Local Planning Appeal Tribunal

Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement

local

ISSUE DATE: October 11, 2018 CASE NO(S).: PL180106

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning
Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or
Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(39) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.

1990, c. P.13, as amended

Appellant: Niagara Pines Developments Ltd

Subject: Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Property Address/Description: 396 Aqueduct St.
Municipality: City of Welland
Municipal File No.: 17-107
OMB Case No.: PL180106
OMB File No.: PL180106
OMB Case Name: Niagara Pines Developments Ltd. v. Welland (City)

Heard: August 24, 2018 in Welland, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

Niagara Pines Developments Patrick Mahoney

Ltd.

City of Welland Thomas Hanrahan

Sandra Smelsky on behalf of the Self-represented

Hilda Gadsby Neighbourhood
Coalition
 2 PL180106

DECISION DELIVERED BY JUSTIN DUNCAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

[1] This decision follows the hearing of an appeal filed by Niagara Pines
Developments Ltd. (“Appellant”) from the refusal of the City of Welland (“City”) of an
application for a plan of subdivision that would permit the creation of 11 new residential
lots to facilitate the construction of 10 new residential homes on a property known
municipally as 396 Aqueduct Street (“Subject Property”).

[2] The Subject Property is approximately 0.81 hectares in size and is located at the
northeast corner of Hilda and Aqueduct Streets. It has a frontage of 53 metres (“m”) on
Aqueduct Street and 154 m on Hilda Street. The proposal is to create a lot fronting on
Hilda Street, with a frontage of 27.65 m, in order to maintain an existing home currently
located on the Subject Property and for the creation of six new lots fronting on Hilda
Street with frontages of 15.24 m. The proposal is to also create four new lots fronting
on Aqueduct Street with one lot having a frontage of 12.2 m and the remaining lots
having frontages of 13.72 m.

[3] At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal added Sandra Smelsky as a party, on
behalf of the unincorporated Hilda Gadsby Neighbourhood Coalition (“Coalition”). The
Tribunal also added John Sojda as a participant to the appeal.

ISSUE

[4] In considering an application for a plan of subdivision the Tribunal is generally

required to consider whether the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy
Statement, 2014 (“PPS”), conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden
Horseshoe, 2017 (“Growth Plan”), and whether it has appropriate regard for the various
matters set out in s. 51(24) of the Planning Act.
 3 PL180106

[5] In considering the totality of the evidence and submissions, there was no dispute
that the proposed draft plan of subdivision is consistent with the PPS and conforms to
the Growth Plan. The following matters have been raised by the parties that must be
resolved in order to make a determination on the main issues:

a. Whether the proposed subdivision maintains the character of the

neighbourhood.

b. Whether unacceptable traffic impacts will arise from the proposal.

c. Whether unacceptable impacts to trees will arise from the proposal.

d. The extent to which an alternative subdivision plan proposed by the

Coalition should be considered and implemented.

e. The weight the Tribunal places on the decision of City Council to refuse
the application.

EVIDENCE

[6] The Tribunal qualified John Henricks to provide expert land use planning
evidence on behalf of the Appellant. The Tribunal qualified Stewart Elkins to provide
expert transportation evidence on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant also
summonsed Rachelle Larocque, Planning Supervisor with the City, who authored a
series of reports recommending approval of the application to City Council. Ms.
Larocque was also qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert land use planning
evidence.
 4 PL180106

[7] The City did not call any direct evidence but legal counsel requested that the
Tribunal give the City’s consideration and refusal of the application considerable weight
given that it had the expert analysis of Ms. Larocque before it in considering the
application.

[8] Ms. Smelsky had another member of the Coalition, Peter Inman, provide
evidence to the Tribunal in the form of a presentation. Ms. Smelsky also summonsed
Dan Drennan, forester with the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (“NPCA”).
Mr. Drennan was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert evidence in his capacity as
a forester with the NPCA.

[9] After hearing the presentation by Mr. Inman, Mr. Sojda indicated that his issues
had already been fully covered by the Coalition and that he no longer needed to provide
a presentation to the Tribunal.

DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

[10] Mr. Henricks and Ms. Larocque provided comprehensive planning opinions in
support of the proposed draft plan of subdivision. They each provided evidence relating
to the consideration of matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act,
consistency with the PPS, conformity with the Growth Plan, conformity to the Regional
Municipality of Niagara Official Plan (“Regional OP”) and the City OP, and meeting the
standards of Zoning By-law No. 2017-117.

