Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 20, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000944

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. Subject: Consent Description: Consent and MV to create three new residential lots Reference Number: B-32/24 Property Address: 10 Orchard Crescent Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000944 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000944 OLT Case Name: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. Subject: Consent Description: Consent and MV to create three new residential lots Reference Number: B-33/24 Property Address: 10 Orchard Crescent Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000945 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000944 OLT Case Name: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. v. Guelph (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 53(19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. Subject: Consent Description: Consent and MV to create three new residential lots Reference Number: B-34/24 Property Address: 10 Orchard Crescent Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000946 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000944 OLT Case Name: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. v. Guelph (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: Consent and MV to create three new residential lots Reference Number: A-40/24 Property Address: 10 Orchard Crescent Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000947 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000944 OLT Case Name: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. v. Guelph (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: Consent and MV to create three new residential lots Reference Number: A-41/24 Property Address: 10 Orchard Crescent Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-24-00048 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000944 OLT Case Name: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. v. Guelph (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: Consent and MV to create three new residential lots Reference Number: A-42/24 Property Address: 10 Orchard Crescent Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-24-00049 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000944 OLT Case Name: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. v. Guelph (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: Consent and MV to create three new residential lots Reference Number: A-43/24 Property Address: 10 Orchard Crescent Municipality/UT: Guelph/Wellington OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000940 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000944 OLT Case Name: 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. v. Guelph (City)

Heard: December 11, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
10 Orchard Crescent Inc.	Kevin Thompson
Orchard-Callander Neighbourhood Association	Meredith Baker Chris Manning
City of Guelph	in absentia

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY JACKIE DENYES AND MICHAEL MENEZES ON DECEMBER 11, 2024, AND FINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Settlement Hearing on an appeal filed by 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. (“Appellant”) pursuant to subsections 53(19) and 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P.13 as amended (“Act”) concerning the refusal by the Committee of Adjustment (“CoA”) for the City of Guelph (“City”) respecting an application for Consent to create three new residential lots with one retained parcel in order to construct two new semi-detached dwellings, resulting in a total of four lots on the property municipally known as 10 Orchard Crescent in the City of Guelph (“Subject Property”).

2On March 28, 2024, the Tribunal approved the RL.1 zone permitted uses ascribed to the Subject Property pursuant to a partial approval order regarding By-law (2023)-20790. However, certain regulations associated with the RL.1 zone remain under appeal and are not yet in effect, thereby necessitating the Minor Variances.

3The CoA refused the Severance and Minor Variance applications stating that the proposed severance(s) are not compatible with the neighbourhood due to concerns regarding, parking, traffic, lack of sidewalks, erosion and stormwater management. With regard to the Minor Variances, the CoA was also of the opinion the applications do not meet the four tests set out in subsection 45(1) of the Act, and are not desirable for the appropriate development of the lands, due to the same above-noted concerns.

4Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the City advised the Tribunal that it would not be participating in the hearing of this matter and leaves the decision ultimately to the Tribunal to decide based on the City’s Planning Report authored by Allison A. Thornton, that recommended approval with conditions to the CoA on behalf of the City.

5Following submission of the Appeals, the Appellant and Orchard-Callander Neighbourhood Association (“OCNA”) have worked collaboratively and jointly agreed to a proposed resolution of the matter, as set out in a fully executed Minutes of Settlement (“MoS”).

MINOR VARIANCES REQUESTED

6The Parties seek authorization of the following variances to the City of Guelph Zoning By-law (“GZBL”):

1. Maximum Attached Garage Width: To permit a maximum garage width of 4.5 metres for the proposed semi-detached dwellings, whereas Table 5.9, Row 1 requires a maximum attached garage width for a semi-detached dwelling in a RL.1 Zone to be 50 percent of the lot frontage or 5 metres, whichever is less;

2. Maximum Residential Driveway: To permit a maximum driveway width of 5 metres for the proposed semi-detached dwelling, whereas Table 5.10, Row 1 requires a maximum residential driveway width for a semi-detached dwelling in a RL.1 Zone to be 60 percent of the lot frontage or 5 metres, whichever is less;

3. Attached Garage Projection: To permit the proposed attached garage to project a maximum of 2 metres beyond the main front wall of the first storey containing habitable floor space oriented towards the front lot line abutting a street line, as a roofed porch is proposed, whereas Section 5.11.2(a) requires that within residential zones, attached garages shall not project beyond the main front wall of the first storey containing habitable floor space oriented towards the front lot line or exterior side lot line abutting a street line, and where a roofed porch is provided, the attached garage may be located ahead of the main front wall, to a maximum projection of 2 metres;

