Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: August 23, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002588

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

Applicant/Appellant: Portland Corp., 1 Niagara Street Limited Partnership, 2779317 Ontario Inc., all c/o the Density Group Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a 23-storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 21 232793 STE 10 OZ Property Address: 18 Portland Street and 1-9 Niagara Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-002588 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-002588 OLT Case Name: Density Group Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Appellant: Portland Corp., 1 Niagara Street Limited Partnership, 2779317 Ontario Inc., all c/o the Density Group Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit the development of a 23-storey mixed-use building Reference Number: 22-151499 STE 10 OZ Property Address: 18 Portland Street and 1& 9 Niagara Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-004622 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-004622 OLT Case Name: Density Group Limited v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 69(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended

Appellant: Portland Corp., 1 Niagara Street Limited Partnership, 2779317 Ontario Inc., all c/o the Density Group Limited Subject: Protest the levying of fees in relation to an application for an official plan amendment Description: Payment of Fee under Protest Reference Number: 22-151499 STE 10 OZ Property Address: 18 Portland Street and 1-9 Niagara Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-22-003968 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-22-003968 OLT Case Name: Density Group Limited v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.19

Applicant/Appellant: Portland Corp. Subject: Demolition Permit Description: Application to demolish 18 Portland Street to permit the development of a mixed-use 23-storey building Reference Number: 220028 Property Address: 18 Portland Street Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No: OLT-23-000132 OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000132 OLT Case Name: Portland Corp. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: August 2, 2023, by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel / Representative*
Density Group Limited	Mark Flowers Michael Cook
City of Toronto	Daniel Elmadany
Wellington Place Neighbourhood Association	Marina Vrzalkovski* Andrew King*

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY C. HARDY ON AUGUST 2, 2023 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1Density Group Limited (“Appellant”) applied to the City of Toronto (“City”) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”), Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) for the properties located at 18 Portland Street and 1 and 9 Niagara Street in the City (“Subject Property”). The City failed to render a decision within statutory timelines respecting the Applications and the Appellant appealed to this Tribunal pursuant to s. 22(7), s. 34(11) and s. 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Planning Act”). The Appellant has subsequently withdrawn the DPS appeal under s. 51(34).

2The Appellant paid a fee of $60,511.35 under protest in conjunction with the OPA application and subsequently filed an appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to s. 69(3) of the Planning Act objecting to the levying of the fee. It was directed by the Tribunal that the s. 22(7), s. 34(11) and s. 69(3) appeals be heard together.

3The Appellant filed a further appeal against the City’s designation of 18 Portland Street under s. 34.1(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18 (“OHA”). At a third Case Management Conference before a Panel differently constituted, the Tribunal granted a Motion in part to hear the OHA appeal together with the s. 22(7), s. 34(11) and s. 69(3) appeals.

4The appeals were originally scheduled for a 10-day merit hearing commencing on Monday, July 24, 2023. Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Parties notified the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement and requested that the hearing be converted to a one-day settlement hearing on Wednesday, August 2, 2023.

5At the commencement of the settlement hearing, the Appellant confirmed that the settlement before the Tribunal relates solely to the OPA, ZBA and OHA appeals. The Parties have reached a settlement in principle of the protest of fees appeal and anticipate withdrawing this appeal in the coming weeks.

SITE CONTEXT

6The Subject Property is comprised of three properties located on the southwest corner of Portland Street and Niagara Street. The total lot area is 1,329.50 square metres (“m²”) with frontage onto Portland Street of approximately 32.86 metres (“m”). The Subject Property is currently occupied with the following:

a) 18 Portland Street contains a vacant one-storey former utility building;

b) 1 Niagara Street contains a four-storey office building; and

c) 9 Niagara Street contains a one-storey retail building.

7At the time of the original submission of the ZBA application, none of the buildings on the Subject Property were designated or listed under the City’s Heritage Register and were not located in a Heritage Conservation District. Subsequently, City Council enacted By-law No. 69-2023 which designated the property municipally known as 18 Portland Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the OHA for its cultural heritage value. The existing building on 18 Portland Street was formerly owned and operated by Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems Ltd. and was constructed in 1925 and designed by an in-house architect in Beaux-Arts tradition with Edwardian Classical influences.

