Simmons v Markham (City), 2025 CanLII 106931

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 14, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001239

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

Appellant: Darryl Simmons

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit an addition containing two suites

Reference Number: A/106/23

Property Address: 86 John Street

Municipality/UT: Markham/York

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001239

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001239

OLT Case Name: Simmons v Markham (City)

Heard: March 14, 17, 18 and 19 2025 by Video Hearing and Closing Submissions on April 15, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Darryl Simmons (“Appellant”)

Jeffery Streisfield

Elena Cesaroni (“Cesaroni”)

Adrian Frank

City of Markham (“City”)

Maggie Cheung-Madar

DECISION DELIVERED BY a. sauve AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Hearing concerns a Minor Variance application (“Application”) that was denied by the City’s Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) on November 20, 2024. A Planning Report (“Report”) had been created that recommended approval of the proposed minor variances with recommended conditions (see Appendix A attached). The proposed minor variances to Zoning By-law No. 2237 (“ZBL”) are:

(a) A building depth 30.91 metres (“m”), whereas the ZBL permits a maximum building depth of 16. 8 m;

(b) A rear yard setback of 16. 17 feet (“ft”), whereas the ZBL requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30 ft; and

(c) A maximum floor area ratio of 43.75 percent (“%”), whereas the ZBL permits a maximum floor area ratio of 33%.

2However, at the commencement of the Hearing, the Tribunal was informed that the Parties agreed that only variances (a) and (b) were now to be adjudicated. The Tribunal was informed that variance (c) was unnecessary for the proposed development. The Tribunal agrees.

3It should be noted that the City attended the Hearing but did not participate.

4The Appellant is proposing to construct a rear addition to the existing dwelling at 86 John Street (“subject property”), containing amenity space, two residential units, and a two-car garage. An enclosed one-storey link (“link”) is proposed to connect the addition with the north elevation of the existing dwelling. This link will provide a weather protected route between the main dwelling and the proposed addition while maintaining the legibility of both volumes as distinct elements. The existing garage is proposed to be removed to accommodate the addition. One of the proposed units will be a barrier free ground level garden suite.

5The subject property is located on the north side of John Street between Sumner Lane, to the west, and Leahill Drive, to the east. It is approximately 1,600 square metres. The subject property has a width of approximately 31 m (102 ft) and a depth of approximately 49 m (161 ft), as measured from the midpoint of the front lot line.

6The neighbouring existing dwelling on 4 Leahill Drive is situated perpendicular to those along John Street, with an east-west rather than north-south orientation. Its side, rather than rear yard, abuts the subject property.

7On the subject property is an existing one-and-a half storey dwelling and detached garage, which were both constructed in 1914. The subject property is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (“Heritage Act”) as part of the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District (“THCD”), a well-established residential neighbourhood comprised of a mix of one- and two-storey detached dwellings, generally situated on generously sized lots. All properties contiguous with the subject property are also contained within the THCD. Mature vegetation exists on and adjacent to the subject property, providing visual screening between neighbouring dwellings.

8The detached garage structure in the rear yard is a designated heritage resource and will be demolished to make way for the proposed addition.

9The THCD categorizes the subject property as ‘Class A – Buildings of Major Importance to the District’. Such buildings and properties are described as possessing cultural heritage value that maintains the heritage character of the THCD.

10The City Official Plan (“OP”) designates the subject property as ‘Residential – Low Rise’, which permits single detached dwellings. Section 8.2.3.5 of the OP contains infill development criteria for properties designated ‘Residential – Low Rise’.

11The subject property is currently zoned ‘Second Density Single Family Residential (R2)’ under the ZBL. The proposed use (i.e. a primary residential dwelling in a single family detached home, along with two additional residential dwelling units) is permitted as-of-right.

PARTICIPANTS

12The following were granted Participant status in a Decision dated February 27, 2025:

• Barbara Belsito;

• Diane Berwick;

• Anthony Farr;

• Joan Honsberger;

• Richard Kercz;

• Cintia Nardi and Rodolfo Mure;

• Barry Nelson;

• Audrey Simpson (c/o Napier Simpson); and

• Lister and Susan Smith.

