9160 Bayview Avenue Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City), 2021 CanLII 51732

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement

du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

June 07, 2021

CASE NO(S).:

PL200597

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) and the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “LPAT”) is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board or Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant:

9160 Bayview Avenue Inc.

Subject:

Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.:

100-10, as amended

Property Address/Description:

9160 Bayview Avenue

Municipality:

City of Richmond Hill

Municipal File No.:

A051/19

LPAT Case No.:

PL200597

LPAT File No.:

PL200597

LPAT Case Name:

9160 Bayview Avenue Inc. v. Richmond Hill (City)

Heard:

May 18, 2021 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

9160 Bayview Avenue Inc.

Michael Cook

City of Richmond Hill

No One Appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY T.F. NG ON MAY 18, 2021 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

19160 Bayview Avenue Inc. (“Applicant”) has appealed the Committee of Adjustment’s (“COA”) rejection of a variance application in respect of property located at 9160 Bayview Avenue (“subject property/site”), in the City of Richmond Hill (“City”). The Applicant requires a variance for the reduction of the number of required parking spaces to accommodate the use of a portion of an existing building’s basement as an X-Ray laboratory. The application was denied by the COA on October 22, 2020.

2Counsel for the Applicant, Michael Cook, informed the Tribunal that he received an email that the City will not send any representative at the hearing while noting that City planning staff in the report of October 20, 2020, was in support of the application.

3Mr. Cook called Adam Layton, a Land Use Planner to give evidence in support of the variance application. He also called Anil Seegobin a traffic engineer as witness. Mr. Layton was qualified by the Tribunal to give expert opinion evidence on land use planning matters. His witness statement was marked as Exhibit 3. Mr. Seegobin was qualified to give expert opinion evidence on traffic planning matters and his witness statement was marked as Exhibit 4. The Applicant’s Document Book was marked as Exhibit 1 and the Visual Evidence was marked as Exhibit 2.

4The Tribunal is satisfied based on the uncontroverted evidence before it that the variance should be allowed and authorized for the reasons that follow.

5The relief requested under Zoning By-law No.100-10 (“ZBL”) as amended, is for a variance:

1. To permit the reduction of the minimum number of parking spaces from the 93 parking spaces required to 51 parking spaces to accommodate the use of a portion of the existing building’s basement for an X-Ray laboratory.

6The subject property is located on the west side of Bayview Avenue, south of the intersection with Duncan Road. The surrounding area primarily consists of low-density residential uses, although there are several commercial, medium-density, and institutional uses which front onto Bayview Avenue between 16th Avenue and Bantry Avenue, including the subject property. Presently, a new daycare facility is being constructed at the northwest corner of Duncan Road and Bayview Avenue, across the street from the subject property.

7The subject property is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of approximately 47 metres (154 feet) along Bayview Avenue, and a depth of approximately 65 metres (213 feet).

8Within the Town of Richmond Hill Sixteenth Avenue-Duncan Road Area Zoning By-law No. 255-96, the subject property is located within the Low Density Residential (R7) Zone and is subject to exception 5. Within By-law No. 255-96, medical offices, clinics and veterinary clinics require parking at a rate of 5 spaces per practitioner. Exception 5 provides that on the lands known as 231 Duncan Road and 9160 Bayview, the permitted uses are medical clinics and business and professional offices. The exception also provides development standards related to yard setbacks, maximum height, and maximum lot coverage.

9The Applicant seeks to renovate the basement of the existing structure to permit an additional 200.75 square metres (2,160.86 square feet) of office space. The proposed floor space is intended to be used as an X-Ray Laboratory serving a supportive function to the existing medical office space in the upper levels of the building.

10A new secure bicycle parking facility is to be constructed in the basement as part of a suite of Transportation Demand Management (“TDM”) measures to help encourage alternative means of accessing the property by patrons and staff. The Applicant has agreed to maintain the balance of the basement area as unoccupied storage space.

11No exterior alterations are proposed to the existing building, with the exception of the installation of a new bicycle parking rack along the existing walkway within the front yard adjacent to Bayview Avenue. Further, one parking space is to be converted to a car pool space.

