Kiah Group (Vista Ridge) Inc. v. Waterloo (Region), 2023 CanLII 58623

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

June 30, 2023

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-22-002907

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicants /Appellants:

Kiah Group (Vista Ridge) Inc. & Kiah Group Inc.

Subject:

Proposed Plan of Subdivision - Failure of Regional Municipality of Waterloo to make a decision

Purpose:

To permit 11 single detached homes

Property Address/Description:

0, 436 and part of 328 Fountain Street South

Municipality/UT:

Cambridge/Waterloo

Municipality File No.:

D19-20/20102

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-002907

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-002907

OLT Case Name:

Kiah Group (Vista Ridge) Inc. v. Waterloo (Region)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicants/Appellants:

Kiah Group (Vista Ridge) Inc. & Kiah Group Inc.

Subject:

Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 150-85 - Failure of City of Cambridge to make a decision

Existing Zoning:

R3 - Low Density Residential

Proposed Zoning:

R3 - Low Density Residential

Purpose:

To permit 11 single detached homes

Property Address/Description:

0, 436 and part of 328 Fountain Street South

Municipality:

City of Cambridge

Municipality File No.:

R10/20

OLT Case No.:

OLT-22-003350

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-22-002907

Heard:

May 16, 2023 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Kiah Group and Kiah Group Inc.

Denise Baker, Lead Counsel (absent)

Chantal deSereville (Acted on behalf of Lead Counsel)

City of Cambridge

Nicole Auty

Regional of Waterloo

Fiona McCrea

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY GREGORY J. INGRAM ON MAY 16, 2023, AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

INTRODUCTION

1Kiah Group (Vista Ridge) Inc. and Kiah Group Inc. (“Appellant”) applied to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (“Region”) for a Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium (“DPC”) and to the City of Cambridge (“City”) for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (collectively “Applications”) for the property municipally known as 0, 436 and part of 328 Fountain Street, Cambridge. The Region and City did not render a decision regarding the Applications and the Appellant appealed to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 51 (34) and s. 34 (11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”).

2The subject lands are legally described as 0, 436 and part of 328 Fountain Street South and are located on the west side of Fountain Street South, south of Shantz Hill Road in the City of Cambridge (“Subject Property”). Ownership of the Subject Property is divided between the Kiah Group (Vista Ridge) Inc., which owns 436 and 440 Fountain Street South , Municipal Compiled Plan 731 and Kiah Group Inc which has 0 Fountain Street South (rear portion of 328 Fountain Street South).

3In May 2020, the Applications were filed with the Region and the City. The Draft Plan of Condominium application requested an 11-unit vacant land condominium, the development of a private roadway, and the acquisition of the laneway from the City. The ZBA requested a reduced front yard and lot area for unit 1, a reduced rear yard setback for unit 11, and to allow the units to front onto a private roadway. The Subject Property has 33.25 metres (“m”) of frontage along Fountain St. S. and is 14, 645.6 square metres (“m2”) in size. A municipal lane runs through the property and the City has agreed in principle (subject to Council approval) to close this lane and sell it to the Applicant as part of the project and convey other portions to abutting landowners. The Subject Property currently has a single detached dwelling with the majority of the property being vacant, unused land.

4On October 20, 2020 feedback was received during a public meeting which was used in conjunction with ongoing planning between the Appellant and municipal staff from the Region, the City and commenting agencies of the municipalities.

5A Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) was completed at the request of the City and was accepted by the Cambridge Municipal Heritage Advisory Committee (“HAC”) at their meeting on September 16, 2021. The HAC decision included recommendations to:

a. implement the mitigation measures identified in the HIA, including a relocation protection plan to be reviewed by heritage planning staff at the site plan phase

b. explore options to relocating the stone retaining wall to the proposed new location of the house

c. ask Council to add the subject property to the Heritage Register

6The City of Cambridge Council added the property to the Heritage Register on September 13, 2022.

7The applications were further revised to incorporate suggested changes received through the public consultation process and recommendations from the HAC. As a result of the HIA, the proposal is to preserve the existing dwelling and relocate it on the Subject Property.

