Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
June 08, 2023
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-004840
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/ Appellant:
Victoria Muzychka
Subject:
Minor Variance Application
Description:
For an accessory dwelling unit
Property Address:
1015 Arnold Street
Municipality/UT:
Town of Innisfil/Simcoe County
Municipal File No.:
A-052-2022
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004840
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004840
OLT Case Name:
Muzychka v. Innisfil (Town)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/ Appellant:
Victoria Muzychka
Subject:
Minor Variance Application
Description:
For an accessory dwelling unit
Property Address:
1015 Arnold Street
Municipality/UT:
Town of Innisfil/Simcoe County
Municipal File No.:
A-053-2022
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-004841
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-004840
OLT Case Name:
Muzychka v. Innisfil (Town)
Heard:
May 4, 2023 via video-hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Victoria Muzychka
Michael Cara
Town of Innisfil
Lee Parkin
DECISION DELIVERED BY N. Eisazadeh AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Appellant, Victoria Muzychka (“Applicant”), is appealing the decision of the Town of Innisfil’s (“Town”) Committee of Adjustments (“Committee”) which declined to authorize two minor variance applications (“Variances”) seeking to have an existing third Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) recognized as a permitted use, and to permit an existing ADU with less than the required gross floor area of 50 meters squared (“m2”), on the property municipally located at 1015 Arnold Street in Innisfil, Ontario (“Subject Property”).
2The Applicant acquired the Subject Property in June 2021, at which time the two ADU’s for which Variances are sought were already existing as part of the built form. Since then, the Applicant has taken active steps to follow the planning process which has led to the subject appeal. On June 15, 2021, two Variance applications were submitted to the Town along with a planning justification report and detailed floor plans. The applications were circulated for Town staff and agency comments and were returned in support of the requested Variances, subject to conditions of approval.
3Comments from the public during the initial application process included one in opposition of the applications from a neighbour for reasons set out in an undated letter. Those reasons included, namely, a concern for increased phosphorus pollution from strain on a private septic system on a property located within close proximity to Lake Simcoe, neighborhood disruption, excessive street parking, and a decrease in surrounding property value caused by multiplex properties being used for short term accommodation rentals.
4On July 21, 2022, the applications were considered at a public hearing before the Committee who refused the applications stating they did not meet the requisite test and analysis under the Act, notwithstanding the Town staff report which recommended approval. On August 10, 2022, the Applicant filed an Appeal of the Committee decision with the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”).
VARIANCES SOUGHT
5The Applicant’s requested variances to the Town’s Zoning By-Law No. 80-13 (“ZBL”), are as follows:
By-Law Section
Permitted
Proposed
3.5 (a)
A maximum of two ADUs are permitted per lot.
A total of three ADUs are proposed.
4.3.3.14 (b)
The minimum gross floor area for the ADU shall be 50 m2.
The proposed gross floor area of the ADU No. 4* is 45.44m2.
*for clarity, this ADU is numbered Unit No. 4 of a total of four units, one being the principle unit and is not suggestive of more than a total of three ADU’s to the one principle unit.
HEARING
6While the Town appeared at the hearing, it took no position on this Appeal and tendered no evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal heard viva voce evidence from only the Applicant’s sole witness, Mr. Allan Ramsay, who was qualified without objection as an expert in land use planning. The Tribunal also received a fulsome Document Book from the Applicant which was marked as Exhibit 1. That Document Book included, among other documentary and visual evidence, original Variance applications, Town staff and agency comments, public comments, notices of Committee decision and the witness statement of Mr. Ramsay.
7No other persons requested participant or party status for the purposes of this Appeal.
ANALYSIS OF THE CONTEXT AND PLANNING EVIDENCE
The Issues and Test
8In this Appeal, the issue before the Tribunal is whether each of the requested Variances meet the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act and whether they should be authorized by the Tribunal. The Tribunal must accordingly be satisfied that the Variances, which would legalize a third existing ADU and one with reduced gross floor area, if granted: (a) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Town’s Official Plan (“Town OP”) and the County of Simcoe’s OP (“County OP”); (b) maintain the general intent and purpose of the Town’s ZBL; (c) are minor, and (d) are desirable for the appropriate use and development of the site and dwelling.
