Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
February 05, 2024
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-23-001011
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Mike Jackson, Sarah Jackson
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
To permit a lot width of 12.9 m instead of the minimum required 15m to facilitate a proposed land severance
Reference Number:
540-02-A-127/2022
Property Address:
1130 Fisher Ave
Municipality/UT:
City of Burlington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001013
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001011
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Mike Jackson, Sarah Jackson
Subject:
Minor Variance
Description:
To permit a lot width of 12.9 m instead of the minimum required 15m to facilitate a proposed land severance.
Reference Number:
540-02-A-126/2022
Property Address:
1130 Fisher Ave
Municipality/UT:
City of Burlington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001012
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001011
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant:
Mike Jackson, Sarah Jackson
Subject:
Consent
Description:
Consent to sever a lot with a width of 12.98 m and an area of 692.35 m2
Reference Number:
540-02-B-011/2022
Property Address:
1130 Fisher Ave
Municipality/UT:
City of Burlington
OLT Case No.:
OLT-23-001011
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-23-001011
OLT Case Name:
Jackson v. Burlington (City)
Heard:
January 11, 2024 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
Mike and Sarah Jackson
(“Applicants / Appellants”)
Jessica De Marinis
City of Burlington
Andrea Peebles
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY MEMBER JACKIE DENYES ON JANUARY 12, 2024 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Order
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicants are seeking consent to sever a parcel of land known municipally as 1130 Fisher Avenue in the City of Burlington (“Subject Property”) into two lots (one new lot and one retained), each proposing to consist of an area of approximately 674.5 square metres (“m2”) with identical lot frontages of 12.95 metres (“m”), a departure from the 15 m standard stipulated in the City’s Zoning By-law No. 2020. Therefore, the Applicants are seeking two associated variances to reduce the lot frontages from the 15 m standard stipulated in the City’s Zoning By-law to a lot frontage of 12.95 m. The proposed building envelope, lot area, and lot coverage will meet current zoning requirements; however, the variances are necessary for the lot frontages. The Applicants are seeking to develop both lots by constructing a newly detached residential dwelling on each lot.
Table 1: Site Statistics of 1130 Fisher Avenue
R3.2
By-Law
Proposed
Lot Width
15 m
12.95 m
Lot Area
425 sq. m
674.5 sq. m
Minimum Front Yard Setback
6 m
15.54 m
Minimum Rear Yard Setback
9 m
21.14 m
Minimum Interior Side Yard Setback
1.8 m
2.18 m
Minimum Exterior Side Yard Setback
1.8 m
2.33 m
Lot Coverage
25% for all other dwelling types including accessory buildings
21.2%
Required Variance:
Variance 1: The only variance required for the proposed development is a reduction in lot frontage from 15 m to 12.95 m.
2The matter comes before the Tribunal as a result of City Staff recommending against the Applications and while staff acknowledged the varied lotting pattern in the neighbourhood, they continued to oppose the applications. The City’s Committee of Adjustments refused the Applications on May 10, 2023 reciting inter alia:
(a) That the resultant parcels of land deviate from the intent of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law regulations intended for the area in that the proposed development was not compatible with the surrounding area;
(b) The proposed consent facilitates the creation of smaller lots that would not contribute to the existing lotting fabric of the area and therefore did not meet the development standards in place for this zone.
(c) The proposed land severance and subsequent minor variance applications would create a lotting pattern that was not in keeping with the existing neighbourhood; and,
(d) The proposed land severance and subsequent minor variance applications would facilitate built forms that were out of character for this neighbourhood in terms of height, scale, massing and setbacks.
3Prior to the Appeal being heard on this date, Counsel for the Applicants and the City notified the Tribunal that a Settlement of this appeal had been reached on consent with Conditions of Approval.
4Notice of this Hearing was sent administratively by the Tribunal on November 2, 2023, and was marked Exhibit 1 on consent.
5The Book of Documents submitted by the Applicant was marked Exhibit 2 on consent.
6No other persons sought Party or Participant status.
SUBJECT PROPERTY, ZONING AND SURROUNDINGS
7The Subject Property is located in the southern portion of Ward 3 in the City of Burlington, Ontario on the west side of Fisher Avenue, between Industrial Street to the south, and Mountainside to the north and abut an unopened road allowance along the north property line.
