Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 27, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002071 (Formerly PL210235)

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

Applicant/Appellant: Bel Ontario Inc. & BJL Properties Ltd.

Subject: Application to amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 and 569-2013 - Refusal or neglect of City of Toronto to make a decision

Existing Zoning: Reinvestment Area (RA) - Zoning By-law 438-86; Commercial Residential Employment (CRE) (x41) - Zoning By-law 569 - 2013

Proposed Zoning: Site Specific (To be determined)

Purpose: To permit a 38-storey mixed-use building

Property Address/Description: 429-455 Richmond Street East and 69, 71, 75 Ontario Street

Municipality: City of Toronto

Municipality File No.: 19 265929 STE 12 OZ

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002071

Legacy Case No.: PL210235

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002071

Legacy Lead case No.: PL210235

OLT Case Name: Bel Ontario Inc. & BJL Properties Ltd. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: January 16, 2023 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Bel Ontario Inc. & BJL Properties Ltd. ("Applicant" / "Appellant")

Eileen Costello Natalie Hickey

City of Toronto ("City")

Ray Kallio Adam Ward

DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Hearing on an Appeal filed by Bel Ontario Inc & BJL Properties Ltd. ("Applicant" / "Appellant") against the City of Toronto ("City") Council's failure to make a decision in relation to a Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBLA") application concerning 429-455 Richmond Street East and 69, 71, and 75 Ontario Street ("Subject Lands" / "Site").

2The purpose of the revised ZBLA application is to facilitate a proposed 43-storey mixed use building with 376 residential dwelling units and 394 square metres ("m²") of commercial space located at grade level.

BRIEF CHRONOLOGY OF THE APPLICATION

3The original rezoning application was submitted to the City on December 31, 2019 ("Original Application") and proposed a 34-storey mixed-use development containing 16,816 m² of gross floor area ("GFA") situated on the Subject Lands ("Original Proposal"). The Original Application was subsequently deemed complete on January 28, 2020 (as of January 27, 2020).

4City staff prepared a Preliminary Report dated February 4, 2020, and a Community Consultation meeting occurred on December 14, 2020.

5The Original Proposal included a 34-storey mixed-use building, consisting of a 7-storey podium (including mezzanine level) and a 27-storey tower element (113.85 m including mechanical penthouse).

6On March 19, 2021, a revised ZBLA application was filed with certain refinements being made to address the feedback received from City staff, to incorporate the additional property at 71 Ontario Street and to respond to the emerging context in the area ("Revised Proposal").

7The Revised Proposal included a 39-storey residential/mixed-use building with an overall height of 128.45 metres ("m") including the mechanical penthouse. The Revised Proposal included 21,652 m² of residential GFA and 394 m² of commercial/retail GFA, resulting in a Floor Space Index (FSI") of 19.56 on the expanded development site, which now includes the property municipality known as 71 Ontario Street. It included a total of 354 dwelling units, including 83 studio units (23.4%), 174 one-bedroom units (49.2%), 60 two-bedroom units (16.9%) and 37 three-bedroom units (10.5%). The number of residential dwelling units have increased from 251 to 354 and the amount of amenity space has increased from 697 m² to 1,199 m². There has been an increase in the amount of residential parking spaces from 58 to 76 spaces and bicycle parking spaces from 260 to 357 to support these additional units.

8On April 1, 2021, the owner filed an Appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal ("OLT" / "Tribunal") from the failure of City Council to make a decision respecting the proposed ZBLA application.

9On December 15, 2021, City Council adopted the recommendation of a Request for Direction report that City staff attend the OLT hearing to oppose the application in its current form. City Council also directed that City staff continue discussions with the Applicant in an attempt to resolve the outstanding matters.

10Revised plans were submitted to the City as part of a With Prejudice Settlement Proposal on December 1, 2022. On December 14, 2022, City Council accepted the Settlement Offer and authorized the City Solicitor and other appropriate staff to attend the OLT Hearing in support of the ZBLA application for the Subject Lands.

HEARING

11Upon the commencement of the Hearing the Tribunal noted that one of the initial Parties to this appeal had withdrawn their appeal. 1734140 Ontario Limited submitted a Withdrawal of Appeal Notice to the Tribunal on January 7, 2023.