4. Minimum Floor Area of attached garage for Semi-detached Dwellings: To permit a minimum floor area of 20 square metres for the proposed attached garage, whereas Table 5.2 Additional Regulation 1 requires an attached garage for semi-detached dwellings shall have a minimum floor area of 20 square metres; and,

5. Minimum Parking Spaces per Semi-detached Dwellings: To permit a minimum of one parking space per semi-detached dwelling unit, whereas Table 5.3, Row 15 requires a minimum of one parking space per semi-detached dwelling unit.

CONSENT REQUESTED

7The Parties seek Provisional Consent to sever the Subject Property to create three new parcels for urban residential purposes with one retained parcel resulting in two new semi-detached dwellings, with four lots total on the Subject Property as follows and as further illustrated in the Planning Sketch below.

a. B-32/24 – Proposed Lands to be severed 1: Severance of a parcel of land with frontage along Orchard Crescent of 8.0 metres, a depth of 45.7 metres, and an area of 366 square metres.

b. B-33/24 – Proposed Lands to be severed 2: Severance of a parcel of land with frontage along Orchard Crescent of 7.5 metres, a depth of 45.7 metres, and an area of 342 square metres.

c. B-34/24 – Proposed Lands to be severed 3: Severance of a parcel of land with frontage along Orchard Crescent of 7.5 metres, a depth of 45.7 metres, and an area of 342 square metres.

d. The retained parcel will have frontage along Orchard Street of 7.5 metres, a depth of 45.7 metres, and an area of 342 square metres.

REQUESTS FOR PARTY AND PARTICIPANT STATUS

8In advance of the hearing, the Tribunal Panel received a written Party Status Request from Orchard-Callander Neighbourhood Association (“OCNA”). Through its Chair, Warren Libby, OCNA outlined the distinct character of Orchard Crescent and the surrounding neighbourhood, and indicated that the proposed development in terms of building form, scale, setbacks and massing is not compatible with the neighbourhood. OCNA also highlighted concerns with respect to stormwater management, drainage, erosion, grading, property damages, privacy and overlook as well as pedestrian safety.

9The Tribunal Panel further received a Participant Status Request from resident David Gray outlining that he was in agreement with the refusal decision by the CoA and citing safety concerns, street parking and neighbourhood compatibility.

10Also applying for Participant Status, Mary Ann Groot, who lives at the bottom of Orchard Crescent and is opposed to the applications on the basis of concerns for street safety, pedestrian traffic, lack of sidewalks and the level of intensification being proposed.

11Given that the Tribunal Panel was aware in advance of a proposed settlement in this matter that would resolve the concerns that are above noted, the Tribunal conferred Party Status to OCNA and Participant Status to David Gray and Mary Ann Groot.

HEARING

12The Tribunal Panel received and marked seven Exhibits as follows:

1. Affidavit of Service and Notice of Hearing dated November 14, 2024;

2. (a) Party status request from OCNA; (b) Participant status requests from David Gray, and Mary Ann Groot;

3. Certificate of Incorporation signed by OCNA;

4. Fully executed MoS dated December 9, 2024, with Recitals and Attachments;

5. Witness Statement and Expert Report of Chris Corosky, RPP;

6. Visual Evidence Book; and

7. Original and proposed modified Severance Sketch.

13Chris Corosky, a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) was qualified as an expert witness in the field of Land Use Planning. He provided an extensive Application Summary and planning analysis (Exhibit 5) in support of the modified proposal and applications. He opined to the differences between the original severance sketch before the CoA and the modified severance sketch included slight changes to the lot frontages and lot areas as well as increased driveway widths that would provide additional parking. It was Mr. Corosky’s opinion that the modified proposal is a good candidate for an intensification proposal, aligns with provincial and city objectives, is in the public interest and represents good planning.

14Regarding the area neighbourhood and street in the modified proposal plan, Mr. Corosky summarized that in all respects, the lot area, lot width, lot depth regulations are all in compliance with the only true variance, that being the driveway width, but that the Appellants still need the four administrative variances to bring the zoning on this property in line with the regulations in the Comprehensive Zoning By-law that would be applicable but are not because those subsections remain under Appeal.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

15When considering this Appeal, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest as set out in section 2 of the Act, the proposal must be consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2024 (“PPS”) and conform to the Official Plan(s) in effect. Also, in consideration of the statutory requirements, the Tribunal must be satisfied the Appeal represents good land use planning and is in the public interest.

