Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 18, 2022 CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001121

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

Applicant and Appellant: Berncray Holdings Inc. Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 7625 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision Purpose: To permit three buildings of 9, 11 and 32-storeys consisting of 560 residential units and 1,422 sq.m. of commercial gross floor area Property Address: 41-75 Four Winds Drive Municipality: City of Toronto Municipality File No.: 20 226957 WET 07 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001121 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001121 OLT Case Name: Berncray Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Berncray Holdings Inc.	Barry Horosko
City of Toronto	Gabe Szobel

DECISION DELIVERED BY S. BRAUN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1Berncray Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) filed an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBLA”) to permit the redevelopment of 41-75 Four Winds Drive (“subject site”) with one tall building at 32 storeys and two mid-rise buildings at 11 and 9 storeys, respectively. The City of Toronto (“City”) failed to make a decision on the application within the legislated timeframe and the Appellant, pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act¹ (“Act”), appealed to the Tribunal.

2The Parties engaged in successful mediation which led to a full settlement of the issues. Accordingly, in advance of a 10-day hearing scheduled to commence on September 26, 2022, the Parties requested the Tribunal convene a settlement hearing. In accordance with Rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the hearing event was conducted in writing.

3The Tribunal received the following materials, which it reviewed and considered in making its decision:

a. Exhibit 1: Affidavit of David A. McKay, sworn June 27, 2022;

b. Exhibit 2: Affidavit of Michael David Spaziani, sworn June 24, 2022; and

c. Exhibit 3: Written Participant Statement of Janis Jaffe-White

THE SUBJECT SITE AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

4The subject site is located near the northeast of the Finch Avenue West and Sentinel Road intersection and is 1.06 hectares in size, with roughly 113.7 metres of frontage along Four Winds Drive. At present, it is occupied by a two-storey office building and a mainly one storey commercial/retail plaza containing a grocery store, restaurants, a medical centre and other shops/services. There is also a large surface parking area on the eastern portion of the site.

5To the north is the Finch Hydro Corridor and Recreational Trail, with low-rise residential dwellings and York University further north. To the south is the North York University City YMCA Child Care Centre and Fountainhead Park. To the immediate east are four-storey apartment buildings. Further east are the Finch West subway station, 11-storey apartment buildings and some townhouses. To the immediate west is a 13-storey apartment building and further west are four 22-storey apartment buildings. Black Creek Parkland and Driftwood Park.

6The original proposal for redevelopment contemplated the construction of one high-rise building (Building A – 32 storeys) and two mid-rise buildings (Building B – 11 storeys; Building C – 9 storeys), with a total gross floor area (“GFA”) of 43,745 square metres, broken down into 42,323 square metres for residential use and 1,422 square metres for non-residential uses.

7The revised proposal, which is the subject of the settlement agreement and for which the Tribunal’s approval is sought, now contemplates one high rise building (Building A – 25 storeys) and two mid-rise buildings (Building B - 14 storeys; Building C – 9 storeys) with a total GFA of 43,201 square metres having a minimum of 1,500 square metres for non-residential uses. A more fulsome comparison of the original proposal against subsequent revisions is set out in further detail at paragraph 20 of Exhibit 1.

8It is important to note that the subject site is located within the boundaries of OPA 482², which identifies it as a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) given the planned Sentinel Light Rail Transit (“LRT”) Station. It is also located within the boundaries of the Keele Finch Secondary Plan (“KFSP”), OPA 483³, which would implement a maximum building height of 40 metres (roughly 12-13 storeys) on the subject site.

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

9In making a decision on the ZBLA presently before it, the Tribunal must be satisfied that it is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”), that it conforms to/does not conflict with A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“GP”) and that it conforms to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”). In addition to the foregoing, the Tribunal must have regard to the matters of Provincial interest in s. 2 of the Act and, in general, be satisfied that the proposed ZBLA is representative of good planning in the public interest.

EVIDENCE

10As previously mentioned, the Tribunal had before it the sworn Affidavits of Messrs. McKay and Spaziani. Mr. McKay is a Registered Professional Planner, previously qualified by the Tribunal to provide opinion evidence in land use planning. Mr. Spaziani is a Registered Professional Architect, previously qualified to provide opinion evidence to the Tribunal in relation to architecture and urban design.

