Su (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 187

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date: 2024-02-16

22 230315 S53 18 TLAB 23 211065 S45 18 TLAB 23 211066 S45 18 TLAB

Su (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 187

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: February 16, 2024

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 53, subsection 53(19), Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")

Appellant(s): Y. SU

Applicant(s): Z SQUARE CONSULTING INC, SOL ARCH

Property Address: 330 DREWRY AVE

COA File No.: 22 146362 NNY 18 CO (B0028/22NY) 23 120769 NNY 18 MV (A0130/23NY) 23 120784 NNY 18 MV (A0131/23NY)

TLAB Case File No.: 22 230315 S53 18 TLAB 23 211065 S45 18 TLAB 23 211066 S45 18 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): April 03, 2023, January 31, 2024

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Appellant

Y. SU

A. STEWART

Applicant

Z SQUARE CONSULTING INC, SOL ARCH

Expert Witness

J. BENCZKOWSKI

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an appeal by Y. Su (the "Appellant") from three decisions of the North York Panel of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment denying a consent application, and two minor variance applications for the property located at 330 Drewry Avenue (the "Subject Property"). The Appellant seeks to sever an existing parcel, and to build a detached dwelling on each parcel.

2The appeal is being allowed, subject to the conditions outlined at the conclusion of this decision.

3The subject property is located on the north side of Drewry Avenue, with the south entrance to Cactus Avenue to the east, and the north entrance to Grantbrook St to the west. Further east is Hilda Ave and further west is Bathurst Street. The property is zoned Residential Detached (RD) (f15; a550)(x5) in the City of Toronto Zoning By-Law 569-2013, as amended (the "Zoning By-law").

4Prior to the hearing, I visited the Subject Property and familiarized myself with the neighbourhood in which it is situated.

5Three exhibits were entered into the record for this hearing:

a. Exhibit 1: Expert Witness Statement of Jonathan Benczkowski dated December 19, 2023.

b. Exhibit 2: Curriculum Vitae and Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty executed by Jonathan Benczkowski.

c. Exhibit 3: Appellant's Document Book for 330 Drewry Avenue.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

6Provincial Interest - S. 2

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the "Tribunal") shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.

7Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area.

8Consent – S. 53

TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that " regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,

(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;

(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;

(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;

(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;

(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;

(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;

(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;

(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;

(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;

(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;

(j) the adequacy of school sites;

(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;

(l) the extent to which the plan's design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and

(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006. 1994, c. 23, s. 30; 2001, c. 32, s. 31 (2); 2006, c. 23, s. 22 (3, 4); 2016, c. 25, Sched. 4, s. 8 (2).

9Variance – S. 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 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.

10The variance requests are as follows:

330 Drewry Ave – Part 1

1. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15.00 m.

The proposed lot frontage is 12.725 m.

2. Chapter 900.3.10, Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.80 m.

The proposed West side yard setback is 1.238 m.

3. Chapter 900.3.10, Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.80 m.

The proposed East side yard setback is 1.504 m.

330 Drewry Ave – Part 2

1. Chapter 10.20.30.20.(1)A), By-law No. 569-2013

The required minimum lot frontage is 15.00m.

The proposed lot frontage is 12.725m.

2. Chapter 900.3.10, Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.80m.

The proposed East side yard setback is 1.238m.

3. Chapter 900.3.10, Exception RD 5, By-law No. 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.80m.

The proposed West side yard setback is 1.504m.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

11Jonathan Benczkowski was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. Benczkowski is a land use planning consultant at Sol-Arch (Architecture + Planning), with over 20 years of experience in a variety of planning matters. Since 2005, Mr. Benczkowski has been responsible for all of Sol-Arch's planning work, including many consent and minor variance matters.

12Mr. Benczkowski has a degree in Urban, Economic and Social Geography from

the University of Toronto, and is a full member of the Ontario Professional Planners

Institute (RPP) as well as the Canadian Institute of Planners (MCIP).

13Mr. Benczkowski has been qualified by the Ontario Land Tribunal as well as the Tribunal as an expert to provide opinion evidence on land use planning matters on numerous occasions.

