Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: March 07, 2023
CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002093
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: City Park Holdings Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law - Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Purpose: To permit 24 residential units
Property Address: 0 King Street, 0 Camilla Road and 2487 Camilla Road
Municipality: City of Mississauga
Municipal File No.: OZ 21 003 W7
OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002093
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002093
OLT Case Number: City Park Holdings Inc. v. Mississauga (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: City Park Holdings Inc.
Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision – Failure of City of Mississauga to make a decision
Purpose: To permit 24 residential units
Property Address: 0 King Street, 0 Camilla Road and 2487 Camilla Road
Municipality: City of Mississauga
Municipal File No.: TM 21002 W7
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-002094
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-002093
Heard: February 15, 2023 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| City Park Holdings Inc. | Leo Longo |
| City of Mississauga | Lia Magi |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS AND K.R. ANDREWS ON FEBRUARY 15, 2023 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal is in respect of appeals brought by City Park Holdings Inc. (“Applicant) following the failure of the City of Mississauga (“City”) to render a decision respecting applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and for a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) (together the “Applications”). The appeals are brought pursuant to s. 34(11) and s. 51(34) of the Planning Act (“Act”) respectively.
2The present hearing had originally been scheduled as a Case Management Conference but was converted into a settlement hearing when the parties came to an agreement on all outstanding issues (“Proposed Settlement”). The Proposed Settlement is now before the Tribunal for approval.
3The uncontested evidence in support of the Proposed Settlement was provided by Jim Levac, retained by the Applicant, who was qualified as an expert in land use planning. Mr. Levac’s written evidence, in the form of an Affidavit dated January 26, 2023, including various attachments, was marked as Exhibit 2.
SUBJECT LANDS AND SURROUNDINGS
4The Applications were filed with the City to implement a development proposal with respect to vacant lands known municipally as 0 King Street East, and 0 and 2487 Camilla Road in the City (“Subject Lands”). The Subject Lands comprise an area of 0.56 acres and have frontages of approximately 56.4 metres (“m”) on King Street East and 82.9 m on Camilla Road.
5The Subject Lands are currently vacant and have been for quite some time. They were formerly occupied by 2 detached dwellings which were demolished. Low-density single detached dwellings are the prevailing surrounding building form and can be found along both sides of King Street East and Camilla Road. The area is a stable residential community but has the locational advantage of being in very close proximity to commercial uses and existing, approved and funded future public transit. They are geographically situated within the Cooksville Planning District of the City.
The Original and Revised Development Proposal
6The ZBA application originally involved the establishment of R5-XX and R16-XX zoning categories, with the proposed R5-XX zone to permit 9 freehold detached dwellings and the R16-XX zone to permit 15 detached dwellings on a common element condominium road. The DPS application involves a request to approve a plan for the 9 detached dwelling lots and 1 condominium block (the particular plan of which will be considered by the City at some point in the future).
7After the Applicant launched the present appeals with the Tribunal, discussions continued between the Applicant and the City. These discussions resulted in revisions to the proposed development. Most notably, the number of planned dwellings was reduced from 24 to 22, with the number of freehold dwellings remaining at 9 and the number of planned condominiums detached dwellings being reduced to 13. In addition, the Appellants have accepted the City’s proposed reconfigurations to the lotting pattern and the condominium road. These revisions formed the basis of the revised development proposal and the Proposed Settlement, which were approved by the City on November 11, 2022.
8Concurrently with its approval of the Settlement Proposal, the City initiated an amendment to its Official Plan (“OP”). This amendment was required, in the view of City staff, to support the proposed ZBA because the internal condominium lots would not front on a public road. The effect of this amendment was to remove the Subject Lands from Special Site 7, within the Cooksville Neighbourhood Character Area, and thus allow 9 freehold detached dwellings and 13 detached dwellings on a common element condominium road. On December 15, 2022, OP Amendment No. 153 was approved by City of Mississauga Council and is currently in force.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
9Although this was a settlement hearing, the Tribunal must nevertheless be satisfied that the Applications meet all legislative tests. In particular, the Tribunal must be satisfied that revised Applications: (a) have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act; (b) are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”); (c) conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”); (d) conform to the Region of Peel Official Plan (“Regional OP”); and, (e) conform to the City’s OP and the Cooksville Neighbourhood Character Plan. In addition, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the revised DPS application has regard to the criteria set out at s. 51(24) of the Act.
10Mr. Levac testified that, in his professional opinion, the revised Applications met all the legislative tests.
11For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal accepts this evidence and finds same.
