Milski Inc. v. Thorold (City), 2022 CanLII 115388

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: December 02, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-003399

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

Applicant/Appellant: Milski Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the development of a 6 storey, 40 unit apartment building

Reference Number: D13-07-2022

Property Address: 16 Ormond Street S.

Municipality/UT: Thorold/Niagara

OLT Case No: OLT-22-003399

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003399

OLT Case Name: Milski Inc. v. Thorold (City)

Heard: July 5, 11 & 15, 2022 via video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel/Self-Represented

Milski Inc. (the “Applicant” or the “Appellant”) Robert Di Lallo

Mr. Tim O’Hare Self-Represented

City of Thorold (the “City”) Sara J. Premi and Patrick J. Maloney

DECISION DELIVERED BY A. CORNACCHIA AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

BACKGROUND

1The Applicant is appealing the non-decision by the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) regarding a minor variance application which would facilitate the development of a 6 storey, 40-unit apartment building on the property municipally known as 16 Ormond Street South (“Subject Property”).

2The Applicant wishes to develop the Subject Property with a 6-storey building containing 40 residential dwelling units (the “Proposed Development”). A total of 40 parking spaces, inclusive of 2 accessible parking spaces are proposed. The ground floor of the building will contain 16 parking spots and an entrance vestibule with stairs and an elevator servicing the 5 upper storeys of residential apartment units. The remaining 24 parking spaces, including the 2 accessible spaces, will be surface parking behind the proposed building.

3The minor variance application sought authorization of the following five variances from the zoning standards of Bylaw 60-2019 and Bylaw 2140(97) (collectively the “ZB” or “Zoning By-Law”):

Bylaw 60-2019 Part 7 Table 7.3a Lot, Building and Structure Requirements for the

Downtown Main Street and Mixed Use Zones:

1. Minimum Front Building Facade Width - To reduce the Minimum Front Building Facade Width from 80% to 73%; (“Minimum Façade Width Variance”)

2. Minimum Step Back - To reduce the Minimum Step Back from 1.5 metres above the third or fourth storey for a five or six storey building to 0 metres; (“Minimum Step Back Variance”)

Bylaw 60-2019 Part 4.4.6 Parking Area Location Abutting Residential Zone

3. To reduce the buffer area of the parking lot to the abutting residential zone for the east side from 3.0 metres to 1.5 metres; (“Minimum Parking Area Buffer Variance”)

Bylaw 60-2019 Part 4 Table 4.5.1(ii) - Minimum Loading Space Requirements

4. To reduce the Minimum Loading Space Requirements for the Building containing 30 or more apartment dwelling units or bed-sitting rooms from 1 to 0 (“Minimum Loading Space Variance”); and

Bylaw 2140(97)- Section 6.15.1(1)- Parking Space Requirements

5. To reduce the parking space requirements for an apartment building containing more than 15 dwelling units from 1.25 spaces for each dwelling unit to 1 space for each dwelling unit. (“Minimum Parking Space Variance”)

4The revised staff report prepared for the Committee recommended that the Minor Variance application be approved, with the exception of the Minimum Step Back Variance. The City’s planning department supported the remaining four requested minor variances since in its view they met all the requirements of section 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”).

5The Committee heard the application on March 17, 2022 and decided to defer its decision regarding the Minor Variance application for at least two months to allow staff to further review the parking study submitted in support of the application. On April 6, 2022, the Applicant filed an appeal with the Ontario Land Tribunal due to the Committee’s failure to make a decision within the deadlines required by the Act. At the hearing, the Applicant withdrew its application for the proposed step-back variance. The remaining four variances comprise the minor variance application before the Tribunal.

HEARING and party status requests

6A motion was filed by the City on June 29, 2022, requesting an extension to give notice that it would exercise its rights as a party and for the late filing of its supporting materials. The motion was granted.

