Northfield Lands II LLC v. Waterloo (City), 2024 CanLII 23437

Ontario Land Tribunal

Issue Date: March 11, 2024 Case No(s).: OLT-23-000557

Proceeding Commenced Under subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: Northfield Lands II LLC Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit development of three multi-tenant light industrial buildings formatted and programmed as an industrial mall. Reference Number: A-20/23 Property Address: 325 Northfield Drive East and 0 Labrador Drive Municipality/UT: Waterloo/Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000557 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000557 OLT Case Name: Northfield Lands II LLC v. Waterloo (City)

Heard: November 9, 2023 by Video Hearing

Appearances

Parties Northfield Lands II LLC c/o Perimeter Development Corporation

Counsel P. Harrington

Parties City of Waterloo

Counsel S. Smith

Memorandum of Oral Decision Delivered by S. Gopikrishna and Bita M. Rajaee on November 9, 2023 and Order of the Tribunal

Background

1Northfield Lands II LLC c/o Perimeter Development Corporation (“Appellant”) is the owner of 325 Northfield Drive East and 0 Labrador Drive (“Site” or “Subject Lands”), neighbouring lots in the City of Waterloo (“City”). It applied to the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) for the approval of minor variances (“Application”) to permit the development of three multi-tenant light industrial buildings, adjacent to each other, which are collectively formatted and programmed as an industrial mall. The COA deferred making a decision on the Application twice, on April 18, 2023 and May 16, 2023, and urged the Appellant to meet with the community members in opposition to the proposal. Ultimately, the COA declined to make a final decision because “there is insufficient information to make a decision on the application.”

2The Appellant appealed the lack of a decision (“Non-Decision”) by the COA to the Tribunal on June 1, 2023. On November 1, 2023, the Tribunal was informed that the Parties had reached a Settlement, which they wished to present to the Tribunal on the Hearing date of November 9, 2023 for consideration and approval if warranted.

Preliminary Issue: Non-Decision by the COA

3Section 45(12) of the Planning Act states:

(12) The applicant, the Minister or a specified person or public body that has an interest in the matter may within 20 days of the making of the decision appeal to the Tribunal against the decision of the committee…

[emphasis added by the Tribunal]

4As mentioned above, this Appeal arose from the COA’s Non-Decision. Thus, on November 3, 2023, the Tribunal asked the Parties to come to the Hearing prepared to make submissions on the Tribunal’s jurisdiction regarding making a decision on a minor variance application that was neither denied nor approved by the COA.

5At the Hearing, the Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear this Appeal, because:

a. The Tribunal has authority to hear and determine all questions of law and fact with respect to all matters within its jurisdiction, in accordance with s. 8 of the Ontario Land Tribunal Act (“OLTA”). Moreover, in accordance with s. 12 of the OLTA, the Tribunal is required to adopt any practice or procedure available to the Tribunal that, in its opinion, offers the best opportunity for a fair, just, and expeditious resolution of the merits of a proceeding.

b. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction over the within proceeding arises under s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), which permits an applicant to appeal to the Tribunal against “the decision of the committee” by filing a notice of appeal within 20 days. The notice must set out an applicant’s objection to the decision and the reasons in support of the objection. Pursuant to s. 45(18), the Tribunal is empowered to “make any decision that the committee could have made on the original application.”

c. The Tribunal has held, on multiple occasions, that it has the statutory jurisdiction to hear appeals from all decisions of a COA, including decisions that adjourn or defer applications. These are still “decisions” over which the Tribunal has appellate jurisdiction. As has been previously held by the Tribunal, the entire rationale of the Act could be frustrated if a COA could thwart a development project by simply deferring it indefinitely. An applicant would be denied any ability to appeal, which would be contrary to procedural fairness and justice.

i. The Appellant’s Counsel cited the case of Starwood Acquisitions Inc., 2011 CarswellOnt 3450, where the presiding adjudicator agreed that preventing the appeal of a non-decision would result in a conundrum which could stall the Application. Moreover, the adjudicator found that a ‘non-decision sine die‘ constituted a decision.

ii. The Appellant’s Counsel also relied on the case of Evergreen Environmental Inc. v. Oshawa (City), 2020 CarswellOnt 19349, where the adjudicator accepted Evergreen’s argument that denying the Appellant’s opportunities to appeal a non-decision is a denial of natural justice because such safeguards are a defense against a potential misuse of deferrals by a public body.

d. In the subject appeal, as set out in the appeal letter, the Waterloo COA twice deferred the Appellant’s request for two minor variances. The COA’s decisions to defer were made on grounds that the COA believed that the Appellant should first apply for Site Plan Approval before the merits of the two variances could be considered. Such grounds are akin to findings of prematurity. The Appellant has appealed, in part, because there is no statutory requirement that Site Plan Approval be applied for before a variance application is considered on its merits. There is no issue of prematurity.

