Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: March 24, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004450

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

Applicant and Appellant: Adam Boddy & Kendra Fullerton

Subject: Consent

Description: To permit the creation of two lots for new single detached dwellings

Reference Number: B-015/21

Property Address: 971 Filmandale Road

Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004450

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004450

OLT Case Name: Boddy v. Burlington (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Adam Boddy & Kendra Fullerton

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the creation of two lots for new single detached dwellings

Reference Number: A-129/21

Property Address: 971 Filmandale Road

Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004451

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004450

OLT Case Name: Boddy v. Burlington (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Adam Boddy & Kendra Fullerton

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit the creation of two lots for new single detached dwellings

Reference Number: A-130/21

Property Address: 971 Filmandale Road

Municipality/UT: Burlington/Halton

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-004452

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-004450

OLT Case Name: Boddy v. Burlington (City)

Heard: February 28, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Adam Boddy and Kendra Fullerton	Kailey Sutton
City of Burlington	Blake Hurley

DECISION DELIVERED BY Kurtis Smith AND P. Tomilin and ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Introduction

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal filed by Adam Boddy and Kendra Fullerton (“Appellant”/“Applicant”) against the decision of the City of Burlington (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny the Consent Application and associated Minor Variance Applications.

2The Subject Property contains a single-detached dwelling located on the east side of Filmandale Road and south of Plains Road East and is municipally known as 971 Filmandale Road, City of Burlington, in the Regional Municipality of Halton (“Region”).

STATUS REQUEST

3The Tribunal received a request for Participant status from Norma Imbert and John Harris in advance of the hearing, and in granting those requests, acknowledges the collective concerns of those individuals expressed to the Tribunal through their written statements.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

4Based on the recommendation of the arborist, the Applicants have revised the Application in order to increase side yard setbacks to the neighbouring properties from 1.4 metres (“m”) to 1.8 m.

5Pursuant to s. 45(18.1) and (18.1.1) of the Planning Act (“Act”), the Tribunal has the discretion to allow amendments to a Minor Variance application without the requirement for further public notice if it is of the opinion that such amendments are minor. The Tribunal determined that the amended application to increase the side yard setback was minor, no further notice was necessary, and the hearing proceeded based on the amended application.

6The Appellants filed a Consent Application to sever the Subject Property into two residential lots. As a result of the Consent Application, Minor Variance Applications were filed in order to permit the reduced lot width and area of the severed and retained lots. The Appellants sought the following Minor Variances:

i. Retained Lot: to permit a lot width of 11.4 m and a lot area of 682 m²

ii. Severed Lot: to permit a lot width of 11.4 m and a lot area of 690 m²

7The “Proposed Development” is to construct a two-storey single detached dwelling on the retained lot and on the severed lot.

8The Applications came before the COA meeting on June 15, 2022, and the City Planning Staff made the following recommendation for the COA’s consideration:

“Staff has reviewed the requested severance and variances in accordance with the Planning Act, the policies of the Official Plan and the requirements of the Zoning By-law and objects to the proposed severance and requested variances.”

9The COA denied the Application based on the following reasoning:

i. Consent Application:

i. The reasons for the Committees decision are that the resultant parcels of land drastically deviated from the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning by-law regulations intended for this area; the Official Plan calls for development to be compatible with the surrounding area and the proposed consent did not achieve this as it would facilitate the creation of two of the smallest lots in the area; the subject property and area are predicated on large lots with open space; the proposed land severance and subsequent minor variance applications would create a lotting pattern that was not in keeping with the existing neighbourhood and would facilitate built forms that were out of character for this neighbourhood

ii. Minor Variance Applications:

i. The general intent and purpose of the Official Plan will not be maintained.

ii. The general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law will not be maintained.

iii. The requested variances are not desirable for the appropriate development or use of the property.

iv. The requested variances are not minor.

v. Additionally, the reasons for the Committees decision are that the resultant parcels of land drastically deviated from the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning by-law regulations intended for this area; the Official Plan calls for development to be compatible with the surrounding area and the proposed consent did not achieve this as it would facilitate the creation of two of the smallest lots in the area; the subject property and area are predicated on large lots with open space; the proposed land severance and subsequent minor variance applications would create a lotting pattern that was not in keeping with the existing neighbourhood and would facilitate built forms that were out of character for this neighbourhood.

10The Applicant then appealed the decision of the COA to the Tribunal.