[11] The Subject Property is designated Urban Area and Built-Up Area in the
Regional OP and a significant portion of future growth is directed to occur in the Built-Up
Area through intensification in Objective 4.A.1.2 of the Regional OP. Furthermore,
although the City OP directs the majority of intensification into specifically designated
intensification areas, it also recognizes that intensification in the form of infill will occur in
all Built-Up Areas of the City at policies 3.4.4.1.E and 4.2.1.8. I agree with the evidence
 5 PL180106

of the two planners that the Subject Property is ideally suited for infill development and
that such redevelopment would make efficient use of land and available services as
promoted by the policies contained in the City OP, the Regional OP, the PPS and the
Growth Plan.

[12] The City OP, at policy 4.2.3.6, sets out the criteria for the consideration of infill
and intensification development as follows:

4.2.3.6 Infill and Intensification Development

Infilling and intensification is encouraged throughout the City’s existing

built up residential areas. Intensification in residential areas should
address (notwithstanding the requirements for a severance, site plan or
plan of subdivision):

i. Land use and neighbourhood character compatibility;

ii. Lot pattern and configuration;
iii. Accessibility;
iv. Parking requirements;
v. The potential for additional traffic and traffic manoeuvrability;
vi. The potential for transit ridership;
vii. Natural (including natural hazards) and built heritage conservation /
protection;
viii. The available capacity of municipal infrastructure; and,
ix. Residential intensification targets identified in this Plan.

Subject to a Zoning By-Law Amendment, the City may allow residential

infill and intensification development to exceed the maximum building
height and densities set out in this Plan by 20% without Amendment to
this Plan.

[13] The Subject Property is designated Low Density Residential in the City OP and
zoned Residential Low Density 1 (RL1) in Zoning By-law No. 2017-117. A Zoning By-
law Amendment is not required for the density of development proposed by the
Appellant as the proposal is for a low-density development that meets the range of 15-
24 dwelling units per net hectare set out in policy 4.2.2.2.A of the City OP. Based on
the evidence heard, I also find that the land use proposed, namely residential in this
instance, is what is specifically anticipated by the City OP at policy 4.2.2.2.B (permitted
uses in the Low Density Residential designation) and by Zoning By-law No. 2017-117.
The issue of neighbourhood character compatibility is addressed specifically below.
 6 PL180106

[14] But for the issue of traffic, I find that there are no other issues as to the
availability of services and infrastructure to support the proposed development and nor
are there any additional issues as to accessibility, parking or transit ridership. As set
out in the various comments of City staff provided to the Tribunal, all services are
available or can be provided as part of the development proposed on the Subject
Property. As noted on the proposed draft plan of subdivision, storm water drainage is
intended to be provided along the southern edge of the Subject Property and
connections made to the municipal storm sewer system. Individual servicing
connections to other services can and will be made to existing services with capacity on
Aqueduct and Hilda Streets. Furthermore, the lots are proposed to front onto and have
access to these two streets.

[15] Similarly, but for the issue of tree protection, I find that the proposal does not give
rise to any issues of natural or built heritage impact.

[16] Subject to the matters addressed below, I find that the proposed draft plan of
subdivision is consistent with the City OP, it is consistent with the Regional OP, is
consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan and has appropriate regard to
those matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and to those
matters set out in s. 51(24) of the Act.

Neighbourhood Character

[17] The City OP, at policy 4.2.3.6(i) requires that infill development be compatible
with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

[18] The Subject Property is located in close proximity to various commercial

properties to the west that are located along Niagara Street. To the north, east and
south is an existing neighbourhood area that has developed over time, including
through infill development on former estate-type lots. The existing neighbourhood
consists of single detached dwellings on lots of various widths, depths and areas.
 7 PL180106

[19] Based on the evidence of Ms. Larocque and Mr. Henricks, and as eventually
acknowledged by Mr. Inman in cross-examination, the lots proposed in the draft plan of
subdivision are consistent in both width and lot area with the lots that exist in the
neighbourhood surrounding the Subject Property. They are by no means the smallest
lots and nor are they the largest lots that exist in the neighbourhood. The lots fall within
a range of lots sizes in the neighbourhood. The proposed lots are also similar in shape
and orientation to those in the rest of the neighbourhood and specifically other lots
fronting on Hilda Street and Aqueduct Street. Similarly, the lots proposed exceed the
minimum lot area requirements of Zoning By-law No. 2017-117. Having considered this
evidence and having reviewed the lot fabric in the neighbourhood, I find that the lots
proposed will be compatible with the character of the neighbourhood in a manner that
meets the policies contained in the City OP.

