Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE:
May 31, 2022
CASE NO(S).:
OLT-22-002194
(Formerly PL210030)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant:
1332904 Ontario Ltd. & Max Klaczkowski
Subject:
Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning:
CRT4.0 C2.0 R4.0 and CR 4.0 (c2.0; r4.0) SS1 (x2255).
Proposed Zoning:
Site Specific (To be determined)
Purpose:
To permit a 39-storey mixed-use building
Property Address/Description:
133-141 Queen St. E. and 128 Richmond St. E.
Municipality:
City of Toronto
Municipality File No.:
18 225083 STE 28 OZ
OLT Case No.:
OLT-22-002194
Legacy Case No.:
PL210030
OLT Lead Case No.:
OLT-22-002194
Legacy Lead Case No.:
PL210030
OLT Case Name:
1332904 Ontario Ltd. v. Toronto (City)
Heard:
March 28, 2022 by video hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
1332904 Ontario Ltd. and Max Klaczkowski (“Applicant”)
M. Foderick/D. Angelucci
City of Toronto (“City”)
M. Longo/D. Abimbola
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY S. MANN AND JATINDER BHULLAR ON MARCH 28, 2022 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1This was a settlement hearing in the matter of an appeal by the Appellant of the non-decision by the City on the Appellant’s application for Zoning By-law Amendment regarding the proposed development at 133-141 Queen Street East and 128 Richmond Street East in the City (“Subject Property”) pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act (“Act”).
2The Subject Property is located approximately 500 metres (“m”) east of Yonge Street in Downtown Toronto. The Subject Property is surrounded by a variety of commercial, residential and mixed-use buildings.
3On September 13, 2018, the Appellant submitted their original application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) to the City. The ZBLA proposed to rezone the Subject Property to allow for the development of a 41-storey mixed use building with a measured height of 125.55 m. The City issued a Notice of Incomplete Application on October 15, 2018 citing outstanding submission materials.
4Following comments from the City on February 14, 2019, the Appellant filed a revised application on October 3, 2019, revising the application to permit 39-storey mixed use building with a measured height of 117.5 m (“Proposed Development”). The City issued Notice of Complete application on October 3, 2019 and as a result of failure of the City to make a decision, the Appellant filed its appeal on December 31, 2020.
5The parties entered private mediation around September 30, 2021 and on February 2, 2022 the City and the Appellant agreed on a settlement with a revised draft ZBL (attached as Schedule A), subject to a set of conditions (attached as Schedule B).
6The evolution of multiple proposals that eventually led to a settlement is as follows:
Original Proposal (September 2018)
Revised Proposal (October 2019)
Settlement Proposal (December 2021)
Building Height Storeys Measured Height (including MPH)
41 Storeys 133.05 m
39 Storeys 125.00 m
40 Storeys 130.10 m
Gross Floor Area Residential GFA Retail GFA Total
31,700 m2 1,300 m2 33,000 m2
29,000 m2 500 m2 29,500 m2
28,735 m2 365 m2 29,100 m2
Floor Space Index
18.48
16.52
16.29
Amenity Areas Interior Amenity Exterior Amenity
880 m2 303 m2
880 m2 290 m2
1,246 m2 514 m2
Vehicular Parking Resident Visitor/Commercial Total Parking
92 7 99
92 7 99
92 7 99
Bicycle Parking Spaces
44
440
440
Loading Spaces
1 Type C 1 Type G
1 Type C 1 Type G
1 Type C 1 Type G
7The City and Appellant jointly requested that the Tribunal approve the Draft ZBLA, subject to the Conditions.
THE SETTLEMENT HEARING
8The Tribunal received and marked the following documents as Exhibits at the hearing:
Exhibit 1 – Appellant’s Document Book
Exhibit 2 – Affidavit of Allison Chewter
Exhibit 3 – Affidavit Exhibits
9Land use planning evidence in support of the Revised ZBLA was provided by Allison Chewter. Ms. Chewter is a Candidate Member of Ontario Professional Panners Institute and was qualified by the Tribunal to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
10Ms. Chewter provided detailed contextual and land use planning evidence and rationale to support the proposed settlement. She reviewed the revised ZBLA, which in her professional opinion, constitutes good planning and conforms to all applicable planning policies and meets the statutory tests.
