Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: May 06, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001571
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Chun Tao He
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 11 Grandview Boulevard
Municipality: City of Markham
Municipal File No.: B/016/20
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001571
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001571
OLT Case Name: He v. Markham (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: Shelong Zhao
Subject: Consent
Property Address/Description: 15 Grandview Boulevard
Municipality: City of Markham
Municipal File No.: B/010/21
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001572
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001571
Heard: February 23, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Chun Tao He and Shelong Zhao
Steven Ferri and Mandy Ng
City of Markham
Francesco Santaguida
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND K.R. ANDREWS ON FEBRUARY 23, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This is a hearing of an appeal of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment (the “CoA”) to refuse the granting of a severance to convey part of the lands on 11 Grandview Boulevard and part of the lands on 15 Grandview Boulevard, with the intention of merging the two severed parts to create one new residential lot (the "Subject Lands").
2The Appellant proposes to demolish the two existing one storey dwellings, sever the two properties to create a total of three parcels and construct three new two storey single detached dwellings on the Subject Lands.
3The Subject Lands are designated as residential low rise in the City of Markham (the “City”) Official Plan (“OP”). The Subject Lands are located on the east side of Grandview, north of Riverview Avenue, south of Highway 7 East, and west of Main Street Markham South. Each property is currently developed with a one storey single detached dwelling, with mature trees and vegetation existing throughout. The Subject Lands have a combined lot area of 2,500.51 square metres (“m2”), and lot frontage of 60.94 metres (“m”).
4The following table illustrates the existing dimensions of the two existing parcels, and the proposed dimensions of the three proposed parcels:
5For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal allows the Appeal.
PARTICPANTS AND WITNESSES
6At the outset of the hearing, 29 people were granted Participant status. The Tribunal was in receipt of and considered the contents of their statements.
7The majority of the participants’ statements were in support of the proposed consent application. The concerns raised by those opposed are addressed below as part of the Tribunal’s analysis of the matter.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
8Evidence in support of the Application was provided by the Appellants’ expert, Debra Walker, while evidence against the Application was provided by the City’s Expert Katie Pandey. Both were duly qualified by the Tribunal as experts in land use planning.
9There was a consensus between the experts in which they provided an “Agreed Statement of Facts of Planning Experts” (ASF).
10The ASF confirms that the proposal will facilitate the construction of three new single detached dwellings to replace two existing single detached dwellings, with the lot dimensions as illustrated in the table above.
11The ASF also contains recommended Conditions of Consent Approval and confirms that, “[i]f the proposed consent applications are approved, the planners agree with the conditions of provisional consent approval attached” (the same as Schedule 1 of this decision).
ISSUES AND EVIDENCE
12Ms. Walker advised the Tribunal that the initial consent application (B/016/20) proposed by the owner was to sever 11 Grandview Boulevard into two lots. However, one of the proposed lots would not have met the zoning by-law prescribed minimum lot frontage of 60 feet. The application was deferred due to the initial proposed parcels not complying with the minimum zoning by-law requirements.
13Ms. Walker informed the Tribunal that the owner subsequently revised their initial severance application (B/016/20) for 11 Grandview Boulevard and submitted a new severance application (B/010/21) for 15 Grandview Boulevard.
14The CoA found that “the submission by residents were persuasive that the application does not conform to sections 8.2.3.5 (a), (f) and (h) of the OP that the proposal would result in a development pattern that is incompatible with neighbouring land uses and is an unsuitable use of the lands.”
15It is noteworthy that, during the municipal review of the proposed Consent applications, planning staff for the City was of the opinion that the proposed Consent adequately conforms with the OP, stating summarily that the Subject Lands are suitable for the purposes for which they are to be severed and both resultant lots are suitable in their dimensions and shapes.
16Ms. Walker testified that the character of the surrounding area, according to the City Staff report to the CoA dated September 27, 2021, is as follows:
The surrounding area contains a mix of one and two-storey single detached dwellings on residential lots that are generally rectangular in shape and vary in terms of their lot areas and lot frontages. Mature trees and vegetation are a predominant characteristic of the neighbourhood.
