C & P Development Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City), 2022 CanLII 67002

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 19, 2022

CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001034

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

Applicant and Appellant: C & P Development Limited Partnership

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Description: To permit a 29-storey mixed use building with ground floor retail and a 129 sq.m. Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space

Property Address: 707, 709 and 717 Church Street, 85, 89, 93 and 97 Collier Street, and 28 Park Road

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 20 220898 STE 11 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001034

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-21-001034

OLT Case Name: C & P Development Limited Partnership v. Toronto (City)

Heard: July 7, 2022 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
C & P Development Limited Partnership	David Bronskill
City of Toronto	Alexander Suriano
Collier Asquith Neighborhood Association	Ian Flett

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY AND S. BOBKA ON JULY 7, 2022 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1C & P Development Limited Partnership (“Applicant”) appealed the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to make a decision within statutory timeframes on a Zoning By-law Amendment Application (“Application”) pursuant to s.34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”). The Application proposes to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended (“ZBL”) to facilitate a mixed-use building located at 707, 709 & 717 Church Street, 85, 89, 93 & 97 Collier Street and 28 Park Road in the City (“Subject Property”).

2This appearance was scheduled to be a second Case Management Conference (“CMC”), however, the Parties notified the Tribunal in advance that a settlement had been reached. At the request of the Parties, the Tribunal converted the CMC to a settlement hearing.

3The Tribunal commends the Parties for working diligently with one another to come to a resolution that is anticipated to benefit all of the Parties and the surrounding neighbourhood.

SUBJECT PROPERTY

4The Subject Property is triangular in shape and is located with frontage on each of Church Street, Collier Street and Park Road. The Subject Property is approximately 944 square metres and is currently occupied by a 4-storey office building with two 3-storey semi-detached house form buildings which contain a mix of residential and non-residential uses.

5The Subject Property is designated Mixed Use Areas in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) and falls within the Mixed Use 2 designation in the Downtown Secondary Plan (“DSP”). The ZBL zones the Subject Property for commercial / residential uses. The Subject Property is located within 150 metres of the Bloor-Yonge Subway Station which is a major transit interchange in the City.

6The Subject Property is located in the Yorkville neighbourhood and amid a mixture of mid-rise and high-rise buildings, with the exception of the adjacent Asquith-Collier neighbourhood which is a small pocket of low-rise largely residential uses.

7Directly to the north of the Subject Property across Collier Street is a 15-storey apartment building and directly to the south across Church Street is a 17-storey Toronto Community Housing Corporation apartment building which features at-grade retail.

8Directly east of the Subject Property is a block of row houses which are primarily residential with some retail and office uses. A historic semi-detached home owned by the City is located directly south-east of the Subject Property. Directly north-east are a small number of semi-detached house-form buildings occupied by both residential and commercial uses, an 8-storey apartment building and a single-storey office building.

9Located north-west of the Subject Property is Harold Town Park and south-west of the Subject Property is the Toronto Reference Library.

PROPOSAL

10In November 2020, the Applicant submitted the Application to the City to permit the development of a 29-storey mixed use building with ground floor retail and a 129 square metre Privately Owned Publicly Accessible Space (“POPS”). There were a total of approximately 300 dwelling units proposed, 3 car share parking stalls together with 320 bicycle parking spaces and 30 square metres of ground floor retail space (“Original Proposal”).

11The Application was deemed complete in December 2020 and a Community Consultation meeting was held in May 2021. City Planning Staff opposed the Original Proposal noting that “…the tower is too tall, it does not respond appropriately to the planned context and does not provide appropriate transition to the adjacent low-rise Neighbourhood”. City Council failed to make a decision on the Application within statutory timeframes and the Applicant appealed to this Tribunal.

12Subsequent to filing the appeal, the Parties continued to meet and work diligently with one another to refine the Original Proposal to respond to the concerns of City Planning Staff and the public. The Parties were able to reach a settlement, which included a series of revisions from the Original Proposal.