8The surrounding property area to the north and east consists primarily of low-density residential dwellings, while industrial and commercial uses are located to the south and west of the Subject Lands. The Subject Lands have an approximate frontage of 25.60 m, area of 1,380 m2 and contain a single-detached and a one-and-a-half-storey building on a cottage-style lot with an accessory structure to the rear of the property.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
9Only one witness was called at this Settlement Hearing. Terrance Glover, Professional Planner and Consultant for Urban in Mind was qualified as an expert witness in the field of land use planning and gave uncontroverted testimony on behalf of the Applicants.
10Mr. Glover’s Affidavit containing his Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert Duty were made Exhibit 3.
11Mr. Glover gave evidence of Development Considerations including neighbourhood character, transportation and impact of the Proposed Development. He testified that Fisher Avenue is classified as a “Collector Road”, “Neighbourhood Connector” and is recognized as a “Bicycle Priority Network”. Regarding the Proposed Development of two single-detached dwellings each on their own lot, a minor variance and lot severance (to create one new lot and one retained lot) is required. The proposed building envelope, lot area and lot coverage will meet current zoning requirements. The only variance required for the proposed development is a slight reduction in lot frontage from 15 m to 12.95 m. The property is zoned Residential R3.2 under the City of Burlington Zoning By-Law No. 2020
12Mr. Glover opined the proposed severance and minor variance for the Subject Property will have little to no impact on the surrounding neighbourhood character and will be compatible with the surrounding properties. In fact, he advised, the proposed development will result in an increase in housing options for the neighbourhood, and new customers for the adjacent commercial businesses.
13Regarding the natural features of the Subject Property, a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan was conducted February 18, 2022, by The Real Tree Masters Inc. to support the proposed development. Of the 39 trees situated on the property only six trees would be required to be removed with a tree replantation schedule to be engaged.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
14Mr. Glover adopted his Planning Justification Report and took the Tribunal through the Four Tests of a Minor Variance citing s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”) wherein the Committee of Adjustment may authorize variances from the provisions of the Zoning By-Law provided that the following four tests are satisfied:
Maintain the general intent and purpose of the City Official Plan;
Maintain the general intent and purpose of the City Zoning By-Law;
Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of land; and
Are minor in nature?
15Regarding Variance #1 Reduction to the Minimum Lot Frontage, Mr. Glover indicated there is only one deviation to the minimum lot frontage from 15 m to 12.95 m and that the required variance is necessary in order to accommodate the severance of an existing lot to create two lots, the policies of the Burlington Official Plan (“OP”) permit detached homes in areas designated “Residential Low-Density” so long as built form is compatible with the scale and design of the neighbourhood. He cited the City of Burlington’s OP policies 2.2.2.g, 5.5.4 and 8.3.1.a. He testified the development meets all Four Tests of a Minor Variance.
16The Applicant must also satisfy the Tribunal that the Applications meet all legislative tests. In particular, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Applications:
(a) Have regard to matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act;
(b) Are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020;
(c) Conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019;
(d) Meet the four tests set out in s. 45(1) of the Act (for the minor variance Applications); and
(e) Have regard to the criterial et out in s. 51(24) of the Act (for the Consent Application).
17With regard to Severance Justification, Mr. Glover specified the proposed severance will result in the creation of one new lot (and one retained lot) in a location that is well-serviced and suitable for new low-density development thus not requiring additional public services. The redevelopment is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and streetscape, built form and block patterns of Fisher Avenue. As such, the proposed development is in line with the regulations of the Act and generally conforms with the Provincial, Regional and Local Planning policies.
18His report indicates the severance is well-aligned with the Provincial Policy Statement as it aims to sever existing underutilized residential lands within an urban area to establish additional lots. As such, the proposed development conforms with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement.
19Mr. Glover further attested that the Subject Property is located within the Built-Up area of Burlington and given the availability of municipal services, active transit, availability of cycling lanes and new low-density infill within the neighbourhood, the proposed development conforms with the Growth Plan and also conforms with the policies of the Halton Regional Official Plan as it’s located in the Urban Area designation of the Halton Regional Official Plan, thus must be in accordance with the Official Plans of municipalities as well as local Zoning By-laws.