8The Subject Property is in close proximity to amenities and services including but not limited to parks, higher order transit and retail services. To the north of the Subject Property is Niagara Street which is identified in the City of Toronto Official Plan (“City OP”) as a Local Road and further north is Victoria Memorial Square Park which is a Listed property on the City Heritage Register. Located to the east of the Subject Property is Portland Street which is identified in the City OP as a Local Road and further east is a currently under construction 15-storey office building with ground floor retail. Adjacent and wrapping around the Subject Property to the south and west is a 3.5-storey townhouse development.

9The Subject Property is identified within the Downtown and Central Waterfront in the City OP and further designated as a Regeneration Area and is located within the King-Spadina Area. The Downtown Plan (“OPA 406”) designates the Subject Property as Mixed Use Area 2 – Intermediate and of significance, identifies Victoria Memorial Square Park to the north as a Sun Protected Park and Open Space. The King-Spadina Secondary Plan (“KSSP”) sets out policies to inform development in the area and is applicable to the Subject Property. OPA 486 is an update to the KSSP which has been appealed to this Tribunal. The Subject Property is located in the west precinct of OPA 486 which limits heights to a maximum of 50 m. The City of Toronto Harmonized Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 zones the Subject Property as Commercial Residential Employment (CRE(x1)) which permits a wide range of land uses.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

10The proposal seeks to redevelop the Subject Property with an 18-storey mixed-use building which is 60 m in height with two levels of underground parking (“Proposed Development”).

11During construction of the Proposed Development, the existing heritage building will be demolished and relocated off site. The front façade and portions of the side façades of the existing heritage building will be reassembled and integrated into the proposed mixed-use building.

12The Proposed Development imposes modifications responding to comments from and discussions with City staff, public meetings and commenting authorities. The modifications between the original proposal and the Proposed Development currently before the Tribunal are set out in the following chart:

	Original Proposal (November 2021)	Settlement Plans (May 2023)
Proposed Gross Floor Area (GFA)	+/- 17,099.9 m² (184,062 ft²)	+/- 15,039.3 m² (161,882 ft²)
Proposed Residential GFA	+/- 14,459.9 m² (155,645 ft²)	+/- 12,258.56 m² (131,950 ft²)
Proposed Commercial GFA	+/- 2,640 m² (28,416 ft²)	+/- 2,780.75 m² (29,931 ft²)
Proposed FSI	13.95	11.35
Proposed Residential Units	182	168
One-Bedroom Units	67 (37%)	94 (56%)
Two-Bedroom Units	97 (53%)	55 (33%)
Three-Bedroom Units	18 (10%)	19 (11%)
Proposed Building Height	23 storeys (+/- 75.20 m, excluding parts of MPH and elevator over-run which projects an additional 2.95 m)	18 storeys (+/- 60 m, with parts of elevator machine room and over run and stair pop-up which projects an additional 3.15 m)
Proposed Amenity Space	781.31 m² (8,409 ft²)	434.18 m² (4,673 ft²)
Indoor Amenity Space	416.1 m² (4,478 ft²)(2.28 m²/unit)	336.4 m² (3,621 ft²)(2.0 m²/unit)
Outdoor Amenity Space	365.26 m² (3,931 ft²)(2.0 m²/unit)	97.77 m² (1,052 ft²)(0.58 m²/unit)
Proposed Vehicular Parking Spaces	54 (0.29 spaces/unit)	52 (0.30 spaces/unit)
Proposed Bicycle Parking Spaces	198 (1.08 spaces/unit)	204 (1.21 spaces/unit)

13Briefly summarized, the proposed OPA attached as Schedule “A” to this Decision permits the temporary relocation of the existing heritage building by disassembly from the Subject Property to a secure location off-site and reassembly and integration into the new development, in accordance with the conditions set out in paragraph 45 below.

14The proposed ZBA attached as Schedule “B” to this Decision will amend the zone label for the Subject Property from Commercial Residential Employment “CRE(x1)” with a site-specific exception in the CRE Zone to permit the Proposed Development, including modifications to height, setbacks, outdoor amenity space, loading spaces, and drive aisle widths.

