Green (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 275

Toronto Local Appeal Body

40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253

Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9

Date:

2024-10-18

24 185973 S45 12 TLAB

Green (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 275

FINAL DECISION AND ORDER

Issuance Date:

October 30, 2024

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

Appellant(s):

JARED GREEN

Applicant(s):

DEWSON ARCHITECTS INC

Property Address:

70 CLARENDON AVE

COA File No.:

24 149047 STE 12 MV (A0444/24TEY)

TLAB Case File No.:

24 185973 S45 12 TLAB

Hearing Date(s):

October 28, 2024

Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:

Decision Delivered By:

TLAB Chair D. Lombardi

REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:

People Type

First Initial. Last Name

Representative

Applicant

DEWSON ARCHITECTS INC

Appellant

J. GREEN & B. PATEL-GREEN

D. NELIGAN AND M. HELFAND

Party (TLAB)

M. NEEDHAM

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1This Hearing arises from an appeal by Jared Green and Binita Patel-Green (Appellants/Owners) of a decision of the Toronto and East York Panel of the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) for the property known municipally as 70 Clarendon Avenue (subject property).

2The Appellants applied to the COA to permit the alteration of the existing two-and-one-half-storey detached dwelling by constructing a one-storey east side addition, and a rear second storey deck (above the northwest portion of the existing ground floor roof).

3The subject property is located on the north side of Clarendon Avenue, just west of Warren Road, in the neighbourhood referred to as ”South Hill” or “Casa Loma” in the former City of Toronto.

4The subject property is designated “Neighbourhoods” on Map 17 of the City of Toronto Official Plan (OP). It is zoned “Residential Detached” RD (f12.0; d0.6) under the City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013, with a height limit of 11 metres.

5The application before the COA sought two (2) variances (Original Application) as follows:

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

1. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

The maximum permitted area of each platform located at or above the second storey of a dwelling is 4 m². The rear second storey deck will have an area of 10.5 m2.

2. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law 569-2013

The minimum required side yard setback is 1.2 m. The altered dwelling will be located 0.31 m from the side (east) lot line.

6The COA, in a decision issued on July 3, 2024, refused Variance No. 2 but approved Variance No. 1 subject to a condition related to the submission of a completed application for a permit to injure or remove a privately owned tree(s).

7The Appellants appealed the COA’s decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB), which set a Hearing Date to hear the matter for October 28, 2024.

Prologue

8In the interim and prior to the scheduled October 28th Hearing, the TLAB received an email dated September 20, 2024, from David Neligan (Aird & Berlis LLP), the Appellants’ legal counsel.

9In that email, Mr. Neligan advised that, following productive discussions, the Appellants had reached a settlement in principle with the only other Party in the matter. He requested that the TLAB convert the scheduled contested Hearing to a Settlement Hearing as permitted by Rule 19.3 of the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules).

10He also advised the Tribunal that the settlement reached between the Parties required modifications to the plans filed as part of the Applicant Disclosure, as well as an updated Zoning Certificate to confirm the variances required.

11Furthermore, he advised that as a result of these modifications, the Parties did not intend to file witness statements or any other document disclosure by the due date of September 23, 2024, as required by the Notice of Hearing (Form 2).

12Instead, the Appellants proposed to serve the terms of settlement along with a supporting affidavit from their land use planning expert, Andrew Dales, when the updated materials became available although he offered no definitive submission date.

13Given this information and the Appellants’ request to convert the contested October 28th Hearing, I directed TLAB staff to contact the Parties to schedule a Prehearing Conference to address various procedural issues as permitted by Rule 21 of the TLAB’s Rules.

14As a result, a Prehearing Conference was scheduled for October 15, 2024, between 1:30 pm and 4:30 pm, to be held virtually by way of the City’s Webex meeting platform.

15Rule 21 allows the TLAB to hold a Prehearing Conference within fifteen (15) days of the hearing date if the Tribunal determines that there is good reason to do so.