Land Use Planning Evidence

11In his Affidavit, Mr. McKay provides a detailed contextual and land use planning rationale to support the settlement. He makes specific reference to his analysis and conclusions as laid out in a December 2020 Planning and Urban Design Rationale Report (appended to his Affidavit at Tab H), and indicates the opinions therein remain valid, notwithstanding the revisions that have since been made to the development proposal.

12Overall, in Mr. McKay’s view, the proposed ZBLA is consistent with the PPS and conforms to both the GP and the OP, as it will permit development resulting in the creation of a complete community on underutilized lands in a manner which will not cause undue environmental or public health and safety concerns, all while making efficient use of existing/planned transit and infrastructure and adding to the City’s range and mix of housing. He notes the proposal implements the City’s Guidelines for development of both tall and mid-rise buildings and, in his view, generally aligns with the vision and objectives of both OPA 482 and 483.

13Mr. McKay points out that the subject site is designated Mixed Use Area in the OP, which permits a broad range of commercial residential and institutional uses in single use or mixed-use buildings, as well as parks and open spaces. In his opinion, the proposal represents a high-quality addition to the established and planned character of the area and aligns with the vision for Mixed Use Areas, as articulated in the OP, which is to provide people with the opportunity to live, work and shop in the same area and to become less reliant on automobiles by providing convenient access to transit and active modes of transportation.

14The subject site is well-serviced by existing TTC bus transit and is located within walking distance of both the existing Finch West Subway Station as well as a future MTSA (Sentinel LRT Station). As such, in Mr. McKay’s view, the proposed development aligns with policies in the GP directing intensification to MTSAs to support transit investment. He also notes that one of the key objectives of the KFSP/OPA 483 is “growing with transit” by enabling intensification, development and city-building opportunities to leverage investments in higher-order transit and increase ridership. Based on the foregoing, Mr. McKay opines that the proposed mixed-use development will, together with existing and planned transit, allow for the efficient use of land and infrastructure and the creation of a complete community. In addition to the transit-supportive nature of the proposal, he notes that, by virtue of the subject site’s proximity to various trails and parklands, both active transportation and recreational opportunities are supported.

15The subject site is presently zoned Local Shopping Centre C2 (12) within the former North York Zoning By-law No. 7625 (as amended by By-law No. 92-2003), which permits a range of commercial uses including shopping centres, restaurants, retail stores and service shops. In addition, apartment house dwellings and multiple attached dwellings are permitted through site-specific zoning C2 (12) Exception 64.24(12). Under City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, the subject site is zoned Commercial Residential, permitting a range of commercial uses in addition to apartment buildings, mixed use buildings and townhouses. The site is also subject to a site-specific Zoning By-law No. CR238 that refers to section 64.24(12) and Schedule ‘D’ Airport Hazard Map of the former City of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625.

16The proposed ZBLA contains regulations to control the development of the lands, including but not limited to:

a. location of the buildings through a building envelope diagram which establishes setbacks (including tower separation) and stepbacks;

b. maximum heights for each of the three buildings;

c. minimum required parking and loading requirements; and

d. minimum amount of two and three bedroom units

17As previously mentioned, Mr. McKay is of the opinion that the proposal generally aligns with the objectives of OPA 482 and 483. While he acknowledges the proposed building heights in excess of the maximum of 40 metres set out in the not-yet-in-force OPA 483, he also notes OPA 483 does not limit the density on the subject site, whereas OPA 482 calls for a minimum density of 1.9 FSI (floor space index). He also makes reference to the policy direction set by both the Province and the City to intensify transit station areas. In his view, the increased height proposed is appropriate, in light of this policy direction and in light of the proposal’s adherence to the City’s Tall Building Guidelines.

18In addition to the foregoing, the Tribunal takes note of the following statement in the Planning & Urban Design Rationale Report (Exhibit 1, Tab H) relied upon by Mr. McKay, which states:

The prescribed maximum building height as per the Keele Finch Secondary Plan is to ensure the operation of Downsview Airport will not be impacted by development. However, given the future closing of Downsview Airport anticipated in 2023, which has been acquired in 2018 by the Public Sector Pension Investment Board from Bombardier Inc. for redevelopment purposes, this height restriction in our opinion will no longer be applicable. The Keele Finch Secondary Plan has not provided sufficient flexibility to allow for transit supportive building height and density to optimize the invested transit infrastructure.

