Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 23, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000132

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: B 14/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: B 15/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000133 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: B 16/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000134 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: B 17/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000135 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: B 18/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000136 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: B 19/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000137 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Consent Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: B 20/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000138 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: A 14/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000139 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: A 15/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000140 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: A 16/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000141 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Spurline Developments Inc. Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units. Reference Number: A 17/2024 Property Address: 49 and 55 Isabella Street Municipality/UT: Township of Woolwich/Regional Municipality of Waterloo OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000142 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000132 OLT Case Name: Spurline Developments Inc. v. Woolwich (Township)

Heard: May 21-23, 2025, final submissions on June 2, 2025

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Spurline Developments Inc.	S. O’Melia
Township of Woolwich	K. Thompson

DECISION DELIVERED BY P. TOMILIN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is the Appeal filed by Spurline Developments Inc. (“Appellant”), against the decision of the Township of Woolwich (“Township”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) to deny Consent and Minor Variance (“MV”) Applications, pursuant to ss. 53(19) and 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”) for the properties located at 49 and 55 Isabella Street (“subject lands” / “site”).

2The Appellant is seeking to permit the severance of the subject property into four lots to create 16 residential units.

3The subject lands are located on the southeast corner of Isabella Street South and Cedar Street West, in St. Jacobs, in the Township of Woolwich, in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

4The site is comprised of two lots on generally flat terrain, square in shape, with approximately 37.14 metres (“m”) frontage on Isabella Street and about 40.23 m on Cedar Street; and has a combined lot area of 1,565 square metres (“m²”) (0.386 acres) . It is situated three blocks from the Riverside Meadows Park, and one block away from the Downtown area of St. Jacobs.

5To the north and east the subject lands are residential areas; to the west are a mix of commercial and industrial uses. St. Jacobs Public School is located to the south, with vehicular access only from Isabella Street, which terminates at the School property.

6The site is currently occupied by an underutilized workshop building.

PARTICIPANT STATUS REQUEST

7Prior to the Hearing, the Tribunal received two Participant Status requests from Stephen Brown and Robert Wilging. Mr. Brown was not present at the onset of the Hearing; thus, his request is denied. The Tribunal granted Participant Status to Robert Wilging and will consider his written submissions when making a decision.

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

8The Appellant is seeking to demolish the existing workshop building, to create four lots by Severance and to create four (4) fourplex buildings with 0 m side-yard setback with one on each of the lots.

9To facilitate the development, the Appellant is seeking to create three blanket easements for pedestrian access, vehicular access and parking, and stormwater management purposes.

10The requested MV relate to reduction of lot frontages, building setbacks, lot area amenity space requirements and increased densities. In order to accommodate the required daylight triangle, some changes were made:

Feature	Lot 1 (deduct 4.5 square metres for 3 m x 3m daylight triangle)	Lot 2	Lot 3	Lot 4
Proposed Lot Area (m2)	From 461 to 456.5 for daylight triangle	332.3	332.5	439.5
Variances to Minimum Lot Area (m2)	465 to 453 (was 461)	465 to 332	465 to 332	465 to 431
Variances to Lot Width (m)	18 to 11.40 (was 11.45)	15 to 8.20 (was 8.25)	15 to 8.20 (was 8.25)	15 to 9.15 (was 9.18)
Building Line Setback (m)	6 to 4.45 (was 4.49)	6 to 4.45 (was 4.49)	6 to 2.97 (can be 4.49)	6 to 2.97 (can be 4.49)
Minimum Side Yard (m)	1.2 to 0 Only for side yard adjacent to Lot 2	1.2 to 0 Only for side yard adjacent to Lot 1	1.2 to 0 Only for side yard adjacent to Lot 4	1.2 to 0 Only for side yard adjacent to Lot 3
Density (units per hectare)	from 50 to 88.0 (was 50 to 107)	from 50 to 120.50 (was 50 to 107)	from 50 to 120 (was 50 to 107)	from 50 to 92 (was 50 to 107)
Amenity Space (m2)	440 to 158.5 (was 110 to 14)	440 to 89.5 (was 110 to 14)	440 to 83.5 (was 110 to 14)	440 to 189.5 (was 110 to 14)

