Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 22, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002408

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant Hui Liu

Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority

Description: To create a new residential lot, proposed detached garage addition to existing dwelling and residential dwelling on existing detached garage

Reference Number: B/07/18

Property Address: 14 Ramona Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Markham/York

OLT Case No: OLT-22-002408

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002408

OLT Case Name: Liu v. Markham (City)

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

Subject: Minor Variance

Description To create a new residential lot, proposed detached garage addition to existing dwelling and residential dwelling on existing detached garage

Reference Number: A/95/18

Property Address: 14 Ramona Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Markham/York

OLT Case No: OLT-22-002409

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002408

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

Subject: Minor Variance

Reference Number: A/96/18

Property Address: 14 Ramona Boulevard

Municipality/UT: Markham/York

OLT Case No: OLT-22-002410

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002408

Heard: July 15, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Hui Lui ("Appellant")

Amber Stewart

City of Markham

Maggie Cheung-Madar

DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal was an appeal by Hui Lui (the "Appellant") concerning the decision of the Committee of Adjustment (the "CoA") to refuse the minor variance and consent applications for its property at 14 Ramona Boulevard (the "Subject Property" / "Subject Site").

2The variances and consent sought to facilitate the creation of a new residential lot, with a proposed detached garage addition to the existing dwelling (Part 1) and with a proposed new residential dwelling addition to an existing detached garage (Part 2).

3The Appellant is requesting provisional consent to:

a. sever and convey a parcel of land with approximate lot frontage of 7.9 metres ("m") and an area of 569.11 square metres ("m²") (Part 1);

b. retain a parcel of land with approximate lot frontage of 27.67 m and an area of 1,057 m² (Part 2).

4The purpose of this application is to create a new residential lot fronting Ramona Boulevard. This application is accompanied by the variance applications A/95/18 for the proposed new lot (Part 1) and A/96/18 for the retained lot (Part 2).

BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATION

5The applications were initially submitted in 2018 with a more typical lot configuration that would not have required any lot size variances. The lots proposed had a frontage of 18.28 m (Part 1) and 27.67 m (Part 2) and areas of 685.1 m² (Part 1) and 1,057 m² (Part 2). The proposed new dwelling on Part 1 had an area of 3,466 square feet ("ft²") (322 m²).

6An associated Site Plan Control application was submitted to the City and considered by Heritage Markham on July 11, 2018. Staff did not support the proposal in that configuration, in part due to the reduction of the large frontage of the retained lot, and the placement of a new dwelling in the front yard of the Robinson House. Robinson House is located within the Markham Village Heritage Centre, which is subject to area specific policies. It is also located within the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District ("MVHCD"), designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.

7Staff specifically noted that the proposal did not maintain the "variation in lot sizes that are a character defining attribute of the MVHCD. Heritage Markham supported the staff recommendation to oppose the severance. There was also a recommendation to consider individual designation of the Property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, ("OHA") which has not occurred.

8The CoA considered the proposal on August 8, 2018 and deferred the applications to permit further consultations with staff. Meetings were held with staff to discuss the proposed severance configuration, design of the new dwelling, and tree preservation.

9The Appellant retained ERA Architects Inc. ("ERA") in 2019 to prepare a Heritage Feasibility Study. The proposal was revised and ERA considered the heritage value of the Property and analyzed three alternatives for the proposed severance. The proposal was revised to address ERA and staff comments and then submitted to Heritage Markham. A Staff Report dated February 10, 2021, described the new proposal, which incorporated ERA's recommended option with revisions, including the demolition of the existing garage to construct a new dwelling, and the construction of a new accessory garage behind the original farmhouse. Staff commented on the improvements made to the application and concluded that they had no objection to the proposed severance and architectural design, subject to minor improvements made to some of the details (window size, etc.).

10MVHCD committee considered the revised proposal on February 10, 2021, and two motions were considered: the first was a motion to refer the proposal to the Architectural Review Committee for further analysis, which was not passed; the second was a motion that Heritage Markham does not object to the proposal from a heritage perspective subject to conditions, which was not passed either as it was a tie vote. No further motion was considered, and so there is no formal recommendation on record from MVHCD.