8A Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was convened on September 8, 2022 to establish a Procedural Order and set dates for a Merit Hearing regarding this matter. Participant Status was granted to Jane Newland, owner, and resident of 445 Fountain Street, citing three principal concerns: impacts to natural and built heritage; traffic related safety; and slope stability and water flow.

9Prior to the scheduled Hearing, the Tribunal was advised that the Parties had reached a settlement in this matter, which they wished to present to the Tribunal for approval. The Tribunal granted an adjournment and set a Settlement Hearing for May 16, 2023.

LOCAL AND SURROUNDING AREA CONTEXT

10The Subject Property is surrounded by single detached and townhouse dwellings with commercial existing on the east side of Fountain Street and some to the north. There is also an unevaluated wetland which is located on the south-west portion of the property which also extends into surrounding lands and is regulated by the Grand River Conservation Authority (“GRCA”).

11The slope of the Subject Property is from Fountain Street through the property to the homes situated on Parkview Crescent (pg. 377, Exhibit 1).

12The OP designates the area, including the Subject Property, as ‘low/medium density” which allows for municipal services to be accessed where currently available and permits single, detached dwellings, townhouses, and walk-up apartments. The designation allows for 40 units per hectare. The City’s Zoning By-Law 150-85 (ZBL) indicates that the Subject Property area is a “R3” zone which permits detached one family dwellings and is defined as not being attached to another dwelling.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

13Briefly summarized, the Parties have reached a settlement proposal that supports the ZBA for the Subject Property which would also include site specific provisions for reduced front yard and lot area for unit 1, reduced rear yard setback for unit 11, a reduced lot frontage for unit 8 as well as permission for the condominium units to have frontage on a private condominium road. The proposal would permit the creation of 11 units for future construction of detached one family dwellings. A portion of the subject lands would also be zoned to reflect the wetland area identified on site and a buffer area. The associated condominium application would divide the property into the 11 separate units which would each contain one detached one family dwelling.

14Several changes were made to the plan through the process. Initially each unit had two visitor parking spaces and now the proposed plan is for five spaces that would be on common land, shared by all units and maintained by the condominium corporation when it is formed. In addition, rather than a turnaround in the middle of project, a cul de sac has been incorporated instead and initially the plan was to remove the house and now it will be relocated on the site.

15It is proposed that the ZBA, would rezone the lands R3 S.4.1.428 and OS1, with the area of Unit 8 and the surrounding common elements subject to a Holding provision which would permit the Applications.

16The Appellant asked that the Tribunal endorse the settlement and allow the appeal, in part, and approve the ZBA and the DPC subject to the agreed upon conditions identified by the City and the Region.

17The proposed conditions of the City are outlined in detail from pages 57 through 62 of the Appellant Affidavit (Exhibit 1). In summary, the conditions outlined relate to the general processes to be followed, environmental and forestry, development and engineering, transportation, and planning.

18The conditions for the Vacant Land of Condominium by the Region are outlined in detail from pages 63 to 71 of the Appellant Affidavit. In summary, the conditions relate to compliance with ZBL and development agreements with the City, easements related to such things as drainage, telecommunications, agreements with service providers such as District School Boards, Canada Post and energy providers, a stormwater management plan, road widening, noise-study implementation, decommissioning of existing water wells, municipal water and wastewater treatment services, owner/developer agreement, and a common elements agreement.

19The Region specifically identifies the proposed sign-off criteria for each of the conditions along with explanatory notes on pages 69 to 71 of the Appellant Affidavit.

LEGISLATIVE CONTEXT

20On this appeal, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed ZBA is representative of good planning and in the public interest. With respect to the specific legislative tests to be met, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposed ZBA is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) and conforms with / does not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe Area (“Growth Plan”). Additionally, the proposed ZBA must conform with the applicable official plans; in this case the Region and City’s Official Plan (“OP”). Finally, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of Provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act.

HEARING

21As evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal received the following exhibits, which were identified sequentially during the hearing:

Exhibit 1: Document Book of Appellant (including Affidavit of Scott Patterson, Witness for the Appellant)
Exhibit 2: Draft Order for Tribunal Consideration

22Counsel for the City and Region were in attendance and indicated support for the Settlement Proposal before the Tribunal and did not provide evidence.