6The Appellant’s Counsel submitted that the COA’s deferral in this case be treated as a decision of the COA, capable of being appealed, and especially as the Notice of the COA indicates the steps the Appellant must take to appeal the decision. Thus, the Tribunal can freely thereafter exercise its statutory authority to hear and determine the application in accordance with the Tribunal’s power to “make any decision that the committee could have made.” In short, despite the COA’s decision to defer the subject Application, the Tribunal is statutorily empowered, on appeal, to render a decision on the merits.

7The City stated that it would not take a position on this preliminary issue.

8After hearing the arguments put forward by the Appellant, the Tribunal, persuaded by the Appellant’s submissions, agreed with the Appellant that it had the jurisdiction to hear this Appeal, and ruled that it would proceed to hear the Appeal on its merits.

Status Requests

9The Tribunal received Participant status requests from a number of the residents of Breakwater Crescent, who collectively submitted one Participant Status Request Form, but listed the names of 15 individuals as follows:

a. Sherif Abdel-Kader b. George Swirszcz c. Karin Zmuda d. Darren Farry e. Corinne Kennedy f. Kim Moore g. John Moore h. Jason Flanagan i. Kristen Flanagan j. Tony Snyder k. Sean Rogers l. Heidi Rogers m. Ziangdon Li n. Tony Di Vito o. Andrea Di Vito

10These individuals raised a number of concerns, which are discussed below in detail. Neither the Appellant nor the City raised objections to these requests. The Tribunal determined that these Participants have an interest in the matter and will assist the Tribunal in understanding the concerns and impacts of the Proposal on the local community. As such, the Tribunal granted all the requests for Participant Status that it had received.

11In response to the Notice, the Tribunal received no other requests for status (Party or Participant).

Proposed Variances

12The Variances proposed by the Appellant to the City of Waterloo Zoning By-law 2018-050 (“ZBL”) are as follows:

1. To permit a reduced parking requirement for industrial malls of 1.5 spaces per 100 square metres (“m²”) of building floor area, whereas 2.5 spaces per 100 m² of building floor area is required; and

2. To permit an increase in the maximum impervious area of 87%, whereas a maximum of 70% is permitted.

Legislative Framework

13In considering the applications for variances from Zoning By-laws, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law;
• are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
• are minor.

14The proposed variances must also be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the “PPS”) and conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, as amended (the “Growth Plan”). When making its decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act. It must also have regard to the decision of the COA and the information considered by it, as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Act, though it is not bound by that decision.

15Under s. 45(18) of the Act, this Hearing is de novo, meaning that the entire application must be considered anew, and the Tribunal is not merely reviewing those aspects of the COA’s decision that the Appellant objects to. The onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the application meets these tests remains on the Applicants.

Hearing

16The documents submitted by the Parties, including the Document Book, recitation of conditions from the Minutes of Settlement, the Outline of Evidence, letter of opposition from community members, in conjunction with the oral evidence and submissions of the Parties, constitute the basis for this Decision.

17In support of the settlement, Mr. Trevor Hawkins, a land use planner, was sworn in and recognized as an Expert Witness in the area of land use planning.

18After reviewing the history of the Application, Mr. Hawkins described the Site. He explained that it was located in northeast Waterloo, on the south side of Northfield Drive between University Avenue and Bridge Street. He added that while industrial uses are located west of the Subject Lands, and office uses are located to the east, there are low-rise residential uses, and a large woodlot on the south, “on the other side of Labrador Drive.”

