Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 10, 2022
CASE NO(S).: OLT-21-001198
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: King Street I GP Inc.
Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and Zoning By-law 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision
Existing Zoning: Reinvestment Area (RA) (Zoning By-law No. 438-86) Commercial Residential Employment CRE (x41) (Zoning By-law 569-2013)
Proposed Zoning: Reinvestment Area (RA) with site specific provisions (Zoning By-law No. 438-86) Commercial Residential Employment CRE (x41) with site specific provisions (Zoning By-law 569-2013)
Purpose: To facilitate the development of a 40-storey mixed-use building with 488 dwelling units and ground floor retail space
Property Address/Description: 234-250 King Street East & 162 Princess Street
Municipality: City of Toronto
Municipality File No.: 20 233 160 STE 13 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-21-001198
OLT File No.: OLT-21-001198
OLT Case Name: King Street I GP Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Heard: July 28, 2022 by video hearing and August 2 and 3, 2022 by written submissions
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
King Street I GP Inc.
D. Bronskill
City of Toronto
J. Jakubowski
DewarKim Investments Inc.
S. Rouleau
DECISION DELIVERED BY HUGH S. WILKINS AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
1On July 28, 2022, the Tribunal held a settlement hearing to address the proposed settlement of the appeal brought by King Street I GP Inc. (“Appellant”) of the failure of the City of Toronto (“City”) to pass a zoning by-law amendment to facilitate the development of a mixed-use building at 234-250 King Street East and 162 Princess Street (“subject property”). The subject property is located at the northwest corner of King Street East and Princess Street.
2The subject property is designated as Regeneration Areas and Downtown and Central Waterfront under the City’s Official Plan. It is zoned Commercial Residential under the City’s Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. The Appellant seeks to maintain the Commercial Residential zoning, but with new site-specific exceptions to permit the proposed development.
3On June 7, 2022, the Tribunal was informed by the Appellant that it had reached a proposed settlement with the City.
4On July 28, 2022, the Tribunal held the settlement hearing by video hearing. At the settlement hearing, Paul Smetanin, who resides in the area, was granted Participant status without objection. The Tribunal confirmed that First Gulf King Street Inc., First Gulf Ontario Street Corporation, Elizabeth Jordan, Armen Tootikian, Jake Gold, and Tristan Sones are also Participants. Due to their receipt of the settlement materials only shortly before the settlement hearing, the Tribunal directed that the Participants could serve and file written submissions regarding the proposed settlement by Tuesday, August 2, 2022 to allow time for them to properly review the materials and make submissions. The Tribunal directed that the Parties could file responding submissions with the Tribunal by Wednesday, August 3, 2022. The Tribunal subsequently received written submissions on those dates.
ISSUES
5When adjudicating a zoning by-law amendment appeal under s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, the Tribunal must determine whether the proposed amendment:
a) is consistent with policy statements issued by the Minister (in this case, the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”));
b) conforms with applicable provincial plans (in this case, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (“Growth Plan”));
c) conforms with applicable official plans (in this case, the City’s Official Plan); and ,
d) represents good planning.
The Tribunal must also have regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act and have regard to the information and materials that City Council received in relation to the matter under s. 2.1(2) of the Planning Act.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
Appellant’s Evidence and Submissions
6In support of the proposed settlement, the Appellant filed an affidavit sworn by Alex Savanyu, dated July 27, 2022. He is a land use planner retained by the Appellant. He also provided oral testimony at the settlement hearing. The Tribunal qualified him to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
7Neither the City nor DewarKim Investments Ltd provided evidence at the settlement hearing. They both support the proposed settlement.
8Mr. Savanyu stated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments would facilitate the development of a 43-storey mixed-use building. He said it would have an aggregate gross floor area (“GFA”) of roughly 33,845 square metres (“m2”), which would include 558.4 m2 of retail GFA and 33,286.9 m2 of residential GFA. He said it would have 507 dwelling units. He said the proposed development would include 116 underground vehicle parking spaces and 510 bicycle parking spaces. He said the proposed development would incorporate the facades of the buildings located at 234-236, 240 and 242 King Street East into the building’s podium to maintain the heritage character of the street. He said the streetwall would vary in height from three storeys at the western end, two storeys at 240 King Street East, then to one storey at 242 King Street East, which, he said, reflects the heights of the existing buildings. He said the proposed development also would maintain the streetwall along Princess Street in a manner that is generally consistent with existing building heights.