Matters of Provincial Interest
12Mr. Levac testified that the proposed development will be fully serviced with existing municipal sanitary, water and stormwater management services to the satisfaction of the City and the Region of Peel. It is located within an existing mature neighbourhood with access to a full range of existing schools, health care facilities and community services. He further opined that the proposed development would create an opportunity to intensify an existing underutilized site and proposes an opportunity for intensification on a parcel of land within walking distance of the downtown Cooksville area and all the locational attributes associated with it. He also noted that it will be within walking distance of the Cooksville GO Station, Hurontario LRT and Dundas BRT as well as a variety of personal service and retail facilities within the Cooksville Community Node.
PPS 2020
13Mr. Levac testified that the proposed development would permit a compatible, albeit denser form of low-density development on underutilized lands that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed development will be more compact in form, maximize existing underutilized lands in a built-up area, maximize existing infrastructure, and promote efficient land use and development patterns. The proposed land use itself does not require an amendment to the Official Plan and is consistent with the provincial policy regime objectives to promote "gentle intensification" in existing mature neighbourhoods.
14Mr. Levac explained that the proposed development will occur in a settlement area in a more compact form of intensification but within a lower density and built form which makes more efficient use of an underutilized site on full municipal services with access to existing transit, community services and infrastructure. In his view, this is a compatible form of intensification of an underutilized property within a settlement area.
Growth Plan
15Mr. Levac testified that the proposed development supports the achievement of complete communities designed to support healthy and active living and meet people's needs for daily living. In his view, it further prioritizes intensification to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and supports transit viability, directs growth to settlement areas that have a delineated built boundary, have existing or planned municipal water and wastewater systems and can support the achievement of complete communities, as well as directing development away from hazardous lands.
Regional OP
16Mr. Levac opined that the development proposal represents a gentle form of intensification and conforms with the Regional OP; namely, to achieve efficient and compact built forms. It also optimizes use of existing infrastructure and services and intensifies development on underutilized lands.
17The Subject Lands are designated "Urban System" in the Regional OP, which permits urban uses. Mr. Levac also underscored that the proposed development supports the objectives of compact, transit supportive intensification in areas that efficiently utilize land, services, infrastructure, and public finances while respecting the character of existing communities. Peel Region expressed no opposition to the proposed development.
City OP and Cooksville Neighbourhood Character Plan
18Under the City’s OP, the Subject Lands are subject to the Neighbourhood Policies. Cooksville forms one of many neighbourhoods across the City. Mr. Levac explained that neighbourhoods under the OP are regarded as stable residential areas where existing neighbourhood characteristics are to be preserved. Notwithstanding this, Mr. Levac testified that intensification would occur. Such intensification must be compatible in scale and built form with the surrounding neighbourhood which this proposal achieves as a permitted land use and built form. The City's OP definition of "compatible" means "development which may not necessarily be the same as, or similar to, the existing or desired development, but nonetheless enhances an established community and coexists with existing development without unacceptable adverse impact on the surrounding area". As an alternative form of low density single detached housing, Mr. Levac testified that the proposed development is compatible and meets this objective. The Subject Lands are designated "Residential Low-Density I” in the City's OP. The Residential Low Density I designation permits single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and duplex dwellings. Accordingly, the proposed built form is permitted under the current OP land use designation.
[Sections 51(24)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec51subsec24_smooth) and [51(25)](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html#sec51subsec25_smooth) of the [Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
19Mr. Levac reviewed the criteria set out in s. 51(24) applicable to the proposed Subdivision application and concluded had it had appropriate regard to those criteria. In particular, he opined, as noted above, that the proposed application has no impact on matters of provincial interest, conforms with the City's OP, is suitable for its intended purpose and can utilize existing infrastructure and community services that already exist in the area. The Tribunal accepts his evidence and opinion and finds same.
20The Proposed Settlement envisages Conditions of Approval pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Act. Based on Mr. Levac’s evidence, the Tribunal finds these conditions to be reasonable in the circumstances. The Tribunal notes that these Conditions of Approval are to be cleared by the City. The final approval of the plan of subdivision will rest with the City.
Concerns of the Participants
21At hearing, the Tribunal requested Mr. Levac to address specifically the concerns raised by Mohamed Ahmed and John Grande, who had earlier been granted Participant status by the Tribunal. Notably, these Participants in their written statements raised the following concerns: the inappropriate degree of intensification, the risk of increased traffic, parking availability and incompatibility within the existing neighbourhood.