7Prior to the hearing, a Party status request was received from Mr. Tim O’Hare and Participant status requests were received from:

1. Robert Hopcroft and Ann Hopcroft,

2. J. Little,

3. K. Grueneis,

4. A. Campbell,

5. A. O’Hare,

6. A. D’Angelo,

7. B. MacMillan,

8. E. Terreberry,

9. H. Gayler,

10. J. Langlois,

11. J. Arillotta,

12. K. Turpin,

13. S. Fickel,

14. S. Silva, and

15. Susan Milani and Raymond Mouck.

8The Appellant objected to party and participant status requests being granted based on an argument that there would be duplication since many of the requesters of participant status were members of the Community Association. The party status request was made personally by Mr. Tim O’Hare. His membership in a Community Association is irrelevant to his party status request. He owns a neighbouring property, attended the Committee meeting, made representations to the Committee, hired a planner and came prepared to present his case against the MV application. Mr. O’Hare was granted party status by the Tribunal due to his interest in this case and the fact that he is prepared to present his position before the Tribunal with planning evidence to support it. The individuals, who personally filed participant statements were granted participant status. Their membership in the Community Association should not exclude them from being granted participant status since the Community Association itself has not been granted any status.

9The parties were canvassed for any issues regarding notice and confirmed that there were no known problems with the notice of the proceedings.

10The following four witnesses were called to give planning evidence.

1. The Applicant called Mr. Matt Kernahan (“Applicant’s Planner” or “Mr. Kernahan”) and;

2. The City Staff Planner who prepared the planning reports considered by the Committee, Mr. Paul Klassen (who had left his employment at the City by the time this appeal was heard) (“City Staff Planner” or “Mr. Klassen”).

3. Mr. O’Hare called Stephen Bedford (“Mr. Bedford”).

4. The City called Craig Larmour (“City’s Planner” or “Mr. Larmour”).

11All of these witnesses were qualified to give expert evidence in the field of land use planning. The Tribunal found the evidence of Mr. Kernahan and Mr. Klassen to be consistent, clear, and forthright. They both remained unchallenged by their cross-examinations.

12Mr. Larmour’s evidence was difficult to follow, and the Tribunal found his reasoning left something to be desired. He did not do well under cross-examination.

13Mr. Bedford’s evidence was the least helpful to the Tribunal. There were significant discrepancies in his written report and his oral testimony. At the beginning of his testimony, he advised the Tribunal that he had changed his mind after reviewing Mr. Larmour’s report and did not believe that the minor variance application could be appropriately analyzed without a heritage impact assessment. The Tribunal did not give much weight to his testimony.

14This hearing presented a challenge for the Tribunal due to the tardy filing of the evidence outline of Mr. Larmour, the City’s planning witness, 15 minutes before the second day of the hearing. Extensive portions of his outline were excised and ignored by the Tribunal due to an objection by the Applicant’s counsel. Mr. Kernahan was requested by the Tribunal to provide an outline of his evidence addressing the points raised by Mr. Larmour and not addressed in his original report. After the submission of Mr. Kernahan’s outline once the hearing had concluded, the City’s counsel objected by email to it since in her view it did not reflect his oral evidence. The Applicant’s counsel pointed out in his email response that this supplementary outline did reflect Mr. Kernahan’s evidence. The Tribunal agrees with Applicant’s counsel and accepts Mr. Kernahan’s supplementary evidence outline since it reflects the testimony presented to the Tribunal.

site and planning context

15The Subject Property is within the proximity of 3 heritage properties: St. Andrews Presbyterian Church, the Munro House and Carnegie Library. A commercial bakery was operated on the site which has been demolished. Currently it is an underutilized vacant lot.

16The planners agreed that the Subject Property is designated as 'Downtown Transitional' in the City's Official Plan (“OP”). The OP also designates the section of Ormond Street South where the property is located as an Intensification Corridor, which the OP defines as 'areas along major roads, arterials, or higher order transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus for higher density mixed-use development consistent with planned transit service levels'. The OP permits apartment dwellings in the Downtown Transitional Designation however the planners disagreed regarding whether apartment buildings are permitted. Furthermore, the planning evidence was inconsistent regarding whether the OP requires that the Subject Property be rezoned.

17The OP also requires a heritage impact assessment due to the proximity of the Subject Property to the identified Heritage Properties. The timing of the filing of the heritage impact assessment was also an area where the planning evidence differed markedly.

