Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: November 25, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-001966 (Formerly PL210051)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Pennmar Holdings Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Variance from By-law No.: 79-200 and 1992-041

Property Address/Description: 4866 Valley Way

Municipality: City of Niagara Falls

Municipal File No.: A-2020-042

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-001966

Legacy Case No.: PL210051

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-001966

Legacy Lead Case No.: PL210051

OLT Case Name: Pennmar Holdings Inc. v. Niagara Falls (City)

Heard: July 26, 2022; July 27, 2022; and August 4, 2022 via Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Pennmar Holdings Inc. (the “Applicant” or “Appellant”)	Jennifer Meader
City of Niagara Falls (the “City” or “Municipality”)	Patrick Maloney

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. CORNACCHIA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

BACKGROUND

1The Applicant is appealing the decision of the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) which did not authorize a minor variance application designed to facilitate the development of a three-storey apartment building of 10 units, with 12 parking spaces on the property municipally known as 4866 Valley Way (“Subject Property”).

2Both the Subject Property and the abutting property located at 4872 Valley Way (“Abutting Property”) where an eight unit residential condominium is located, are governed by a Site-Specific By-law 1992-041 (“Site ZB”) and the General Zoning By-law 79-200 (“General ZB”). The Site ZB stipulates many zoning standards for both properties while others are covered by the General ZB.

3Both the Subject Property and the Abutting Property (“Original Property”) were owned by one property owner when the Site ZB was passed. In 1995, a plan of condominium was approved by the City for the Abutting Property which had the effect of creating a separate parcel of land owned by a condominium corporation, which is the Abutting Property.

4Two Committee meetings were held regarding the application. At the first meeting, the minor variance application with the list of requested variances in Appendix 1 was presented. Prior to the second meeting of the Committee, the application was revised and new requested variances were added as identified in Appendix 2. Separate staff reports were prepared for each Committee meeting by the City’s planning department. Both reports recommended that the Minor Variance application be authorized subject to the following condition:

All agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease include the following:

Purchasers and tenants are advised that additional parking above 1 space per dwelling unit may not be to be provided, and on-street parking may not be available for purchasers or tenants.

(“Parking Caution Condition”)

5Despite the recommendation of City planning staff, the Committee denied the application since in its view it does not comply with the Planning Act (“Act”). The Applicant filed an appeal of the Committee decision with the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”).

VARIANCES SOUGHT

6The requested variances were again revised prior to the hearing of this appeal. The Applicant delivered the following table identifying a revised list of the requested variances and the identified proposed condition:

Provision	Applicable By-law	By-law Required	Requested
1	2nd Apartment Building	1992-041	1 permitted
2	Min Interior Side Yard (north)	1992-041	3.0 m
3	Max Lot Coverage	1992-041	43.0%
4	Min Landscaped Open Space	1992-041	24%
5	Parking Location	1992-041	24 spaces (covered)
6	Min. Front Yard Setback	79-200	7.5 m + 11.5 m from centreline
7	Parking Spaces	79-200	14

PROPOSED CONDITION OF APPROVAL

All agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease include the following:

Purchasers and tenants are advised that additional parking above 1 space per dwelling unit may not be to be provided, and on-street parking may not be available for purchasers or tenants.

HEARING

7The hearing was held over the course of three days in July and August of 2022. The following witnesses were called to testify:

a. Michael Sullivan engaged by the City to independently review the application (“Mr. Sullivan”)

b. Andrew Bryce the City planner who reviewed the application and appearing under summons (“Mr. Bryce”)

c. Mary Lou Tanner engaged by the Applicant to review the application (“Ms. Tanner” or the “Applicant’s Planning Witness”)

8All the witnesses were qualified as experts in the field of land use planning.

9The material delivered by the parties in the Joint Book of Documents included several significant errors that were corrected at the hearing. For instance, the Applicant was incorrectly identified as Gabe Spoletini, rather than the correct Applicant, Pennmar Holdings Inc. and several documents misspelt Pennmar with one “n”. There were also several substantive corrections made to the planning witness statements filed with the Tribunal which are too numerous to particularize.