11The proposal went back to CoA on March 10, 2021 and was deferred again on a motion by the CoA. The Appellant further revised the proposal through modifications to the proposed accessory garage on the retained lot Part 2. Plans were submitted to the CoA that eliminated the second storey from the garage, reduced the height, and eliminated the exterior access staircase. These revisions were made to address concerns of neighbours to the rear/north.

12Planning Staff recommended that the proposed severance and minor variance applications should be approved, subject to conditions also taking in no objections from MVHCD, City of Markham Heritage Department, City of Markham Urban Design and no comments from City of Markham Engineering.

13The proposal went before CoA a third time on December 8, 2021. The applications were refused and subsequently appealed to the Tribunal.

14Although planning staff recommended approval of the variances at issue, the CoA refused the application for the following reasons: potential loss of trees, preservation of the home, not allowing another severance of the property and not having two dwellings on this property.

15For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal allows the Appeal.

MINOR VARIANCES

16The Appellant is requesting relief from the following requirements of Zoning By-law No. 1229, as amended ("ZBL"); to permit:

14 Ramona Boulevard, Proposed new lot Part 1

a. a lot frontage of 7.9 m (26 ft), whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.2 m (60 ft);

b. a minimum lot area of 569.11 m² (6125 ft²) whereas the ZBL requires a minimum lot area of 613.16 m² (6,600 ft²);

c. a minimum rear yard of 7.10 m (23 ft and 3 inches), whereas the ZBL requires 7.62 (25 ft);

d. Parking By-law 28-97, Section 6.2.4.4 a) i):

i. a driveway to be located 0.48 m (1 ft 6 inches) from an interior side lot line, whereas the ZBL requires a minimum setback of 1.2 m (4 ft);

14 Ramona Boulevard, Retained lot Part 2

a. a maximum floor area ratio of 45.52%, whereas the ZBL permits a maximum of 45%;

b. a minimum front yard of 3.7 m (12.27 ft), whereas the ZBL requires 7.6 m (25 ft);

HEARING

17Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal was advised that the City of Markham ("City") would be in attendance, however, they did not intend to take a position on the appeal but to support their request concerning conditions for the Tribunal to consider imposing in the event the appeal is allowed and to respond to any questions the Tribunal may have.

18No individuals or entities requested Party or Participant status.

SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA

19The Subject Property is located at 14 Ramona Boulevard, northeast of Main Street North (Markham Road) and Parkway Avenue. It has an existing street frontage of 45.96 m, an approximate depth of 37 m, and a lot area of 1,742.1 m².

20The Subject Property (old Robinson property) was once a large farm property that fronted Main Street North, and Ramona Boulevard roughly follows the former path of the old farm lane connecting the house to Main Street. Unlike neighbouring properties developed in the late 20th and early 21st century that have modern homes fronting Ramona Boulevard, the front of the Subject Property faces west towards Main Street. This, and the relatively large size of the property make 14 Ramona a unique historical anomaly in the neighbourhood. Because of the heritage significance of the property, the boundaries of the MVHCD were adjusted to include this property, whereas immediately adjacent properties are not part of the district.

21The old Robinson property has been greatly reduced in size, first through the development of the surrounding residential neighbourhood in the 1960's and more recently through a severance application which created the building lot and new two storey dwelling to the east at 16 Ramona Boulevard in 2010. At that time, Planning Staff was of the opinion that any further severance of the property to create a new building lot was not appropriate, due to the potential negative impacts it would have on the old Robinson property. In an attempt to prevent any further severances of the property, Planning Staff recommended that a 1 ft. strip of land along the front of the property be conveyed to the City as a condition of the 2010 severance, but this condition was ultimately not supported or imposed by the CoA at the time.

22The property is designated 'Residential – Low Rise' as per the Official Plan ("OP"). It is located within the Markham Village Heritage Centre, which is subject to area specific policies. It is also located within the MVHCD, designated under Part V of the OHA.