18The planners agreed that the Subject Property is zoned 'C2' (Downtown Mixed Use) under the ZB, which permits apartment dwellings. The C2 zone permits a maximum building height of 20 m or 6 storeys, whichever is less on the Subject Property since it fronts onto the Ormond Street Intensification Corridor. As previously identified, the planners’ testimony differed regarding whether a six-storey apartment building is permitted as of right and whether the Subject Property required a rezoning application.

19It is important to deal with these areas of fundamental disagreement between the planners before addressing whether the minor variance application complies with the Act. The first issue relates to whether a rezoning application is required for the Proposed Development. The next issue is whether a heritage impact assessment must be completed prior to the site plan approval stage and before assessing the minor variance application.

rezoning application

20The City takes the position that a minor variance application is inappropriate for dealing with the Proposed Development and that a rezoning application is the more appropriate vehicle. The City’s planning department dealt with the application as a minor variance application. The City now contends that a rezoning application is necessary and dealing with the application as a minor variance application is inappropriate.

21Before dealing with the question of whether a rezoning application is necessary it is important to review the zoning of the Subject Property. It is zoned 'C2' (Downtown Mixed Use) under the ZB, which permits “apartment dwellings”. The C2 zone permits a maximum building height of 20 m or 6 storeys, whichever is less on the Subject Property since it fronts onto the Ormond Street Intensification Corridor. The following OP policies support this interpretation:

B1.3.4.2 Residential Uses

New street-level residential uses, including single detached and semi-detached units, townhouses and apartments as well as small-scale inns and bed and breakfast establishments are permitted in the Downtown Transitional designation both as a primary use and as an accessory use to a commercial business.

B1.3.4.3 Development and Urban Design Criteria

Official Plan of the City of Thorold 36

Adopted By By-law 60-2015 on April 21, 2015

The policies of Section B1.2.4 shall apply to the Downtown Transitional designation with the following exceptions and/or additional requirements:

a) Single detached and semi-detached dwelling types shall be permitted in the

Downtown Transitional designation;

b) The maximum building height should be limited to 2 storeys unless the lands front onto an Intensification Corridor in which case the policies of Section B1.2.4.3 (a) shall apply with respect to height;

Intensification Corridor

B1.2.4.3 Development and Urban Design Policies

The following policies are intended to guide proposals for new development or

redevelopment along the Intensification Corridors in the Downtown designations:

a) In order to maintain a consistent façade along Front Street, Ormond Street, St

Davids Street and Pine Street, the maximum height of new buildings fronting on

these streets shall be 6 storeys. The minimum height shall be 3 storeys for Front

Street and 2 storeys for Pine Street, St. Davids Street and Ormond Street.

Building heights greater than 6 storeys may be permitted subject to a Zoning Bylaw Amendment provided the upper storey is appropriately stepped back or

recessed from the front building wall.

22Mr. Larmour opined that since the ZB only permits “apartment dwellings” in the C2 zone, apartment buildings are not permitted. The definition of apartment dwellings in the ZB is “a dwelling unit or bed-sitting room in an apartment building, but not in a mixed-use building.” Mr. Kernahan advised the Tribunal that such an interpretation is illogical since apartment dwellings cannot by definition exist outside an apartment building.

23The Tribunal prefers the interpretation of Mr. Kernahan and accepts the submission of Counsel for the Applicant that this argument should be rejected as grasping at straws. Apartment dwellings are clearly permitted by the ZB and cannot exist without a structure called an apartment building. Thus, apartment buildings are permitted in the C2 zone and specifically at a height of 20 m or 6 storeys, whichever is less.

24Returning the to the issue of whether a rezoning application is necessary, Mr. Larmour advised the Tribunal that the Subject Property must be rezoned due to the requirements of the OP. He referred to section B1.3.4.3 Development and Urban Design Criteria of the OP which directs:

Redevelopment and intensification proposals shall be subject to a Zoning By-law Amendment and shall be subject to Site Plan Control. Prior to approving application for new development, Council should be satisfied that:

a) The scale and appearance of the use is complementary to and does not detract from the residential character of the area;

b) The building and/or the general appearance of the site will be improved through quality urban design;

c) Adequate on-site or off-site parking is provided;

d) The Site Plan and Site Plan Agreement will address appropriate urban design matters including accessibility provision, exterior design features, massing and relationship to adjacent buildings as well as sustainable design elements located on municipal road allowances and land; and,

e) The sign identifying the use is limited in size in accordance with the municipal sign by-law.