12Eileen Costello, counsel for the Applicant advised of a settlement reached between the Applicant and the City pursuant to a decision of City Council on December 14, 2022.

13Ms. Costello advised a settlement was reached between the Applicant and 1734140 Ontario Limited pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated January 6, 2023.

14The Applicant has now made certain revisions to the proposed zoning instrument which has been reviewed by City staff, who confirm that they are satisfied that all issues have been adequately addressed.

15Bel Ontario Inc & BJL Properties Ltd. and the City (collectively, the "Parties") have agreed to a comprehensive resolution of the Appeal and wish to reflect their agreement in Minutes of Settlement and agree to place the proposed settlement ("Settlement") herein before the Tribunal for an issuance of Interim approval.

DESCRIPTION OF SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL

16The current plans propose a 43-storey mixed-use residential condominium building consisting of a 7-storey (25.5 m) base building with a 36-storey tower element above, with an overall height of 137.6 m, excluding the mechanical penthouse, and 144.5 m, including mechanical penthouse.

17The building will include 376 dwelling units, with a total GFA of 23,156 m², of which 22,871 m² will be for residential uses and 285 m² will be for grade-related commercial uses fronting Ontario Street and Richmond Street East. The overall site density is 20.9 FSI, based on the gross site area of 1,107 m².

18The 7-storey base building has been designed to achieve an appropriately scaled street wall condition along the Ontario Street and Richmond Street frontages. The base of the building has also been designed to respond appropriately to the East 55 development immediately to the south of the Site, as well as other existing and approved new buildings in the immediate vicinity.

19The balance of the ground floor is comprised of parcel storage, waste storage, bicycle lockers, an internalized loading area and vehicle elevators accessing the underground parking garage.

20The current proposal provides 376 units, including 103 studio units (27.4%), 168 one-bedroom 16 units (44.7%), 63 two-bedroom units (16.8%) and 42 three-bedroom units (11.2%). In addition, a total of 60 units (16.0%) have been identified as convertible units i.e. units that can be converted into two- or three-bedroom units.

21The proposed development will be served by four levels of underground parking containing a total of 76 parking spaces for residents. No visitor or commercial parking spaces are proposed. The development will provide a total of 377 bicycle parking spaces including 38 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 339 long-term bicycle parking spaces.

WITNESS

22Evidence in support of the proposed ZBLA application was provided by the Appellant witness Peter Smith who was qualified on consent by the Tribunal to give opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning and Urban Design.

23The Tribunal received and marked the following new documents as Exhibits to the Hearing:

• Exhibit 1: Joint Document Book
• Exhibit 2: Witness Statement of Peter Smith
• Exhibit 3: Visual Evidence Book
• Exhibit 4: Draft Zoning By-Law Amendment

SUBJECT LANDS / SITE AND SURRONDING AREA

24The Site is located on the south side of Richmond Street, between Sherbourne Street and Parliament Street, at the southeast corner of Richmond Street East and Ontario Street. The Site is generally rectangular in shape, with a frontage of approximately 47.1 m along Richmond Street and a depth that varies from 15.5 to 25.8 m and a frontage of approximately 23.4 m along Ontario Street to the north of 71 Ontario Street. The resulting Site area is approximately 1,107 m².

25The Site consists of an assembly of five properties including a one-storey commercial building at 429 Richmond Street/ 75 Ontario Street occupied by the Lamb Development Sales and Design Centre, a two-storey commercial building at 431 Richmond Street East, a 2½-storey residential dwelling at 455 Richmond Street East including one rental residential unit with three bedrooms, and 2½-storey rowhouse dwellings at 69 and 71 Ontario Street occupied by commercial tenants including a construction office.

26The Site is located within the King-Parliament area, generally located east of Jarvis Street to the Don River, extending south of Queen Street to the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood and the CN Rail Corridor east of Parliament Street. As well as containing the City's first ten blocks west of Parliament Street, it also contains the historic Corktown neighbourhood, the West Don Lands redevelopment area and the historic Distillery District on the east side of Parliament Street.