There is a variation of lot sizes and frontages along the street and within the surrounding area, which are similar to the proposed lots. Properties such as 20 Grandview Boulevard, and 22 Grandview Boulevard have approximate lot frontages of 20.90 m (68.57 feet), and lot areas of 856.15 square metres (9,215.52 square feet), which similarly comply with the Zoning By-law requirements (ZBL).
17The City submitted that approving this Application would be detrimental and have a negative impact on the neighborhood by breaking the lot pattern. It submitted that the character to assess is that which is on both sides of the street in an established neighborhood. Ms. Pandey testified that the compatibility of the proposed use cannot be questioned as single-family dwellings; however, compatibility of the lot frontage and area does not conform to the City’s OP.
18These opposite findings reflect the respective differing opinions of the Parties’ experts/positions and highlight policies of the City’s OP which are in dispute. These provisions constituted the focus of the analysis proffered by the respective Parties’ experts and it is upon these policies that the Tribunal finds this case turns on.
LEGISLATIVE TESTS
19The Tribunal finds it to be clear, through the evidence of the respective parties, that this case is principally concerned about local planning issues, and conformity/compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood in particular (i.e., as it relates to lot area and frontage).
20As a result, while the experts are not in agreement about the proposal having sufficient regard for the matters of provincial interest listed at section 2 of the Planning Act (the “Act”), consistency with the PPS, or conformity with the Growth Plan, the issues continually circle back to conformity/compatibility with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood and lot area and frontage specifically, which is more directly addressed through policies of the City’s OP. The following analysis will, therefore, briefly summarize the Tribunal’s findings related to section 2 of the Act, the PPS, and the Growth Plan before dealing with the relevant OPs in more detail with regards to the associated criteria listed at section 51(24) of the Planning Act.
PLANNING ACT (ACT) SECTION 2 - PROVINCIAL INTERESTS
21Section 2 of the Act requires that the Tribunal, in carrying out its responsibilities, have regard to matters of Provincial interest. The most relevant sections respecting the present case include:
a. The orderly development of safe and healthy communities;
b. The adequate provision of a full range of housing including affordable housing;
c. The resolution of planning conflicts between public and private interests;
d. The appropriate location of growth and development; and the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and be oriented to pedestrians.
22Ms. Walker testified that the proposed consents have sufficient regard for those matters listed at subsections (a) through (m) of section 2 of the Act. The Tribunal accepts this evidence and finds same.
PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT (PPS)
23The PPS encourages the establishment of healthy, liveable and safe communities and requires that sufficient land be made available to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of land uses to meet projected intensification targets of the community. Section 3 (5) of the Act requires that a decision of the Tribunal be consistent with the PPS 2020.
24In relation to the PPS, Ms. Walker testified that the proposal is consistent with the policies of the PPS noting the need for intensification and increased housing supply is supported by the PPS.
25In Ms. Walker’s opinion, the proposed addition of one additional residential lot in an established neighbourhood is appropriate because the PPS directs development to established built-up areas where there is existing municipal infrastructure to allow for the efficient use of land and services. Planning for intensification and redevelopment in appropriate locations are encouraged as is a range and mix of housing types and densities.
26Ms. Pandey testified that no land needs assessment was done for this study area which demonstrates intensification in this specific area is required to achieve intensification targets. She agreed that the PPS calls for intensification in the built-up area, however, she contends that the OP is the most important vehicle for implementation of the PPS, and comprehensive, integrated and long-term planning is best achieved through the OP. These comments do not directly contradict Ms. Walkers opinion.
27The Tribunal accepts Ms. Walker’s evidence and finds that the proposal is consistent with the PPS.
GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE, 2020 (Growth Plan)
28The Growth Plan is a long-term plan that works with other provincial plans to provide a framework for growth management in the Greater Golden Horseshoe Region.
29Ms. Walker’s evidence was uncontested insofar as it relates to the Growth Plan.
30Ms. Walker testified that the Growth Plan sets out minimum targets for intensification and redevelopment within built-up areas. In Ms. Walker’s opinion, the proposal conforms with Growth Plan policies by promoting transit-supportive intensification within the built-up area of the City and near a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor. The proposal also supports the achievement of complete communities by offering additional housing opportunities with a more compact built form that utilizes existing infrastructure in proximity to local stores, services, and public facilities.