25On the surface, this provision from the OP seems to require a rezoning for all intensification proposals. This makes sense when the zoning does not correspond with required zoning a proposed development for land.

26In this case, as mentioned by Mr. Kernahan, the C2 zoning is already in place for the Subject Property and apartment buildings are an authorized use according to the ZB. They can be constructed to a height of 6 storeys at this location on Ormond Street. The Tribunal finds that the argument that the Subject Property must be rezoned to comply with the requirements of the OP has no merit. Furthermore, it is contrary to the general intent of the OP, in particular Goal A2.1.1 and A2.1.2 which encourage new development in Urban areas serviced by water and sewers and intensification and redevelopment in downtown Thorold. Requiring rezoning of a property that is already zoned for a particular use would add completely unnecessary red tape to an already complex and expensive planning approval process.

heritage impact assessment

27The next preliminary issue to be resolved is whether a heritage impact assessment must be completed prior to the site plan approval stage and before assessing the minor variance application. Both the PPS and the OP address the requirement for a Heritage Impact assessment due the proximity of the Subject Property to three heritage properties. The timing of this assessment is unclear.

28Under policy 2.6.3 of the PPS, planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage properties except where the proposed development and site alteration have been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage properties will be conserved.

Policy 2.6.3 of the PPS states:

2.6.3 Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent

lands to protected heritage property except where the proposed development and

site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage

attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.

29The City’s Planner advanced the position that the authorization of the minor variance application is development and would be inconsistent with the PPS.

30Mr. Kernahan’s evidence was that the minor variance application is not development. Development is defined by the PPS to mean “the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures requiring approval under the Planning Act, but…”

31In the view of the Applicant’s planner, there is no creation of a new lot, no change in land use or construction requiring approval under the Act. The proposed development is subject to Site Plan Approval and cannot proceed without it. The Tribunal accepts Mr. Kernahan’s evidence and finds that Site Plan Approval process provides the mechanism to ensure that development and site alteration do not occur until an appropriate heritage impact assessment has been completed and addressed and thus is consistent with the PPS.

heritage under the op

32Policy D3.2.2.6 of the OP provides that Council shall require a Heritage Impact Assessment where development or site alteration related to a Planning Act approval is proposed on lands proximate to a protected heritage property. It states:

D3.2.2.6 Adjacent Lands

Development and site alteration may be permitted on lands adjacent to a protected heritage property as shown on Schedule E where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved. Where development of [sic] site alteration related to a Planning Act approval is proposed on lands proximate to a protected heritage property, Council shall require a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) to fulfil the following:

a) To assess the nature of site alteration or development and confirm that development will not adversely impact the heritage attributes of the protected property; and,

b) To confirm of [sic] provide recommendations to ensure that the vista and viewshed to or from the protected properties will be protected. Mitigative measures and/or alternative development approaches shall be required in order to conserve heritage attributes of the protected heritage property affected by the adjacent development or site alteration.

33All the planners agree that a heritage impact assessment is required under the OP for the proposed development. The disagreement arises regarding the timing of the heritage impact assessment.

34The Tribunal was asked to ignore the portion of Mr. Bedford’s written report assessing the minor variances since he had changed his views and adopted the position advanced by the City’s Planner. In the view of both the City’s Planner and Mr. Bedford, it is impossible to evaluate the specific variances in accordance with the tests set out in section 45(1) of the Act without regard to heritage and submission of a Heritage Impact Assessment. They presented no testimony regarding whether the variances comply with section 45(1) of the Act.

35Mr. Kernahan’s opinion is that this policy does not prevent the heritage impact study being considered at the site plan approval stage, and the site plan application cannot proceed without a decision on the requested variances. Development and site alteration cannot proceed without site plan approval, and the heritage impact assessment can be addressed, and its recommendations implemented at that time.