12The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed variance at the subject property has regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act (“Act”) in particular 2(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; s. 2(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians, and 2(r) the promotion of built form that is well-designed.

13An Applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that the four tests in s. 45(1) of the Act are met i.e. that the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law, is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land building or structure and is minor in nature.

EVIDENCE

14The Tribunal is satisfied with the evidence of both expert witnesses that the minor variance should be authorized. The evidence is uncontradicted and supports the minor variance application.

TRAFFIC ENGINEER

15In Mr. Seegobin’s opinion, the existing parking supply of 51 spaces can accommodate the future parking demands at the subject property site with the additional medical office unit proposed. The TDM plan sets up a strategy to encourage a reduction in parking demands.

1. The existing parking demands at the site are met by the supply. The proposed one‐unit X‐ray laboratory addition is supportive of the existing medical offices and likely would not generate its own parking demands in a significant manner.

2. He stated that the site provides an appropriate supply of parking. An oversupply would encourage more driving whereas the proposed supply, plus TDM measures, encourage alternative modes of travel to the site.

3. City staff were satisfied with the parking analysis and conclusions for parking supply. They recommended that the Minor Variance be approved.

16Mr. Seegobin explained that the site is occupied by an existing two‐storey medical office building with an attic and a basement level. The first and second floors, and the attic are occupied by medical offices of various disciplines, including family medicine, optometry, physical therapy, and infusion. However, the basement level is unoccupied and currently serves as an ancillary storage area.

1. The current proposal is for one additional medical office unit with 200.7 square metre of GFA in the basement.

2. The one additional unit is planned to be an X‐ray laboratory, envisioned to support the existing medical office units, since there is no existing X‐ray laboratory at the site. Notwithstanding the new bicycle locker room proposed to promote cycling to the site, the remaining basement area is proposed to remain unused or as storage space.

3. The X‐ray lab (currently sited elsewhere) will consist of two staff total – one practitioner and one support staff. Based on their historical patient scheduling data on 3 typical weekdays, up to 2 parking spaces were used by patients at a given time, resulting in a peak parking demand of 4 spaces when including staff.

17Under the Zoning By‐law No. 100‐10 (“ZBL”), the parking requirement of the existing medical building is 82 spaces, and 93 spaces with the proposed medical office unit (confirmed by City Staff). The proposed unit increases the overall site parking requirement by 11 spaces.

1. Mr. Seegobin stated that currently at the subject property, parking is provided by a surface parking lot with 51 spaces, which is proposed to remain as is, except for one regular parking space proposed to be converted into a carpool space.

2. An agreement was secured with a nearby Church by the Applicant to permit up to 25 parking spaces at the Church to be used by the medical building.

18Mr. Seegobin proposed a TDM measure methodology at the site. These TDM measures are expected to reduce parking demands at the site, in line with the goals in the York Region Official Plan (“ROP”), which strives to achieve an overall transit modal split of 30% during peak periods in the Urban Area by 2031. The TDM measures include:

1. Transit incentives, such as pre‐loaded or monthly Presto cards, shall be given to employees that currently use or plan on using transit to commute to the building. The incentive amount and duration are to be determined in consultation with York Region staff.

2. New bicycle parking racks are proposed, providing 6 short‐term spaces near the building entrance on Bayview Avenue for visitors.

3. A new bicycle locker room in the basement is proposed, providing a total of 8 lockers for employees, one for each of the existing and proposed medical office units.

4. A dedicated carpool parking space to encourage employees to carpool, whenever possible. Smart Commute membership is also recommended.

19The impacts of the proposed TDM measures were evaluated based on the findings and recommendations of multiple municipally initiated and transit authority documents.

1. Based on the City Parking Strategy, providing bicycle facilities may result in a parking reduction ranging from 5 to 15 percent. Furthermore, financial incentives such as pre‐loaded or monthly Presto passes may result in a parking reduction ranging from 10 to 30 percent.