22In his oral evidence, Mr. Levac reiterated that the proposed intensification aligns with the various policy statements discussed above. Mr. Levac explained that a traffic study had been completed and was submitted to the City with the Applications. He noted that the City did not foresee traffic issues. In his opinion, the cumulative impact of the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on local traffic patterns. With respect to parking, Mr. Levac testified that the proposed development did not deviate from the applicable by-law. Finally, he opined that the proposed built form, albeit smaller than other low-density single dwellings in the surrounding area, is nevertheless compatible. The comparatively smaller dwellings on smaller lots would be detached. They would not, for example, take the form of townhouses. In his professional opinion, while the proposed dwellings would not be the same as the existing surrounding dwellings, they are nevertheless compatible.
23The Tribunal accepts Mr. Levac’s evidence with respect to the Participants’ concerns and similarly finds that their concerns have either been adequately addressed by the proposed plan or there is no evidence to lend credence to their concerns.
CONCLUSION
24Based on the foregoing uncontested evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development and the Applications: (1) have regard to matters of provincial interest pursuant to s. 2 of the Act; (2) are consistent with the PPS pursuant to s. 3(5)(a) of the Act; (3) conform to the policies of the Growth Plan pursuant to s. 3(5)(b) of the Act; (4) conform to the Regional OP, the City OP and the Cooksville Neighbourhood Character Plan pursuant to s. 24(1) and 51(24)(c) of the Act; and (5) otherwise also have regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. Furthermore, in light of the settlement being endorsed by the City, the Tribunal makes its findings while exercising appropriate regard for the decision of the City pursuant to s. 2.1(1)(a) of the Act.
ORDER OF TRIBUNAL
25The Tribunal Orders that:
i. The appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Act is allowed in part and directs the municipality to amend By-law No. 0225-2007 as set out in Attachment 1. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Mississauga to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.
ii. The appeal pursuant to s. 51(34) of the Act is allowed in part and the draft plan in Attachment 2 is approved subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in Attachment 3.
iii. Pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Act, the City shall have the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval of the plan of subdivision and to administer final approval of the plan of subdivision for the purposes of s. 51(58) of the Act. If there are any difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
26In all other respects, the appeal is dismissed
“Jean-Pierre Blais”
JEAN-PIERRE BLAIS
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.
Attachment 1
- Bylaw Number 0225-2007, as amended, being a City of Mississauga Zoning Bylaw, is amended by adding the following Exception Table:
| 4.2.6.50 | Exception: R550 | Map # 14 | Bylaw: |
|---|---|---|---|
| In a R550 zone the permitted uses and applicable regulations shall be as specified for a R5 zone except that the following uses/regulations shall apply: | |||
| Regulations | |||
| 4.2.6.50.1 | Minimum lot area - interior lot | 229 m2 | |
| 4.2.6.50.2 | Minimum lot area - corner lot | 228 m2 | |
| 4.2.6.50.3 | Minimum lot frontage | 10.0 m | |
| 4.2.6.50.4 | Maximum lot coverage | 45% | |
| 4.2.6.50.5 | Minimum interior side yard - corner lot | 0.65 m | |
| 4.2.6.50.6 | Minimum rear yard | 6.0 m | |
| 4.2.6.50.7 | Maximum height | 11.0 m | |
| 4.2.6.50.8 | Maximum encroachment of a porch or deck, inclusive of stairs, located at and accessible from the first storey or below the first storey of the dwelling into the required front yard | 1.5 m | |
| 4.2.6.50.9 | Maximum encroachment of a porch or deck, inclusive of stairs, located at and accessible from the first storey or below the first storey of the dwelling into the required rear yard | 3.5 m | |
| 4.2.6.50.10 | All site development plans shall comply with Schedule R550 of this Exception |
- Bylaw Number 0225-2007, as amended, is further amended by adding the following Exception Table:
| 4.7.2.12 | Exception: R1612 | Map # 14 | Bylaw: |
|---|---|---|---|
| In a R1612 zone the permitted uses and applicable regulations shall be as specified for a R16 zone except that the following uses/regulations shall apply: | |||
| Regulations | |||
| 4.7.2.12.1 | The regulations contained in Table 3.1.3.1 of this Bylaw shall not apply | ||
| 4.7.2.12.2 | Minimum lot area - interior lot | 230 m2 | |
| 4.7.2.12.3 | Minimum lot area - CEC - corner lot | 239 m2 | |
| 4.7.2.12.4 | Minimum lot frontage | 10.0 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.5 | Maximum lot coverage | 46% | |
| 4.7.2.12.6 | Minimum front yard - interior lot/CEC - corner lot | 4.5 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.7 | Minimum front yard setback from a garage face to a street, CEC road or CEC - sidewalk | 6.0 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.8 | Minimum exterior side yard - lot with an exterior side lot line abutting a CEC - road | 3.0 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.9 | Minimum interior side yard - interior lot | 1.2 m on one side, 0.61 m on the other side | |