19While not exhaustively addressed in this decision, Mr. McKay’s Affidavit responds in a detailed manner to issues raised by the public including, but not limited to a concern with respect to structural integrity in relation to the proposed construction of Building B upon an existing stratified parking garage. He explains that this particular concern has been adequately addressed through the addition of a Holding provision requiring further detailed engineering studies demonstrating structural integrity. The construction of Building B will not be permitted to proceed prior to the lifting of the Holding provision.

20Concerns were also raised with respect to the impact of the development with respect to parking, traffic and upon community services and infrastructure. In Mr. McKay’s view, the impacts of the development will be limited, as there is sufficient available capacity and in light of the fact that the proposed settlement includes a condition of approval requiring a Section 37 Agreement which, inter alia, secures a total cash contribution of $2,040,000.00 as well as a number of legal conveniences, including the provision of a bike share module on-site and Transportation Demand Management measures.

21In Mr. McKay’s view, the totality of the concerns raised by the public have been or will be appropriately addressed, either through revisions to the proposal, the payment of Development Charges, the imposition of the Holding provision and/or conditions of approval which, in his view are generally standard and appropriate.

Urban Design

22With respect to urban design, Mr. Spaziani considers the proposal to be an improvement upon the subject site’s current design, which lacks full public access and includes unsupervised passages precluding casual public surveillance. He notes current retail uses on the site are contained within an internal mall, a typology which lacks animation of the public realm and is neither current nor successful from an urban design perspective. In his view, the proposed development, which includes an animated street frontage, well-designed buildings, streets and publicly accessible open spaces (“POPS”), is appropriately-scaled and reflective of a complete community offering convenient access to transit and a variety of at-grade retail and services.

23Mr. Spaziani’s Affidavit details the ways in which the proposed development achieves compliance with the City’s Guidelines for both tall and mid-rise buildings. He notes, inter alia, that a podium is now proposed to link Buildings A and B; that tower floor plate size has been limited and appropriate tower setbacks, stepbacks and separation distances have been incorporated into the design. Similarly, the design of Building C includes minimum setbacks and stepbacks from adjacent development in accordance with the Mid-Rise Buildings Guidelines.

24Again, while not exhaustively addressed in this decision, Mr. Spaziani responds to issues raised by the public, including but not limited to concerns that the proposal will result in overdevelopment of the site and concerns that the building heights as proposed are inappropriate relative to the character and context of the area. He points out that towers already exist in the district ranging from 11-22 storeys and that the area continues to evolve with the proposed MTSA designation mandating a certain degree of intensification, subject to the mitigation of any impacts.

25In his opinion, the proposal will not result in negative impacts relative to shadows, privacy or view and, with building heights of 9, 14 and 25 stories, the district will still be perceived as a mix of low, mid and high-rise built form, compatible with the existing urban pattern and structure. In support of this opinion, he references studies which conclude that shadows are adequately limited and will not negatively impact the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties. Moreover, he opines a 40 metre high building, as contemplated by the KFSP, would have a shadow impact similar to that of the proposed development.

26Overall, Mr. Spaziani views the proposal as being representative of good urban design and demonstrative of urban intensification which does not result in adverse impacts to existing stable neighbourhoods.

ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION

27The Tribunal accepts and relies upon the uncontroverted Affidavit evidence of Messrs. McKay and Spaziani in finding that the proposed ZBLA and the development it will permit are representative of good planning in the public interest. In so finding, regard has also been given to the decision of the City, which appeared in support of the settlement and endorsed the proposed ZBLA and the related condition of approval.

28The redevelopment of the subject site, as proposed, aligns with matters of Provincial interest, including but not limited to: the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; the appropriate location of growth and development and the promotion of built form that is well designed, encourages a sense of place and provides for public spaces that are of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant.

29The ZBLA is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the GP and OP including, but not limited to policies which speak to: intensification of areas that meet the definition of an MTSA; leveraging investments in higher-order transit infrastructure; providing a range and mix of housing options; the development of complete communities which are both transit-supportive and supportive of active modes of transportation and which allow residents to live, work and play in the same area. The Tribunal is further satisfied that the proposal is in keeping with the City’s Guidelines for the development of both tall and mid-rise buildings and is generally aligned with OPA 482 and 483.