16Matters to be dealt with in a Prehearing Conference can include obtaining admissions that may simplify the Hearing, providing direction to the Parties, and dealing with any other matters that may assist in conducting a fair, cost-efficient, and expeditious disposition of the appeal.

17Both the Appellants and the only other Party in this appeal, Michael Needham, attended. The Appellants were represented by their legal counsel, David Neligan. Mr. Needham was joined by his planning expert Raymond Ziemba (SGL Planning & Design).

18The Parties confirmed that a settlement had been achieved at the Prehearing Conference and expressed their wish to convert the October 28th Hearing to a settlement Hearing.

19The TLAB agreed to do so and directed that the Appellants complete the revisions to the plans and file the outstanding documents, above noted, by no later than Wednesday, October 23, 2024, which Mr. Neligan agreed was achievable.

20He also advised the Tribunal that as a result of the settlement reached and the corresponding amendments being made to the plans, the Appellants would be seeking additional variances for building length and depth, resulting in a revised application (Revised Application).

21The matters discussed at the Prehearing Conference were memorialized in a Prehearing Decision and Order issued by the presiding Member on October 16, 2024.

22That Decision and Order directed that the Parties serve the terms of the settlement and associated documents by the submission due date noted above.

Background to the Application/Appeal

23In November of 2023, the Appellants obtained a building permit for interior alterations and the construction of a small, rear addition to the existing dwelling. Construction work on the interior alterations and rear addition is ongoing.

24After obtaining the above-noted building permit, the Appellants then applied for variances with the COA to alter the plan currently under construction with a one-storey addition (proposed attached garage) on the east side of the dwelling and a rear second-storey deck, which the Committee refused on July 3, 2024. This represents the appeal before the TLAB.

25The Appellants intend to use the side addition as an attached garage, as its location at the side of the dwelling will reduce maintenance and snow removal requirements, allow access from the house directly into the garage, and enhance security by blocking access from the street to the rear yard.

26On June 11, 2024, the COA issued a Public Notice setting a hearing date of July 3, 2024. Prior to the hearing, Urban Forestry submitted a Staff Report to the Committee in response to the subject application.

27That Staff Report requested the COA impose the standard condition of approval requiring the owners to submit a complete application for permit to injure or remove privately owned trees. No other City departments submitted comments to the COA.

28The COA received one (1) letter of objection and seven (7) letters of support from neighbouring residents prior to the hearing.

29In July 2024, the Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal of the COA’s decision with the TLAB (Appeal) and retained Andrew Dales as their expert planning witness.

30Over the following five weeks, the Parties engaged in discussions and meetings regarding concerns expressed by Mr. Needham, the owner of the abutting property at 6 Warren Road and revisions to the proposal that could address his concerns.

31Those discussions led to a successful agreement between the Appellants and Mr. Needham, resulting in the following revisions to the architectural plans:

• The proposed side addition was shifted further north by 6.76 metres, such that the front (south) elevation of the garage would be in line with the northern limit of the south window on the west elevation of 6 Warren Road;

• The depth of the side addition from the front wall to the rear wall was reduced from 13.09 metres to 12.95 metres;

• The setback of the relocated side addition from the side (east) lot line was increased from 0.45 metres in the Applicant’s Disclosure to 0.95 metres on the revised drawing set; and

• The height of the proposed side addition was increased from 4.37 metres shown on the Applicant’s Disclosure drawings to 4.52 metres, to provide the Appellants with a reasonable margin for design flexibility during the detailed design phase.

32The revisions noted above had the effect of moving the proposed side addition further away from the east lot line, matching the 0.95 m side yard setback of Mr. Needham’s house at 6 Warren Road.

33This key revision led to the requirement for two (2) additional variances for building length and depth related to the proposed side addition and resulted in the revised proposal now before the TLAB.

34The Appellants, therefore, are now requesting that the TLAB authorize the following four (4) variances (Revised Application), as confirmed by a revised Zoning Examiner’s Notice dated October 18, 2024:

1. Building length on lot with width of 18.0 metres or less. The permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 metres. The proposed building length is 23.76 metres. 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013.