Exhibits

11The following Exhibits were marked at the hearing:

i. Exhibit 1: Joint Document Book

ii. Exhibit 2: Tom Bradley – Evidence Outline, Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty and Curriculum Vitae

iii. Exhibit 3: Jim Levac – Evidence Outline, Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty and Curriculum Vitae

iv. Exhibit 4: Proposed Conditions by the Applicant

v. Exhibit 5: Committee of Adjustment Decisions

vi. Exhibit 6: Melissa Morgan – Evidence Outline, Acknowledgment of Expert’s Duty and Curriculum Vitae

vii. Exhibit 7: Proposed Conditions by the City

viii. Exhibit 8: Revised Site Plan

Legislative Framework

12With respect to the Appeal under s. 53(19) of the Act, in order to determine whether provisional consent should be granted (with such conditions that may be required), the Tribunal must:

a) Be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the proper and orderly development of the City and can proceed by way of application for consent;

b) If the Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary, regard must then be given to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act, including: that the proposed consent has regard to matters of Provincial interest; whether it is premature or in the public interest; whether there is conformity to applicable Official Plans; the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided; the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots; and the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

c) As with any planning decision, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed consent is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (the “PPS”) and conforms to any applicable Provincial Plan, being A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“GP”). The Tribunal must also have regard to the decision of the approval authority relating to the consent application and the information and material that was before it when making that decision;

d) Pursuant to s. 53(12) of the Act, the Tribunal may consider and impose such conditions as are determined to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the proposed consent;

e) Finally, in general, the Tribunal will decide whether the proposed consent along with any required conditions, is representative of good planning in the public interest.

13Similar to the Consent Appeal, an appeal pursuant to s.45 of the Act is a hearing de novo. In this case, the Applicant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) have been met. These tests are that the variance:

i. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;

ii. Maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;

iii. Is minor in nature; and

iv. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure.

14Subsection 3(5) of the Act requires that decisions of the Tribunal affecting planning matters be consistent with the PPS and conform with the GP. The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act, as well as regard for the decision of the Municipality and the information it considered in the course of making its decision, in accordance with s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

Planning Evidence

15The Appellant called on two witnesses in support of the appeal. The first witness is Tom Bradley who is a registered consulting arborist, Member of the International Society of Arboriculture, Ontario Chapter and has over 25 years of working experience. Mr. Bradley was qualified to give arborist expert opinion evidence pertaining to the matter before the Tribunal. The second witness is Jim Levac who is a registered professional planner, member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, with 35 years of working experience and has previously appeared in front of this Tribunal and its predecessors and the Toronto Local Appeal Body. Mr. Levac was qualified to give land use planning expert opinion evidence pertaining to the matters before the Tribunal.

16The City presented one witness to the Tribunal in support of the COA decision, Melissa Morgan. Ms. Morgan is a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and has over 10 years of related work experience. She was qualified to give land use planning expert opinion evidence pertaining to the matter that was before the Tribunal.

Appellant’s Arborist Witness, Mr. Tom Bradley

17The Appellants engaged Mr. Bradley to provide an Arborist Report and Tree Preservation Plan (Exhibit 3) to address the concerns of the Participants, and as required by the City to minimize the impact that the proposed construction may have on the trees on the Subject Property or adjacent to it.

18During Mr. Bradley’s site visit on December 15, 2022, he found that there was a total of 12 trees that may be affected by the proposed development.

i. One (1) tree on the Subject Property;

ii. Ten (10) neighbouring trees within 6 m of the Subject Property;

iii. One (1) City-owned tree within 6 m of the Subject Property.

19In Mr. Bradley’s opinion, zero (0) trees will need to be removed to allow for the Proposed Development. His opinion was accommodated by an increased side yard setback to the neighbouring properties to the north and south. The permitted minimum side yard setback is 10% of the frontage in the R2.1 Residential Zone. However, the Appellants are now proposing a setback of 1.8 m to help minimize the impacts to the cedar tree line that is planted along the property line on the adjacent properties.

20During Mr. Bradley’s cross examination, he noted that there has been no root investigation on the Subject Property. However, he proposes that a Certified Consulting Arborist shall be on-site during the proposed building foundation excavation to determine the size and quantity of roots that could be affected. Any roots in the immediate area of the excavation shall be assessed and, if feasible and reasonable, properly pruned by the attending Arborist. This action is anticipated to minimize the extent of root injury due to excavation and provide any pruned roots with the best opportunity to regenerate.

21Furthermore Mr. Bradley states that it is the Appellant’s responsibility to review his entire report to ensure all required tree permit application forms are filed with the City.

22In Mr. Bradley’s opinion the Proposed Development can proceed as outlined in his report to minimize any effects to the twelve (12) trees on or abutting the Subject Property.