10A participant status request was filed by Mr. Peter Colosimo, a member of the Committee that made the decision refusing the minor variance application. He is a retired planner and a resident of the City. His status request was opposed by the Applicant based on the statement he filed, indicating that Mr. Colosimo wanted to provide context for the Committee decision. Counsel for the Applicant identified that this presents a problem under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act based on the integrity and impartiality principles identified in the legislation.

11Mr. Colosimo later clarified in a written submission to the Tribunal that he wished to file a participant statement as a private citizen. After considering the submissions, the Tribunal has decided to accept Mr. Colosimo’s participant statement. There is nothing in the Rules preventing a committee member from being accorded participant status as a private citizen. Mr. Colosimo’s participant statement will only be read and accepted as a statement from a private citizen of the City and not as a statement from Mr. Colosimo in his official capacity as a member of the Committee. It will not be given the weight of the planning evidence heard by the Tribunal in this case and can only be accorded the limited weight given to a participant statement of a private citizen, untested by cross-examination.

SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTEXT

12All the planning evidence regarding the context for the Subject Property was essentially consistent. The Subject Property is in the City’s Downtown and is an irregularly shaped lot with the following dimensions:

• Frontage: 18.401 m (North property line);
• 21.90 (South property line);
• Depth: 30.45 m (North Property Line); and
• 41.026 (South Property Line).

13The Subject Property is in a mixed use area with commercial uses, apartment and single family residential uses, and church uses. The following table explains the specific uses surrounding the Subject Property:

Location	Description
North Side	Commercial Uses: Driveway to Gas Station Plaza (the driveway is the entire length of the Subject Property on the north property line; the gas station pumps and building front on Victoria Avenue which runs more or less parallel to Valley Way) Tim Horton’s – landscaping and driveway plus building setback from Valley Way; the Tim Horton’s building is closer to Victoria Avenue
South Side	3 storey apartment building on the Abutting Property; church and landscaped area for the church at the northeast corner of Valley Way and Willmott Street
East Side	Commercial Uses – Gas Station Plaza – Single Bay Car Wash (closest to rear lot line of 4866 Valley Way), Commercial Building and Gas Pumps
West Side	3 storey apartment building and Single-Family Dwellings

14The development is for one three-storey apartment building of 10 units. It will be operated as a rental building designed to provide housing to post-secondary students from Niagara College and Brock University. Twelve (12) parking spaces are planned with one space being allocated for accessible parking. There will be one parking space per unit and two visitors parking spots. The proposed parking will comprise seven covered spots and five uncovered spots (collectively the “Proposed Development”).

15The Subject Property and the Abutting Property are zoned R5D-307 under the Site ZB. The Site ZB covered the Original Site comprised of the Subject Property and the Abutting Property. It identified performance standards for the development proposed for the Original Property which would result in the following proposed original development:

a. The conversion of a mixed-use building that was then on the Original Site to a residential apartment building with a wedding cake addition.

b. The conversion would result in the elimination of the commercial space on the ground floor of the mixed-use building where residential units would be installed for a total of eight units in the original structure.

c. An addition to the original structure to increase the unit coverage for the Original Site to 20 units at a planned density of 125-150 units per hectare.

16The Abutting Property was developed with one three-storey condominium apartment building with eight units. The original addition included in the original proposed development envisaged by the Site ZB was never completed. The Subject Property is currently vacant and not utilized for any purpose.

17If the Proposed Development to be facilitated by the minor variance application is permitted, the Original Site will have a total of 18 units at a density of 128 units per hectare. Eight condominium apartments currently exist on the Abutting Property and 10 are proposed for the Subject Property.

MATTERS OF PROVINCIAL INTEREST, PPS AND GROWTH PLAN

18All three planners agreed that the Application has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, as enumerated in section 2 of the Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), and conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”) as amended.

19The variances comply with Section 3(5) of the Act as the Proposed Development is consistent with the PPS. It represents an efficient development and land use pattern, will contribute to the range of housing and implements intensification through the introduction of new housing, makes use of existing infrastructure and optimizes the use of land.

20It also conforms to the Growth Plan by providing for intensification within the built boundary and the Built-up area, is located in a Major Transit Station Area with a focus on intensification and growth for the Major Transit Station Area, provides new housing within the Major Transit Station Area and optimizes the supply of land.

