Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
December 24, 2021
CASE NO(S).:
PL190608
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
9 Dawes Development Inc. and 25 Dawes Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. (438-86) - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning:
I1 D1 (Industrial) under Zoning By-law 438-86
Proposed Zoning:
Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose:
To permit the redevelopment of the property with a mixed- use building including two residential towers
Property Address/Description:
9 Dawes Road and 25 Dawes Road
Municipality:
City of Toronto
Municipality File No.:
19 186473 STE 19 OZ
OLT Case No.:
PL190608
OLT File No.:
PL190608
OLT Case Name:
9 Dawes Development Inc. and 25 Dawes Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
9 Dawes Development Inc. and 25 Dawes Inc.
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. (569-2013) - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Proposed Zoning:
Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose:
To permit the redevelopment of the property with a mixed- use building including two residential towers
Property Address/Description:
9 Dawes Road and 25 Dawes Road
Municipality:
City of Toronto
Municipality File No.:
19 186473 STE 19 OZ
OLT Case No.:
PL190608
OLT File No.:
PL190609
Heard:
November 8, 2021 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel*/Representative
Minto (Dawes) GP Inc., 9 Dawes Development Inc. and 25 Dawes Inc.
J. Dawson*, B. Shubert*
City of Toronto
M. Mahoney*, L. Bisset*, co-counsel
6 Dawes Danforth Inc.
M. Cara*, D. Artenosi (Absent)*
Dandaw Developments Limited
M. Foderick*
Jacob’s Tent Inc.
D. Neligan*
Royal Canadian Legion Branch 11
J. Paulin (Representative)
DECISION DELIVERED BY D. CHIPMAN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
1Minto (Dawes) GP Inc. (“Applicant/Appellant”) is appealing the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make decisions within the statutory timeframes on applications for amendments to the City’s Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and the City’s Comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. The applications are to facilitate a proposed development on the properties located at 9 to 25 Dawes Road.
2The Tribunal was informed by the Applicant a settlement was offered and accepted by the City based on the conditions set out in the Draft Zoning By-law containing Site Specific Provisions and attached Schedules (Attachment 1).
3The subject site is currently zoned I1 D1 (Industrial) under Zoning By-law 438-86. This zoning category permits a range of non-residential uses, including community services, retail and service shops, workshops and studios, offices and other light industrial uses. The Citywide Zoning By-law 569-2013 does not currently apply to this site. This is due to the fact that the uses permitted under Zoning By-law 438-86 are Industrial, which do not align with the Mixed-Use Area designation required in the Official Plan for the intended use as per the application. The Tribunal was informed that zoning by-law amendments from the Original Applications have been revised to reflect the Settlement Proposal. With the Parties having reached a settlement, the property will be brought into Zoning By-law 569-2013 conformity by way of a site-specific zoning by-law which will remove further need for the consideration of an amendment to Zoning By-law 438-86 and of which will result in the introduction of a Mixed-Use Area designation to the subject property.
4The attached Draft Zoning By-law containing site-specific provisions and Schedules were submitted to the for Tribunal for consideration.
THE SUBJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING LAND USE CONTEXT
5The Subject Site is comprised of two properties municipally known as 9 and 25 Dawes Road, and is located on the east side of Dawes Road, south of Danforth Avenue and north of the CN/Metrolinx rail corridor. It is irregular in shape, with an area of approximately 5,036 square metres (“sq m”) (1.24 acres), an approximate frontage of 122 metres (“m”) along Dawes Road and a varying depth of approximately 24 to 68 m.
6There are two buildings on the Subject Site: a two (2)-storey building with surface parking located at 9 Dawes Road, currently used by the Royal Canadian Legion (Branch 11), and a Danforth Lumber store, approximately 820 sq m in size, with large areas of outside storage located at 25 Dawes Road. Vehicular and pedestrian access to the subject site are both from Dawes Road. With the exception of a small, landscaped area at the front of the Royal Canadian Legion building, which includes two trees, the east side of the Dawes Road frontage is mostly paved with a discontinuous sidewalk adjacent to the curb.