Appellant’s Land Use Planning Expert, Mr. Jim Levac

23In preparation for his report and oral submissions, Mr. Levac attended the Subject Property, walked the associated neighbourhood and reviewed all the relevant materials, including staff reports, provincial and local planning policy frameworks.

24Mr. Levac took the Tribunal thoroughly through his neighbourhood context review. The defined neighbourhood included the mix use area along Plains Road, which is an arterial road, as well as the residential lands to the north and south of Plains Road.

25The residential area south of Plains Road is fully developed with one and two-storey single-detached dwellings on residential lots that generally meet the requirements of their R2.1 Zone. The residential lots to the north of Plains Road are in developed residential clusters of R3.2, R2.4 and R2.1 zoning, all generally meeting the requirements of the ZBL. Additionally, there is a newer townhouse development directly off Plains Road on a private street that aligns with Filmandale Road.

26Plains Road is zoned MXG, Mixed-Use General, and directly north to the Subject Property is a newly developed six-storey condominium building.

City’s Witness, Ms. Melissa Morgan

27Ms. Morgan communicated to the Tribunal that she was not the planner that attended the COA meeting but is up to date on this matter. Ms. Morgan reviewed all the pertinent materials including the most recent plan, application, PPS, GP, Halton Region Official Plan (“ROP”), Burlington Official Plan (“BOP”), and the Burlington Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) in preparation to the hearing.

28In Ms. Morgan’s opinion the relevant neighbourhood context for the Subject Property should only pertain to the residential lands that are south of Plains Road but not including the mixed-use lands along Plains Road. Ms. Morgan states the neighbourhood context of Mr. Levac is too large and not relevant to the application and the Subject Site.

29Additionally, Ms. Morgan is of the opinion that the Subject Site is a prime candidate for the development of an Additional Residential Unit (ARU) in an ancillary building instead of the Proposed Development. Ms. Morgan communicated to the Tribunal that with the depth and width of the Subject Property an ARU would be better suited and would allow for the principal dwelling to maintain the character and lot patterns of the neighbourhood while utilizing the size of the Subject Property.

Provincial Policy statement, Planning Act and the Growth Plan

30Mr. Levac stated the Application has appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest, as enumerated in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS and conforms with the GP.

31In Mr. Levac’s opinion the Proposed Development has sufficient regard for matters of provincial interest, including s. 2 of the Act, s. 1.1.1.e, 1.1.3 of the PPS and s. 1.2.1, 2.2.1, and 2.2.2.3 of the GP. As the Proposed Development facilitates a redevelopment of an underutilized residential lot that is fully serviced with existing municipal water, sanitary and stormwater management. Mr. Levac further states that the Proposed Development will support greater housing choice in an established neighbourhood that is in close range of existing schools, health care facilities, community services and recreational facilities. Moreover, the Proposed Development represents a compatible form of intensification.

32Ms. Morgan agrees that the Proposed Development conforms with the Growth Plan and is consistent with the PPS. The guiding principles of the growth plan including building complete communities that are vibrant and compact, and utilizing existing and planned infrastructure in order to support growth in an efficient and well design form. Furthermore the PPS overall objectives address growth management, intensification and housing options and densities.

Halton Region Official Plan

33The Subject Property is designated as Urban Area in the ROP and is not subject to any site-specific policies. The ROP directs growth to urban areas. Mr. Levac and Ms. Morgan concurs with the City Staff report that the Proposed Development conforms to the urban area policies of the ROP.

City of Burlington Official Plan

34The BOP has designated the Subject Property as Residential - Low Density within the City’s Urban Area and is not subject to a secondary plan. Like the ROP, growth is directed to be in the urban area and compatible intensification is encouraged.

35Mr. Levac stated that the proposed development provides for an efficient use of land, provides housing choice and is in close proximity to shopping, employment and transportation. It also achieves a compatible transition from the condominium building to the north and residential neighbourhood to the south.

36Mr. Levac is of the opinion that the Proposed Development conforms to the policies of the BOP.

37Ms. Morgan communicated to the Tribunal that the Proposed Development does not conform to the BOP as it does not meet the requirement of Part VI, s. 4.4.e of the BOP which outlines the requirements of a consent.

38In regard to Part VI, s.4.4.e, Ms. Morgan is of the opinion that the Proposed Development would result in the narrowest front yard widths in the area. As a result, they would create deep narrow dwellings which would not constitute orderly development and would not be consistent with the character of the neighbourhood.

39It is the opinion of Ms. Morgan that the Proposed Development does not meet the intent and purpose of the BOP.

City of Burlington ZBL 2020

40The Subject Property is zoned R2.1 which permits single detached dwellings and one accessory dwelling unit. The proposed consent for the subject property meets all the regulations of the ZBL except for lot width and lot area.