ZONING BY-LAW AMENDEMENT

27The proposal requires an amendment to City-wide Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, and City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, in order to increase the permitted height and to revise other development regulations as necessary to accommodate the proposal. No amendment is required to permit the proposed density, given that the existing zoning contains no density limitations.

LEGISLATIVE TEST

28In making a decision with respect to a zoning by-law amendment, the Tribunal must consider s. 24(1) of the Planning Act ("Act"). Despite any other general or special Act, where an official plan is in effect, no public work shall be undertaken and, except as provided in subsections (2) and (4), no by-law shall be passed for any purpose that does not conform therewith.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

Provincial Policy Statement ("PPS")

29Mr. Smith highlighted several polices of the PPS including policies regarding healthy, livable and safe communities and intensification and redevelopment. Transit supportive policies and economic development.

30Mr. Smith contends residential/mixed-use intensification on the Subject Lands is appropriate and desirable and is in keeping with the policy framework set out in the PPS. In Mr. Smith's opinion, the Site is underutilized in its current form. Residential/mixed-use intensification on the Site will more efficiently utilize and optimize the use of land and infrastructure by providing new housing, jobs and retail opportunities in a transit-supportive and mixed-use compact built form, directly supporting the policy directions of the PPS.

31Mr. Smith advised a Heritage Impact Assessment ("HIA") was completed to evaluate the proposed development in relation to cultural heritage resources and recommend an overall approach to the conservation of heritage value of these resources. According to the HIA, none of the properties on the Subject Lands are on the City's Heritage Register and, based on HIA assessment, the property at 431 Richmond Street West does not meet the criteria for cultural heritage value. The HIA notes that the proposed development will have a visual impact on the surroundings, however; visual impact was deemed to be reasonable given the visual impact already caused by a number of other high-rise developments in the vicinity of the Site.

32In Mr. Smith's opinion, the application is consistent with the PPS in particular, the policies relating to residential intensification and the efficient use of land and infrastructure.

Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan)

33Mr. Smith highlighted Guiding Principles in section 1.2.1 and applicable policies of the Growth Plan and submits the Subject Lands are included in the Downtown Toronto "urban growth centre" and are within a "strategic growth area" as defined by the Growth Plan. The Site also falls within the definition of a "major transit station area" by virtue of its proximity to the proposed Corktown and Moss Park stations on the Ontario Line. It is located approximately 300 m from the future Moss Park Station at Queen Street East and Sherbourne and approximately 235 m from the future Corktown station at Berkeley Street and King Street East.

34In addition, Mr. Smith advised the Site is located in the Downtown, which has been identified as an Urban Growth Centre in the Growth Plan. The Growth Plan directs that urban growth centres will be planned to accommodate significant population and employment growth and will be planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum density target of 400 residents and jobs combined per hectare.

35Mr. Smith advised the Growth Plan policies have been progressively strengthened, from 2006 to the 2019 Growth Plan, as they apply to the integration of land use and infrastructure planning, as well as the importance of "optimizing" the use of the land supply and infrastructure. In this respect, the Growth Plan has been revised by adding more detail about the objectives of a "complete community" and requiring minimum density targets for "major transit station areas" along "priority transit corridors" and existing subways.

36In Mr. Smith's opinion, the application conforms with the Growth Plan in particular, the policies that seek to optimize the use of land and infrastructure and to encourage growth and intensification in "strategic growth areas", including "urban growth centres" and "major transit station areas".

City of Toronto Official Plan ("OP")

37Mr. Smith advised residential/mixed-use intensification on the Site is appropriate and desirable, and is in keeping with the policy framework set out in the OP.

38Mr. Smith advised from an OP perspective, strong policy support is expressed for new housing in the Downtown, intended to minimize in-bound commuting and expand the range of housing opportunities. Policy 2.2.1(1) provides that the Downtown Toronto Urban Growth Centre will be planned to "optimize the public investment in higher order transit within the Centre" and thus should exceed the minimum combined gross density target of 400 residents and jobs per hectare set out in the Growth Plan. As well, the OP encourages "a full range of housing opportunities" for Downtown workers.