14Mr. Benczkowski provided his opinion that the proposal meets the test for a severance under section 53 of the Planning Act, and the four minor variance tests outlined under section 45(1) of the Planning Act. Mr. Benczkowski's evidence will be reviewed in greater detail below.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

Provincial Interest

15Section 2 of the Planning Act identifies matters of provincial interest to which the Tribunal shall have regard.

16Mr. Benczkowski opined that various matters of provincial interest are supported by the subject proposal, including: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, (n) the resolution of planning conflicts involving public and private interests, (p) the appropriate location of growth and development, (q) the promotion of transit supportive development, and (r) the promotion of well-designed built form. Mr. Benczkowski also noted that the detailed review of the design of the proposed new homes has resulted in a built form, scale and massing that is characteristic of the neighbourhood and has reduced adverse impacts on adjacent and surrounding properties.

17I agree with Mr. Benczkowski that various matters of provincial interest are supported by the subject proposal, including the matters of provincial interest which he has cited.

Provincial Policy Statement and Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe

18Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conforms to the Growth Plan. Mr. Benczkowski cited the proposal as being consistent with the following PPS policies: .1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.3.2, 1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4, 1.4.1, and 1.4.3. In addition, Mr. Guetter cited the proposal as conforming to the following Growth Plan policies: 2.2.1.2(a) and (c), and 2.2.1.4.

19I do not believe it is necessary to review the cited policies in detail in this decision as these documents are general in nature and provide the framework within which the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law operate. I accept that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and Conforms to the Growth Plan.

Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan

20The Subject Property is designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan. Policy 4.1.5 outlines Development Criteria for Neighbourhoods.

21Pursuant to Policy 4.1.5 of the Official Plan, Mr. Benczkowski identified a Study Area generally bounded by Charlton Blvd and Kerton Dr to the south, Fairchild Ave to the east, Caines Ave and Marathon Cres to the north, and residential properties to the east of Bathurst St. The study area contains 847 lots, which is a large sample size that Mr. Benczkowski opined allowed for him to complete an analysis for Official Plan conformity purposes.

Exhibit 1 – Tab 3: Neighbourhood Study Area

22I accept the Study Area identified by Mr. Benczkowski. To draw the Neighbourhood boundary, the Official Plan lists nine criteria: "zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human-made dividing features". I accept the analysis of the following criteria which was provided by Mr. Benczkowski to determine the Study Area:

(A) Zoning: The geographic neighbourhood consists of Residential Detached "RD" zones, which permit single detached dwellings.

(B) Prevailing Dwelling Type and Scale: The dwellings within the geographic neighbourhood are single detached dwellings. The Study Area includes a mix of newer and older homes in varying configurations and styles of architecture.

(C) Lot Size & Configuration: Lot size varies throughout the geographic neighbourhood. Within this neighbourhood there is an array of lot frontages and lot sizes. Along the subject block – immediate context, frontages range from 14.13m (46'4") to 25.45m (83'6").

(D) Street Pattern: The street pattern is generally linear resulting in the majority of lots being predominantly rectangular in shape. Although it is not a Major Street, Drewry Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial in the City's Road Classification System and it has characteristics of a busier street than streets that are within the interior of the neighbourhood, including higher traffic. Drewry Avenue is directly served by public transit. The 125 Drewry bus is located steps from the subject property and provides service to Finch Station. Accessible service as well as bikes racks are provided on the route. A number of institutional uses are also located on Drewry Avenue, including the Immanuel Seventh-day Adventist Church, RJ Lang Elementary and Middle School, Lagoinha Toronto Church, Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir head office and the Ecole secondaire catholique Monseigneur-de-Charbonnel, and the Drewry Secondary School. Due to these characteristics, Drewry Avenue functions as a pedestrian and vehicular thoroughfare in the neighbourhood to the north and south.

(A) Pedestrian Connectivity: The entire Study Area is unified as a single neighbourhood through pedestrian connectivity. Most of the streets within the geographic neighbourhood provide pedestrian walkways on either both sides or one side of the street.