LEGISLATIVE TEST

13An appeal pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) is a hearing de novo. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four tests, as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, have been met, namely that the requested variances:

a) Maintain the general intent and purpose of the official plan;

b) Maintain the general intent and purpose of the zoning by-law;

c) Are minor in nature; and

d) Are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building, or structure.

14In addition, s. 3(5) of the Act requires the Tribunal's decision to be consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”). The Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as for the decision of the relevant committee and the information considered while making its decision, as set out in s. 2.1(1) of the Act.

15This is an application for variances under s. 45 of the Act, not a Heritage Act matter, but rather a planning matter in the context of a heritage conservation district.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

16The Tribunal heard from four witnesses put forward by the Appellant:

1. Darryl Simmons – Appellant;

2. Scott Rushlow – Tribunal found Mr. Rushlow able to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Heritage Design;

3. Regan Hutcheson – Appeared under summons. Mr. Hutcheson is employed by the City and authored the Report recommending approval of the Application. The Tribunal found Mr. Hutcheson able to provide expert opinion evidence in the fields of Land Use Planning and Heritage Planning; and

4. Adrian Litavski – Tribunal found Mr. Litavski able to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning.

17The Tribunal heard from five witnesses put forward by Cesaroni:

1. Francis Lapointe – Tribunal found Mr. Lapointe able to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Heritage Architecture;

2. Martin Rendl – Tribunal found Mr. Rendl able to provide expert opinion evidence in the field of Land Use Planning; and

3. James Makaruk, Valerie Burke, and Evelin Wilson – Three members of the community put forward to help inform the Tribunal of the community impact the proposal may create. The Appellant objected to these witnesses as their evidence would properly be in a participant statement, however, the Tribunal allowed the witnesses but imposed strict time limits.

18For the reasons stated below, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses. In short, the evidence of Cesaroni’s witnesses were focused on alternative designs that wouldn’t necessitate the need for variances, which is not a part of the legislative test, and on the proposal not fitting in with general characteristics of the community, yet the photographs and maps do not show a homogenous neighbourhood or one where this proposal would “stick out”.

EVIDENCE OF APPELLANT

19The first witness for the Appellant was Mr. Simmons. Mr. Simmons testified that the proposal will support multi-generational living and intergenerational living. He informed the Tribunal that the proposal will provide a safe and accessible future home for his mother-in-law, who is 90 years old, and also will provide another room for their adult son, who moved back home. The long-term goal of the proposal, Mr. Simmons testified, was to create an accessible home for he and his wife in the future when they will need a more accessible home.

20Mr. Rushlow was next to provide evidence to the Tribunal. Mr. Rushlow testified that he designs plans predominately for heritage projects, including the proposed site plan found at Appendix B to this Decision. He further stated that he worked with the Appellant to help design the proposal in such a way that maximized space and respected the heritage designation of the area.

21Mr. Rushlow testified that the current coach house is beyond restoration. He stated that he designed the addition using a number of factors; project goals of the owner, applicable by laws, Thornhill Markham Heritage Conservation District Plan (“TMHCDP”) policies and goals and from discussions with Heritage Markham. Mr. Rushlow testified that Heritage Markham Committee (“Heritage Markham”) was supportive of the current Application.

22The design that Mr. Rushlow created includes a link between the main house and the proposed accessory structure. He explained that the small point of contact between the main house, which is a heritage building, and the new structure, is preferred for this project as it is reversible if a future owner may want and has little contact with the main house, which is to be preserved. Mr. Rushlow opined that this proposal fits into the neighbourhood in a scale appropriate way.

23The Tribunal then heard from Mr. Hutcheson, who appeared under summons. Mr. Hutcheson is employed by the City’s Planning Department as the Manager of Heritage Planning. His responsibilities include bringing development applications to Heritage Markham and recording their views, recommendations, and advice before bringing an application to the advisory committee.

24Mr. Hutcheson testified that the Application before the Tribunal has undergone several small changes over time but is essentially the same. Mr. Hutcheson also testified that he authored the Heritage Markham Report not objecting to the proposal. He opined that this proposed project would have no negative impacts to the neighbouring properties and that the addition is designed to look smaller from the street than the main residence, which will protect the heritage integrity of the main residence.

