Price v. Jahanian, 2023 ONTLAB 102

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 211 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date: 2023-06-14

22 191716 S45 15 TLAB

Price v. Jahanian, 2023 ONTLAB 102

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: June 14, 2023

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s): N. R. Price

Applicant(s): David Small Designs

Property Address: 20 Buckingham Avenue

COA File No.: 22 102551 NNY 15 MV (A0018/22NY)

TLAB Case File No.: 22 191716 S45 15 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): Tuesday, February 7, 2023

Decision Delivered By: Panel Member C. Wong

Registered Parties:

Applicant: David Small Designs

Appellant: N. R. Price

Party (TLAB): T. Jahanian

Party’s Legal Rep.: I. Andres

Expert Witness: M. Rendl

Expert Witness: M. Barton

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1The Applicant/Owner of 20 Buckingham Avenue (the “Subject Property”) proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new three-storey single-detached dwelling on the lot.

2The Subject Property is located within a low-density residential community that is part of a large area designated Neighbourhoods under the City of Toronto Official Plan. It is zoned Residential Detached, RD (f15.0; d0.35) (x1432), under the City-wide harmonized Zoning By-law 569-2013.

3The Applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment (“Committee”) for the following variances:

1. Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law No. 569-2013 In the RD zone with a minimum required lot frontage of 18.0 m or less, the permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 m. The proposed building length is 17.77 m.

2. Chapter 10.20.40.40.(1) A), By-law No. 569-2013 The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.35 times the area of the lot. The proposed floor space index is 0.596 times the area of the lot.

4On July 28, 2022, the Committee authorized the two variances with the condition that: “Permeable pavers be used in the rear yard.”¹

5On August 16, 2022, the owner of 22 Buckingham Avenue, the property adjacent to 20 Buckingham on the east side, appealed the Committee’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (“TLAB”). The Tribunal set a virtual Hearing date for January 23, 2023.

6At the virtual Hearing, the Applicant, Ms. Tara Jahanian, her legal representative Mr. Ian Andres, and her expert witness Mr. Martin Rendl attended. In addition, the Appellant, Mr. Nigel Ross Price, his (non-legal) representative and the co-owner of 22 Buckingham Avenue Ms. Susan Han, and his expert witness Mr. Michael Barton attended.

7Mr. Rendl and Mr. Barton were both deemed qualified, sworn, and they acknowledged their expert’s duty (Form 6) to provide evidence that is objective and non-partisan as required by the TLAB.

8At the completion of the time available for the Hearing on January 23, 2023, Mr. Andres requested another virtual Hearing date to complete cross-examination of Mr. Barton.

9The TLAB scheduled a subsequent virtual Hearing date for February 7, 2023. At this second Hearing, Ms. Jahanian and her spouse (on the same video-camera), Mr. Andres, and Mr. Rendl attended for the Applicant. For the Appellant, Mr. Ross, Ms. Han, and Mr. Barton attended.

10In addition, at the second Hearing, Mr. Lutz Fullgaf, an observer on behalf of the Lawrence Park Ratepayers Association (“LPRA”) attended. Mr. Fullgaf was apparently unaware of the first Hearing date, so did not attend. Mr. Fullgaf also did not elect status as a Party or Participant in the matter.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

11Variance – Planning Act, Section 45(1)

In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Planning Act (“Act”). The tests are whether the variances:

• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
• maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
• are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
• are minor.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

12Exhibit 1 – Applicant’s Document Disclosure book, December 12, 2022.

13Exhibit 2 – Applicant’s Expert Witness Statement (by Martin Rendl), December 12, 2022.

14Exhibit 3 – Applicant’s Reply to Appellant’s Response to Witness Statement, January 4, 2023.

15Exhibit 4 – Appellant’s Expert Witness Statement (Part 1 and 2) (by Michael Barton), December 12, 2022.

16Exhibit 5 – Appellant’s Response to Applicant’s Witness Statement, December 28, 2022.

MATTERS AT ISSUE

17Do the Applicant’s requested variances meet the Planning Act requirements?

