Toronto Local Appeal Body

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

Date: 2024-03-19

23 165528 S53 02 TLAB, 23 165529 S45 02 TLAB, 23 165530 S45 02 TLAB

Sadry (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 202

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date: March 19, 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): M. SADRY

Applicant(s): URBANSCAPE ARCHITECTS INC

Property Address: 49 Bywood Dr.

COA File No.: 23 123467 WET 02 CO (B0009/23EYK), 23 123477 WET 02 MV (A0117/23EYK), 23 123479 WET 02 MV (A0118/23EYK)

TLAB Case File No.: 23 165528 S53 02 TLAB, 23 165529 S45 02 TLAB, 23 165530 S45 02 TLAB

Hearing Date(s): October 12, 2023 February 13, 2024

Decision Delivered By: TLAB Vice-Chair A. Bassios

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Owner/Appellant

M. Sadry

M. Mazierski

Applicant

Urbanscape Architects Inc.

Expert Witness

D. Igelman

Party

N. De Francesco

Expert Witness – Late

S. Matveeva

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This is an Appeal of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment’s (COA) refusal of an application to sever a lot, and for variances for the resulting two lots.

2The subject property is known as 49 Bywood Dr. The subject property is located in the central part of the former City of Etobicoke.

3It is designated Neighbourhoods in the City Official Plan (OP) and zoned RD (f15.0; a555; 0.45) (x37) under Zoning By-law 569-2013.

4THE CONSENT REQUESTED:

To obtain consent to sever the property into two residential lots.

Conveyed - Part 1

The lot frontage will be 16.93 m and the lot area will be 590.9 m². The existing dwelling will be demolished and the property will be redeveloped as the site of a new detached dwelling with an attached garage, requiring variances to the Zoning By-law.

Retained - Part 2

The lot frontage will be 16.93 m and the lot area will be 597.2 m². The existing dwelling will be demolished and the property will be redeveloped as the site of a new detached dwelling with an attached garage, requiring variances to the Zoning By-law.

5REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:

Part 1

Section 900.3.10.(37)(C)(i), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted gross floor area, including an attached or detached garage, is 150 m² plus 25% of the lot area (297.72 m²), provided that the maximum floor space index does not otherwise exceed 0.5. (295.45 m²).

The proposed dwelling, including the attached garage, will have a gross floor area of 150 m² plus 44.7% of the lot area (414.15 m²) and will have a floor space index of 0.7.

Part 2

Section 900.3.10.(37)(C)(i), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted gross floor area, including an attached or detached garage, is 150 m² plus 25% of the lot area (299.3 m²), provided that the maximum floor space index does not otherwise exceed 0.5. (298.6 m²)

The proposed dwelling, including the attached garage, will have a gross floor area of 150 m² plus 44% of the lot area (414.15 m²) and will have a floor space index of 0.69.

6A Notice of Hearing had previously been issued for this Appeal, setting October 12, 2023 as the Hearing date. Issues arose from the Applicant’s late revision of the application and an Interim Order was issued by the TLAB directing that a new Notice of Hearing be issued and setting new submission dates for documents, including Document Disclosure, Witness Statements, and Expert Witness Statements.

7I advised those present at the Hearing that I had attended at the site and the surrounding area and had reviewed the pre-filed materials in preparation of the hearing of their evidence.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

8Provincial Interest - S. 2

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

9Provincial Policy – S. 3

A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (‘TLAB’) must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe for the subject area (‘Growth Plan’).

10Consent – 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;

(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).

11Variance – 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.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

12Mr. Igelman was qualified as an expert in land use planning. He provided evidence in support of the application.

13The proposal before the TLAB, and supported in his revised Expert Witness Statement, is for the existing house on the property to be demolished and for two two-storey detached houses to be constructed on two new lots. The previous proposals that were submitted to the COA, and the previous revisions to the TLAB plans, have been superseded by the current proposal.

14Mr. Igelman described the property and surrounding context as follows:

The subject property is “relatively irregularly wide” as compared to other properties within the neighbourhood.
the neighbourhood mainly consists of single-detached dwellings, which are typically one to two storeys in height.

