Smith opined that the proposal conforms to policy 12.7.5.1:
The Existing Residential Area designation recognizes existing residential neighbourhoods dominated by single detached dwellings. The neighbourhoods situated within this designation are stable and there has been limited pressure for redevelopment and intensification. This designation has been created to provide policies to guide development and redevelopment to ensure that new uses are appropriately integrated into neighbourhoods in a manner that is generally compatible with the existing character and density of these areas. Should opportunities for intensification occur, the policies in this plan will ensure that the character of the neighbourhoods are preserved.
40The subject lands have land use designations that allow for low density residential uses including single detached dwellings, semi-detached and duplex dwellings. The proposal has chosen to include modest development as opined by Mr. Smith that includes only fully detached dwellings more inline with the existing character of the neighbourhood.
41Mr. Smith brought the Tribunal to s. 12.7.5.3 of the Town OP, Land Use polices where he opined the proposal conforms to the relevant subsections of this policy, which includes conformity to relevant subsection of s. 12.4, Community Character Strategy and an appropriate Urban Design Plan, which Mr. Smith adopts the opinions of Mr. Stewart that this proposal has provided. Further, Mr. Smith opined the character and discernable edges of the neighbourhood have been considered by the proposal and sympathetic built forms have been proposed that include appropriate building orientation, setbacks, parking, massing that are respectful and compatible to the existing character of the neighbourhood.
42In closing with his opinions of the proposal and the intent of the OP, Mr. Smith opined that he along with Town planning staff believed the original proposal (four lots on the subject lands) met the intent of the OP and worked well. However, the current proposal (three lots) meets the intent of the OP and works better to the existing and evolving character of the neighbourhood.
Section 45(1) of the Planning Act and the Four Tests
43Mr. Smith opined that the variances sought meet the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act.
44It was Mr. Smith’s opinion that the variances before the Tribunal:
i. meet the intent of the Regional and Town OPs;
ii. meet the intent of the applicable ZBL;
iii. are minor in nature, and;
iv. are desirable and appropriate.
45Mr. Smith provided oral, written and visual evidence that he opined substantiates conformity with the OPs and the proposal meeting the intent of the ZBL. Further, with the evidence in his opinion demonstrating that no negative impacts will be felt by the proposal, the variances are minor, and the modest infill development proposed is compatible and augments the existing and evolving area that further demonstrates the proposal is desirable and appropriate.
Urban Design
46Mr. Stewart opined that although from a land-use planning perspective he could see the original four-lot proposal being supportable, it was his professional opinion that from an urban design perspective, his support required the three-lot proposal to be put forward.
47It was Mr. Stewart’s opinion that the three-lot proposal all fronting on William Street was more inline with the character of the neighbourhood, both existing and evolving. It was his view that this was a natural continuance of the Fairpark Homes Decision and an appropriate evolution of development in the area. Mr. Stewart opined the proposed designs for the dwellings are compatible and provide a high level of architectural elements that coexist and are inline with the historical feel of the neighbourhood. Mr. Stewart acknowledged and felt initial design elements proposed and considered were quite attractive; however, he felt they were too modern and not as characteristic and in keeping of the historical features of the area as is now proposed.
48In formulating his opinions of the proposal’s urban design merits, Mr. Stewart reviewed the severance sketch and Town Planning staff comments (which were supportive of the applications) provided in Exhibit 2. He also reviewed the Town’s Urban Design Guidelines and s. 12 of the Town OP, and the Community of Stouffville Secondary Plan and Resident Intensification Urban Design Guidelines.
49Further, Mr. Stewart was the author of the Urban Design Plan prepared for the Appellant, which was provided to Town Planning staff and to the C of A and now before the Tribunal in Exhibit 2. The purpose of the Urban Design Plan is to address Town OP, s. 12.7.5.3 (ii) which states:
For development proposals requiring an approval under the authority of the Planning Act, the applicant shall submit with their application an Urban Design Plan for the site and surrounding lands within 45 metres (145 feet) which includes information on how the proposed development will be integrated with existing built form on adjacent lands and the streetscape. In addition, the applicant will prepare and submit to the Municipality perspective elevation drawings of the proposed buildings and structures.
50Mr. Stewart highlighted and distinguished on an OP Map for the Tribunal, that the subject lands do not fall within the Town’s identified Heritage District. Harold Avenue being the boundary of the Heritage District and lands on the south side of Harold Avenue falling within, and lands on the north side falling outside of the delineated Town boundary. Although Mr. Stewart does not deny the neighbourhood is influenced by heritage elements, it is his opinion that the policy is not as restrictive on the subject lands, opposed to lands falling within the Heritage District.
