Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: July 27, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-004283

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

Applicant/Appellant: Silver Hotels (Vancouver) Ltd.

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To permit a two tower, 682-unit mixed use development

Reference Number: 21 251957 STE 10 OZ

Property Address: 45 The Esplanade

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-004283

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004283

OLT Case Name: Silver Hotels (Vancouver) Ltd. v. Toronto (City.)

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

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit a two tower, 682-unit mixed use development

Reference Number: 21 251957 STE 10 OZ

Property Address: 45 The Esplanade

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No: OLT-22-004284

OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004283

Heard: June 21, 2023, by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel*/Representative

Silver Hotels (Vancouver) Ltd. City of Toronto St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 850

Rodney Gill* Cameron McKeich* Suzanne Kavanagh Stewart Linton Albert Ferranti

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY DAvid brown ON june 21, 2023 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1The matter before the Tribunal concerns two appeals filed by Silver Hotels (Vancouver) Ltd. (the “Appellant”) pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (the “Act”) against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision on an application for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (collectively the “Applications”) within the time frames prescribed in the Act.

2The lands that are the subject of the Appeals are known municipally as 45 The Esplanade (the “Subject Property”). The Applications will give effect to the Appellant’s proposal to redevelop the Subject Property with a mixed-use, tall building including retail, hotel, and residential uses. Access to loading and parking will be provided from a laneway accessed off Church Street and a shared driveway between 25 The Esplanade and the Subject Property.

3The Subject Property is located on the south side of The Esplanade, between Scott Street and Church Street, and has a total area of 0.393 hectares and a frontage of 89 metres (“m”). A laneway extends along the entire southern edge of the Subject Property connecting to Church Street and the Subject Property is currently occupied by a nine-storey hotel containing 254 rooms.

4The surrounding area contains a broad mix of retail, commercial, cultural and entertainment, institutional, and residential uses in buildings ranging in age, style, and height. The area is currently experiencing intensification, with numerous active development applications and active developments, including high-rise buildings. The area is well-serviced by public transit, local roads, highways, active transportation systems and community and institutional services.

5The Applications were submitted to the City on December 29, 2021. The original proposal included two 36-storey towers atop a seven-storey podium and proposed 682 residential units, 138 hotel suites, 585 square metres (“m²”) of at-grade commercial space and a floor space index (“FSI”) of 13.8. The Applications were requesting site-specific considerations to facilitate the proposal. The Applications were deemed complete on December 30, 2021. A Site Plan Control application was submitted concurrently with the Applications; however, the Site Plan Control application has not been appealed to the Tribunal. A Community Consultation Meeting was held on February 16, 2022, and a Preliminary Report from Community Planning, dated March 31, 2022, was considered by the Toronto and East York Community Council on April 21, 2022. On August 3, 2022, the Appellant filed their Appeals to the Tribunal with the City.

6The Parties engaged in Settlement discussions and the Appellant and the City have successfully negotiated a Settlement of the Appeals.

7The Settlement Proposal is based on revised plans found at Exhibit 4 within Tribunal Exhibit 1 (the “Settlement Plans”) that describe a single 39-storey tower with a height of 124.9 m (excluding the mechanical penthouse) set atop a redesigned seven-storey podium with ground floor retail uses, hotel uses, and residential uses above, and including step-backs. The Settlement Plans provide for 141 hotel units and 726 residential units in total, of which 72 are three-bedroom units and 116 are two-bedroom units. A total amenity space of 1,948 m² is proposed with 1,222 m² being indoor amenity space. The Settlement Plans include a privately-owned publicly accessible open space (“POPS”) of 231.2 m² located to the east of the proposed building within the Subject Property. The Settlement Proposal includes improvements to the public realm with an increased setback along the entire frontage of The Esplanade to allow for an enlarged pedestrian sidewalk and additional landscaping.

8The City was in attendance and advised that they support the Settlement Proposal subject to certain terms and conditions, as detailed in the Report from the City Solicitor at Exhibits 5 and 6 of Tribunal Exhibit 1.