16Further, the Tribunal must be satisfied that the Consent applications have regard to the criteria set out in subsection 51(24), the requested variances meet the four tests set out in subsection 45(1) of the Act, and in accordance with subsection 53(1) of the Act a plan of subdivision is not required.

EVIDENCE

Sections 2 and 35.1 of the Act

17Mr. Corosky testified to matters of provincial interest that must be considered in evaluating and approving applications. In that regard, Mr. Corosky reviewed the modified Consent and Minor Variance applications, detailing matters of Provincial Interest including but not limited to, the protection of ecological systems, including natural areas, features and functions, the minimization of waste, the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, the adequate provision and distribution of educational, health, social, cultural and recreational facilities, the adequate provision of a full range of housing including affordable housing, the appropriate location of growth and development and the promotion of built form that is well-designed, encourages a sense of place, and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.

18Mr. Corosky attested to the following in support of the modified proposal plan:

(a) Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan (“TIPP”) is required, and a draft plan has been completed and is included in the Appellant’s materials;

(b) The intensified use of the property will enhance efficiency of services and the land base;

(c) The buildings will be constructed to the Ontario Building Code standards and in accordance with the 2023 Comprehensive Zoning By-law update;

(d) The Subject Property is located near a number of existing parks, schools and other amenities;

(e) The project will enhance housing types and choice options;

(f) The proposed residential use is appropriate as per the Official Plan and Zoning By-law (“ZBL”) and this type of infill will assist the City of Guelph in meeting its intensification target within a Built-up area; and

(g) The Built form will incorporate energy efficient measures.

19It was Mr. Corosky’s professional opinion that there are no matters of provincial interest which are negatively impacted by the 10 Orchard Crescent Inc. revised proposal.

20Mr. Corosky also testified that section 35.1 facilitates the provision of “additional” residential dwelling units (“ADUs”) as they are permitted as-of-right by the Guelph Zoning By-law.

Subsection 45(1) – Minor Variance Applications

21The general four tests to be met in considering the approval of Minor Variance applications are:

i. Is the requested variance minor in nature;

ii. Is approval of the requested variance desirable for the appropriate development of the area;

iii. Does the requested variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL; and

iv. Does the requested variance maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

22Mr. Corosky testified the proposed Minor Variances A-40/24, A-41/24, A-42/24 (severed parcels) and A-43-2 (retained parcel) mirror the zoning regulations adopted by the City Council on April 18, 2023, but are not yet in effect due to ongoing appeals. These Minor Variances refer to the maximum attached garage width, maximum residential driveway width, attached garage projection, minimum floor width of attached garage for Semi-detached Dwellings and minimum Parking Spaces per Semi-detached Dwellings, thereby implementing the administrative intent of Council, and are certainly minor.

23Whilst the City’s Official Plan and ZBL allows up to two ADUs, the proposal request is for one ADU per lot. This form of intensification is identified in the GOP as essential to meet future housing demands in the City and is desirable and appropriate.

24The requested variances are administrative in nature and implement the zoning provisions still under appeal for the proposal site. If By-law No. (2023)-20790 was fully in effect, the requested variances would not be required. The requested variances fully implement the intent and purpose of the ZBL.

25The requested variances also implement the intent and purpose of the GOP as the site is designated Low Density Residential and semi-detached dwellings and up to two ADUs per lot are permitted as-of-right. The GOP also addresses that 46 percent of all future housing is to occur through intensification.

Subsection 51(24) Severance Applications

26Subsection 51(24) (a) to (m) of the Act sets out the criteria to be considered in the approval of Consents which deal with matters regarding health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and the welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality. These include suitability of land, affordable housing units, width, location of grades and elevations of highways, dimensions and shapes of proposed lots, conservation of natural resources and flood control, adequacy of municipal services and school sites and plan design optimization. Through his commentary in his written report, it is the opinion of Mr. Corosky that the Subject Property meets the criteria as set out in subsection 51(24) of the Act.

PPS 2024

27Mr. Corosky indicated the new PPS 2024 underscores the priority of providing a full range of housing options and permits and facilitates all types of residential intensification, promoting densities for new housing and the use of existing infrastructure as set out in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.1.3. He testified this proposal fully conforms and reflects the policy direction as set out in PPS 2024.