7To the immediate north of the Subject Site is a laneway, on the north side of the laneway is a single-storey industrial-style brick building known as 31 Dawes Road. Abutting 31 Dawes to the north is a row of single and two-storey mixed-use buildings fronting Danforth Avenue. Further east, at the southwest corner of Danforth Avenue and Trent Avenue, is an auto repair garage with surface parking along the Danforth Avenue frontage.
8Further north, on the north side of Danforth Avenue, is a mix of low and mid-rise buildings in which are located a bank, a convenience store, a bedding store and a four (4)-storey apartment building. Further east along Danforth Avenue is a similar pattern of uses and building heights. North of these properties fronting Danforth Avenue are low-rise residential neighbourhoods.
9To the immediate east of the Subject Site is an eight (8)-storey residential apartment building and a 12-storey residential apartment building which abut the rail corridor. Further east, on the east side of Trent Avenue, are a collection of three (3)- storey semi-detached houses and two blocks of three (3)-storey townhouses accessed from Trent Avenue via Ice Cream Lane. East of Trent Avenue is a low-rise residential neighbourhood consisting of detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, row houses and small townhouse blocks.
10To the immediate south of the Subject Site is a vacant parcel which is owned by Metrolinx. South of the rail corridor and shielded by a high noise attenuation berm and fence combination, is a residential subdivision consisting of three (3)-storey dwellings. On the west side of the subdivision is Ted Reeve Baseball Park, a four (4)-hectare park at Gerrard Street East and Main Street featuring three ball diamonds, a children's playground and a wading pool (all located to the north of the arena).
11To the immediate west of the Subject Site there is a series of existing uses:
(a) 10 Dawes Road: Comprised of a 3-storey former wooden-crib grain elevator (built in 1906), currently used as a transdisciplinary arts centre with a flexible ground floor space and a historically owner-occupied residential unit in the basement. There is a surface parking lot to the south of the building and a trailer;
(b) 10A Dawes Road. Comprised of a 2-storey brick former flour/grist mill, currently split into three historically owner-occupied residential units with surface parking to the rear;
(c) 10 and 10A Dawes Road. have been identified by the City and by ERA Architects as a site of prospective cultural heritage value;
(d) 12 Dawes Road. Comprised of a 2-storey commercial building covering the entire site and containing an auto collision use and a single residential rental unit;
(e) 18 Dawes Road. Comprised of a single-storey coin operated car wash facility;
(f) 20 Dawes Road and 20R Dawes Road. Comprised of a vacant 2-storey commercial building, which is utilized for the storage of construction materials in the front yard; and
(g) 30 Dawes Road. Comprised of a lumber yard and is vacant of any buildings.
BACKGROUND
12By way of background, a notice of complete application was received from the City of Toronto on August 1, 2019. A Preliminary Report dated August 28, 2019 recommending a community consultation meeting be held, was prepared and was adopted by Community Council on September 16, 2019. The community consultation meeting took place on September 23, 2019 and was attended by approximately 100 people.
13On December 4, 2019 the Applicants appealed the citing Council’s failure to make a decision within the timeframe prescribed by the Planning Act.
14Subsequently, in March 2020 Minto (Dawes) GP Inc. (“Minto”), acquired the Subject Site. On September 22, 2020, 6 Dawes Danforth Inc., Dandaw Developments Limited, Jacob’s Tent and the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 11 were granted party status. A Procedural Order was issued on November 17, 2020.
15On June 30, 2021 a without prejudice and confidential offer (“the Offer”) was submitted to settle the 9-25 Dawes Road appeals of Minto to the City of Toronto.
PLANNING EVIDENCE
16Lindsay Dale-Harris was qualified to provide contextual and land use planning evidence and opinion to support the proposed development leading to the settlement. In her opinion, the application represents good planning at all levels of the planning regime.
