Ahmed (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 209

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2024-04-03

23 231781 S53 25 TLAB,

23 231789 S45 25 TLAB,

23 231791 S45 25 TLAB,

23 231794 S45 25 TLAB

Ahmed (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 209

DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

April 3, 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):

F. AHMED

Applicant(s):

J. KANNETH

Property Address:

3763 Ellesmere Rd

COA File No.:

22 229155 ESC 25 CO (B0034/22SC),

22 229160 ESC 25 MV (A0246/22SC),

22 229172 ESC 25 MV (A0247/22SC),

22 229177 ESC 25 MV (A0248/22SC)

TLAB Case File No.:

23 231781 S53 25 TLAB,

23 231789 S45 25 TLAB,

23 231791 S45 25 TLAB,

23 231794 S45 25 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

March 25, 2024

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Panel Member G. Swinkin

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

J. Kanneth

Appellant

F. Ahmed

M. Mazierski

Expert Witness

D. Igleman

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This appeal before the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the “Tribunal”) arises out of the refusal by the Scarborough panel of the Toronto Committee of Adjustment (the “Committee”) to approve the applications for consent and associated minor variance brought by the owner of 3763 Ellesmere Road (the “Property”).

2The Property is something of an anomalous property in its neighbourhood in that it has a frontage of 35.06 metres (“m”) and an area of 1431.85 square metres (“sq.m.”).

3The owner’s application seeks to divide the Property into three more or less equal rectangular parcels, having frontages of 11.72 m, 11.68 m and 11.71 m respectively, and areas of 425.9 sq.m., 420.10 sq.m. and 425 sq.m. respectively. The sum of the resultant frontages add up to 35.11 m due to the fact that the side lot lines are not precisely parallel (they cause the lot to marginally widen as one goes southward). The surveyor has made provision for a Part on the reference plan (Part 4) which is to be conveyed to the City as a road widening in keeping with the right-of-way width specified in the Official Plan. Thus, the lot frontages, post-widening conveyance, will somewhat widen southward. The measurement of the frontages reflects the slight widening of the post-road widening parcel at the new street frontage after widening.

4The Property is zoned RD (x722). The zone category permits detached dwellings. In fact, the Property is presently improved with a bungalow dwelling, which is proposed to be demolished. The exception provision referenced in the zoning label functions as a character of preservation zoning as it requires the minimum frontage and minimum lot area to be as existing.

5The variance applications for the three proposed lots seek relief from these minimum frontage and minimum lot area requirements to reflect the proposed frontages and lot areas. The variance applications also sought relief from the Floor Space Index (“FSI”) maximum of 0.5. The Part 1 lot (the Part references herein refer to the draft reference plan of survey that was filed with the Committee as part of the applications) is proposed to have an FSI of 0.64 and the other two lots to have an FSI of 0.65.

6The applications before the Committee also sought height relief. However, in the period between the Committee decision and this hearing, the owner has revised the building plans to decrease the height so that it will be compliant with the zoning by-law limits.

7Counsel for the owner, Mr. Mazierski, advised the Tribunal of this revision and requested that the Tribunal exercise its authority to permit the deletion of this head of relief from each variance application, and to do so on the basis of it being minor and not requiring any further notice, in accordance with Sections 45 (18.1) and (18.1.1) of the Planning Act.

8The Tribunal is persuaded that this modification for each of the proposed dwellings would bring them into compliance with the zoning by-law requirement and that it is appropriate to allow the modifications and that no further notice need be given as a result.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

9Provincial Policy – S. 3, Planning Act

A decision of the Tribunal must be consistent with the 2020 Provincial Policy Statement (‘PPS’) and conform to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (‘Growth Plan’).

10Consent – S. 53, Planning Act

The Tribunal 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 Planning Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning 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).

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. Mazierski called David Igelman to give evidence in the hearing. Mr. Igelman was qualified to offer opinion evidence on land use planning matters based upon his educational and experience background. He is a Registered Professional Planner as certified by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. Mr. Igelman was the sole witness for the Appellant.

13No other persons registered to be Parties or Participants at the hearing and no other persons appeared.

14Based upon the extensive expert witness statement and document disclosure filed by Mr. Igelman, the Tribunal was provided with a background on the Property, its neighbourhood and the proposal, as well as a justification for it.

