Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l'aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: June 03, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002282 (Formerly) PL200567

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: BSAR (Queen) LP Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013- Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: Commercial-Residential Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit an 8 storey mixed-use residential building with ground floor retail Property Address/Description: 1521 Queen Street West Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 19247355 STE 04 0Z OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002282 Legacy Case No. PL200567 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002282 Legacy Case No.: PL200567 OLT Case Name: BSAR (Queen) LP 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: BSAR (Queen) LP Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of the City of Toronto to make a decision Existing Zoning: Commercial-Residential Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined) Purpose: To permit an 8 storey mixed-use residential building with ground floor retail Property Address/Description: 1521 Queen Street West Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 19247355 STE 04 0Z OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002284 Legacy Case No. PL200568 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002282 Legacy Case No.: PL200567

Heard: May 17, 2022 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties Counsel

BSAR (Queen) LP ("BSAR") (the "Appellant") D. Angelucci M. Foderick

City of Toronto (the "City") S. O'Connor J. Davidson

Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust ("PNLT") No one appeared

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. RUSSO ON MAY 17, 2022 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The matter before the Tribunal is an appeal under the Planning Act (the "Act"), s. 34(11), arising from City Council's failure to make a decision on the Appellant's Zoning By-law Application within the statutory timelines prescribed under the Act. The subject property is municipally known as 1521 Queen Street West, City of Toronto (the "Subject Site").

2On November 8, 2019, BSAR submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment (the "ZBLA") application to permit an 8-storey (30.9-metre ("m"), including mechanical penthouse) residential/mixed-use building on the Subject Site (the "Original Proposal").

3On September 30, 2020, City Council adopted Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") No. 445, which had the effect of introducing Site and Area Specific Policy ("SASP") 566 for lands generally fronting Queen Street West between Roncesvalles Avenue and Bathurst Street. The OPA was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal ("Tribunal") by 16 appellants including BSAR, and accordingly, is not in force and effect.

4A Case Management Conference ("CMC") was held on June 8, 2021. At the CMC, the Tribunal granted party status to Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust (the "PNLT").

5Through discussions and submissions provided at the CMC, the matter was set to be heard as a contested Hearing of the Merits and scheduled for 13 days commencing May 17, 2022.

6On January 17, 2022, the Applicant submitted revised plans to the Tribunal (the "Revised Proposal").

7Privately-assisted, without prejudice mediation took place over 3 days on February 1, 3, and 15, 2022, between BSAR, the City legal and planning staff, and the PNLT.

8Following extensive settlement discussions with City Staff and the PNLT, BSAR made a without prejudice offer to settle the Appeal of the Application by revising the proposal in accordance with the Settlement Plans, as prepared by CORE Architects, dated February 23, 2022, as well as implementation of several conditions.

9At its meeting of March 9, 2022, City Council accepted the Settlement Proposal, subject to the conditions.

10The Parties on consent contacted the Tribunal requesting that the 13-day Hearing of the Merits for the matter, be converted to a 1-day Settlement Hearing.

BACKGROUND AND THE SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

11The Original Proposal proposed an 8-storey mixed-use building with a gross floor area ("GFA") of 5,923.34 square metres ("m²"), including 78 rental residential units and 300 m² of at-grade retail fronting Queen Street West.

12The building included a 5-storey streetwall built to the (north) Queen Street property line on Levels 2-5, with a 1.2 m inset condition on the ground floor. Above Level 5, the building stepped back 3.3 m, and then additional 3 m stepbacks above both Level 6 and Level 7, providing for setbacks of 3.3 m, 6.3 m and 9.3 m on Levels 6, 7 and 8, respectively.

13With respect to the rear yard condition, at the western portion (40%) of the Subject Site, the building was proposed to be built to the rear property line at Level 1 and 2. Above Level 2, the building stepped back 5.5 m, providing for a 5.5 m setback at Levels 3-8, with projecting balconies. At the eastern portion of the Subject Site, the building was proposed to be setback a minimum of 8.9 m from the rear property line on Levels 1-8, with no projecting balconies.

14Vehicular parking and loading access were proposed from Queen Street West, with a driveway running perpendicular to the street along the east property line, in the approximate location of the existing curb cut and driveway. Loading was proposed at the southwest corner of the Subject Site, internalized within the building.

