Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: April 14, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000837

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

Applicant/Appellant: Farook Abdul Majeed Subject: Consent - refused by Approval Authority Description: To permit the construction of 2 two-storey dwellings. Reference Number: B/032/23 Property Address: 44 Rouge Street Municipality/UT: Markham/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000837 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000837 OLT Case Name: Majeed v. Markham (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Farook Abdul Majeed Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the construction of 2 two-storey dwellings. Reference Number: A/154/23 Property Address: 44 Rouge Street Municipality/UT: Markham/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000838 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000837

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

Applicant/Appellant: Farook Abdul Majeed Subject: Minor Variance Description: To permit the construction of 2 two-storey dwellings. Reference Number: A/155/23 Property Address: 44 Rouge Street Municipality/UT: Markham/York OLT Case No: OLT-25-000839 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-25-000837

Heard: March 5, 2026 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Party Farook Abdul Majeed ("Applicant/Appellant")

Counsel Marcin (Martin) Mazierski

DECISION DELIVERED BY N. RODGERS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matters before the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”) involve appeals (“Appeals”) pursuant to sections 45 (12) and 53 (19) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, (“Act”) from a refusal by the City of Markham (“City”) Committee of Adjustment (“COA”) of an application for a Consent and related Minor Variances (“MV”) for a property known municipally as 44 Rouge Street (“Subject Lands”).

2The Subject Lands are located at the northeast corner of Rouge Street and Magill Street, with rear yard frontage along Nelson Street. The Property currently contains a one-storey detached dwelling. The surrounding properties are a mix of single detached residential dwellings, generally on large lots containing a mix of post-war homes, recently renovated, and new-build homes.

3The Consent and MV applications (“Applications”) seek to facilitate a new single detached dwelling and a garage on the proposed severed and conveyed lot, being Part 1 (“North Lot”). For the retained lot, the Appellant is proposing an addition and alterations to the existing detached residential dwelling on Part 2 (“South Lot”). The MV applications per the municipal record are A/154/23 for the South Lot and A/155/23 for the North Lot.

4The Appellant is requesting provisional Consent for the purpose of creating a new residential lot, fronting with vehicular access to Nelson Street. The Consent application proposes the following lot dimensions:

a) South Lot: approximate lot frontage of 15.03 metres (m) and an approximate lot area of 454.0 sq. m;

b) North Lot: approximate lot frontage of 15.09 m. and an approximate lot area of 454.90 sq. m.

5The relief sought as part of the South Lot MV application is to:

a) vary Section 1.2(ii), amending By-law 99-90 Section 1.2(iii), to permit a maximum building depth of 17.48 m, whereas the by-law permits a maximum building depth of 16.8 m;

b) vary By-law 1229, Table 11.1 to permit a minimum lot area of 454.0 square metres (“sq m”), whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 613.1 sq m;

c) vary By-law 1229, Table 11.1 to permit a lot frontage of 15.03 m, whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.29 m; and,

d) vary By-law 1229, amending By-law 99-90, Section 1.2 (vi) to permit a maximum floor area ratio of 47.75%, whereas the by-law permits a maximum floor area ratio of 45.0%.

6The relief sought as part of the North Lot MV application is to:

a) vary By-law 1229, Table 11.1 to permit a minimum lot area of 454.9 sq m, whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot area of 613.1 sq m;

b) vary By-law 1229, Table 11.1 to permit a lot frontage of 15.08 m, whereas the by-law requires a minimum lot frontage of 18.29 m;

c) vary By-law 1229, amending By-law 99-90, Section 1.2 (vi) to permit a maximum floor area ratio of 47.93%, whereas the by-law permits a maximum floor area ratio of 45.0%; and,

d) vary By-law 1229, Section 11.2 (c) (i) to permit a porch with stairs to encroach 0.51 metres into a required yard, whereas the by-law permits a maximum encroachment of 0.46 metres.

7At the COA public hearing held on September 24, 2025, City planning staff presented their report in support of the Applications subject to conditions.