Transportation Matters

[20] Mr. Elkins explained that Hilda Street is unique in that it has a raised median in
the centre of the street. He explained that there are two access points to the internal
neighbourhood area east of the Subject Property: by way of Hilda Street and by way of
Gadsby Avenue south of the Subject Property.

[21] Mr. Elkins explained that in order for people to exit the lots proposed to front on
Hilda Street, as a result of the median, people will have to circulate in a clockwise
motion in the neighbourhood as they cannot access and exit the Subject Property from
both directions. Mr. Elkins explained that in order to address the need for greater
access to the proposed lots, City staff had requested as a condition of approval that the
Appellant be required to make two cuts in the median to allow for mid-block U-turns.

[22] Mr. Elkins also explained that in order to address the concerns of neighbours that
he had conducted a traffic count in the existing neighbourhood and assessed the
additional traffic that would be generated by the proposal. He determined that during
the peak hour of traffic for the neighbourhood. He explained that he observed a volume
 8 PL180106

of 972 vehicles on Hilda Street in a 24-hour period and a total of three U-turns at
Gadsby Avenue from Hilda Street back to Hilda Street. In the a.m. peak hour period,
Mr. Elkins observed 0.76 trips per house and in the p.m. peak hour period, he observed
0.93 trips per house. He explained that these rates are very close to the averages
provide in the Handbook of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Based on the
observed rates, Mr. Elkins explained that he expects the proposed new lots will
generate eight additional trips in the a.m. peak hour and 10 in the p.m. peak hour with a
total of 99 trips daily. Of this total, he estimated that there would be five additional trips
in the a.m. peak hour and a total of 63 daily trips on Hilda Street specifically.

[23] It was Mr. Elkins’ opinion that this level of additional traffic impact is within the
capacity of the road system to accommodate. He explained that a typical local urban
road has a traffic volume of up to 1,000 daily vehicle trips while collectors are typically
expected to accommodate greater volumes of up to 8,000 daily vehicle trips. It was his
opinion that Hilda Street functions more like a collector road as it is one of only two
access points to the neighbourhood and that it can accommodate greater volumes of
traffic. Further, Mr. Elkins opined that even if one were to consider Hilda Street strictly
as a local road, a 5-10% total daily variation from 1,000 trips is acceptable from a
transportation impact perspective.

[24] It was Mr. Elkins’ opinion that even if semi-detached dwellings were to be
developed on the proposed lots that the additional daily volume of traffic associated with
12 additional lots fronting on Hilda Street could be accommodated.

[25] With regards to the issue of U-turns, Mr. Elkins opined that the median redesign
with cut-outs would result in a reduction in circulating traffic and allow for greater access
to the lots on Hilda Street.

[26] In cross-examination, Mr. Elkins explained that since the neighbourhood is stable
around the Subject Property there will be very little additional increase in traffic on the
roads in the area resulting from other potential development.
 9 PL180106

[27] It was Mr. Inman’s evidence that Hilda Street is too narrow for U-turns using a
median and that other roads in the City with medians are much wider. He provided
evidence of the minimum road width necessary to complete U-turns with various median
configurations and expressed the view that Hilda Street does not meet these minimum
requirements.

[28] In considering the evidence of Mr. Elkins and Mr. Inman, I find that the additional
traffic that will be associated with the development of the lots, whether developed with
single detached or semi-detached dwellings, will represent a minor increase in traffic.

[29] I further find that median cuts will, more likely than not, reduce the incidence of
circulating traffic through the neighbourhood and U-turns at the intersection of Hilda
Street and Gadsby Avenue, which is of a concern to the public.