31In conclusion, Ms. Walker’s opinion is that the proposal conforms to the Growth Plan. The Tribunal accepts Ms. Walker’s evidence and finds that the proposal conforms with the Growth Plan.
SECTION 51(24) OF THE PLANNING ACT
32Section 53(12) of the Act provides that when determining whether a provisional consent is to be given, the Tribunal shall have regard to the matters under subsection 51(24).
33In a Consent application, the question of conformity with the OP applies as it relates to subsection (c) of s. 51(24) of the Act. The Act states that “regard shall be had […] [to] whether the [Consent] conforms to the OP”.
34The Tribunal notes that the other criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act were all duly considered, and the majority of criteria were not in dispute or not applicable as per the ASF. As a result, the determination of the present matter ultimately turns on satisfaction of subsection (c) of s. 51(24).
YORK REGION OFFICIAL PLAN (YROP)
35Ms. Walker advised that the Subject Lands are designated “Urban Area” by the YROP and Highway 7 is designated as a “Regional Corridor” and “Regional Rapid Transit Corridor”. The Subject Lands are within 500 m of 6 transit stops along the Highway 7 corridor, supporting infrastructure in regard to policy 5.3.4 of the YROP.
36Ms. Walker testified that Section 3.5 of the YROP also speaks to housing supply. In Ms. Walker’s opinion, to avoid the need for urban area expansions, the principle of intensification and infill should be promoted. While recognizing compatibility of established neighbourhoods is important, modest intensification, including appropriate infill should be considered particularly in built up areas with nearby amenities and in proximity to Regional Rapid Transit Corridors.
37Ms. Walker testified that infill is also zoning compliant with standards that have been in place for many years, and she opined (contrary to the position of the City) that requiring greater lot standards (i.e. wider lot frontages and larger lot areas) than what is required by zoning standards goes against these overarching principles promoting appropriate infill opportunities.
38In Ms. Walker’s opinion, the proposed applications implement the intensification policies appropriately by permitting additional housing supply in proximity to a Regional Rapid Transit Corridor within the built-up area and where servicing exists. In principle, infill should be promoted in such areas to help reduce the need for urban area expansions. Ms. Walker opined that the applications, while minor, serve to help the City accommodate intensification targets set out in the YROP while maintaining current zoning standards.
39In conclusion, Ms. Walker’s opinion is that the proposed consent applications have regard to all of the criteria under section 51(24) of the Act, including subsection (c), and relatedly conforms with the YROP.
40The Tribunal accepts Ms. Walker’s evidence and similarly finds that the proposed Consent conforms with the YROP and, having regard to this finding, it satisfies subsection (c) of 51(24) of the Act.
MARKHAM CITY OP
41The most notable provision of the City OP to consider is at Policy s. 8.2.3.5 (a), which is concerned with intensification within Community Areas and development and infill development.
s.8.2.3.5.
(a) the lot frontage(s) and lot area(s) of the proposed new lot(s) shall be consistent with the sizes of existing lots on both sides of the street on which the property is located
42This section of the City OP speaks of the concept of compatibility and character within the subject neighborhood. In the present case, the question is whether the proposed development, facilitated by the requested Consent to sever the Subject Lands, is adequately “consistent” with the lot sizes (area and frontage) on both sides of the subject street.
43Furthermore, if the meanings of these sections require a contextual analysis to assess compatibility and character, then it is also critical to determine the scope and or parameters of the relevant neighbourhood to assess such compatibility and character.
44Ms. Walker provided a map of the geographic neighbourhood for the purpose of evaluating the consent application, which can be described as:
North limit: Highway 7;
West limit: both sides of Banfield Avenue and west limit of school property;
South limit: Milne Park
East limit: Milne Lane
The Planners agree on this geographic neighbourhood in the ASF, which is to be used for evaluating the proposed consent applications.