8The COA received oral and written submissions from members of the public in opposition to the Applications. The concerns were generally related to the precedent-setting nature of the lot creation, intensification, massing and setbacks of the proposed development, and increased traffic on Nelson Street. The COA refused the Applications.

LAND USE PLANNING FRAMEWORK GOVERNING SUBJECT LANDS

10The Subject Lands are designated in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) as Residential Low-Rise, which permits low-rise housing forms including single detached dwellings.

11The Subject Lands are zoned R1 under ZBL 1229 as amended, which permits one single detached dwelling per lot. ZBL 2024-19 also applies to the Subject Lands; however, the Applications before the Tribunal were filed with the City in August 2023, prior to ZBL 2024-19 coming into full force and effect. The transition policies in Section 1.7.3 under ZBL 2024-19 state that, provided the Appellant obtains a building permit before January 31, 2027, the provisions of ZBL 1229 shall apply. This was confirmed in correspondence from the City’s Building Standards Department dated June 6, 2025 (Exhibit 2, Tab 15).

12The Subject Lands are designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act (“Heritage Act”) as they are located and categorized as a Class C property within the Markham Village Heritage Conservation District (“MVHCD”).

13Section 3.2 (“Building Classification”) of the MVHCD describes buildings contained on Class ‘C’ properties as follows:

i. These buildings do not relate to the historical character.

ii. They do not reinforce the historical character.

iii. Any redevelopment on a lot with this designation will be subject to the policies set out herein and handled in the same manner as a new building.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATION

14The Applications have a history dating back to April 2023, at which time they came before the COA and subsequently they appeared before the COA on multiple occasions and were deferred sine die, offering the Appellant an opportunity to revise the development proposal in response to staff comments.

15At the April 30, 2025, COA meeting, the Appellant requested deferral of the Applications to the September 24, 2025, meeting. The effect of the deferral resulted in the Appellant making several revisions to the MV application, including a reduction of the width of the proposed dwelling on the North Lot, a reduction of the Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of the proposed dwellings on both the North and South Lots, and changes to the stair orientation and its dimension fronting Magill Street for the North Lot.

16The MVHCD Plan (“Heritage Plan”) specifies that severances and MVs within its boundary require review by Heritage Markham. An objective of the Heritage Plan is to assist in guiding development proposals such that their design is compatible with existing historical character. It is material to comment that Heritage Markham did not support the early iterations of the Applications.

17On May 8, 2024, the Heritage Committee, after hearing from members of the public who expressed various concerns to the proposed Applications, had no objection from a heritage perspective.

18For the reasons that follow and based on the uncontroverted opinion evidence of the Appellant’s land use planning expert, a review of the City planning Staff reports (Exhibit 2 Tab 5) and the decision of Heritage Markham (Exhibit 2, Tab 6), the Tribunal allows the Appeals for the Applications under s. 53 (19) and 45 (12) of the Act.

THE HEARING

19The following Exhibits were entered as evidence for the Hearing:

i. Exhibit 1 – Witness Statement of Jonathan Benczkowski, MCIP, RPP

ii. Exhibit 2 – Applicant Document Book

iii. Exhibit 3 – City of Markham letter dated February 19, 2026

20Prior to the hearing, the Tribunal was advised that the City would not be in attendance but had requested that, should the Appeals be granted, the Conditions forming Exhibit 3 be imposed.

21There were no requests for Party status. However, four requests for Participant status were declared. Each of the Participants noted below filed written submissions in accordance with Rule 7.7 of the Ontario Land Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”):

a) Nicole McLaughlin, 52 Rouge Street

b) Diane and Dave McCrossan – 38 Rouge Street residents, owners of 50 Rouge Street

c) Edgar DeSouza – 58 Rouge Street

d) Stephen Kertesz – 40 Rouge Street

22Nicole McLaughlin, Diane and Dave McCrossan, and Edgar DeSouza were not present at the Hearing. Mr. Kertesz did attend virtually. The Appellant had no objection to these individuals being named as Participants to this proceeding.