13The proposal currently before the Tribunal will permit the development of a 27-storey residential building with an overall height of 95 metres which includes a 3-storey base building and a POPS space with a minimum size of 129.3 square metres. There are a total of 270 residential units proposed, 270 bicycle parking spaces and up to five vehicular parking spaces. The proposal is further detailed in paragraphs 51 – 61 inclusive of Mr. Hoff’s affidavit entered as Exhibit 1 (“Proposed Development”).

14The Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) attached as Attachment “1” to this Decision will amend the ZBL and will permit the Proposed Development. The proposed ZBA will vary performance standards including building height, building setbacks, floor space index, amenity space and parking space requirements.

15The Proposed Development meets the general intent of the ZBL and the proposed residential use is permitted.

EVIDENCE

16As noted above, the Tribunal was notified in advance of the scheduled CMC that the Parties had reached a settlement. The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal approve the ZBA in principle. It was further requested that the Final Order be withheld until the earlier of August 12, 2022 or the Tribunal having been advised by the City Solicitor that:

a. The proposed ZBA is in a final form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and City Solicitor;

b. The Applicant has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer in consultation with Toronto Water and has secured the design and provision of financial securities for any required municipal infrastructure upgrades to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer; and

c. A section 37 agreement satisfactory to the Chief Planner and City Solicitor has been executed and registered on title securing the above matters.

17On or before August 12, 2022 the City Solicitor will notify the Tribunal that conditions have been satisfied and will request a Final Order, or in the alternative, will provide the Tribunal with a status update and request the ZBA to include a Holding provision for servicing.

18As evidence in this hearing, the Tribunal received the following exhibits, which were identified sequentially during the hearing:

a. Exhibit 1: Affidavit of Benjamin Hoff

b. Exhibit 2: Applicant Visual Exhibits

c. Exhibit 3: City Council Resolution CC45.21

d. Exhibit 4: Settlement Plans and Drawings

19The Applicant called Benjamin Hoff as its planning witness who was qualified by the Tribunal, without objection, to provide expert evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. Hoff’s CV and Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty were appended to his Affidavit, which was entered as Exhibit 1. He provided contextual and land use planning rationale to support the proposed settlement and reviewed the Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020) (“Growth Plan”), OP, DSP, Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) 211 – Bloor Yorkville / North Midtown Area (“SASP 211”), and relevant Zoning By-laws and Guidelines.

Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”)

20The Act establishes the land use planning system within the Province of Ontario.

21Mr. Hoff reviewed s.2 of the Act and concluded that the ZBA which facilitates the Proposed Development has due regard for matters of provincial interest as it supports the development of a complete, safe and healthy community. The close proximity to subway and bus routes and the provision of only car-share and bicycle parking in the Proposed Development encourages the use of public transit, cycling and walking while simultaneously discouraging the use of automobiles.

22The Subject Property is an appropriate location for growth and development. The proposal includes 270 residential units of varying sizes, including family-sized units. Further, the built form respects the neighbourhood by providing a transition from low-rise on the east to high-rise on the west.

23Mr. Hoff opined that the ZBA which would facilitate the Proposed Development has regard for matters of provincial interest. He stressed the appropriate location of the development being in close proximity to existing infrastructure, including transit infrastructure.

Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”)

24The PPS outlines the policies to manage and direct land use to achieve effective and efficient development and land use patterns. The PPS directs intensification and housing opportunities to areas that are well served by existing municipal infrastructure. Policies in the PPS encourage efficient development and promote transit-supportive development, intensification, and infrastructure planning.

25Mr. Hoff concluded that the ZBA and the Proposed Development are consistent with the PPS and represent good planning. The Proposed Development represents appropriate intensification with a mixed-use development that efficiently utilizes land and existing infrastructure in a key transit location.