2. Area of platform at or above second storey of a detached house. The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey of a detached house is 4.0 square metres. The proposed area of each platform at or above the second storey is 10.50 square metres. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013.

3. Side yard setback on lot with width of 12.0 metres to less than 15.0 metres. The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 metres. The proposed side yard setback is 0.95 metres from the east lot line. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law 569-2013.

4. Building depth. The permitted maximum building depth for a detached house is 19.0 metres. The proposed building depth is 21.71 metres. 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law 569-2013.

THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

35Provincial 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.

36Provincial 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 (Growth Plan) for the subject area.

37Variance – 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 Planning 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.

38My analysis and reasons focus on these tests.

Right to Develop

39The obligation is on the Appellants to demonstrate to the decision-maker that the tests are met on the balance of probabilities; there is no right to a variance.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

40Mr. Dales was qualified as an Expert in land use planning and provided evidence in support of the settlement and Revised Application. He filed an Affidavit dated October 23, 2024, which consisted of some 1,175 pages and eighteen (18) Tabs.

41A summary of evidence is presented here to provide some context for the following sections of this Decision and Order.

42He requested that the TLAB mark the set of revised Site Plan and Elevations drawings (Tab M) and Location and Site Photos (Tabs C & D) within his Affidavit as exhibits at the Hearing. The latter two were marked as Exbihbits #1 and #2, respectively.

43Mr. Dales identified a study area to assess neighbourhood character in accordance with the direction of the OP.

44He described the geographic neighbourhood as follows:

• The neighbourhood is characterized by a diversity of residential built form consisting of large, well-maintained, two- and three-storey detached homes on large lots with frontages greater than 12 m.

• Pockets of narrower lots of approximately five and six metres with semi-detached dwellings exist, which also contribute to the character of the neighbourhood.

• There is a five-storey condominium apartment building currently under construction across from the subject property, and the area also contains several multiplex buildings and townhouses.

• Many houses in the area on deeper lots tend to be longer and deeper than otherwise permitted, often exceeding the 17 m building maximum length and 19 m building depth permitted in Zoning By-law 569-2013.

• On deep lots, variances have been granted by the COA in recent years to permit longer and deeper dwellings that still maintain a generous rear yard setback exceeding the required 7.5 m.

• Many of the properties in the neighbourhood have driveways with a narrower side yard located to one side of the lot that lead to a detached garage in the rear yard or attached side garage closer to the front lot line, and a wider side yard setback on the other side.

• There is clear evidence of reinvestment by way of new replacement dwellings in the neighbourhood.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS

45This is an uncontested Hearing for the purposes of approving a revised set of variances and plans that have been agreed to by the Parties as part of a settlement of the issues in dispute between them.

46In the interest of consensual resolution of disputes, deference will be given to a settlement provided that the joint submission falls within the range of reasonable outcomes.

47Any findings of fact are for the limited purposes of ensuring that the settlement is not contrary to the Planning Act, and this case, as a settlement, has no precedential or referential value.

48The only evidence and testimony at the Hearing were provided by the Appellants’ expert planning witness, Andrew Dales, who the TLAB qualified to provide professional opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

49Given that this Hearing was converted to an expedited Settlement Hearing under Rule 19 of the TLAB’s Rules, Mr. Dales abbreviated the evidence and testimony provided; however, I have carefully reviewed all the pre-filed materials and the omission of any point of evidence in this summary should not be interpreted to mean that it was not fully considered.

50I accept Mr. Dales’ evidence that the revised proposal and four requested variances are consistent with the new Provincial Planning Statement 2024 and have regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act.¹

OFFICIAL PLAN

51Mr. Dales provided an analysis of applicable Official Plan policies. He considered Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.1.1, and 4.1, although he acknowledged that the Policies under Section 4.1.5 (Development Criteria in Neighbourhoods) were of importance.

52OP Policy 4.1.5 contains within it development criteria that are intended to give greater specificity regarding the expectations for development in Neighbourhoods.