39Furthermore, Policy 2.4(4) of the OP provides for intensified development, with minimum density requirements and limits on parking, for sites in areas which are well serviced by transit. The Site is located in proximity to the King and Queen streetcar routes and is within 225 to 245 m of two planned subway stations along the Downtown Relief Line/Ontario Line.

40Mr. Smith submits the proposed residential/mixed-use development, with residential uses and grade-related commercial space, is consistent with the land use permissions of the OP and Zoning By-law, both of which permit a broad range of residential and commercial uses on the Subject Lands. According to Mr. Smith the Regeneration Areas designation is one of four land use designations that are intended to accommodate most of the increased jobs and population anticipated by the OP's growth strategy.

41Mr. Smith opines the proposal satisfies the criteria established in OP Policy 3.1.3(2) for the location of a tall building. The proposed 43-storey height will fit harmoniously with other buildings in the King-Parliament area that are completed, under construction, approved or proposed.

42In regard to Urban Design Mr. Smith advised, the proposed development will result in a podium building that will maintain an appropriate scale along the Ontario Street and Richmond Street frontages and create an animated street frontage with grade-related uses, as well as a tower element that is set back away from the streets and will provide appropriate separation from other existing proposed tall buildings in the surrounding area.

43In Mr. Smith's opinion, the proposed development conforms with the OP in particularly the residential mixed-use development, built form and massing policies of the OP and the applicable secondary plans, and is generally in keeping with the relevant Urban Design Guidelines.

Downtown Secondary Plan

44Mr. Smith submits the Downtown Secondary Plan designates the Subject Lands as Mixed-Use Areas 2 – Intermediate, which is planned to form an intermediate, transitional scale between the taller buildings anticipated on some sites in Mixed-Use Areas 1 and the predominantly mid-rise character anticipated in Mixed-Use Areas 3.

45Mr. Smith highlighted policy 4.1 of the Downtown Secondary Plan which provides that growth is encouraged within the Downtown, in particular on lands designated Mixed-Use Areas 1, Mixed-Use Areas 2, Mixed-Use Areas 3, Regeneration Areas and Institutional Areas. Policy 6.25 provides that development within Mixed-Use Areas 2 will include building typologies that respond to their site context including mid-rise and some tall buildings. Policy 6.34 provides that development in proximity to existing and planned rapid transit stations will prioritize mixed use development and, further, that these areas will be planned to accommodate higher density development to optimize the return on investment and increase the efficiency and viability of existing and planned transit service levels.

46Furthermore, Mr. Smith submits policy 11.1 provides that, in order to achieve a balanced mix of unit types and sizes and support the creation of housing suitable for families, development containing more than 80 new residential units will include: a minimum of 15 per cent of the total number of units as 2-bedroom units; a minimum of 10 per cent of the total number of units as 3-bedroom units; and an additional 15 per cent of the total number of units as a combination of 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units, or units that can be converted to 2- and 3-bedroom units through the use of accessible or adaptable design measures.

47In Mr. Smith's opinion, the application conforms to the Downtown Secondary Plan, in particular, the design of the proposed development conforms with the built form policies set out in Section 9 of the Downtown Secondary Plan policies related to base building massing, tower floor plate size and built form transition.

King-Parliament Secondary Plan ("Secondary Plan")

48Mr. Smith opines the proposed development conforms with the Secondary Plan, in particular the major objectives in Section 2 and Policies 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.2, 4.4, 5.2, 5.3, 7.1 and 7.2.

49Mr. Smith advised Map 15-1 of the Secondary Plan designates the Site Regeneration Area 'A' (Jarvis-Parliament), which is regarded as "an area targeted for significant growth", having a mix of compatible land uses including commercial, industrial, institutional, residential, live/work and entertainment uses within new and existing buildings. The redevelopment of the Site for an intensified form of development is part of a desirable reinvestment and revitalization process, which is anticipated and supported by the Secondary Plan.

50In regard to intensification Mr. Smith submits that the Secondary Plan, seeks to integrate land use and transportation planning in identified intensification areas. According to Mr. Smith, one of the major objectives is to attract new investment to the area.

51In regard to Land Use Mr. Smith submits, the Secondary Plan specifically calls for a mix of land uses with the flexibility to evolve as the neighbourhood matures. In Mr. Smith's opinion, the proposed Secondary Plan for the King-Parliament area maintains this key objective.