| 4.7.2.12.10 | Minimum interior side yard - corner lot | 0.65 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.11 | Minimum interior side yard where interior side lot line is the rear lot line of abutting parcel | 3.0 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.12 | Minimum rear yard - interior lot/CEC - corner lot | 6.0 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.13 | Maximum height | 11.0 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.14 | Maximum encroachment of a porch or deck, inclusive of stairs, located at and accessible from the first storey or below the first storey of the dwelling into the required rear yard | 3.5 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.15 | Minimum setback of a detached dwelling to a CEC - visitor parking space | 1.7 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.16 | Maximum width of a driveway | 5.2 m | |
| 4.7.2.12.17 | All site development plans shall comply with Schedule R16-12 of this Exception |
Map Number 14 of Schedule "B" to Bylaw Number 0225-2007, as amended, being a City of Mississauga Zoning Bylaw, is amended by changing thereon from "R3" to "R550" and "R1612", the zoning of Part Lot 14, Concession 1, South of Dundas Street, in the City of Mississauga, PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT the "R550" and "R1612" zoning shall only apply to the lands which are shown on the attached Schedule "A", which is deemed to be an integral part of this Bylaw, outlined in the heaviest broken line with the "R550" and "R1612" zoning indicated thereon.
This Bylaw shall not come into force until Mississauga Official Plan Amendment Number 153 is in full force and effect.
Attachment 2
(Draft plan omitted in original text)
Attachment 3
Approval of a draft plan of subdivision granted under Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, is valid until approval is either withdrawn or the plan is registered. Approval may be withdrawn by the Commissioner, Planning and Building Department if approval of the final plan has not been given three (3) years after the date of approval of the draft plan.
NOTE: City is "The Corporation of the City of Mississauga" Region is "The Regional Municipality of Peel"
The City has not required either the dedication of land for park or other public recreational purposes, or a payment of money in lieu of such conveyance as a condition of subdivision draft approval authorized by Section 51.1 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13 as amended. The City will require payment of cash-in-lieu for park or other public recreational purposes as a condition of development for each lot and block, prior to the issuance of building permits pursuant to Section 42(6) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P13, as amended, and in accordance with the City's policies and by-laws.
1.0 Approval of the draft plan applies to the plan dated October 20, 2022.
2.0 That the owner agrees, in writing, to satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise of the City and the Region.
3.0 The applicant/owner shall enter into a Subdivision Agreement including Municipal Infrastructure Schedules, and any other necessary agreements, in a form satisfactory to the City, Region or any other appropriate authority, prior to ANY development within the plan. These agreements may deal with matters including, but not limited to, the following: engineering matters such as municipal services, road widenings, land dedications, public easements, construction and reconstruction, signals, grading, fencing, noise mitigation, and warning clauses; financial issues such as cash contributions, levies (development charges), land dedications or reserves, securities or letters of credit; planning matters such as residential reserve blocks, buffer blocks, site development plan and landscape plan approvals; conservation and environmental matters; phasing and insurance. THE DETAILS OF THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE CONTAINED IN COMMENTS FROM AUTHORITIES, AGENCIES, AND DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY AND REGION AS CONTAINED IN THE APPLICATION STATUS REPORT DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2022 THAT CORRESPONDS WITH THE RESUBMISSION DATED AUGUST 26, 2022 AND REMAIN APPLICABLE. THESE COMMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT OR THEIR CONSULTANTS AND FORM PART OF THESE CONDITIONS.
4.0 All processing and administrative fees shall be paid prior to the registration of the plan. Such fees will be charged at prevailing rates of approved City and Regional Policies and By-laws on the day of payment.
5.0 The applicant/owner shall pay in full, all assessments levied against the property, as well as the current years taxes and/or local improvement charges, prior to the registration of the plan.
6.0 Prior to the execution of the Subdivision Agreement, should there be any mortgagees, the City will require that the mortgagees execute in duplicate, a Consent and Postponement.
7.0 Prior to final approval, the applicant/owner is required to register restrictions on title to all the lots/blocks prohibiting the transfer of the lots/blocks until such time as the common element condominium road is registered. A copy of the Registered Restriction is to be submitted to the Development and Design Division.
8.0 The applicant/owner shall agree to convey/dedicate, gratuitously, any required road or highway widening, 0.3 m (1 ft.) reserves, walkways, sight triangles, buffer blocks and utility or drainage easements to the satisfaction of the City, Region or other authority.
