It should also be noted that in response to the court's question that as a result of a policy that does not allow the attachment of courtyards facing the street, it was made clear to the defendant that an application for a building permit in the project would not be approved as long as a 128-square-meter yard was attached to the defendant's apartment on the ground floor - the witness replied in the framework of the public servant's certificate, referring to the building permit sketch (submitted as Appendix 10 to the defendant's affidavits and even submitted in a shemesh copy to the court) - that in this sketch there are no fences facing the street fronts that delimit the sonof Yin's yard. Rather, only low fences for landscaping purposes, and in addition, he referred to the fact that in the development plan in the drawing, private yards in the front are not marked in the front spaces, while the courtyards facing the rear are clearly marked as "private yards". From this answer it appears that in these the witness found support for the fact that it was made clear to the defendant that such an application would not be approved, and therefore the sketch was drawn up as it was prepared.
To Mr. Arad's testimony, I found significant weight to be assigned. This is given that this is a witness who submitted a certificate of a public servant, who on the face of it has no interest in the outcome of the proceeding one way or the other, and therefore his testimony is held to be objective. It is clear from this testimony that in accordance with the municipality's policy, which according to the testimony was formulated already in 2016 - it was not possible to attach courtyards in the front spaces - i.e., it was not possible to attach the front yard - facing the French People's Boulevard - to the plaintiff's apartment.
- As I have already noted above, additional support for the existence of a policy that prevents the attaching of a garden to a ground floor apartment at a gap to the front towards the street can be found in the sequence of events in this case - which is also partially supported by documents and testimonies - and from it it is clear that the defendant - as claimed by her - did indeed seek to attach to the plaintiff a larger garden than the one that was attached to it at the end of the day, but did not succeed in doing so in light of the municipality's policy. Moreover, as will be detailed below, evidence of the defendant's commitment to the plaintiff on the one hand, and its lack of success with regard to attaching the garden, due to the municipality's policy, can be found in the defendant's attempts to find solutions that will enable the actual attachment of the garden to the plaintiff's apartment, as detailed below. With regard to the sequence as an indication of the policy, I find it necessary to emphasize that in my approach it can be said that only the existence of a preventive policy can explain the manner in which the events unfolded, and therefore I am of the opinion that the sequence of events is sufficient to support the determination that this was indeed the policy.
- Thus and first, the beginning of the contractual engagement between the parties - or at least its written expression - is found in the first addendum to the TAMA agreement.
As a preliminary remark as to the relationship between the date of signing the second addendum and the signing of the TAMA agreement, I find it to be noted that the plaintiff referred in part of her argument to the fact that this addendum was signed before the signing of the TAMA agreement.