19Mr. Hawkins stated that the Site comprises two contiguous parcels of lands, separated by Labrador Drive, which is a private road, such that the northern parcel is 5.18 hectares, and the southern parcel is 2.14 hectares. This Site, which is currently vacant, has a frontage of 154.9 metres (“m”) on Northfield Drive, and 175 m of frontage along Labrador Drive, is relatively flat, and includes a berm located at the southern end of the southerly parcel. He added that access to this Site is provided via easements over Labrador Drive, and Northfield Drive East, and that sidewalks are located on both sides of Labrador Drive. There are bicycle lanes as well on both sides of Northfield Drive, and streetlights are provided on the north side of Labrador Drive.

Proposal

20Mr. Hawkins described the proposed development as consisting of three multi-tenant industrial buildings located on either side of Labrador Drive (“Proposal”). Two buildings are proposed on the northern parcel, and would be accessed from one driveway on Northfield Drive East and three driveways on Labrador Drive. One building (“Building S-A”) is proposed south of Labrador Drive and would be accessed from two driveways on Labrador Drive. In total, the three buildings propose 29,975 m² of building floor area. A 27 m setback is proposed from the residential uses to the south to the nearest wall of Building S-A, which exceeds the 20 m setback requirement in the ZBL. A 7.5 m landscaped buffer is included adjacent to the residential lot lines, and includes the existing tree berm.

21The Appellant proposes a total of 449 surface parking spaces, which results in a parking rate of 1.5 spaces / 100 m² of building floor area. Parking is proposed along the perimeter of the northern parcel, as well as the north, east, and west sides of the southern building. No parking is proposed adjacent to the residential area to the south.

Meet the Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

22Mr. Hawkins discussed the relationship between the requested variances, and the City of Waterloo’s Official Plan (“OP”). He pointed out that the OP designates the Site as “Business Employment”, which permits light industrial uses, and referred to how it contemplates reductions in vehicular parking, where appropriate and public transit-based alternatives are available, based on Section 3.6.6(3)(b) of the OP. He then discussed how one of the objectives articulated in Section 6.1.5 of the OP speaks to planning for an appropriate amount of bicycle and vehicular parking, and linked this objective to contemplated reductions in vehicular parking, because the Site is located on Northfield Drive, which is a transit route, with multiple bus routes, including iXpress Route 202.

23Mr. Hawkins provided the reasoning behind the reduction in the site-specific parking requirement from 2.5 spaces per 100 m² of building floor area, to 1.5 spaces per 100 m² of building floor area. He distinguished between “light industrial uses”, exemplified by the Proposal, where a reduced rate of 1.5 spaces/100 m² of building area is permissible for industrial malls in areas serviced by rapid transit, and more inclusive uses, typical of “Business Employment Areas”, which require a higher rate of parking spaces. He then pointed out how the proposed parking rate is consistent with what is allowed in other cities in Ontario, such as Kitchener, London, and Guelph.

24Speaking to the storm water management aspect of the Proposal, Mr. Hawkins referred to Section 5.2.7(4) of the OP, which directs that storm water management designs shall address, and conform to the recommendations of any master drainage study, and relied on a supporting technical report (“MTE Report”), which concluded that the proposed increase in the impervious area is appropriate, and can be mitigated by on-site measures.

25Mr. Hawkins specifically referred to sections of the MTE Report which recommended various measures to improve the storm water management, before concluding that the proposed increase in maximum impervious area would not have a negative impact on downstream management infrastructure. He added that City Staff had concurred with the conclusions of the MTE Report, and had recommended conditions of approval which required detailed engineering plans supporting the increase in impervious area, and stated his agreement with the proposed conditions.

26Mr. Hawkins also added that a Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) by the City was mandatory, before the Proposal could be constructed, and discussed how the SPA will provide an additional mechanism for City Staff to review the proposed storm water management strategy, and ensure that it will not have a negative impact on downstream storm water management infrastructure.

27Based on the above evidence, Mr. Hawkins concluded that the requested variances meet the intent and purpose of the City’s OP.

Meet the Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-Law

28Mr. Hawkins discussed the relationship between the requested variances, and the intent and purpose of the ZBL. He pointed out that the Site is zoned “Business Employment (E1-27),” which permits the proposed light industrial uses in an industrial mall format, and focused on the intent of the Site-specific provision C213, whose intent is to ensure that robust storm water management practices are in place. He reiterated that the City was in agreement with overflow mitigation practices recommended in the MTE Report, and that the Appellant was in agreement with the City’s recommended approach to storm water management, where different imperviousness rates had been recommended for the north and south portions of the Site, and appropriate engineering plans to evaluate storm water management were required as part of the SPA.