Proposed Severance Plan (unadjusted)

HEARING

11Ben Eby, the owner of Spurline Developments Inc., explained to the Tribunal that his company was created to specialize in purpose-built rental housing. In regard to the development proposal in his written statement he provided:

“Our aim was to create structures with strong design principles that would respect and enhance the character of the community. The overall form of the buildings was conceived to provide individual character to each of the four lots, while also presenting a contemporary barn-like aesthetic, as a tribute to the village's history. Intentional design choices included individual entrances for each suite, a variety of unit types, and the selection of high-quality materials such as glass, brick, wood, and metal roofing.”

12Two expert witnesses appeared on behalf of the Appellant:

1. Erica Bayley – Professional Engineer (Transportation planning, Traffic engineering and Parking management); and
2. Ryan Mounsey – Land Use Planner.

13The Township also relied on the evidence of two expert witnesses:

1. Lori Fox – qualified as a Development Engineering Technologist; and
2. Stephen Dykstra – Land Use Planner.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

14The issue before the Tribunal is whether the Consent Applications meet the general requirements set out in the applicable Provincial Planning Legislation and municipal planning policies, the specific criteria of the Act and represent good planning. The proposed severances must also meet the applicable policies of the Official Plan (“OP”), Zoning By-law No. 26-2024 (“ZBL”), and satisfy the relevant criteria set out in ss. 51(24) of the Act.

15The Tribunal shall also have regard to matters of Provincial interest.

16An Appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a Hearing de novo, and the Appellant bears the onus to demonstrate to the Tribunal that the criteria established in ss. 45(1) of the Act has been satisfied:

1. The intent and purpose of the OP is being maintained;
2. The intent and purpose of the ZBL is being maintained;
3. Is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure; and
4. Is minor in nature.

ISSUES

17The Township raised two main issues with the proposed development:

1. Road allowance, traffic, pedestrian safety (Issue 1); and
2. Intensification and compatibility (Issue 2).

Issue 1

18Initially, the Township intended to qualify Ms. Fox as an expert in Development Engineering under the pretense that she was qualified so by the Tribunal’s predecessors (Exhibit 6). Mr. O’Melia raised objection with that qualification, as Ms. Fox does not hold an engineering designation. More so, Ms. Fox was qualified for “municipal servicing” and not development engineering.

19Ms. Fox testified that no road widening was required for Isabella Street, as it has sufficient width. However, Cedar Street is about 12 m wide, and requires widening, thus, the Appellant should provide a conveyance of 3 m as a condition of Consent approval.

20Ms. Fox did not provide any analysis of the development proposal nor traffic flow near the subject property.

21Ms. Bayley provided that according to the s. 2 of the Township OP, both Cedar Street West and Isabella Street South, have a required right-of-way of 18 m. She stated that currently, Isabella Street South meets the requirements and Cedar Street West has a 12-metre right-of-way, with an 8 m asphalt platform.

22Ms. Bayley proffered that the sidewalks are provided on both sides of Isabella Street South, north of Cedar Street West, and that a sidewalk is provided on the north side of Cedar Street West.

23Ms. Bayley had conducted a site-specific analysis, including Trip Generation and Traffic Volumes and concluded:

“The addition of site traffic will not change the function of Cedar Street West, nor will it exceed its operating capacity. The road will continue to operate as it currently does, with the increased traffic having negligible impacts on the function.

With an increased right-of-way, additional width is unlikely to be used to increase the pavement width. The existing 8-metre platform is appropriate for two-way travel on a local street and below the 9-metre maximum for local roads as detailed in the Township’s Landscape and Design Guidelines.”

24The evidence of Ms. Bayley was not contested by the Township.

Issue 2

25Mr. Dykstra opined that fourplexes are permitted on subject lands as of right. However, in his opinion, due to the fourplexes on lots 1 and 2, as well as on lots 3 and 4, being attached, he considers it to be two sets of “eightplexes”.