15The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal allow the OPA and ZBA in part and approve the Proposed Development in principle and withhold the Final Order pending satisfaction of conditions set out in paragraph 44 of the Interim Order below. The Parties further requested that subject to allowing the OPA and ZBA in part, the Tribunal direct the City to consent to the demolition of the existing building on 18 Portland Street subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 45 of the Interim Order below.

16The Parties agreed that the City Solicitor will notify the Tribunal within nine months of issuance of this Decision, that the Conditions listed in paragraph 44 of the Interim Order below have been satisfied and will request a Final Order, or in the alternative, will provide the Tribunal with a status update.

HEARING

17As evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal received the following exhibits, which were identified sequentially during the hearing:

a) Exhibit 1: Affidavit of David McKay

b) Exhibit 2: Affidavit of Dan Currie

c) Exhibit 3: Revised Draft Official Plan Amendment

18On consent of the Parties, David McKay, a Registered Professional Planner, whom the Tribunal qualified to provide land use planning opinion evidence, provided an affidavit and delivered a comprehensive contextual and planning rationale in support of the Proposed Development. He opined that the OPA and ZBA which will facilitate the Proposed Development, satisfy all requisite legislative tests and overall are representative of good planning and urban design and are in the public interest.

19On consent of the Parties, Dan Currie, a Registered Professional Planner and Member of the Canadian Association of Heritage Professionals, whom the Tribunal qualified to provide cultural heritage planning opinion evidence, provided an affidavit and delivered a comprehensive heritage rationale in support of the Proposed Development. He opined that the conditions set out in paragraph 45 of the Order below are appropriate and will ensure that the portions of the existing building to be integrated into the Proposed Development will be protected during construction and reconstruction and restored for the long term.

20The City and the WPNA support the proposed settlement and did not call evidence at the settlement hearing.

EVIDENCE

Heritage

21Mr. Currie was retained to provide cultural heritage planning services to the Appellant with respect to the ZBA application relating to the original proposal. As part of his services, Mr. Currie completed a Heritage Impact Assessment (“HIA”) in support of the original proposal for the purpose of assessing impacts of development on the heritage building and assessing impacts of development on adjoining properties with identified cultural heritage value. He concluded, among other things, that the original proposal would have minor impacts on the existing heritage building and would not have any negative impacts on the heritage attributes of adjacent properties.

22In his oral testimony, Mr. Currie opined that his conclusions in the HIA remain unchanged with respect to the Proposed Development arising out of the settlement that is before the Tribunal. He noted that the proposed 18-storey building appropriately incorporates setbacks and a design that allows prominence of the heritage building enabling it to be understood in its original form resulting in appropriate reconstruction and restoration of the heritage value and attributes.

The [Planning Act](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-p13/latest/rso-1990-c-p13.html)

23In his written affidavit, Mr. McKay opined that the Proposed Development has appropriate regard for relevant matters of provincial interest. In particular, the Proposed Development is in keeping with the provincial interest of preserving existing heritage resources through the demolition and reintegration of the heritage building. Mr. McKay also noted that the Proposed Development aligns with provincial interests through the optimization of the use of existing transportation infrastructure, the provision of orderly development of safe and healthy communities and the provision of an appropriate level of intensification.

PPS

24It is Mr. McKay’s opinion that the Proposed Development is consistent with the PPS. The PPS promotes development patterns that support diverse, healthy, and liveable communities by encouraging intensification at appropriate locations, to accommodate growth and promote opportunities for transit-supportive development.

25Mr. McKay opined that the Proposed Development is an efficient use of land and infrastructure that offers a range of housing options, optimizes transit investments, and encourages a sense of place by conserving features that help define local character.

Growth Plan

26Mr. McKay opined that the Proposed Development conforms with the Growth Plan and in particular, the guiding principles in Section 1.2.1. He noted that the OPA and ZBA that will facilitate the Proposed Development will better connect transit to where people live, prioritize intensification and higher densities in a strategic growth area, support a range and mix of housing options and conserve cultural heritage resources.

27Mr. McKay opined that the Proposed Development conforms to the relevant policies of the Growth Plan and will not cause any environmental or public health and safety concerns.