36Mr. Kernahan identified that the goal of the OP is to “encourage development that is adjacent to significant cultural heritage resources to be of an appropriate scale and character.” In his view, the zoning permissions for scale and character relative to the heritage properties are established for the Subject Lands by the ZB requirements for maximum height and minimum front and side yard setbacks.

37In support of this position, he advised the Tribunal that the requested minor variances do not pose negative changes to scale and character. There is no relation between the heritage properties and the Minimum Parking Area Buffer Variance, the Minimum Loading Space Variance and the Minimum Parking Space Variance sought in the application. The Minimum Front Building Façade variance will reduce the massing of the as of right building relative to the heritage resources.

38The Tribunal finds that Mr. Kernahan’s view is sensible and rejects the poorly reasoned conclusion that the heritage impact assessment is necessary to assess the proposed minor variances. The OP does not expressly require consideration of heritage in connection with a minor variance application. The proposed Minor Variances do not interact with the proximate heritage resources. This heritage review with the benefit of Heritage Impact Assessment can await the Site Plan Approval stage and no development or site alteration can proceed until the Site Plan approval stage is complete.

focus on the minor variance tests

39Given the finding that it is appropriate for the Tribunal to consider the minor variance tests without the benefit of a heritage impact assessment, the Tribunal is faced with a situation that the City’s Planner and Mr. Bedford have presented no evidence directly related to conformance of the minor variance application with the requirements of section 45(1) of the Act, other than the evidence dealing with the preliminary issues previously addressed in this decision. The Tribunal only has the evidence of the Applicant’s Planner and the City’s Staff Planner which supports the application. The cross-examinations of these witnesses did not cause the Tribunal to doubt their testimony.

the official plan

40In dealing with whether the application maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP, the planning evidence was that the Subject Property is designated as 'Downtown Transitional' in the City's Official Plan (“OP”). The OP also designates the section of Ormond Street South where the property is located as an Intensification Corridor, which the OP defines as 'areas along major roads, arterials, or higher order transit corridors that have the potential to provide a focus for higher density mixed-use development consistent with planned transit service levels'. As previously found by the Tribunal, a residential apartment building of a maximum of six storeys is permitted in the 'Downtown Transitional' designation. A rezoning application is not required, since the Subject Property is already appropriately zoned C2 which permits this use. As identified by the evidence of the Applicant’s Planner and the City Staff Planner:

1. The OP supports higher density residential development of the Subject Property;

2. Residential uses are permitted in the Downtown Transitional Designation and the proposed “apartment dwellings” that are located by definition in apartment buildings are a permitted use;

3. Rezoning is unnecessary; and

4. The heritage impact assessment related to proximate heritage resources can be assessed at the site plan approval stage.

41The Tribunal finds that the development facilitated by the minor variance application maintains the intent and purpose of the OP. The proposed variances facilitate the redevelopment of the site for uses that are permitted by the Official Plan at an intensity that is contemplated for the Subject Property.

42In reviewing the evidence on the remaining tests under section 45(1) of the Act, the Tribunal will deal with whether the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZB and are minor in nature, by looking at each of the individual specific variances. The evidence of Mr. Kernahan and Mr. Klassen was consistent with respect to this matter and is summarized as follows:

Minimum Façade Width Variance

43The general intent and purpose of the zoning requirement for minimum building façade width is to provide a positive streetscape that is dominated by building facades. The proposed building façade reduction maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZB since the proposed building will contribute positively to the streetscape and the façade reduction will permit access to parking which is screened from view.

44The variance is minor since the building will still appear prominent on the site, vehicular uses will be screened from view and the building will have a positive aesthetic from the street. This variance would be beneficial to the streetscape since it allows for a more compatible separation from the adjacent low-rise buildings and adds to the buffering between the parking and the pedestrian walkways.

Minimum Parking Area Buffer Variance

45The general intent of the ZB for the minimum buffer width between parking areas and residential uses is to minimize conflicts between these land uses. In this instance, there is a significant distance (i.e. > 20 m) between the proposed parking area and the dwellings to the west. The location of the parking and the 1.5 m buffer is not anticipated to result in land use conflicts with the residents to the east, or negative impacts. This variance is consistent with the general intent of the zoning by-law and is minor since there are no undue adverse impacts.