Figure 1: Photo Study (Adjacent Properties).EX2, 4-5.

15Ms. Matveeva was qualified as an Expert in land use planning. She provided evidence in opposition to the application.

16In her opinion, the in-effect zoning reflects the low-rise, low-density, eclectic residential character of the Neighbourhood.

Figure 2: Aerial Context. EX4, Tab A.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

17Mr. Ingelman’s Expert Witness Statement addresses the policies of the PPS and the Growth Plan in some detail. As the proposal is located in a mature urban area and consists of a proposed net increase of one lot and one house, I find in this circumstance that the high-level policies of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan are not directly engaged. I shall rely on application of the Official Plan policies and the Zoning By-law provisions to implement provincial policy directions.

18I am satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Planning Act as the proposal is a division of the existing legal lot in a long-established area. No adaptation or construction of public infrastructure is required.

19Of the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act, I consider criteria (c) and (f) to warrant further discussion in this Decision.

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

20As the Official Plan contains policy about dimensions and shapes of lots, I have folded consideration of both criteria c) and f) above into the discussion of the Official Plan.

OFFICIAL PLAN – DIMENSIONS AND SHAPES OF LOTS

21Mr. Igelman provided a review of relevant Official Plan policies. Official Plan Policy 3.1.2.1 provides a helpful overarching statement of the intent of the Official Plan with respect to built form: Development will be located and organized to fit with its existing and planned context.

22OP Policy 4.1.5 provides direction for assessing the “fit” of development within Neighbourhoods. The policy contains within it development criteria that are intended to give greater specificity regarding the expectation for development in Neighbourhoods.

4.1.5 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.

Neighbourhood Study Area

23OP Policy 4.1.5 provides direction on how to define an appropriate neighbourhood (broader) study area. Mr. Igelman’s study area extended to Rathburn Rd, and to Islington Ave, whereas Ms. Matveeva’s captured part of Bywood Dr and a few surrounding blocks. (See Figure 3).

24The Official Plan directs that geographic neighbourhoods be delineated by considering the context within the neighbourhood, including zoning; prevailing dwelling type and scale; lot size and configuration; street pattern; pedestrian connectivity; and natural and human made dividing features.

25Following the direction of the Policy, I do not find that the area delineated by Ms. Matveeva to be distinguishable, by typology or distance, from the broader area as delineated by Mr. Igelman. The zoning, prevailing dwelling type and other defining characteristics are the same. While there is some variation in lot sizes and frontages, this is not sufficient to distinguish the blocks outside of Ms. Matveeva’s dividing line as being part of a noticeably different neighbourhood.

Figure 3: Mr. Igelman's Neighbourhood Study Area with Ms. Matveeva's superimposed in purple. EX2 and 4

26For the purposes of analysis, I prefer the neighbourhood study area delineated by Mr. Igelman.

Size and Configuration of Lots

27The majority of the development criteria listed in OP Policy 4.1.5 relate to the built form. Criterion 4.1.5 b) prevailing size and configuration of lots is most relevant to the creation of new lots (the consent) and will be discussed first in this Decision.

28In considering OP Policy 4.1.5 b), two lot characteristics are relied upon; lot frontage and lot area. Of the two characteristics, lot frontage is the more immediately apparent. Lot area significantly influences the resulting form and fit of the proposed houses on the lot.

Lot Frontage and lot area

29In his evidence, Mr. Igelman emphasized that the severance does not trigger a requirement for variances for either lot frontage or lot area. The proposed lots are in compliance with the Zoning By-law. He concluded that “the majority of lots within the entire neighbourhood study area have a prevailing size and frontage that is compliant with the minimum requirements of the applicable zone for lot frontage and lot area, which is consistent with the applications.”

30The standard set by the Official Plan, however, is that the proposal must fit with the prevailing size and configuration of lots, and does not reference zoning compliance. The Official Plan defines “prevailing” as the most frequently occurring form of development in that neighbourhood.

31Mr. Igelman provided a lot frontage analysis in Exhibit 2 that firstly divided the lots in his study area into two categories; those above the By-law required frontage of 15m and those below. A second analysis identified those few lots within the “above minimum frontage” category that have the potential to be severed without a variance for lot frontage (30m).