9Mr. Savanyu opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the PPS. In particular, he stated that it is consistent with the PPS’ policies on residential intensification, the efficient use of land and infrastructure, and heritage conservation. He said the proposed development would help provide a range and mix of residential types and other uses in the area and provide for development that is transit supportive, efficiently uses land, resources, and infrastructure, and is close to public service facilities and amenities. He reiterated that through the preservation of several existing building facades, it also would help conserve the heritage character of the area.
10Mr. Savanyu opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the Growth Plan. In particular, he stated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the Growth Plan’s policies on the optimization of the use of land and infrastructure and the encouragement of growth and intensification in strategic growth areas, such as urban growth centres. He said the subject property is located in a strategic growth area and close to existing and planned public transit. He said the proposed Zoning By-aw Amendment would facilitate a development that assists in the achievement of a complete community by helping to provide a diverse mix of land uses and a range and mix of housing options.
11Mr. Savanyu opined that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the City’s Official Plan. He stated that the subject property is located in an area designated as Regeneration Areas and Downtown and Central Waterfront under the City’s Official Plan. He said Regeneration Areas are to provide for a broad mix of commercial, residential, light industrial, parks and open space, institutional and live/work uses in an urban form, and to revitalize areas that are underused. He stated that the Official Plan directs growth in the Downtown area in locations such as the subject property with a broad mix of uses. He said the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the built form, public realm, and heritage policies in the City’s Official Plan.
12Mr. Savanyu said the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment conforms with the King-Parliament Secondary Plan and in particular its guidelines on urban design and policies on growth, employment uses, physical character, heritage conservation, the environment, and transportation. He said the proposed Amendment also addresses the policies in Site and Area Specific Policy 517 regarding tall building development within the Downtown area and the policies in Official Plan Amendment No. 406 regarding the City’s new Downtown Secondary Plan, including its policies on mixed use areas, compatibility, transit, parks and the public realm, built form, and housing.
13He said the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment has regard to the City’s Tall Building Design Guidelines and their provisions on site context, site organization, tall building design, and the pedestrian realm. He said it has regard to the King-Parliament Urban Design Guidelines and their provisions on respecting the historical and urban design significance of the area and reinforcing the scale and continuity of streetwalls. He said the proposed Amendment also has regard for the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Heritage Conservation District Plan and its provisions on the protection of the character of the area and conservation of heritage attributes and resources. He noted a Heritage Impact Assessment was prepared regarding the proposed development.
14Mr. Savanyu stated that he has had regard to the matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, including those related to the orderly development of a safe and healthy community, the provision of housing, and heritage conservation.
15Mr. Savanyu stated that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would include holding provisions requiring the completion of a functional servicing report, stormwater management report, and hydrogeological review to the satisfaction of the City, the provision of financial securities, the execution and registration of a heritage easement agreement, and the execution and registration of a community benefits agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act, among other things.
16Addressing concerns raised by the Participants, Mr. Savanyu stated that construction management plans are being arranged with the City and that shadow issues have been studied and addressed to the satisfaction of the City. He said revisions that have reduced the height of the proposed development will allow for greater natural light in the area than initially projected.
Participants’ Submissions
17The Participants, Ms. Jordan, Mr. Sones, Mr. Gold, and Mr. Smetanin, jointly filed written submissions. They expressed concerns regarding:
the height of the proposed development and the resulting diminished natural light for residents of 383 Adelaide Street East as well as the cumulative impacts of this and other forthcoming tall buildings on natural light in the area;
construction impacts on residents and on the structural integrity of nearby buildings;
construction management and co-ordination issues;
over-burdening of neighbourhood infrastructure as a result of the proposed development;
the appropriate use of retail space in the proposed development; and,
inadequate public consultations regarding the proposed development.
18Mr. Tootikian filed written submissions. He expressed concerns regarding the impacts of the construction of the proposed development on the structural integrity of his adjacent building. He also expressed concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed development on existing retail businesses in the area, which he stated already face significant challenges.
FINDINGS
19Based on Mr. Savanyu’s opinion evidence, the Tribunal finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is consistent with the PPS, conforms with the Growth Plan, conforms with the City’s Official Plan and applicable Secondary Plans, and constitutes good planning. The Tribunal finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment facilitates an appropriate level of intensification on a site located in a strategic growth area and close to public transit, amenities, and public services. It finds that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment facilitates the efficient and optimal use of land and infrastructure, provides for housing, preserves cultural heritage attributes and the character of the area, and, noting the urban context of the area, will not cause undue adverse impacts.
20The Tribunal has had regard to the matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act and the information and materials that City Council received in relation to the matter.