23The Appellant asked that Mr. Patterson be qualified as a witness. Mr. Patterson is a Registered Professional Planner and is a full member of both the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. He provided a copy of his Curriculum Vitae and an executed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty. He also indicated that he has appeared before the Ontario Municipal Board, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Ontario Land Tribunal on numerous occasions and has previously been qualified to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence by each of these bodies.

24After reviewing Mr. Patterson’s professional qualifications and confirmation of Acknowledgement of Expert Duties, the Tribunal qualified Mr. Patterson to provide expert opinion evidence in land use planning.

EVIDENCE

25Mr. Patterson, in summary, opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, the Region and City’s OP, satisfies the criteria of s 51(24) of the Act, and that the proposed conditions are reasonable, and the Settlement represents good planning.

THE ACT (s.2 and s 51(24))

26Mr. Patterson opined that the Applications have regard for matters of provincial interest as the development is a well-designed built form on a property that has been identified for limited growth and development and represents an orderly and efficient development on full municipal services. He also noted that it aligns with the OP and only requires minor changes as part of the ZBA. He also noted that the Applicant has worked throughout the process to resolve concerns raised by the public.

27S 51(24) of the Planning Act sets out the criteria that must be considered when assessing an application for subdivision approval. Criteria include such things as timing of the development, conformity with OP and any adjacent plans of subdivision, suitability of proposed units, lot size and grading details, conservation of natural resources, adequacy of municipal services, etc.

28Mr. Patterson indicated that he reviewed all criteria in this section against the application and provided detailed responses to each element. Specifically, he noted that the lots are rectangular in size, the lands have been identified for development for the intended purpose, it does not negatively impact abutting or surrounding roadways and does not cause issue for conservation of natural resources or cause concerns for flood control.

PPS

29It was Mr. Patterson’s opinion that the proposal is consistent with the PPS. The PPS encourages development patterns that support diverse, healthy, and liveable communities by encouraging intensification at appropriate locations, to accommodate growth and increase urban vitality.

30Mr. Patterson highlighted several sections of the PPS to demonstrate how the proposed development was in alignment. Specifically, Mr. Patterson referred to Sections 1.1, 1.4 and 1.6 and opined that the development represents gentle intensification and is an effective redevelopment option for an underutilized property that has been identified for growth. It also noted that it will be an efficient development that will fully access municipal services.

THE GROWTH PLAN

31Mr. Patterson contends that the Settlement plan conforms with the Growth Plan as it supports a range and mix of housing options and supports modest growth in the delineated built-up area and in an identified settlement area. Specifically, he referred to Sections 1.2 which includes guiding principles related to prioritizing intensification and high densities in growth areas and Section 2.2 which establishes the policies for managing growth within ‘Delineated Built-up Areas’.

REGION OP (“ROP”)

32Mr. Patterson opined that the proposal conforms with the ROP in that it is an appropriate redevelopment which is deemed suitable for the area and is permitted by the applicable regional and local planning documents.

33Specifically, Mr. Patterson noted that the Subject Property is in a designated “Built-Up Area” of the ROP which provides direction for a substantial portion of future growth to occur in these areas.

34Mr. Patterson referred to Section 2.d.1 which lists criteria for reviewing development applications and it is his opinion that the Subject Property aligns with or does not conflict with these criteria.

CITY OP

35Mr. Patterson indicated that the proposal represents an efficient and effective use of a fully serviceable, underutilized parcel of land within a well-established and stable neighborhood; consistent with growth management strategies noted above and also the City OP. It is his opinion that in considering the Applications that regard and weight should be spread across the various statutes that govern planning.

36Mr. Patterson referred to various policies with the OP. Specifically, he referred to the criteria in 2.6.1.6 which relates to intensification within built-up areas. He also referred to Policy 2.6.1.8 which indicates that “infill, intensification and redevelopment within existing neighbourhoods will be minor in nature and will be designed to respect existing character and provide connections and linkages where possible.”

37Mr. Patterson also referred to parts of Policy 8 and specifically focused on 8.4.2.2 and 8.4.6.3.

38It is Mr. Patterson’s opinion that the proposal for the Subject Property meets each of the criteria in Policy 8.4.2.2 specifically related to building size, lot coverage, setbacks, built form, transportation implications, and parking.