A. Are the requested variances consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and do they conform to the Growth Plan?

B. On a balance of probabilities, do the variances, individually and cumulatively, satisfy the four statutory tests of Planning Act s.45(1)?

ANALYSIS, REASONS AND FINDINGS

Issue A

18Under Section 3(5)(a) of the Planning Act, a decision of the TLAB that affects a planning matter, including variance applications, is to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”). Further, “The PPS provides overall policy directions on matters of provincial interest related to land use and development in Ontario and applies to the Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”), except where the Growth Plan or another provincial plan provides otherwise.”²

PPS

19The Applicant’s proposed detached dwelling would contribute to housing regeneration within the neighbourhood. It would direct development within a settlement area, supporting efficient use of land and resources (Policy 1.1.3.2 (a)). It would efficiently use the infrastructure and public service facilities which are planned or available, avoiding the need for unjustified expansion beyond the settlement areas (Policy 1.1.3.2(b)), and minimize land consumption and servicing costs (Policy 1.1.1(e)). On balance, the proposed variances are consistent with the policy objectives of the PPS.

Growth Plan

20The general direction of the higher-level Provincial policies is to encourage intensification at appropriate locations that can take advantage of existing services and infrastructure. The proposal would allow for intensified use of the Subject Property, and an expanded, modern space for living within an urban area where existing infrastructure and services exist. The proposal would provide new opportunities for living in a well-established neighbourhood which is supplied with infrastructure, services, and amenities to support healthy and active living. On balance, the proposed variances conform with the Growth Plan.

Issue B

1. General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan

21The Official Plan contains the following policy on healthy neighbourhoods and development:

"Policy - 2.3.1 Healthy Neighbourhoods

"[N]eighbourhoods will not stay frozen in time. The Neighbourhoods where we grew up and now raise our children help shape the adults and society we become. Some physical change will occur over time as enhancements, additions and infill housing occurs on individual sites. A cornerstone policy is to ensure that new physical development in our neighbourhoods respects the existing physical character of the area, reinforcing the stability of the neighbourhood."³

1. Neighbourhoods and Apartment Neighbourhoods “are considered to be physically stable areas". Development within Neighbourhoods and Apartment Neighbourhoods will be consistent with this objective and will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of buildings, streetscapes, and open space patterns in these areas.”⁴

22"Policy - 4.1.5 Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods

"5. Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood, including in particular:

a) patterns of streets, blocks and lanes, parks, and public building sites; b) prevailing size and configuration of lots; c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density, and dwelling type of nearby residential properties; d) prevailing building type(s); e) prevailing location, design, and elevations relative to the grade of driveways and garages; f) prevailing setbacks of buildings from the street or streets; g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space; h) continuation of special landscape or built-form features that contribute to the unique physical character of the geographic neighbourhood; and i) conservation of heritage buildings, structures, and landscapes.”⁵

"The physical character of the geographic neighbourhood includes both the physical characteristics of the entire geographic area in proximity to the proposed development (the broader context) and the physical characteristics of the properties that face the same street as the proposed development in the same block and the block opposite the proposed development (the immediate context).” ⁶

23Official Plan Policy 4.1.5 elaborates that “the physical character of the geographic neighbourhood includes both the physical characteristics of the broader and immediate context and that a proposed development must be “materially consistent with the prevailing physical character of properties in both the broader and immediate contexts”. ⁷ It continues, “In instances of significant difference between these two contexts, the immediate context will be considered to be of greater relevance.” ⁸

24In addition, "[i]n determining whether a proposed development in a Neighbourhood is materially consistent with the physical character of nearby properties, only the physical character of properties within the geographic neighbourhood in which the proposed development is to be located will be considered."⁹

Policy 4.1.5 (c) Prevailing heights, massing, scale, density, and dwelling type of nearby residential properties

25The following section analyzes whether the requested variances satisfy the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, focusing on the relevant Policy 4.1.5(c).