9Additionally, the Variances must also be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) under s. 3(5) of the Act and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (“Growth Plan”). The Tribunal must also have regard to matters of Provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act and to any decision made by the Committee, as well as all information and material that the Committee considered in making its decision.
The Site Context
10The Subject Property is a two-storey single detached dwelling with an accessory shed and a detached garage, located at the northwest corner of Arnold Street and Goldie Street. It has a total lot area of 668.8 m2 and is rectangular in shape with a frontage of approximately 20.12 meters (‘’m’’) on Arnold Street, with a depth of approximately 32.9 m. The detached dwelling has a total floor area of approximately 245.75 m2 and comprises the following:
i. Unit 1: a two-bedroom ADU on the ground floor with a floor area of 71 m2.
ii. Unit 2: a one-bedroom ADU on the ground floor with a floor area of 54.3 m2.
iii. Unit 3: a two-bedroom principal unit with a floor area of 75.1m2 on the 2nd floor.
iv. Unit 4: a one-bedroom ADU on the second floor with a floor area of 45.44 m2.
11Driveway access is provided from Goldie Street. There are a total of 11 parking spaces, six of which are located on site. The Subject Property is designated under the Town OP as residential medium density and as residential-1 zone (“R1-14”) under the current ZBL. It is serviced with municipal sanitary sewage as well as private water services. Its surrounding area is located within an established neighborhood and is predominantly comprised of low density residential, being one and a half to two storey homes, though also includes some mix of land uses and built forms including the Legion Community Hall to the north, coast of Cook’s Bay to the north and east, the Lake Simcoe Marina to the south, and a seniors apartment building, cemetery and commercial units to the west. Further west is a key natural heritage area.
Town Staff Report, Agency Comments and Proposed Condition of Approval
12The Town’s planning department found that the requested variances satisfied the prescribed tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The findings are summarized as follows:
i. It maintains the purpose and intent of the Town OP as the residential medium density designation permits single detached dwellings and ADUs among other uses. The proposed third ADU, with minor decrease in area, will provide opportunities for affordable housing further to s.14.3 of the Town OP. The proposed condition respecting tree preservation respects s. 15.1 of the Town OP.
ii. It maintains the purpose and intent of the ZBL, as the R1-14 zone permits an accessory structure as well as one second dwelling unit. Changes to the ZBL since 1994 have resulted in allowances for up to two ADU’s per s. 3.5(a) of the ZBL. The Variances allow for additional space and provide opportunities for affordable housing within the community without impacting the massing on the Subject Property. Parking is available in excess of requirements. The application is making efficient use of the existing structure with an additional unit created by minimally decreasing required floor area.
iii. The Variances are desirable for the appropriate and orderly development and use of land since they maintain the existing dwelling and propose a total of three ADUs within the existing structure to provide affordable housing.
iv. The Variances are minor in nature given that the existing dwelling is maintained and converted for further affordable housing options with minor decrease in size.
13The Town’s staff report supported approval of the Variances, subject to the following condition:
That any existing trees along the property lines be protected and maintained to the extent possible to the satisfaction of the Town. If any trees are proposed to be removed during construction, a tree preservation/planting plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Town, proposing tree compensation and replacement rates for any trees to be removed, location of new trees, and tree protection measures during construction of the accessory dwelling unit.
14Following circulation for comments, the Community Development Standards Branch took no issue with the applications and only commented with one recommendation to retain qualified professionals to obtain a building permit for the dwelling units. The recommendation included that the applicable drawings and schedules shall include but not be limited to change of use, room sizes, fire separations, and laundry facilities etc., and to retain qualified professionals to complete any remedial construction and ensure all building inspections are performed. The only other comment received was from Innpower noting that the owner is responsible for the costs of any new hydro service and/or any costs involved with relocation of services.