2. The Smart Commute (Metrolinx) Workplace Program Impact Report 2015 estimated that the Smart Commute program can achieve a 2% auto trip reduction (to as high as 35%) from employees who drive alone.

3. The 2016 Transportation Tomorrow Survey results indicated that both transit and cycling are viable modes of travel to the site (i.e., there is a propensity to use cycling and transit in the area), because the existing modal splits ranged from 6% to 12% for transit use, and 3% to 9% for walking and cycling in City Wards 3, 5, and 6. These wards are located within a 2 kilometre radius from the subject property.

20Mr. Seegobin estimated that the proposed TDM measures may reduce parking demands at the site by a total of 11%, based on the sum of 6% from transit incentives, 4% from new bicycle parking provisions, and 1% from the proposed carpool space.

1. Without the proposed TDM measures, the future parking demand is estimated to be 56 spaces with the proposed unit. However, implementing the TDM measures may result in a parking reduction of 6 spaces, resulting in an overall peak parking demand of 50 spaces, which could be accommodated by the on‐site supply of 51 spaces.

21In Mr. Seegobin’s opinion, the approach of reducing parking demands through TDM measures is acceptable and appropriate for the subject property site, given that promoting alternative modes of travel is in line with the goals of the ROP and there is a large potential to reduce the use of personal vehicles at the site. Overall, the site provides an appropriate supply of parking. An oversupply would encourage more driving whereas the proposed supply plus TDM measures encourage alternative modes of travel to the site. The Trans‐Plan’s Parking Addendum & Response to City Comments, dated July 30, 2020, was reviewed, and approved by Transportation Planning staff at the City.

22In Mr. Seegobin’s opinion, the proposed additional medical uses are supported by the existing parking supply and proposed TDM measures. He recommended the Tribunal approve the subject variance application to permit the reduced parking ratio associated with the proposed additional medical office unit.

LAND USE PLANNER

23Mr. Layton’s testimony confirmed the traffic studies and he gave an overview of the location of the subject property with emphasis on the transit relevant policies and the parking rates. Within Zoning By-law No. 255-96, medical offices, clinics and veterinary clinics require parking at a rate of 5 spaces per practitioner. Exception 5 provides that on the lands known as 231 Duncan Road and 9160 Bayview, the permitted uses are medical clinics and business and professional offices. The exception also provides development standards related to yard setbacks, maximum height, and maximum lot coverage.

1. Zoning By-law Amendment No. 100-10 (“ZBL”) amended provisions of many By-laws, but in particular harmonized the definition of a medical office, altered the parking rates. Whereas previously medical office uses required a parking rate based on the number of practitioners, through the ZBL the rate was changed to 5.4 spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area.

2. Through the review of the proposed alterations to the interior of the building, it was determined that relief was required to comply with the new parking rates for medical office buildings. A reduction in the required parking space requirements from 117 spaces to 51 spaces was determined to be necessary. It is noted that based on amendments to the proposed alterations resulting from discussions with City Staff, the parking space requirement was later reduced from 117 spaces to 93 spaces.

3. It was also determined that new office space had been established in the attic area of the existing building by the prior owner which was not reflected in the parking supply on the subject property.

24Mr. Layton stated that a minor variance application was filed that included a parking justification study prepared by Trans-Plan Transportation Inc., as well as Architectural Drawings outlining the proposed renovations to the interior of the building. The minor variance application sought to legitimize the existing parking supply of 51 spaces for the entire building, including the existing office space on the first two levels, the attic, and the new office space proposed within the basement.

25The Applicant also committed to implementing a series of TDM measures as recommended by the Traffic Consultant. Such measures include providing bus schedules for those York Region Transit (“YRT”) Routes which operate along Bayview Avenue within the building lobby, advertising the YRT mobile phone application, and installing new bicycle parking facilities near the building entrance.

1. Additional comments were received from City Staff following the February 2020 resubmission, which resulted in further changes to the proposal including:

• Restricting the area of the proposed office space within the basement to only that area required by the proposed X-Ray Laboratory (200.7 square metres).