32He provided similar analyses for lot area: those lots with an area below the By-law minimum, those lots above the By-law minimum and those lots double the By-law minimum.

33To my mind, neither of these approaches provide meaningful categorizations for the determination of the most frequently occurring lot frontage and area, they only identify in a simple way those properties in the neighbourhood that do not comply with the Zoning By-law minimum frontage and those which could be severed without variances for lot frontage.

34What is required to meet the test of this policy of the Official Plan is to establish that the proposed lot frontages and lot areas fall within the category most frequently occurring in the neighbourhood, or at least that they exist in substantial numbers in the neighbourhood and already have a significant presence in the immediate context¹.

35Mr. Igelman also provided a table of property data in Exhibit 2.

36He identified the median lot frontage as 19.04m and the mode as 18.28m. The proposed lot frontages are 16.93m. He identified the median lot area as 696.23m², and the mean lot area as 704.81m². The proposed lot areas are 597.2 m² and 590.9 m².

37Of the lots for which data was provided, I found approximately 33 out of 435 (7%) had frontages less than what is being proposed in this application, mostly in the Perry Cres And Orrel Ave area (close to the subject property) that Ms. Matveeva had excluded from her study area.

38Of the lots for which data was provided, I found approximately 51 out of 435 (12%) had areas less than what is being proposed for the new lots.

39Looking at Mr. Ingelman’s property data, I found that many of the properties that were smaller in frontage than the proposal had greater lot areas; and many that had smaller lot areas, had frontages that were greater. I found 9 properties in his data table that showed lot areas and frontages, in combination, to be the same or less than what is proposed.

40On the basis of the above analysis and data, I find that Mr. Igelman has not provided a sufficient basis for me to conclude that the proposed lots, in frontage and area, respect the prevailing size and configuration of lots.

41OP Policy 4.1.5 does not preclude those characteristics that are not frequently occurring as long as they are materially consistent with the geographic neighbourhood and already have a significant presence on properties located in the immediate context or abutting the same street in the immediately adjacent blocks.

42On a brief overview of Mr. Igelman’s data, it would seem that the proposal does not have lot characteristics that have a significant presence in the immediate context or adjacent blocks either.

43Mr. Igelman’s map in Figure 3 above correctly delineates the immediate context (the blue line) and the adjacent blocks.

44From Mr. Igelman’s property data, I conclude the following:

The proposed frontages are 16.93m.
The smallest frontage in the immediate context is 18.28. The next smallest is 22.7m. The average frontage is around 25.5m.
Including the adjacent blocks, the average frontage is over 22m, with a number of properties with a frontage of 18.26m.
There are no properties in the immediate context and adjacent blocks that have frontages as small as what is being proposed.
From Mr. Igelman’s property data, I identified five properties within the immediate context and adjacent blocks that have lot areas smaller than what is being proposed.

45Had this been a case where a variance for lot frontage and lot area was required in order to facilitate the severance, the proposal would not have met the strict application of the OP Policy 4.1.5 b) as the Applicant has not established that the characteristics of the lots are prevailing, or have a significant presence in the immediate context or adjacent blocks either. This conclusion would have been sufficient to refuse to grant variances for lot frontage and lot area, had they been required.

46However, I cannot diminish the fact that the Zoning By-law has been approved by City Council to implement the directions of the Official Plan and in doing so has enshrined a community standard for lot frontage and lot area that the proposal meets.

ZONING BY-LAW COMPLIANCE AND THE OFFICIAL PLAN TEST

47In paragraph 119 of his Expert Witness Statement, Mr. Igelman says as follows:

“a Zoning By-law is deemed to be in conformity with the applicable Official Plan upon being passed by Council and as such, the fact that the proposed lots are compliant with the minimum required lot frontage and lot area (main By-law provisions which regulate lot size and configuration) demonstrates that the proposed new lots do conform to the Official Plan.”

48The Zoning By-law is a legal instrument that sets community minimum standards for development within each Zoning By-law area. Zoning By-laws in Toronto, including the City-wide By-law applicable in this case, usually include specific standards for minimum lot frontage and lot area.