11Ms. Chewter opined that the ZBLA has regard for matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act in the following manner: the Proposed Development makes efficient use of communication, transportation, sewage and water services, and waste management systems. In addition, the Subject Property is an appropriate location for growth and development.
12Ms. Chewter opined that the ZBLA is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”). The Proposed Development is consistent with policy 1.1.1 of the PPS as the Subject Property is within an area of high order transit, located near employment opportunities and commercial businesses. In addition, the Proposed Development will add to the housing supply of the City in an efficient manner using compact build form. She further added that Subject Property is an ideal site for mixed use development and is consistent with the PPS.
13Ms. Chewter opined that ZBLA conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2002 (“GP”). The Subject Property is located within a growth area. In addition, the Subject Property is within an area of higher order transit. She noted that there three subway stops within 800 m of the Subject Property and the Subject Property is adjacent to the 501 Queen streetcar stop.
14Ms. Chewter opined that ZBLA conforms with the City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”). She cited specific policies for applicable Mixed Use Areas designation, as well as policies related to growth management, built form and housing. She testified that the Subject Property’s designation permits a broad mix of commercial, residential and other uses. She added that Policy 4.5(2) of the OP sets out criteria for development within Mixed Use Areas, and that the Subject Property satisfies these criteria. She testified that the Proposed Development further conforms to the requirement regarding transitions between building masses.
15Ms. Chewter opined that ZBLA conforms with the City’s Downtown Secondary Plan (“SP”), particularly in regard to policies for the Mixed Use Areas 2 (“MUA2”) designation. She reviewed SP Policy 6.34 and 6.3.6 and opined that the proposed development is in proximity to existing and planned rapid transit stations which are targets for prioritized mixed use development.
16Ms. Chewter also reviewed SP Policy 9 which sets out built form policies and she opined that the Proposed Development will comply with these inclusive of appropriate setbacks to allow for a minimum 6.0 m distance from the street curb to the building face on all three street frontages; a four (4) and five (5) storey base building platform to match existing scale and proportion on the street of the Subject Property; strategic location of terracing to limit shadowing; tower floor plates that decrease in size relative to their height, setbacks between the Proposed Development tower Queen Street East in order to provide scale and transition; and finally indoor and outdoor amenity space.
17Ms. Chewter testified that the Subject Property is also subject to Site and Area Specific Policy 461 (“SASP 461”) and Site and Area Specific Policy 517 (“SASP 517”). She opined that SASP 461 is not relevant as it does not relate to the Subject Property, however, SASP 517 does apply and relates to the City providing direction for downtown tall building development. She noted that SASP 517 is related to OPA 352 which is currently under appeal by the Appellant, along with other Appellants. She opined that therefore the associated policies have been held in abeyance pending outcome of the appeals and as such will not be considered for this ZBLA appeal.
18Ms. Chewter stated that the Proposed Development has appropriate regard to the City’s urban design guidelines as outlined in the City-Wide Tall Building Design Guidelines March 2013 (Design Guidelines). The Design Guidelines recommend a minimum separation of 25 m between towers, the Proposed Development accommodates this separation except for its neighbour adjacent on the west, which will have 0 m setback. However, the Appellant demonstrated that the specific context of the site the Proposed Development is still appropriate as the building to the west of the Subject Property is a blank wall and the property itself is not a suitable width for a tower.
19The Tribunal received a written statement from one Participant. The comments were concerning shadow and setbacks with a concern for lack of sidewalk space. Ms. Chewter testified that these concerns are addressed by the Appellant’s use of setback and stepbacks which minimize shadowing caused on surrounding area and increase in sidewalk space.
20Ms. Chewter summarized that the ZBLA represents good land use planning as it suitably addresses all the statutory requirements and is also supported by the City staff for appropriate development of the Subject Property.
FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION
21Based on the uncontroverted and unopposed expert opinion evidence of Ms. Chewter, the Tribunal finds that ZBLA has regard for the provincial interest, is consistent the PPS, conforms to the GP, the OP and the SP; and meets the requirements of the Design Guidelines.
22The parties have set up a s. 37 arrangement as part of their settlement of all issues in this appeal. The parties requested that the Panel assist in the expedient processing of the final approval of the ZBLA once the conditions are satisfied and the Tribunal is so informed. Their concerns were that with the pending changes for evolution of s. 37 there were fixed dates for processing of such settlements while maintaining agreements established under s. 37. The Tribunal accepted their request and the Panel agreed to assist with the final approval of the ZBLA when so requested by the parties in the future through the Tribunal case coordinator.