• Expanding the proposed TDM measures to include designating a carpool space, a bicycle locker facility within the basement, and providing pre-loaded PRESTO Cards to employees within the building.

26Mr. Layton took the Tribunal through the provincial and municipal policies that relate to the community, growth areas and infrastructure facilities. His opinion was that the application is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) which outlines the policies for managing and directing land use to achieve efficient development and land use patterns. The PPS promotes economic development and competitiveness. Planning authorities are to plan for, protect and preserve employment areas for current and future uses and ensure that the necessary infrastructure is provided to support current and projected needs.

27The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the “Growth Plan”) outlines the policies for managing and directing where and how growth should occur within the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Amendment 1 to the Growth Plan was approved and took effect on August 28, 2020. The amended Growth Plan extends the forecast population to the year 2051, envisioning a population 14.87 million people and 7.01 million jobs within the Plan area. The vision for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GGH”) contained within the Growth Plan outlines that the Plan is to support the achievement of complete communities. Complete Communities are defined in the Growth Plan as:

Places such as mixed-use neighbourhoods or other areas within cities, towns, and settlement areas that offer and support opportunities for people of all ages and abilities to conveniently access most of the necessities for daily living, including an appropriate mix of jobs, local stores, and services, a full range of housing, transportation options and public service facilities. Complete communities are age-friendly and may take different shapes and forms appropriate to their contexts.

28York Region Council adopted the current York Region Official Plan 2010 (ROP) in 2009. It was approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in 2010, and guides new planning and development in York Region. The ROP is intended to move the Region towards a sustainable future, which promotes active lifestyles, meets the diverse needs of residents, provide a diversity of jobs, achieves high urban design and green building standards, and provides safe and accessible mobility systems which prioritize pedestrian and cycling connections, and transit.

29Mr. Layton opined that the application is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan, maintains the purpose of the ROP and the OP. He then gave his view on the fulfilment of the statutory tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act and stated that every test has been met by the variance application. He concluded that the variance maintains the intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL, is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property and is minor in nature. He opined that the appeal should be allowed and the variance application be approved.

DECISION

30The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Layton that the reduction in the required parking rate to permit the addition of further office space in the basement of the existing structure is consistent with the PPS. The proposed floor area will be occupied by a use which is supportive of the existing medical office uses within the building, and will thus enable visitors to obtain further medical testing without the need to travel to another location. The proposed parking rates have been analyzed by an accredited Traffic Engineer, whose findings have been further reviewed by Planning Engineering Staff at the City and they have provided an opinion that the relief from the provisions of the parking rates contained within the By-law is appropriate. The existing parking supply is considered sufficient to accommodate the total floor area of the building in conjunction with the TDM measures as proposed. The TDM measures include adding indoor and outdoor bicycle parking facilities and providing preloaded transit passes to employees. These measures further support the policies of the PPS intended to encourage active transportation and transit use. The Tribunal finds Policy 1.1.3.2 of the PPS provides that:

Land use patterns within settlement areas shall be based on densities and a mix of land uses which:

a) efficiently use land and resources;

b) are appropriate for, and efficiently use, the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomical expansion;

(e) support active transportation; and

(f) are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed.

This proposed development of additional medical use, within an already built building and which does not require further alteration to the exteriors, and which use enhances benefits to the community, meets these objectives of the PPS. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the PPS.

31Mr. Layton explained that the Growth Plan outlines the policies for managing and directing where and how growth should occur within the GGH. He reiterated that the vision for the GGH contained within the Growth Plan outlines that the Plan is to support the achievement of complete communities.

1. Complete Communities…for daily living, including an appropriate mix of jobs, local stores, and services, a full range of housing, transportation options and public service facilities.