39Policy 8.4.6.3.which states that density targets for new development will be implemented through such means as the approval of plans of subdivision as well as site specific development applications. This Policy identifies that a maximum of 40 units per gross hectare for low/medium density residential to which Mr. Patterson indicated that the Settlement Proposal is for 7 units per gross hectare.

40Mr. Patterson also referred to the use of the word ‘compatible’ in several sections of the OP and suggested that the definition for ‘compatible’ in the OP may be of assistance to the Tribunal.

Compatible - development that, although it is not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings or uses in the vicinity, nonetheless exists in harmony with or enhances an established community. The development will not have a physical or functional adverse impact on surrounding properties (pg. 186, Exhibit 1)

ZONING BY-LAW No. 150-85 (“ZBL”)

41Mr. Patterson noted that the Subject Property is zoned R3 in the ZBL and contended that the minor changes requested from the standard R3 zoning are appropriate to recognize deficiencies that have arisen through the design and layout of the Subject Property, but which are appropriate to facilitate the project and that will not cause adverse impacts on the neighborhood.

42Mr. Patterson referred to the Site Development Specifications at Section 3.1.2.2 of the ZBL (pg. 202, Exhibit 1) specifically related to lot area (600 m2), lot frontage (20m), minimum front yard setback (6m), minimum rear yard (7.5m). He noted that only three of the eleven units would be impacted by site specific regulations. The proposed relief from the ZBL would apply to Unit 1 which would have a minimum lot area of 455 m2 and front yard setback of 1m. Unit 11 will have a rear yard setback of 5m and Unit 8 a minimum lot frontage of 11m. (Draft Plan of Vacant Land Condominium, pg. 207 Exhibit 1).

43Mr. Patterson also indicated that while not required by the ZBL, the Appellant will include five visitor parking spaces.

44Mr. Patterson also indicated that the Region has requested that a Holding (“H”) be applied to Unit 8 and the common element lands in Lot 27, Plan 731 which would be attached to the draft ZBA until a Record of Site Condition (“RSC”) has been filed with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (“(MECP”) and the RSC and Ministry’s acknowledgement letter is submitted to the satisfaction of the Region.

PARTICIPANT CONCERNS

45The Participant to the Hearing raised concerns related to impact to natural and built heritage, traffic flow and safety, slop, land stability, waterflow and overall compatibility. Mr. Patterson provided comments on each of the issues raised and referred to details provided in his affidavit. He also noted that there have been no concerns raised by the City or the Region related to traffic and safety. With respect to slope and land stability, he referenced the Geotechnical Analysis report which was provided in July 2019 and that a GRCA permit would be required for the proposed development.

SUMMARY COMMENTS

46Mr. Patterson provided a detailed summary of his planning evidence and recommended that the Tribunal endorse the Settlement and allow the appeal, in part and approve the ZBA and the DPC subject to the conditions provided by the Region and the City.

ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION

47The Tribunal, having heard uncontroverted expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning in support of a Settlement among the Parties, is satisfied that the ZBA, the proposed development it facilitates, and the conditions agreed to by the Parties have appropriate regard for matters of provincial interest. The Tribunal also finds that the Applications are consistent with the PPS and conform with the Growth Plan, Region OP and City OP as well as being supported by other pertinent municipal policies and public agencies such as the GRCA. Finally, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Proposal represents good planning, and is in the public interest.

48The Tribunal finds that the draft DPC, subject to the Conditions of Draft Plan Approval, has had appropriate regard to the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act and the Conditions of Draft Approval to be reasonable and appropriate for the proposed development pursuant to s. 51(25) of the Planning Act.

ORDER

49These matters having come before the Tribunal and in consideration of all the evidence and submissions heard in this matter;

50THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals filed by Kiah Group (Vista Ridge) Inc. and Kiah Group Inc. are hereby allowed in part;

51THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the amendment to the City of Cambridge’s Zoning By-law is hereby approved as set out in Schedule “A” to this Order. (Exhibit 2)

52AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the draft plan of condominium as set out in Schedule “B” to this Order is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set out in Schedule “C” to this Order. (Exhibit 2)

53Pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal delegates to the Regional Municipality of Waterloo the authority to clear the conditions of draft plan approval and the authority to administer final approval of the plan of condominium for the purposes of s. 51 (58) of the Planning Act.