23Mr. Benczkowski defined the immediate context to be the lands fronting the north side of Drewry Avenue, as well as a short block fronting the south side of Drewry Avenue and immediately across from the subject property. I find that there is no significant difference between the character of buildings in the immediate context and the broader context.

Section 45(1) Test for Minor Variances

24I will now proceed to go through the four tests for a variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan?

25Mr. Benczkowski opined that the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan is to ensure that new development does not result in changes to a neighbourhood that are not in keeping with its existing physical character. Mr. Benczkowski further opined that the Official Plan does not demand replication but to rather encourage development that is compatible within close proximity of a site, and respects and reinforces the overall physical character (physical form) within a neighbourhood. New development is not required to "be the same as" any single or multiple characteristic(s) that is found to be most frequently occurring. The Official Plan anticipates and tolerates physical differences within a neighbourhood.

26Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and appropriately address the criteria for development in Neighbourhoods. The Official Plan recognizes that neighbourhoods will experience physical change and are not frozen in time. The Proposal respects and reinforces the physical character of the neighbourhood, which includes a variety of lot sizes as well as built forms.

27Mr. Benczkowski cited various policies such as Healthy Neighbourhoods Policy 2.3.1(1), Built Form Policy 3.1.2(1)(d), 3.1.2(5), and 4.1.8, and provided his opinion that the proposed developments maintain the general intent and character of these policies. I accept Mr. Benczkowski's opinion on these policies, and I will be focusing more on policy 4.1.5.

28Before doing so, I want to note that Built form policy 3.1.2(5) includes: a) providing streetwall heights and setbacks that fit harmoniously with the existing and/or planned context; and b) stepping back building mass and reducing building footprints above the

streetwall height.

29I find that the side yard setbacks fit in harmoniously with the planned contexts. The existing east side yard setback for the property is 1.16m. This is less than the proposed west side yard setback of 1.238m and east side yard setback of 1.504m for Part 1. It is also less than the proposed east side yard setback of 1.238m and west side yard setback of 1.504m for Part 2. I find the proposed side yard setbacks fit in harmoniously with the planned context.

30When reviewing criteria 4.5.1(b) Mr. Benczkowski opined that proposed lot frontages of 12.275m will maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. Mr. Benczkowski provided his opinion that the subject property has an existing frontage that is considerably wider than the second widest lot by 4.35m (14'3"), and is wider than the third widest lot by 6.76m (22'2"). Mr. Benczkowski noted that proposal does not include a variance request for a reduction in Lot Area. Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed lot areas are well in excess of the required. Mr. Benczkowski provided his opinion that it is important when examining the proposed size of the lot to not only take into account the lot frontage proposed but also to examine the lot area proposed. Mr. Benczkowski's opinion is that with this proposal, the size of the lot when compared to those in both the immediate and broader context prevail with those in the neighbourhood. The proposal is in keeping with the criteria. I accept Mr. Benczkowski's opinion on this policy criteria.

31When reviewing criteria 4.5.1(d) Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed is for a residential dwelling which is in keeping with the prevailing building type in the neighbourhood. The Proposal is in keeping with the criteria.

32Mr. Benczkowski reviewed criteria 4.1.5(g), which deals with prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open space, opining that the proposed rear yard setbacks for both dwellings meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law. The proposed landscaped areas for both parts meet the requirements of the By-law. The proposed dwellings request relief from the Zoning By-law for side yard setbacks to both the east and west sides. Mr. Benczkowski was of the opinion that within this neighbourhood the setbacks vary from lot to lot. The existing dwelling on the property has a non-compliant setback to the east of 1.16m. The existing dwelling at 326 Drewry Avenue has an existing side yard setback of 1.14m that is also not in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw. Mr. Benczkowski also noted that the properties located within my study area were zoned R4 under the old North York 7625 Zoning By-law. Under the 7625 Zoning By-law a side yard setback of 1.2m was permitted for both one and two storey dwellings with attached garages provided there was no habitable space above the garage. I accept that the proposed side yard setback reduction will respect and reinforce the neighbourhood pattern, and that the Proposal is in keeping with the criteria.

33In conclusion, I accept Mr. Benczkowski's opinion, and find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Do the variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law?