GOP

28Section 3.2 of the GOP identifies that Guelph is forecast to grow to a population of 208,000 by 2051 and as such, the City has committed to facilitate 18,000 new housing units by 2031. Pursuant to Section 3.4.2 of the GOP, a minimum of 46 percent of all new growth is to be achieved through intensification of the existing built-up area within the City. It is the opinion of Mr. Corosky that the proposal is consistent with the philosophy outlined in Section 3.4 in that an underutilized existing residential parcel of land is being intensified and the proposal provides for a semi-detached built form which is compatible with existing surrounding development.

29Further, Mr. Corosky referred to Section 9.3 which sets out general objectives which confirm the proposed use of the Subject Property or semi-detached dwellings is permitted and is compatible with the neighbourhood by providing attractive buildings with acceptable impact. It was his opinion this proposal fully complies with the GOP relating to how intensification proposals should materialize and how the property envelope should look in the GOP and Zoning By-law.

30It was Mr. Corosky’s opinion that the proposal complies with the GOP.

GZBL

31Mr. Corosky testified the City has taken demonstrable steps in the preparation of the new ZBL to encourage and allow low density infill as-of-right in large parts of the City and particularly those zoned RL.1. Mr. Corosky’s report contains a chart that summarizes the regulations applicable to this proposal found at page 28. It is his opinion that the proposal for 10 Orchard Crescent fully complies with every applicable provision of the new ZBL, both in force and under appeal, and for the most part, exceed the minimum requirements of the ZBL in lot areas thereby complying with the GZBL.

32After reviewing the supporting technical documents that included Functional Servicing, Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, Source Water Protection, TIPP, Stormwater Management Report, and a Traffic Study to address neighbourhood concerns, it was Mr. Corosky’s opinion that all of these documents comply with the GZBL.

33In conclusion, Mr. Corosky proffered, in his overall planning opinion, as outlined in his Expert’s Report, that converting the one existing residential dwelling at 10 Orchard Crescent into two semi-detached houses (four units, plus up to eight associated ADUs) is consistent with and fully conforms and complies with the Act, the PPS 2024, GOP, GZBL and the City of Guelph’s Housing Pledge as outlined above in a summary matter but further detailed in his Witness Statement and Expert Report filed as Exhibit 5 in this hearing.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

34Having considered the uncontroverted testimony and supporting affidavit of Mr. Corosky and having reviewed the proposed instruments, the Tribunal finds that the modified proposal application represents an appropriate and desirable optimization of the lands located at 10 Orchard Crescent.

35The Tribunal finds that the Proposed Variances have regard to matters of Provincial Interest as set out in section 2 of the Act and represent good planning.

36The Tribunal finds that the tests established in subsection 45(1) of the Act, are met. On the sum of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied the general intent and purpose of the GOP and ZBL is properly maintained, the variances will facilitate the development of the Subject Property for a use and in a manner that is appropriate, desirable and consistent with the principles of good land use planning by addressing neighbourhood concerns regarding inter alia, parking, traffic, lack of sidewalks, erosion and stormwater management.

37The Tribunal finds that the modified proposal application is consistent with the PPS as it emphasizes the priority of a full range of housing options and permits and facilitates all types of residential intensification, promoting densities for new housing and the use of existing infrastructure.

38The Tribunal finds that the modified proposed application complies with the GOP as semi-detached dwellings are a permitted use and are compatible with the neighbourhood identifying how intensification proposals should materialize and how the property envelope should look in the GOP and GZBL.

39The Tribunal finds that the modified proposal application complies with applicable provisions of the new GZBL both in force and under appeal and, for the most part, exceed the minimum requirements of the GZBL in lot areas thereby complying with the GZBL.

40The Tribunal further finds that the modified proposal application complies with the City of Guelph’s Housing Pledge by its use of intensification targets.

ORDER

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

41The Tribunal having been asked to consider an application that has been amended from the original application, and the Tribunal having determined as provided for in subsections 53(35.1) and 45(18.1.1.) of the Planning Act, no further notice is required.

42The Tribunal orders that the appeals are allowed and the Minor Variances to the City of Guelph’s Zoning By-law No. (2023)-20790, are authorized, subject to the conditions as set out as follows:

1. That consent application files B-32/24, B-33/24 and B-34/24 receives final certification of the Secretary-Treasurer and be registered on title.