26At the Hearing, two professional planners, representing the opposing Parties, gave expert opinion that drew the boundaries of the immediate and broader neighbourhoods differently. As a result, the planners came to two different conclusions as to whether a) the immediate and broader neighbourhoods had any differences, and most importantly whether b) the variances for building length and Floor Space Index (“FSI”) are materially consistent with the prevailing character of the properties in the surrounding neighbourhood and particularly in the immediate context.

27To provide an overview, which I explain in depth below, I find that the Applicant’s planner Mr. Rendl did not sufficiently consider zoning when defining the immediate and broader neighbourhoods of the Subject Property. As a result, I find insufficient evidence that the variances for building length and FSI, which directly affect massing and density, are compatible with the prevailing density in the immediate neighbourhood.

i) Defining the Neighbourhood

28The Applicant’s Planner, Mr. Rendl, defined his geographic neighbourhood, or Neighbourhood Study Area (“NSA”), as an area of about a 5 to 10 minutes-walk from the Subject Property. He defined this typical walk (to reach transit or walking the dog)¹⁰ as an appropriate size of area to consider with respect to the existing physical character of the neighbourhood.

29His NSA “is generally bounded by:

• Lawrence Avenue East on the north;
• Mount Pleasant Road on the west;
• St. Leonard’s Avenue on the south;
• Mildenhall Road on the east.”¹¹

30In defining his NSA, Mr. Rendl noted that Official Plan Policy 4.1.5 directs that the geographic neighbourhood be delineated by considering the parameters of the neighbourhood in proximity to a proposed development, including the following:

“zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features.”¹²

31Mr. Rendl also noted that “the boundary between the former City of Toronto and the former City of North York is located [within his NSA] approximately 150 m or about 15 lots to the east of the Subject Site at St. Ives Avenue and Crescent.” ¹³ His broader geographic context thus contained properties to the east and west of the former City of North York boundary.

32Mr. Rendl submitted that the properties east of 99 Buckingham Avenue are located in the former City of North York which, following the former City of North York’s Zoning By-law 7625, does not regulate floor space index.¹⁴ In particular, Mr. Rendl acknowledged that the implicit as-of-right FSI in the former City of North York portion of his NSA is “double the as-of-right 0.35 FSI permitted … in the former City of Toronto”,¹⁵ where the Subject Property is located. Despite identifying these zoning and resulting as-of-right differences, Mr. Rendl did not consider zoning as a primary consideration in defining the geographic neighbourhood for the Subject Property.

33Rather, in defining the immediate neighbourhood, Mr. Rendl focused on whether a lay person would feel the difference between the immediate and broader context as determinative. He defined the immediate context to include “both sides of Buckingham Avenue from Dinnick Crescent to St. Ives Crescent and Avenue [Road] (12 to 75 Buckingham Avenue).”¹⁶

34Mr. Rendl then defined the broader neighbourhood context as the area within the NSA outside of the immediate context.

35With these definitions of the immediate and broader neighbourhood, Mr. Rendl opined that “the immediate and broader contexts have the same physical character”.¹⁷

ii) Prevailing heights, massing, scale, density

Variance 1 – Building Length

36Mr. Rendl provided that in his NSA, the minimum, maximum, and average approved building lengths are 17.07 m, 22.81 m, and 19.37 m, respectively. He opined that the requested length variance of 17.77 m fits within the range of other approvals in the neighbourhood. Mr. Rendl also emphasized that the building length variance would be required to accommodate a 0.356 m projection of pilasters at the front of the dwelling next to the front door.¹⁸

37In submitting that the building length variance would be compatible with the immediate neighbourhood, he did not, however, address how building length and FSI variances would create an overall greater massing, scale, and density for the built structure.

Variance 2 – Floor Space Index

38Mr. Rendl stated that the minimum, maximum, and average approved FSI values in his NSA are 0.366, 0.637, and 0.528 times the lot area, respectively.¹⁹ He asserted that the requested 0.596 FSI is “reasonably deployed on the lot”,²⁰ and fits within the range of other approvals in his NSA.²¹ Although the requested FSI is above the average approved in his NSA, he opined that the massing and scale of the proposed dwelling would respect and reinforce the massing and scale of nearby residential properties.