53The Policies in 4.1.5 direct that development will respect and reinforce the existing physical character of each geographic neighbourhood and include a list of characteristics found in sub-paragraphs a) through i).

54Of the criteria set out in this Policy, I consider criteria c), d), e), f), and g) to warrant further discussion concerning the variances requested for building length and depth, side yard setback, and are of a platform at or above the second storey of the detached dwelling.

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; and

g) prevailing patterns of rear and side yard setbacks and landscaped open spaces.

55Mr. Dales submitted Site Photos and a COA Decision Table with previous Committee variance decisions since 2012 that reflected recent approvals similar to what the Appellants are requesting.

56He provided this data to demonstrate that the proposed variances requested for building length and depth, side yard setback for the proposed addition, and 2nd-floor platform area are similar to those granted for properties in the surrounding neighbourhood.

57He submitted that the variances for building length and depth reflect increases that are less than those permitted by the COA and that relatively large increases to both building length and depth are reflective of the large lot depths in the area.

58More importantly, the proposed length and depth variances are only applicable to the width of the side addition (single storey attached garage structure) with the remainder of the dwelling to the west within the maximum permitted zoning standards.

59The building length and depth variances were also required following the Appellants’ agreement with Mr. Needham to relocate the side addition further north to address his concerns regarding privacy and oversight.

60Mr. Dales asserted that the requested variance for the setback of the side addition to the east side lot line has been increased from the variance sought before the COA, going from 0.31 m to 0.95 m, to match the west wall alignment of 6 Warren Road from its west lot line.

61This revised variance, he submitted, is well below the average for side yard setbacks approved by the COA for the area.

62Finally, Mr. Dales noted that in the last nine (9) years, the COA had granted variances for platform areas above the first floor ranging in size from 12.00 m2 to 50.10 m2 and emphasized that the variance for the area of the platform above the first floor sought by the Appellants was considerably less in size than those approved in the neighbourhood.

63Based on the record of previous approvals submitted by Mr. Dales and the photographic evidence provided, I am satisfied that the required variances “respect and reinforce” the prevailing patterns of development in the area and the physical character of the neighbourhood, both the broader and immediate contexts.

64I find that the proposed variances will result in an altered dwelling that will be appropriate ins acle in relation to the other properties in the area, compatible with the existing built form and in keeping with the physical character of the neighbourhood.

65Therefore, I find the Revised Application maintains the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

ZONING BY-LAW

Side Yard Setback

66Mr. Dales’ evidence was that the general intent and purpose of zoning regulations for side yard setbacks is to achieve a relatively uniform distance between dwellings and side lot lines. Additionally, he submitted that setback regulations reduce the potential for overcrowding and create a pattern of open space between buildings.

67He asserted that the proposed setback of the side addition adjacent to the east lot line of the subject property matches the setback of the west wall of the abutting dwelling at 6 Warren Road and that the proposed setback matches the “rhythm” (his term) of side yard setbacks in the immediate area.

68It was Mr. Dales’ evidence that the COA Decision Chart he provided at Tab P of his Affidavit illustrates that the Committee has approved reduced side yard setbacks ranging such as 0.15 m and 0.18 m for properties in the area, with an average setback of 0.82 m.

69He also advised that the Appellants could have constructed an addition with a height of 11 m with a setback of 1.2 m from the east lot line of the subject property ‘as-of-right’ but opted, instead, to propose the revised design for the attached garage after positive discussions with Mr. Needham.

Building Length and Depth

70Mr. Dales opined that the general intent and purpose of the building length and depth regulations on Zoning By-law 569-2013 is to maintain a generally consistent alignment of the rear building walls and rear yards.

71The By-law defines building length as the distance between the front and rear walls of a dwelling. Building depth is a measure of the distance between the required front yard setback and the rear wall of the dwelling.

72Mr. Dales asserted that given the significant depths of the lots in the neighbourhood, many of the properties in the area exceed the maximum building length of 17 m and building depth of 19 m.