2. That all buildings constructed on the severed and/or retained parcels will have a brick or stone façade for the entire front (easterly) elevation and that no vinyl or other siding materials will be used on the front (easterly) elevation.

3. That notwithstanding any further permissions for more than three units per lot, the maximum number of units constructed on each severed and retained lot on the Subject Property shall be three units, being one main dwelling unit and two internal Additional Dwelling Units, for a maximum of 12 units

43The Tribunal orders that provisional consent is to be given subject to the Conditions set as follows:

Planning Services

1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, a plan shall be submitted to, and approved by the General Manager of Planning and Building Services, for the new dwellings indicating the location and design of the new dwelling.

2. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official and/or prior to undertaking activities which may injure or destroy City owned trees or trees on the severed or retained lands, the applicant shall submit a Tree Preservation Plan (TIPP)prepared by a Certified Arborist for approval and to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Parks. Any City owned tree(s) approved for removal or injury may be subject to compensation to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Parks.

Engineering Services

3. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, the owner(s) shall provide to the City, to the satisfaction of the General Manager/City Engineer, a stormwater management and functional servicing report for the severed and retained lands that has been prepared in accordance with the City of Guelph’s Development Engineering Manual.

4. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, the owner(s) shall provide to the City, to the satisfaction of the General Manager/City Engineer, a grading and drainage plan for the severed and retained lands that has been prepared in accordance with the City of Guelph’s Development Engineering Manual.

5. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, the owner(s) shall provide to the City, to the satisfaction of the General Manager/City Engineer, a servicing plan for the severed and retained lands that has been prepared in accordance with the City of Guelph’s Development Engineering Manual.

6. That prior to the issuance of Certificate of Official, the owner(s) shall submit environmental reports in accordance with Appendix A of City’s Guidelines for Development of Contaminated or Potentially Contaminated Sites to the satisfaction of the General Manager/ City Engineer.

7. That prior to issuance of building permit, the owner(s) designs the new dwelling at such an elevation that the lowest level of the building can be serviced with a gravity connection to the sanitary sewer. If the owner(s) satisfactorily demonstrates to the General Manager/City Engineer that a below-grade gravity connection is not achievable, the building's below-grade level may be allowed to pump sewage, in accordance with the Ontario Building Code, to the property line, and have a gravity connection from the property line to the City's sanitary sewer.

8. That prior to the issuance of a building permit on the proposed severed lands, the Owner agrees to pay the estimated cost of all proposed works within the city’s right-of-way to the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the General Manager/City Engineer. The Owner further agrees to pay the actual costs of all proposed works within the city’s right-of-way to the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the General Manager/City Engineer.

9. That prior to the issuance of building permit, the owner(s) shall design, construct, install, and maintain erosion and sediment control facilities satisfactory to the General Manager/City Engineer, in accordance with the Developmental Engineering Manual.

10. That prior to the issuance of any building permits on the proposed severed lands, the owner shall pay the flat rate charge established by the City for tree planting for the proposed severed lands.

Alectra Utilities

11. That prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant makes arrangement for provision of hydro servicing to the existing and severed parcels, satisfactory to the ICI and Layouts Department of Alectra Utilities. The servicing costs would be at the applicant’s expense.

Committee of Adjustment Administration

12. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, registered on title, agreeing to satisfy the above noted conditions and to develop the site in accordance with the approved plans.

13. That all required fees and charges in respect of the registration of all documents required in respect of this approval and administration fee be paid, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official.

14. That the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment be provided with a written undertaking from the applicant's solicitor, prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, that he/she will provide a copy of the registered instrument as registered in the Land Registry Office within two years of issuance of the Certificate of Official, or prior to the issuance of a building permit (if applicable), whichever occurs first.

15. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, a Reference Plan be prepared, deposited and filed with the Secretary-Treasurer which shall indicate the boundaries of the severed parcel, any easements/rights-of-way and building locations. The submission must also include a digital copy of the deposited Reference Plan (version ACAD 2010) which can be forwarded by email (cofa@guelph.ca).

16. That upon fulfilling and complying with all of the above-noted conditions, the documents to finalize and register the transaction be presented to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment along with the administration fee required for the issuance of the Certificate of Official.

44The Tribunal may be spoken to if there are any issues implementing this Order.

“Jackie Denyes”

JACKIE DENYES MEMBER

“Michael Menezes”

MICHAEL MENEZES 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.