ORDER
21The Tribunal orders that the appeal is allowed, in part, and approves the Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Schedule 1 to this Order and Decision.
22The City Clerk is authorized to assign a number to the zoning by-law amendment for record keeping purposes and to format said by-law, as necessary.
“Hugh S. Wilkins”
HUGH S. WILKINS
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.
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 [clerks to insert By-law number]-[Clerks to enter year]
To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2021 as 234-250 King Street East and 162 Princess Street
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 2021 as 234-250 King Street East and 162 Princess Street; 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 Section 37.1 of the Planning Act provides that Subsections 37(1) to (4) 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 shall continue to apply to a by-law passed pursuant to the repealed Section 37(1) prior to the date that a municipality passes a community benefits charge By-law and this By-law was passed prior to that date; 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
Whereas the owner of the aforesaid lands has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters hereinafter set out; and
Whereas the increase in height or density permitted beyond that otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by By-law 569-2013 as amended, is permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law which is secured by one or more agreements between the owner of the land and the City of Toronto;
Whereas authority is given by Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to impose the holding symbol (H) and to remove the holding symbol (H) when Council is satisfied that the conditions relating to the holding symbol have been satisfied; and
Whereas the Official Plan for the City of Toronto contains provisions relating to the use of Holding (H) symbol with conditions in the Zoning By-law;
The Ontario Land Tribunal, by Order, amends By-law 569-2013 as follows:
The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.
The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 800 Definitions.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the zone label on the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.10 respecting the lands municipally known in the year 2021 as 234-250 King Street East and 162 Princess Street, as outlined in heavy black lines, from CR SS1 (x339) to CR SS1 (x779), as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article 900.11.10 Exception Number 779 so that it reads:
779 Exception CR 779
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 234-250 King Street East and 162 Princess Street, 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 (P) 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 82.5 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;
(C) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.10(1), the permitted maximum height of a building or structure is the number in metres following the letters "HT" as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];
(D) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.10(7), the permitted maximum number of storeys in a building is the number following the letters "ST" as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##]; and
(i) for the purpose of this exception, a mezzanine does not constitute a storey;
(E) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(3) to (8) and (C) above, 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) mechanical penthouse, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;
(ii) window washing equipment, by a maximum of 6.0 metres;
(iii) glass feature strips and associated structures for support, mechanical equipment, lightning rods, wind screens, elevator overruns, chimneys, vents, pergolas, eaves, screens, stairs, stair enclosures, and elements or structures on the roof used for open air recreation, safety and wind protection purposes, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
(iv) fences and safety railings, trellises, privacy screens, balcony and terrace dividers, roof access hatches, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
(v) balustrades, guard rails, parapets, awnings, railings, green roof elements, and dividers, pergolas, eaves, screens, stairs, stair enclosures, roof drainage, window sills, chimneys, vents, terraces, light fixtures, landscaping, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
(F) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot is 34,500 square metres, of which:
(i) the permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 33,900 square metres;
(ii) the permitted maximum gross floor area for non-residential uses is 600 square metres;
(G) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.50(1)(A) and (B) and 40.10.40.50(2), amenity space must be provided at a minimum rate of 3.3 square metres per dwelling unit, of which:
(i) at least 1.6 square metres for each dwelling unit is indoor amenity space;
(H) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.70(1), the required minimum building setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];
(I) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.80(1), the required separation of main walls are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];
(J) Despite Clause 40.10.40.60 and (H) and (I) above, the following elements may encroach into the required minimum building setbacks and main wall separation distances as follows:
(i) terraces and balconies, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;
(ii) despite (i) above, balconies above a height of 24.3 metres (Canadian Geodetic Datum of 106.8 metres) may only project within the areas illustrated as "Balcony Projection Zone" as shown on Diagram 3;
(iii) ornamental elements, parapets, pillars, trellises, eaves, and window sills, by a maximum of 1.0 metres;
(iv) cornices, light fixtures, landscape features, patios, decks, planters, ventilation shafts, guardrails, balustrades, railings, stairs, stair enclosures, doors, wheelchair ramps, fences, screens, site servicing features, awnings and canopies, and underground garage ramps and associated structures, by a maximum of 1.5 metres;
(K) 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 0.17 residential occupant parking spaces for each dwelling unit;
(ii) a minimum of 0.06 parking spaces for each dwelling unit for the use of residential visitors or public parking; and
(iii) no parking spaces are required for non-residential uses;
(L) Despite Regulation 200.15.1(4), accessible parking spaces may be located at any location on any level of the underground parking garage;
(M) Despite Clause 220.5.10.1, one (1) Type “G” and one (1) Type “C” loading space must be provided and maintained on the lot;
(N) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(10), both "short-term" and “long-term” bicycle parking spaces may also be located in a stacked bicycle parking space;
(O) Despite Regulations 230.5.10.1(1)(3) and (5) and Table 230.5.10.1(1), bicycle parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the following minimum rates:
(i) 0.9 "long-term" bicycle parking spaces for each dwelling unit;
(ii) 0.1 "short-term bicycle parking spaces for each dwelling unit;
(iii) no "long term" bicycle parking spaces are required for non-residential uses;
(iv) three (3) "short-term" bicycle parking spaces for all non-residential uses;
(P) Of the total number of dwelling units provided on the lot:
(i) a minimum of ten percent must be three-bedroom dwelling units; and
(ii) in addition to the number of three-bedroom dwelling units required in (i) above, a minimum of fifteen percent of the total number of dwelling units must contain two bedrooms or more.