[30] I also find that provision of median cuts or other similar solutions would address
the concern of access to the new lots. In this regard, I prefer the expert evidence of Mr.
Elkins that U-turns can be made mid-block on Hilda Street. Additionally, in reviewing
the evidence of Mr. Inman, it appears that the minimum road width information he relied
upon relates to U-turns using a stopping lane within the median which necessitates a
wider median and overall road width for operation. Such a stopping lane has not been
proposed here.

Tree Protection

[31] The issue of tree cutting by the Appellant prior to the appeal being decided was
raised by the Coalition. However, it is not the role of the Tribunal to enforce Regional
Tree and Forest Conservation By-law No. 30-2008 and further, the evidence of the
expert, Mr. Drennan, was that there was no violation of By-law No. 30-2008. Mr.
Drennan explained that the NPCA has an agreement with the Regional Municipality of
Niagara to enforce By-law No. 30-2008 and that he had visited the Subject Property in
response to a complaint about tree cutting in January 2018. Upon his site visit, he
 10 PL180106

observed that diseased Ash trees had been removed and that some damage had
occurred to healthy trees during that process, but that the larger sized Oak and Maple
trees on the Subject Property had been untouched. Mr. Drennan explained that such
damage is typically expected in the process of removing diseased trees from a wooded
area. He further explained that By-law No. 30-2008 allows for the removal of diseased
trees.

[32] Mr. Drennan explained that there is an area of woodland of 1.1 to 1.2 hectares in
the area of which the trees on the Subject Property forms part. Mr. Inman showed
photographs of the woodland area in the neighbourhood referenced by Mr. Drennan,
which includes a park area just south of the Subject Property and the Subject Property
itself. Mr. Inman explained that this woodland area was previously protected by way of
a 30 m area of protection in the previous version of the City OP and that Hilda Street
was constructed to be narrow with a treed median in order to preserve the continuous
tree cover in the neighbourhood. It was Mr. Inman’s evidence that clearcutting the trees
on the Subject Property to allow for lot development would not be consistent with the
character of the neighbourhood given that the woodland is a major defining
characteristic of this area.

[33] Policy 6.1.3.2.B.ii of the current City OP was referenced by Mr. Inman. The
policy requires the preparation of a Tree Saving Plan when a plan of subdivision is
sought on a property located within part of a woodland greater than 0.5 hectares:

6.1.3.2.B Woodland Protection and Conservation

Welland supports conservation and improvement of woodlands by:

i. Enacting and maintaining a tree cutting By-law regulating the

destruction or injuring of trees in woodlands less than 1.0 hectare in size;
and,

ii. Where a woodland is greater than 0.5 hectares in size is located on, or
adjacent to, lands which are the subject of an application for a plan of
subdivision, a consent, site plan approval or a development permit, the
applicant shall be required to prepare a Tree Saving Plan as a condition
of approval. A grading or building permit shall not be issued unless the
Tree Saving Plan has been approved by the City. If an Environmental
 11 PL180106

Impact Study has been approved for the development, the Tree Saving
Plan shall be in accordance with the recommendations of the EIS and in
accordance with the City and Regional By-laws as well as Policy
6.1.2.3.i).

[34] As set out above, Mr. Drennan explained that the woodland at issue in this
instance is greater than 0.5 hectares.

[35] Policy 6.1.2.3.1, albeit contained in the Core Natural Heritage section of the City
OP and not specifically applicable in the designation applicable here, sets out elements
that must be contained in a Tree Saving Plan:

6.1.2.3.1 Tree Saving Plan Requirements

The Tree Saving Plan will:

i. Inventory and assess the health and significance of the trees in the
woodland;

ii. Identify the trees to be removed, the reasons for removal and the
methods to be used;

iii. Identify the trees to be retained and the measures required to prevent
detrimental impacts on those trees; and,

iv. Recommend a program to monitor the health of the trees to be

retained and implement measures to ensure that trees and shrubs found
through the above monitoring to be dead or in poor health shall be
replaced.

[36] In addition, policy 7.11.14 of the City OP explains the purpose of and the
requirements of a Tree Savings Plan as follows:

7.11.14 Tree Savings Plan

7.11.14.1 Need for a Tree Savings Plan

A Tree Saving Plan is a plan prepared for the purposes of protecting and
preserving trees on properties where development or disturbance of the
natural forest cover is to occur. Tree Saving Plans should attempt to
retain as many trees as possible. Requirements for Tree Saving Plans
are provided in the Region of Niagara Tree and Forest Conservation By
Law (30-2008) as amended from time to time. A Tree Saving Plan may
be required to support an application for development or site alteration,
where the development may have impacts on a wooded area.
 12 PL180106

7.11.14.2 Implementing the Recommendations of a Tree Savings Plan

The findings and recommendations of a Tree Savings Plan shall be

implemented through the appropriate planning mechanism, such as a
site plan, a plan of subdivision or other plans produced under the
Planning Act.