City OP

28It is Mr. McKay’s opinion that the Proposed Development conforms with the City OP. Section 3.1.1 of the City OP acknowledges the importance of the public realm and quality urban design and the KSSP and Downtown Plan both promote quality urban design and ensure sidewalks are designed to provide safe and comfortable spaces for pedestrians which is supportive of complete communities.

29The Subject Property is located in a Regeneration Area and Mr. McKay opined that in the King-Spadina area the Regeneration Area designation provides opportunity to integrate a mix of residential and commercial uses into the area through retention or adaptive re-use of older buildings. The Proposed Development provides additional services and new homes to increase the range of housing types to the area, which Mr. McKay opines is in keeping with the Regeneration Areas designation of the Subject Property and the housing objectives of the City OP.

30In his written affidavit, Mr. McKay noted that s. 4 of the Downtown Plan states that growth is encouraged within the Downtown and in particular on land designated Mixed Use Areas 2, among others with the highest density of development directed to Mixed Use Areas in proximity to existing or planned transit stations. The Proposed Development addresses these policies with the provision of compatible built form including appropriate building heights, massing and scale which allows integration into the existing and proposed context of this Downtown area.

31In his written affidavit, Mr. McKay notes that while the 60 m building height of the Proposed Development slightly exceeds the 50 m height in the under appeal OPA 486, it is in keeping with heights of the KSSP. In Mr. McKay’s opinion, the height is appropriate for this location and the design measures have adequately limited shadows and wind impacts while maintaining access to sunlight and sky views.

32In his oral testimony, Mr. McKay noted that some of the modifications to the original proposal will provide the heritage building with more visibility and the “cutouts” to the second floor and stepping back of the Proposed Development will provide relief to the heritage building and give it more prominent massing. Mr. McKay opined that one key feature of the Proposed Development is the stepbacks at the 17th and 18th floors which adequately limit the shadow cast on Victoria Memorial Square Park and remove the shadow from the monument located in the park, both of which were concerns raised by the City and WPNA with the original proposal. Mr. McKay testified that the shadows created by the Proposed Development will be the same as those that would be created by a 50 m building, which is permitted on the Subject Property.

33Mr. McKay submitted in his written affidavit that the Proposed Development promotes a sustainable community and is supportive of healthy and active communities. The Proposed Development provides various low impact development measures such as a green roof and a minimal parking standard thereby strengthening the existing and proposed transit network.

34In his written affidavit, Mr. Currie explained that the dismantling, storage off-site and reconstruction of the heritage building is considered “demolition” as defined in the City OP. In his opinion, the manner in which the heritage building will be incorporated into the Proposed Development will result in appropriate reconstruction and restoration and provide prominence to the former heritage building.

Summary

35Mr. McKay opined that the Proposed Development provides an appropriate level of transit-supportive intensification which assists the City in achieving its density targets. It is Mr. McKay’s opinion that both the conditions relating to the OPA and ZBA and the conditions relating to the heritage building are reasonable and appropriate.

36Mr. McKay recommended that the Tribunal allow the appeals in part and approve the OPA and ZBA in principle and withhold its Final Order until receipt of confirmation from the City Solicitor that the conditions set out in paragraph 44 below have been met. It is Mr. McKay’s opinion that the proposed conditions are reasonable and appropriate.

37Mr. Currie opined that the proposed conditions set out in paragraph 45 below are appropriate and will ensure that the portions of the heritage building that will be integrated into the Proposed Development are retained, protected during construction and reconstruction and restored for the long term.

ANALYSIS AND DISPOSITION

38Based on the uncontested opinion evidence provided by Mr. McKay and Mr. Currie, the Tribunal finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA are consistent with the PPS and conform with the Growth Plan and are appropriate to implement Municipal and Provincial policy directions. The Tribunal further finds that the proposed conditions will ensure the protection and restoration of the heritage building during and after construction.

39The Tribunal has had regard for applicable policies and guidelines and matters of provincial interest in s. 2 of the Planning Act. In addition, the Tribunal considered the information and materials that the City received in relation to the matter. The Tribunal finds that the proposed OPA and ZBA constitute good land use planning.