23There is an existing, relatively newly constructed two-storey detached garage located near the north-west corner of the property. Vehicular access is from a U-shaped driveway to the west of the existing dwelling. There are currently two access points from Ramona Boulevard.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Section 45 - Minor Variance

24An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Planning Act (the "Act") is a hearing de novo. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met, namely, that the requested variance:

a. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan ("OP");

b. maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law ("ZBL");

c. is minor in nature; and

d. is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

25Concerning a consent application, the Act gives authority to grant consent to sever land under s. 53(1) of the Act, when a Plan of Subdivision is not required for the orderly development of the lands. The Act also requires when making a decision on planning matters, that approval authorities have regard for matters of provincial interest in s. 2 and matters under s. 51(24) of the Act.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

26The Tribunal heard from Jonathan Benczkowski who was affirmed and qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert testimony in land use planning, on behalf of the Appellant. Being the only land use planner providing evidence at this hearing, the Tribunal accepts his uncontroverted evidence.

27Mr. Benczkowski advised he conducted additional site visits and toured the surrounding neighbourhood. He also participated in discussions with City staff regarding their concerns and provided direction to the project designer regarding revisions to improve the design. He prepared the exhibits and directed the compilation of the Document Book (Exhibit 1) being submitted which he adopted for the purpose of this Hearing.

CONSENT REVIEW

28With respect to the consents, Mr. Benczkowski opined s. 51(24) of the Act: a) Regard to matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act criteria have all been met.

29Mr. Benczkowski advised a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The proposed lots and road widening have been appropriately illustrated on the plans. He specifically highlighted the applicable sections namely:

a. Matters of provincial interest have been suitably addressed specifically including (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, (n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests, (p) the appropriate location of growth and development, (q) the promotion of transit supportive development, and (r) the promotion of well-designed built form. In particular, the detailed review of the design of the proposed new home has resulted in a built form, scale and massing that is characteristic of this neighbourhood and has reduced adverse impacts on the adjacent Heritage and surrounding properties.

b. The proposed subdivision is not premature, and it is in the public interest;

c. The proposed subdivision conforms to the OP and adjacent plans of subdivision, as discussed above; and

d. The land is suitable for the purposes for which it is to be divided. d.1) The lot is presently oversized and can accommodate two appropriate lots;

e. The number width,location and proposed grades and elevations of highways are adequate;

f. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and typical;

g. Through a detailed review by Heritage Staff it has been determined that the proposed dwelling will have no implication on the adjacent properties;

h. There are no implications to the conservation of natural resources and flood control;

i. Municipal services and utilities are adequate.

j. The existing lot is fully serviced;

k. School sites are adequate;

l. The proposed building will be designed according to modern building standards, and the existing dwelling has been renovated according to current building standards. The proposed development will optimize the efficient use and conservation of energy;

m. The recommended conditions of approval ensure that the proposal will be subject to a more detailed site plan review process. The property is in a site plan control area, and development is subject to site plan review. The proposal has already been subject to a detailed review by Planning Staff with respect to the building location, massing and design. Any further refinements to the plans can be undertaken through the site plan review process.

30In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, with which the Tribunal agrees, the consents sought facilitate the creation of a new residential lot, with a proposed detached garage addition to existing dwelling and proposed new resisdential dwelling addition to an existing detached garage and the proposed consents are consistent with s. 51(24) of the Act.

MINOR VARIANCE REVIEW – FOUR TESTS

Provicial Policy Statement ("PPS 2020")

31Mr. Benczkowski opined the variances have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, including the following;

a. Policy 1.1.1; Orderly development of healthy livable safe communities;

b. Policy 1.1.3; Settlement areas which encourages more efficient land use patterns that are transit- supportive and based on a range of opportunities for intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated.

c. Policy 1.1.3.3: Identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development and accommodate a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated.

d. Policy 1.1.3.4: Promotion of appropriate development standards which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form.

e. Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.3; appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet the needs of current and future residents, including by permitting and facilitating all housing options, and all types of residential intensification.

f. Policy 2.6.1; addresses Cultural Heritage resources and that significant built heritage resources shall be conserved.

g. Policy 2.6.3; Planning authorities shall not permit development on properties adjacent to Heritage Properties until it has been demonstrated that the attributes of the Heritage Property are able to be conserved.