Planning Act
17Ms. Dale-Harris opined that the Settlement Proposal has regard for matters of Provincial Interest through policies in section 2 (Matters of Provincial Interest) of the Planning Act. These are paragraphs e) - the supply, efficient use and conservation of energy and water; f) - the adequate provision and efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services and waste management systems; h) – the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; p) the appropriate location of growth and development; q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; r) - the promotion of built form that: (i) is well-designed, (ii) encourages a sense of place, and (iii) provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant; and (s) the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to a changing climate.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2020
18Ms. Dale-Harris opined that the proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”). The application being proposed facilitates development that supports an efficient use of land through Policies 1.1.3.2 (a) and (b), and Policies 1.1.3.3 and 1.1.3.4 which identify appropriate locations, opportunities and establishes appropriate development standards for, intensification and transit supportive development within existing Settlement Areas.
19Further, an appropriate range of housing options is being secured through establishing minimum targets and permitting and facilitating all housing options and all types of residential intensification. Housing is being provided by requiring transit supportive development and prioritizing intensification in proximity to transit, including stations and corridors. Long term economic prosperity is being supported by residential uses responding to market-based needs by providing a housing supply and range of housing options for a diverse workforce.
20The proposal also provides for a compact built form that will contribute to the achievement of a complete community and supports the use of transit.
Growth Plan, 2019
21Ms. Dale-Harris opined that polices contained in the Growth Plan references relate directly to the proposal being to “major transit station areas”. In particular, Policy 2.2.4(1) requires that priority transit corridors will be identified in Official Plans and that planning will be prioritized for major transit station areas on priority transit corridors, including zoning in a manner that implements the policies of this Plan. In this regard, the Bloor-Danforth subway line is recognized existing higher order transit.
City of Toronto Official Plan
22Ms. Dale-Harris explained that the proposed development implements the Mixed Use Areas designation in the City of Toronto Official Plan (“Toronto OP”), which promotes economic development and intensification of underutilized sites within built-up urban areas, particularly in locations which are well-served by municipal infrastructure and public transit.
23The settlement proposal is aligned with the objectives of the proposed OPA 478 (SASP 577). In this regard, the Settlement Proposal responds appropriately to the location of the Subject Site being within 180 m of the Danforth GO station (approximate 3-minute walk) and within 350 m of the Main Street TTC subway station (approximate 6-minute walk).
24The settlement proposal provides for changes to the built form and massing proposed in the original applications in order to address City positions on limiting shadowing and overview on the Neighbourhoods to the east, enhancing sky views, improving the public realm and pedestrian experience along Dawes Road while continuing to encourage transit supportive development in proximity to major transit infrastructure (the Danforth GO station and the Main Subway station).
25The Tribunal heard that the proposal has a total Residential Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 46,072 sq m and a total Non-Residential GFA of approximately 1,518 sq m for a total GFA of 47,590 sq m. In the order of 640 units will be provided, of which 10% will be three (3)-bedroom units (64), 15% will be two (2)-bedroom units (96) and the balance will be studio and one (1)-bedroom units.
26This allocation of unit types complies with the recommendations of the City’s Growing Up Guidelines. Residential amenity space in support of these units is to be provided at a minimum of indoor amenity space and outdoor amenity space per unit, at a combined minimum rate of 4 sq m per unit.
27Residential parking at a rate of 0.2 spaces per unit (128 spaces), visitor and non-residential parking at a rate of 0.6 spaces per unit (38 spaces) is appropriate and limits the amount of parking at or above grade to 30 spaces. This is a reduction of approximately 75 spaces from the original applications, in order to encourage the use of transit, in light of the very high level of transit infrastructure in the area.
28It was explained that the northerly tower has been shifted westerly, away from the east property line, and the 6-12 storey L shaped building component above the podium has been eliminated. While the overall height has increased by two (2) storeys, the shadow impacts are limited, and the views through the centre of the Subject Site have been expanded.
29The alignment of the southerly tower has been shifted to align with Dawes Road and the tower height has been reduced from 30 storeys to 27 storeys. While the floorplate size has increased to 850 sq m, the 6-12 storey component above the podium has been removed, and the tower has been aligned to minimize the impact on views to the east and west.