26Mr. Hoff noted that the emphasis that the Proposed Development places on car sharing rather than car ownership is appropriate given its proximity to transit. The proposed parking approach will reduce automobile use and promote a healthy and active community.

27Mr. Hoff opined that the Proposed Development is consistent with the PPS and represents good planning. The Proposed Development maximizes efficient development in a manner that supports transit.

A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (“Growth Plan”)

28The Growth Plan provides a strategic framework for managing growth and environmental protection in the Greater Golden Horseshoe region.

29The Growth Plan directs growth to settlement areas and within these settlement areas intensification is directed to strategic growth areas, including major transit stations. Major transit areas are generally defined as within a 500 to 800 metre radius of a transit station, or a 10-minute walk. The Proposed Development conforms with this policy as the Subject Property is located within walking distance to two major transit stations.

30Mr. Hoff testified that the Proposed Development is an efficient use of land and infrastructure as it is a high-rise residential building located within a major transit area. Further, he opined that it would contribute to a complete community by providing public space with a connection to Harold Town Park to the north thereby facilitating access to open space.

31Mr. Hoff is of the opinion that the Proposed Development conforms with the polices of the Growth Plan by supporting intensification in a strategic growth area thereby promoting the efficient use of land and infrastructure in the City.

City of Toronto Official Plan (“OP”)

32The OP guides development in the City, providing direction for managing the size, location and built form compatibility of different land uses and the provision of municipal services and facilities.

33The Subject Property is located in the Downtown and Central Waterfront Area and within a designated Mixed-Use Area, both of which are aimed at accommodating growth and intensification. Mr. Hoff opined that the uses proposed by the ZBA are permitted and that the Proposed Development will introduce new high density residential uses in an area well served by higher order transit.

34In his Affidavit, Mr. Hoff opined that the Proposed Development satisfies the housing needs of the wider population by providing a mix of residential units, including family-sized units. It is supportive of the OP policies directed at providing a full range of housing options to accommodate the needs of current and future residents in the City.

35The Proposed Development is designed to fit harmoniously within the neighbourhood and responds to the built form policies of the OP. Mr. Hoff explained that the unique building massing presents a narrow front to the low-rise neighbourhood. This mediates the transition from the tallest buildings located to the west and south to the low-rise residential neighbourhood located to the north and east.

36It is Mr. Hoff’s opinion that the ZBA and the Proposed Development are permitted uses and conform with the development criteria policies specific to the Downtown and Central Waterfront Area within the OP.

Downtown Secondary Plan (“DSP”)

37The DSP provides specific policy direction for growth in Downtown Toronto. The DSP highlights Downtown Toronto as a focal point for growth and development given the multitude of transit connections in the area. The DSP is intended to provide policy direction around land use, public realm and built form.

38The DSP identifies 4 types of Mixed-Use Areas and designates the Subject Property as Mixed Use Area 2 which is intended to support tall buildings compatible with the existing and planned context. Mr. Hoff explained that Mixed-Use Area 2 is an intermediate area intended to have a wide range of uses and development scales ranging from tall buildings to mid-rise buildings. Building height, scale and massing will be compatible to the relevant Mixed-Use Area with the tallest buildings located in Area 1 stepping down through Areas 2 and 3 with the lowest scale in Mixed-Use Area 4.

39Mr. Hoff opined that the proposed scale and height of the building is appropriate and consistent with the vision of the DSP with respect to where growth should occur. He noted that it is supportive of the development of complete communities due to the proximity of the Subject Property to the employment node of the Bloor Bay office corridor.

40Mr. Hoff opined that the Proposed Development promotes public realm improvements, including parkland and open spaces. The intention to provide POPS compliments the public realm and enhanced sidewalks and setbacks provides better connectivity for pedestrians.

41Mr. Hoff opined that the overall built form intention is reflected in the Proposed Development. The scale and massing are consistent with the policies of the DSP, including the proposal of an appropriately scaled building and floorplate with appropriate separation distances between adjacent towers. Mr. Hoff opined that this would ensure adequate privacy and sunlight within the surrounding context.