45Ms. Pandey’s opinion is that the character of the established neighbourhood will be negatively impacted. Ms. Pandey testified the Subject Lands are designated as residential low rise in the OP and this policy particularly deals with infill development criteria for residential low rise. Policy s. 8.2.3.5 (a) expressly sets out that lot frontages shall be consistent on both sides of the street.
46Ms. Pandey advised the Tribunal that Policy s. 8.2.3.5 (a) doesn’t say “streets” but “street” and it’s specific and its specificity lies in its singularity. Ms. Pandey provided visual evidence (Exhibit 4) to illustrate that most lots on either side of Grandview have a lot frontage of approximately 30.0 m and area of 1,250 m2. She acknowledged that there were some exceptions, specifically 1 and 3 Grandview Boulevard; however, she explained, those lots were created in 1970 and predates existing OP policy. She opined that the proposed lot frontage of approximately 19 m to 21 m, and lot area of approximately 812 m2 to 875 m2 are not consistent with this majority.
47Contrary to Mr. Pandey’s opinion, Ms. Walker testified that the area(s) of the proposed lots are:
a) consistent with the lot area of other lots on Grandview Boulevard, which range between 600.29 m2 (1 Grandview Boulevard) and 1,254.29 m2 (2 Grandview Boulevard);
b) greater than the lot area(s) of other lots on Grandview Boulevard, including 600.29 m2 (1 Grandview Boulevard) and 650.19 m2 (3 Grandview Boulevard);
c) generally, the same as the lot area(s) of the existing lots situated on the west side of Grandview Boulevard (20 and 22 Grandview Boulevard), which are 857.48 m2 each;
d) consistent with the lot area(s) of 14, 16, 18 and 20 Ovida which range between 1,012.19 m2 and 1,012.89 m2;
e) the proposed lots are also consistent with and, in some cases, larger than many existing lots within the broader context area that have the same R1 zoning; and
f) 46.9% of the lots have the same or smaller lot area than what is proposed.
48In Ms. Walker’s opinion, what constitutes as “consistent” in terms of lot area and frontage on Grandview Boulevard is not solely defined by the majority of the lots’ sizes on the street. The lots on the street that depart from the majority (i.e. smaller lots) should also be factored into the analysis. She further testified that varied lot areas are part of the character of this neighbourhood. Therefore, the lot areas and frontage of the proposed new lots are consistent with the sizes of existing lots on both sides of the street on which the property is located, as well as the broader neighbourhood context.
49Ms. Walker provided photo evidence (Exhibit 1) from her site visit on January 25, 2022 and described the neighbourhood as desirable because of its eclectic character. Ms. Walker informed the Tribunal, that over a period of decades (since the 1950s), single detached residential dwellings have been developed in the area. Dwellings range from one to two storeys.
50In Ms. Walker’s opinion, the way lots have developed over the years include an evolution to adapt to changing needs and lifestyles of residents. In this neighbourhood, she opined that there is a clear mix of smaller, older bungalows on larger lots and larger, more modern/newer dwellings on smaller lots with larger garages and living space.
51Ms. Pandey testified that there are characteristics of an established neighbourhood for this street as noted by planning staff, marked by openness, separation, mature trees, substantial landscaping, and overall consistency which would be negatively impacted by the proposed severance.
52Ms. Pandey testified that the conveyed and retained lots will be smaller than existing properties along Grandview Boulevard. She acknowledged, however, that they will be comparable in size to a number of smaller properties that are within the immediate vicinity, including residential lots abutting the site to the west (fronting on Willowgate Drive), which is also a mid-block location. Ms. Pandey opined that a severance on the end of the street or different location would be a different situation.
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT AND OMB DECISIONS
53Ms. Walker provided evidence summarizing a number of previous City of Markham CoA and Ontario Municipal Board (“OMB”) decisions related to similar proposed consents in the same R1 zone.
54Ms. Pandey testified that she understood that there are lots of smaller sizes approved in the past, however, she stated they were approved at the end of the street not in mid-block. She opined those approving severances creating smaller frontages in mid-block would break the established pattern of frontage along the street, which would thus impact the character of the neighbourhood.