32In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, with which the Tribunal agrees, the applications are consistent with the PPS, which is to encourage intensification through, among other means, infilling on vacant and underutilized parcels.

Growth Plan for the Greater Golder Horseshoe (2020) ("Growth Plan")

33Mr. Benczkowski advised the Growth Plan encourages the achievement of complete communities and the prioritization of intensification to make more efficient use of land and infrastructure.

34The Subject Property is located within the delineated built boundary of Markham, with proximate access to existing transit and existing public service facilities in the neighbourhood. Pursuant to policy 2.2.1.2(a) and (c), the area is anticipated to have some level of growth.

35In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, with which the Tribunal agrees, the proposal conforms with the policies of the Growth Plan.

York Region Official Plan ("YROP")

36Mr. Benczkowski advised the YROP was adopted in 2010 and is largely in force. The Subject Property is located within the Urban Area of Markham. The policies applicable to the Urban Areas generally support the achievement of complete communities through intensification, while still maintaining their character. Mr. Benczkowski testified like the provincial policy framework, the YROP is implemented through the City's OP.

City Official Plan ("OP")

37Mr. Benczkowski informed the Tribunal the intent of the OP is to ensure that new development does not propose changes to the neighbourhood that are out of keeping with the existing physical character or other developments within the area.

38Mr. Benczkowski advised the Subject Property is designated 'Residential – Low Rise' in the OP. The designation permits low-rise residential uses. The OP recognizes that neighbourhoods will experience physical change and are not frozen in time. The proposal respects and reinforces the physical character of the neighbourhood, which includes a variety of architectural forms as well as a number of replacement dwellings that have become part of the fabric of the neighbourhood.

39Mr. Benczkowski testified in addition to the criteria in Section 8.2.1.3 and the area and site specific policies of Sections 9.3.3, 9.13.2, 9.14.2, 9.18.5, and 9.19.2, unless otherwise specified in a heritage conservation district plan the proposal complies with all policies (a) through (l) with (k) and (l) not being applicable.

40Mr. Benczkowski highlighted Policy 9.13.4.3 which states that 'All new development and redevelopment including parks and plazas in the Markham Village Heritage Centre shall conform to the MVHCD Plan which shall take precedence over any other policies of this Plan.

41In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, the proposed dwelling respects and reflects the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, particularly when considering the primary objective (which takes precedence over other policy directions in the Plan) to maintain the unique building pattern on the Subject Site, emphasizing the prevalence of the existing farmhouse dwelling and maintaining the appearance of subordinate outbuildings to the primary dwelling. Therefore, it maintains the general intent and purpose of the City OP.

Zoning By-law No. 1229 ("ZBL")

42Mr. Benczkowski informed the Tribunal the property is zoned "R1" Residential under the ZBL. The zone provisions only permit detached dwellings. The applicable provisions require a minimum lot frontage of 60 ft, (18.2 m) and a minimum lot area of 6,600 ft², (613.1 m²).

43Mr. Benczkowski informed the Tribunal the purpose and general intent of the ZBL is to ensure compatible built form within the area and to ensure that new development does not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on the existing neighbourhood.

44Mr. Benczkowski testified the general intent and purpose of the Lot Frontage standard is to facilitate adequate and appropriate lots that are compatible with the physical context of a site. The conveyed lot Part 1 has been reallocated to allow for the emphasis of the streetscape to be on the existing heritage dwelling. Due to the considerable open space between the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling the streetscape will be maintained as is today with the existing garage on the site.

