Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253
Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
Date:
2025-06-05
24 252468 S53 04 TLAB
25 110912 S45 04 TLAB
25 111037 S45 04 TLAB
Boctor (Re), 2025 ONTLAB 335
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date:
June 5, 2025
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
Appellant(s):
A. BOCTOR
Applicant(s):
GLEN SCHNARR & ASSOCIATES INC
Property Address:
52-54 INDIAN TRL
COA File No.:
24 165984 STE 04 CO (B0038 24 TEY)
24 166555 STE 04 MV (A0549 24 TEY)
24 167311 STE 04 MV (A0548 24 TEY)
TLAB Case File No.:
24 252468 S53 04 TLAB
25 110912 S45 04 TLAB
25 111037 S45 04 TLAB
Hearing Date(s):
May 15, 2025
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By:
TLAB Panel Member B. Mullock
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Appellant
A. Boctor
D. Bronskill
Applicant
GLEN SCHNARR & ASSOCIATES IN
Participant
H. Dhir
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1On December 10, 2024, the Toronto and East York Panel of the City of Toronto, Committee of Adjustment (COA) refused a consent to sever application relating to 52-54 Indian Trail (the subject properties). The proposal called for a lot addition, transferring land now part of 52 Indian Trail to 54 Indian Trail. This decision was considered and taken by COA on a delegated authority basis. The refusal was appealed to Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) by the owner of 54 Indian Trail.
2On January 15, 2025, the Toronto and East York Panel of the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment refused two associated variance applications relating to 52-54 Indian Trail. This COA hearing took place while the consent appeal had yet to be heard.
3The Applicants had proposed to sever a portion of land from 52 Indian Trail and to add it to the lands of 54 Indian Trail. The purpose of the lot adjustment was to construct a one-storey detached garage at the rear of 54 Indian Trail. It was to access the private rear lane to the north. 54 Indian Trail would also secure a rear yard walkway to connect with its garage. The existing garage at 52 Indian Trail would be demolished and replaced by a new smaller garage.
4The owner of 54 Indian Trail, Andrea Boctor, appealed the COA’s refusal decisions to the Toronto Local Appeal Body. TLAB heard the Appeal matter at a hearing, which consolidated the consent and the two associated variance applications on May 15, 2025.
5The Appeal matter now before TLAB therefore includes the consent and the two associated variance applications. They are being considered together.
6The matters at issue before the TLAB are these: Does the consent merit approval? Do the associated variances required by Zoning meet the four tests set out in the Planning Act?
The Background
7The obligation is on the Appellant to demonstrate to the decision maker that the consent should be allowed, and that each of the four tests of Section 45(1) of the Planning Act are met by the two variance applications.
The Property
8The property is designated Neighbourhoods on Map 18 of the City Official Plan (OP) and zoned Residential (R) under city-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013.
The Neighbourhood Context
9The surrounding area consists of low density, single detached residential development. The geographic neighbourhood is zoned R. It contains residential dwellings of 2.5 and 3 storeys.
The Redevelopment Proposal
10The relief sought from the provisions of the Zoning By-law requests seven (7) variances in total. They involve variances to setbacks, roof eaves projection and soft landscaping coverage.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
11Provincial Interest - 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.
12Provincial Policy – A decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS).
13Consent to Sever – S.53 and subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act.
14TLAB must be satisfied that a plan of subdivision is not necessary for the orderly development of the municipality pursuant to s. 53(1) of the Act and that the application for consent to sever meets the criteria set out in s. 51(24) of the Act. These criteria require that "regard shall be had, among other matters, to the health, safety, convenience, accessibility for persons with disabilities and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the municipality and to,
(a) the effect of development of the proposed subdivision on matters of provincial interest as referred to in section 2 of the Planning Act;
(b) whether the proposed subdivision is premature or in the public interest;
(c) whether the plan conforms to the official plan and adjacent plans of subdivision, if any;
(d) the suitability of the land for the purposes for which it is to be subdivided;
(d.1) if any affordable housing units are being proposed, the suitability of the proposed units for affordable housing;
(e) the number, width, location and proposed grades and elevations of highways, and the adequacy of them, and the highways linking the highways in the proposed subdivision with the established highway system in the vicinity and the adequacy of them;
(f) the dimensions and shapes of the proposed lots;
(g) the restrictions or proposed restrictions, if any, on the land proposed to be subdivided or the buildings and structures proposed to be erected on it and the restrictions, if any, on adjoining land;
(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control;
(i) the adequacy of utilities and municipal services;
(j) the adequacy of school sites;
(k) the area of land, if any, within the proposed subdivision that, exclusive of highways, is to be conveyed or dedicated for public purposes;
(l) the extent to which the plan’s design optimizes the available supply, means of supplying, efficient use and conservation of energy; and
(m) the interrelationship between the design of the proposed plan of subdivision and site plan control matters relating to any development on the land, if the land is also located within a site plan control area designated under subsection 41 (2) of this Act or subsection 114 (2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006.”