52In regard to height and masing, Mr. Smith contends since the adoption of the Secondary Plan and the implementing RA zoning in 1996, the Jarvis-Parliament sub-area has seen considerable development in the form of tall mid-rise buildings and tall buildings that are at low end of the high-rise scale (i.e. in the 17-36 storey range). The existing and approved building heights do not have a discernible pattern, except that heights generally step down east of Berkeley Street toward the low- and mid-rise Corktown area. Within this context, the Site's location on the east side of Ontario Street is appropriate for a tall building within the range of heights that have been approved within the area generally west of Berkeley Street.

53In Mr. Smith's opinion, the application conforms to the Secondary Plan.

Comprehensive Zoning By-law ("ZBL")

54Mr. Smith advised the in-force ZBL applying to the Subject Lands is the new city-wide ZBL 569-2013. According to Mr. Smith the ZBL was enacted by City Council on May 9, 2013, but was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board in its entirety. Substantial portions of the ZBL have now been approved by the Tribunal and are in full force and effect, including the provisions applicable to the CRE zone. As a result, the City has advised that ZBL 438-86, as amended, of the former City of Toronto is no longer in force.

55Mr. Smith submits the Site is zoned Commercial Residential Employment (CRE (x41) by ZBL 569-2013, with a maximum height of 26.0 m (except for the property at 455 Richmond Street East which has a maximum height of 12.0 m). According to Mr. Smith no maximum FSI is specified. From a parking perspective, the Site is located within the Policy Area 1 (PA1) zone.

56Mr. Smith advised the CRE zone permits a wide range of uses, including various residential building types, as well as retail, office, institutional and light industrial uses. The CRE zone includes the following standards applicable to the Subject Lands / Site:

• maximum building depth of 50.0 m from a lot line that abuts a street;
• minimum side and rear setbacks of 7.5 m, excluding any part of the building or structure that is less than 25.0 m from a lot line abutting a street or park;
• minimum side and rear setbacks of 7.5 m from a lane, measured from the original centerline of the lane, excluding any part of the building or structure that is less than 25.0 m from a lot line abutting a street or park;
• minimum setback of 3.0 m from a lot line abutting a street for the portion of a building exceeding 20.0 m in height; and
• minimum distance of 7.5 m from a window to a lot line that does not abut a street or park.

57According to Mr. Smith Exception CRE x41 carries forward the Restrictive Exception in Section 12(2) 270 under the former ZBL 438-86, which limits the size of retail stores and service shops.

58Mr. Smith advised that on May 5, 2021, City Council adopted a number of Zoning By-law amendments (By-laws 391-2021, 392-2021, 393-2021, 394-2021 and 395-2021), amending ZBL 569-2013, in order to implement the proposed new King-Parliament Secondary Plan. Mr. Smith advised ZBL 393-2021 applies to the Old Town Policy Area, including the Subject Site. Mr. Smith submits the proposed ZBL 393-2021 would rezone the Subject Lands to CR SS1 (x339), with a maximum height of 90.0 m.

59In Mr. Smith's opinion the proposal will not result in any unacceptable Light, View and Privacy ("LVP") impacts for adjacent properties. A shadow study was prepared and in Mr. Smith's opinion, shadow impacts from the proposed development are "adequately limited" given the Site's urban context and satisfy the applicable policies contained within the OP, the Downtown Secondary Plan and the King-Parliament Secondary Plan.

60With regard to pedestrian level wind conditions a detailed wind study, with wind tunnel analysis will be submitted under separate cover as part of the required Site Plan Approval application. A Transportation Impact Assessment study was completed and indicates the proposal would generate 27 and 22 two-way trips in the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively, and accordingly, would have no unacceptable traffic impact on existing traffic conditions. As it relates to bicycle parking, the revised transportation study confirms that the proposed supply of 357 bicycle parking spaces exceeds the requirements of ZBL 569-2013. A storm water management report concluded the proposed development as revised can be serviced by adjacent existing sanitary and watermain infrastructure surrounding the Site and that stormwater management can be accommodated with on-site storage and can achieve allowable pre-development flow rates.