41Mr. Levac is of the opinion that the intent and purpose of the front yard lot width is to ensure sufficient site access, spacing and circulation, facilitation of construction, and accommodation of appropriate development without creating overdevelopment. Additionally, he is of the opinion that the intent and purpose of lot area requirements is to ensure that lot area is sufficient to accommodate an appropriately sized dwelling, allowing for sufficient yards and open space. It is further Mr. Levac’s evidence that the lot area deficiency of the Proposal is clearly numerical.

42Mr. Levac is of the opinion that the Proposed Development adequately satisfies the general intent and purpose of the ZBL.

43The ZBL minimum side yard setback is a variable, based on 10% of the lot width of a property and it is the opinion of Ms. Morgan that the 1.2 m setback between the two proposed dwellings does not meet the intent of the ZBL.

44Ms. Morgan is of the opinion that appropriate transition should be provided between the neighbouring six-storey condominium and the proposed Development and would result in overlook, privacy, and noise impacts.

45Furthermore Ms. Morgan notes that the ZBL has requirements for lot width and lot area, rather than only requiring one or the other. Having both width and area helps to ensure that residential lots are of an appropriate size and shape.

46Ms. Morgan is of the opinion that the general intent and purpose of the ZBL has not been met.

Desirable and appropriate development of the land

47In Mr. Levac’s opinion, the Proposed Development will allow for modest reinvestment and appropriate residential intensification. Reinvestment is appropriate and desirable for the city, the neighbourhood and the Subject Property. Due to the unique position in the neighbourhood, allowing the proposal will not have a destabilizing effect. The Subject Property is unique based on its existing configuration and location adjacent to the six-storey condominium site. The subject site is therefore an appropriate and desirable location for compatible intensification and visual transition to occur. It is the opinion of Mr. Levac that the Proposed Development is desirable.

48It is the opinion of Ms. Morgan that the introduction of 11.4 m would introduce a new lot frontage that is not generally represented within the surrounding area and would not reflect the existing lot fabric. Additionally, the reduced lot width would result in reduced side yard setbacks which would have impacts on the setback on the north and south side of the lands. It is the opinion of Ms. Morgan that the Proposed Development is not desirable or appropriate development or compatible use of the Subject Property.

Minor In Nature

49In Mr. Levac’s opinion, individually and collectively, the requested variances are minor in scale and impact. The proposal, as contemplated, will not result in adverse impacts to neighbouring properties nor will it lead to adverse shadowing, privacy or overlook concerns.

50In Ms. Morgan’s opinion the Proposed Development would result in two lots that are smaller than other low-density residential lots within the surrounding area, in lot width, area, and side yard setback. Additionally, the planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed two-storey dwellings would result in future massing impacts on the subject dwellings and adjacent dwellings, as well as with respect to consistent siting and spacing between dwellings. Ms. Morgan is of the opinion that the Proposed Development is not minor in nature.

Mr. Levac’s Conclusionary Opinion

51In Mr. Levac’s opinion, the Applications meet the four tests for minor variance. The proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the ROP, BOP and the ZBL. The Application is a desirable use of the lands and is minor in nature.

Ms. Melissa Morgan Conclusionary Opinion

52In Ms. Morgan’s opinion, the Applications do not meet the criteria for subdivision or land or the four tests of a minor variance. Therefore, she is of the opinion that the Proposed Development does not represent good land use planning and should not be approved.

53In the event that the Proposed Development is approved, Ms. Morgan has provided the Tribunal with a list of conditions (Exhibit 4).

Analysis and findings

54In rendering a decision, the Tribunal must consider the evidence that was presented before it. The Tribunal must also give regard to the decision of the COA and the items presented before the COA including public comments both written and orally submitted.

55The Tribunal agrees with the evidence provided by Mr. Bradley and is satisfied with the proposed plan to limit the effects on the 12 trees the are located on or within close proximity to the Subject Property.

56While under cross examination the Appellant took Ms. Morgan through a series of questions regarding the definition of compatibility and how it related to the Proposed Development and her findings. While Ms. Morgan is of the opinion that the Proposed Development is not compatible with the existing streetscape and neighbourhood as it would result in narrow lots, the Tribunal disagrees. The addition of two lots with reduced lot width with two-storey dwellings will provide a visual transition from the neighbouring six-storey condominium building.