39In addition, concluding no distinction between the immediate and broader context, Mr. Rendl submitted that there is a variety of prevailing massing, scale, and density among residential properties in the neighbourhood, including other two and three-story buildings with similar height and scale. He asserted that the requested variances would fit within this varying prevailing character.

40Although Mr. Rendl noted that in the eastern portion of his broader neighbourhood “FSI is not directly regulated,”²² while in the western portion where the Subject Property is located FSI is regulated, he argued that in the eastern portion of his broader neighbourhood, “a de facto or implicit as-of-right FSI results from the 35% maximum lot coverage which for a two-storey house is equivalent to a 0.70 FSI.” ²³ He thus asserted that both sides of the former City boundary “share the same existing physical character.” ²⁴

41Although Mr. Rendl, emphasized the lack of distinction between the immediate and broader contexts, despite the zoning differences, the Appellant’s planner, Mr. Barton, demonstrated significant differences within Mr. Rendl’s broader context with respect to density.

42In particular, Mr. Barton identified that the Subject Property’s Residential Detached (f15.0; d0.35) (x1432) zoning provision “permits only detached houses for residential uses and establishes a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and maximum floor space index of 0.35 times the lot area”.²⁵ Mr. Barton continued, “The surrounding zoning designations permit different uses and have considerably different regulations for minimum lot frontage and maximum floor space index, among other regulations. The differences in the zoning regulations reflect differences in existing and permitted dwelling types and scale, and lot size and configuration, in these contiguous neighbourhoods”.²⁶

43In defining the Subject Property’s immediate and broader neighbourhoods differently than Mr. Rendl, Mr. Barton considered a natural dividing feature (where Mr. Rendl did not). Mr. Barton states, according to Policy 4.1.5, the “ravine along the west and south of the area subject to this zoning designation represents a large natural dividing feature from the residential neighbourhoods to the west and south”.²⁷

44On this basis, Mr. Barton “defined the broader context to include the properties located within the RD (f15.0; d0.35) (x1432) zone that includes the Subject Property and is generally bound by Lawrence Avenue East to the north, the Blythwood-Sherwood Ravine to the south, the Lawrence Park Ravine to the west and St. Ives Avenue to the east.”²⁸

45In his defined broader context, Mr. Barton opined that “there are pockets within the broader context that differ considerably in terms of street pattern and lot size and configuration”.²⁹ In addition, considering differences in By-law requirements for density, Mr. Barton submitted that there are significant differences between the immediate and broader context. Specifically, Mr. Barton demonstrated that in the immediate neighbourhood, the approved FSI values have a lower maximum threshold, median and average than in the broader neighbourhood.

46Of the seven FSI variance approvals among the 27 properties in the immediate context, FSI ranged from 0.37 to 0.58, compared with 0.37 to 0.689 in the broader context. In the immediate context, the median and average FSI were 0.5 times the lot area, compared with 0.53 and 0.52 in the broader context. Most importantly, Mr. Barton concluded that in the immediate context, only one property, 38 Buckingham Avenue, received relief for FSI and maximum building length. “At 17.07 metres in length, in conjunction with FSI of 0.58, 38 Buckingham Avenue represents that most significant relief granted from the prevailing zoning regulations in the immediate context.”³⁰

47In addition, of the 99 FSI variance approvals in the broader context, Mr. Barton submitted that FSI values ranged from 0.37 to 0.689 times the lot size, with the median and average being 0.53 and 0.52, respectively.”³¹ Of these 99 FSI approvals, “[o]nly 10 of these approvals were for FSI of 0.596 or higher.”³² On this basis, Mr. Barton asserted that the “requested FSI of 0.596 represents the higher end of FSI values approved in the broader context as opposed to the most frequently occurring condition or prevailing character.” ³³

48Mr. Barton concluded that the “requested building length and floor space index do not represent the most frequently occurring form of development in that neighbourhood and do not exist in substantial numbers within either the broader or immediate context.”³⁴

49I agree with Mr. Barton’s definitions of the immediate and broader context, where zoning By-laws are a key parameter in defining neighbourhood context. I also find that differences in zoning regulations between the former North York and City of Toronto are relevant despite the possibility that a lay person passing along may not perceive a distinct boundary between the two By-law regions. Prior to amalgamation, the former City of York and former City of Toronto By-laws shaped the neighbourhoods and lacking data on properties that have not undergone Committee of Adjustment applications within the last 15 years, these grandfathered By-law standards are relevant in defining the existing immediate and broader neighbourhood of the subject property.