42It is Mr. Hoff’s opinion that the Proposed Development is consistent with and supportive of many of the policies of the DSP. The ZBA is consistent with the DSP policy objectives.

Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) 211 – Bloor Yorkville / North Midtown Area (“SASP 211”)

43SASP 211 is a framework adopted for the Bloor / Yorkville area of the City to establish a pattern for height and density.

44The Subject Property is subject to SASP 211 and building heights in the area are intended to step down from the Bloor-Yonge intersection. The Subject Property is within the Asquith-Collier neighbourhood and located between a Height Ridge and a Low-Rise Area as identified in SASP 211.

45Mr. Hoff opined that the proposed 27-storeys are appropriate as the height of the Proposed Development will be lower than the taller developments within the Height Ridge. The Subject Property is a point of transition and is appropriately scaled to respond to the transition from a Height Ridge to a Low-Rise Area.

46Mr. Hoff is of the opinion that SASP 211 provides direction for the Bloor Yorkville area and that the ZBA and Proposed Development are consistent with the policy direction of SASP 211 in scale and density.

Guidelines

47In his Affidavit, Mr. Hoff reviewed the Tall Building Design Guidelines, The Bloor-Yorkville / North Midtown Urban Design Guidelines and the Growing Up Guidelines, all of which apply to the Proposed Development.

48Mr. Hoff noted that the Proposed Development responds to the surrounding context to limit shadow impacts onto surrounding parks and open spaces. The proposed massing transitions to the surrounding low-rise neighbourhood and improves open spaces for existing and new residents. The Proposed Development provides family-sized units in a building that contains indoor amenity space and connections to surrounding parks.

49Mr. Hoff opined that the ZBA and the Proposed Development meet the intent of all of the Guidelines and have appropriate regard for each of them.

CONCLUSION

50In his testimony, Mr. Hoff concluded that the Proposed Development achieves the relevant policy objectives and supports growth and intensification in a manner consistent with the surrounding context. It was Mr. Hoff’s opinion that the Proposed Development has regard for matters of provincial interest and that the ZBA represents good planning and is in the public interest.

51On the uncontested planning evidence, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA satisfies the statutory tests as referenced above and represents good planning that is in the public interest. In particular, the Proposed Development supports provincial initiatives and policy directives that are focussed on creating housing opportunities of varying built form, making efficient use of land and infrastructure, and optimizing infrastructure including existing transit resources.

52The Tribunal accepts the planning evidence and opinions of Mr. Hoff in whole and finds that the Proposed Development aligns with the principles of good land use planning and warrants approval. The Tribunal is satisfied that the ZBA appropriately implements the Proposed Development. The Tribunal will allow the appeal in part and will approve the ZBA in principle subject to the conditions found in the Order below.

INTERIM ORDER

53THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 54 below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.

54The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:

a. The Tribunal has received, and approved, the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted in a final form, confirmed to be satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

b. The Tribunal is advised that a Section 37 Agreement has been executed and registered on title to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, securing the community benefits;

c. The Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor that the Applicant has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water; and

d. The Tribunal is advised by the City Solicitor that the Applicant has 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 Engineering Reports to support the development, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.

55The Panel will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

56If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Zoning By-law Amendment and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 54 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by August 12, 2022, the City Solicitor shall submit a Zoning By-law Amendment for review and approval by the Tribunal that contains a Holding (“H”) provision conditional on completion of the following, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor:

a. The Applicant has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water; and

b. The Applicant has 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 Engineering Reports to support the development, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.

57The Panel Members may be spoken to concerning matters relating to this Interim Order and the issuance of the Final Order.