15Variances – S. 45(1) of the Planning Act
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.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
16I have reviewed all of the evidence and testimony related to this matter. The following summary of evidence is included to provide context for the decision. If any point of evidence appears to have been omitted in this summary, its omission should not be taken to mean that such evidence was not considered. It indicates, rather, that I determined that the recitation of such evidence was not material to my reasoning. My reasoning is outlined in the Issues and Analysis section.
17I have made a site visit to the subject sites and their immediate context area. I have also walked in the surrounding broader context area.
18With respect to easements, I accept as factual the statements made in the December 03, 2024 letter to COA from Michelle R. Frost of the law firm, Garfinkle Biderman:
“We acted for the Applicant when the lands known municipally as 54 Indian Trail were purchased. We also acted for the Applicant when the Applicant was granted: (i) an easement as in Instrument No. AT6508089 from the owners of 52 Indian Trial over the lands known briefly described legally as PARTS 1 AND 2 ON 66R-33688; CITYOF TORONTO (the “Part 1 and 2 Lands”) and (ii) an easement as in Instrument No. AT6508090 also from the owners of 52 Indian Trial (the “52 Owners”) over the lands briefly legally described as PART 3 ON 66R-33688; CITY OF TORONTO (the “Part 3 Lands”) [collectively, the “Easements”]. The Part 1 and 2 Lands and the Part 3 Lands are shown on the reference plan in the materials forming part of the Applicant’s application.”
19At the hearing, David Bronskill was identified as the Appellant’s Legal Representative.
20Mr. Bronskill had written to COA on January 3, 2025 to appeal the COA decision of January 2025 refusing the two variance applications. The consent appeal had been filed in December 2024, but the appeal had not yet been heard before January 31, 2025.
21Mr. Bronskill’s letter requested that the two variance application appeals be consolidated with the consent appeal at one future hearing.
22At hearing, Mr. Bronskill noted that the City of Toronto’s Community Planning staff had provided no commenting memorandum, either to the Committee of Adjustment or to TLAB; nor had the City of Toronto sought status at either hearing.
23Mr. Bronskill called Stephanie Matveeva as witness. Ms Matveeva is a land use planner, employed by GSAI which is retained by the Appellant. Ms Matveeva had filed an Expert Witness Statement by the requisite due date given in the Notice of Hearing.
24Ms. Matveeva is a Registered Professional Planner (RPP) with ten years of experience in land use planning. She is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners. She submitted a Form 6. Ms. Matveeva has managed this file for GSAI since March 2022. The tribunal qualified her to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
25Ms. Matveeva gave evidence to the effect that the proposal’s intent is not to modify existing conditions on the subject properties. Rather, it is to recognize legally, various existing conditions, which the consent triggers as variances.
26She opined that the two minor variance applications are triggered by the modified lots, which arise from the consent application.
27Ms. Matveeva reviewed the proposal in the light of the Official Plan, the Zoning By-law and the other two statutory tests. She provided background information on the immediate context and the broader context, and on the detail of the proposal.
28She gave evidence that the consent is requested in order to adjust the lot line between the subject properties, thereby facilitating the construction of a rear yard, accessory, detached private garage on the site at 54 Indian Trail.
29With reference to the Official Plan, the witness described the area as low density residential set on mature tree-lined streets.
30Ms. Matveeva gave evidence that the presence of rear garages along the laneway in the immediate context is a consistent feature. In fact, she notes, those without garages on this laneway actually constitute exceptions to the rule.
31Ms. Matveeva submitted that the proposed configuration of the lots, with rear garages accessed by the laneway, conforms to the pattern of lots in the immediate context and also in the broader context.