55Ms. Pandey outlined that 20 Grandview Boulevard and 16 Riverview Avenue were both at the end of the street and the 8 Grandview Boulevard consent application was refused by the OMB due to it being located in mid-block. Ms. Pandey testified that at 9 Milne Lane, the frontage was existing and the lots are results of previous severances. In reference to the 11 Ovida Boulevard severance application, Ms. Pandey testified staff acknowledged the study area is an established neighbourhood characterized by large lot frontages and the street character (lot pattern) has remained consistent.
56The Tribunal reviewed and considered all the previous applications presented by both Parties, specifically 20 Grandview Boulevard and 8 Grandview Boulevard since they are on the same street with similar issues.
57Ms. Pandey opined that the 20 Grandview Boulevard application was anomaly and shouldn’t have been approved due to the Staff Report noting these lots will be smaller than existing lots but would be comparable to smaller properties in the immediate vicinity. She opined that it was an error because Staff grouped the lot (being a corner lot) with both Grandview Boulevard with Willowdale Drive, the latter featuring smaller frontages.
58Ms. Walker explained to the Tribunal that, similar to the 20 Grandview Boulevard Application, the current proposed severance would result in two lots that comply with the minimum ZBL lot frontage and lot area requirements of 60 feet (18.3 m) and 6,600 feet (613.2 m2); and would be compatible with the surrounding lot pattern. Staff considered the severance to be appropriate and recommended its approval, subject to the conditions noted in the Staff Report and CoA decision.
59In Ms. Walker’s opinion, the lot frontages and lot areas approved for 20 Grandview Boulevard are of similar length and size as the proposed consent applications and the same OP and zoning policies were in place at the time of staff approval of 20 Grandview Boulevard as the proposed application.
60Ms. Walker referred to the decision Sansanwal, Re, 2011 Carswell Ont 4320, [2011] O.M.B.D. No. 405 (“Sansanwel”). The Board in that decision denied the Application while putting significant weight on the fact that there was no evidence of a proposed Site Plan except for an opposing Participant’s (Tony Anzivino who is also a participant opposing this application) rendering of a Site Plan.
61The Tribunal sees this as different from the present case, whereas the Applicant in this case submitted Site Plans for 11, 13 and 15 Grandview Boulevard (dated 6/16/2021) for Zoning Preliminary Review in July 2021 and additionally revised and submitted the Site Plans of 11 Grandview Boulevard (dated 8/18/2021) to the CoA, which is part of the municipal record. Evidence presented to this Tribunal included a further Site Plan (dated September 24, 2021).
62The Board in the Sansanwal decision also gave weight to the fact that the Appellant’s study of the area was defined as broader area than that used in the Staff Report (para 20). The Tribunal has noted in this present case an ASF was submitted with the experts agreeing on the geographic neighborhood along with a photographic survey in proximity to the Subject Lands providing not only a broader context but also an immediate context to the Subject Lands.
63While this application was not successful, in Ms. Walker’s opinion the fundamental difference is that, in the case of 8 Grandview Boulevard, the minimum lot frontage for the R1 zoning of ZBL No. 1229 was not met, and the severed lots were thus not zoning compliant.
64In conclusion, Ms. Walker opined, based on her review of the character of the neighbourhood, as well as previous planning evidence and decisions made on a number of other consents in the area, that:
(i) the proposed lots meet the minimum lot frontage of 60 feet and are appropriate in maintaining the character of the neighbourhood; and
(ii) a minimum lot frontage of 60 feet is an established ‘threshold’ in light of an emphasis on intensification for areas like this, while also recognizing the need to maintain compatible lot sizes with an appropriate amount of infill given its locational attributes.
65Given the definition of compatible and plain reading of the rest of the section, the Tribunal finds that the City intended the policy to allow moderate intensification of the Subject Lands, even it if produces lot sizes which are slightly different than surrounding lot sizes, provided that it does not result in unacceptable adverse impacts/effects on the surrounding lands.
66The Tribunal finds there is consideration of intensification policies as noted above and evidence of smaller lots on the street (1, 3, 20, and 22 Grandview Boulevard specifically), so the proposed lots are consistent with existing lot patterns on the same street.