54The Municipal Clerk may format and number the by-law for record keeping purposes.

“Gregory J. Ingram”

GREGORY J. INGRAM

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

SCHEDULE “A”

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE

BY-LAW 23-XXX

Being a By-law to amend Zoning By-law No. 150-85, as amended with respect

to land municipally known as 0, 436 and 440 Fountain Street South

WHEREAS Council of the City of Cambridge has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended to pass this By-law; WHEREAS this by-law conforms to the City of Cambridge Official Plan, as amended;

AND WHEREAS Council deems that adequate public notice of the public meeting was provided and adequate information regarding the Amendment was presented at the public meeting held October 20, 2020, and that further public meeting is not considered necessary in order to proceed with this Amendment;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Corporation of the City of Cambridge enacts as follows:

THAT this by-law shall apply to the lands described as LOT 27, LOT 30 and PT LOT 35 PLAN 731 and LANE PLAN 522 CAMBRIDGE AND PART LOT 5 CONCESSION BEASLEY'S BROKEN FRONT TOWNSHIP OF WATERLOO, PART 1, 58R-21076, City of Cambridge, Regional Municipality of Waterloo and is shown on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto and forming part of this by-law; and,
THAT the City of Cambridge Zoning By-law, being Schedule ‘A’ to By-law No. 150-85, is hereby amended by changing the zoning classification of the lands shown outlined by a heavy black line on Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto from R3 to R3 S.4.1.428 and OS1 on Schedule ‘B’ attached hereto illustrates the proposed future condominium layout and unit numbers; and,
THAT the aforesaid City of Cambridge Zoning By-law No. 150-85, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following subsection to 4.1 thereof:

“4.1.428 – 0, 436 and 440 Fountain Street North, legally described LOT 27, LOT 30 and PT LOT 35 PLAN 731 and LANE PLAN 522 CAMBRIDGE AND PART LOT 5 CONCESSION BEASLEY'S BROKEN FRONT TOWNSHIP OF WATERLOO, PART 1, 58R21076, City of Cambridge, Regional Municipality of Waterloo:

Notwithstanding 3.1.2.2 (a, b, d, g), the following regulations shall apply:

e) Minimum lot area for “Unit 1” shall be 455 square metres

f) Minimum front yard setback for “Unit 1” shall be 1 metre

g) Minimum rear yard setback for “Unit 11” shall be 5 metres

h) Minimum lot frontage for “Unit 8” shall be 11 metres

Not withstanding section 2.1.13, condominium units proposed within the lands shown outlined by a heavy black line on Schedule ‘A’ attached, are permitted to front onto a private condominium road.
THAT a holding provision shall apply to “Unit 8” and the common element lands in Lot 27, Plan 731, shown hatched on Schedule ‘A’ attached, until a Record of Site Condition (RSC) in accordance with O. Reg. 153/04, as amended, has been filed with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) Environmental Site Registry and the RSC and that the RSC and Ministry’s Acknowledgement letter is submitted to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.
THAT this By-law shall come into force and effect on the date it is enacted pursuant to Subsection 24(2) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Read a First, Second and Third Time, Enacted and Passed this ___ day of______ 2023.

Mayor

SCHEDULE “B”

DRAFT PLAN OF CONDOMINIUM

SCHEDULE “C”

City of Cambridge Conditions

THAT this approval applies to Vacant Land Plan of Condominium prepared by MacDonald Tamblyn Lord Surveying, Reference Number 18-40-335-03, dated May 20, 2020;

THAT the plan proposed for registration conforms to the City of Cambridge Zoning By-law No. 150-85, as amended and site-specific zoning;

Environmental and Forestry Conditions

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer rezones the wetland and associated 10 metre buffer from R3 to OS1;

THAT prior to registration:

The Owner/Developer submit a Landscape Plan prepared in accordance with the recommendations of the “436 Fountain Street Scoped Environmental Impact Study (prepared by Aboud & Associates and dated May 21, 2020)” to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge, in consultation with the Grand River Conservation Authority. The Landscape Plan will make special reference to:

Re-vegetation within the 10 metre wetland buffer with a combination of suitably placed trees, with a focus on dense shrub plantings of native species to protect the wetland feature;

Removal of garbage and garden waste from the area of the wetland;

The location of bat boxes near the edge of the retained woodland feature. The bat boxes are to be installed before the removal of any candidate trees and outside the maternity season (May 1 to August 31);

Any fencing adjacent to the wetland.