45Mr. Benczkowski explained, in totality, the two lots exceed the minimum frontage requirements, and the reduced frontage for Part 1 will not be visible. However, it will ensure protection of the heritage value of the dwelling on Part 2 in perpetuity, because it will prevent the future demolition of the dwelling on Part 1 and its replacement with a larger dwelling closer to the front lot line (which would obscure the heritage dwelling).

46Mr. Benczkowski's analysis included the general intent and purpose of the Lot Area provision which is to ensure that neighbourhoods maintain a lot pattern that is appropriate for the provision of a functional dwelling, and maintain lot characteristics that are contextually appropriate from the street and the neighbourhood. In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, from a neighbourhood character perspective, a modest reduction in the Lot Area will be imperceptible from the street and is able to accommodate a functional dwelling on the lot. In totality the two lots exceed the ZBL requirements, and the reduced lot area for Part 1 will not be visible.

47Mr. Benczkowski informed the Tribunal the general intent and purpose of the Minimum Rear Yard Setback is to ensure that there is sufficient space in the rear to accommodate amenity and accessory features. In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, the relief is for a reduction of 0.53 m to the ZBL, which is numerically insignificant and increases the rear yard setback that exists on the site today.

48Mr. Benczkowski advised the general intent and purpose of the Interior Side Yard driveway provision is to limit impact from driveways on adjacent properties. In this case there is a proposed new driveway to access the proposed garage on Part 2, which will not cause any adverse impact to the adjacent property given the building placement towards the rear of Part 1.

49In relation to Net Floor Area Ratio (FAR), Mr. Benczkowski advised the general intent and purpose of the density standard is to ensure buildings within that designated zone are all compatible in scale and massing. The request for an increase in FAR is for a modest 0.52 increase to permit the retention of the existing dwelling on the reduced lot. He noted there is no addition to any floor area of the existing dwelling, and the resulting density over the two lots would comply with the zoning.

50In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, with which the Tribunal agrees, the intent of the ZBL standards is maintained with the proposed development. The requested variances will result in a built form that is already represented on the Subject Site. The proposed variances individually and cumulatively meet the intent and purpose of the ZBL. The impact of the requested variances does not push the limits of the ZBL and results in a compatible built form with what is in the area. Therefore, the requested variances comply with the purpose and intent of the ZBL.

Desireable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land

51Mr. Benczkowski informed the Tribunal, that desirability relates to whether or not the variance is desirable from the perspectives of good planning and is in the public interest.

52Mr. Benczkowski testified the proposal is also desirable as it represents the infilling of an existing site, utilizing the westerly portion of the lot. The proposal achieves substantial zoning compliance for both lots and maintains appropriate side yard setbacks relative to the physical location of the buildings on the site.

53Mr. Benczkowski advised the proposal will facilitate the retention of the existing heritage dwelling for, and the creation of an additional single detached dwelling that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. Both dwellings are appropriately sized to accommodate a reasonable dwelling for the neighbourhood, in accordance with contemporary building standards.

54In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, this proposal does not introduce an inappropriate building form. The variances are desirable for the appropriate development of the use of land, specifically, the renovation and preservation of the existing heritage designated dwelling on the Subject Property is desirable and appropriate given its physical condition and its heritage value.

Minor

55Mr. Benczkowski considered whether the requested variances are minor in relation to the scale and impact. In addition, the concept of compatibility in relation to infill development was also considered. Mr. Benczkowski advised compatible development will fit with the existing development, without causing undue adverse impact on the surrounding properties.

56Mr. Benczkowski testified from a numeric perspective the proposal is quantitatively minor. The proposed variance for lot frontage will result in a lot that is imperceptibly different from other lots on the street and in the neighbourhood. The difference in lot frontage will be similar to the difference in other lot pairs, and in fact will reduce the difference between adjacent lots as they exist today. The existing lot is nearly double the width of the lots adjacent to the east and the west. In his opinion, there is no adverse impact arising from the lot frontage variance given the site's context.