23The Tribunal offered Stephen Kertesz the opportunity to summarize his written submissions that the Appeals should be dismissed. Mr. Kertesz’s concerns with the Applications can be summarized as follows:

i. the heritage conservation attributes of the Heritage Plan and their application to the Subject Lands;

ii. the historical lot pattern and rhythm found in the community will be disrupted;

iii. the proposal does not meet the intent of the Ontario Heritage Act, the City OP, nor the Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (“PPS”); and,

iv. the Applications fail to meet the criteria under s. 51 (24) of the Act.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

Section 45 - Minor Variance

24An appeal pursuant to s. 45 of the Act is a hearing de novo. The Tribunal must have regard for the decision of the COA but is not bound by it. The Tribunal is required to hear submissions and evidence to decide whether to allow the MV based on the applicable legal tests. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the four-part test set out in s. 45(1) have been met, namely:

i. Does it maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP?

ii. Does it maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL?

iii. Is minor in nature?

iv. Is it desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure?

25When making its Decision, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest per s. 2 of the Act and, as well, have regard to the decision of the COA and the information and material considered by it, as required under s. 2.1(1) of the Planning Act.

26The Tribunal must also be satisfied that the MV Application is consistent with the PPS, as required under s. 3(5)(a) of the Act.

Section 53 - Consents

27Concerning a Consent application, the Act under s. 53(1) gives authority to grant Consent to sever land when a Plan of Subdivision is not required for the orderly development of the Subject Lands. The Act also requires the Tribunal to have regard for matters under s. 51(24) of the Act.

LAND USE PLANNING EVIDENCE

28The Tribunal heard from Mr. Jonathan Benczkowski, a registered professional planner who was qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in the field of land use planning, on behalf of the Appellant. Being the only expert witness, the Tribunal accepts his uncontroverted opinion evidence.

29Mr. Benczkowski advised that he had conducted site visits and toured the surrounding neighbourhood after the September 2025 COA hearing. He stated that while he was not officially retained in Spring 2025, he did interact with the Appellant’s architect with respect to various aspects of the COA applications. He prepared and directed the compilation of Exhibit 1 and 2, which he adopted for the purposes of his evidence.

30Mr. Benczkowski informed the Tribunal that he has reviewed all applicable legislation, the PPS, the City OP and ZBL and the Heritage Plan. Furthermore, he has reviewed past decisions of the COA which affect certain lands in the MVHCD and prepared an extensive neighbourhood lot area study map (“Study Area”), employing City data and his own research efforts to document lot frontage, lot areas, lot density, etcetera, to form his opinions whether the Applications meet the legislative tests under the Act.

31Mr. Benczkowski stated that the Subject Lands comprise a corner lot with frontage on three municipal roads: Rouge Street on the south, Magill Street on the west, and Nelson Street on the north. The lots to the west of Magill Street, while similar with a deep north-south orientation, have access only to Rouge Street and back onto a densely forested area that traverses the Rouge River. Nelson Street essentially terminates at Magill Street.

32The proposed Consent will sever the lands front to back, with the North Lot fronting on Nelson Street and the South Lot fronting on Rouge Street. The development proposal’s lot arrangement is generally typical within the Study Area filed in Exhibit 1, Tab 5.

THE PROVINCIAL INTEREST

33Tribunal Decisions shall have regard to s. 2 and be consistent with s. 3(5) (a) of the Act for all land use planning matters.

34Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed instruments have appropriate regard to the matters described in s. 2 of the Act, including:

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing;

(m) the co-ordination of planning activities of public bodies;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrian-oriented community aspects;

(r) the promotion of built form that is (i) well-designed; (ii) encourages a sense of place; and (iii) provides public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive, and vibrant.

35The proposed MV and Consent must also be consistent with the PPS. Mr. Benczkowski stated that the Subject Lands are located within a settlement area. The development proposal accommodates a range and mix of housing types, densities, optimizes the efficient use of land and existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the City has proactively developed a Heritage Plan.

36Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed instruments are consistent with the PPS and referenced Sections 2.3.1.1; 2.3.1.2 (a), (b) and 4.6.4 (b) as being of note.