15A total of 84 bicycle parking spaces were proposed, including 71 long-term resident spaces and 1 long-term retail space within a 1-level underground parking garage, and 12 short-term residential and retail spaces at ground level. No resident or visitor parking spaces were proposed, however, the Original Proposal included three 'car-share' spaces located at-grade, in the southeast corner of the Subject Site.

16Subsequent to the mediation negotiations and discussions, the Settlement Proposal now proposes an 8-storey mixed-use building with a total GFA of 6,700 m², containing approximately 6,400 m² of residential floor area (with the final unit count and interior demising to be determined during site plan approval) and approximately 294 m² of at-grade retail space fronting onto Queen Street West. The building continues to be mid-rise in form and articulated to respond to surrounding contextual conditions, with a decrease in maximum height of 29.95 m (excluding elevator overrun), inclusive of mechanical penthouse and indoor and outdoor amenity space.

17The Settlement Proposal includes a lower streetwall condition along Queen Street West and is setback 0.95 m from the north (Queen Street West) property line, facilitating an expanded pedestrian zone and a curb-to-building face setback of 4.8. A 3-storey (10.4 m) streetwall is provided for the western 11 m of the property; the balance of the streetwall is 4-storeys (13.20 m). The Settlement Proposal has eliminated the previously proposed cantilevered condition for Level 1, resulting in the 0.95 m minimum setback continued up the entire 3- to 4-storey streetwall height.

18With respect to vehicular access, the Settlement Proposal continues to incorporate the existing vehicle access from Queen Street West, with a 6.8 m wide driveway running perpendicular to the street along the east property line, in the approximate location of the existing curb cut. Levels 2-8 of the building are cantilevered over the driveway.

19Similar to the Original Proposal, the Settlement Proposal includes one Type 'G' loading space, internalized within the building in the southwest corner of the Subject Site and provides no resident or visitor vehicle parking. The proposed parking supply is consistent with the emerging direction of SASP 566, as well as direction from City Council on December 15, 2021 outlined in the report entitled "Recommended Parking Requirements for New Development".

20The Settlement Proposal includes a number of transportation demand management measures including one car-share membership, one bike-share membership, and one pre-loaded Presto Card per unit (offered in the first five years of occupancy), a minimum of one bike repair station on the Subject Site, and a cash contribution of $50,000 to provide a new bike-share station on the Subject Site or in the surrounding area. Three 'car-share' spaces, two of which are barrier free, continue to be provided to the rear of the building at-grade, in the southeast corner of the Subject Site.

21The Settlement Proposal includes a total of 122 bicycle parking spaces, including 110 long-term spaces within a 1-level underground parking garage, and 12 short-term spaces at ground level.

22The residential unit mix will comply with the City's Growing Up Guidelines with respect to the provision of a minimum 10% three-bedroom units and combined 25% two- bedroom and three-bedroom units. The overall average unit size will increase from the average unit sizes provided for in the Original Proposal, with a focus on increasing the size of the 25% family-sized units toward the minimum target sizes and layouts of the Guidelines. With respect to amenity space, the Settlement Proposal will include a minimum of 2.0 m² indoor and 2.0 m² outdoor amenity space.

Applicable Legislation and Policies

23Land use planning in Ontario is a policy-led system implemented in hierarchical fashion. This system is deliberately crafted to recognize that there cannot be a one-size fits all approach to implementing policy framework, given the diversity of Ontario's local communities. As such, the broader Provincial policies and objectives are to be implemented by each municipality through their Official Plan ("OP"), Zoning By-laws, issue-specific guidelines, etc.

24Although the Parties have settled their issues, the Tribunal must still determine if the proposal meets the provincial interest and municipal policy framework. In adjudicating the appeal, the Tribunal must have regard to matters of provincial interest enumerated in s. 2 of the Act, and to municipal decisions relating to this planning matter per s. 2.1(1) of the Act. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (the "PPS") pursuant to s. 3(5) of the Act. Further, the Tribunal must also find that the proposal conforms with policies of the provincial plan: A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020 (the "Growth Plan"). Lastly the Tribunal must be satisfied with the proposal's conformity with the City OP, and that it represents good land-use planning in the public interest.

THE HEARING AND THE PLANNING WITNESS

25Mr. Foderick provided brief opening submissions that summarized the settlement reached. Before doing so, the Tribunal marked three items that were put forward and are relevant to these proceedings.