61In Mr. Smith's opinion, the application poses no conflict and maintains the general purpose and intent of the ZBL.

SUMMARY

62Mr. Smith opines, the proposal to rezone the Subject Lands accords with policies outlined in the PPS, Growth Plan, the OP, the Downtown Secondary Plan, the King-Parliament Secondary Plan including the City's ZBL No. 569-2013.

63Mr. Smith opined, the application has regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest, in particular, the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; the appropriate location of growth and development; the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; 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.

FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION

64In determining this matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontroverted planning evidence and expert opinion provided by Mr. Smith. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the proposal promotes good land use planning and is in the public interest and is satisfied that the application conforms to the OP, Downtown Secondary Plan and King-Parliament Secondary Plan, Growth Plan and is consistent with the PPS.

65The Tribunal notes the numerous technical reports completed and the significant revisions of the Original Proposal which have been completed by the Appellant to satisfy the public and City department staff comments.

66The Tribunal acknowledges the cooperation between the Parties to reach a Settlement in these proceedings considering the significant development proposal. The Tribunal encourages the Parties to continue the cooperation throughout the Site Plan and Building phases of the proposed development.

ORDER

67THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the Appeal is allowed in part, the Zoning By-law Amendments are approved in principle (Schedule 1) and the proposed development is approved in principle. The Tribunal shall withhold its final Order until such time as the Tribunal has been advised by the City Solicitor that the conditions set out in Schedule 2 to this Interim Order have been satisfied.

68The Tribunal may be spoken to concerning issues arising from the implementation of this Interim Order.

"Eric S. Crowe"

ERIC S. CROWE 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.

SCHEDULE 1

DRAFT ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT WITH DIAGRAMS

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. ~-2022 (OLT)

To amend Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 of the City of Toronto, as amended, with respect to the lands known municipally in the year 2022 as 429-455 Richmond Street East and 69, 71 and 75 Ontario Street.

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, in its Decision issued on [date] and its Order issued on [date], in file OLT-22-002071 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 429-455 Richmond Street East and 69, 71 and 75 Ontario Street; and

Whereas the increase in height and density 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;

The Ontario Land Tribunal, by Order amends 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 subject to this By-law from a zone label of CRE to a zone label of CR SS1 (XXX) shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.
4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by Article 900.12.1 Exception CR SS1 (XXX) so that it reads:

(XXX) Exception CR SS1 XXX

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:

5. On 429-455 Richmond Street East and 69, 71, and 75 Ontario Street, as shown on Diagram 1 of By-Law [Clerks to supply By-law ##];, a mixed use building may be erected or constructed in compliance with Regulations (A) to (U) below;

(A) 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 83.55 metres and elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;

(B) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.1(1), residential use portions of the building, other than dwelling units, are permitted to be located on the same level as non-residential use portions of the building;

(C) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.10(1)(2) or (3), the permitted maximum height of a building or structure is the number following the HT symbol in metres as shown on Diagram 2 of By-law [Clerks to supply By-law ##];

(D) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(3) to (8) and D above, the following equipment and structures may project beyond the permitted maximum height of a building:

(i) equipment used for the functional operation of the building including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment, roof access, maintenance equipment storage, chimneys, roof assemblies and vents may project above the height limits to a maximum of 1.0 metres;

(ii) structures that enclose, screen or cover the equipment, structures and parts of a building listed in (i) above, inclusive of a mechanical penthouse, enclosed stairwells and elevator shafts may project above the height limits to a maximum of 7.5 metres;

(iii) building maintenance units and window washing equipment may project above the height limits to a maximum of 6.0 metres; and

(iv) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, and divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace may project above the height limits to a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(E) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.10(5), the required minimum height of the first storey, as measured between the floor of the first storey and the ceiling of the first storey, is 7.0 metres, and:

(i) for the purpose of this exception, a mezzanine does not constitute a storey;

(F) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor area is 23,250 square metres, of which:

(i) the permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 22,950 square metres;

(ii) the permitted maximum gross floor area for non-residential uses is 300 square metres;