37The Tribunal adopts Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence that the proposed instruments have appropriate regard for the provincial interests set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well as are consistent with the PPS and s. 3 (5) (a) of the Act.

38Applications for Consent to sever land are further evaluated against criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act. Mr. Benczkowski opined that the criteria in s. 51(24) of the Act have been met by meeting the following criteria:

b. The proposed subdivision is not premature;

c. The proposed subdivision conforms to the City OP and the MVHCD policies;

d. The land is suitable for the purpose of the division of land and is appropriate given the site context for which it is to be divided;

f. The dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood;

i. Municipal services and utilities are adequate, and no concerns were identified by City Engineering Construction Services; and,

l. The proposed new building and addition to the existing dwelling will be designed and will utilize modern building standards. The proposed development will optimize the efficient use and conservation of energy.

39The Tribunal adopts Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence that the proposed Consent have appropriate regard to the provincial interests set out in s. 2 of the Act, as well is consistent with the PPS.

40The expert opinion of Mr. Benczkowski, with which the Tribunal agrees, is that the Consent is consistent and meets the legislative test prescribed in s. 51(24) of the Act.

MINOR VARIANCE REVIEW – FOUR TESTS

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the OP

41Mr. Benczkowski advised that the Subject Property is designated Residential Low Rise per the OP. He stated that the general intent of the OP is to encourage and support development that is generally compatible with adjacent land uses including offering a diverse range of housing choices. He said that diversifying the housing stock recognizes that neighbourhoods are dynamic and will experience change over time. He opined that the development proposal reinforces the built form character of the neighbourhood, which includes a variety of architectural forms as well as several renovated dwellings that have become part of the neighbourhood’s fabric.

42Mr. Benczkowski testified that it is the general policy of the City OP in Section 8.2.1.1 to ensure that new development is compatible with the character and pattern of adjacent and surrounding development and this direction is augmented with criteria in Section 8.2.1.3 ensuring that development approvals within the Residential designation have appropriate and adequate public infrastructure such as municipal services, schools, and open spaces.

43For policies specific to the Residential Low Rise designation, Mr. Benczkowski referred the Tribunal to Chapter 8.2.3.1 (a), which states that the physical character of established neighbourhoods must be respected, including heritage conservation districts, and opined that the MV application has appropriate regard for this policy in terms of lot pattern, density, and scale, and meets the objectives of the Heritage Plan.

44Mr. Benczkowski drew the Tribunal’s attention to the development criteria for the Residential Low Rise designation. He said this policy ensures development proposals respect the existing pattern and character of adjacent development by adhering to the criteria in Chapter 8.2.3.5 and the area and site-specific policies including Chapter 9.13.2 (Markham Village), unless otherwise specified in a heritage conservation district plan. He opined that the MV application complies with Section 8.2.3.5 criteria (a) through (l).

45Mr. Benczkowski gave evidence, which the Tribunal adopts that Section 4.5.3 of the OP is applicable to its deliberation as it addresses the protection of cultural heritage resources since the Subject Lands are designated under Part V of the Heritage Act.

46Specifically, Mr. Benczkowski stated that Chapter 4.5.3 and Chapter 4.5.3.10 are applicable when read in conjunction with each other since they are designed to evaluate consent and MV proposals that directly affect a cultural heritage resource itself and adjacent lands on its own merits, and its compatibility with the objectives of the OP and Heritage Plan. He said the MV meets the evaluation tests by the efforts put forth by the Applications to preserve the existing lot fabric generally evident within the Study Area.

47Mr. Benczkowski stated that the Subject Lands are designated Class C in the Heritage Plan and as such the Heritage Plan does not require the existing renovated or proposed new detached dwelling to follow any architectural control guidelines.

48The Tribunal accepts Mr. Benczkowski’s opinion evidence that the MV maintains the general intent and purpose of the OP and furthermore this opinion aligns with City Staff positions as set out in Planning Staff Reports (See Exhibit 2 – Tab 5 [April 23, 2025, and September 17, 2025]).

Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law

49Mr. Benczkowski informed the Tribunal that the Subject Lands are zoned R1 under ZBL 1229, as amended, and the purpose and general intent of the ZBL is to ensure compatible built form within the area and to ensure that new development does not cause unacceptable adverse impacts on the existing neighbourhood.

50Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence affirms that the proposed MV maintains the intent of the ZBL and does not introduce inappropriate built form and character. Evidence to support this opinion was tabled with the Tribunal in Exhibit 1 – Tabs 3-8. This evidence, along with supplementary materials filed as part of closing written submissions, provided the Tribunal with a detailed examination of the neighbourhood Study Area characteristics.

51Mr. Benczkowski opined that the general intent and purpose of the Lot Frontage standard in the ZBL is to facilitate adequate and appropriate lots that are compatible with the physical context of the neighbourhood. He stated that the proposed development does not introduce a new lot pattern when evaluated relative to the Study Area and can accommodate a new detached residential dwelling unit on the North Lot with a site layout and built form that is generally compliant with ZBL standards.

52Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence stated that the general intent and purpose of the ZBL Lot Area standard ensures that neighbourhoods maintain a lot pattern that is appropriate for the provision of a functional dwelling and maintain lot characteristics that are contextually appropriate. He stated that the development proposal remains able to accommodate a functional single detached dwelling on both the North and South Lots. This testimony was illustrated in Exhibit 2 – Tab 4, which provided evidence that within the Study Area there is a diversity of lot areas with no dominant measurement prevailing.

53Mr. Benczkowski advised that the general intent and purpose of the Side Yard provision in the ZBL is to limit encroachment and impact from structures on adjacent properties. With respect to the Subject Lands, he said the North Lot’s proposed detached dwelling would have a porch with stairs facing the Magill Street frontage. He opined that the proposed MV is negligible from the ZBL standard and will not cause any adverse impact to the adjacent property (eastern exposure to the Part 1 Lot on the west side of Magill Street).

54In relation to maximum Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”), Mr. Benczkowski opined that the general intent and purpose of the density standard is to ensure buildings are generally compatible in scale and massing. He stated that the ZBL standard is 45%, whereas the MV relief sought for the South and North Lot is 47.75%, and 47.93%, respectively. To support his opinion, Exhibit 1 – Tabs 7 and 8 reviewed approximately 20 past decisions of the COA in the Study Area with several that were granted relief well in excess of the ZBL standard.

55In Mr. Benczkowski’s opinion, and the Tribunal agrees with, the intent of the ZBL standards is generally maintained with the proposed development. The requested MV will result in a built form that is contextually appropriate with other properties in the Study Area. The proposed MV individually and cumulatively meet the intent and purpose of the ZBL and do not adversely exceed the thresholds of the ZBL standards.

56Therefore, for the reasons noted above, the Tribunal adopts Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence that the requested MV maintains the general purpose and intent of the ZBL.

Desirable for the Appropriate Development or Use of the Land

57Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence stated that desirability is determinative if the MVs embody good planning and are in the public interest. He testified that the development proposal is desirable as it represents the gentle intensification of an existing site utilizing the northerly portion of the lot. He stated that the development proposal achieves substantial zoning compliance for both lots and maintains appropriate and compatible scale, built form and setbacks.

58Mr. Benczkowski opined that the development proposal appropriately implements the general intent and objectives of the municipal planning framework and does not introduce an inappropriate building form. He stated that the new and renovated detached dwellings proposed have been designed in a manner which will limit impacts to adjacent neighbours, will contribute to the notion of a complete community, and add to the City’s housing supply.

59The Tribunal adopts Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence that the MVs are desirable and appropriate.

Minor

60The test of whether or not a variance is minor is generally guided by assessing the impact of the MV on adjacent properties. Mr. Benczkowski’s opinion is that both from a numerical and qualitative evaluation, the development proposal does not represent an overbuild on the proposed lots and will not create unacceptable adverse impacts on adjacent neighbours or the neighbourhood at large.