29Speaking to the reduction in parking spaces, Mr. Hawkins said that the intent of the minimum parking rate is to ensure that parking generated by a use can be provided on-site, without resulting in off-site impacts, and emphasized that the parking will be accommodated on-site, without reliance on adjacent streets such as Labrador Drive and Toman Drive, because the Site is well served by public transportation. He expressed his agreement with the imposition of a condition suggested by the City, which permitted the reduced parking rate to apply to a specific list of permitted uses within the E1 Zone, including the proposed light industrial uses, but excluding the commercial uses, which require more parking, because this condition will balance an appropriate supply of vehicular parking, while recognizing that certain uses require more parking.

30On the basis of the above reasoning, Mr. Hawkins concluded that the requested variances met the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

Desirable and Appropriate Development

31Discussing how the requested variances satisfied the test of appropriate development, Mr. Hawkins prefaced his explanation by drawing attention to how the Site was currently empty, and how new jobs would be created as a result of the Proposal, which in turn would assist the Region of Waterloo in fulfilling its employment growth targets. He stated that the requested variances would facilitate the development of vacant lands, which would provide for more employment opportunities by virtue of being accessible by public transit, and active transportation, and argued that the proposed reduction in required vehicle parking would allow for a balancing of the employment uses, landscaping, and parking needs. He reiterated that there would be no negative impact on the neighbourhood, on the basis of the recommendations in the MTE report, before concluding that his evidence had demonstrated that the requested variances satisfied the test of appropriate development.

Minor

32Mr. Hawkins discussed the relationship between the proposed variances and the test of minor, by re-emphasizing that the neighbouring areas would not be impacted negatively with respect to storm water infrastructure, parking, and traffic. He reiterated that the Subject Lands are separated from surrounding residential areas, and that the vehicular traffic is limited to roads that provide access to other employment lands. On the basis of this evidence, Mr. Hawkins concluded that the requested variances satisfied the test of minor.

Participant Concerns

33Responding to the issues raised by the Participants, Mr. Hawkins grouped the objections as follows, before commenting on each of these issues:

1. Reduction in impervious area (green space) on the Site
2. Impacts resulting from industrial use – general land use compatibility (noise, exhaust)
3. Supply of parking and building size
4. Landscaping and the preservation of the berm on the southerly parcel
5. Engineering and the management of storm water
6. Demonstration of hardship or compelling need for the variances
7. Establishment of a precedent

34With respect to the Participants’ concerns about reduction in green space, Mr. Hawkins said that the E1 Zone, in which the Site is located, does not regulate the amount of landscaped open space. In his witness statement, he pointed out that Impervious Area was defined in the ZBL as “the area of a lot which is covered by an impervious or impermeable material,” and added that the intent of the “Impervious Area regulation” is to regulate storm water management within the affected study area. He stated that in other areas, the applicable zoning includes both a maximum impervious area and a minimum landscape open space “as they are intended to address different matters of site design.” He distinguished between these areas and the Proposal in that there is no regulation about landscaped space, and reiterated that the latter is not regulated under the ZBL.

35With respect to land use compatibility, Mr. Hawkins said that the concerns expressed related to the movement of trucks onto the loading area of the south side of Building S-A, as shown on the conceptual site plan. He said that there are no requests for variances respecting the loading area, and that the detailed movement of the trucks into and out of the loading area would be evaluated at the time of the SPA.

36Responding to concerns about the size of the building, Mr. Hawkins said that the “requirement for parking is directly related to the size of the building”. He referred the Participants to their own statements, where they suggested that the regular parking rate of 2.5 spaces/100 m² is appropriate for a smaller building, and argued that the design of the building optimized the balance between building floor area, parking, and landscaping, and represented “good planning for the subject lands within its existing and planned context.”

37Discussing the Participants’ concerns about reductions to landscaping, Mr. Hawkins reassured them that there would no encroachment, nor removal of the berm. Speaking to the Participants’ perspective about the need for a geotechnical investigation, Mr. Hawkins pointed out that this conclusion was based on the conclusion arrived at in the MTE Report about the possibility of active infiltration on the basis of a high groundwater table being unlikely, and assured the Participants that the need for a detailed geotechnical investigation would be considered when the details of the design would be reviewed at the SPA stage.