Matters of Provincial Interest, Provincial Policy Statement and The Growth Plan
15In Mr. Ramsay’s professional opinion, the Variances have appropriate regard to the matters of Provincial interest, and specifically to the following subsections under s. 2 of the Act:
a) The proposal represents orderly development of safe and healthy communities as no expansion of any municipal services or public facilities is required, nor are any external alterations required to accommodate the additional dwelling unit. The proposed development will not have any undue adverse impact on surrounding properties.
b) The proposal provides adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing. It will add, in a modest way, to the supply and mix of housing in the community and provide an alternative more affordable housing option for tenants in relation to the single-family detached dwellings that exist in the surrounding neighborhood.
c) The proposal respects resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests, as it will not result in undue adverse impacts on neighboring properties. The additional proposed ADU is compatible with other forms of low-rise housing including single detached dwellings, and no external alterations to the building are proposed that would generate nuisance impact such as shadowing or overlook.
d) The proposal respects protection of public health and safety as it does not compromise this interest.
e) The proposal respects the appropriate location of growth and development as it is a modest form of residential intensification appropriate for an established neighborhood. Under the Town’s OP, ADUs are permitted in residential medium density areas. Municipal services including wastewater and parks are also available.
f) The proposal promotes a built form that is well designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant, as it does not involve any external alterations to the existing detached dwelling and will not affect the existing built form. The existing dwelling fits harmoniously with the existing neighborhood context and contributes to a sense of place within the neighborhood setting.
16Mr. Ramsay testified that the Variances are consistent with the PPS as follows:
i. Section 1.1.1 deals with managing and directing land use, and directs the ways in which healthy, liveable and safe communities can be sustained. Mr. Ramsay opined that the Variances are consistent with these policies as the addition of a third ADU promotes an efficient development in land use pattern by providing for more housing within an urban settlement area and will contribute to a broader mix of housing types. Also, the Variances will not cause environmental or public health and safety concerns as they must comply with all sites servicing infrastructure requirements. Finally, the Variances represent a modest form of intensification adding one additional dwelling unit to the housing supply which works towards achieving a more cost-effective development pattern and the minimization of land consumption and servicing cost.
ii. Section 1.1.3.1 directs that settlement areas shall be the focus of growth and development. Mr. Ramsay testified that the Subject Property is located within a settlement area and therefore the Variances are consistent with this policy.
iii. Section 1.1.3.2 directs that land use patterns within settlement areas are to be based on densities in a mix of land uses which, among other things, efficiently use land and resources including infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available and avoid the need for their unjustified and/or uneconomic expansion. In Mr. Ramsay’s opinion, the Variances achieve this objective as the additional ADU efficiently uses the existing built form on the Subject Property and will be serviced using existing municipal wastewater services and existing roads and is located in close proximity to Belle Ewart Park.
iv. Section 1.1.3.3 promotes transit supportive development and redevelopment which accounts for existing building stock areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs. Mr. Ramsay stated that while the Subject Property is not located in an area serviced by public transit, the Variances achieve the balance of this policy as it provides a modest form of intensification on a site that can readily accommodate an additional unit without the need for the expansion of municipal infrastructure or services.
v. Section 1.1.3.4 directs that appropriate development standards should be promoted which facilitate intensification, redevelopment, and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety. It was Mr. Ramsay's evidence that an additional ADU with a slight reduction on the minimum size is consistent with this policy as it will result in development standards that facilitate a modest level of intensification without risks to public health and safety.
vi. Section 1.4.3, which deals with housing, directs the ways in which an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities are to be provided which meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents. Mr. Ramsay testified that the Variances respect these policies, specifically sub-policies (b), (c), (d), and (f), as they will permit and facilitate additional housing while also adding to the range and mix of housing options and densities of market-based housing in the community. The proposal will also result in new housing in a location where appropriate levels of infrastructure and public services are available.