[37] In considering these policies as a whole, I find that as a condition of approval of

the draft plan of subdivision a Tree Savings Plan must be prepared for approval by the
City. Furthermore, I find that in reviewing these policies that the condition of draft plan
of subdivision approval should further require implementation of any recommendations
made in the Tree Savings Plan. Finally, in the absence of other evidence, I find that
policy 6.1.2.3.1 provides a good set of guiding criteria for the preparation of such a plan
that should be followed in this instance.

Alternative Subdivision Plan

[38] The Coalition, through Mr. Inman’s presentation, proposed an alternative

subdivision plan to the Tribunal, submitting that it addressed their concerns relating to
increasing traffic on Hilda Street by incorporating an internal road that could be
maintained either as a private road or dedicated to the City. Further, it was proposed
that two lots be eliminated in favour of the creation of a treed buffer along the eastern
end of the Subject Property. Mr. Inman also explained that an internal road could
facilitate redevelopment of a similarly large property, 384 Aqueduct Street, that is
immediately south of the Subject Property. In all, the Coalition’s alternative proposal
would eliminate at least three of the proposed lots and eliminate a rear portion of all the
lots fronting on Hilda Street in order to accommodate an internal road.

[39] Although the alternative subdivision plan proposed by the Coalition is not the
application before the Tribunal for consideration and there is no specific application to
redevelop 384 Aqueduct Street, I have considered it to the extent that it demonstrates
the Coalition’s issues with the proposal and shows a meaningful effort on its part to
resolve the issues it has raised.
 13 PL180106

[40] However, considering the alternative proposal against the applicable policy
framework, I agree with Ms. Larocque’s evidence that the creation of additional services
on the Subject Property is unnecessary given the existing capacity on the road network
to accommodate an additional 10 residences. Further, in order for an internal road to
function, I accept that it is likely that additional lands will have to be set aside to create a
turnaround at the end of the internal road for access purposes. I find that this would not
be an efficient use of services or land as mandated by the policies found in the PPS, the
Growth Plan, the Regional OP and the City OP. In addition, I agree with Ms. Larocque’s
opinion that there is no specific requirement for a vegetative buffer between the rear
yards of properties fronting on Gadsby Avenue to the proposed subdivision. Given my
findings above relating to the preparation of a Tree Savings Plan, the intent of the
Coalition seeking protection of this “buffer” area may be addressed.

[41] Furthermore, I note that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to require the
City to assume an internal road on the Subject Property that it does not wish to assume
as per the Court’s decision in Mattamy (Rouge) Ltd. v. Toronto (City), (2003) 68 O.R.
(3d) 677. As a result, the internal road would have to be privately maintained, which
would require a different tenure for the lots than what is currently proposed. I do not
believe such an approach is necessary in this context given my findings with regards to
the road capacity available to accommodate traffic.

[42] Finally, the alternate proposal would have houses backing on to Hilda Street.
Based on a review of the visual evidence provided, it appears that the neighbourhood
consists of homes that face the street. Having houses and rear yards backing onto
Hilda Street would be out of character with the neighbourhood in a manner that is
inconsistent with policy 4.2.3.6(i) and (ii) of the City OP relating to neighbourhood
character and configuration of lots.
 14 PL180106

Council’s Decision

[43] Section 2.1(1)(a) of the Planning Act requires the Tribunal to have regard to the
decision made by City Council in refusing the application. Counsel for the City
requested that weight be placed on Council’s decision, particularly in light of the fact
that Council had Ms. Larocque’s planning opinions before it in considering the
application.

[44] I have considered the City’s refusal as part of this Decision and as part of that
consideration I have reviewed the materials placed before Council, which consisted of
the following: three planning reports prepared by Ms. Larocque recommending approval
following a detailed planning rationale, various City department and agency comments,
which did not raise any items of opposition but made recommendations for conditions,
and a series of public comments in opposition to the application. I have also reviewed
the motions and minutes arising from Council meetings relating to the application.