“C. Hardy”

C. Hardy

MEMBER

“S. Bobka”

S. BOBKA

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: 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

Draft Zoning By-law

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No. ~

BY-LAW NO. XXXX-2022(OLT)

To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2021 as 707, 709 and 717 Church Street, 85, 89, 93 and 97 Collier Street and 28 Park Road.

WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto has been requested to amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 of the City of Toronto, as amended, pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, with respect to lands known municipally in the year 2021 as 707, 709 and 717 Church Street, 85, 89, 93 and 97 Collier Street and 28 Park Road; and

WHEREAS the Ontario Land Tribunal has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 to pass this By-law; 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 the Official Plan for the City of Toronto contains provisions relating to the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act as a mechanism to secure capital facilities required to support development; and

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, as it read the day before Section 1 of Schedule 17 to the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 18 came into force, a By-law under Section 34 of the Planning Act may authorize increase 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, as it read on the day before Section 1 of Schedule 17 to the COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act, 2020 came into force, provides that where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services and matters in return for an increase in the density or height 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

WHEREAS the owner of the aforesaid lands has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters hereinafter set out; and

WHEREAS the increases in height and density permitted beyond that otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by the Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, are to be permitted in return for the provisions of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law that are secured by one or more agreements between the owner of the land and the City of Toronto; and

WHEREAS the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, by its Decision/Order issued on [DATE], in OLT Case No. OLT-21-001034 approved amendments to Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 of the former City of Toronto, as amended , pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, with respect to lands known municipally as 707, 709 and 717 Church Street, 85, 89, 93 and 97 Collier Street and 28 Park Road; and

WHEREAS the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal is continued under the name Ontario Land Tribunal (the “OLT”) and any reference to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal or LPAT in this By-law is deemed to be a reference to the OLT; and

NOW THEREFORE pursuant to the Order of the OLT, Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is further amended 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, unless otherwise defined herein.

3. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending and replacing Article 900.11.10 Exception Number 1894 so that it reads:

(1894) Exception CR 1894

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:

On 707, 709 and 717 Church Street, 85, 89, 93 and 97 Collier Street and 28 Park Road, if the requirements of Section 5 and Schedule A of By-law [clerks to supply by-law #] are complied with, then a building or structure may be constructed in compliance with regulations (B) to (R) below.

The lands consist of the area within the heavy lines as shown on Diagram 1 of [clerks to supply by-law#].

Despite regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor area for all buildings and structures is 17,750 square metres, allocated as follows:

i. The permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 17,650 square metres; and

ii. The permitted maximum gross floor area for non-residential uses is 100 square metres;

A building, structure, addition, or enlargement that contains more than 80 dwelling units, is subject to the following:

i. a minimum of 20 percent of the total number of dwelling units must contain two bedrooms;

ii. a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units must contain three or more bedrooms;

iii. an additional 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units will be any combination of two bedroom and three bedroom dwelling units, or dwelling units that can be converted into any combination of two and three bedroom dwelling units; and

iv. convertible dwelling units, as described in (D)(iii) above, may be converted using accessible or adaptable design measures such as knock-out panels;

Despite regulation 40.5.40.10(1) and (2), the height of a building or structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 115.8 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;

Despite regulation 40.10.40.10(1), the permitted maximum height of any building or structure on the lands is the numerical value, in metres, following the symbol "HT" on Diagram 2 attached to By-law (Clerks to supply by-law ##);

Despite regulation 40.10.40.10(5), the required minimum height between the floor of the first storey and the ceiling of the first storey, excluding any mezzanine level between the first storey and the next full storey above, shall be 6.5 metres;

Despite clause 40.5.40.10, clause 40.5.75.1 and regulation (G) above, the following elements of a building may exceed the permitted maximum height as follows:

i. Wind screens, parapets, terrace or balcony guardrails, ornamental elements, pavers, balustrades, railings and dividers, art and landscaping features, pergolas, trellises, planters, eaves, privacy screens, stair enclosures, skylights, cooling towers, stacks, telecommunication equipment, antennas, elevators and related structural elements, flues, mechanical equipment, mechanical and architectural screens, access hatches, roof assemblies, roof drainage, window washing equipment, chimneys, vents, lightning rods, light fixtures, pavers, elements of a green roof, structures located on the roof used for outside or open air recreation, which may project above the height limits shown on Diagram 3 attached to By-law [Clerks to supply ##] by no more than 3.0 metres; and

ii. Elevator overrun which may project above the height limits shown on Diagram 3 attached to By-law [Clerks to supply ##] by no more than 4.0 metres.