26Mr. Dykstra took the Tribunal through the applicable sections of the Provincial Planning Statement (2024) (“PPS”), such as s. 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 2.2.1, 2.3.1.3, 2.3.1.5 and others. He proffered that the PPS does not justify the scale and density of the proposed development. In his view, the site is not located close to the area with a sufficient transit service. He further stated that the proposed development does not take into account the required road widening.

27Mr. Mounsey explained that the PPS emphasizes the need to increase housing supply, and promotes compact infill development in the transit-oriented communities. In addition, it prioritizes affordable housing, efficient use of land and utilization of existing infrastructure. It is his opinion that the proposed development exemplifies the type of transit-supportive gentle intensification required by the PPS.

28Mr. Dykstra took the Tribunal to s. 51(24) of the Act to consider if the Application meet the criteria. In his professional opinion, the proposed development does not meet a significant number of the criteria related to the required road widening, is premature and represents overdevelopment of the subject lands.

29Mr. Mounsey disagreed with Mr. Dykstra’s opinion. He provided that the Application meets the criteria in ss. (a), (b), (c), (d), (d.1), (f), (i), (j) and (l) of s. 51(24) of the Act. Notably, the development will utilize existing infrastructure, is located close to a school and being purpose-built rental, will be more affordable.

30Mr. Dykstra reviewed the applicable policies of the OP and concluded that the Applications do not conform to the overall policies of the OP. Mainly - two “eightplexes” is not a building typology that is allowed, the Appellant has not demonstrated that the required 3 m road widening can be accommodated within their proposal, the proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding development and greatly exceeds the maximum density of 120 units per net residential hectare. He suggested that such change is best addressed through a ZBL amendment application, as it is not minor.

31Mr. Mounsey opined that the Township staff’s refusal to support the Applications is inconsistent with the OP values in s. 4.3 which emphasizes the importance of “a planning process which is timely, simple and cost-effective”. And that by insisting on additional processes, such as an OP or ZBL amendments, the Township is undermining the OP.

32Mr. Mounsey brought to the Tribunal’s attention s. 4.1 of the Guiding Principle policies of the OP that state the following:

“Supports the achievement of complete communities designed to support healthy and active living and meet people’s needs for daily living throughout an entire lifetime.

Prioritizes reurbanization and higher densities, where appropriate, to make efficient use of land and infrastructure and support transit viability over time.

Supports a range and mix of housing options, including additional/accessory units within single detached, semi-detached, row housing and permitted accessory buildings, and affordable housing, to serve all sizes, incomes, and ages of households.”

33Mr. Mounsey explained that the site is located one block from Downtown and is within a walking distance (less than 450 m) of the Grand River Transit bus stop that connects to the ION Light Rail Transit at Conestoga Station. He noted that the subject lands were formerly an industrially zoned property, and that the OP supports the conversion of industrial use into residential uses. He added that the proposed development reinforces the existing street rhythm and character.

34It was Mr. Mounsey’s professional opinion, that while the proposed development numerically exceeds 50 units per hectare (“ha”), the OP’s intent is defined not just by the number of units, but also by built form, height, and design. In addition, Policy 9.2.1(b), anticipates and encourages innovative lot configurations and compact development forms to address housing needs. Policy 9.2.1.d identifies tenure (“rentals”) and “plexes” (including fourplexes) as affordable housing.

35Mr. Mounsey concluded that while the proposed density is in excess of 50 units per ha, the form remains consistent with low-rise, ground-oriented buildings and conforms to the policy direction.

36In Mr. Dykstra’s view the proposed development does not meet the general intent and purpose of the OP or the ZBL. He stated that the development proposal does not provide sufficient outdoor amenity space and has excessive density. It is not desirable as the size of the lots are insufficient for the number of units proposed and represent over-development of the site. In addition, in his professional opinion, the proposed development is not minor in nature, due to the significant reduction of the front and side yard setbacks, the size of the proposed lots, the size of the amenity area and incompatible built form (“eightplexes”).