38Speaking to the Participants alleging that the Appellant had demonstrated neither hardship, nor a compelling need for the variances, Mr. Hawkins said that neither was a legislative requirement under the Act. He also disabused the Participants regarding their concerns about the approval of the variances constituting a “precedent” for similar development, explaining that each Application or Appeal has to be examined independently and individually for planning merits, before a decision could be made. The approval of one application will not result in the approvals of other applications.

Conclusion

39On the basis of this evidence, Mr. Hawkins recommended that the requested variances be approved, and that the conditions stated in Appendix B of the Minutes of Settlement be imposed on the approval. Mr. Hawkins added as well that the requested variances are consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan.

Reasons, Analysis, and Findings

40The Tribunal was convinced by the Appellant’s evidence regarding the variance for the requested reduction in parking spaces and the OP. Namely, it relies on the juxtaposition of the availability of public transportation, alternative forms of transportation, and the Site’s being adjacent to a major transportation corridor, which collectively satisfy Section 6.1.5 of the OP (which allows for reductions in parking spots where alternative forms of transportation are possible). The Tribunal is also convinced by the uncontroverted evidence relying on Section 5.2.7(4) of the OP to justify the decrease in impervious area, which emphasizes the importance of sub-watershed studies to determine how best storm water management can be managed. As confirmed in the MTE Report, and testified to by Mr. Hawking, the proposed increase will be appropriate and mitigatable through on-site measures, as well as different impervious rates for different parts of the Site. This was supported by the City after review. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal found that the variance for increases in imperviousness meets the intent and purpose of the OP.

41The Tribunal was persuaded by the uncontroverted evidence in support of the position that the intent of the minimum parking rate generated by a use will not result in negative off-site impacts. Given that the evidence also demonstrated that there would be no car overflow onto the neighbouring roads, because many employees are expected to access the Site through public transportation, the Tribunal finds that the parking variance fulfills the intent and purpose of the ZBL. The Tribunal was also satisfied by the MTE Report’s conclusions about the variance’s lack of impact on the management of storm water. As a result, the Tribunal found that the variance respecting impervious areas meets the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

42With respect to the test of appropriate development, the Tribunal agreed that the approval of the variances would help create employment lands on a currently empty lot specifically located in an area designated “Employment.” Further, the Tribunal was convinced by the uncontroverted evidence that these employment areas do not result in negative impacts on the neighbourhood, and are accessible by public transportation. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal found that the requested variances satisfy the test of appropriate development.

43The Tribunal was persuaded by the uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that the requested variances do not impact the existing berm on the Site, do not result in negative impacts such as an overflow of parking on neighbouring streets, and will not impact municipal storm water management, as a result of which the Tribunal found that the requested variances satisfy the test of minor.

44Moreover, the uncontroverted evidence addressed various issues raised by the Participants and demonstrated that the concerns did not relate to this Site, or would be addressed at the Site Plan Approval stage. As a result, the Tribunal found that the Participants’ concerns were addressed by the Proposal before it, as revised by the settlement agreement.

45The Panel then adjourned briefly to confer in the absence of the Parties and Participants, and returned to rule in the presence of the Parties that it was satisfied by the evidence provided by Mr. Hawkins, through his uncontroverted testimony, that the four tests outlined in s. 45 of the Act have been satisfied, and that the Proposal has proper regard for matters of provincial interest, is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan. Mr. Hawkins’ testimony, as well as the totality of evidence before the Tribunal, supports the authorization of the minor variances before the Tribunal, along with the accompanying conditions. The Tribunal found that the Proposal was representative of good planning and in the public interest.

46Moreover, the conditions proposed by the City as part of the settlement agreement, and acceptable to the Appellant, are imposed on the approval of the variances. The conditions are attached to this Decision as Schedule A.