25When asked if the proposed design conforms with the diagrams found in the Heritage Guidelines (“Guidelines”) that speak to how additions to heritage features are to be designed, Mr. Hutcheson testified that the current design is not like the ones in the Guidelines, but that does not matter because the diagrams are trying to illustrate how new developments should be situated. He testified that the link between the heritage building and the new addition is positive and supports the design.

26Mr. Hutcheson opined that the proposed rear yard setback is supportable as it ensures that the addition does not visually compete with the diminutive character of the existing dwelling on the subject property, as seen from John Street, and that were the addition to be sited closer to the existing dwelling that it would have an adverse visual impact on the ‘Class A’–rated heritage resource (the main dwelling), owing to its height, thereby running counter to policy direction and guidance in the THCD Plan. He also opined that the proposal, with the conditions found in Appendix A of this Decision, meet the required legislative tests for a minor variance.

27Mr. Hutcheson testified that the minor changes the Application has undergone over time, including the elimination of the third variance that was deemed no longer necessary for adjudication, does not alter his opinion that the Application is an appropriate development.

28The Tribunal then heard from Mr. Litavski, who began by agreeing with the evidence of Mr. Hutcheson.

29Mr. Latavski stressed to the Tribunal that the minutes of the April 10, 2024 meeting of the Heritage Markham endorsed the proposal and adopted the following recommendation of Heritage Markham staff:

THAT Heritage Markham has no objection from a heritage perspective to the revised proposal for 86 John Street including the requested variance to permit:

• a building depth of 31.48 metres; whereas the By-law allows a maximum building depth of 16.8 metres;

• a rear yard setback of 14.85 feet; whereas the By-law requires a minimum rear yard setback of 30 feet;

• a floor area ratio of 44.73%; whereas the By-law allows for a maximum floor area ratio of 33%

AND THAT the written submission from Francis Lapointe be received.

AND THAT the deputations from Darryl Simmons, Francis Lapointe, Valerie Burke, Evelin Ellison, and Scott Rushlow be received.

AND FURTHER THAT future review of a Major Heritage Permit application, and any other application required to enable the proposed development including a demolition permit application for the garage, be delegated to Heritage Section staff should the design be substantially in accordance with the drawings as appended to this memo.

30When addressing whether the proposed development and the proposed variances have appropriate and sufficient regard for matters of provincial interest, Mr. Litavski testified that the Application has been carefully and purposefully designed, in close consultation with City and Heritage Markham staff to preserve the existing heritage home, fit in with, and be compatible with, the character of the surrounding THCD, and limit/mitigate potential adverse impacts on neighbouring properties. Mr. Litavski opined that these steps taken by the Appellant satisfy s. 2(d) the Act by having regard to the conservation and management of significant architectural, cultural, historical, and archaeological or scientific interest.

31Per s. 3 of the Act, Mr. Litavski testified all planning related decisions are to be consistent with the policies of the PPS. He continued by stating that one key goal of the PPS is to encourage the provision of new housing through all types of intensification, including the introduction of new housing options within existing neighbourhoods, including additional residential units like those proposal on the subject property.

32Mr. Litavski then brought the Tribunal to his analysis concerning whether the proposed variances meet the statutory test contained in s. 45 of the Act.

33He opined that that the proposal not only meets the general intent and purpose of the OP, but that it complies and works to implement its policies and objectives.

34Mr. Litavski testified that the subject property is identified as ‘Neighbourhood Area’ by Map 1: Markham Structure in the OP, are designated ‘Low Rise Residential’ by Map 3: Land Use, they are identified as being with a ‘Heritage Centre’ by Map 2: Centres And Corridors And Transit Network, and fall within the THCD as shown on Map 13: Heritage Conservation Districts. They also fall within the ‘Thornhill Area & Site-Specific Policy’ (9.18), as shown on Map 15: Area And Site Specific Policies, he added.

35Mr. Litavski opined that proposal before the Tribunal meets all the relevant development criteria for infill development set out in Section 8.2.3.5 of the OP.

36Specifically, he opined that:

• The proposed heights, massing, and scale of the home, with the addition, is appropriate for the subject property and generally consistent with that permitted by the zoning for adjacent properties and properties on the same street. The variance for density is no longer required, but even so, the addition has been massed and designed to take advantage of the lot’s unusual size to mitigate impacts upon adjacent properties;

• Additional landscaping and trees are proposed, including an enhanced privacy fence and hedge along the rear lot line; and

• Impacts (shadow, overlook, privacy, etc.) from the addition upon adjacent properties will be marginal.