34The general intent and purpose of zoning by-laws are to ensure compatible built form within the area and to ensure that new development does not cause unacceptable undue adverse impacts on the existing neighbourhood. Mr. Benczkowski opined and I accept that the proposal maintains this intent and does not introduce an inappropriate building form.

35The general intent and purpose of the side yard setback provision is to achieve appropriate separation between dwellings as well as to facilitate access to the rear yard.

36Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed side yard setback is able to facilitate access to the rear yard and would allow for OBC compliance if a Garden Suite were to be proposed in the rear. Additionally, Mr. Benczkowski opined that his Committee Decision Chart in Exhibit 1 at Tab 11 shows that it is typical for development applications in the geographic neighbourhood to request and obtain approval for comparable reductions in-side yard setbacks. I agree with Mr. Benczkowski and find that the general intent and purpose of the side yard provision is maintained.

37The general intent and purpose of the minimum lot frontage provision is to achieve an appropriate lot size within the physical context of its surroundings.

38Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposal achieves this by fitting in with the subject block of Drewry Avenue as well as the surrounding neighbourhood. Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposed frontage will bring the current property closer in line with the prevailing frontages that exist on this block, which contains an array of lot frontages and lot sizes. I note that 318 Drewry Ave recently received approvals for a severance into two lots with frontages of 14.12m. I also note that due to the depth of the lots there is no variance required for lot size. I find that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of the minimum lot frontage provision in the Zoning By-law.

39I find that the proposed variances for Parts 1 and 2 individually and cumulatively maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land?

40Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposal will provide two new high-quality dwellings which are designed so that they can easily accommodate secondary suites in the basement. The accessory units have the potential to create four housing units on lands that current contains one housing unit. Mr. Benczkowski's opinion is that the outcome will be an addition to the housing stock in a desirable neighbourhood.

41Mr. Benczkowski further opined that the creation of new lots has been done in a manner which is acceptable and will not cause any unacceptable adverse impacts of a planning nature given the array of frontages, built forms and architectural styles not only on Drewry Avenue but also throughout the neighbourhood. In addition, the requested variances will allow for the creation of an additional residential lot in an area that is well serviced by transit and will assist the city in creating additional housing opportunities.

42I agree with Mr. Benczkowski and find that the proposal is desirable fo the appropriate development or use of the land and will not result in any adverse impacts of a planning nature.

Are the variances minor?

43Mr. Benczkowski opined that the proposal will not create a dwelling which is out of character with the numerous architectural styles and built forms in the neighbourhood. In addition, the proposed built form is compliant with all height requirements, building length and depth provisions, and the rear wall of both dwellings are generally in line with or modestly project behind their adjacent neighbours. Mr. Benczkowski's opinion is that there will be no unacceptable adverse impacts with respect to shadowing, overlook, and privacy.

44I agree with Mr. Benczkowski that the proposed variances are minor in nature both numerically and qualitatively. In addition, I agree that there are no unacceptable undue adverse impacts arising from the proposal.

Consent Request subsection 51(24) Criteria

45Section 51(24) of the Planning Act lists various criteria to consider for the severance of land. Mr. Benczkowski reviewed these criteria and provided his opinion that the proposal has appropriate regard for them. In addition, Mr. Benczkowski provided his opinion on the following criteria:

• (a) That the proposal suitably addresses matters of provincial interest. I agree, and I have provided various reasons why throughout the various areas of this decision.

• (b) That the proposed severance is not premature and is in the public interest. I agree, especially considering that the proposal will increase the housing stock in the neighbourhood, from 1 to potentially 4 units, if the basement ancillary units are created.

• (c) That the proposed severance conforms to the Official Plan and adjacent plans of subdivision. I agree, and the reasoning applied for the finding that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan can also be applied here.

• (f) That the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots are appropriate given the existing lot frontage on the site and the frontages of neighbouring properties. I agree, and have discussed my findings with regard to the lot frontage previously in the context of the proposed variances.

• (g) That there are no restrictions or proposed restrictions which would hinder the development of the site. I agree with this opinion, as I have found that the proposed variances meet the four tests outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

• (h) That there are no implications to the conservation of natural resources and flood control. I agree that there was no evidence before the Tribunal that would suggest otherwise.