32The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Layton that the Growth Plan identifies in section 2.2.1.2 that

“Forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan will be allocated based on the following:

1. the vast majority of growth will be directed to settlement areas that: have a delineated built boundary; have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems; and can support the achievement of complete communities; within settlement areas, growth will be focused in: delineated built-up areas; strategic growth areas; locations with existing or planned transit, with a priority on higher order transit where it exists or is planned; and areas with existing or planned public service facilities;…”

The Tribunal finds that the subject property is located within the built boundary of the City with municipal services. There is a network of bus route systems in the vicinity and the subject property is well positioned next to the transport and road infrastructure of the arterial street. The existing building that currently houses medical professionals contributes to the well-being of the community with access to medical professionals. The utilization of additional unused floor space for a new medical use is in the Tribunal’s view a strategic move in a built-up area which supports complete communities. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposal is in conformity with the Growth Plan.

33The York ROP guides new planning and development in York Region. The ROP is intended to move the Region towards a sustainable future, which promotes active lifestyles, meets the diverse needs of residents, provide a diversity of jobs, achieves high urban design and green building standards, and provides safe and accessible mobility systems which prioritize pedestrian and cycling connections, and transit. Section 3.1.3 of the ROP directs Municipalities within the Region “To require high-quality urban design and pedestrian-friendly communities that provide safety, comfort and mobility so that residents can walk to meet their daily needs.” Section 3.2.3 provides direction “To reduce vehicle emissions by ensuring that communities are designed to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists, reduce single occupancy automobile use, and support public transit and Transportation Demand Management initiatives.” Section 5.2.3 provides “That communities be designed to ensure walkability through interconnected and accessible mobility systems. These systems will give priority to pedestrian movement and transit use, provide pedestrian and cycling facilities, and implement the York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan.” Section 5.2.10 provides:

That secondary plans and zoning by-laws shall, in consultation with the Region and related agencies, incorporate parking management policies and standards that include: reduced minimum and maximum parking requirements that reflect the walking distance to transit and complementary uses; shared parking requirements, where possible, reflecting variances in parking demand between complementary uses on a time-of-day, weekday/weekend, and monthly basis, preferential locations for carpooling and car-sharing spaces and bicycle storage requirements.

34The Tribunal finds that the proposal for the subject property is an efficient use of existing floor area while providing medical related services on site. The subject property is close to an existing residential community and fronts Bayview Avenue, an arterial street. Transit and buses operate along Bayview Avenue. The subject property provides health services to the local community. The proposal on reduction of parking rates will lead to less vehicle emissions and will encourage alternative forms of transportation. The Tribunal finds that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the ROP.

35The Urban Structure Plan (Schedule A1) to the OP identifies that the subject property is located within a Neighbourhood Area of the City. Further, the Land Use Plan for the City (Schedule A2) identifies that the subject property is located within the Neighbourhood land use designation.

1. Bayview Avenue is also identified as an Arterial Street, with a minimum right of way width of 36 metres on Schedule A8, and to contain Proposed Regional Cycling Facilities on Regional Roads on Appendix

a. Section 3.5 – speaks to Connectivity and Mobility

b. Section 4.1 – speaks to Community Uses

2. It is provided in section 3.5.1(2) that “The Town shall encourage a range of choice in mobility with priority given to public transit and active transportation while balancing limited street capacity and competing uses. The following transportation system user hierarchy shall be supported:

a. Active Transportation (Pedestrians and Cyclists);

b. Public Transit;

c. High Occupancy Vehicles (HOV) and goods movement; and

d. Single Occupant Vehicles.”

3. Further, section 3.5.1(13) states that “A network of pedestrian and cycling facilities consistent with the York Region Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan and the Town’s Pedestrian and Cycling Master Plan shall be provided. The network shall foster active transportation as a viable travel alternative to the single-occupant vehicle.” It is also provided in section 3.5.2(8) that “Development shall incorporate pedestrian and cycling facilities, where feasible, to encourage walking and cycling as a means of travel among destinations within the Town. The integration of bicycle parking and storage facilities shall be encouraged through the development process for all high density residential and non-residential development.”

4. It is provided in section 3.5.4(3) that “The Town shall support a reduction in surface parking, where appropriate, based on the level of planned public transit services.”, in section 3.5.4(7) that “Transportation Demand Management (TDM), such as car-share operations and carpooling, shall be encouraged.”, and in section 3.5.4(8) that “Development shall be encouraged to incorporate signage or other wayfinding elements to help direct transit users towards transit shelters, stations and stops.”