15The Property is located on the south side of Ellesmere Road, between Deep Dene Drive and Meadowvale Road, being generally north of Kingston Road, east of Military Trail, south of Ellesmere Road, and west of Meadowvale Road.

16The Property is located within the neighbourhood referred to as “Highland Creek”, within the City of Toronto. The neighbourhood consists of single detached dwellings which are one or two storeys in height but generally most dwellings are two-storeys in height, with newer single detached dwellings having a larger scale and massing.

17The Property and the lands in its vicinity are designated as “Neighbourhoods” in the City Official Plan (the “OP”).

18Ellesmere Road is classified as a “Minor Arterial” road between Kingston Road, to the east and Morningside Avenue, to the west as shown on the City of Toronto Road Classification System Map.

19The record reflected that the Property had the benefit of a prior consent and associated variances which permitted the division of the Property into two parcels. The associated variances were essentially similar to those being sought here, as adjustment was required for the lot frontages and lot areas, as well as an FSI variance on each parcel. The approval for this division was rendered by the Committee in its decision made on October 5, 2017. Clearly, the consent was not taken up as there were no registered conveyances of the intended two new parcels, and with the running of time, that approval would have been statutorily deemed refused.

20The Tribunal questioned Mr. Igelman on the circumstances regarding that lot division but Mr. Igelman advised that he was retained after the present Committee decisions and that the direction he received related only the present proposal. The prior applications were made by a prior owner and neither Mr. Igelman nor Mr. Mazierski had any knowledge about the circumstances relating to those prior applications.

21Mr. Igelman asserts that though the lot sizes within the neighbourhood have a relatively similar and consistent pattern, there is some variation in lot sizes and configurations. He further suggests that considering building types are generally consistent throughout the entire neighbourhood, there is no significant difference between the immediate, adjacent, and broader neighbourhood context in terms of prevailing building type.

22As above referenced, in keeping with the direction in Policy 4.1.5 of the OP, Mr. Igelman established immediate, adjacent and broader (geographic) neighbourhood contexts. These appeared to be governed by the factors set out in Policy 4.1.5 and the Tribunal accepted them as appropriate.

23Mr. Igelman secured lot data from the City. In his disclosure document, he provided the list of parcels by municipal address along with their respective lot frontages and lot areas. To assist the Tribunal, an extensive gallery of photos of properties in the context areas was also provided. This gallery was helpful in that it illustrated the relationship of each property to its neighbours and allowed for a visual perception of different sized lots in juxtaposition,

24Mr. Igelman also prepared tables of the lot frontages and lot areas with respect to the lots within the broader context and then within the immediate and adjacent context. The lots were grouped, for frontage purposes, within 1 m bands, and for area purposes, within 100 sq.m. bands.

25Unfortunately, there was an error in the preparation of the table relating to lot frontages as there should have been 7 lots shown as 12 m frontage instead of 0 lots. This is consistent with the list of data provided by the City. Mr. Igelman advised that this was an error emanating from his office but during his oral testimony, he corrected it. The upshot is that instead of there being 0% of lots having a frontage of 12m or less, the percentage for the combined immediate and adjacent contexts becomes 10.4% and isolating the adjacent area, it becomes 25%.

26The correction of this error was salient to the case as, based simply on the table as it was filed, the Tribunal had serious reservations as to compliance with the guidelines set forth in Policy 4.1.5 regarding prevailing characteristics.

27For the record, the key paragraph from Policy 4.1.5 of the OP is as follows: “While prevailing will mean most frequently occurring for purposes of this policy, this Plan recognizes that some geographic neighbourhoods contain a mix of physical characters. In such cases, the direction to respect and reinforce the prevailing physical character will not preclude development whose physical characteristics are not the most frequently occurring but do exist in substantial numbers within the geographic neighbourhood, provided that the physical characteristics of the proposed development are materially consistent with the physical character of 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 block(s) (italics added) within the geographic neighbourhood”.