21The planning evidence was focused on whether the variances requested for the Proposed Development comply with the tests under section 45(1) of the Act. In reviewing this evidence, the Tribunal will first address whether all the proposed variances maintain the intent and purpose of the applicable Official Plans and then review each of the variances as they relate to the remaining tests under section 45(1) of the Act.

INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE OFFICIAL PLANS

22The planners agreed that the Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Region of Niagara Official Plan (“ROP”). The ROP supports compact, mixed-use, transit and active transportation supportive communities and a reduction in dependency on automobiles. The Tribunal finds that these policy objectives are implemented by the proposed development for student housing.

23Significant disagreement arose with respect to the City of Niagara Falls Official Plan (“NFOP”). The Subject Property is designated “Residential” in the NFOP and is within the existing urban area of the City. According to Section 1.1 of the NFOP, apartments are considered to be a predominant use within this Residential designation.

24Both the Applicant’s planner and the City’s planner pointed to various provisions in support of their respective positions. They employed different tests when considering the intent and purpose of the NFOP as it relates to the Proposed Development.

25Mr. Sullivan’s Witness Statement and testimony identified the proposed development must “conform” with the NFOP. He pointed to the NFOP maximum density requirements as set out in Policy 15.15.5 which identifies the maximum net density of 75 units per hectare for apartments of 4 storeys or less. The NFOP requirements are clearly inconsistent with the Site ZB permissions which allows net density rates between 125-150 units per hectare.

26The Proposed Development will result in a net density of 128 units per hectare across the Original Site, which is clearly authorized by the Site ZB. Despite this situation, Mr. Sullivan steadfastly maintained that in his view the NFOP maximum net density rates should apply.

27When challenged in cross-examination, Mr. Sullivan corrected his statement of the test for assessing minor variances under the NFOP. He incorrectly identified it as a test of conformance with the NFOP. He tried to recast his testimony to be testimony related to maintaining its intent and purpose of the NFOP.

28Unfortunately, based on his oral testimony and witness statement, this correction did nothing to salvage the value of his testimony in the view of the Tribunal. His testimony was focused on identifying the density discrepancy between the Site ZB and the NFOP and advising the Tribunal that the Proposed Development cannot proceed due to the failure to conform with the identified provision of the NFOP. The testimony is a call to the Tribunal to stop the Proposed Development since it does not comply with or conform to one section of the NFOP.

29The evidence of the Applicant’s planner regarding the NFOP was far more persuasive. She correctly identified that the test under section 45(1) of the Act is whether the Proposed Development facilitated by the minor variances maintain the intent and purpose of the NFOP. Every policy of the NFOP must not be met to maintain its intent and purpose but rather the broader goals and objectives must be met. She pointed to various policies under the NFOP that are supported by the proposed development including:

a. Policy 1.2.2 – Development of vacant land and more efficient use of under-utilized parcels;

b. Policy 1.11 – Affordable housing within the City;

c. Policy 1.15.1 – Intensification that blends in with the neighbourhood; and

d. Policy 1.15.4 – the maximum net density of 75 units per hectare for apartment buildings of four storeys or less.

30Clearly, the Site ZB sets a higher density target for the Original Property than is set out in the NFOP. The planned density for the Original Property is 125-150 units per hectare. The NFOP was updated after the Site ZB. No changes have been made to the densities permitted by the Site ZB by a zoning by-law amendment, which the City was free to do when it updated the NFOP, however it chose not to do so.

31The City also turned its mind to the zoning of the Subject Property when it passed the General ZB and implemented the Transit Station Secondary Plan. The staff report relating to the Transit Secondary Plan acknowledged the need to amend the zoning to bring it into conformity with the Secondary Plan, as required by the Act. The Subject Property was not rezoned. The zoning for the Subject Property is therefore deemed to conform with the Transit Station Secondary Plan, including the density policies, by virtue of section 24(4) of the Act.