9Ms. Kavanagh, on behalf of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association (“SLNA”), and Mr. Ferranti, on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 850 (“MTCC 850”), attended and advised that they support the Settlement Proposal.

EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS

10The Tribunal, on consent, qualified Amy Shepherd, a Registered Professional Planner, to provide opinion evidence as an expert in land use planning. Ms. Shepherd provided an Affidavit, sworn on June 16, 2023, in support of the Settlement Proposal and the approval of the OPA and ZBA (Tribunal Exhibit 1).

11Ms. Shepherd reviewed her Affidavit with the Tribunal in which she addressed s. 2 of the Act. She submitted that the Settlement Proposal has regard for the applicable matters of provincial interest set out in s. 2 of the Act, including subsections:

(h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities;

(j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing;

(p) the appropriate location of growth and development;

(q) the promotion of development that is designed to be sustainable, to support public transit and to be oriented to pedestrians; and,

(r) the promotion of built form that is well-designed and encourages a sense of place.

12Ms. Shepherd opined that the Settlement Proposal and the requisite OPA and ZBA have regard for these matters.

13In consideration of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”), Ms. Shepherd opined that the Settlement Proposal and the requisite OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS. Having reviewed the policies of the PPS, Ms. Shepherd proffered that the Settlement Proposal supports the policies of the PPS pertaining to efficient development and land use patterns, accommodating a range of housing types, densities and mix of land use that efficiently use resources, infrastructure and services, and which are transit-supportive and promote active transportation. The Settlement Proposal will maintain commercial and employment uses in the form of commercial retail space and reinstitution of the hotel use, which is consistent with the PPS’ vision to promote long-term economic prosperity and to enhance the sense of place.

14Ms. Shepherd reviewed the applicable policies within the A Place to Grow: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, as amended (2020) (“Growth Plan”). She opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the Growth Plan by introducing additional housing options to meet the projected needs of current and future residents and by supporting the creation of a complete community by introducing an additional mix of non-residential uses, including the hotel use.

15The City Official Plan (“OP”) locates the Subject Property within the Downtown and Central Waterfront overlay of the City’s Urban Structure as set out on Map 2 of the OP. Ms. Shepherd explained that Chapter 2 of the OP describes the Downtown as the oldest, densest, and most complex part of the city’s urban landscape. The Downtown is the City’s economic and cultural hub, which is critical to the health and prosperity of the entire region. Growth in the Downtown is not expected to be spread uniformly, instead it is expected that some areas will experience more development of vertical mixed-use communities through new mid-rise and tall buildings. New housing in the Downtown is vital to the economic health of the City.

16A review of the policies contained in Chapter 2 directs that growth in the City is to be planned to optimize the investment in higher-order transit, states that the Downtown will be shaped as the largest economic node in the City by accommodating development that provides a full range of housing opportunities for Downtown workers and reduces the demand for inbound commuting. The OP anticipates that the Downtown will be improved by:

• maintaining and upgrading public amenities;

• enhancing existing parks and acquiring new parkland;

• strengthening social, health and community services;

• supporting the development of complete communities by enhancing liveability through building design; and,

• providing a diverse range and mix of housing.

17Ms. Shepherd opined that the Settlement Proposal will implement the policy direction provided in Chapter 2 of the OP.

18The Subject Property is designated as Mixed Use Areas on Map 18 of the OP. The Mixed Use Areas are described as a combination of a broad array of residential uses, offices, retail and services, institutions, entertainment, recreation, and cultural activities, and parks and open spaces, which will work to achieve many of the City’s planning objectives. Mixed Use Areas are expected to absorb most of the increase and growth in housing, retail, office, and service employment across the City.

19Ms. Shepherd opined that the Settlement Proposal represents a mixed-use development within the Downtown and Central Waterfront Area on lands designated Mixed Use Areas that is well served by existing rapid transit, open space, and employment opportunities. The Settlement Plans represent appropriate massing which provides transitions to the surrounding high and mid-rise developments and will limit shadow impacts on the nearby City-owned Berczy Park. The Settlement Proposal also includes enhancements to the public realm by providing a safe and inviting environment for residents and other users and visitors to the neighbourhood.