20Mr. Glover testified the proposed development further conforms with the policies of the “Current” in-effect City of Burlington Official Plan as consents are granted under the condition that new development considers the “orderly development of land” and will not negatively impact public interest. The new proposed development will also be in character with the surrounding neighbourhood and seamlessly fit in with the existing streetscape.
21The Subject Property is zoned Residential R3.2 as per the City of Burlington Zoning By-Law No. 2020. The intended use of the Subject Property for infill development is supported by both the Regional and Local Official Plans. The lot requirements generally meet those set out in Part 2 Section 4.1 of the Zoning By-law and as per these requirements, the severance of the lot will not result in any deviation from the required lot area. He reiterated there is only one deviation to the Zoning By-law; that being the reduction in the lot frontage but this Minor Variance aims to seek relief from that provision to bring the proposed development into full compliance with zoning regulations. This appeal now being heard on consent of all Parties, the proposed development conforms with the policies of the Zoning By-Law.
22In sum, Mr. Glover indicated the requested applications meet the general intent and purpose of the City of Burlington Official Plan(s), meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law, are desirable and appropriate for the lands and are minor in nature which therefore meets the four tests prescribed under s. 45(1) of the Act.
23He then briefly explained the Severance Sketch in which he described the approximate lot size of approximately 674.5 m2 x 12.945 m as being quite substantial for today’s modern development. He indicated there are larger lots not yet severed and the neighborhood is underutilized from a lot area perspective. He suggested the proposal allows for the opportunity to add logical infill development and different price points for affordability of housing.
24Commenting on the Conditions of Approval Appendix “B” to his report, he testified there was nothing untoward or over-reaching about them and that they were well-spelled out in their objectives and requirements, standards and reasonably requested ensuring that the development is orderly and appropriate.
25There was no cross-examination conducted of Mr. Glover by Ms. Peebles on behalf of the City.
26In order to satisfy its public interest mandate in every case and not just confirming a lis between the Parties, the Tribunal queried Mr. Glover if, in his opinion, the “Conditions of Approval” were reasonable, appropriate, and achievable within a two-year period as prescribed by s. 53(41) of the Act.
27It was his opinion these applications represent good planning, are reasonable, appropriate, in the public interest and are achievable within the prescribed mandate.
28No witnesses were called or submissions made on behalf of the City.
CONCLUSION
29In summary, based on the foregoing evidence and the uncontroverted expert opinion evidence of Terrance Glover, the Tribunal finds that the applications meet all legislative tests for minor variance approval in that they:
(a) Do maintain the general intent and purpose of the City’s OP;
(b) Do maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL;
(c) Are desirable and appropriate for the use of the land; and
(d) Are minor.
30Moreover, the Application for consent does conform with the City’s OP pursuant to s. 51(24) of the Act and, as a result, the Applicant is successful in meeting its burden on these Appeals.
ORDER
31THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed and the variance is authorized.
32THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS that provisional consent is to be given subject to the Conditions set out in Appendix B appended to this Order..
“Jackie Denyes”
JACKIE DENYES
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.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
City:
- A demolition permit is required to remove the existing dwelling and all accessory
buildings and structures, prior to final consent.
- Variances, under files 540-02-A126 & 130/21, to be approved and finalized prior to
final consent.
- Enter into an agreement under Section 53 of the Planning Act or any other
agreements required by the City Solicitor dealing with all the facilities or matters,
approval of plans and drawings and the conditions set out herein:
Carry out the following to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering
Services and the Director of Community Planning:
Prior to applying for a Building Permit for the new dwelling,
obtain a Grading and Drainage Clearance Certificate from
Engineering Services. For the issuance of a Grading and
Drainage Clearance Certificate the following will be required for
each severed lot:
A Grading and Drainage Clearance Certificate application fee;
A refundable grading, drainage and site maintenance deposit
in an amount to be determined for the completion of the
approved grading and servicing site work and to ensure that
the site is maintained, and the road allowance is not damaged
during construction, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Engineering Services;
- A detailed servicing, grading and drainage plan, for approval,
which conforms to the overall servicing, grading and drainage
plan and shows the proposed building envelop, grading,
drainage, servicing layouts and required driveway changes;
- Erosion and sediment control for the disturbed ground area.