(G) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.50(1)(A) and (B) and (2), a building with 20 or more dwelling units must provide amenity space at the following rate:

(i) at least 1.9 square metres for each dwelling unit as indoor amenity space;

(ii) at least 1.3 square metres of outdoor amenity space for each dwelling unit;

(H) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.70(1)(2) or (3), the required minimum building setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram 2 of By-law [Clerks to supply By-law ##];

(I) Despite Clause 40.10.40.60 and (H) above, the following elements may encroach into the required minimum building setbacks and separation distances as follows:

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

(ii) exterior stairs, access ramps and elevating devices, to a maximum extent of 1.0 metres;

(iii) architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column, cornice, sill, belt course, or chimney breast, to a maximum extent of 1.0 metres;

(iv) window projections, including bay windows and box windows, to a maximum extent of 1.0 metres;

(v) eaves, to a maximum extent of 1.0 metres;

(vi) cladding added to the exterior surface of the main wall of a building, by a maximum of 0.5 metres;

(J) Vehicle access to the parking spaces must be provided by an unobstructed driveway with a minimum width of 6.0 metres and access may be provided by car elevator;

(K) Despite Clause 40.10.90.40, access to the site will be permitted through the shared driveway at 55 Ontario Street in congruence with the easement agreement in place with the property owners of 55 Ontario Street;

(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 maximum of 76 residential occupant parking spaces;

(M) Despite 200.5.1.10(14), a minimum of 16 resident parking spaces must be equipped with an energized outlet;

(N) Despite Section 200.5.1.10(2)(D)(i) the side of a parking space is permitted within 0.0 metres of a fixed object such as, but not limited to, a wall, column, bollard or pipe.

(i) the maximum number of obstructed parking spaces permitted is 20;

(O) Despite Regulation 200.15.1(1), an accessible parking space must be constructed with the following dimensions:

(i) length of 5.6 metres;

(ii) width of 3.4 metres; and

(iii) vertical clearance of 2.1 metres;

(P) Despite Regulation 200.15.1(4), an accessible parking space must be located within 20 metres of a passenger elevator that provides access to the first storey of the building;

(Q) Despite Regulation 200.15.10.10(1), a minimum of 2 of the required parking spaces on the lot are required to be accessible parking spaces;

(R) Despite 200.5.1.10(12), vehicle access to a building is permitted via a car elevator with a minimum width of 3.0 metres;

(S) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(4)(A)(ii), the required minimum width of a stacked bicycle parking space is;

(i) length of 1.8 metres;

(ii) width of 0.4 metres; and

(iii) vertical clearance of 1.2 metres;

(T) In addition to the locations a "long-term" bicycle parking space may be located in listed in Regulations 230.5.1.10(9)(A)(i)(ii) and (iii), "long-term" bicycle parking spaces may also be located on any level of the building within a secured room, in a stacked manner and/or in bicycle lockers.

(U) 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) 335 "long-term" bicycle parking spaces; and

(ii) 35 "short-term bicycle parking spaces.

Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections: (None Apply):

6. 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.
7. On the lot outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1, a temporary sales office is permitted for a period of not more than 3 years from the date this by-law comes into full force and effect, used exclusively for the purpose of marketing, sales and leasing of dwelling units, to be constructed on the lot.

Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on [date] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File PL210235

SCHEDULE 2

Conditions of FINAL Approval

1. the zoning by-law amendment be finalized, in a form and content acceptable to the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, that implement the proposed development;
2. the owner has provided for the withdrawal of their appeals of Official Plan Amendments 352 and 525, and shall not seek any party or participant status on the appeals;
3. the owner has addressed outstanding issues in relation to site servicing and has submitted reports and drawings related to the following, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services:
   1. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report;
   2. Hydrogeological and Geotechnical Report; and
   3. any other related engineering reports and drawings;
4. the owner has agreed that the design and implementation of municipal infrastructure will be at the owner's sole cost and expense for any upgrades or improvements to City infrastructure identified in the approved Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management, Hydrogeological and/or Geotechnical Reports, with such improvements being secured to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
5. the owner has addressed all outstanding issues raised by Parks, Forestry and Recreation as they relate to a parkland dedication, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and the City Solicitor.