30Ms. Dale-Harris stated the podium height has been reduced to four (4) storeys along Dawes Road, with step backs provided to the taller building components, and a five (5)-storey component located to the east. The entire podium has been cut back opposite the Guest Avenue intersection in order to create a POPS (minimum 420 sq m) to provide a focal point and pedestrian plaza on Dawes Road and to enhance the public realm.
31She opined, the development encourages transit that allows for a mix of residential units that will help create and sustain a vibrant community. The development will fit harmoniously into its existing or planned context and will have a limited impact on neighbouring streets, other properties parks and open spaces.
32Further, the development will balance residential and open space uses that reduce automobile dependency: provides housing intensification; provides for transition; adequately limits impacts to light; and provides for an attractive, comfortable and safe pedestrian environment.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
33Rule 12.1 of the Tribunal’s Rules and Procedure sets out the Tribunal’s powers and the factors to be addressed when considering a proposed settlement. It states:
12.1 The Tribunal may hold a hearing on the terms of a settlement if the parties in the proceeding agree to a settlement prior to a hearing event. The Tribunal may issue any directions to the parties necessary to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements, or to assist the Tribunal, prior to convening the settlement hearing. If all statutory requirements and the public interest are satisfied, the Tribunal may issue an order approving the settlement, with any necessary amendments.
34The Tribunal heard the viva voce evidence of Ms. Dale-Harris, heard the submissions of counsel all in support of the Settlement Proposal, and considered the information and materials that it had before it in making this decision.
35Ms. Dale-Harris informed the Tribunal that the Zoning By-law amendments 438-86 and 569-2013 from the Original Applications have been revised to reflect the Settlement Proposal. Should the City now seek minor and/or technical changes to these documents to accommodate the proposed development and/or to meet current City format requirements, these should be accommodated, where appropriate.
36The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted land use planning evidence and opinions of Ms. Dale-Harris and is satisfied that the proposed development is consistent and conforms with and furthers the policy direction and intent of the GP, the PPS, the City’s OP and Polices and represents good land use planning.
37The Tribunal found that the Draft ZBLA with the Site-Specific Provisions and Schedules as found in Attachment 1:
a. Appropriately considered the Provincial Interests set out in s.2 of the PA;
b. Was consistent with the PPS as being within a settlement area and being a form of intensification.
c. Conformed to the Growth Plan as being within a Major Transit Station Area, on a transit corridor, and a form of intensification in support of and proximate to public transit.
d. Conformed to the planned function intended by the City’s Official Plan.
f. Implemented the City’s Growing Up Guidelines, Urban Design Guidelines and the POPS Guidelines.
g. Represented good land use planning; and
h. Was in the public interest.
ORDER
38The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in the paragraph below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.
39The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:
a. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment No. 569-2013 submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and
b. The Tribunal is advised that the owner has addressed all of the reports, designs and financial securities to be provided by the Owner to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and
c. The Tribunal is advised that a Section 37 Agreement has been executed and registered on title to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, securing the community benefits.
d. The Tribunal is advised that the appeal to Zoning By-law 438-86 is withdrawn.
40The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.
41If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [39] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by May 8, 2022, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
42In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report, and/or in the event the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.
43The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional time lines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument(s), the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.
“D. Chipman”
D. CHIPMAN
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
Authority: Toronto and East York Community Council Item No. ●, as adopted by City of Toronto Council on ●.
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW No. XXXX-2021
To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 of the City of Toronto with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2018 as 9 to 25 Dawes Road.
Whereas authority is given to Council of the City of Toronto under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and
Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act; and
The Council of the City of Toronto enacts:
The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.
The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, Chapter 800 Definitions.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the zone label on the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.10 respecting the lands outlined in heavy black line to CR (x####) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands municipally known in the year 2018 as 9 to 25 Dawes Road to the Policy Area Overlay Map in Section 995.10.1, as shown on Diagram 3 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands municipally known in the year 2018 as 9 to 25 Dawes Road to the Height Overlay Map in Section 995.20.1 and applying the following height labels to these lands: HT 12.0 as shown on Diagram 4 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands municipally known in the year 2018 as 9 to 25 Dawes Road to the Lot Coverage Overlay Map in Section 995.30.1, as shown on Diagram 5 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands municipally known in the year 2018 as 9 to 25 Dawes Road to the Rooming House Overlay Map in Section 955.40.1, as shown on Diagram 6 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding to Article Exception Number (####) so that it reads:
Exception CR [####]
The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections.