(Q) A building or structure not constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with Regulations (B) to (P) above, must comply with Regulation 900.11.10(339).
Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections: (None Apply)
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.
Holding Provisions:
(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 and buildings existing on the site as of July 26, 2022 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)" symbol may be enacted by City Council when the following conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services:
i. The owner submit a revised Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Review(“Engineering Reports”) to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water; and
ii. The owner secure the design and provided financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports, accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water.
iii. The receipt of all necessary approvals for the infrastructure which may be required and as described in paragraph (B)(ii) above.
(C) The owner entered into and registered on title to the lands a Section 37 Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act acceptable and satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.
(D) The owner entered into and registered on title to the lands a Heritage Easement Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act acceptable and satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and the City Solicitor.
- Section 37 Requirements:
(A) Pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, and subject to compliance with this By-law, the increase in height or density of the development is permitted beyond that otherwise permitted on the lands shown on Diagram 3 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 or 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 or density of the proposed development on the lands as shown in Diagram 3 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:
- The community benefits to be secured in the Section 37 Agreement are as follows:
(i) A financial contribution in the amount of $3,500,000.00 payable to the City prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the proposed development, excluding demolition permits and any permits associated with the heritage alterations and conservation work, to be used as follows:
(A) $1,250,000.00 to be allocated towards capital improvement for new or existing Toronto Community Housing or other affordable housing within Ward 13, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor;
(B) $1,250,000.00 to be allocated towards capital improvement for new or existing City-owned community, recreation and cultural space within Ward 13, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor; and
(C) $1,000,000.00 to be allocated towards local area streetscape and/or park improvements within Ward 13, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor;
(ii) The required contribution described in Part 2. i. above is to be indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Index Table 18-10-0135-01, or its successor, calculated from the date this zoning by-law is approved to the date of payment; and
(iii) In the event the cash contributions referred to in Part 2.a.i. above has not been used for the intended purposes within 3 years of the site specific Zoning By-law coming into full force and effect, the cash contribution may be redirected for another purpose, at the discretion of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, provided that the purpose is identified in the Toronto Official Plan and will benefit the community in the vicinity of the lands; and
b. the following are also recommended to be secured in the Section 37 Agreement as matters of legal convenience to support development:
(i) the owner shall provide a minimum of 10 percent of the new residential dwelling units in the development as dwelling units containing at least three bedrooms and a minimum of 15 percent of the new residential dwelling units in the development as dwelling units containing at least two bedrooms, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
ii. the owner shall pay for and construct any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, at their sole expense, in connection with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports or other reports accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that upgrades to such infrastructure are required to support this development;
iii. prior to Site Plan approval, the owner shall develop a Construction Mitigation Plan for the proposed development of the Subject Site to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning in consultation with the Ward Councillor;
iv. the owner will construct and maintain the development of the site in accordance with Tier 1 of the Toronto Green Standard, and the owner will be encouraged to achieve Tier 2 of the Toronto Green Standard;
v. the owner agrees to work with City staff and the members of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association to include high-quality streetscape improvements within the pedestrian boulevards adjacent to the subject site along King Street East and Princess Street, including but not limited to relocating curbs, with consideration for the St. Lawrence Market Neighbourhood Public Realm Master Plan; and
vi. prior to Site Plan approval, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the owner shall:
A. provide an updated Heritage Impact Assessment, and Conservation Plan, Heritage Lighting Plan, Interpretation Plan, and Signage Plan; and
B. enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement, to be registered on title, to manage the proposed alterations and secure the recommendations of the updated Heritage Impact Assessment.