32The Tribunal finds that even if there is a discrepancy between the density targets of the NFOP and what is permitted as of right for density under the Site ZB, this does not detract from the fact that the Proposed Development supports the various policies of the NFOP generally and thus maintains its intent and purpose. Conformance to all policies of NFOP is not necessary to maintain its intent and purpose. Conformance is not the test. When looking at all the proposed variances on the whole which facilitate the Proposed Development, they maintain the general intent and purpose of the NFOP. They implement the planned residential use set out under the Site ZB with a focus on intensification and new housing, support the creation of a compact, mixed-use community in a Major Transit Station Area, support new housing at transit supportive densities, and implement the optimization of land supply and public services through proximity to transit (local and GO transit), parks, open space and active transportation.

OTHER TESTS FOR THE REQUESTED MINOR VARIANCES

33The planning evidence relating to the other tests for minor variances continued to diverge. With respect to meeting the intent and purpose of the Site ZB and the General ZB, the test employed by both the City’s planner and the Applicant’s planner differed markedly. Ms. Tanner’s testimony in writing and orally was the same. The test is maintaining the intent and purpose of the Site ZB and General ZB as it relates to the requested variances. Mr. Sullivan’s witness statement spoke to conformance with the applicable zoning by-laws. While this erroneous statement of the test was corrected on cross-examination, it did little to salvage his testimony.

34The Tribunal will address the issue of maintenance of the intent and purpose of the Site ZB in depth primarily as it relates to the first requested variance and cover it off more superficially in respect of the other variances. The remaining minor variance tests will be covered for each specific minor variance.

2nd Apartment Building Variance

35The Proposed Development contemplates two buildings on the Original Site, the current building on the Abutting Property with eight units and a new building on the Subject Property proposed to have 10 units. There will be a total of 18 units across the Original Site which complies with the original planned maximum density of 20 units across the Original Site.

36Ms. Tanner advised the Tribunal that the intent of the Site ZB was to achieve increased housing on this site in the form of apartment dwelling units. The proposed variance implements this intent across two buildings rather than one.

37Mr. Sullivan’s evidence in response was that building two apartments on the Original Site were not contemplated by the Site ZB and thus this is a major change. In his view, the Proposed development does not comply with the intent and purpose of the Site ZB, which is focused on the number of buildings not housing units.

38The Tribunal prefers the interpretation of Ms. Tanner, which is supported by the evidence of Mr. Bryce. Increasing the overall density for the site is intended by the Site ZB. Whether that density increase is across one building with an addition or two separate buildings, is essentially technical.

39With respect to the other tests for a minor variance, Ms. Tanner’s evidence was that the number of buildings variance is minor in nature. The overall planned function of the Original Site is being maintained but in a different building configuration. Mr. Sullivan’s evidence was too focused on two buildings instead of one and is not preferred.

40Regarding the desirability test, Ms. Tanner’s evidence was that this variance will result in an appropriate development of the property and is desirable since it will have no adverse impact from a planning point of view on adjacent properties. The building height will remain at three storeys and it will be below the planned density. The design approach implements a transition from the commercial area to the lower density residential neighbourhood to the west. Mr. Sullivan simply reiterated that 2 buildings were not contemplated by the Site ZB and it was undesirable. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Tanner and finds that the number of buildings variance is in fact minor.

Minimum Interior Side Yard (north)

41With respect to Minimum Interior Side Yard (north) variance, Ms. Tanner advised the Tribunal that the intent of the north side yard requirements is to buffer the residential use from the adjoining commercial use. The combination of site design on both the apartment site and the commercial sites (driveway location, driveway length, landscaping) achieve the buffering of the residential use. Ms. Tanner and Mr. Bryce do not anticipate that the proposed variance will cause any adverse impact to adjacent properties. The buffer strip and the commercial driveway provide a sufficient buffer between the commercial and residential uses and thus the proposed variance is desirable.

42Mr. Sullivan asserts that this variance is excessive and unjustified but did not point to any adverse impacts. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Tanner which is supported by solid reasons. The Tribunal finds the minimum interior side yard setback variance to be minor.