30Finally, the Tribunal carefully reviewed and considered the written Participant Statement of Ms. Jaffe-White. While it is evident that she invested a great deal of time and effort to present a well-organized and respectful articulation of genuinely held concerns, the contents of her statement were not sufficient to undermine the compelling and uncontradicted planning and urban design evidence before the Tribunal.

31The opinions and explanations provided by Messrs. McKay and Spaziani, as previously discussed throughout this decision, adequately address a number of the Participant’s concerns, including OPA 483/building heights; the provision of an appropriate range and mix of residential units; permissions for a wide range of uses including retail, office and community services to allow for the creation of a complete community with an improved urban design; and the use of Development Charges and benefits secured through a Section 37 Agreement to address any impact upon community services and infrastructure.

32To the extent that Messrs. McKay and Spaziani did not directly address some of the Participant’s concerns, the Tribunal was not persuaded that such concerns are relevant/applicable in this instance or of such substance as to be sufficient to undermine the compelling and uncontradicted planning and urban design evidence before it. Ultimately, the Tribunal finds that evidence to be supportive of a decision to approve the proposed ZBLA, as it meets the requisite legislative tests and aligns with planning objectives outlined by the Province and the City.

ORDER

33The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed, in part, and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 569-2013 of the City of Toronto, as amended, is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk to format, as may be necessary, and assign a number to this By-law for record keeping purposes.

“S. Braun”

S. braun 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: Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on [date] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File PL[######]

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW ###-YEAR

To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2021 as 41-75 Four Winds Drive.

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, in its Decision issued on [date] and its Order issued on [date], in file PL[######], in hearing an appeal under Section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P13, as amended, ordered the amendment of Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2022 as 41-75 Four Winds Drive; and

Whereas pursuant to Section 36 of the Planning Act, as amended, a by-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, may use a holding symbol "(H)" in conjunction with any use designation to specify the use that lands, buildings or structures may be put once Council removes the holding symbol "(H)" by amendment to the by-law; and

Whereas the Official Plan for the City of Toronto contains provisions relating to the use of the holding symbol "(H)"; and

Whereas the Official Plan for the City of Toronto contains 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 and 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 matters 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 the height or density of development, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facilities, services and matters; and

The Ontario Land Tribunal, by Order, amends Zoning By-law 569-2013 as follows:

1. The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.

2. The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 800 Definitions.

3. 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 by heavy lines from CR 0.77 (c0.77; r0.77) SS3 (x238) to a zone label of (H)CR 0.77 (c0.77; r0.77) SS3 (x238) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.

4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending Article 900.11.10 Exception Number 238, so that it reads:

(238) Exception CR 238

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 41-75 Four Winds Drive, if the requirements of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##] are complied with, a building or structure may be constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with Regulations (B) to (U) below:

(B) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(1) and (2), the height of a building or structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 192.95 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;

(C) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(1), (2), (4), (6) and (7) and (E) below, the following equipment and structures may project beyond the permitted maximum height shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##]:

(i) equipment used for the functional operation of the building including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment, enclosed stairwells, roof access, maintenance equipment storage, elevator shafts, chimneys, and vents by a maximum of 6.0 metres;

(ii) structures that enclose, screen or cover the equipment, structures and parts of a building listed in (i) above by a maximum of 6.0 metres;

(iii) architectural features, parapets, and elements and structures associated with a green roof, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(iv) building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;

(v) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, and divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace, by a maximum of 3.0 metres; and

(vi) trellises, pergolas, and unenclosed structures providing safety or wind protection to rooftop amenity space, by a maximum of 4.0 metres;

(D) Despite Regulations 40.10.40.10(3) and 40.10.40.10(7), the permitted maximum height of a building or structure is the number in metres following the letters "HT" and the number in storeys following the letters “ST” as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];

(E) Regulation 40.10.40.10(5), with respect to the minimum height of the first storey, does not apply;

(F) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot is 43,201 square metres, of which:

i. The required minimum gross floor area for non-residential uses is 1,500 square metres;

(G) Regulation 40.10.40.1(3), with respect to the orientation of a residential use to the street, does not apply;

(H) Dwelling units provided on the entire lot must comply with the following:

ii. A minimum of 35 percent of the dwelling units must contain two or more bedrooms; and

iii. A minimum of 10 percent of the dwelling units must contain three or more bedrooms, and these dwelling units may also be used to determine compliance with (i) above;

(I) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.70(3), the required minimum building setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];

(J) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.80(2), the required separation of main walls are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];