32Ms. Matveeva gave evidence that the modified lot patterns proposed would be created while maintaining the existing dwellings, mature trees and the streetscape. The proposal, she opines, conforms to existing lot patterns, and the established character of both the immediate context and the broader context.
33Ms. Matveeva gave evidence that residential uses continue in the proposal, and that the stability of the neighbourhood is maintained, while its existing physical character is respected.
34She opined that the plan of survey is accurate, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor. She did not agree with the written statement of Mr. H. Dhir that the plan of survey is inaccurate.
35Further, the witness opined, the proposal does not alter the existing character of the subject properties.
36The proposal does not give rise to adverse impacts on neighbouring properties, in the view of the witness. She views the variances as “technical” in nature.
37The witness gave evidence that adequate spacing and separation are maintained. .
38Ms. Matveeva opined that the proposal does not give rise to privacy or drainage impacts on neighbouring properties.
39Ms. Matveeva noted that in the rear yard of 54 Indian Trail, the proposed retention of the existing wooden deck, the existing hot tub and the existing artificial turf, give rise to a soft landscape coverage variance.
40In response to my question at hearing about the rear yard at 54 Indian Trail, Ms Matveeva did not have percentage figures available to provide to the tribunal. I had asked how much land is covered now by each of the deck, the hot tub, and the artificial turf, respectively.
41Her evidence was that the compliance at only 2% soft landscaping coverage resulted from the heavy shade caused by the large mature tree. The owner’s experience is that grass cannot grow due to the heavy shade effect. Hence, the witness opined, the application proposes retention of the existing artificial turf in the rear yard.
42The witness gave evidence that the proposed walkway, made possible by the consent and leading to the proposed rear garage, would be surface-treated with river rock and patio stones.
43Mr. H. Dhir was the next witness to give evidence. He opposed the consent and the variance applications. He owns the property at 1661 Bloor Street West, which backs onto the private laneway from the north of the subject property.
44Mr. Dhir opined that, in his reading of the 1927 Right of Way agreement, 54 Indian Trail is not named as one of the properties from which land had been originally donated to create the private laneway.
45He further opined that, this being the case, the present owner of 54 Indian Trail should not benefit from access to the private laneway, since no part of 54 Indian Trail had been donated by the 1927 owner of the property.
46In his submission, Mr. Dhir further asserted that the consent and variance applications now before TLAB should be refused, since their approval would actually serve to facilitate what he termed “illegal access” by way of Part 2 and Part 3.
47He opined that, were the proposal to be allowed, people who reside on Bloor Street West would begin to park their vehicles in this part of the private laneway.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
48The questions before the tribunal are these: Is the consent application compatible with surrounding land uses? Do the variances proposed in the two related applications meet the four tests of the Planning Act? Do they maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law? Are they minor and desirable?
49Since the consent involves a small parcel of land, amounting to only 72.9 m2 in total, I am satisfied that no plan of subdivision of the land is necessary for the proper and orderly development of the municipality. The proposal involves existing legal lots and no municipal infrastructure is required.
50With respect to the consent, I accept the evidence of Ms. Matveeva that the provincial interests contained in the PPS 2024.
51I accept the evidence given by the Expert Witness that the consent complies with the development criteria of the Official Plan for Neighbourhoods.
52I accept the plan of survey as a reliable document, relying on its preparation by an Ontario Land Surveyor.
53I accept the evidence of Ms. Matveeva that the proposed dimensions and shape of the lots are not out of character with the surrounding area. They reflect existing patterns, in my finding.
54I find that the proposed consent gives rise to no unreasonable restrictions, no impact on existing utilities, no land conveyed for public purposes, nor does it impede efficient energy use.
55Ms. Matveeva uses the terminology that the requested variances are “triggered” by the consent. In my opinion, this assertion applies with respect to the roof eave projections, but not with respect to the platforms or the soft landscaping coverage.
56With respect to the interpretation of the 1927 Right of Way agreement cited by Mr. Dhir, I find that such interpretation lies outside the jurisdiction of TLAB. As set out in its Public Guide, TLAB's mandate is specific. TLAB’s mandate is to address and to make decisions on appeals of Committee of Adjustment decisions under Sections 45 and 53 of the Planning Act.
57I prefer the legal opinion contained in the letter of Michelle R. Frost of Biderman Garfinkle, dated December 2024 and received by COA, over the evidence provided by Mr. H. Dhir orally and in his Form 13 written attachment.