• (i) Municipal services and utilities are adequate. I agree that the existing lot is fully serviced and there is no evidence to suggest that services and utilities would not be available for the newly created lot.

• (j) School sites are adequate. I agree, as there are schools in the neighbourhood. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the existing school sites are not adequate for the creation of an additional lot.

46In conclusion I find that the proposed severance meets the necessary criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act.

CONCLUSION

47In conclusion, I find that the severance proposal meets the necessary criteria under section 51(24) of the Planning Act. I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. In addition, I find that the proposed variances for Parts 1 and 2 meet the four tests for a variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

48The appeal for the severance application is allowed and provisional consent is given on the condition that before a Certificate of Official is issued, as required by Section 53(42) of the Planning Act, the applicant is to fulfill the following conditions to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment:

a. Confirmation of payment of outstanding taxes to the satisfaction of the Revenue Services Division, in the form of a statement of tax account current to within 30 days of an applicant's request to the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment to issue the Certificate of Official as outlined in Condition 6.

b. Municipal numbers for the subject lots, blocks, parts, or otherwise indicated on the applicable registered reference plan of survey shall be assigned to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.

c. One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey integrated to NAD 83 CSRS (3 degree Modified Transverse Mercator projection), delineating by separate Parts the lands and their respective areas, shall be filed with, and to the satisfaction of, the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services.

d. One electronic copy of the registered reference plan of survey satisfying the requirements of the Manager, Land and Property Surveys, Engineering Support Services, Engineering and Construction Services shall be filed with the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.

e. Prepare and submit a digital draft of the Certificate of Official, Form 2 or 4, O. Reg. 197/96, referencing either subsection 50(3) or (5) of the Planning Act if applicable as it pertains to the conveyed land and/or consent transaction to the satisfaction of the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment.

f. Once all of the other conditions have been satisfied, the applicant shall request, in writing, that the Deputy Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment issue the Certificate of Official.

g. Within TWO YEARS of the date of the giving of this notice of decision, the applicant shall comply with the above-noted conditions.

49The appeals with respect to the minor variance applications for Parts 1 and 2 are allowed on the following conditions:

a. The proposed dwellings shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following plans, prepared by Beyond Design Consulting dated May 30, 2023:

Part 1: Site Plan (Part 1) (A1.1.1), South Elevation (A1.3.1), North Elevation (A1.3.2), West Elevation (A1.3.3), East Elevation (A1.3.4);

Part 2: Site Plan (Part 2) (A1.1.1), South Elevation (A1.3.1), North Elevation (A1.3.2), West Elevation (A1.3.3), East Elevation (A1.3.4);

b. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a City owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article II Trees on City Streets.

c. Submission of a complete application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s), as per City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III Private Tree Protection.

d. The applicant shall submit revised site plan(s) with the following revisions and notations to the satisfaction of the Engineering and Construction Services and Transportation Services, at no cost to the City;

i. Illustrate a positive slope of a minimum 2% to a maximum 4% that will be maintained on each of the proposed driveways, as measured between curb line of Drewry Ave. to the proposed garage door entrance;

ii. Clearly indicate the restoration of the redundant portion of the former driveway with sod, which shall be designed to municipal standards;

iii. Illustrate the width of the proposed driveway for Part 1 and 2 within the public right-of-way, as well as the proposed curb cut. Additionally, ensure that the existing sidewalk along the site frontage is continuous through the proposed driveways;

iv. Add a notation on the site plan drawing stating that "The owner must obtain all required permits from the Permits and Enforcement unit of Transportation Services prior to commencing construction, which may include but not be limited to, payment of a Municipal Road Damage Deposit. The owner must contact the Permits and Enforcement unit of Transportation Services in order to obtain the exact particulars of all required permits"; and,

v. Add a notation on the associated plans stating that "All portions of existing site access driveways that are no longer required must be closed and restored with soft landscaping and full concrete curbs, to the satisfaction of Transportation Services".

T. Kezwer

Panel Member