Despite regulation 40.10.40.70(1), the required minimum building setbacks must be provided as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to supply ##].

Despite regulation (I) above, the fourth storey of the building shall be setback a minimum of 3.2 metres from the lot line abutting Collier Street, excluding structural columns, and 3.5 metres from the lot line abutting Park Road .

Despite regulation (I) above, the building shall be further set back in accordance with the building setbacks from the west property line shown in Diagram 3 of By-law ## [Clerks to insert By-law number].

Despite regulations 40.5.40.60(1), clause 40.10.40.60 and regulation (I) above, the following elements of a building may encroach into the required building setback as follows:

i. Cornices, eaves, light fixtures, parapets, art and landscaping features, fences and safety railings, trellises, balustrades, chimneys, vents, wheelchair ramps, retaining walls, window sills, vertical window screens, screens, ornamental elements, ventilation shafts, mechanical equipment, frames, walkways, stairs, stair landings, decks, planters, art features, architectural features, site servicing features, window washing equipment, mullion cap extensions, screening, fences, up to a maximum of 0.5 metres; and

ii. Awning and canopies, up to a maximum of 2.0 metres;

Article 600.20.10 with respect to minimum lot frontage for retail uses on the first storey of a mixed-use building does not apply;

Despite regulation 40.10.40.50(1) and (2), amenity space must be provided as follows:

i. A minimum of 1.9 square metres per dwelling unit of indoor amenity space;

ii. A minimum of 0.4 square metres per dwelling unit of outdoor amenity space in a location adjoining or directly accessible to the indoor amenity space;

iii. No outdoor amenity space is required for non-residential uses;

iv.

v. the outdoor component is not permitted to be a green roof;

Despite clause 200.5.1, clause 200.5.10.1, clause 200.15.10, regulation 200.5.1.10(12) and Table 200.5.10.1, a minimum of three parking spaces are required and a maximum of five parking spaces may be provided for all uses on the lands and may be provided as:

i. "car-share parking spaces";

ii. parking spaces for short-term pick-up and drop-off activities; or

iii. visitor parking spaces.

Despite regulation 230.5.1.10 (4) and (5),

a bicycle parking space must comply with the following:

i. Where bicycles are to be parked in a vertical position, has horizontal dimensions of at least 0.45 metres by 1.2 metres and a vertical dimension of at least 1.9 metres; and

ii. A stacked bicycle parking space will have a horizontal dimension of at least 0.45 metres by 1.8metres and a vertical dimension of at least 2.5 metres.

Despite regulation 230.40.1.20(2), a “short-term” bicycle parking space may be located more than 30 metres from a pedestrian entrance to the building on the lands.

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 that are owned by a profit or non-profit car-sharing organization 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 a "car-share parking space" means a parking space exclusively reserved and signed for a car used only for "car-share" purposes.

Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:

(A) Section 12(2) 132 of former City of Toronto By-law 438-86; and

(B) Section 12(2) 137 of former City of Toronto By-law 438-86

2. Despite any existing or future severance, partition or division of the lands, the provisions of this By-law apply to the whole of the lands shown on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law as if no severance, partition or division occurred.

3. 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 of 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 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 or density pursuant to this By-law unless all provisions of Schedule A are satisfied.

Ontario Land Tribunal Decision/Orders issued [DATE] in OLT File No. OLT-21-001034.