58I refer specifically to the legal opinion in the Garfinkle Biderman letter, in its assertion: “Nothing in the Right of Way Agreement prohibits or prevents property donated to create the private laneway from being conveyed.”
59I rely on the Zoning By-law Examiner’s report, which identifies the variances required by the proposal. Mr. Dhir had asserted that variances were missed with respect to parking. This matter is addressed under section 25(1) of the Building Code Act.
60In my finding, Mr. Dhir gave no evidence to support his assertion that people who reside on Bloor Street West would park in the private laneway, were the proposal to be approved.
61Neither, for the most part, did he present evidence to challenge the variance evidence given by Ms. Matveeva with respect to the four tests.
62The variance for rear yard soft landscaping relief is the most noteworthy of the seven variances sought, due to the magnitude of the deficiency proposed. Ms. Matveeva cites it as an existing condition, and I find that it is.
63In my finding, however, the soft landscaping coverage variance does not arise from the consent, although it might be seen to do so to some degree by, “(h) conservation of natural resources and flood control.”
64Rather, in my finding, the soft coverage is an independent, existing condition. It arises from a general zoning review of the rear yard. It reads in the Zoning by-law Notice, dated April 17, 2024, that, “The entire rear yard was reviewed under the scope of this application.” (Italics mine)
65At only 2% soft landscape coverage, where 50% is required, the soft landscaping variance is clearly numerically significant. Such magnitude of deficiency is in no way numerically minor. Is the deficiency, however, “minor” with respect to its adverse impact in this case? Could it be readily improved? And does it meet the other tests?
66In its Purpose statement, COA File A0548/ 24TEY states that the proposed garage at 52 Indian Trail is “now under construction”. My site visit informed me that this statement is inaccurate. I saw no evidence of construction. At hearing, Mr. Bronskill confirmed my finding, in that, while a City permit to build a garage at 52 Indian Trail has been issued, construction has not yet begun.
OFFICIAL PLAN –
67In my finding, the set back and roof eave projection variances do not give rise to adverse impacts.
68In my finding, existing trees will be secure. The 26 m Red Oak tree is not expected to suffer injury, in the opinion of the arborist. He writes,” As no actual injury is expected to take place, as the base for the garage will remain the same and an exploratory dig is to be conducted so that fence posts can go in between roots, no tree maintenance plan has been suggested.”
69I find that the proposal will have little, if any, impact on the streetscape of Indian Trail. The entirety of the new construction is located at the rear of the properties.
70I find that the proposal is consistent with the existing pattern of garages and lots predominant along the laneway in the immediate context.
71I accept the evidence given, to the effect that the setbacks proposed would still provide for appropriate separation between the two subject properties and those adjacent. This holds for the property to the east at 50 Indian Trail and those on Indian Road, backing from the west.
72In my finding, therefore, the proposed setback variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
ZONING –
73With respect to soft landscaping, the variance proposes only 2% soft landscaping, where 50% is required. Heavy shading is cited as the reason.
74Ms. Matveeva noted that the current use of artificial turf is an “existing condition”, utilized due to heavy shade. I note that for the tribunal, however, each variance is considered as if simply “proposed”. The fact that a condition may be “existing” does not excuse its offence to the Zoning By-law.
75Had artificial turf been put forward as a proposed new surface treatment, the variance would have deserved refusal, in my view, and he continued use of artificial turf should also be refused.
76Natural and permeable surfaces let storm water soak into the ground. Artificial turf is classified as a hard surface. It is impermeable. Artificial turf serves to prevent absorption.
77The OP encourages storm water retention at the individual lot level. In the Expert Witness’ submission, however, no evidence was given with respect to the consideration of alternative, compliant, shaded-area treatments.
78In my finding, alternative permeable treatments should have been considered to improve the soft landscape coverage percentage, and to bring the variance sought into more acceptable parameters of compliance.
79The variance proposed with respect to soft landscaping coverage represents a large deficiency. At a mere 2%, where 50% is required, it fails to heed the intent of the Zoning By-law.
80I find that the soft landscaping variance arises from the Zoning by-law Examiner’s general review of the entire rear yard at 54 Indian Trail.
81I accept the expert witness’s opinion evidence, that significant adverse impacts are not created on adjacent properties by the set back and roof eave projection variances.