Minimum Loading Space Variance

46The general intent of the ZB to require a loading space in the C2 Zone is to provide an off-street location for deliveries to commercial establishments and to accommodate deliveries for residents of items into the building. In this instance, the general intent of the zoning by-law is maintained, and the variance is minor since the building does not include any proposed commercial uses and no undue adverse impacts are anticipated. The residents of the proposed building will be able to transport goods directly from the parking area into the building through the vestibule at the northeast corner of the building. The public parking areas to the west side of Ormond Street South would mitigate the absence of a loading space for the building.

Minimum Parking Space Variance

47The general intent of the ZB requiring a minimum number of parking spaces is to ensure that adequate parking exists for building residents. The parking study completed by the Applicant’s consultant concludes that 40 parking spaces for the proposed 40 dwelling units is appropriate and thus the intent and purpose of the ZB is maintained and the variance is minor. The Subject Property is on the edge of the City’s downtown with good access to public transit and services and amenities avoiding the need for additional parking spots. No off-site parking impacts are anticipated from the reduction.

48The Tribunal finds that the evidence of Mr. Kernahan and Mr. Klassen to be persuasive. The general intent and purposes of the ZB are maintained by the proposed minor variances and they are minor in nature since no undue adverse planning impacts are anticipated.

desirable

49The Tribunal must finally consider whether all the minor variances as a package are desirable. The planning evidence of the Applicant’s planner and Mr. Klassen identified that the proposed variances are desirable for the appropriate use and development of the land. They will permit the development of the site in a fashion that efficiently utilizes land and existing municipal infrastructure, including public transit, is well designed, contributes positively to the streetscape and is compatible with surrounding land uses. The variances will facilitate compact residential development in an area planned for intensification.

50The Tribunal finds that the evidence of Mr. Kernahan and Mr. Klassen to be persuasive and that the proposed development facilitated by the minor variances will be desirable in achieving the planned intensification for the area efficiently, and with a positive contribution to the streetscape.

evidence regarding urban design

51Mr. Bedford made numerous comments regarding the proposed design of the development and the interface of the building with the street. Although they appeared to be reasonable and may have some merit, they are not appropriate considerations in connection with the minor variance application.

52The building and site design will be addressed at the Site Plan Control stage of this development application as confirmed by the cross-examination of Mr. Bedford on his urban design evidence.

53The Participant Statements were carefully reviewed by the Tribunal. They seemed to be focused on urban design and compatibility issues. Through this hearing and the submission file, the City is aware of the Participants’ views.

pps and growth plan

54In reviewing the evidence on consistency with the PPS and conformance with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), the Tribunal finds that the minor variance application is consistent with the PPS since the growth is focused on the City’s intensification corridor and the proposed apartment building is a compact and efficient development. It will provide additional apartment housing in Thorold’s downtown. The proposed development will also conform with the Growth Plan since it will foster the development of complete communities with a full range of housing options.

summary

55The Tribunal has concluded that the minor variance application for the four requested minor variances is the appropriate vehicle for dealing with this matter and should be authorized. A zoning by-law amendment application is unnecessary and inappropriate since the site zoning is in place. Apartment buildings having a maximum of six storeys (below the height ceiling) are permitted as of right on the Subject Property. Reading in a requirement that rezoning of a site zoned for apartment buildings would be an inappropriate interpretation of the OP and further delay the new housing that the province requires with an unnecessary and expensive planning approval. Urban design issues and the heritage impact assessment can be appropriately addressed at the Site Plan control stage of the development application for this proposal. Development or site alteration cannot proceed on the Subject Property, without site plan approval.

ORDER

56THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS the appeal is allowed and the four requested variances, namely the Minimum Façade Width Variance, the Minimum Parking Area Buffer Variance, the Minimum Loading Space Variance and the Minimum Parking Space Variance to Bylaw 60-2019 and Bylaw 2140(97) are authorized.

“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.