50The Official Plan directs that when such differences exist between the immediate and broader context, the immediate context is of greater relevance. In this case, Mr. Barton has illustrated that individual FSI variances and building density, as represented by the cumulative impact of building length and FSI, are lower in the immediate context than in the broader neighbourhood.

51I agree with Mr. Barton that the requested building length and FSI are not prevailing in the broader or immediate context and do not reinforce the existing neighbourhood character.

52On a balance of probabilities, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the requested variances for building length and FSI satisfy the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan with respect to reinforcing the neighbourhood character, particularly with respect to density in the immediate context.

2. General Intent and Purpose of the Bylaws

Variance 1 – Building Length

53The intent of the Zoning By-law’s maximum building length provision is to regulate overall building length from the front to rear wall, to ensure consistency among dwellings. The intention of maximum building length is also to regulate the overall massing and built form of the dwelling.

54Mr. Rendl demonstrated that existing dwellings along Buckingham Avenue “extend various distances into the rear of their lot, creating a non-uniform pattern of rear yard setbacks where dwellings are often have (sic) greater lengths than the adjacent house.”³⁵ He submitted that 16 and 22 Buckingham Avenue extend past the rear wall of the existing house on the Subject Property. He also showed that a building length of 18.77 m is consistent with, and in fact less than, almost all of the other approvals in the NSA.³⁶

55Mr. Rendl did not, however, provide sufficient evidence on the cumulative impact of the building length variance when combined with the FSI variance on the massing and built form of the proposed dwelling. In this case, the proposal is for a three-storey dwelling, requiring a building length variance for two full levels, with a balcony at variance on the third, compared to a stepped design where only one or at most two levels require this building length variance.

56I find that Mr. Rendl did not demonstrate how the requested variance satisfies the intention of the building length By-law to regulate overall massing and built form of the dwelling.

Variance 2 – Floor Space Index

57The Zoning By-law employs Floor Space Index as a numerical indicator of ‘density’ on a site. The general intent of the By-law provision for maximum permitted Floor Space Index is in large part to regulate the amount of Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) that can be built on a property. The FSI provision is not subservient to the building envelope, which is sketched out by the maximums and minimums of building height, length, depth, and setback provisions.

58Concerning the variance for FSI, Mr. Rendl submitted that the proposed development is “accommodated within the building envelope set out in Zoning By-law, with the … exception of building length”.³⁷ Still, he did not explain how the requested FSI variance is effectively controlling the proposal’s massing and built form.

59Mr. Rendl then referred to the City’s Community Planning staff report, in which staff wrote that “FSI variances are one of the most common ones sought and approved at Committee” ³⁸ … “where it has consistently been below 0.6 times the area of the lot.”³⁹ From this, he concluded that Planning staff suggest that FSIs below 0.6 are “a prevailing characteristic of this neighbourhood.”⁴⁰

60By contrast, in the next sentence of its report, Community Planning staff recommended that since the Applicant is also requesting a building length variance that contributes to higher density, that the Applicant reduce its FSI to respect and reinforce the surrounding neighbourhood.⁴¹ Additionally, the Planning staff report does not suggest that any FSI value up to 0.6 is compatible with the existing neighbourhood context.

61I find that the Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated how the requested FSI variance satisfies the By-law’s intention to regulate floor area. In addition, the Applicant has not demonstrated how the requested building length (for which it also seeks a variance) would work with the FSI variance and proposed building height, depth, and setbacks to satisfy the FSI performance standard’s regulation of building massing, scale, and density.

3. Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land

62It is an appropriate use of land to redevelop the Subject Property with a single detached dwelling. It is useful to increase density in areas of urban development, to a point.

63It is not desirable, however, to allow variances that do not respect and reinforce the character of the immediate neighbourhood. The proposal does not improve the supply of single detached dwellings in a manner that would fit in with the existing and planned physical character of the neighbourhood, due to the cumulative impact that the building length and FSI would have on the neighbourhood.

4. Minor

64The test for minor focuses on the scale and nature of perceived impacts caused by the variances. The courts have established that the test is not one of no impact, but whether the imputed impact rises to the level of being an undue adverse impact of a planning nature.

65I find the Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated that its proposal has mitigated shadow, light, and privacy impacts on neighbouring properties, and how its variances meet the test for minor. In particular, the combination of variances for FSI and building length would create a three-storey dwelling with windows and balconies on the second and third floors, and two full storeys at a building length variance. This would create significant impacts on adjacent neighbours east and west, including Ms. Han and Mr. Price’s property. In particular, the adjacent neighbours cited significant concerns under the proposal with the privacy and comfort of their rear yard amenities.

CONCLUSION

66Based on the analysis above, I find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, do not satisfy the four statutory tests of s. 45(1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

67The Appeal is allowed. The decision of the Committee of Adjustment dated July 28, 2022, is set aside, and the variances are not authorized.

C. Wong Panel Member

Footnotes

1. 1Notice of Decision Minor Variance/Permission, File Number A018/22NY, Issued July 28, 2022.
2. 2Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13.
3. 3Toronto City, Official Plan, March 2022, Page 2-27.
4. 4Ibid., Page 2-29.
5. 5Ibid., Page 4-4.
6. 6Ibid., Page 4-4 (emphasis added).
7. 7Ibid., Pages 4-4 to 4-5.
8. 8Ibid., Pages 4-4 to 4-5.
9. 9Ibid., Page 4-5.
10. 10Applicant’s Expert Witness Statement (By Martin Rendl), December 13, 2022, Para 46.
11. 11Ibid., Para 44.
12. 12Applicant’s Expert Witness Statement (By Martin Rendl), December 13, 2022, Para 45.
13. 13Ibid., Para 54, Figure 1.
14. 14Ibid., Para 54, Figure 1.
15. 15Ibid., Para 55.
16. 16Ibid., Para 92.
17. 17Ibid., Para 92.
18. 18Ibid., Para 100, Table 3.
19. 19Ibid., Para 48.
20. 20Ibid.
21. 21Ibid., Para 48.
22. 22Ibid., Para 55.
23. 23Ibid., Para 55.
24. 24Ibid., Para 55.
25. 25Appellant’s Expert Witness Statement (Part 1 and 2) (By Michael Barton), December 12, 2022, Para 24.
26. 26Ibid., Para 24.
27. 27Ibid., Para 25.
28. 28Appellant’s Response to Applicant’s Witness Statement, December 28, 2022, Para 26.
29. 29Ibid., Para 13; Supra., Appellant’s Expert Witness Statement (Part 1 and 2) (by Michael Barton), December 12, 2022, Para 34.
30. 30Supra., Appellant’s Expert Witness Statement (by Michael Barton), December 12, 2022, Para 38.
31. 31Ibid., Para 33.
32. 32Ibid., Para 33.
33. 33Supra., Appellant’s Response to Applicant’s Witness Statement, December 28, 2022, Para 8.
34. 34Ibid., Para 69.
35. 35Supra., Applicant’s Witness Statement, December 13, 2022, Para 115, Figure 2.
36. 36Ibid., Appendix “D”.
37. 37Ibid., Para 122.
38. 38Ibid., Para 123.
39. 39Applicant’s Disclosure, December 13, 2022 (Tab 10 – Community Planning Staff Report, March 14, 2022, Pg 2).
40. 40Supra., Applicant’s Witness Statement, December 13, 2022, Para 123.
41. 41Supra., Applicant Disclosure, December 13, 2022 (Tab 10 – Community Planning Staff Report, March 14, 2022, Pg 2).