• Exhibit 1 – Document Book – Settlement Hearing
• Exhibit 2 – May 17-22 – Exhibits to Settlement Affidavit of Louis Tinker
• Exhibit 3 – May 17-22 – Settlement Affidavit of Louis Tinker

26Jointly, the Parties agreed to call Mr. Tinker, a Registered Professional Planner with over 20 years of professional experience in the Province of Ontario. The Tribunal was asked that he be qualified to give viva voce evidence on the proposed settlement.

27Provided in Exhibit 3 was Mr. Tinker's Affidavit and written evidence on the matter. Also included in Exhibit 2 were his Curriculum Vitae ("CV") and Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty form for the Tribunal's consideration.

28Upon review of Mr. Tinker's CV and Acknowledgement of Expert's Duty form, the Tribunal duly qualified and affirmed Mr. Tinker to provide expert opinion evidence pertaining to Land-Use Planning for this Hearing.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

29Mr. Tinker adopted his written evidence provided in Exhibit 3 and before this Tribunal.

30He summarized his retainer on the matter and informed the Tribunal that Bousfields (with whom he is employed) was retained by BSAR in May 2019 to provide land use planning advice with respect to the Subject Site.

31Mr. Tinker had prepared the materials that were filed with ZBLA application to the City, requesting permissions for the Original Proposal.

32As part of the retainer, he had:

(a) reviewed the applicable policy and regulatory context, including the PPS, the Growth Plan, the City OP and the applicable zoning;

(b) visited the site and surrounding area;

(c) attended and participated in pre- and post-application consultation meetings;

(d) reviewed architectural plans and statistics and supporting consultant reports;

(e) liaised with the client, architect and other members of the consulting team;

(f) prepared the Planning & Urban Design Rationale in support of the Application, dated November 2019 (attached in Exhibit 2);

(g) prepared draft ZBLAs, and revised drafts;

(h) reviewed staff reports and comments;

(i) participated in without prejudice private mediation; and

(j) reviewed the materials that formed BSAR's settlement offer to the City.

33Mr. Tinker summarized the Settlement Proposal and opined that as a result of the without prejudice mediation sessions, BSAR agreed to make a number of key revisions to the Original Proposal, that include:

(a) reduction in the streetwall height by introducing stepbacks above the 3^rd and 4^th storey;

(b) reduction in the footprint of the mechanical penthouse;

(c) relocation of the indoor amenity space from the 3^rd floor to the roof top;

(d) changes to the stepbacks in the upper storeys;

(e) increase in the amount of indoor and outdoor amenity area;

(f) increase in the percentage of 3-bedroom units from 10.8% to 15% of total unit count;

(g) increase in Floor Space Index ("FSI") from 4.96 to 5.43 times the lot area;

(h) reduction in the rear yard setback from 7.5 m to 5.5 m.

PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK

The [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

34Mr. Tinker provided his viva voce opinion that the Settlement Proposal has regard to s. 2 of the Act and relevant provincial interests outlined in subsections a – s.

The Provincial Policy Statement

35Mr. Tinker highlighted for the Tribunal that one of the key policy directions expressed in the PPS is to build strong communities by promoting efficient land use and development patterns. To that end, the PPS contains a number of policies that promote intensification, redevelopment and compact built form, particularly in areas well-served by public transit.

36Mr. Tinker stated that his analysis of the Settlement Proposal required that he review all PPS policies, however, his focus and in his opinion, those most relevant, were the policies in section 1, referenced below:

(a) Policy 1.1.1: healthy, liveable and safe communities are to be sustained by promoting efficient development and land use patterns; accommodating an appropriate affordable and market-based range and mix of residential types, employment, institutional, recreation, park and open space, and other uses to meet long-term needs; and promoting the integration of land use planning, growth management, transit-supportive development, intensification and infrastructure planning to achieve cost-effective development patterns, optimization of transit investments and standards to minimize land consumption and servicing costs.

(b) Policy 1.1.3.2: Land use patterns in settlement areas shall support densities and a mix of land uses which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, and are transit-supportive, where transit is planned, exists or may be developed.

(c) Policy 1.1.3.3: Planning authorities shall identify appropriate locations and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development, accommodating a significant supply and range of housing options through intensification and redevelopment where this can be accommodated taking into account existing building stock or areas, including brownfield sites, and the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities required to accommodate projected needs.