(K) Despite Regulations 40.10.40.60(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), and (8) and Clause (J) above, the following elements may encroach into the required minimum building setbacks and main wall separation distances as follows:

(i) decks, porches, and balconies, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(ii) canopies and awnings, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(iii) exterior stairs, access ramps and elevating devices by a maximum of 3.0 metres;

(iv) cladding added to the exterior surface of the main wall of a building, by a maximum of 0.6 metres;

(v) architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column, cornice, sill, belt course, or chimney breast, by a maximum of 1.2 metres;

(vi) window projections, including bay windows and box windows, by a maximum of 1.2 metres;

(vii) eaves, by a maximum of 1.2 metres;

(viii) a dormer, by a maximum of 1.2 metres; and

(ix) air conditioners, satellite dishes, antennae, vents, and pipes, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(L) Despite Regulation 200.5.10.1(1) and Table 200.5.10.1, parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the following:

i. a minimum of 0.5 residential occupant parking spaces for each dwelling unit;

ii. a minimum of 0.1 residential visitor parking spaces for each dwelling unit;

iii. a minimum of 1.00 parking spaces for each 100 square metres of non-residential gross floor area.

(M) Residential visitor parking spaces and non-residential parking spaces may be provided on a non-exclusive basis and may be shared in a parking garage below ground;

(N) Despite Regulation 200.5.10.1(1), "car-share parking spaces" may replace parking spaces otherwise required for residential occupants, subject to the following:

(i) a reduction of four resident occupant parking spaces will be permitted for each "car-share parking space" provided and that the maximum reduction permitted be capped by the application of the following formula:

(a) 4 multiplied by the total number of dwelling units divided by 60, and rounded down to the nearest whole number;

(ii) for the purpose of this exception, "car-share" means the practice whereby a number of people share the use of one or more motor vehicles and such "car-share" motor vehicles are made available to at least the occupants of the building for short-term rental, including hourly rental; and

(iii) for the purpose of this exception, "car-share parking space" means a parking space exclusively reserved and signed for a vehicle used only for "car-share" purposes;

(O) Despite Regulation 200.5.1.10(2) a maximum of 10 percent of required parking spaces provided may have the following minimum dimensions, despite that such parking spaces may be obstructed on one or two sides:

i. Length – 5.2 metres;

ii. Width – 2.6 metres;

iii. Height – 2.0 metres;

(P) Despite Regulation 200.15.1(1), an accessible parking space must have the following dimensions:

(i) a minimum length of 5.6 metres;

(ii) a minimum width of 3.4 metres; and

(iii) a minimum vertical clearance of 2.1 metres;

(Q) The entire length of an accessible parking space must be adjacent to a 1.5 metre wide accessible barrier free aisle or path;

(R) Accessible parking spaces must be the parking spaces closest to a barrier free:

(i) entrance to a building;

(ii) passenger elevator that provides access to the first storey of the building; and

(iii) and shortest route from the required entrances in (i) and (ii).

(S) Despite Regulation 220.5.10.1(2), a minimum of one Type “G” loading space and one Type “C” loading space must be provided on the lot;

(T) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(10) a "short-term" bicycle parking space may also be located in a stacked bicycle parking space;

(U) Prevailing Section 64.24(12) of former City of North York By-law 7625 does not apply to a building or structure constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with Regulations (B) to (T) above.

Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:

(A) Section 64.24(12), former City of North York Zoning By-law 7625;

5. Despite any severance, partition or division of the lands, the provisions of this By-law shall apply as if no severance, partition or division occurred.

6. Holding Provision

A. The lands zoned with the "(H)" symbol delineated by heavy lines on Diagram 2 attached to and forming part of this By-law must not be used for any purpose other than those uses permitted in the C2(12) Zone of the Former City of North York Zoning By-law 7625 on the lands shown on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law until the "(H)" symbol has been removed.

B. An amending by-law to remove the "(H)" shall be enacted by City Council when the following have been provided for to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning:

i. Provision of a Structural Engineering Report prepared and certified by a Professional Engineer, confirming that Building B can be structurally supported above the existing stratified parking garage (with a top elevation of 189.74 metre ASL (west) to 190.65 metre ASL (east), described as Part 24 (Diagram No. 13) on Plan 66R-5909.

ii. The permitted uses within the area subject to the hold are those that are permitted in the C2(12) Zone of the Former City of North York Zoning By-law 7625.