37Mr. Mounsey testified that, in his opinion, the requested MV maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP by providing a compact, transit-supportive development that will utilize the existing services. It maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, as fourplex buildings are allowed as of right, and is fully consistent with the intent of low- to medium-density residential development.

38It was his opinion that the requested MV for lot size are within the range of being minor to support the development proposal with a reduction in the side yard. The proposed reduction of the front yard setback is compatible with the existing setbacks along the street and will maintain a similar character. The reduction in the side yard setback is critical to the development and will facilitate the development of fourplexes, as permitted as of right.

39Mr. Mounsey opined that the proposed increase in density is appropriate for the development of four fourplexes on the subject lands, given the size of the area and is consistent with the PPS. Further, the required by R-3, amenity space, contradicts the PPS, which encourages intensification along transit routes.

40He added that the development proposal is desirable, as it provides missing middle housing within walking distance of schools, public transit and has a positive impact on the neighbourhood renewal and housing market that experiences low rental vacancy rates. In conclusion, he believes that the proposed development is minor in nature, as it will not have any adverse impact on the surrounding properties. Engineering and transportation evidence confirm the site functions appropriately without triggering infrastructure concerns or requiring road widenings.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

41In order to combat the municipal sprawl and provide more housing options, we need to utilize infill development where applicable. It was demonstrated to the Tribunal that the Townships are experiencing historic lows in residential apartment vacancy rates (Exhibit 4, Appendix 14 – CMHC Vacancy Rate Data).

42The Tribunal prefers the uncontested evidence of Ms. Bayley. The Tribunal accepts her evidence that the traffic increase from the proposed development will be negligible and could be accommodated by the existing roads. As to pedestrian safety, the Tribunal notes that the Township had an opportunity to construct a sidewalk along Isabella Street South (south of Cedar Street West) toward St. Jacobs Public School yet has chosen not to do so for a number of years.

43The Tribunal noted that during the testimony on a few occasions Mr. Dykstra ventured outside of his area of expertise and tried to provide evidence outside of his scope of knowledge as a Land Use Planner. In addition, Mr. Dykstra testified under oath, and it was demonstrated to the Tribunal during his cross-examination that his testimony was not credible.

44The Tribunal disagrees with Mr. Dykstra’s categorization of the proposed development as a set of “eightplexes”. The Tribunal finds that the renderings referred in para [11] feature visual separation, are of cohesive design and do not look like monolith.

45Overall, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Mr. Mounsey. It was demonstrated to the Tribunal that a few of the nearby properties are located even closer to the municipal right of way than the subject lands, with some of the buildings and structures along Cedar Street West having a zero-lot line setback (Exhibit 4, Appendix 19). The Tribunal agrees that the subject lands are the appropriate location for infill development that will provide a range of decent size rental units (850 ft² for 1-bedroom and 1,000+ ft² for 2-bedroom).

46The Tribunal finds that the proposed development will not result in any adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.

CONCLUSION

47This was a Hearing de novo of the Consent and MV Applications. In making its Decision, the Tribunal relied on the Planning Report, considered the written statement of Mr. Wilging, took into consideration Mr. Eby’s testimony, relied on the professional expert evidence of Mses. Fox and Bayley and Messrs. Dykstra and Mounsey.

48The Tribunal finds that the requested conveyance of a 3 m wide strip of the subject property at no cost to the Town for the future road widening is unreasonable, as it has no relationship to the Applications.

49The Tribunal finds that the variances satisfy the four tests of s. 45(12) of the Act and have regard to the matters of the provincial interests set out in s. 2, is consistent with the Township OP and ZBL, and is representative of good planning. The Consent to sever Applications are consistent with the policies of the PPS 2024, conforms to the OP, meet the requirements of the ZBL, represent good planning and are in the public interest.

ORDER

50THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeals are allowed, the variances to Zoning By-law No. 26-2024 are authorized, and provisional consent is to be given subject to the conditions set out in Appendix A to this Order.