57The Tribunal considered the suggestion of Ms. Morgan of an ARU in the rear yard of the Subject Property. The Tribunal concurs with the Appellant that creation of a new unit in the rear yard will create new privacy, overlook, and noise issues to the surrounding properties. Additionally, the Tribunal finds that the Proposed Development will not create additional privacy, overlook, or noise issues in comparison to maintaining the current size of the Subject Property. As the proposed side yard setbacks to the north and south of the Subject Property maintain the current variable minimum side yard setback.

58Additionally, the Tribunal notes the seven (7) letters of support from neighbours in the immediate neighbourhood context.

59The Tribunal concurs with Mr. Levac and Ms. Morgan that the Proposed Development has regard to Provincial Interest, is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the GP.

60Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act have been met by this application and agrees with the evidence of Mr. Levac that the proposed Consent Application does not warrant a plan of subdivision, conforms to the relevant policy framework, and has due regard to the requirements of s. 51(24) of the Act.

ORDER

61The Tribunal, having been asked to consider an application which has been amended from the original application, has determined that no further notice is required in accordance with s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

62THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed, the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2020 are authorized, and provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“Kurtis Smith”

KURTIS SMITH

MEMBER

“P. Tomilin”

P. TOMILIN

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.

ATTACHMENT 1

Conditions of Approval of Consent and Minor Variances re: 971 Filmandale Road

1. Provide an overall servicing, grading and drainage plan for the severed and retained parcels, for approval. The plan shall be stamped and signed by a Professional Engineer or an Ontario Land Surveyor and shall provide for the following for all severed and retained parcels:

a. Existing building envelopes and setbacks from property lines;

b. Proposed maximum building envelopes and setbacks from property lines;

c. Proposed top of foundation wall and finished floor elevations;

d. Existing and proposed ground elevations;

e. Existing ground elevations on adjacent properties and road allowances to sufficiently determine existing drainage patterns;

f. Demonstrate that drainage will be controlled within the property limits of the severed and retained parcels, by use of swales (with subdrain if swale gradient is less than 2%), soak-away pits, rear yard catchbasins, etc.;

g. Existing and proposed service connection locations;

h. Existing and proposed driveway locations (which must maintain a 1.2 metre clearance from above ground utilities) and slopes;

i. Existing and proposed retaining walls;

j. Existing and proposed fence;

k. Existing trees with base elevations (both private and City owned), including diameter at breast height. Please indicate which trees, if any, are to be removed;

l. Existing and proposed utility poles and boxes; and

m. Closest municipal hydrant. Please either show the location on the plan or indicate the location with a note.

2. Complete the installation of any approved drainage system appurtenances, including but not limited to any approved catchbasins and storm sewers, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services. A Municipal Consent Permit for works within the road allowance shall be secured from the Engineering Services Department prior to any vegetation being disturbed or any grading or construction commenced, if necessary. Restoration of the road allowance shall be in accordance with the approved plan, the Municipal Consent Permit and City Standards.

3. Enter into an easement agreement, that is in favour of the City of Burlington and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and the City Solicitor, for inspection and maintenance of the approved drainage system appurtenances, if applicable. An easement will only be required if one (1) rear yard catchbasin is proposed to service two (2) or more properties and will be predominately used by City staff for inspection of the approved drainage system appurtenances. Any easement shall be shown on the approved plan and shall be registered against the title of the property. Please be advised that any approved drainage system appurtenances shall be owned and maintained by the owner of the subject property and at their sole expense. Please be advised that if in the future, upon inspection by City staff, it is determined that maintenance of the approved drainage system appurtenances has not been completed by the property owner and is required, the City has the right to enter the property to complete required maintenance. Please be advised that any costs associated with any required maintenance that is completed by the City will be charged back to the property owner, which may include being charged to the tax account for the property.

4. Enter into an agreement under Section 53 of the Planning Act or any other agreements required by the City Solicitor dealing with all the facilities or matters, approval of plans and drawings and the conditions set out herein.

5. Carry out the following to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services and the Director of Community Planning:

Prior to applying for a Building Permit for the new dwelling, obtain a Grading and Drainage Clearance Certificate from Engineering Services. For the issuance of a Grading and Drainage Clearance Certificate the following will be required for each severed lot:

• A Grading and Drainage Clearance Certificate application fee;

• A refundable grading, drainage and site maintenance deposit in an amount to be determined for the completion of the approved grading and servicing site work and to ensure that the site is maintained, and the road allowance is not damaged during construction, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services;

• A detailed servicing, grading and drainage plan, for approval, which conforms to the overall servicing, grading and drainage plan and shows the proposed building envelop, grading, drainage, servicing layouts and required driveway changes;

• Erosion and sediment control for the disturbed ground area. Please show the necessary erosion and sediment control on the plan; and

• An Entrance Permit for any new driveway curb depressions.