(d) Policy 1.1.3.4: promotes appropriate development standards which facilitate intensification, redevelopment and compact form, while avoiding or mitigating risks to public health and safety.

(e) Policy 1.4.3: requires provision to be made for an appropriate range and mix of housing options and densities to meet projected market-based and affordable housing needs of current and future residents by, among other matters, permitting and facilitating all types of residential intensification and redevelopment, promoting densities for new housing which efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities and support the use of active transportation and transit, requiring transit-supportive development and prioritizing intensification in proximity to transit, including corridors and stations, and establishing development standards for residential intensification, redevelopment and new residential development which minimize the cost of housing and facilitate compact form, while maintaining appropriate levels of public health and safety.

(f) Policy 1.6.7.4: promotes a land use pattern, density and mix of uses that minimize the length and number of vehicle trips and support the current and future use of transit and active transportation.

(g) Policy 1.7.1: states that long-term prosperity should be supported by encouraging residential uses to respond to dynamic market-based needs and provide necessary housing supply and range of housing options for a diverse workforce, optimizing the long-term availability of land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities, maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of downtowns and main streets, and encouraging a sense of place by promoting well-designed built form and cultural planning and by conserving features that help define character, including built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes.

(h) Policy 1.8.1: supports energy conservation and efficiency, improved air quality, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and preparing for the impacts of a changing climate through land use and development patterns which promote compact form and a structure of nodes and corridors; active transportation and transit in and between residential, employment and institutional uses; and encourage transit-supportive development and intensification to improve the mix of employment and housing uses to shorten commutes and decrease transportation congestion.

37In providing his concluding opinion of the Settlement Proposal, Mr. Tinker shared that it was his professional opinion the current proposal before the Tribunal is consistent with the PPS and, in particular, the policies promoting intensification and the efficient use of land and infrastructure.

The Growth Plan

38The current Growth Plan provides a horizon for growth in Ontario to 2051, and targets for population and employment for individual municipalities and areas.

39The general framework in the Growth Plan seeks to reinforce the importance of integrating transportation and land use planning to achieve broader intensification objectives.

40Mr. Tinker advised the Tribunal that he had reviewed the Growth Plan and offered the following policies as evidence supporting the Settlement Proposal:

(a) Policy 2.2.1(2)(c) provides that, within settlement areas, growth will be focused in delineated built-up areas, strategic growth areas, locations with existing or planned transit (with a priority on higher order transit where it exists or is planned), and areas with existing or planned public service facilities. The Subject Site is located within a settlement where all four of the above noted considerations are met.

(b) Policy 2.2.1(3)(c) directs municipalities to undertake integrated planning to manage forecasted growth to the horizon of this Plan, which will, among other things, provide direction for an urban form that will optimize infrastructure, particularly along transit and transportation corridors, to support the achievement of complete communities through a more compact built form.

(c) Policy 2.2.1(4) provides that applying policies of the Growth Plan will support the achievement of complete communities that feature a diverse mix of land uses including residential and employment uses, provide a diverse range and mix of housing options, expand convenient access to a range of transportation options, including active transportation, provide for a more compact built form and an vibrant public realm, and mitigate and adapt to climate change impacts, and contribute to environmental sustainability.

(d) Policy 2.2.2(3) requires municipalities to develop a strategy to achieve the minimum intensification target and intensification throughout delineated built-up areas which will among other things, identify strategic growth areas to support achievement of the target and recognize them as a key focus for development, identify the appropriate type and scale of development in strategic growth areas and transition of built form to adjacent areas, encourage intensification generally throughout the delineated built up area, and ensure lands are zoned and development is designed in a manner that supports the achievement of complete communities.

(e) Policy 2.2.4(10) provides that lands adjacent to or near to existing and planned "frequent transit" should be planned to be transit-supportive and supportive of active transportation and a range and mix of uses and activities.

41In concluding his opinion pertaining to the Settlement Proposal and the Growth Plan, Mr. Tinker provided his professional opinion that the current proposal before the Tribunal conforms with the Growth Plan, in particular, the policies encouraging growth and intensification generally throughout existing built-up areas and in strategic growth areas with existing frequent transit service.

The City OP

42The Subject Site is located on a designated Avenue (Queen Street West) as identified on Map 2 (Urban Structure). The Subject Site is designated as Mixed-Use Areas on Map 18 of the City OP.