28Mr. Igelman pointed out that a majority of lots (36.4%) within the overall neighbourhood study area have a lot area of 400-500 sq.m. Similarly, a majority of lots (41.8%) within the immediate and adjacent context have a lot area of 400-500 sq.m. The proposed lot areas for Parts 1, 2 and 3 are 425.9 sq.m., 420.10 sq.m., and 425 sq.m., respectively. His opinion was that as the proposed lot areas for Parts 1, 2 and 3 are consistent with the lot areas of the majority of lots within both the overall neighbourhood study area and immediate and adjacent context, the three proposed lots will fit in harmoniously with the neighbourhood, respecting and reinforcing the existing character., which is the policy intent of Policy 4.1.5.

29Mr. Igelman brought to the Tribunal’s attention that the smallest of the three proposed lots, Part 2, will have a lot area of 420.10 sq.m., which is larger by 48.16 sq.m. as compared to the smallest lot area in the neighbourhood of 371.94 sq.m. at 3442 Ellesmere Road.

30He urged the Tribunal to accept this as a demonstration that there are lots with similar lot areas, as compared to the proposal, that exist in the neighbourhood and that those similar lots do represent the majority of lots within both the broader neighbourhood and as well the immediate and adjacent contexts. He asserted that these similar lots serve as examples of how similar lots, as compared to what is being proposed, can and do fit within the neighbourhood and that the proposed lot areas respect and reinforce the existing neighbourhood character.

31Similar to the treatment of lot areas, Mr. Igelman prepared a lot frontage analysis. The lot frontage analysis categories were created based on intervals of approximately 1.00 m.

32The lot frontage analysis demonstrated that a majority of lots (48%) within the overall neighbourhood study area have a lot frontage of 15.01 m to 16.00 m. Similarly, a majority of lots (41.8%) within the immediate and adjacent context have a lot frontage of 15.01 m to 16.00 m. The proposed lot frontages for Parts 1, 2 and 3 are 11.72 m, 11.68 m and 11.71 m, respectively. As such, the smaller of the three proposed lots will have a frontage which is 3.33 m less than the bottom end of the category which contains the majority of the lots within the study area. Mr. Igelman nonetheless argued that although the proposed lot frontages deviate from what is the most frequently occurring lot frontage within the neighbourhood, the proposed reduction in lot frontage will result in lots that will fit in harmoniously with the existing neighbourhood character, respecting and reinforcing that existing character and such a reduction in lot frontage will be difficult to perceive from the public realm/street. Moreover, the fact that the proposed new dwellings are largely permitted as-of-right (with the exception of FSI), demonstrates that the proposed lot sizes and configurations can accommodate dwellings that are already largely contemplated by the Zoning By-law and therefore, are already largely contemplated as being in keeping with the existing neighbourhood character.

33Given that there would be a 3.33 m difference between the frontage of the proposed lots and those which presently flank the Property, and that the proposed frontages are amongst the lowest in the neighbourhood, the Tribunal pressed Mr. Igelman on his conclusion that the proposed lots would fit and would respect the existing neighbourhood character.

34Mr. Igelman rose to the task and carefully took the Tribunal to a variety of photos in the disclosure material. These were photos taken by staff from Mr. Igelman’s office under his direction. The photos were taken from a vantage where, in most instances, one could take in a view of the abutting properties. This allowed one to get a sense of the relationship of the properties and their perception from the street.

35The Tribunal was taken to specific juxtapositions to demonstrate how lots of different frontage can co-exist harmoniously. In this regard, the Tribunal was shown the following abutting properties (with their respective frontages noted) :

3429 Ellesmere and 3433 Ellesmere - 15.24m v. 30.46m

3430 Ellesmere and 3440 Ellesmere - 21.35m v.12.2m

3442 Ellesmere and 3444 Ellesmere - 12m v. 15.23m

3547 Ellesmere and 3545 Ellesmere - 15.24m v. 40.83m

3686 Ellesmere and 3688 Ellesmere - 13.93m v. 18.3m

3990 Ellesmere and 3992 Ellesmere - 15.24m v. 22.82m

4004 Ellesmere and 4008 Ellesmere - 19.81m v. 14.85m

36This photographic evidence was very compelling and was supportive of Mr. Igelman’s conclusion as to fit. Furthermore, to buttress that conclusion, Mr. Igelman also directed the Tribunal’s attention to abutting parcels where the difference in frontage was on the order of 1.8m and it was clear that, with the base frontages of this neighbourhood, it was virtually impossible to recognize any difference in frontage between these abutting parcels. Clearly, in these instances there was a respect and reinforcement of the character of the area.