37Mr. Litavski brought the Tribunal to a number of sections in the OP, including those promoting a range of housing options and sensitive intensification. He highlighted the following sections:

• Section 4.1.1.2 states it is the policy of City Council “To diversify Markham’s housing stock to provide for a broader variety of housing forms and sizes to respond to changes in household composition over time…”;

• Section 4.1.2.2 states it is the policy of City Council “To encourage development of a full range of unit types and unit sizes to respond to changes in household composition over time”;

• Section 4.1.2.3 states it is the policy of City Council “To encourage the maintenance and replenishment of the existing housing stock and apply appropriate property standards to achieve safety and maintenance of all properties”; and

• Section 4.1.2.6 states it is the policy of City Council “To support further diversification of the housing stock tenure by: […] (b) providing for the establishment of secondary suites within existing and new permitted dwelling types […] subject to appropriate zoning, development criteria and standards”.

38Mr. Litavski also highlighted Section 9.18.13.3 of the OP, which states: “All new development and redevelopment including parks and plazas in the Thornhill Heritage Centre lands shall: […] conform to the Thornhill Heritage Conservation District Plan which shall take precedence over any other policies of this Plan”.

39He opined that the Application not only meets the general intent and purpose of the OP, but that it complies and works to implement its policies and objectives.

40Mr. Litavski then brought the Tribunal to his ZBL analysis. The subject property is zoned ‘Second Density Single Family Residential (R2)’ in the ZBL, and the proposed use, a primary residential dwelling in a single family detached home, along with two additional residential dwelling units, which is permitted as-of-right he testified.

41He informed the Tribunal that the variances are driven by the design decision to craft the addition to appear very similar to a separate “coach house” while still being clearly connected to and functioning as one with the original heritage home.

42Mr. Litavski testified that the general intent and purpose of the building depth provision is to ensure that dwellings do not inappropriately protrude into the rear yard in a way that could “loom over” abutting homes and that this is mainly a concern for properties on either side of the subject property where the side yard condition typically places a building closer to a neighbouring rear yard. The neighbour to the rear of the subject property will still be 4.92 m away from their rear yard. He opined that there will be no inappropriate/adverse impact resulting from the additional building length on any adjoining property.

43He opined that the general intent and purpose of the rear yard setback is to ensure an adequate rear yard amenity space for the subject property and to limit impacts upon neighbouring yards. He also noted that there is an existing legally non-conforming garage that is currently set back 24’9 ¾ ft from the rear lot line.

44Mr. Litavski testified that the proposed addition, and the consequent rear yard variance, maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL as there will be no inappropriate and/or adverse impact upon neighbouring properties, and the addition has been carefully designed to mitigate any such impact upon the neighbouring property at 4 Leahill Drive. He also added that the proposal includes new fencing and additional plantings along the rear property line, further preventing any adverse impact.

45The Application is appropriate for the development or use of the lands because, as Mr. Litavski opined, the proposal represents the kind of gentle intensification encouraged by the Province of Ontario (“Province”) through a reasonable and well-designed addition to an existing heritage home. He also opined that the recent amendments to O. Reg. 122/19, effected by O. Reg. 462/24, clearly demonstrated how the Province believes new secondary dwellings, like those proposed here, are both important and in the public interest.

46While the variances to the ZBL being requested may not be insignificant, Mr. Litavski testified that they are still minor as what is considered minor is not a strictly numerical exercise.

47Mr. Litavski testified that both the building length and rear yard setback variances are triggered by the unique design of the addition, which is intended to preserve and complement the integrity of the heritage home. Furthermore, he stated that, rather than construct a large addition to the home which could substantially impact its heritage value, this design allows it to function as a single home (with additional residential suites), while preserving the original heritage home.

48Mr. Litavski also opined that, in terms of impact, the proposal will not adversely affect neighbouring properties because:

• The addition has been re-sized and setback further than originally proposed from the properties to the north and east;

• The design has also carefully located windows within the addition to significantly reduce the possibility of overlook into neighbouring properties;

• Shadow impacts will be negligible; and

• New fencing and additional landscaping are proposed along the north property line to screen the addition, further mitigating any potential overlook and shadow impacts.