36The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Layton that section 4.1.2(1) that speaks to development for community uses where permitted, shall be designed to be compatible and integrated with the surrounding area. The proposed use and the proposed parking supply sufficiency for the intended uses on the property is considered. It is noted that the use of the subject property is for medical offices and clinics which are uses specifically permitted within the Zoning By-law exception for the lands. The Tribunal finds that the proposed X-Ray Laboratory is a permitted use which is compatible and integrated with the surrounding area. It is a use that will bring benefits to the existing community in the neighbourhood. The use of currently underutilized basement space to house an X-Ray laboratory will support and enhance the medical practices operating out of the subject property. The TDM measures that had been proposed and are to be undertaken will ensure that the parking spaces are sufficient for the proposed medical use and the parking requirements of the existing medical units in the building. This is in keeping with the objectives of the OP. The Tribunal finds that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP.

37Mr. Layton explained that the purpose of zoning standards are to create commonality among buildings in an area, and also to ensure that land is used appropriately—such as requiring suitable spatial separations, parking supply, open space needs. Ultimately, the objective is to create compatible built form relationships.

38Parking rates are intended to establish a supply of parking on site which is suitable to accommodate employees and visitors to the building without the need to seek off-site parking in locations which may have an impact on the surrounding community, such as along a public street. In the case under consideration, relief from the by-law is required to reduce the required parking supply from 93 parking spaces to 51 spaces. While this reduction may appear numerically large, a Parking Justification has been prepared by a Traffic Engineering Firm – Trans Plan – which involved numerous parking surveys of the property, as well as an analysis of the actual parking requirements for the proposed X-Ray Laboratory based on the demand at another laboratory operated by the same owner. This analysis revealed that when combined with the suite of TDM measures proposed, the existing parking supply would be sufficient to accommodate the needs of the existing and proposed uses. The findings of this analysis have been reviewed by Transportation Engineering and Planning Staff at the City who accepted the findings therein and recommended that the proposed variance was appropriate, met the four tests, and that it be approved by the COA. The Tribunal agrees that the proposal at the subject property had taken the parking requirements under the ZBL into serious consideration. The applicant had commissioned the necessary studies and ensured that the TDM will address the sufficiency of the existing 51 spaces for the expanded use of an additional medical unit in the building. The Tribunal finds the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

39Mr. Layton stated that the key consideration is the Parking Analysis and Justification undertaken by Trans-Plan, which has been reviewed and accepted by City Staff. He reiterated that it has been demonstrated that the proposed reduction in parking rates, and implementation of TDM measures, will support numerous Provincial, Regional, and Municipal goals encouraging active transportation and transit use as a means to alleviate traffic impacts. The Tribunal notes that the X-Ray laboratory is a use that does not currently exist within the building. The medical consultancies and practices that operate in the building will reap the attendant benefits. Furthermore, the community within the vicinity will be served with a comprehensive suite of medical facilities including a laboratory. This proposal represents good planning. The Tribunal finds that the variance is desirable for the appropriate development of the subject property.

40Mr. Layton explained that from a community perspective, the parking supply is to remain the same as presently exists. The only change being the addition of the X-Ray Laboratory. The Tribunal agrees that the TDM measures will facilitate alternative means of accessing the subject property, whether by transit, bicycle, or carpool. With the implementation of these TDM measures the existing parking supply is expected to be sufficient for the existing and proposed uses on the subject property. Also, the neighbourhood has a good network of bus routes and transit stops serving this community. No alterations or works are contemplated for the exteriors of the subject property. There is no evidence of adverse impact on the surrounding buildings. In the event of any increase of parking needs there is in place an agreement with a nearby church to absorb the parking overflow. However, the Tribunal is of the view that the TDM measures have addressed the sufficiency of parking of the proposed development. The Tribunal finds that the variance is minor in nature.

ORDER

41The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the variance to Zoning By-law No.100-10 is hereby authorized.

“T.F. Ng”

T.F. NG

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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.