Maximum Lot Coverage

43Ms. Tanner advised the Tribunal that the maximum lot coverage variance implements the planned density for the entire site within the maximum permitted height and thus maintains the intent of the Site ZB. The site design and lot coverage are to accommodate the planned residential function and the minor increase in lot coverage supports that function. There are no negative planning impacts to the property to the north, south, or east. The proposed building will have landscaping in the front and provide a buffer and distance from the properties on the west side of Valley Way.

44It was Ms. Tanner’s view that the variance allows the height to be retained similar to the Abutting Property and the property to the west and thus is desirable

45Mr. Sullivan did not offer an assessment of this variance according to the test for a minor variance. The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Tanner and finds that the Maximum Lot Coverage variance is minor.

Landscaped Area

46Ms. Tanner advised the Tribunal that the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Site ZB to provide landscaping for the purposes of buffering at the front of the property and with a one metre area in the north side yard. The proposed landscaping at the front of the building and driveway entrance is double that at the Abutting Property.

47A reduction in the amount of landscaping is required to provide for a balance between appropriate site landscaping while still maintaining parking on the Subject Property. In considering this balance, and maintaining community character, landscaping is prioritized at the front of the building. The proposed locations for landscaping will enhance the character of the streetscape. No adverse impacts are anticipated from this variance by either Ms. Tanner or Mr. Bryce.

48Mr. Sullivan was silent on this variance. The evidence of Ms. Tanner is convincing and the Tribunal finds that the Landscaped Area variance is minor.

Location of Parking Area

49The Site ZB contemplates 24 parking spaces in a covered structure on the Original Site. Ms. Tanner advised the Tribunal that the requested parking area variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Site ZB by providing the required 24 parking spaces with 16 being in covered parking structures on the Abutting Property (nine spaces) and the Subject Property (seven spaces) and the remaining eight spaces being uncovered spots. If all the required parking spaces are in a covered structure on the Subject Property, it would increase the overall site coverage of the building.

50On the Subject Property, most of the parking (seven spaces) will be covered below ground. The uncovered parking on the Subject Property comprises two visitors’ spots at the front of the building and three resident parking spots at the rear of the building. Landscaping and a berm at the front of the property provides visual and physical buffering of the parking area at the front and the rear parking would not be visible from the street.

51Both Mr. Bryce and Ms. Tanner are of the view that this variance will not have any unacceptable impact.

52Mr. Sullivan’s evidence on this variance is very confusing. He appears to misunderstand the covered parking variance, indicating that the Applicant is requesting eight fewer parking spaces, rather than the two parking spot reduction requested by the other parking variance.

53The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Tanner and finds that this variance is minor.

Minimum Front Yard Setback

54The General ZB requires a specific Minimum front yard setback. Ms. Tanner advised that the intent of the General ZB relating to the front yard setback is to provide appropriate sight lines. The south side front yard setback of the property complies while the north side front yard setback (abutting a driveway and commercial development) does not.

55Ms. Tanner indicated that this variance brings the building closer to the street and provides a better interface between the building and the street. She sees this as an improvement relative to the original proposal and does not believe that any adverse impacts will result from the variance since the lands to the north are a driveway and landscaped area. No sight lines are impacted for commercial uses.

56Mr. Sullivan spoke to this variance and advised the Tribunal that in his view the variance is excessive and unjustified but pointed to no adverse impacts.

57The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Tanner, supported by Mr. Bryce, and finds that this variance is minor.

Parking Spaces

58The requested variance relates to reducing the parking requirement from 1.4 spaces per unit to 1.2 spaces per unit under the General ZB. This will result in only 12 parking spaces being available instead of 14 as required by the Site ZB. The 12 parking spaces in total will ensure one for each of the 10 units plus two visitor parking spaces.

59In Ms. Tanner’s view, the two-space reduction is appropriate, given the Subject Properties’ location on a collector road, with accessibility to local and inter-regional transit and cycling, and in an area planned for intensification. She also indicated that similar parking rates have been applied to other sites in the downtown. No unacceptable adverse impacts are anticipated from this variance and it is appropriate based on the availability of public transit.

60Mr. Bryce agreed with Ms. Tanner’s view regarding this variance. Mr. Sullivan did not opine on this variance, except to say, under cross-examination, that the variance is minor in nature and appropriate.

61Since all the planners agree that the requested reduction in the minimum number of parking spaces is minor, the Tribunal finds that it is minor.