73The COA, for example, has granted variances for a 42.59 m building depth for the dwelling at 21 Ardwold Gt., 35.53 m at 90 Glen Edyth Dr., 31.12 m at 16 Glen Edyth Dr., and 25.90 m at 6 Edmund Gate.

74The subject property has a lot depth of 53.69 m which is typical of lots in the area. The Appellants are proposing a building depth variance of 21.71 m which is less than the average building depth variance of 26.95 m approved by the COA in the neighbourhood.

75With respect to building length, the COA has granted variances ranging from 17.92 m to 38.57 m, whereas the zoning by-law maximum is 17 m. The Appellants are proposing a building length variance of 23.76 m which is below the average building length of 25.24 m granted in decisions by the COA in the neighbourhood.

76Mr. Dales noted that the Appellants have shifted the proposed side addition in response to a modification requested by Mr. Needham thereby positioning the rear wall slightly beyond the north wall of 6 Warren Road and ensuring a relatively close alignment of the two structures on their north sides.

Platform Above the First Floor

77The general intent and purpose of the zoning regulations regarding maximum area of platforms above the first storey is to ensure that outdoor amenity areas are not oversized, thereby minimizing adverse impacts of overlook and privacy.

78Mr. Dales opined that the maximum permitted area of a platform of 4 m2 in the Zoning By-law is a “one-size-fits-all approach”² which does not take into account larger properties such as those in this neighbourhood, which he submitted can accommodate larger above-grade outdoor platforms/decks without negative impacts on abutting properties.

79He asserted that the COA has granted variances in the neighbourhood for increased platform areas greater than the permitted maximum in the Zoning By-law for outdoor decks above the first floor. Those approvals, he asserted, granted platform area sizes ranging between 6.19 m2 and 50.10 m2 (539 ft.2), with the average size being 22.10 m2 (238 ft.2).

80He noted that the proposed variance for an increase in the size of the platform (Variance #2) in the revised Application was initially approved by the COA in its July 3, 2024 decision and was not objected to by Mr. Needham, the only other Party in this Appeal.

81Furthermore, the proposed platform, which is to be located above the first floor at the northwest corner of the second storey of the altered dwelling on the subject property, was supported by the owner of 72 Clarendon Ave., the property most likely to be impacted by the size and location of that platform.

82Given the above, I am satisfied that the requested variances for building length and depth, east side yard setback, and area of a second-storey platform maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

MINOR AND DESIRABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND

83Mr. Dales opined that the proposed variances would result in development that is appropriate and compatible with neighbouring properties, with many of those properties having side yard setbacks, building lengths and depths, and platform sizes similar to the revised proposal.

84The Revised Application represents modest regeneration and redevelopment of the subject property that will not destabilize the neighbourhood and provides for gradual and sensitive change that will not result in materially changing the pattern of built form in the area.

85The test of ‘minor’ focuses on the scale and nature of perceived impacts caused by the requested variances. The courts have established that the test is not that there be no impact, but whether the imputed impact rises to the level of being an undue, adverse impact of a planning nature.

86The variances sought by the Applicant, specifically for an increase in building length and depth of the side addition (garage), and a reduced east side yard setback, will result in an altered dwelling that is consistent with and respectful of other dwellings within the neighbourhood, both in the broader and immediate contexts.

87The proposed side yard setback variance will result in a reasonable and equal separation of the east wall of the side addition and the west wall of 6 Warren Road, such that negative impacts of shadow and overlook to the west wall of Mr. Needham’s home are minimized.

88The Appellants have also carefully considered Mr. Needham’s concerns with the proposed alterations and are not proposing a side addition structure that could incorporate an as-of-right maximum wall height of 11 m which, no doubt, would have a greater impact on the abutting property than the proposed height of 4.52 m in the revised proposal.

89I agree with Mr. Neligan’s statement that the Appellants worked with Party Needham, their next-door neighbour to achieve a settlement of the issues in dispute in this Appeal and this represents a “success story of the TLAB process.”³

90Therefore, I find that there are no undue adverse impacts of a planning nature from the revised Application. Based on the above findings, I find, also, that the revised proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the land.