49Mr. Litavski ended his evidence by addressing how alternative designs, that may demonstrate how an addition may not require minor variances, are irrelevant to the Tribunal’s decision. He testified that any discussion of an alternative design that is intended to show that something can be achieved without a variance is fundamentally an argument about need and need is not a test under s. 45(1) of the Act. Rather, he opined, a landowner is entitled to the relief sought if they can demonstrate the general intent and purpose of an official plan and zoning by-law are met, that the relief is appropriate for the development or use of the land, and that the relief requested is minor. He concluded that nowhere is a landowner required to demonstrate they need to build in the way proposed, or that there is no other alternative.

EVIDENCE OF CESARONI

50The Tribunal then heard from the witnesses put forward by Cesaroni.

51The Tribunal first heard from the three lay witnesses; James Makaruk, Valerie Burke, and Evelin Wilson. The Tribunal did not find their evidence helpful as their main point was that they would be able to see the proposed development from their properties. The arguments that they raised were addressed satisfactorily by the Appellant’s witnesses.

52The Tribunal then heard from Mr. Lapointe, who recommends refusal of this Application because the Appellant had not provided any evidence that the requirements of the ZBL cannot be met and because alternate schematic designs show that the Appellant’s requirements can be achieved, while reducing or eliminating the needs for minor variances, as well as reducing the scale and massing of the proposed development. The alternative schematic designs were created by Mr. Lapointe without consultation with the Appellant.

53Mr. Lapointe also discussed potential impacts such as shading and privacy. He testified that the proposed development will be highly visible from Leahill Drive, particularly in the gap between the small garage at 90 John Street and the historically significant John Edey House. Also, he continued, the proposed development will be clearly visible from the windows and rear deck of 4 Leahill Drive, where it will cast shadows across the back of the property in the afternoon and evening, as the proposed structure is located directly to the south.

54Mr. Lapointe opined that the proposed development appears to contradict the intent of provincial legislation on ‘Additional Residential Units’ in established neighbourhoods. These regulations, he argued, explicitly allow only one residential unit in an ancillary building while permitting up to three within the primary building mass. Mr. Lapointe conceded that the project’s link technically circumvents zoning regulations, it undermines the spirit of the Act and Bill 23, More Homes Built Faster Act.

55Mr. Lapointe opined that allowing this link addition to exceed the ZBL regulations for rear yard and building depth would set a dangerous precedent that may pave the way for other property owners to construct a variety of artificially attached ‘additions’ in the regulated rear yards of residential lots, undermining the intent of zoning regulations and the heritage conservation objectives of the THCD.

56Lastly, the Tribunal heard from Mr. Rendl.

57Mr. Rendl testified that the Application does not have regard for matters of provincial interest because it does not have appropriate regard for the conservation of features of significant architectural, cultural, and historical interest because it requires the demolition of the existing detached garage, an identified heritage resource, and the built form of the proposed addition and its location on the subject property have insufficient regard for the Guidelines of the THCD and the direction found in the land use and heritage policies of the OP.

58Concerning the PPS, Mr. Rendl testified that he agreed that the Application is consistent with the PPS’s housing policies.

59However, he directed the Tribunal to Policy 4.6.1, which states “Planning authorities shall not permit development and site alteration on adjacent lands to protected heritage property unless the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.”

60Mr. Rendl testified that, as there are heritage properties situated near the subject property, he was not aware of any analysis on how this proposed development will affect those properties.

61Mr. Rendl testified that the Application does not meet the general intent and purpose of the ‘Residential Low-Rise’ policies of the OP because the location, massing, and scale of the proposal does not respect or reflect the existing pattern and character of adjacent development or the physical character this established neighbourhood and the THCD. The Tribunal was shown various photographs and maps of the area which tend to show that the existing patterns and character of the adjacent area is not homogenous and has various building sizes on the lots.

62During cross-examination Mr. Rendl testified that he is not a Heritage Planner and defers to Mr. Lapointe on heritage matters.

63Mr. Rendl testified that the proposed development does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL. He opined that the proposed increased building depth and reduced rear yard setback, taken together, results in a rear yard that is inconsistent with the prevailing pattern of generous open space found in the rear yards of lots in Thornhill, and particularly present on other heritage properties.