7. Section 37 Requirements:

(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 attached to this By-law in return for the provision by the owner, at the owner's expense of the facilities, services and matters set out in Schedule A attached to this By-law 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 attached to 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 [date] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File PL[####]

SCHEDULE A

Section 37 Requirements

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 of the proposed development on the lands as shown in Diagram 1 in this By-law and secured in an agreement or agreements under Section 37(3) of the Planning Act whereby the owner agrees as follows:

1. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the owner shall enter into an agreement or agreements to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act as it read on the day before Section 1 of Schedule 17 to the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 came into force to secure the facilities, services or matters set out below.

2. Prior to issuance of the first above-grade permit, to be phased by building in accordance with the following schedule, the owner shall make a cash contribution to the City in the amount of two million, forty thousand dollars ($2,040,000.00) (the "Cash Contribution") to be allocated towards capital community services and facilities to be allocated at the discretion of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor:

Building	Percent of Total GFA	Amount Payable at Above Grade Building Permit per Building
Building A	45.0%	$918,000.00
Building B	31.1%	$634,440.00
Building C	23.9%	$487,560.00
Total Payable Upon All Above Grade Permits Issued		$2,040,000.00

3. The Cash Contribution set out in Clause 2 shall 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 Table: 18-10-0135-01, or its successor, calculated from the date of execution of the Section 37 Agreement to the date of payment of the Cash Contribution by the owner to the City.

4. In the event the Cash Contribution in Clause 1 has not been used for the intended purpose within three (3) years of the By-law coming into full force and effect, the Cash Contribution may be redirected for another purpose(s), 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 Official Plan and will benefit the community in the vicinity.

5. The owner shall provide the following to support the development of the lands:

(A) The owner shall satisfy applicable signage requirements of the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board and shall insert warning clauses in purchase and sale/tenancy agreements as required in connection with student accommodation.

(B) Prior to site plan approval, public access easements related to east-west and north-south pedestrian connections running through the Site as shown on drawing no. SP-2 prepared by MSAi dated March 2022 ;

(C) Prior to site plan approval, a bike share module being provided on-site;

(D) Prior to site plan approval, Transportation Demand Management measures are implemented including but not limited to:

i. Unbundle vehicle space from unit sale;

ii. Provide 2 car share parking spaces and engage with car share company for future implementation;

iii. Provide information package for new residents. The information package includes TTC schedules, GO Transit Schedules, community and cycling maps, where appropriate. The Information Package can be distributed at the sale office;

iv. Provide one-time pre-loaded PRESTO Cards with the starting value of $150 (inclusive of the registration fee) for each residential unit on demand basis. This will help the future residents to consider taking TTC service as an alternative mode of transportation. The pre-loaded PRESTO Cards can be distributed in conjunction with the Information Package at the time of purchase or at occupancy.

(E) Prior to site plan approval, the owner agrees to implement the recommendations of the Compatibility & Mitigation Study by SLR, dated April 2021 with a response dated October 20, 2021, and the peer review of Hemmera dated January 11, 2022.

(F) Prior to Site Plan Approval being granted and any building permit being issued for the development, at the owner at its sole expense:

i. has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, including confirmation of water and fire flow, sanitary and storm water capacity, Stormwater Management Report and Hydrogeological Report (the “Engineering Reports”) to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;

ii. secured the design and the provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure and/or new municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted and agreed to Engineering Reports to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades and/or new infrastructure are required to support the development as set out in the Engineering Reports;

iii. has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such study, be secured if required; and

iv. has submitted a revised Wind Study acceptable to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and securing such mitigation matters through the Site Plan Approval process.

(G) The owner agrees to enter into a financially secured Development Agreement for the construction of any improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support this development.

(H) The owner shall construct and maintain the development in accordance with Tier 1 performance measures of the Toronto Green Standard, as adopted by Toronto City Council from time to time, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. The owner will be encouraged to achieve Tier 2, Toronto Green Standard, or higher, where appropriate, consistent with the performance standards of Toronto Green Standards applicable at the time of the site plan application for each building on the lot.

Footnotes

1. 1R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
2. 2OPA 482 has been adopted by City Council, but is currently awaiting review and approval from the Province.
3. 3OPA 483 has been endorsed by City Council, but is awaiting adoption following approval by the Province of OPA 482.