51It was Mr. Stewart’s professional opinion that the proposal conforms to the OP and meets the intent of the ZBL from an urban design perspective.
52Reiterating and sharing the opinions provided by Mr. Smith, Mr. Stewart opined the subject lands fall within an existing residential area and the residential dwellings proposed are permitted uses.
53Mr. Stewart opined the proposed built form is sympathetic to the existing character of the area while providing appropriate setbacks and massing. Further, he opined the proposal implements and has regard to overlook and public realm in an eclectic and evolving area that still respects the existing heritage flare and character of the community.
54The proposed lot orientation and frontages, as well as parking and garage orientation are appropriate and conform to s. 12.4.2.1.1 vii) of the OP, in Mr. Stewart’s opinion, and further the lack of sidewalks proposed is in keeping with policy direction of Town OP, s.12.4.2.1.1 ii).
55Mr. Stewart opined the proposal meets the intent of the Community of Stouffville Urban Design Guidelines. The Intensification Guidelines do not apply because of the limited density and scale of the proposal. It was Mr. Stewart’s professional opinion that the proposal is a modest infill development that makes use of under utilized lands, which requires the requested Consents and Variances in order to construct the proposed single residential detached dwellings, in an area that has identified those dwelling types as permitted uses.
56In closing, Mr. Stewart provided this opinion to the Tribunal that “being compatible does not equate to replication, it is the ability to co-exist harmoniously with the existing dwellings in the area with no negative impacts”. Mr. Stewart opined that from an urban design perspective, the proposal appropriately achieves compatibility with its surrounding neighbourhood.
Participants
57Primary concerns cited on the Participant statements provided to the Tribunal focused on heritage preservation and compatibility, as well as the proposal’s MVs and their evaluation to the four tests.
58Having reviewed the Participant statements, the Tribunal is satisfied the evidence heard and submissions provided have taken into account the concerns and issues cited by the Participants in their statements.
Findings and Analysis
59The Tribunal received the uncontroverted expert evidence of Messrs. Smith and Stewart in support of the variances and severances sought by the Appellant.
60The Tribunal finds that the proposed streetscape and lot fabric abutting Harold Avenue is compatible, and the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are desirable and appropriate for the neighbourhood and for the residential use of the land.
61The Tribunal is satisfied and finds the proposed variances are minor and desirable for the neighbourhood and for the residential use of the land.
62The Tribunal has determined that the proposal has met and has had regard to Provincial interest in s. 2 and the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal has regard to the impact of heritage features, the adequate provisions of a full range of housing, orderly development of safe and healthy communities and appropriate location for growth and development. The proposal conforms with the OP and the subject lands are considered a suitable location for infill development that is supported by existing municipal infrastructure.
63The Tribunal finds that the proposal is consistent with the policy direction established by the PPS, and as maintained by the OP. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal represents development that is considered to be a minor infilling of an under utilized property, has due regard for matters of Provincial interest, is consistent with the principles of good land use planning and is in the greater public interest.
64The Tribunal is satisfied that the evidence provided in evaluating the four tests set out in the Act is sufficient and provides the Tribunal the ability to determine that the proposal and MVs sought:
i. do meet the intent and purpose of the Town and Regional OPs;
ii. do meet the intent and purpose of the ZBL;
iii. are variance minor in nature; and
iv. are appropriate and desirable.
Proposed Conditions of Approval
65The Tribunal has reviewed the proposed conditions of approval provided at this hearing and has determined them to be sufficient and appropriate for provisional approval of the Consents and Variances sought.
ORDER
66THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the provisional consents are to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment “1” to this Order.
67THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and variances to By-law No. 2010-001-ZO are authorized as set out in Attachment “2” to this Order.
68THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the approval of the variances and consents, are to be in substantial conformity to Schedule “A” attached to this Order being the Severance Sketches prepared by Michael Smith Planning Consultants Development Coordinators Ltd., dated December 21, 2020.
69AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that it may be spoken to in the event that there are any issues arising from the implementation of this Order, and/or the clearance of the conditions.
“M. Russo”
m. russo
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.