43In considering the Settlement Proposal, Mr. Tinker reviewed the applicable policies of the OP, in effect at the time of the Original Proposal. Focus was given to policies relating to:

a. growth management (s. 2.2(2), s. 2.2.3, s. 2.2.3(1), s. 2.2.3(3), s 2.2.3(4));

b. the integration of transportation and land use planning (s. 2.4(4), s. 2.4(7), s. 2.4(8)(a));

c. built form policies (s. 3.1.2(1), s. 3.1.2(2), s. 3.1.2(3), s. 3.1.2(4), s. 3.1.2(5), s. 3.1.2(6));

d. heritage policies (s. 3.1.5(5), s. 3.1.5(22), s. 3.1.5(23), s. 3.1.5(26)); and

e. land use policies that apply to Mixed Use Areas (s. 4.5.(1) and s. 4.5(2)).

44Mr. Tinker opined for the Tribunal that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the City OP and specifically those policies that apply to lands designated as part of Avenues, and Mixed-Use Areas.

45Mr. Tinker noted that the Original Proposal predates the in-force policies of City OPA Nos. 479 and 480. However, he also opined that although not determinative to this Settlement Proposal, the current proposal does take direction and would conform with the newer built form and public realm policies of OPA Nos. 479 and 480, if they were required to do so.

OPA No. 445 and SASP 566

46Adopted by City Council September 30, 2020, OPA No. 445 and SASP 566 share the main purpose, among others, as noted in s. 1.1(a), to support opportunities for contextually appropriate growth and change while conserving and enhancing the cultural heritage value of Queen Street West.

47As indicated at the onset of this Decision, OPA No. 445 and SASP 566 are not determinative to the Settlement Proposal before this Tribunal. However, similar to the above noted OPA Nos. 479 and 480, Mr. Tinker has reviewed the policies of OPA No. 445 and SASP 566, and it is his opinion that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the strategic direction and goals of them both.

48As part of the Settlement Proposal, BSAR has agreed to make satisfactory arrangements to withdraw its additional appeal of OPA No. 445 and SASP 566 (OLT Case No. OLT-22-002046 (Legacy Case No. PL200629)).

Zoning By-law

49The zoning by-law (the "ZBL") that is in force today for the Subject Site is the City-Wide ZBL No. 569-2013, which zones the Subject Site CR 2.5 (C1.0; R2.0) SS2 (x2609) (Commercial Residential), with a maximum permitted height of 14.0 m. No lot coverage restrictions apply to the Subject Site. The Subject Site is subject to Development Standard Set 2, which provides provisions for certain Commercial Residential zoned lands which are generally located along the Avenues. The Subject Site is also located within Policy Area 4 and subject to Exception CR 2609. Exception CR 2609 provides parking standards for buildings with 12 dwelling units or more, on lots that have frontage greater than 12.5 m. Further, s. 12(2)70 and s. 12(2)270(a) of former City ZBL No. 438-86 continue to prevail. While an application was made to amend ZBL Nos. 569-2013 and 438-86, City staff have advised that no amendment is required to ZBL No. 438-86 to permit the development due to its repeal and phasing out.

50The Settlement Proposal requires an amendment to the City-Wide ZBL No. 569- 2013, as amended, in order to increase the height and density, amend the permitted building envelope, and other development standards as necessary to accommodate the proposal.

51Mr. Tinker opined that the ZBLA sought maintains the intent and purpose of ZBL No. 569-2013.

Non-Statutory Guidelines

52Mr. Tinker advised the Tribunal in reviewing the Settlement Proposal, he also considered a number of non-statutory guideline documents including, but not limited to, the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines and the Mid-Rise Building Guidelines.

53In the opinion of Mr. Tinker, the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the design intent and strategic direction of each these documents.

Summary of Land-Use Planning Opinion

54Mr. Tinker summarized that he has reviewed the Settlement Proposal's conditions of approval (provided by the Parties) and found them to be supportable, appropriate and representative of good land-use planning. He has further reviewed the Section 37 Agreement and benefits within the conditions and found them to be appropriate and supportable, based on the criteria of the Act. Mr. Tinker provided the opinion that if the Tribunal was inclined to impose the draft conditions provided, the withholding of the Tribunal's Final Order was appropriate, in order to fulfill the conditions as provided.