61In the preceding paragraphs, the Tribunal has provided its reasons, based on Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence that the proposed development is compatible with the existing lot pattern, built form and scale of neighbouring properties. The Tribunal agrees that his evidence supporting that the development proposal is generally in substantive compliance with the ZBL is sound in its reasoning.

62The Tribunal concurs with Mr. Benczkowski’s evidence that the consent and MV proposed by the Appellant will not cause undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties and is therefore minor in nature.

FINDINGS

63The Tribunal is satisfied that the Act’s s. 2 and s. 3 (5) (a) tests have been met per the evidence of Mr. Benczkowski in paragraph 39 above.

64The Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the Subject Lands pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act, and confirms that the proposed Consent conforms with the City OP and equally, satisfies the criteria of s. 51(24) of the Act.

65The Tribunal has heard from the Applicant’s Counsel that they will accept the City’s conditions of approval filed as Exhibit 3 for the Applications in this proceeding and it finds that these conditions are reasonable.

66The Tribunal accepts the unconverted land use planning evidence of Mr. Benczkowski that the proposed MVs are minor in nature, desirable for the appropriate development of the land, and that they maintain the general intent and purpose of the OP and ZBL.

67The Tribunal concludes that the matters in this proceeding represent good planning and are in the public interest.

ORDER

70THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, and provisional Consent is to be given and the minor variances to the City of Markham Zoning By-law No.1229, as amended, are authorized subject to the Conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

“N. Rodgers”

N. RODGERS 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.

ATTACHMENT 1

CONDITIONS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE CONSENT APPLICATION

1. Payment of all outstanding realty taxes and local improvements charges owing to date against both the subject and retained parcels, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been fulfilled.

2. Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of the required transfers to effect the severances applied for under File B/032/23, in duplicate, conveying the subject lands, and issuance by the Secretary Treasurer of the certificate required under subsection 53(42) of the Planning Act.

3. Submission to the Secretary-Treasurer of a deposited reference plan showing the subject lands, which conforms substantially to the application as submitted.

4. Payment of the required Conveyance Fee for the creation of residential lots per City of Markham Fee By-law 211-83, as amended.

5. The Owner shall enter into a Development Agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, Director of Planning and Urban Design and/or the Director of Engineering, Director of Operations, or their designates, which Development Agreement shall be registered on title to the lands in priority to all mortgages, charges, liens, and other encumbrances, and the Owner shall be procure and cause to be executed and registered at its own cost and expense such discharges, postponements, and subordination agreements as may be required by the City in order to provide for the priority of registration for the Development Agreement on title to the Lands. The Development Agreement shall specifically provide for matters including, but not limited to:

i. Payment of all applicable fees in accordance with the City’s fee By-law;

ii. Submission of an Appraisal report prepared by a member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada in accordance with the City’s terms of reference respecting the proposed new lot(s), to be reviewed and approved by the City. That prior to issuance of a building permit, a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication be provided based on the Appraisal report;

iii. Notice that the lands may not be connected to the City’s water system, sewage system and/or drainage system (“Municipal Services”), and that in order to connect to the Municipal Services, the Owner must submit an application to the City and pay for the connections to the Municipal Services, which shall be installed by the City.

iv. Submission of securities respecting any works to be provided in accordance with the Development Agreement;

6. Provide confirmation from an Ontario Land Surveyor that the severed and retained parcels, in their final configuration, meets all the requirements of the applicable Zoning By-law, including any development standards for building and structures, and that the Secretary-Treasurer receive written confirmation that this condition has been satisfied to the satisfaction of the Zoning Supervisor or designate.

7. Fulfillment of all of the above conditions within two years of the date that notice of the decision was given under Section 53(17) or 53(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended.

CONDITIONS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE MINOR VARIANCES

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

2. That the variances apply only to the subject development, in substantial conformity with the plan(s) attached as Appendix B to the staff report dated September 17, 2025, and included hereto as Attachment 2 to the Tribunal’s Order dated April 14, 2026, 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 their 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.