47The Tribunal conducted its review of the unopposed Proposal on November 9, 2023, during the uncontested Hearing and was then satisfied with the evidence and made its findings and determined that the Order should issue to allow the Appeals and approve the minor variances. It is therefore appropriate that this Order is effective as of November 9, 2023, in keeping with Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Decision and Order

48THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

a. The Appeal by the Appellant Northfield Lands II LLC c/o Perimeter Development Corporation, pursuant to section 45(12) of the Planning Act, is allowed, and the following minor variances to the City of Waterloo Zoning By-law No. 2018-050 are authorized, subject to the conditions listed at paragraph [48b] of this Decision:

i. To permit a reduced parking requirement for industrial malls of 1.5 spaces per 100 square metres (“m²”) of building floor area, whereas 2.5 spaces per 100 m² of building floor area is required; and

ii. To permit an increase in the maximum impervious area of 87%, whereas a maximum of 70% is permitted.

b. The authorization of the minor variances listed in paragraph [48a] of this Decision is subject to the conditions attached as Schedule A to this Decision.

49THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that, in accordance with Rule 24.3 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, this Order is effective as of November 9, 2023.

50The Panel Members remain seized of this matter, and the Tribunal may be spoken to with respect to the implementation of this Order.

“S. Gopikrishna” S. Gopikrishna MEMBER

“Bita M. Rajaee” Bita M. Rajaee MEMBER

Schedule A

The “Conditions” (Page 1 of 2)

a. That all legal costs and disbursements incurred by The Corporation of the City of Waterloo with respect to this application be borne by the Applicant/Appellant. For clarity, such costs shall not include any costs relating to the Appeal or the Minutes of Settlement.

b. For the portion of the Lands comprising Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on Plan 58R-15983 (the "northerly parcel"), excluding Parts 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 on Plan 58R-18208 (the Labrador Drive parcel):

i. That a building permit be obtained and construction commenced within five (5) years of the date of approval of this application (A-20/23) for an industrial BUILDING having a minimum BUILDING FLOOR AREA of 5,000 square metres.

ii. That a minimum parking rate of 1.5 spaces per 100 square metres of BUILDING FLOOR AREA shall apply to the following uses:

~ ADVANCED TECH ~ BUSINESS INCUBATOR ~ COMMERCIAL SERVICE ~ COMMUNICATION PRODUCTION ~ DATA CENTRE ~ GOVERNMENT USE ~ 'LIGHT' INDUSTRIAL ASSEMBLY ~ 'LIGHT' INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING ~ 'LIGHT' INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING ~ MAKERSPACE (CLASS A) ~ PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT ~ TRAINING FACILITY ~ WAREHOUSE (No Retail)

iii. That the maximum IMPERVIOUS AREA shall be 87%, subject to the following detailed plans and reports:

1. Servicing, prepared in accordance with City standards and approved by the City's Director of Engineering Services;
2. Stormwater management, prepared in accordance with City standards and approved by the City's Director of Engineering Services;
3. Grading and drainage, prepared in accordance with City standards and approved by the City's Director of Engineering Services; and
4. Enhanced landscape plan, prepared in accordance with City standards and approved by the City’s Director of Planning.

The “Conditions” (Page 2 of 2)

c. For the portion of the Lands comprising Parts 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 on Plan 58R-15983 (the "southerly parcel"):

i. That a building permit be obtained and construction commenced within five (5) years of the date of approval of this application (A-20/23) for an industrial BUILDING having a minimum BUILDING FLOOR AREA of 4,000 square metres.

ii. That a minimum parking rate of 1.5 spaces per 100 square metres of BUILDING FLOOR AREA shall apply to the following uses:

~ ADVANCED TECH ~ BUSINESS INCUBATOR ~ COMMERCIAL SERVICE ~ COMMUNICATION PRODUCTION ~ DATA CENTRE ~ GOVERNMENT USE ~ 'LIGHT' INDUSTRIAL ASSEMBLY ~ 'LIGHT' INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING ~ 'LIGHT' INDUSTRIAL PROCESSING ~ MAKERSPACE (CLASS A) ~ PRINTING ESTABLISHMENT ~ TRAINING FACILITY ~ WAREHOUSE (No Retail)

iii. That the maximum IMPERVIOUS AREA shall be 78%, subject to the following detailed plans and reports:

1. Servicing, prepared in accordance with City standards and approved by the City's Director of Engineering Services;
2. Stormwater management, prepared in accordance with City standards and approved by the City's Director of Engineering Services;
3. Grading and drainage, prepared in accordance with City standards and approved by the City's Director of Engineering Services; and
4. Enhanced landscape plan, prepared in accordance with City standards and approved by the City's Director of Planning.