37Mr. Igelman did canvas the other relevant policies of the OP but for the Tribunal the key policy was Policy 4.1.5 and the Tribunal is satisfied that its intent and purpose is being maintained, as well as the intent of the purpose of the OP at large.

38Apart from lot frontage and area, the other head of variance relief was with respect to the FSI. On this matter, Mr. Igelman asserts that the proposed FSI will be spread over two floors, and that the proposal is compliant with the maximum permitted height and other zoning regulations, which is consistent with the existing character of the neighbourhood.

39His evidence is that the proposed FSI will be consistent from a massing and built-form perspective considering the trend of redevelopment in this area as observed from the public realm/street and does not represent an overdevelopment of the Property. Specifically, he says, 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 FSI is partly due to the fact that the proposal results from severing the existing lot into three 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 permits and contemplates.

40As Ellesmere Road is a major road under the OP, and as Policy 4.1.5 does accord some latitude to development on major roads as against the interior of Neighbourhoods, the Tribunal inquired of Mr. Igelman whether this was also a factor in his opinion. His response was that he was aware of that fact and that it did tend to support the proposal, but that he was not relying on the fact of the Property being on a major road as a foundation for the proposal.

41Mr. Igelman addressed each of the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act in detail and as a result of that written and testimonial evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that those statutory four tests have been satisfied in this instance.

42As the application involves a consent, Mr. Igelman also addressed the criteria set forth in Section 51(24) of the Planning Act, and without detailing his review and analysis here, suffice it to say that the Tribunal is satisfied that the matters for which regard is to be had under that subsection have been appropriately addressed, some of which will be through the imposition of conditions on the consent.

43In that regard, Mr. Igelman, in requesting approval of the consent, recommended a variety of conditions, some of which were the standard conditions set by the City and others arising out of comments communicated by City departments. The Tribunal is satisfied that he has fairly and properly assembled appropriate conditions and, in addition to standard conditions imposed by the Tribunal, will detail those below in its disposition.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

44As will be evident from the comments above, the Tribunal initially had a substantial concern over the proposed lot frontages here as they appeared numerically out of step with what presented as the prevailing frontages in this neighbourhood. However, after a close parsing of the OP language and a meticulous review of the lots in the immediate and adjacent contexts in particular, and an unfiltered look at the lot pairings and juxtapositions in the vicinity, it became evident to the Tribunal that the planner’s conclusion as to OP policy conformity and fit was sustainable.

45This case is proof once again that a bare quantitative review can leave one bereft of a true understanding of the matter under consideration. It is critical for one to get out of the necessarily limited numeric strictures of the table and, as best as one can, to occupy viewpoints that offer a fuller and truer sense of the matter under scrutiny. Moving from the table to the street, as it were, allows for the opportunity of a synthesis of perspectives and permits for a more whole and balanced view of the subject.

46In connection with the statutory obligation to consider and have regard for Provincial policy, Mr. Igelman did profess that he had undertaken that review and that he found no inconsistency or lack of conformity with the Provincial interest or the Provincial planning instruments. In fact, the applications are an instance of intensification sought by Provincial policy. The Tribunal accepts that conclusion.

47In his submissions, Mr. Mazierski also reminded the Tribunal that the City Planning Department, in its comments to the Committee, communicated only with respect to archaeological matters and investigation related thereto with respect to development of the site, and made no adverse comment with respect to standard planning matters. Nor did the City request Party status at this hearing. And no persons from the neighbourhood communicated opposition to the Committee or registered to be heard at this proceeding.

48The Tribunal is satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not required to effect the land divisions proposed by these applications.

CONCLUSION

49In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal will allow the modifications to the variance applications to delete the requests for height relief and will approve the other heads of variance relief regarding lot frontages, lot areas and FSI as requested.

50The Tribunal will approve the division of the Property into the three proposed new parcels.

DECISION AND ORDER

51The Tribunal ORDERS THAT the variance appeals are allowed and the following variances are approved:

Part 1:

1. The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.5 times the area of the lot or a

maximum of 279m2, whichever is the lesser.

The proposed floor space index is 0.64 times the area of the lot.