20Ms. Shepherd reviewed Chapter 3 of the OP in detail and opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms with Chapter 3 and helps achieve the City’s goals for the public realm by providing an active street edge and a POPS. The landscape design, setbacks, and active ground floor uses will promote active transportation and walkability, while facilitating spaces that meet the needs of the community. Collectively, the improvements to the public realm resulting from the redevelopment of the Subject Property will reinforce the character of the corridor by providing an attractive landscaped and pedestrian-oriented frontage.

21The Subject Property is located within the Financial District of the Downtown Secondary Plan (“DSP”) of the OP. Ms. Shepherd proffered that the Financial District is Canada's premiere business office centre and contains the largest and densest cluster of office workers in Canada. The Subject Property is also within a Mixed Use Growth Area, which is anticipated to accommodate the majority of growth and is located within walking distance of Union Station. Ms. Shepherd reviewed the policies within the DSP and proffered that the Settlement Proposal will replace the hotel use, create an active street edge, provide a diverse range of housing, including larger units to support growth and include a significant proportion of non-residential floor area, thereby conforming to the policies of the DSP.

22Ms. Shepherd reviewed the Downtown Tall Buildings Setback Area policies contained within Site Area Specific Policy 517, which are intended to ensure tall buildings are developed with appropriate setbacks from the lot lines to the tower portion of the building to achieve appropriate separation distances between towers. She opined that the Settlement Proposal provides appropriate setbacks and conforms to the policies.

23The City has adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 524 (“OPA 524”), which is currently awaiting approval by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, that identifies Major Transit Station Areas (“MTSA”). Ms. Shepherd advised that the Subject Property is located within the proposed King Protected MTSA (“King PMTSA”) which includes the King Subway Station and Union Station. The King PMTSA policies set out that existing and new developments within the King PMTSA are planned for a minimum population and employment target of 2,000 residents and jobs combined per hectare and establishes minimum density provisions. The King PMTSA requires a minimum density of 3.0 Floor Space Index (“FSI”) and Ms. Shepherd opined that the Settlement Proposal conforms with draft OPA 524 as it is intensifying a site that is within an MTSA proposing an FSI of 13.8.

24Ms. Shepherd proffered that an amendment to the City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 is required to implement the Settlement Proposal and a draft ZBA was included in Tribunal Exhibit 1. The draft ZBA will allow for increased building height, increased building density, reduced setbacks and step-backs, and reduced parking and amenity space. Ms. Shepherd opined that the draft ZBA will bring the zoning of the Subject Property into conformity with the broader policy framework for the lands in the DSP and lands within the proposed MTSA.

25Ms. Shepherd advised the Tribunal that her consideration of the Settlement Proposal included a review of the City Downtown Tall Building Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines (the “TBG”), the City Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Community Guidelines (the “GUG”) and the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Focused Area Urban Design Guidelines (the “SLNG”). Ms. Shepherd opined that the Settlement Proposal meets the intent of the TBG by proportionately massing and placing the development in a way that does not negatively impact Berczy Park or any other significant landmarks or heritage assets. With respect to the GUG, Ms. Shepherd opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the GUG by providing a mix of unit sizes, the provision of indoor and outdoor amenity spaces and a lobby feature to encourage interaction among residents. Ms. Shepherd opined that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the SLNG in terms of built form, land use and public realm/street frontage and will complement the unique heritage character of the area while maintaining an environment that is appropriate for pedestrians.

26Ms. Shepherd concluded by opining that the Settlement Proposal represents good planning. She recommended that the Tribunal allow the appeal and approve the draft OPA and draft ZBA in principle and withhold issuance of the Final Order subject to the conditions requested by the City, as set out in the Settlement Proposal.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

27The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted testimony and affidavit evidence of Ms. Shepherd.

28The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal represents an appropriate intensification of an underutilized site well served with municipal infrastructure, including public transit, that is in an area identified for growth.

29The Settlement Proposal has regard for those matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act and will support the orderly development of safe and healthy communities, will provide a range of housing, is an appropriate location for growth, promotes development that is designed to support public transit and pedestrians, be sustainable, and is well designed.