CONCLUSION

91This is an appeal that has been settled between the only two Parties in the matter, the Appellants, Jared Green and Binita Patel-Green, and Michael Needham. I find that the revised proposal is not contrary to the Planning Act and is within the range of reasonable outcomes.

92I also find that the requested variances, individually and cumulatively, satisfy all four tests as required in s. 45(1) of the Planning Act and represent good planning, and I authorize the revised list of requested variances, subject to the conditions included herein.

93Finally, s. 45(18.1.1) of the Planning Act allows the TLAB to waive further notice for a decision on an application that has been amended from the original application, on the condition that the amendment to the original application is considered minor in the Tribunal’s opinion.

94The revised Application before the TLAB has been appreciably revised from that which was partially refused by the COA. I agree with Mr. Dales that the revisions resulting from the agreement reached between the Appellants and Mr. Needham, represent a minor change to the subject Application, notwithstanding the resulting two additional variances for building length and depth.

95The building length and depth variances do not represent a meaningful impact on any property other than 6 Warren Road, and those variances are generally consistent with the northerly extent of the west wall of Mr. Needham’s home. He is also now supportive of the revised Application.

96Therefore, I find that the cumulative revisions to the initial Application minor and less impactful than those considered by the COA, and I find no further notice is required.

DECISION AND ORDER

97The Appeal is allowed in part. The variances listed in Appendix A are authorized, subject to the conditions contained in Appendix B, therein.

D. Lombardi

Panel Member

APPENDIX A

Revised List of Variances

1. Chapter 10.20.40.20.(1), By-law 569-2013

Building length on lot with width of 18.0 metres or less - The permitted maximum building length for a detached house is 17.0 metres. The proposed building length is 23.76 metres.

2. Chapter 10.20.40.50.(1)(B), By-law 569-2013

Area of platform at or above second storey of a detached house - The permitted maximum area of each platform at or above the second storey of a detached house is 4.0 square metres. The proposed area of each platform at or above the second storey is 10.50 square metres.

3. Chapter 10.20.40.70.(3)(C), By-law 569-2013

Side yard setback on lot with width of 12.0 metres to less than 15.0 metres - The required minimum side yard setback is 1.2 metres. The proposed side yard setback is 0.95 metres from the east lot line.

4. Chapter 10.20.40.30.(1), By-law 569- 2013

Building depth - The permitted maximum building depth for a detached house is 19.0 metres. The proposed building depth is 21.71 metres.

APPENDIX B

Conditions of Approval

1. The altered dwelling shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the following Site Plan and Elevation drawings, dated September 27, 2024, prepared by Dewson Architects, and attached as Appendix C herein: Drawings A012B Site Plan – Proposed; A201B – Proposed North Elevation; A202B – Proposed East Elevation; A203B – Proposed South Elevation; and A204B – Proposed West Elevation. Any other variance(s) that may appear as required on these plans but are not listed in this written decision are NOT authorized.

2. The owner/applicant must submit a complete application for permit to injure or remove privately owned tree(s) under Municipal Code Chapter 813, Trees Article III, Private Tree Protection, to the satisfaction of the Supervisor, Urban Forestry, Tree Protection and Plan Review, Toronto and East York District.

APPENDIX C

Site Plan & Elevation Drawings

Footnotes

1. 1On October 20, 2024, the new Provincial Planning Statement 2024 (PPS 2024) came into force in Ontario. The Growth Plan was also revoked the same day pursuant to O. Reg. 328/24 (through its revocation of section 2 of O. Reg. 416/05). The PPS 2024 combines elements of the PPS 2020 and the Growth Plan into an integrated land use planning policy framework.
2. 2Mr. Dales’ Affidavit, dated October 23, 2024, para. 101, p. 12.
3. 3Mr. Neligan’s Opening Statement to the TLAB at the October 28, 2024 Hearing.