The Owner/Developer will provide a cost estimate in order to inform a security for the Subdivision Agreement for implementation of the work following registration.

The Owner/Developer will provide a certification letter from a qualified professional that the installed works are consistent with the approved Landscape Plan.

The Owner/Developer will maintain the works during the 2-year Maintenance Period and address any deficiencies identified by the City following inspection. Following inspection to the satisfaction of the City, securities will be released by the City;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer enters into a development agreement with the City of Cambridge to provide as a schedule to all agreements of purchase and sale or rental agreements a brochure containing information about the natural heritage features contiguous to the plan, along with advice about how to be good neighbours and stewards of these areas, and that the brochure be prepared to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer enters into a development agreement with the City of Cambridge to ensure the butternut compensation in compliance with the Endangered Species Act is completed with at least 10 butternut seedlings being planted in suitable habitat as compensation for the removal of two butternut trees on the subject property;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer provides the City of Cambridge with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks approval for the removal of the butternut trees on site;

THAT prior to registration, and any land clearing, grading, or the installation of services, the Owner/Developer enters into a development agreement with the City of Cambridge to ensure no clearing of vegetation on the site occur during the bird breeding season (April 1 – August 31) in compliance with the Migratory Birds Convention Act unless it can be ascertained by a qualified expert to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge that no birds covered by the Act are observed to be breeding within or adjacent to the affected area;

THAT prior to registration, and any land clearing, grading, or the installation of services, the Owner/Developer enters into a development agreement with the City of Cambridge to ensure no clearing of vegetation on the site occur during the bat maternity season (April 1 – September 30) in compliance with Provincial direction. In the event that open grown trees do need to be cleared during this time, a qualified ecologist must review the open grown trees within 3 days of their removal to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge. Protection of a tree(s) with a buffer may be required if a nest or wildlife is encountered. Removal of vegetation cannot resume until approved by the ecologist to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge;

THAT prior to registration of the plan, and prior to any site preparation, topsoil removal, grading, tree cutting, vegetation removal or construction on the lands, the Owner/Developer submits a Tree Management Plan (TMP) in accordance with the recommendations of the “436 Fountain Street Scoped Environmental Impact Study (prepared by Aboud & Associates and dated May 21, 2020)”, associated Landscape Plans and/or Tree Compensation fees. The City’s approval of the TMP is required prior to any tree removals. Neighbour signatures may be required for any removals or grading that impact off-site or boundary trees.

The Tree Management Plan must clearly identify the details of all trees 10cm DBH or greater, and trees of all sizes on City property, within 6m of the limit of disturbance. This may be combined with the Landscape Plan if appropriate. This must include specific details of trees to be removed, appropriate tree protection and plans to compensate for trees removed according to the following schedule:

<20cm DBH – no cost

20cm – 30cm : 1 replacement tree

31cm - 40cm : 2 replacement trees

41cm – 70cm : 3 replacement trees

71cm : 4 replacement trees

Dead Tree > 20cm DBH : ½ replacement tree

Cash in lieu may be accepted in the amount of $485.00 per required replacement tree. Replacement trees must be a minimum of 50mm caliper for deciduous trees and 1.75m in height for coniferous trees.

If tree replacements are to be considered for the above replacement requirements, the details of these plantings in the form of a Landscape Plan must be included and submitted at the time of TMP submission.