17In Mr. Ramsay’s opinion, the Variances are also consistent with the Growth Plan. His testimony included the following key points:
i. The guiding principles are set out in section 1.2.1 and provide a framework for communities by better management growth. The Growth Plan intends to build towards the achievement of complete communities that are compact, transit supportive, and make effective use of investments in infrastructure and public service facilities. It also focuses on building complete communities, prioritizes intensification and higher density to make efficient use of land and infrastructure to support transit viability and supports a range of mixing housing options. After citing the definition of complete communities as set out in the Growth Plan, Mr. Ramsay opined that the Variances support the above vision and guiding principles as it consists of one additional dwelling unit and contributes to the achievement of complete communities, proposes intensification in an area where such is intended, and supports a range and mix of housing options.
ii. Section 2.2.2 deals with delineated built-up areas. The Belle Ewart Urban Settlement Area does not have a delineated built-up area boundary and is therefore not subject to the intensification targets established in this section of the Growth Plan. Notwithstanding, Mr. Ramsay opined that the proposal conforms with the Town’s intensification strategy, as set out below under the discussion of conformity with the County’s OP.
18The Tribunal accepts this evidence and finds that the Variances are consistent with the PPS and the Growth Plan. The Tribunal also finds that the Variances have sufficient regard to matters of Provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act.
Statutory Test for the Required Minor Variances, Section 45(1) of the [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)
Intent and Purpose of the County of Simcoe’s Official Plan
19The Subject Property is designated “settlement area” within the County’s OP, which designation is the focus of population and employment growth, where development minimizes land consumption and servicing costs are promoted. Mr. Ramsay explained that s. 3.5.8 of the County’s OP does not distinguish where various development densities should be located, rather it defines a settlement area and defers to local municipalities to determine how those areas are to be developed.
20Accordingly, the higher-level planning here is directed to be undertaken at the local level. However, he states that s. 3.5.27 does outline that settlement areas will include a range of housing types and costs. Section 3.5.31 further directs that the range of housing types, including detached, semi-detached, townhouse, and apartment units, is to be provided along with a mix of affordable housing to meet a variety of housing needs for residents of all ages and all incomes. Mr. Ramsay added that the County OP encourages the local municipalities to permit, wherever possible, individual lot intensification such as secondary or accessory suites in residential buildings subject to meeting building, health and safety regulations under s. 4.3.4. Mr. Ramsay concluded that both Variances conform with these noted policies as the proposal is for an additional ADU and one with a slightly decreased floor area which will, in a modest way, contribute to a rider range of housing types in an area where growth is encouraged.
21Upon the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the County OP.
Intent and Purpose of the Town of Innisfil’s Official Plan
22The Subject Property is on land located within the Lefroy-Belle Ewart Urban Settlement and designated as residential medium density which Mr. Ramsay states, of itself, is supportive of the Variances given such designations.
23Mr. Ramsay testified that the goals set out at s. 1.3 of the Town’s OP is premised on three overarching goals being to: connect, grow and sustain. Under the goal of growth, the Town OP directs that it will (a) collaboratively develop a thriving community that embraces a managed level of growth, actively engages residents and supports businesses and promotes economic prosperity; (b) manage growth in the town in appropriate manner that promotes intensification, provides for a range of housing choices, commercial services and employment opportunities and phases the growth in tandem with the provision of infrastructure and community facilities. Mr. Ramsay highlighted that the Variances conform with these policies by adding to the range of housing choices within the community.
24The intensification strategy as set out in the Town’s OP at s. 9.9, directs a minimum target of 33% of all new residential units to occur annually within the delineated built-up areas. Mr. Ramsay highlights that the balance or bulk of growth is directed to be in designated greenfield areas which are urban areas that do not have a delineated built-up area, such as the Lefroy-Belle Ewart and rural area.
25In addition, s. 9.9.5 direct that applications for infill and intensification, including minor variances, within stable residential neighborhoods will be evaluated based on the ability of the development to fit in, respect and reinforce the physical character of the buildings, lot patterns, streetscapes and private open space patterns. Section 9.9.6 adds that new development must maintain the character of the adjacent area including the size and configuration of the lots, the prevailing heights, massing coverage, dwelling type, prevailing setbacks, the amount and location of private open space on the lot, and relationship to heritage building and landscapes. Mr. Ramsay opined that both Variances conform with these sections of the Town’s OP as the development does not involve any exterior alterations whatsoever and will continue to fit in, respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, lot patterns, streetscapes and private open space patterns in the area. Also, the proposal will not affect the size and configuration of the lot or the various built form or setback criteria.