55Mr. Tinker concluded that it was his expert land-use planning opinion that ZBLA sought was appropriate and should be approved in principle. He opined the Settlement Proposal has regard to s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan and the City OP and represents good land-use planning that is in the public interest.

DISPOSITION AND FINDINGS

56The Tribunal having reviewed all evidence provided in Exhibits 1-3, and having heard the viva voce opinions of Mr. Tinker, accepts the uncontroverted expert land-use planning evidence provided by the witness. The Tribunal finds that the proposed planning instruments, as will permit the development, have appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest and s. 2 of the Act. The Tribunal also finds that the ZBLA is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and the City OP and represents good land-use planning, in the public interest.

57The Tribunal having been provided evidence and having heard from Mr. Tinker that s. 37 contributions proposed meet the provisions set out in the Act, find its use to be appropriate and acceptable.

INTERIM ORDER

58The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment is approved in principle.

59The Tribunal will withhold its final Order pending completion of the items set out in Attachment 1.

60If the parties have not completed the items in Attachment 1 within six months of the issuance of this Decision, the parties shall provide a written status update to the Tribunal's Case Coordinator by that same date.

61The Member or previous Member (having approved the Procedural Order) may be spoken to, at a time that is convenient to the Tribunal and the Parties, should any difficulties arise in finalizing the items set out in Attachment 1.

"M. Russo"

M. RUSSO MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal Website: www.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.

OLT-22-002282 – Attachment 1

1. The Tribunal Orders that the appeal is allowed in part and the Zoning By-law Amendment is approved in principle. The Tribunal, however, will withhold the issuance of any final Order(s) until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that:

a. the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendments are to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, Toronto East York District and the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, and other appropriate divisions;

b. the owner has entered into an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, and any other necessary agreements, satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, with such agreement(s) registered on title to 1521 Queen Street West, in a manner satisfactory to the City Solicitor to secure the matters set out in Part 2 below;

c. revised Landscape Plans have been submitted that are in a form and with content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, the General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the City Solicitor; and

d. the owner has made satisfactory arrangements for the withdrawal of its appeal of Official Plan Amendment 445 (Parkdale Main Street and West Queen West Site and Area Specific Policy) and associated Zoning By-laws.

2. The Tribunal has been advised that City Council has authorized the entering into of an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of any final Order(s) until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that they are satisfied and have secured the following matters at the Owner's expense as a legal convenience to support the development:

a. a cash contribution of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) to the City's Capital Revolving Reserve Fund for Affordable Housing, to be paid prior to the earlier of issuance of notice of approval conditions for site plan approval for the development, issuance of the first building permit for the construction of the development, or eighteen (18) months from the date of Council endorsement of the Settlement Offer, to be allocated towards the City's Multi-Unit Residential Acquisition Program to facilitate the acquisition of affordable housing in the Parkdale neighbourhood;

b. the cash contribution referred to in Part 2.a. above shall be indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Residential Building Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Table 18-10-0135-01, or its successor, calculated from the date of the Agreement to the date of payment;

c. a cash contribution of two-hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) for tenant compensation and reasonable administration costs to be allocated to the 2022 Approved Operating Budget for Shelter, Support and Housing Administration and to be paid upon the execution and registration of the Section 37 Agreement and upon the issuance of a Final Order by the Tribunal approving the development, and administered in accordance with an agreement between the City and the Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust;

d. any remaining unused and unallocated funds referred to in Part 2.c. above shall be allocated towards the City's Multi-Unit Residential Acquisition Program to facilitate the acquisition of affordable housing in the Parkdale neighbourhood;

e. the following transportation demand management measures to support the development:

i. a payment of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) payable to the City prior to first above grade building permit to provide a new bike-share station on the Site or the surrounding area;

ii. one car-share membership per unit, offered in the first five years of occupancy;

iii. one bike-share membership per unit, offered in the first five years of occupancy;

iv. one pre-loaded Presto card ($150.00 value) per unit, offered in the first five years of occupancy; and

v. a minimum of one bike repair station provided on the Site;

f. the owner shall provide and maintain the residential dwelling units on the Site, once constructed, as rental dwelling units, together with the associated facilities and amenities, for a period of at least twenty (20) years beginning from the date of first residential occupancy with no applications for demolition or conversion from residential rental use made during such twenty (20) year period, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor; and

g. the owner shall at the time of and through the Site Plan Approval process for the proposed development secure improvements to the architecture and materiality of the building.