49Proposals which fully meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law may proceed to acquire a building permit without further process. The various minimums and maximums stipulated in the Zoning By-law are said to be conferred “as-of-right”.

50This issue of lot dimensions and shapes in relation to OP Policy 4.1.5 b) is a question in this Appeal only as a result of the process which is required to create legal lots, i.e. the consent to sever application.

51Even though the consent to sever is a separate application which must meet different tests than the variance applications for each anticipated property, I cannot find that the lot frontages and lot areas are permissible, “as of right” under the Zoning Regime and not for the purposes of the registration of legal lots.

52In summary, the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots meet the standard set by the Zoning By-law for implementing the Official Plan and this fact must hold also for the purposes of determining compliance with the Official Plan under s.51(24).

53I find that the requested consent to sever meets the requirements of s. 53 of the Planning Act.

VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BY-LAW

54The only variances that are now requested are for FSI – one variance for each lot.

55Mr. Igelman’s evidence was that the intent of the maximum FSI provision in the By-law is to regulate the amount of gross floor area that can be built on a property, to control the massing and built form of a building, and to ensure compatibility and prevent the overdevelopment of a lot.

OFFICIAL PLAN – FSI VARIANCES

56The criterion in OP Policy 4.1.5 that is engaged by the requested variances for FSI is criterion c);

Development in established Neighbourhoods will respect and reinforce…

c) prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties.

57Floor Space Index, or FSI, is the ratio of the gross floor area (GFA) of the proposed structure in relation to the area of the lot. In the By-law, FSI is the numerical indicator of what the Official Plan refers to as “density”.

58Mr. Igelman stated that the proposed new dwellings are compliant with all other applicable provisions. In his opinion, this “demonstrates that the proposed FSI will respect and reinforce the existing character of the neighbourhood and will have little to no impact further than what is contemplated by the ZBL”.

59I do not agree with this opinion. From this perspective, the FSI maximum is presented as a number with limited importance or meaning, as just a number, while the building envelope is relied upon as the primary reference for the consideration of potential overdevelopment.

60The purpose of a density/ FSI maximum in the By-law is specifically and purposefully to regulate the size and scale of physical form in relation to the area of the lot; it is not a postscript to the other requirements of the By-law. One may construct at a maximum height, building length and minimum setbacks for front rear and sides, but one may seldom build to the limits of this prescribed “building envelope”, all at once, in the face of a floor space limit. The purpose of the FSI provision is to regulate the overdevelopment of lots and the principle entrenched is that larger lots can accommodate more development than smaller lots.

61Compliance with all other Zoning By-law provisions does not demonstrate, at all, that the proposed FSI will respect and reinforce the existing character of the neighbourhood. Respect for the character of the neighbourhood, as per OP Policy 4.1.5 c), must be demonstrated by an examination of the proposed structures in relation to the prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and dwelling type of nearby residential properties.

62I give no weight to Mr. Igelman’s comments that City staff are currently working on updates to the Zoning By-law and are “investigating the potential of eliminating FSI as a By-law regulation. It is my opinion that this is because it could be considered a redundant provision when there are other provisions such as the minimum setbacks, maximum height, etc., which regulate massing, built-form, and the building footprint”.

63Whatever Mr. Igelman’s opinion might be as to the usefulness of the FSI provision, it is currently in force and this Decision depends on justification of this proposal in relation to the provision’s general intent and purpose.

64In paragraph 250 of his Expert Witness Statement, Mr. Igelman states that “one does not perceive an FSI value when looking at a dwelling from the street. Rather, one perceives the overall massing of a dwelling and in the case of the Proposal, the proposed FSI is partly due to the fact that the Proposal includes severing the existing lot into two lots whereas the actual resulting massing of the new detached dwellings will be consistent with the existing character of the neighbourhood and will have little to no impact further than what the By-law already contemplates”.

65This statement of Mr. Igelman’s is a crabwise way of saying that the FSI number is so big because the proposed lots are so much smaller than the other lots, while the proposed houses are of similar size.

o Density

66Mr. Igelman’s Expert Witness Statement includes a Research Table which contains data on previous consent and variance approvals in the neighbourhood.