Please show the necessary erosion and sediment control on
the plan; and
- An Entrance Permit for any new driveway curb depressions.
The following standard conditions are to be included in the Section 53 Agreement:
GENERAL WORKS AND CONDITIONS
The Owner agrees that:
i. The subject property (hereinafter referred to as the “Lands”) shall only be
developed in accordance with the plans approved by the Director of
Engineering Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Plans"). No
modification of the Plans shall be permitted without prior written approval
of the City;
117
ii. A permit or other authorizing documentation shall be obtained from the
Public Works Department of the Regional Municipality of Halton allowing
for the connection of the development specified in the Plans to Regional
Municipality of Halton water and waste water services or in the event that
such services are not available, that the Owner shall obtain a certificate or
other authorizing documentation from the Health Department of the
Regional Municipality of Halton permitting the development outlined in the
Plans to be serviced using private services;
iii. All costs associated with the relocation of existing services or utilities shall
be borne by the Owner;
iv. A Municipal Consent Permit for works within the road allowance shall be
secured from the Engineering Services Department before any vegetation
is disturbed or any grading or construction commenced, if necessary;
v. An Entrance Permit for construction of a new driveway entrance within the
road allowance shall be secured from the Engineering Services Department
before any vegetation is disturbed or any grading or construction
commenced, if necessary;
vi. A Site Alteration Permit (as per By-law 64-2014, as amended) shall be
secured from the Engineering Services Department before any vegetation
is disturbed or any grading or construction commenced, if necessary;
vii. A Tree Permit (as per By-law 68-2013, as amended) shall be secured from
the Roads, Parks & Forestry Department before any vegetation is
disturbed or any grading or construction commenced, if necessary. The
Owner shall provide continuous and careful protection of existing City
trees, as per City of Burlington Tree Protection and Preservation
Specification No. SS12A, as amended, to minimize negative impacts to
existing City trees until all construction, grading and other works
contemplated in the Plans are fully completed. During the said time period,
care shall also be taken by the Owner to store construction materials and
park construction vehicles outside of the municipal right-of- way and to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist;
viii. Noncompliance with the City’s tree protection and preservation
requirements or removal of the tree protection without the approval of the
City Arborist will result in the loss of the associated securities. The security
deposit shall be returned to the Owner if the City trees are deemed not
injured or damaged by the City Arborist, otherwise the deposit shall be
retained by the City, indefinitely, for the on-going maintenance, preservation
and/ or eventual replacement of the tree;
ix. Throughout the duration of construction, the Lands shall be maintained in
a safe and orderly condition, construction debris shall be contained and
removed on a regular basis and appropriate temporary fencing, barriers
and signage shall be utilized to prevent injury to persons and/ or property
to the satisfaction of the City. Where construction is being undertaken
within an existing developed area or on an existing developed site, the
118
Owner will ensure that the functioning of the surrounding area, including
pedestrian and vehicular movement, is maintained;
x. Throughout the duration of construction, all streets abutting the Lands and
to be used for access shall be kept in good and usable condition and, if
damaged, will be restored immediately and to the satisfaction of the
Director of Engineering Services. All costs associated with restoration of
the streets shall be borne by the Owner. The Owner’s failure to complete
the restoration works in a period of time deemed satisfactory to the Director
of Engineering Services may result in the necessary works being carried
out by the City’s contractor and charged against associated securities;
xi. Provide continuous and careful control measures to minimize dust
emanating from the Lands until all construction, grading and other works
contemplated in the Plans are fully completed. During the said time period,
care shall also be taken by the Owner to minimize the tracking of soil/
material onto municipal road allowance. The Owner shall expeditiously
suppress dust or remove all soil/ material from the municipal road
allowance when requested to do so by City inspection staff and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services;
xii. Throughout the duration of construction, tires of all vehicles/ equipment
leaving the Lands are to be scraped during wet conditions;
xiii. Roads are to be flushed and swept on Friday afternoons;
xiv. Silt control measures, to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering
Services, shall be provided by the Owner until all construction, grading and
other works contemplated in the Plans are fully completed, to prevent silt
or other substances entering onto adjacent properties, roads, sewers or
watercourses from the Lands. Plans to control silt will be provided to the
City's Director of Engineering Services for review and approval before any
vegetation is disturbed or any grading or construction commenced
xv. Throughout the duration of construction, noncompliance with the City’s
dust/ soil/ silt control requirements or any and all damage to lands other
than the Lands of the Owner caused or as a result of anything done in
connection with the construction as set out in the Plans shall be
remediated and repaired at the direction of the Director of Engineering
Services and all work in connection thereto shall be borne by the Owner.