57With respect to the side yard setback reductions, in Mr. Benczkowski's opinion there is no unacceptable adverse impact to either adjacent neighbour because the driveways are internal to the site. He stated substantial efforts have been made to revise the design to address issues with respect to ensuring the prominence of the heritage dwelling from the streetscape.

58In addition, Mr. Benczkowski advised the requested variance to permit a maximum FAR of 45.52% whereas the ZBL permits 45% is minor in nature.

59In Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, with which the Tribunal agrees, the final proposal is minor in nature. The proposed development does not push the limit far over development and will not create unacceptable impacts on adjacent neighbours or on the streetscape.

60In summary, Mr. Benczkowski opined the proposal is appropriate and in the public interest. The Revised Plans have substantially improved the design that was before the CoA and has resolved the concerns of Planning Staff. Council have endorsed the Planning Staff position and recommended a series of conditions (see Schedule 1). The conditions are appropriate and related to the proposal. The Conditions will ensure that all services are in place prior to construction, that the road widening is implemented, and that development occurs substantially in accordance with the Revised Plans.

FINDINGS

61In the absence of any planning evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds and accepts the uncontradicted land use planning evidence of Mr. Benczkowski that the proposed variances are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land and maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the variances have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest; are consistent with the PPS; and overall, represent good planning in the public interest.

62In addition, the Tribunal 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, and 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 City pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act.

ORDER

63THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed, and provisional consent is to be given and the minor variances to Zoning By-law No.1229 are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 1 to this Order.

"Eric S. Crowe"

ERIC S. CROWE

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal ("Tribunal"). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

SCHEDULE 1

CONDITIONS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE CONSENT APPLICATION

a) Payment of all outstanding realty taxes and local improvements charges owing to date against both the subject and retained parcels, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled.

b) Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of the required transfers to effect the severance applied for under City File B/07/18, in duplicate, conveying the subject lands, and issuance by the Secretary Treasurer of the certificate required under subsection 53(42) of the Planning Act;

c) Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of seven white prints of a deposited reference plan showing the subject land, which conforms substantially to the application as submitted;

d) Payment of the required Conveyance Fee for the creation of residential lots per City of Markham Fee By-law 211-83, as amended;

e) That the Appellant satisfies the requirements of Metrolinx, financial or otherwise, as indicated in their letter to the Secretary-Treasurer, attached as 'Appendix C' to the City of Markham's Staff Report, to the satisfaction of Metrolinx, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of Metrolinx;

f) Fulfilment of all of the above conditions within two (2) years of the date that notice of the decision was given under Section 50(17) or 50(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13;

CONDITIONS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE MINOR VARIANCES

g) That the proposed accessory building on the retained lot shall comply with the maximum permitted height of 12 ft, pursuant to the City of Markham's Zoning By-law 1229;

h) That the proposed accessory building on the retained lot shall be designed to not have any exterior staircases;

i) The variances apply only to the proposed development as long as it remains;

j) That the variances apply only to the proposed development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as 'Appendix D' to the City of Markham's Staff Report and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design, or designate, that this condition has been fulfilled to their satisfaction;

k) That the Appellant submit to the Secretary-Treasurer a copy of the Site Plan Endorsement memo for the proposed development;

l) That the Appellant implement and maintain all of the works required in accordance with the conditions of the variances;

m) Submission of a Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a qualified arborist in accordance with the City of Markham's Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, to be reviewed and approved by the City, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation from the Director of Planning and Urban Design, or designate, that this condition has been fulfilled to their satisfaction, and that any detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan required as a condition of approval reflects the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan;

n) That prior to the commencement of construction or demolition, tree protection be erected and maintained around all trees on site in accordance with the City of Markham's Streetscape Manual (2009), as amended, including street trees, and inspected by City Staff, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design or their designate;

o) That tree replacements be provided and/or tree replacement fees be paid to the City, if required, in accordance with the Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, 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; and

p) Submission of a detailed Siting, Lot Grading and Servicing Plan designed and stamped by a Professional Engineer/Ontario Land Surveyor/Landscape Architect satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering or their designate.