[45] The various issues raised in the public comments have been addressed during
this hearing. Additionally, none of the motions, minutes or notice of decision of Council
provide any reasons for the decision to refuse the application. In this context, I have
had regard to Council’s decision but, on balance, having considered Council’s decision I
find that the weight of the evidence provided during the hearing far outweighs any
weight that I am mandated to place on Council’s decision in this context.

Conditions of Approval

[46] In addition to the condition set out above relating to the preparation of a Tree
Savings Plan, both Ms. Larocque and Mr. Henricks recommended the balance of the
conditions attached to this Decision. Ms. Larocque explained that the conditions include
those requested by the Regional Municipality of Niagara relating to sanitary and water
infrastructure and new garbage collection and a condition requested by City staff
relating to service connections to minimize disruption to the street.
 15 PL180106

[47] With regards to the condition relating to provision of cuts along the median on
Hilda Street, Mr. Henricks recommended that flexibility could be incorporated into the
condition in order to allow for alternative traffic solutions should they be identified and
allow for the City’s Engineering Department to require such solutions. Counsel for the
Appellant proposed wording for the condition in final submissions in an effort to capture
Mr. Henricks’ recommendation. This condition has been revised in accordance with
these recommendations.

[48] Based on the evidence heard, I find that these recommended conditions are
reasonable and necessary in this context. Notably, the condition relating to
simultaneous service connections will address the concern raised by Mr. Inman that
disruption of access to the neighbourhood along Hilda Street be minimized during
construction.

[49] In conclusion, I find that the appeal should be allowed and conditional draft plan
of subdivision granted as set out in the order below.

ORDER

[50] The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed and the draft plan shown on the
plan prepared by Allan Heywood dated July 25, 2017, comprising Part of Township Lot
239 is approved subject to the draft plan being revised to show an accurate lot width of
12.2 m at the front and rear of lot 1 and subject to the fulfillment of the conditions set out
in Attachment 1 to this Decision.

[51] Pursuant to s. 51(56.1) of the Planning Act, the City shall have the authority to
clear the conditions of draft plan approval and to administer final approval of the plan of
subdivision for the purposes of s. 51(58) of the Act. In the event that there are any
difficulties implementing any of the conditions of draft plan approval, or if any changes
are required to be made to the draft plan, the Tribunal may be spoken to.
 16 PL180106

“Justin Duncan”

JUSTIN DUNCAN
MEMBER

If there is an attachment referred to in this document,

please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal

A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario
Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
 PL180106

ATTACHMENT 1

CONDITIONS

1. That the Owner enter into a Subdivision Agreement with the City of
Welland that is to be registered on Title.

2. That no grading or construction work shall commence until such time as

the Subdivision Agreement has been entered into and financial securities
are in place.

3. That no grading or construction work shall commence until such time as

the Owner has prepared a Tree Saving Plan.

4. The Owner shall implement the recommendations of the Tree Saving

Plan.

5. That all development must conform to the City’s ‘Municipal Standards’, as

amended.

6. That all necessary easements are provided to the appropriate Authority,

free and clear of all encumbrances.

7. That the Owner agrees to pay a Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication of

5% in accordance with the City’s Parkland Dedication and Cash-in-Lieu of
Parkland Dedication Policy.

8. That the Owner must contact Regional System Maintenance staff 72

hours prior to construction in the area of the noted Regional sanitary and
water infrastructure to ensure the protection of the Regional Infrastructure.

9. That the development is in accordance with the Regional Municipality of

Niagara policy C3.007, Requirement for Commencement of Collection for
New and Redevelopments in order to receive free Regional waste
collection or the owner/corporation shall provide waste collection through
a private contractor.

10. That the Owner shall consider providing two access points in the centre
island along Hilda Street or other transportation measures, to the
satisfaction of the City of Welland Infrastructure and Development
Services – Engineering Division.

11. That the Owner completes the installation of services under one contract
and by a single contractor.
 PL180106

12. That if Final Approval is not given to this Plan within three (3) years of the
approval date and no extensions have been given, Draft Approval shall
lapse. If the Owner wishes to request extension to Draft Approval, a
written request with reasons why the extension is required, must be
received by the City prior to the lapsing date.