23The Tribunal made an oral decision at the end of the hearing and the interim order in this decision is effective as of the date of the oral decision, March 28, 2022.
INTERIM ORDER
24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part, and on an interim basis, the Zoning By-law Amendments are approved in principle, substantially in accordance with the Proposed draft Zoning By-law Amendment in Attachment 1a and Attachment 1b.
25The Tribunal will withhold its Final Order until the Tribunal has received, reviewed and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted in its final form and has been advised that the conditions set out in Attachment 2 have been met to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
26The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument(s), the satisfaction of the conditions and the issuance of the Final Order.
27The Tribunal Panel Members will remain seized with respect to final approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment and may be approached should any difficulties arise.
“S. Mann”
S. MANN
MEMBER
“Jatinder Bhullar”
JATINDER BHULLAR
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 1A
Proposed draft Zoning By-law Amendment
Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on ___ and Order issued on ___ in Tribunal File PL210030
Draft Zoning By-law Amendment (March 15, 2022)
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW NO. ###-2022(OLT)
To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, and repeal By-law 94-0166 with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2021 as 133-141 Queen Street East and 128 Richmond Street East
Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, by its Decision issued on ____, and by its Order issued on ____, in Tribunal File PL210030 upon hearing an appeal under Section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, deems it advisable to amend the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands known municipally in the year 2021as 133-141 Queen Street East and 128 Richmond Street; and
Whereas the Official Plan of the City of Toronto contains such provisions relating to the authorization of increases in height and density of development; and
Whereas pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, a by-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act, may authorize increases in the height or density of development beyond those otherwise permitted by the by-law and that will be permitted in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matter as are set out in the by-law; and
Whereas subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services and matters in return for an increase in height or density of development, the owner may be required to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing in respect of facilities, services and matters; and
Whereas the owner of the aforesaid lands has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters hereinafter set out; and
Whereas the increase in height and density permitted beyond that otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law which is secured by one or more agreements between the owner of the land and the City of Toronto;
The Ontario Land Tribunal orders:
By-law 94-0166 is repealed.
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 No. 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by replacing to Article 900.11.10 Exception Number (x2255), such that it reads as follows:
(2255) Exception CR 2255
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 133-141 Queen Street East and 128 Richmond Street East, as shown on Diagram 1 of this By-law, if the requirements of Section 5 and Schedule A of By-law ###-2022(OLT) are complied with, a building, structure, addition or enlargement is permitted in compliance with regulations (B) through (N) below:
(B) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.40(1) the permitted maximum gross floor area on the lot is 29,500 square metres, of which:
(i) The permitted maximum residential gross floor area is 29,000 square metres; and
(ii) The permitted maximum non-residential gross floor area is 500 square metres;
(C) The provision of dwelling units is subject to the following:
(i) A minimum of 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units must contain two bedrooms; and
(ii) A minimum of 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units must contain three or more bedrooms;
(D) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(1) and (2), the height of a building or structure is measured from the Canadian Geodetic Datum elevation of 85.85 metres to the height point of the building or structure;
(E) Despite Regulations 40.10.40.10(1), the height of a building or structure, including a mechanical penthouse, is the number following the symbol “HT” as shown on Diagram 2 of By-law ###-2022(OLT).