26Mr. Ramsay also opined that within the residential medium density designation, permitted uses include single detached, semi-detached, back-to-back townhouses, stacked townhouses, low-rise apartments, duplexes, triplexes, and other forms of grade related multiple unit housing and ADUs. In his opinion, both Variances conform with these policy directions. Mr. Ramsay adds that density between 25 and 60 units per hectare is permitted within the residential medium density designation, in which calculations ADUs are not included.
27The Tribunal agrees with the evidence and accepts that the Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Town OP.
Intent and Purpose of the Town of Innisfil Zoning By-Law No. 80-13
28The Subject Property is zoned residential-1 zone, exception 14 (“R1-14”), in which permitted uses include a single detached dwelling, an ADU, a secondary ADU with a minimum of 50m2, and an accessory building and structure. Mr. Ramsay highlighted that the Town recently approved new regulations for ADUs under ZBA 43-21. The key ADU regulations which affect the Subject Property are set out at s. 3.5 of the ZBL and are summarized alongside the proposed Variances in the following table:
Section 3.5 Requirements
Proposed/Existing
a) Max. number of accessory dwelling units per lot.
2
3
b) Max. size of an accessory dwelling unit.
No greater then 50% of the gross floor area of the principle dwelling on the lot, up to a maximum gross floor area of 100m2.
less than the gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit if located within an existing principle residential.
Unit 1 (28.9%)(71 m2)
Unit 2 (22.01%)(54.3 m2)
Unit 4 (18.5%)(45.44 m2)
Prin. Dwell. Unit (75.1 m2)
Unit 1 (71 m2)
Unit 2 (54.3 m2)
Unit 4 (45.44 m2)
c) Max. number of bedrooms per accessory dwelling unit.
3
Unit 1 (2 bedroom)
Unit 2 (1 bedroom)
Unit 4 (1 bedrooms)
Parking
f) A minimum off-street parking
Tandem parking
Min. Exterior parking spaces size.
2 off street parking spaces when a lot has 1 accessory dwelling unit
4 off street parking spaces when a lot has 2 accessory dwelling units
Permitted
- 2.5 m in width and 5 m in length.
A total of 11 parking
spaces are contemplated
by the proposal, 6 of which
are located on-site
Not required
2.5 m in width and 5 m in
length.
m) Accessory dwelling unit on a lot serviced by a private septic system.
- Not permitted on a lot located within 100 metres of the Lake
Site is located
approximately 155 m from
the Lake
p) Accessory Dwelling Units Registration By-Law.
- Registration and compliance required with the Accessory Dwelling Units Registration By-Law.
Registration to be
completed upon approval
of the minor variance
29Mr. Ramsay testified that the intent of the zoning regulation for maximum number of ADUs, together with other regulations that deal with the maximum total floor area and maximum number of bedrooms in an ADU, is to ensure the use of the property for ADUs is subordinate to the principal use of the property as a detached dwelling. He concluded that the addition of a third ADU, and one slightly reduced in total gross floor area, will not alter the relationship between the principle dwelling units and the ADUs as the principle building unit will continue to be the largest on site. In addition, the number of bedrooms in the ADUs will be within what is permitted, and the available parking exceeds what is required.
30Regarding minimum floor area regulations, Mr. Ramsay stated the purpose and intent is to ensure sufficient living area is provided. The proposed ADU at 45.44m2 gross floor area would comprise a one-bedroom apartment with a kitchen, living/dining room and full washroom. Accordingly, it provides space equivalent to mini-studio and one-bedroom apartments and does not limit the functionality of the proposed living space.
31The Tribunal finds that the Variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Town’s ZBL.