Should the Owner fail to comply with said direction, the City may, in its
discretion, remediate and repair damage using securities collected and/or
pursue remedies as set out in section 446 of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001,
as amended;
xvi. Should construction require or otherwise cause the normal flow of traffic
on a street to be disrupted, the provisions of the Ontario Traffic Manual,
Book 7 (Temporary Conditions), as amended, shall be followed at all
times, including but not limited to the appropriate traffic control person(s)
and related signage. More particularly, the City requires:
i) two flag person(s) shall be dedicated to direct construction vehicles
into and out of the Lands at all times;
ii) at the discretion of the Director of Transportation Services, pay duty
police officers provided by the Halton Regional Police Service may be
119
required to direct traffic. All costs associated with the requirement for
pay duty police officers shall be borne by the Owner;
iii) traffic lanes shall not be closed completely. Lane closures and/ or
restrictions require the approval of the Director of Transportation
Services;
iv) lane closures and/ or restrictions shall be communicated in advance
to outside agencies, including Burlington Transit, Burlington Fire
Department, Region of Halton Land Ambulance Services, Halton
Regional Police Service and Ontario Provincial Police;
xvii. Throughout the duration of construction, should any adverse environmental
impact to the Lands be discovered or occur the Owner agrees to inform the
City of Burlington/ Regional Municipality of Halton/ Ministry of the
Environment, Conservation and Parks and immediately retain a qualified
environmental consultant to investigate, report and remediate, as may be
required, all in compliance with Ontario Regulation 153/04, as amended;
xviii. Disposal of excavated material from the Lands will comply with a
preapproved haulage route to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering
Services. The haulage route will be monitored twice daily (at noon and end
of workday) to ensure the route is clean. Should unforeseen problems arise,
remedial action will be taken to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering
Services;
xix. Upon completion of construction, all municipal boulevards will be sodded at
the expense of the Owner with minimum 150 mm of topsoil and No. 1
Nursery Sod. Prior to sodding on the Lands and/ or municipal boulevards,
Engineering Services staff will be called for inspection.
MAINTENANCE
The Owner agrees that:
i. All weeping tiles shall be pumped as per the City’s stormwater management
policy. Sump pumps shall discharge onto permeable areas via concrete
splash pads or extensions and not onto walkways, driveways, parking lots,
etc. Sump pumps which cannot discharge onto permeable areas may connect
to the storm sewers on the Lands with written approval from the Director of
Engineering Services;
ii. All downspouts shall discharge onto permeable areas via concrete splash
pads or downspout extensions and not onto walkways, driveways, parking
lots, etc.. All downspouts which cannot discharge onto permeable areas shall
be connected to the storm sewers on the Lands;
iii. The Owner shall re-establish grass or other vegetation on all disturbed or
graded areas on the Lands as quickly as possible after a disturbance;
iv. Stormwater management controls are not to be removed or altered without
prior approval from the City of Burlington. The Owner further acknowledges
120
that removal or alteration of stormwater management controls, without
the prior written authorization of the Director of Engineering Services,
may result in flooding within the Owner’s building and/ or on the Lands as
well as lands external to the Owner’s;
v. Should changes to the approved lighting be necessary details will be
provided for approval to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering
Services;
vi. Should the approved lighting be identified as a problem by the Director of
Engineering Services on adjacent properties or right-of-ways, the Owner
will implement appropriate remedial measures to the satisfaction of the
Director of Engineering Services.