Site Specific Provisions:
(A) On lands municipally known in the year 2018 as 9 and 25 Dawes Road shown on Diagram 1 to By-law ● [Clerks to provide by-law number], a building or structure may be erected and used in compliance with (B) to below;
(B) The lot comprises the lands outlined by heavy lines and identified on Diagram 1, attached to By-law ● [Clerks to provide by-law number];
(C) Despite Regulation 40.10.20.20(1), public parking, eating establishment, and take-out eating establishment are permitted uses;
(D) Despite Regulation 40.10.20.40(1)(B) mixed-use buildings are permitted building types for dwelling units;
(E) Despite Regulations 40.5.1.10(3)(A) and 40.10.40.40.(1) the total gross floor area of buildings and structures must not exceed a maximum of 46,045 square metres, of which:
i. The permitted maximum gross floor area for residential is 44,527 square metres;
ii. The permitted maximum gross floor area for non-residential is 1,518 square metres;
(F) The permitted maximum gross floor area for non-residential uses included in (E) above shall exclude any parking spaces and drive aisles and any storage areas located at or above grade;
(G) Of the total number of dwelling units provided, a minimum of 10% must be three-bedroom dwelling units or larger and 25% must be two-bedroom dwelling units or larger;
(H) Despite Clauses 40.10.40.70 and 40.10.40.80 the required minimum building setbacks and the required minimum separation distances between main walls of buildings or structures above ground level is shown on Diagram 7 of By-law ● [Clerks to provide by-law number];
(I) Despite Regulations 5.10.40.70(1) and (2), Clauses 40.5.40.60, 40.10.40.60, and Regulation (H) above, the following elements of a building or structure may encroach into a required minimum building setback and a required minimum main wall separation distance as follows:
i. Privacy screens, planters, bollards, stairs, underground garage ramps and associated structures, walls, and safety railings, wind mitigation elements, trellises, guards, guardrails, retaining walls, parking spaces, wheel chair ramps, air intakes and vents, transformer vaults, ventilating equipment, generator, equipment screens, public art, bike share facilities, outdoor amenity space elements, landscape features, elements, guardrails, and art installations, entry vestibules projecting horizontally beyond the heavy lines shown on Diagram 7;
ii. 1.5 metres for lighting fixtures, cornices, sills, eaves, parapets, balustrades, porches, patios, ornamental or architectural features, bay windows, projecting horizontally beyond the heavy lines shown on Diagram 7;
iii. 3.0 metres for canopies and awnings, projecting horizontally beyond the heavy lines shown on Diagram 7;
iv. Balconies to a maximum horizontal projection of 2.0 metres beyond the heavy lines shown on Diagram 7; and
v. Structures, elements and enclosures permitted by Regulation (M) below;
(J) Despite Clause 40.10.40.10, the permitted maximum building height in metres is measured from the geodetic datum referenced in regulation (L) [Clerks to provide by-law number];
(K) Along all lot lines that abut a street to the highest point of the building or structure, is the numerical value in metres following the HT symbol on Diagram 7 of By-law ● [Clerks to provide number];
(L) For the purpose of this Exception, the phrase “average elevation of the ground along all lot lines that abut a street” is the Canadian Geodetic Datum elevation of 130.74 metres;
(M) Despite Clause 40.5.40.10 and Regulation (I) above the following elements of the building or structure may project above the permitted maximum building height limits shown on Diagram 7 of By-law ● [Clerks to provide number] as follows:
i. Structures, elements and enclosures permitted by Regulation (I) above;