9.0 The applicant/owner shall provide the Transportation and Works Department a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) for review. The RAP must include without limitation the details for remediating the development lands/lands to be dedicated to the City, such as the timing of the remedial work and the remedial approach.
10.0 The applicant/owner shall provide all outstanding reports, plans or studies required by agency and departmental comments.
11.0 That a Zoning By-Law for the development of these lands shall have been passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, and be in full force and effect prior to registration of the plan.
12.0 The proposed streets shall be named to the satisfaction of the City and the Region. In this regard, a list of street names shall be submitted to the City Transportation and Works Department as soon as possible after draft plan approval has been received and prior to any servicing submissions. The owner is advised to refer to the Region of Peel Street Names Index to avoid proposing street names which conflict with the approved or existing street names on the basis of duplication, spelling, pronunciation, and similar sounding.
13.0 Prior to final approval, the Engineer is required to submit, to the satisfaction of the Region, all engineering drawings in Micro-Station format as set out in the latest version of the Region of Peel "Development Procedure Manual".
14.0 Prior to final approval, the developer will be required to monitor wells, subject to the homeowner's permission, within the zone of influence, and to submit results to the satisfaction of the Region.
15.0 Prior to final approval, payment in cash or certified cheque will be required by Community Services Department to cover the cost of planting 10 street trees, up to 60 mm caliper on the Camilla Road frontage. Such fees will be charged at prevailing rates of approved City policies and by-laws on the day of payment.
16.0 Prior to final approval, the City shall be advised by the School Boards that satisfactory arrangements regarding educational facilities have been made between the developer/applicant and the School Boards for this plan.
17.0 Prior to final approval, the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board is to be satisfied that the applicant has agreed to include in the Subdivision Agreement and all offers of purchase and sale for all residential lots, the following warning clauses:
17.1 Whereas, despite the best efforts of the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, sufficient accommodation may not be available for all anticipated students from the area, you are hereby notified that students may be accommodated in temporary facilities and/or bussed to a school outside of the neighbourhood, and further, that students may later be transferred to the neighbourhood school.
17.2 That the purchasers agree that for the purpose of transportation to school, the residents of the subdivision shall agree that children will meet the bus on roads presently in existence or at another place designated by the Board.
18.0 That the Subdivision Agreement shall contain a clause satisfactory to the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board that the developer will erect and maintain signs at the entrances to the subdivision which shall advise prospective purchasers that due to present school facilities, some of the children from the subdivision may have to be accommodated in temporary facilities or bussed to schools, according to the Board's Transportation Policies. These signs shall be to the School Board's specifications and at locations determined by the Board.
19.0 Prior to final approval, the Peel District School Board is to be satisfied that the following provision is contained in the Subdivision Agreement and on all offers of purchase and sale for a period of five years after registration of the plan:
19.1 Whereas, despite the efforts of the Peel District School Board, sufficient accommodation may not be available for all anticipated students in neighbourhood schools, you are hereby notified that some students may be accommodated in temporary facilities or bussed to schools outside of the area, according to the Board's Transportation Policy. You are advised to contact the Planning and Resources Department of the Peel District School Board to determine the exact schools.
20.0 That the Subdivision Agreement shall contain a clause satisfactory to the Peel District School Board that the developer will erect and maintain signs at the entrances to the subdivision which shall advise prospective purchasers that due to present school facilities, some of the children from the subdivision may have to be accommodated in temporary facilities or bussed to schools, according to the Board's Transportation Policies. These signs shall be to the School Board's specifications and at locations determined by the Board.
21.0 Prior to final approval, confirmation be received from Canada Post Corporation that the applicant has made satisfactory arrangements for the installation of any central mail facilities required in this development.
22.0 Prior to execution of the Subdivision Agreement, the developer shall name to the satisfaction of the City Transportation and Works Department the telecommunications provider.
23.0 Prior to execution of the Subdivision Agreement, the developer under separate arrangements or agreements with the various utility companies, is to determine the precise extent of their requirements.
24.0 Prior to execution of the Subdivision Agreement, the developer must submit in writing, evidence to the Commissioner of the City Transportation and Works Department, that satisfactory arrangements have been made with the telecommunications provider, Cable TV and Hydro for the installation of their plant in a common trench, within the prescribed location on the road allowance.
25.0 That prior to signing of the final plan, the Commissioner of Planning and Building is to be advised that all of the above noted conditions have been carried out to the satisfaction of the appropriate agencies and the City.