Desirability for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land, Building or Structure
32It was Mr. Ramsay’s opinion that both Variances align with provincial and local planning policies that actively encourage ADUs as a form of intensification. He stated the use of the property for a detached dwelling containing ADUs is permitted in the residential medium density designation and the R1-14 zone. Further, Mr. Ramsay pointed out that under the residential medium density designation other more intensive forms of development such as low-rise apartments, townhouses, back-to-back townhouses, stacked townhouses and grade-related multiple unit housing are permitted on the site.
33Additionally, a reduction of gross floor area of 4.56m2 in one of the three ADUs is desirable and appropriate for the development of the site and area as it will result in compatible development within an established residential neighborhood. Mr. Ramsay noted that the general regulations for ADUs in s. 3.5 of ZBL 43-21 regulate the maximum size rather than the minimum of an ADU. Minimum size regulations were initiated when the property was rezoned in 2014 to allow two dwelling units (i.e. a duplex) as opposed to a principle dwelling unit and one or multiple ADUs, to ensure enough space was being provided in the ADU. The current proposal is for a principle dwelling unit with three ADUs, where enough living space is being provided in each unit.
34Mr. Ramsay concluded that the addition of the third ADU and one with slightly reduced floor area will be compatible with the surrounding area as it does not require any exterior alterations to the existing building. Sufficient parking is also available on site, and the property is serviced with municipal sewers. Accordingly, he concluded that the Variances will not alter the character of the established neighborhood.
35The Tribunal agrees with this evidence which supports that the Variances are desirable for the development of the site and area.
Is the Variance Minor in Nature
36Mr. Ramsey opined that both Variances are minor in nature and will not result in any undue adverse impacts. First, there are no exterior alterations that are required to accommodate the additional ADU or the reduction in size of an ADU, and there is ample onsite parking available. Secondly, the site is serviced with municipal sewers and does not require any expansion of the municipal sewer infrastructure. Thirdly, outside amenity spaces are provided in the form of patios and terraces and there will be no privacy or outlook impacts because of the Variances. Finally, the Variances have no impact on either the occupants of the ADUs or residents in the surrounding area.
37The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Ramsay’s evidence that the Variances are minor in nature and constitutes good planning.
SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
38The Tribunal notes that the Variances sought, which provide a modest increase in the range and mix of alternate and affordable housing options for persons of all ages and income levels, is something that is identified as a matter of Provincial interest under s. 2 of the Act and in that respect, the approval of the Variances has regard to that matter, as well as the orderly development of safe and healthy communities. In making this decision the Tribunal has had regard to the decision of the Committee as well as the information and materials that were before the Committee and the Town. Further to those materials, the Tribunal notes that the Town did not tender any evidence or submissions at the hearing as it did not take any position on this appeal. There was no evidence on the record that supports the initial neighborhood comments at Committee level which alleged an increase in phosphorus pollution, neighborhood disruption, or excessive street parking. In addition, the Tribunal notes that no persons sought party or participant status to tender any such evidence.
39Upon the evidence of Mr. Ramsay, the analysis of that evidence and the various findings, the Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning evidence presented in this hearing and finds that the requested Variances, with the imposed conditions as set out by the Town’s planning staff, maintain the general intent and purpose of both the County’s OP, the Town’s OP and the Town’s ZBL, are minor in nature and desirable for the appropriate development and use of the Subject Property.
40Upon all the evidence, and with the findings made, it is accordingly the decision of the Tribunal that the Variances, subject to the condition set out by the Town’s planning staff respecting tree preservation, represent good planning, and should be authorized.
ORDER
41THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed and the two Variances to By-law 080-13 are authorized subject to the following condition:
i. That any existing trees along the property lines be protected and maintained to the extent possible to the satisfaction of the Town. If any trees are proposed to be removed during construction, a tree preservation/planting plan shall be prepared to the satisfaction of the Town, proposing tree compensation and replacement rates for any trees to be removed, location of new trees, and tree protection measures during construction of the accessory dwelling unit.
“N. Eisazadeh”
N. Eisazadeh
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.