64Mr. Rendl testified that the proposed variances are not appropriate development of the land or building as the proposal conflicts with the policies and guidelines in the TMHCDP.

65Section 9.2.5.1 of the TMHCDP states an addition should be located at the rear or an inconspicuous side of a historic building and be “limited in size and scale in relationship to the historic building”. Mr. Rendl testified that, while the addition is located at the rear of the existing house, the proposed floor area is approximately 162% more than the floor area of the existing house. However, the Tribunal does not agree that just because the floor area is 162% larger that there is a conflict.

66Section 9.2.5.2 of the TMHCDP states an “attached addition should in no way dominate the street presence of the heritage building nor detract from any of its important heritage features”. Mr. Rendl went on to articulate how the size of the proposed development will be much larger than the existing main house. However, the Tribunal finds that the proposed development will mostly be unseen from the street and no evidence was proffered to support the visual put forth by the witness.

67Mr. Rendl, in his evidence, stated that his planning opinion is informed by the alternative option prepared by Mr. Lapointe. Alternative designs are usually unhelpful as an application should be tested on its own merits. The mere existence of an alternative compliant proposal is not sufficient to refuse an application.

68Mr. Rendl testified that the proposed development is inconsistent with many of the policies and design guidelines that are intended to ensure new development in established and heritage neighbourhoods, like Thornhill, are contextually appropriate and respectful of an area’s existing physical and heritage character, and therefore, not minor in nature. Mr. Rendl also stated that the development was not minor because there is a better, alternative design.

PARTICPANT STATEMENTS

69Of the nine Participant Statements that have been received, two were supportive of the proposed development and seven requested the Tribunal to refuse the appeal.

70The two Participant Statements that are supportive believe that this proposal will be good for the neighbourhood as it has been designed with the Guidelines in mind, respects the heritage building on the subject property, and they note that the addition will be discrete.

71The Participants that are unsupportive of the Application believe that the building will be too large for the subject property, will look out of place, and could result in drainage issues, among other issues. The Tribunal believes that these issues have been addressed by the Appellant and the proposed addition has been designed in such a way to alleviate these concerns.

DECISION

72The appeal is allowed. The Tribunal finds that the requested variances are desirable and have regard for matters of provincial interest pursuant to the Act and are consistent with the PPS and the OP and have appropriate regard for the tests pursuant to s. 45 (1) of the Act. The witnesses put forward by Cesaroni were not able to provide evidence to support their arguments. The Tribunal does not agree that the evidence supports the assertions or Mr. Lapointe and Mr. Rendl.

73The Tribunal found that the evidence of the Appellant’s witnesses were consistent, logic driven, and thorough. The proposal meets the legislative tests and represents good planning and the requested variances are authorized.

ORDER

74THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed and the variances to Zoning By-law No. 2237 are authorized, subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A to this Order.

“A. Sauve”

A. SAUVE

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

CONDITIONS

1. The variances apply only to the proposed development for as long as it

remains.

2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial

conformity with the plan(s) appended to the Staff Report dated November

15th as Appendix ‘B’, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written

confirmation from the Supervisor of the Committee of Adjustment or

designate that this condition has been fulfilled to his or her satisfaction.

3. Submission of a Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan, prepared by a

qualified arborist in accordance with the City's Trees for Tomorrow

Streetscape Manual, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban

Design, or their designate, through the future Major Heritage Permit

Approval process.

4. That tree replacements be provided and/or tree replacement fees be paid to

the City where required, in accordance with the City's Trees for Tomorrow

Streetscape Manual and Accepted Tree Assessment and Preservation Plan,

through the future Major Heritage Permit Approval process.

5. That prior to the commencement of construction, demolition and/or issuance

of building permit, tree protection be erected and maintained around all trees

on site, including City of Markham street trees, in accordance with the City’s

Trees for Tomorrow Streetscape Manual, Accepted Tree Assessment and

Preservation Plan, and conditions of the Major Heritage Permit, to be

inspected by City staff to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and

Urban Design, or their designate.

6. That vegetative screening be planted adjacent to the north elevation of the

addition to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design, or

their designate, through the Major Heritage Permit Approval process.

7. That a 6ft privacy fence be erected along the rear property line to the

satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Urban Design, or their designate,

through the Major Heritage Permit Approval process.

APPENDIX B