PERFORMANCE
i. The Owner will be required to deposit with the City securities satisfactory to the
Director of Engineering Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Performance
Guarantee") in an amount to be determined for:
i) completion of the Site Works in conformity with the provisions of this
Agreement; and
ii) performance and satisfaction of any other provision of this Agreement.
ii. The Owner agrees that, prior to the release of the required securities held by the
City, the Site Works and all other things are to be completed and/ or provided by
the Owner and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering Services;
iii. The Performance Guarantee provided shall be released by the City when the Site
Works set out in the Plans and all other acts, matters or things required to be done
under the provisions of the agreement are finally completed by the Owner and
approved by the Director of Engineering Services.
iv. In the event that the Owner:
i) fails to complete, repair or maintain the Site Works to the satisfaction of the
City; or
ii) fails to do any other act, matter or thing required to be done, under the
provisions of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City;
the City may, at its sole discretion, cause a notice in writing to be served on the
Owner specifying such default and requiring that same be remedied forthwith and
if no action satisfactory to the City to remedy such default is taken by the Owner
within seven (7) days after the service of such notice, the City has and is hereby
given right to do and perform any and all matters and things that may be in default
as stated in the notice at the expense of the Owner and for such purposes, if
necessary, to purchase such materials and to purchase or hire such tools or
machinery and to employ such contractors or work persons as the City considers
necessary to remedy the default.
v. Notwithstanding the notice provisions in Subsection iii., where, in the opinion of the
City, any damage to persons or property has been, might be or could be caused
directly or indirectly by or by reason of any default of the Owner, the City has and is
121
hereby given the right to remedy such default at the expense of the Owner
without notice to the Owner.
vi. The costs of all work done by the City shall be determined by the City, which
determination of such costs shall be final and shall include a management
fee equal to 20% of the cost of labour, materials and equipment for such work,
and all such costs shall forthwith be payable by the Owner to the City.
vii. In the event that the Owner fails to make, on demand in writing by the City,
any payment required to be made under the provisions of this Agreement within
seven
(7) days after the service of notice on the Owner demanding such payment, the
City may, at any time thereafter authorize the use of the Performance Guarantee
provided by the Owner to pay any monies owed by the Owner to the City or the
City may collect any such outstanding amounts in like manner as municipal
taxes, pursuant to Section 446 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, as
amended.
viii. Where the City supplies any necessary materials or carries out any work, it shall
be deemed to have been undertaken and completed by the City as an agent
of the Owner and shall not be deemed to be an acceptance of any of the Site
Works by the City nor an assumption by the City of any liability in connection
therewith, nor a release or discharge of the Owner from any obligation.
ix. The City through its employees, contractors or agents may, at any time and
from time to time, enter the Lands and buildings thereon to inspect, maintain,
repair or complete any of the Site Works.
RELEASE AND INDEMNITY
i. No work, act, matter or thing done or omitted to be done by the City, its officers,
employees or agents or City Council, pursuant to or in connection with the
property development, shall give rise to any action, claim, counter-claim or
demand by the Owner, or the Owner's heirs, executors, administrators,
successors or assigns, for damages or compensation of any kind because of
such work, act, matter or thing done or omitted to be done by the City, its
officers, employees or agents or City Council, pursuant to or in connection with
this Agreement.
ii. The Owner agrees to indemnify and forever save harmless the City, its officers
employees, and agents and City Council, from any claim, suit, demand, action,
costs or causes of action against the City by any other party, arising out of or in
connection the property development or any work, act, matter or thing done or
omitted to be done by the City, its officers, employees or agents or City Council
pursuant to or in connection with the property development.
122
- Parkland dedication will be a requirement for the severance application B011/2022, the amount to be determined by the manager of realty services based
on the current park dedication policy at the time prior to final consent.
Region:
- The property owner must complete and submit the Environmental Site Screening
Questionnaire (ESSQ).
- The property owner must demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Halton's Legislative
and Planning Services Department, Development Project Manager, that the
existing water and wastewater (sanitary) services to the severed lots and the
retained lot, do not cross the proposed lot lines. Any services that are found to
cross the proposed lot lines must be relocated at the owner's expense prior to
final approval.
- Should the property owner not be able to demonstrate independent servicing of
the two newly created individual lots as per Region’s guidelines, then the owner
will be required to extend the Region’s wastewater main (sanitary sewer) under
Halton Region’s Servicing Agreement process.