Variances Considered by the Committee but not before the Tribunal

62Two variances were considered by the Committee that are not included in the package of requested minor variances before the Tribunal. The withdrawn variances were:

a. The request for a reduction of one parking space, and

b. A request for a variance to the south interior side yard.

63The request for a variance to the south interior side yard was for a zero metre setback to the Abutting property rather than the five metres that is identified for the Original Site.

64The planning opinions regarding this variance differed significantly. Both Ms. Tanner and Mr. Bryce were of the view that both variances were not required. Mr. Bryce secured the opinion of the City Solicitor and the zoning administrator before formulating his view.

65In contrast, Mr. Sullivan’s opinion wavered substantially. While he opined in his witness statement that the variances are required, he could not clearly or logically explain why these two performance standards should be applied separately for each lot, while the balance of the performance standards should be applied across both properties together. He also could not decide if the frontage of each lot (if each lot were to be considered separately) would be illegal or legal non-conforming.

66Counsel for the City makes the point that every lot in the City must have its own side lot line and side yard width. This clearly was not addressed by the Site ZB since one building with an addition was contemplated.

67If the Tribunal were to adopt the interpretation of Mr. Sullivan or the position advocated by Counsel for the City, the existing frontages of both the Subject Property and the Abutting Property would be illegal. Thus, the northerly setback of the existing building on the Abutting Property on the mutually shared property line would be rendered illegal. This interpretation cannot be supported since it will render existing lots and existing buildings illegal in respect of the zoning, due to the City’s approval of the condominium on the Abutting Property. That would be an absurd result.

68The Tribunal prefers the evidence of Ms. Tanner and Mr. Bryce but does not make a ruling on this matter since these two additional variances were not included in the package of requested variances.

69The Tribunal will leave this issue to the City’s zoning examiner for careful examination and resolution. The zoning examiner will review the Proposed Development to confirm compliance with applicable zoning after approval of the minor variance application.

70In summary, the Tribunal finds that the minor variance application should be authorized for the seven requested variances to facilitate the Proposed Development since they are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, maintain the intent and purpose of the ROP and NFOP and zoning by-laws, are minor in nature and result in a desirable development.

ORDER

71THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed and the variance(s) to By-law 1992-041 and By-law 79-200 are authorized subject to the following condition:

a. All agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease include the following: “Purchasers and tenants are advised that additional parking above 1 space per dwelling unit may not be to be provided, and on-street parking may not be available for purchasers or tenants.

“A. Cornacchia”

A. CORNACCHIA

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 (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

APPENDIX 1

ORIGINAL MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION

PRESENTED PRIOR TO THE FIRST COMMITTEE MEETING

The original minor variance application filed prior to the first Committee meeting sought the following variances:

By-law	Provision	Permitted	Requested
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	No. of Apartment Buildings	1	2
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	North Side Yard	3 m	1 m
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	Maximum Lot Coverage	43%	47.19%
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	Landscaped Area	24%	15.75%
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	Parking Spaces in Structured Parking (#)	24	16 (**24 provided in total)
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	No of Parking Spaces	24	23
79-200	Front Yard Setback from Centre Line of Street (Valley Way)	7.5 m + 11.5 m	4.5 m +11.5 m

APPENDIX 2

REVISED MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION

PRESENTED AT THE SECOND COMMITTEE MEETING

Prior to the second meeting of the Committee the application was revised by the Applicant as follows:

By-law	Provision	Permitted	Requested
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	No. of Apartment Buildings	1	2
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	North Side Yard	3 m	1 m
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	Maximum Lot Coverage	43%	47.19%
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	Landscaped Area	24%	15.75%
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	Parking Spaces in Structured Parking (#)	24	16 (**24 provided in total)
Site Specific By-law 1992-041	South Interior Side Yard	5 m	0 m
79-200	Front Yard Setback from Centre Line of Street (Valley Way)	7.5 m + 11.5 m	4.5 m +11.5 m

The difference between the submitted application and the revised application is that:

i) The request for a reduction of 1 parking space was eliminated; and

ii) A request for a variance to the south interior side yard was added.