ii. Equipment for the functional operation of the building including but not limited to electrical, utility and heating, cooling or ventilation equipment mechanical equipment, mechanical penthouse, chimneys, vents, stacks, mechanical fans, cooling towers, elevators and related structural elements; stair enclosures associated with access to underground parking, stair enclosures, entry vestibules and elevator lobby and indoor amenity associated with and servicing outdoor rooftop areas, parapets, roof assemblies, mass dampening tanks, mechanical and architectural screens, architectural features, lightning rods, maintenance and window washing equipment, light poles, railings, trellises, balustrades, privacy screens, mechanical screens, guardrails, terraces, patios, retaining walls, seating, landscape features, privacy gates, underground garage ramps and their associated structures, planters, access roof hatch, art features, elements or structures used for outside or open air recreation, safety or wind or acoustic protection, green roofs, stairs and covered stairs or elevator overruns, and structures and elements associated with green energy and renewable energy facilities and wind mitigation elements located on any roof, which may project vertically above the permitted building heights shown on Diagram 7 of By-law ● [Clerks to provide number] by a maximum of 5.0 metres; and
iii. structures on any roof used for the purposes of, safety, wind or green roof purposes, outdoor amenity space or open air recreation, and vestibules providing access to outdoor amenity space, may project vertically above the permitted building heights shown on Diagram 7 of By-law ● [Clerks to provide number] by a maximum of 4.5 metres.
iv. outdoor furniture, bollards and wheelchair ramps by a maximum of 2.0 metres;
(N) Despite Clause 40.10.40.50, amenity space is required for dwelling units and must be provided in accordance with the following:
i. A minimum of 1.5 square metres of indoor amenity space per dwelling unit must be provided;
ii. A minimum of 1.5 square metres of outdoor amenity space per dwelling unit must be provided, of which at least 40 square metres of outdoor amenity space must be provided in a location directly accessible from an area containing indoor amenity space;
iii. A minimum of 4.0 square metres of combined indoor and outdoor amenity space per dwelling unit must be provided;
iv. No amenity space is required for non-residential uses;
v. No more than 25% of the outdoor component may be a green roof;
(O) Despite Regulations 200.5.10.1(1), and 200.5.10.11(1), parking spaces must be provided and maintained on the lot in accordance with the following requirements:
i. A minimum of 0.20 parking spaces per dwelling unit must be provided for residents;
ii. A minimum of 0.06 parking spaces per dwelling unit are required for the shared use of residential visitors and non-residential uses ;
iii. Parking spaces required by Regulation (O)(ii) above may be provided on a non-exclusive basis and in a public parking facility;
iv. All required parking for residents shall be provided below established grade;
(P) Despite Regulation 200.5.1.10(2)(A) and (B) and Section 200.15, a minimum of 11.0 parking spaces must be provided on the lot as accessible parking spaces as follows:
i. A minimum of 6.0 accessible parking spaces must be provided for residential uses;
ii. A minimum of 2.0 accessible parking spaces must be provided for residential visitors and non-residential uses;
iii. An accessible parking space must be located within 13.0 metres of an entrance to an elevator lobby with one (1) or more passenger elevator(s) that provide access to the first storey of the building;
(Q) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(10), “short-term” and “long-term” bicycle parking spaces may be provided as stacked bicycle parking spaces;
(R) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(4)(A)(ii) and (B)(ii), a stacked bicycle parking space must have a minimum width of 0.45 metres;
(S) Regulation 200.5.1.10(12)(C) does not apply;
(T) Regulation 230.5.1.10(9)(iii) does not apply;
(U) Regulation 230.5.10.1(1) does not apply to non-residential bicycle parking spaces;
(V) Regulation 230.40.1.20(2) does not apply; and
(W) Despite any existing or future severance, partition, or division of the lands shown on Diagram 1 of By-law ● [Clerks to provide number], the provisions of this Exception and By-law 569-2013 shall apply to the whole of the lands as one lot as if no severance, partition or division had occurred.
Prevailing By-law and Prevailing Sections: (None Apply)
ENACT AND PASSED this day of , 2021
JOHN TORY, JOHN ELVIDGE,
Mayor City Clerk