Street trees, stormwater management plantings and other buffer plantings through other planning conditions/subdivision agreement as recommended by the EIS are a separate requirement from private tree replacements and do not count towards the above tree replacement requirements;

Development Engineering Conditions

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer shall enter into a development agreement which provides for the construction of the development, including, but not limited to, servicing, retaining walls, and stormwater management infrastructure. The agreement shall include for insurance, securities and maintenance etc., to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering;

THAT prior to construction and/or site alteration, the Owner/Developer shall obtain detailed design approval from the City of Cambridge for the grading, servicing and stormwater management design, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering;

THAT prior to construction and/or site alteration, the Owner/Developer shall obtain a grading permit in accordance with the City’s grading by-law #160-09. A recommendation for draft approval in no way permits any site preparation, topsoil removal, tree cutting, re-grading, grading or construction on site prior to issuance of a grading permit by the City and/or without the express written permission of the Director of Engineering;

THAT prior to construction, the Owner/Developer shall coordinate all servicing work within the municipal road allowance for the proposed development with the City of Cambridge and Region of Waterloo. All servicing work within the municipal road allowance, including, but not limited to, installation of services to the property line, and relocation of services, and removal of any redundant water services, will be completed by the City’s Public Works Division at 100% Owner’s expense;

Transportation Conditions

THAT the Owner/Developer be required to re-align the roadway between “Unit 1” and “Unit 2”, to smooth out the curve area and potentially eliminating the S-bend, to the satisfaction of the City, and that the revised alignment be identified on the final plan for registration to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge;

THAT the Owner/Developer provide a letter acknowledging that no access to Unit 8 is available without the completion of the purchase and sale of the laneway. The applicant specifically acknowledges that the development cannot proceed as proposed without the completion of the sale of the laneway. The letter must also acknowledge that no vehicular access to Fountain Street and/or Parkview Crescent will be permitted via the laneway now or in the future;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer provide a drawing illustrating the internal roadway cross-section to the satisfaction of the City;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer provide a drawing illustrating a cul-de-sac or hammerhead for traffic turnaround at the terminus of the private condominium road (at Unit 8) to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge, and that the revisions to the private road and any changes to the proposed Units as a result of the cul-de-sac or hammerhead be identified on the final plan for registration to the satisfaction of the City of Cambridge;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer is to ensure that pedestrian connections are shown on the final plan to be registered to the satisfaction of the City and the Region;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer must submit a drawing showing adequate truck turning movements including waste collection and fire route access, to the satisfaction of the City;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer must submit a fire route diagram and install required signs to the satisfaction of the City;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer must provide a letter confirming that on-site parking meets the requirements of the City’s Zoning Bylaw;

Planning Conditions

THAT the Condominium Declaration shall reference all of the common services and entities that will require maintenance from time to time including, but not limited to: private access road and curbs; pedestrian connections and sidewalks; visitor parking spaces; visitor parking signs; Multiple Unit Identification signs; accessible parking signs; fire route signs; no exit signs; parking lot line painting; garbage and recycling receptacles; bicycle racks; benches; noise attenuation; common amenity areas; wood board and decorative steel fencing; gate(s); retaining walls; water, storm and sanitary services; storm and sanitary manholes, catch basins; water meter chamber(s); landscaping; protection of on-site wetlands, transformers; and light standards;

THAT the proposed Condominium Plan and Declaration include the water distribution system, including but not limited to domestic and fire watermains, private fire hydrants, valves and meter chambers, in the Common Elements;

THAT the Condominium Declaration shall reference that that the visitor parking is reserved for visitors of the development and is to be appropriately signed and maintained for visitors;

THAT the proposed Condominium Plan include all Amenity Areas in the Common Elements and that the Condominium Declaration include any easements necessary ensuring compliance with the Zoning By-law to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department;

THAT the draft Condominium Declaration be submitted and reviewed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department;

THAT prior to registration, cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication be provided consistent with the Official Plan policies and provisions of Section 51 of the Planning Act. Further, the Owner/Developer will submit an appraisal with an effective date as the day before condominium draft plan approval as consistent with Planning Act section 51.1 (4) to the satisfaction of City of Cambridge Reality Services;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer submits a letter prepared by a qualified professional verifying that the water distribution system was designed as plumbing under the Ontario Building Code;

THAT prior to registration, the Owner/Developer purchases and acquires the laneway (Lane on Registered Plan 731) from the City of Cambridge;

General Conditions

THAT the Owner/Developer enters into an agreement with the City of Cambridge regarding the conditions of draft approval for the registration and development of this condominium, including financial obligations, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department.