67He noted that there is a significant number of variances being requested. For him, this signifies that there is a trend of redevelopment that the applications support.

68I found only two examples (out of 74) in the Decision Table where approval has been granted for an FSI that is equal to or greater than proposed in this application.

o Massing and Scale

69From the decision Table, it is apparent that the size of the proposed houses are generally of a similar size to houses in the neighbourhood. This would mean that they are in scale with the prevailing size of the houses in the neighbourhood.

70From a review of the photographs contained in Exhibit 2 (Appellant Disclosure – Updated), I find that the massing of the proposed houses is compatible with the nearby houses in the neighbourhood.

CONCLUSION

71Because the By-law sanctions a lot area and lot frontage that are smaller than those prevailing in the neighbourhood, a disconnect is set up between the expectations of the Zoning By-law and the prevailing character of the neighbourhood.

72I find that massing and scale of the proposed houses are similar to the massing and scale of the houses in the neighbourhood. But, because the sanctioned lot areas are significantly smaller than the prevailing lot areas in the neighbourhood, the proposed densities (0.69 and 0.7 FSI) are comparatively very high. I have questioned whether the total size of the houses (the GFA) on these smaller lots constitutes overdevelopment of the lots.

73In a balance between the equally important policy considerations of density and massing/scale, I find that, in this case, the compatible massing and scale of the proposed houses should take priority over the high density of development on this site.

74In this case, I place greater importance on the massing, scale and presentation to the street because the character of the neighbourhood is affected more by this face to the public street than it is by the amount of development on the lots. In my opinion, houses at the lower maximum FSI permitted by the By-law would appear more incongruous in the neighbourhood, and in the immediate context particularly, than the houses which are proposed.

75I find that the proposal for severance and the requested variances for FSI maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan. For the same reasons, I find that the variances requested maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

76I was not advised of any potential undue adverse impacts of a planning nature that would result from the FSI variances and therefore find that the variances are Minor and Desirable for the development of the land.

77The applications have been amended from that which were before the COA. Previously requested variances have been eliminated from the applications and I find the changes to the applications to be beneficial. I find that no further notice is required in accordance with s.45 (18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

DECISION AND ORDER

78The Appeal is allowed.

79The application for consent to sever is approved subject to the conditions contained in Appendix A.

80The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix B are authorized, subject to the conditions contained therein.

A. Bassios

Panel Member

APPENDIX A

81Schedule A: Standard Consent Conditions

The Consent Application is approved on Condition

The TLAB has considered the provisions of Section 51(24) of the Planning Act and is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary. The TLAB, therefore, consents to the transaction as shown on the plan filed with the TLAB or as otherwise specified by this Decision and Order, 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:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

(6) 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.

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

82Schedule B: Additional Site Conditions

The Consent Application is approved on Condition

(1) The payment of all costs for registration and preparation of reference plan(s).

(2) 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;

a) Clearly illustrate the existing tree within the proposed driveway for building at Part 1 to be removed.

b) Show Catchbasin sediment trap for the existing municipal catchbasin at Bywood Drive R.O.W.

c) Revise the site plan to 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 the proposed garage door entrance to the curb line of Bywood Drive Street;

d) Revise the site plan to illustrate the sections of the driveways for both the

Part 1 and Part 2 Lots connecting the on-site driveways to Bywood Drive across the public right-of-way.

e) The site plans must be revised to clearly indicate the restoration of the redundant portion of the former driveway and curb cuts with sod and raised concrete curb, all of which shall be designed to municipal standards;

f) Add the following notations to the Site Plan:

i. "The applicant is required to restore any redundant section of the

existing driveway that is being closed with sod and a poured raised concrete curb within the municipal boulevard according to City of Toronto Design Standard;

ii. "The proposed new driveways shall be constructed to the applicable

City of Toronto Design Standards at no cost to the municipality";

iii. "The applicant shall also submit a Municipal Road Damage Deposit

(MRDD) prior to obtaining a Building Permit."

iv. "The applicant shall obtain the necessary authorizations and permits

from the City's Right-of-Way Management Section of the Transportation Services before excavating within or encroaching into the municipal road allowance".

(3) 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.

APPENDIX B

APPROVED VARIANCES