OLT21-001108 – Attachment 1
Consent Conditions of Approval
- THAT Provisional Consent for File No. CA-21-04 be granted, and the Tribunal be advised that the proposal subject to the following conditions, have cleared or fulfilled the following;
Payment of the Administrative Fee applicable to the current Fees and Charges Bylaws at the time the lands are conveyed (severed) per created lot by certified cheque to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville;
Payment of 5% of the appraised value of the one (1) new residential lot, be made to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville in lieu of parkland dedication. The appraisal shall be completed by a qualified appraiser, in accordance with Section 53(13) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 as amended, which provides, in part, ‘for the purpose of determining the amount of payment, the value of the land shall be determined as of the day before the day the provisional consent was given’, plus an administrative fee of 10 % incurred by the Town;
Written confirmation from the Clerks Department, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, that municipal addresses have been assigned to the lands to be conveyed (severed);
Confirmation that the equivalent of one (1) single detached dwellings of sanitary sewer and water servicing has been allocated to the lands to be conveyed;
Written confirmation from the Development Services Department that the Owner has entered into a Development Agreement with the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville concerning the proposed lots which would include all related matters such as site engineering, lot grading and drainage, servicing, landscaping, tree compensation, architectural control for which the applicant will be responsible to pay all applicable fees in accordance with the Town’s Fees and Charges By-law. The Development Agreement must be registered on title to fulfill this Condition.
The said Agreement shall include the following provisions:
That the Owner pay the Town’s cost incurred in connection with the preparation and registration of the Agreement referred to in this condition and acknowledgement by the Owner that all servicing connection costs are at the sole expense of the Owner for the conveyed parcels;
Confirmation that the existing single detached dwelling and detached garage on the subject property have been demolished;
Submission of three (3) white prints of a deposited Plan of Reference of the subject land, which conforms substantially with the application as submitted, and includes the calculated area of each part on the Plan; and,
Submission of a fully executed Transfer/Deed of Land for the lands to be conveyed.
- AND THAT Provisional Consent for File No. CA-21-05 be granted, and the Tribunal be advised that the proposal subject to the following conditions, have cleared or fulfilled the following;
Payment of the Administrative Fee applicable to the current Fees and Charges Bylaws at the time the lands are conveyed (severed) per created lot by certified cheque to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville;
Written confirmation from the Clerks Department, Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville, that municipal addresses have been assigned to the lands to be conveyed (severed);
Confirmation that the equivalent of one (1) single detached dwellings of sanitary sewer and water servicing has been allocated to the lands to be conveyed; and
Written confirmation from the Development Services Department that the Owner has entered into a Development Agreement with the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville concerning the proposed lot which would include all related matters such as site engineering, lot grading and drainage, servicing, landscaping, tree compensation, architectural control for which the applicant will be responsible to pay all applicable fees in accordance with the Town’s Fees and Charges By-law. The Development Agreement must be registered on title to fulfill this Condition.
The said Agreement shall include the following provisions:
That the Owner pay the Town’s cost incurred in connection with the preparation and registration of the Agreement referred to in this condition and acknowledgement by the Owner that all servicing connection costs are at the sole expense of the Owner for the conveyed parcels;
Confirmation that the existing single detached dwelling and detached garage on the subject property have been demolished;
Submission of three (3) white prints of a deposited Plan of Reference of the subject land, which conforms substantially with the application as submitted, and includes the calculated area of each part on the Plan; and,
Submission of a fully executed Transfer/Deed of Land for the lands to be conveyed.
OLT21-001108 – Attachment 2
Minor Variance Conditions of Approval
- AND THAT the Request for Minor Variances, File No. CA-21-15 be approved in substantial conformity with the Plan attached as SCHEDULE A to permit:
a minimum lot frontage of 14.9 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres;
a minimum interior side yard of 1.2 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the bylaw requires a minimum interior side yard of 1.5 metres;
a maximum lot coverage of 45% whereas Table 5.2 of the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 35%; and
a maximum building length of 19 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the bylaw permits a maximum building length of 17 metres.
- AND THAT the Request for Minor Variances, File No. CA-21-16 be approved in substantial conformity with the Plan attached as SCHEDULE A to permit:
a minimum lot frontage of 14.9 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres;
a minimum interior side yard of 1.2 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the bylaw requires a minimum interior side yard of 1.5 metres;
a maximum lot coverage of 45% whereas Table 5.2 of the by-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 35%; and
a maximum building length of 19 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the bylaw permits a maximum building length of 17 metres.
- AND THAT the Request for Minor Variances, File No. CA-21-17 be approved in substantial conformity with the Plan attached as SCHEDULE A to permit:
a minimum lot frontage of 16 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the By-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres;
a minimum interior side yard of 1.2 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the Bylaw requires a minimum interior side yard of 1.5 metres;
a maximum lot coverage of 37% whereas Table 5.2 of the By-law permits a maximum lot coverage of 35%;
a maximum building length of 19 metres whereas Table 5.2 of the Bylaw permits a maximum building length of 18 metres.”