30The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal is consistent with the PPS as it will result in efficient development, will accommodate a range of housing types, densities and mix of land use that efficiently uses resources, infrastructure and services, is transit-supportive and promotes active transportation. The Settlement Proposal promotes long-term economic prosperity with a mix of uses, including the replacement of the hotel use.

31In consideration of the Growth Plan, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan as it will support the achievement of the density targets, represents intensification within a built-up urban area, and is an efficient use of the land. The Settlement Proposal will contribute to the creation of a complete community with a mix of residential and non-residential uses, including a hotel use.

32The Tribunal, in consideration of the OP, the DSP, the anticipated approval of the MTSA and the supporting TBG, GUG, and SLNG, is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal conforms with the OP. The Settlement Proposal supports the policy framework of the OP, the DSP, and the applicable guidelines for structuring and focusing growth in areas that are well-served by infrastructure, including transit, locating and massing new buildings to provide transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, providing high-quality built form and building design, improving the public realm and pedestrian conditions, and contributing to the achievement of a complete community.

33The Tribunal finds that the OPA is consistent with the intent and purpose promoted within the OP and the DSP.

34The ZBA will provide for the development of the Subject Property that conforms with the OP and the emerging development within the area surrounding the Subject Property.

35The Tribunal is satisfied that the OPA and ZBA required to facilitate the development of the Subject Property in accordance with the Settlement Plans represents good planning and is in the public interest.

36The Tribunal allows the appeals and approves the OPA and ZBA in principle, in accordance with the Settlement Proposal, the Settlement Plans and the draft instruments included in Tribunal Exhibit 1. The Tribunal withholds issuance of its Final Order, subject to the City providing confirmation that the conditions requested have been satisfied and the Tribunal has been provided with the final form of the OPA and ZBA for approval.

INTERIM ORDER

37THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 38 below and that the Official Plan Amendment, set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, and the Zoning By-law Amendment, set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

38The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order contingent upon the receipt and approval of the Official Plan Amendment in its final form, the receipt and approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment in its final form, and confirmation from the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters:

a. The final form of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment submitted to the Tribunal for approval are in a form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;

b. A revised Traffic Impact Study has been submitted to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services;

c. A revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report has been submitted to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; and,

d. The Owner of the development lands has financially and legally secured any improvements to the municipal infrastructure in connection with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, should it be determined by the report that improvements to such infrastructure are required to support the development, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.

39If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that the contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 38 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Friday, March 29, 2024, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and request for issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal. In the event the Tribunal fails to receive the required status report and/or in the event that the contingent pre-requisites are not satisfied by the date indicated above, or by such other deadline as the Tribunal may impose, the Tribunal may then dismiss the Appeal.

40The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

41The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instrument and the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order.

“David Brown”

DAVID BROWN

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. XXX-2023

To adopt Amendment No. XXX to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto with respect to lands municipally as 45 The Esplanade

WHEREAS authority is given to Council under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended to pass this By-law; and

WHEREAS Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The attached Amendment No. XX to the Official Plan is hereby adopted pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.

ENACTED AND PASSED this

day of ~

, A.D. 20~

Speaker

City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

2

City of Toronto By-law No. XXX-2023

AMENDMENT NO. XX

TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF TORONTO

LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2023 AS 45 THE ESPLANADE

The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is amended as follows:

1. Chapter 7, Site and Area Specific Policies, is amended by adding the following Site and Area Specific Policy XX for the lands municipally known in 2023 as 45 The Esplanade, as follows and shown on the Key Plan below:

XX. Lands municipally known in the year 2021 as 45 The Esplanade

1. A tall mixed-use development with a tower of 39 storeys in height (exclusive of mechanical penthouse) is permitted.

2. A minimum of 7,500 square metres of gross floor area shall be provided to uses other than residential use.

KEY PLAN

ATTACHMENT 2

CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW XXXX-2023

To amend the Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2023 as 45 The Esplanade

Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has the authority to pass this By-law pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended; and

Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act; and

The Council of the City of Toronto enacts:

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 redesignate the zone label of the lands subject to this By-law to: CR 13.5 (c2.1; r11.5) SS1 (x ###) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.

4. Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the Height Overlay Map in Section 995.20.1 and redesignate the height label of the lands subject to this By-law to:

• HT 125.0, as shown on Diagram 3, attached to, and forming part of this By-law.

5. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article 900.11.10 Exception Number (x####) so that it reads:

(xxx) Exception CR ####

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 the lands municipally known as 45 The Esplanade, if the requirements of Section (-) and Schedule (-) of By-law [Clerks to supply by-law ##] are complied with, a building, structure, addition or enlargement may be constructed and used in compliance with (B) to (K) below;

(B) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(1) and 40.5.40.10 (2), the height of a building or structure is measured from the Canadian Geodetic Datum elevation of 76.95 metres, and also must not exceed 39 storeys;

(C) Despite (J) above and Regulations 40.5.40.10(3), (4), (5), and (8), the following building elements, structures, or equipment are permitted to project above the permitted maximum heights as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to supply by-law ##] as follows:

(i) the specific structures as listed under Regulation 40.5.40.10 (3) shall be permitted to exceed the maximum height for that building by 6.0 metres.

(ii) the elements for functional operation of a building as listed under Regulation

40.5.40.10 (4) shall be permitted to exceed the maximum height for that

building by 6.0 metres;

(iii) the elements for functional operation of a building as listed under Regulation

40.5.40.10 (4) shall cover no more than 40% of the area of the roof, measured horizontally.

(D) The maximum number of dwelling units is 730;

(E) Regulation 40.10.20.100(17) with respect to specific use conditions for retail service do not apply;

(F) Regulations 40.10.20.100(33) and Section 150.100, with respect to specific use conditions for eating establishments do not apply;

(G) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.50(1), a minimum of 3.0 square metres of amenity space for each dwelling unit must be provided, of which:

(i) at least 1.5 square metres for each dwelling unit is indoor amenity space;

(ii) at least 1.0 square metres for each dwelling unit is outdoor amenity space in a location adjoining or directly accessible to the indoor amenity space;

(H) Regulation 40.10.40.50(2) does not apply;

(I) Despite Regulation 40.5.40.60 and Regulation 40.10.40.60, the following elements of a building or structure are permitted to encroach into the required building setbacks, as shown on Diagram 4 of By-law [Clerks to supply by-law ##]:

(i) architectural features, cornices, canopies, eaves, awnings, skylights, ornamental elements, trellises, lighting fixtures, window sills, screens, fences, landscape elements, retaining walls, ramps to an underground garage, stairways, railings, architectural fins, and public art features to a maximum of 2 metres;

(ii) parapets, window washing equipment including Building Maintenance Unit (BMU), damper equipment to reduce building movement, architectural flutes, pillars, open air recreation structures or equipment shall have no maximum encroachment;

(J) Despite Regulations 40.10.40.70(1) and 40.10.40.80(1), the required minimum building setbacks and separations distances shall be provided according to Diagram 4 of this By-law. [Clerks to supply by-law ##];

(K) Despite Regulation 200.5.1.10(2), a maximum of ten (10) percent [one space is currently provided] of all parking spaces provided may have a minimum width of 2.4 metres [estimate], despite being obstructed pursuant to Regulation 200.5.1.10(2)(D);

(L) Despite Regulations 200.5.1.10(14), a minimum of 20% of all parking spaces provided shall be quipped with an energized outlet capable of providing Level 2 charging or higher to the parking space;

(M) Despite Clause 220.5.10.1, one (1) Type "B", one (1) Type “C”, and one (1) Type “G” loading spaces must be provided and maintained on the lot;

(N) Despite Regulations 230.5.1.10(10) and Clause 230.40.1.20, “short-term” bicycle parking spaces may be:

i. located in a stacked bicycle parking space;

ii. located, outdoors, indoors, or in an enclosed room or enclosure, and located on any floor of a building;

iii. more than 30 metres from a pedestrian entrance to the building.

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.

Enacted and passed on , 2021

Speaker City Clerk

(Seal of the City)