(F) Despite (E) above and Clause 40.5.40.10, the following elements, structures, equipment or parts of a building are permitted to project above the permitted maximum height as shown on Diagram 2 of By-law ###-2022(OLT), as follows:
Elements of a green roof, drainage, insulation and roof surface materials, parapets, chimneys, pipes, vents, eaves, planters, railings and dividers, screens, stairs wind screens, landscaping elements, awnings, pergolas, trellises, balustrades, davit arms, light fixtures and other architectural features to a maximum of 3.0 metres;
Lightning rods, antennae, satellite dishes, window washing equipment and building maintenance units to a maximum of 5.0 metres;
(G) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.70 (1), the required minimum building setbacks are shown on Diagram 3 of By-law ###-2022
(H) Despite (G) above and Clause 40.10.40.60, the following elements of a building or structures are permitted to encroach into the required building setbacks as shown on Diagram 2 of By-law ###-2022(OLT), as follows:
(i) Cladding, eaves, cornices, columns, pillars light fixtures, parapets, thermal insulation, structures for outside or open air recreation, windowsills, balustrades, screens and site servicing features may encroach up to a maximum of 0.75 metres;
(ii) Canopies, awnings, ornamental elements, architectural features, railings, stairs, planters, ventilation shafts, access ramps, window washing equipment and building maintenance units may encroach up to a maximum of 1.5 metres; and
(iii) Balconies up to a maximum depth of 1.0 metres along the east building main wall and a maximum depth of 2.0 metres along the north, west and south building main walls;
(I) Despite Clause 40.10.40.50, amenity space must be provided and maintained on the lot as follows:
(i) 2.8 square metres of indoor amenity space must be provided for each dwelling unit; and
(ii) 1.2 square metres of outdoor amenity space must be provided for each dwelling unit;
(J) Despite Regulation 200.15.10(1) and Table 200.5.10.1, parking spaces for a mixed-use building must be provided and maintained on the lot in accordance with the following:
(i) A minimum of 0.21 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents;
(ii) A minimum of 0.016 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residential visitors; and
(iii) No parking spaces are required for non-residential uses;
(K) Despite Regulation 200.15.1 (1), an accessible parking space must have the following minimum dimensions:
(i) A minimum length of 5.6 metres;
(ii) A minimum width of 3.4 metres
(iii) A minimum vertical clearance of 2.1 metres; and
(iv) The entire length of accessible parking spaces must be adjacent to a 1.5 metre wide accessible barrier free aisle or path;
(L) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10 (9) “long term” bicycle parking spaces for a dwelling unit in a mixed use building may be located on any storey above or below ground;
(M) Despite Regulations 230.5.1.10 (4)(A) and (10), both “long term” and “short term” bicycle parking spaces for a dwelling unit in a mixed use building may be located in a stacked bicycle parking space with a minimum width of 0.4 metres;
(N) None of the provisions of this By-law or By-law 569-2013, as amended, shall apply to prevent a sales office used for the initial sale of dwelling units on the lot;
Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections: (None Apply)
Notwithstanding any existing or future severances, partition, or division of the lot, the provisions of this By-law will apply to the whole of the lot as if no severance, partition, or division had occurred.
Section 37 Provisions
(A) Pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, and subject to compliance with this By-law, the increase in height and density of the development is permitted beyond that otherwise permitted on the lands shown on Diagram 1 in return for the provision by the owner, at the owner's expense of the facilities, services and matters set out in Schedule A hereof and which are secured by one or more agreements pursuant to Section 37(3) of the Planning Act that are in a form and registered on title to the lands, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;
(B) Where Schedule A of this By-law requires the owner to provide certain facilities, services or matters prior to the issuance of a building permit, the issuance of such permit shall be dependent on satisfaction of the same; and
(C) The owner shall not use, or permit the use of, a building or structure erected with an increase in height and density pursuant to this By-law unless all provisions of Schedule A are satisfied.
Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on ____ and Order issued ____, in File PL210030.
ATTACHMENT 1B
City of Toronto By-law No. - 2022
Diagram 1
133-141 Queen Street East & 128 Richmond Street East, Toronto
File #18 225083 STE 28 OZ
Not to Scale
City of Toronto By-law No. - 2022
QUEEN STREET EAST
HT 17.7
0.0
5.3
HT 98.4
HT 38.7
HT 107.2
HT 123.1
HT 113.4
HT 11.0
HT 130.6 (MPH)
0.0
10.2
5.3
HT 123.1
HT 21.3
4.3
3.3
Diagram 2
RICHMOND STREET EAST
133-141 Queen Street East & 128 Richmond Street East, Toronto
File #18 225083 STE 28 OZ
5.0 metre corner rounding
Not to Scale
SCHEDULE A
Section 37 Provisions
The facilities, services and matters set out below are required to be provided to the City at the Owner's expense in return for the increase in height and density of the proposed development on the lot and secured in an agreement or agreements under Section 37(3) of the Planning Act whereby the owner agrees as follows:
Prior to the issuance of the first above-grade Building Permit, excluding demolition permits, the Owner shall pay a cash contribution of three million and five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000.00 CAN) to the City to be allocated to certain community benefits in the vicinity of the Subject Site with the allocation of such funds to be determined by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor.
The cash contribution set out above is to be indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Publication 327-0058, or its successor, calculated from the date of the Ontario Land Tribunal decision to the date of payment.