[900.3.10(722/1462) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

2. The minimum required lot area is 1431.85m2.

The proposed lot area is 425.90m2.

[900.3.10(722) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

3. The required minimum lot frontage is 35.06 metres.

The proposed lot frontage is 11.72 metres.

[900.3.10(277) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

Part 2:

1. The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.5 times the area of the lot or a

maximum of 279m2, whichever is the lesser.

The proposed floor space index is 0.65 times the area of the lot.

[900.3.10(722/1462) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

2. The minimum required lot area is 1431.85m2.

The proposed lot area is 420.10m2.

[900.3.10(722) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

3. The required minimum lot frontage is 35.06 metres.

The proposed lot frontage is 11.68 metres.

[900.3.10(277) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

Part 3:

1. The minimum required lot area is 1431.85m2.

The proposed lot area is 425m2.

[900.3.10(722) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

2. The permitted maximum floor space index is 0.5 times the area of the lot or a

maximum of 279m2, whichever is the lesser.

The proposed floor space index is 0.65 times the area of the lot.

[900.3.10(722/1462) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

3. The required minimum lot frontage is 35.06 metres.

The proposed lot frontage is 11.71 metres.

[900.3.10(277) - Exceptions for RD Zone]

52The Tribunal FURTHER ORDERS THAT the consent appeal is allowed and that provisional consent is granted to divide the Property into Parts 1, 2 and 3 as on the draft reference plan of survey on 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. The applicant submits an application for a permit to injure/remove Privately owned tree(s) on the Property or neighbouring property within 6m of site.

2. Where there is no existing street tree, the owner shall provide payment in lieu of planting of one street tree on the City road allowance abutting each of the sites involved in the application. The current cash-in-lieu payment is $583/tree.

3. Prepare all documents and convey to the City, at nominal cost, a 4.89m widening required along the Ellesmere Road frontage of this property to satisfy the Official Plan Requirement of a 36m right-of-way in fee simple, such lands to be free and clear of all physical and title encumbrances, and subject to a right-of-way for access in favour of the grantor until such time as said lands have been dedicated as a public highway, all to the satisfaction to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering & Construction Services.

4. Submit a draft Reference Plan of Survey to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director of Engineering & Construction Services, for review and approval, prior to depositing it in the Land Registry Office. The plan should:

i. be in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Coordinate System (3°

MTM, Zone 10, NAD 83 CSRS);

ii. delineate by separate PARTS the lands to be conveyed to the City, the

remainder of the site and any appurtenant rights-of-way and easements; and

iii. show the co-ordinate values of the main corners of the subject lands in a

schedule on the face of the plan.

5. Pay all costs for deposit and preparation of reference plan(s).

6. The applicant shall retain a consultant archaeologist, licensed by the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism, under the provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O 1990 as amended) to carry out a Stage 1- 2 archaeological assessment of the entire development property and follow through on recommendations to mitigate, through preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant archaeological resources found. The assessment is to be completed in accordance with the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism’s 2011 Standards and Guidelines for Consultant Archaeologists.

7. Should the archaeological assessment process continue beyond a Stage 1-2 assessment, any recommendations for Stage 3 - 4 mitigation strategies must be reviewed and approved by Heritage Planning prior to commencement of the site mitigation.

8. The consultant archaeologist shall submit a copy of the relevant assessment report(s) to the Heritage Planning Unit in both hard copy format and as an Acrobat PDF file. All archaeological assessment reports will be submitted to the City of Toronto for approval concurrent with their submission to the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

9. No demolition, construction, grading or other soil disturbances shall take place on the Property prior to the City’s Planning Division (Heritage Planning Unit) and the Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism (Archaeology Programs Unit) confirming in writing that all archaeological licensing and technical review requirements have been satisfied.

10. The lands indicated as Part 4 on the Site Plan drawing (S01), prepared by CM Designers & Engineers, dated Nov 9, 2023, will be conveyed to the City of Toronto with the understanding that the proposed driveway right-of-way will be adjusted in the future as per the DSBRT 30% design in coordination with the City and Metrolinx at the appropriate time.

11. 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 16.

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

13. One electronic copy of the deposited 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.

14. One electronic copy of the deposited 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

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

G. Swinkin

Panel Member