“P. Tomilin”

p. tomilin

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 OF APPROVAL

Township

1. That prior to issuance of the Certificate of Official, the owner/applicant enter into a development agreement with the Township of Woolwich that addresses the conditions contained herein for the development of the lots and accompanying easements proposed for the subject properties, and to implement the following:

(a) To register all the lots simultaneously;

(b) Payment of a parkland dedication fee to the Township, if applicable;

(c) Should any existing infrastructure (i.e. hydrants, water sample station, signs, boulevard trees, street light poles, utility features etc.) need to be relocated as a result of the development of the proposed lots, the cost to do so is at the owner/applicant’s full expense;

(d) Provide a detailed cost estimate for the proposed works within the road allowance and easements. The owner/applicant is required to post 100% securities with the Township prior to any work within the road allowance and 50% securities for on-site works;

(e) Payment of the Township’s Development Engineering Fees;

(f) Prior to any work occurring in the road allowance, the owner/applicant and their contractor are required to obtain a “Road Work Permit” and post all applicable insurances (minimum $5 million liability and Township to be named additional insured) and securities;

(g) That the owner/applicant submit copy of a survey to the Township demonstrating that the lots and buildings setbacks on the retained portion conform to zoning, to the satisfaction of Director of Development Services; and

(h) That the Region of Waterloo conditions be addressed.

2. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, the owner/applicant shall provide to the Township, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, a grading and drainage plan for the severed and retained lots. The grading/drainage plan must be designed in accordance with the Township of Woolwich’s Engineering Development and Infrastructure Manual. If the overall grade plan identifies re-grading on adjacent lands, then the owner/applicant is to obtain written permission from the adjacent property owners agreeing to the re-grading and provide a copy to the Township prior to final approval of the plans.

3. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, the owner/applicant shall provide to the Township, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services, a servicing plan for the severed and retained lands that has been prepared in accordance with the Township of Woolwich’s Engineering Development and Infrastructure Manual.

4. That prior to the issuance of a building permit on the proposed severed and retained lands, the owner/applicant demonstrates that the new dwellings will be constructed at such an elevation that the lowest level of the buildings can be serviced with a gravity connection to the sanitary sewer. If the owner/applicant satisfactorily demonstrates to the Director of Development Services 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 Township's sanitary sewer.

5. That prior to the issuance of a building permit on the proposed severed and retained lands, the owner/applicant agrees to obtain a Road Work Permit from the Township, post all applicable insurances (minimum $5 million liability and Township to be named additional insured) and securities for 100% of the cost of works within the road allowances, and pay the estimated cost of all proposed works within the Township’s right-of-way to the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services. The owner/applicant further agrees to pay the actual costs of all proposed works within the Township’s right-of-way to the severed and retained lands to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

6. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Official, the owner/applicant convey a 3 metre by 3 metre daylight triangle at the corner of Isabella Street South and Cedar Street West to the Township to the satisfaction of the Director of Development Services.

7. That prior to the issuance of a building permit on the proposed severed and retained lands, the owner/applicant shall construct, install, and maintain erosion and sediment control facilities satisfactory to the Director of Development Services, according to a plan submitted to and approved by the Director of Development Services.

Regional Municipality of Waterloo

8. That prior to final approval, the owner/applicant submit an Environmental Noise and Vibration Study, and enter into a registered development agreement with the Township of Woolwich to implement the recommendations contained in the Report, all to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

9. That as a condition of approval, the owner/applicant submit the regional consent review fee of $350 per application, to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

Committee of Adjustment Administration

10. That prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Official, all required fees and charges in respect of the registration of all documents required in respect of this approval and administration fee be paid to the Township of Woolwich and/or Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

11. That the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment be provided with a written undertaking from the owner/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.

12. 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 parcels, any easements/right-of-way and building locations to the satisfaction of the Township of Woolwich’s Director of Development Services and the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. The submission must also include a digital copy of the deposited Reference Plan (version ACAD 2010) which can be forwarded by email (deveng@woolwich.ca)

13. 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.

14. The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event that there is any disagreement over whether any of the above conditions has been fulfilled.