82I accept the witness’s evidence that the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is maintained with respect to the setbacks proposed. I agree that appropriate separations are maintained between the subject properties and the properties to the east and west.
83I find that the general purpose and intent of the Zoning By-law is maintained to the extent that a strict imposition of setbacks is not required.
MINOR –
84I accept the witness’s opinion that the set back and roof eave projection variances sought do not give rise to new adverse impacts on the properties to either the east or west.
85In the absence of demonstration of undue adverse impacts to adjacent properties, the proposed construction of a garage at 54 Indian Trail and a new, smaller garage replacement at 52 Indian Trail are desirable developments. They are not precedent setting.
86In my finding, the proposed set back variances, with respect to platforms, roof eave projection, the HVAC unit and the hot tub, meet the test of being minor.
DESIRABLE –
87I accept the evidence that, since many existing garages similar to those requested, already exist in the immediate context, this proposal mirrors a common, existing condition.
88I find also that it results in a development which can exist harmoniously in the immediate context.
89I accept the evidence that the two rear yards proposed will function independently.
90In the absence of demonstration of undue adverse impacts to adjacent properties, the proposed construction of a garage at 54 Indian Trail and a new, smaller garage replacement at 52 Indian Trail are desirable developments, useful to the owners. They are not precedent setting.
91I accept that the proposal fits with the pattern of lots and built forms common in the immediate context.
92I find that the proposal is desirable for the development of the land.
93Further, I accept the evidence that the proposal, “implements the Provincial and local planning policy framework in a reasonable, appropriate and sensitive manner”.
94These findings in mind, I accept the evidence of the expert witness that, considered together, the consent and the setback and roof eave projection variances arising from it, meet the test of being desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
CONCLUSION
95In my finding, the rear yard soft landscaping coverage variance at 54 Indian Trail fails to meet any of the four tests. The soft landscaping coverage variance is therefore refused.
96I find that the overall proposal, consisting of the consent and the related setback and roof eave projection variances, does merit approval.
97I find that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Provincial Policy Statement 2024.
DECISION AND ORDER
98The Appeal is allowed in part.
99The application for consent to sever is approved subject to the conditions listed in Appendix A.
100The variances to the Zoning By-law set out in Appendix B are authorized, subject to the conditions therein.
APPENDIX 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.
APPENDIX B
Approved Variances:
Property Address: 52 INDIAN TRL
REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
- Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013
A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone (0.9 m).
The rear deck and second storey balcony will be located 0 m from the side (west) lot line.
- Chapter 10.10.40.70.(3)(A)(iv), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback is 0.9 m.
The existing dwelling will be located 0 m from the side (west) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.40.60.(7), By-law 569-2013
Roof eaves may project a maximum of 0.9 m provided that they are no closer than 0.3 m to a lot line.
The roof eaves will project 0.9 m and will be located 0 m from the side (west) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.60.20.(3)(A), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for an ancillary building or structure located in the side yard is 0.3 m.
The HVAC unit in the ancillary building will be located 0.1 m from the side (west) lot line and 0.2 m from the side (north) lot line.
And,
Property Address: 54 INDIAN TRL
REQUESTED VARIANCE(S) TO THE ZONING BY-LAW:
- Chapter 10.5.40.50.(2), By-law 569-2013
A platform without main walls, such as a deck, porch, balcony or similar structure, attached to or within 0.3 m of a building, must comply with the required minimum building setbacks for the zone (0.9 m).
The rear deck will be located 0.4 m from the side (west) lot line.
- Chapter 10.5.60.20.(9)(A)(i), By-law 569-2013
The minimum required side yard setback for a swimming pool or other ancillary structure used to hold water is 1.2 m.
The hot tub will be located 0.4 m from the side (west) lot line and 0.7 m from the side (north) lot line.
101Variance 2, with respect to 54 Indian Trail, relating to rear yard soft landscaping coverage at 54 Indian Trail, is refused.
The CONDITIONS are as follows:
102That, with respect to Urban Forestry, a Tree Injury Permit is to be obtained for 54 Indian Trail, and that a municipal street tree cash contribution is to be paid by the appellant;
103That construction shall be in substantial conformity with the consent sketch and with the plans and the elevations submitted by GSAI to COA on September 30, 2024, and presented as evidence to TLAB.
B. Mullock
Panel Member