In the event the cash contribution set out above has not been used for the intended purposes within three (3) years of the site specific Zoning By-law coming into full force and effect, the cash contribution may be redirected for another purpose, at the discretion of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, provided that the purpose is identified in the Toronto Official Plan and will benefit the community in the vicinity of the lands.
The following matters are also recommended to be secured in the Section 37 Agreement as a legal convenience to support development:
(A) the Owner shall provide a minimum of 10 percent of the new residential dwelling units in the development as dwelling units containing at least three bedrooms and having a minimum gross floor area of 100 square metres, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
(B) The Owner shall pay for and construct any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, at their sole expense, in connection with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports or other reports accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that upgrades to such infrastructure are required to support this development;
(C) The Owner shall develop a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to the issuance of the first below grade building permit for the proposed development of the Subject Site to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor; and
(D) The Owner shall submit an updated Pedestrian Level Wind Study, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and provide any wind mitigation measures identified in the required wind studies for the revised proposal as part of the Site Plan approval process for the Subject Site.
ATTACHMENT 2
CONDITIONS
The Tribunal will withhold its Final Order until the Tribunal has been advised that the following conditions have been met to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor:
(a) the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendments are to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor, in consultation with other appropriate divisions, and that they secure, among other matters:
(i) that the maximum depth of the balconies of the Jarvis Street frontage of the proposed tower be limited to 1 metre depth;
(ii) that the balconies located on the Jarvis Street frontage of the proposed tower occupy no more than 70 percent of the building face for each floor, with the precise location to be resolved to the satisfaction of City staff through the site plan approval process;
(iii) that no balconies be permitted to “wrap around” the corners of the building on any frontage, and that no balcony be located within 1.5 metre of a corner of the tower, to the satisfaction of City staff through the site plan approval process; and,
(iv) that the fifth floor outdoor amenity space be stepped back a minimum 3 metres above the 4 storey podium portion of the building on Queen Street East, and a minimum 1.8 metres of that stepback width will be landscaping;
(b) the Applicant entering into an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the City Solicitor, with such agreement to be registered on title to the lands in a manner satisfactory to the City Solicitor to secure the following community benefits:
(i) a cash contribution of $3,500,000.00 to be paid by the Applicant (upwardly indexed in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Publication 327-0058, or its successor, calculated from the date of the Ontario Land Tribunal decision to the date of payment) prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the proposed development, excluding demolition permits and any permits associated with the heritage alterations and conservation work, and to be allocated to certain community benefits in the vicinity of the subject site with the allocation of such funds to be determined by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor;
(ii) a requirement that, in the event the cash contributions referred to above have not been used for their intended purposes within three (3) years of the site-specific Zoning By-law coming into full force and effect, the cash contribution may be redirected for another purpose, at the discretion of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, provided that the purpose is identified in the City’s Official Plan and will benefit the community in the vicinity of the lands; and,
(iii) the following items secured in the section 37 agreement as a legal convenience to support the development:
A. the Applicant shall provide a minimum of 10 percent of the new residential dwelling units in the development as dwelling units containing at least three bedrooms and having a minimum gross floor area of 100 square metres, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
B. the Applicant to pay for and construct any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, at their sole expense, in connection with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports or other reports accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that upgrades to such infrastructure are required to support the development;
C. the Applicant to develop a Construction Mitigation Plan prior to the issuance of the first below grade building permit for the proposed development of the subject site to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor; and,
D. the Applicant to submit an updated Pedestrian Level Wind Study, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and provide any wind mitigation measures identified in the required wind studies for the revised proposal as part of the site plan approval process for the subject site;
(c) the Applicant has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Engineering and Construction Services as they relate to the Zoning By-law Amendment application as set out in their memorandum, dated December 11, 2019, or as may be updated in response to further submissions filed by the owner, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
(d) the Applicant providing a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, Municipal Servicing and Grading Plan, and any other reports or documents deemed necessary in support of the development to the City for review and acceptance by and to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; the reports will determine whether the municipal water, sanitary and storm sewer systems can support the proposed development and whether upgrades or improvements of the existing municipal infrastructure are required; and,
(e) the Applicant withdrawing its appeal of Official Plan Amendment 352, being the Downtown Tall Buildings Setback Area Specific Policy, and the associated Zoning By-laws 1106-2016 and 1107-2016, as relates to the subject lands.