67Even though evidence showed that lots 1 and 3 were established at the north end of Grandview Boulevard on a corner lot in 1970, and Lot 20 and 22 are on a corner lot at the south end of Grandview Boulevard, it is clear to the Tribunal that this neighborhood is stable but not static. Infill Development continues not only on Grandview Boulevard but also on other streets in the neighborhood.
68In conclusion, the Tribunal accepts this planning evidence and finds that the Consent application is consistent with the policies of the PPS and conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan. The Tribunal also finds that the Proposed Development has regard for matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act.
69The Tribunal further finds that the proposed Consent conforms with the applicable Municipal Plans and, correspondingly, satisfies all of the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act, including subsection (c), and it otherwise represents good planning and is in the public interest. Furthermore, the Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act.
ORDER
70THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and the provisional consent is to be given subject to the Conditions set out in Schedule 1 to this Order.
“Eric S. Crowe”
ERIC S. CROWE
MEMBER
“K.R. Andrews”
K.R. ANDREWS
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.
SCHEDULE 1
CONDITIONS OF PROVISIONAL CONSENT APPROVAL
CITY OF MARKHAM FILE NOS. B/016/20 AND B/010/21
Payment of all outstanding realty taxes and local improvements charges owing to date against both the severed and retained parcels, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled.
Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of the required transfers to effect the severances applied for under Files B/016/20 and B/010/21, conveying the subject lands, and issuance by the Secretary Treasurer of the certificate required under subsection 53(42) of the Planning Act.
Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of a deposited reference plan showing the subject lands, which conforms substantially to the application as submitted.
Payment of the required Conveyance Fee for the creation of residential lots per City of Markham Fee By-law 211-83, as amended.
The Owner shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, Director of Planning and Urban Design, Director of Operations, and/or the Director of Engineering, or their designates, which Development Agreement shall be registered on title to the lands in priority to all mortgages, charges, liens and other encumbrances, and the Owner shall procure and cause to be executed and registered at its own cost and expense such discharges, postponements, and subordination agreements as may be required by the City in order to provide for the priority of registration for the Development Agreement on title to the Lands. The Development Agreement shall specifically provide for matters including but not limited to:
i) Payment of all applicable fees in accordance with the City’s fee By-law;
ii) Review and approval of an Arborist Report and Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City’s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, and that any detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan required as a condition of approval reflects the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan;
iii) Erection and inspection of tree protection fencing by City staff, in accordance with the City’s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, and the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan;
iv) Planting of any required replacement trees, and payment of replacement fees in accordance with the City’s Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, and the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan;
v) Submission of securities respecting any works to be provided in accordance with the Development Agreement;
vi) Payment of cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication in accordance with By-law 195-90, as amended, upon execution of the development agreement.
vii) Submission of an Appraisal report prepared by a member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada in accordance with the City’s terms of reference respecting the proposed new lot, to be reviewed and approved by the City; and
viii) Notice that the lands may not be connected to the City’s water system, sewage system and/or drainage system (the “Municipal Services”), and that in order to connect to the Municipal Services, the Owner must submit an application to the City and pay for the connections to the Municipal Services, which shall be installed by the City.
Subsection 50(3) or 50(5) of the Planning Act shall apply to any subsequent conveyance of or transaction involving the parcel of land that is the subject of this consent.
Submission of a Solicitor’s Certificate certifying that upon registration of the required transfers to effect the severances applied for under Files B/016/20 and B/010/21, title to Part 2 on the Draft Reference Plan submitted with File B/016/20 will merge with title to Part 3 on the Draft Reference Plan submitted with File B/010/21, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or designate, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design, or their designate.
That the Owner provides confirmation from an Ontario Land Surveyor that the severed and retained parcels, in their final configuration, meets all the requirements of the applicable Zoning By-law, including any development standards for building and structures, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Zoning Supervisor, or their designate.
That the existing dwelling on the severed and retained lots (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4) be partially or fully demolished, if required, to comply with all applicable Zoning By-law requirements, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official, or their designate.
Fulfillment of all of the above noted conditions within two years of the date that notice of the decision was given under Section 50(17) or 50(24) of the Planning Act.