40In determining the matter, the Tribunal accepts and adopts the uncontested land use planning and cultural heritage planning evidence and expert opinions provided by Mr. McKay and Mr. Smith. The Tribunal is persuaded by the evidence that the Proposed Development prioritizes intensification in an appropriate location given its proximity to transit services and a variety of amenities and services. The revisions made to the original proposal are generally consistent with the policies of KSSP / OPA 486 relating to height.

41The Tribunal finds that the stepbacks at the top floors of the Proposed Development which result in a shadow impact akin to that of a 50 m building are an example of good and appropriate urban design modifications to the original proposal. The Parties worked together to incorporate quality urban design modifications which address shadow and heritage concerns and result in a development that provides a range and mix of housing and appropriate density in a compatible built form.

42The Tribunal finds that the conditions are reasonable and appropriate and accepts the opinions of Mr. McKay and Mr. Currie in this regard.

ORDER

43THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph 44 below, and the proposed Official Plan Amendment substantially in accordance with that set out in the attached Schedule “A” and the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment generally in accordance with the plans and drawings set out in Tab Q of Exhibit 1 and in the form set out in the attached Schedule “B” to this Interim Order are hereby approved in principle.

44The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order contingent upon satisfactory fulfillment of the following pre-requisite matters.

a) The Official Plan Amendment be finalized in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.

b) The Zoning By-law Amendment be finalized in a form and content satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor.

c) The owner has completed the requirements under paragraph 45(a) below, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, where applicable.

d) The owner has, at its sole cost and expense:

i. Submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report or addendums (“Engineering Reports”), to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;

ii. Secured the design and provision of 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. Ensured the implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed amending By-laws or any such required changes have been made to the proposed amending By-laws, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding (“H”) By-law symbol regarding any new or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure as may be required;

iv. Submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study or addendum, including streetscape and curb extension provisions, acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and that such matters arising from such study, be secured if required; and

v. Submitted a revised Arborist Report or addendum, Landscape Plan (with a public utility plan underlay in an updated soil volume plan) and Tree Protection Plan acceptable and satisfactory to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation;

e) If the required upgrade and/or improvements to municipal infrastructure to Portland Street being constructed by the City are not in place at the time of requesting any final Order of the Tribunal, instead of Paragraph 44(d) above, a Holding (“H”) By-law Symbol shall be imposed on the Zoning By-law Amendment to be lifted generally as follows:

i. The owner has demonstrated that the required upgrades to the existing watermain system located on Portland Street (the upgrade of the existing 150 millimetre watermain fronting the site on Portland Street) is constructed and operational to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water;

ii. The owner submitted a Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports, including confirmation of water and fire flow, sanitary and stormwater capacity, acceptable to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

iii. If there are any additional upgrades and/or improvements, the execution of a financially secured agreement between the owner of the lands and the City, securing the financing and construction of any improvements that may be required to the City’s sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water supply systems to accommodate the proposed development; and

iv. The receipt of all necessary approvals for the infrastructure required, as described above.

45Subject to the Order above respecting the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, the City of Toronto be directed to consent to the demolition of the building on the designated heritage property at 18 Portland Street in accordance with Section 34.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act, subject to the following conditions:

a) Prior to the issuance of the Final Order of the Tribunal, the owner shall, at its sole cost and expense:

i. Provide a detailed Panelization Plan, including how these building components will be dismantled, protected and stored during construction, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant and engineer, with such Plan being satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

ii. Provide a Reconstruction and Restoration Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, with such Plan(s) being satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and

iii. Enter into, and register on title to the lands municipally known as 18 Portland Street and, if required, 1-9 Niagara Street, a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act, satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and the City Solicitor;

b) Prior to the final Site Plan Approval in connection with the ZBA for 18 Portland Street and 1-9 Niagara Street, the owner shall, at its sole cost and expense:

i. Provide final Site Plan drawings substantially in accordance with the approved Reconstruction and Restoration Plan required above, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and

ii. Provide an Interpretation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

c) Prior to the issuance of any permit for all or any part of the property at 18 Portland Street and 1-9 Niagara Street, including a heritage permit or a building permit, but excluding permits for interior alterations, repairs and maintenance and usual and minor works for the existing building(s) on the site as are acceptable to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, or the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, as applicable, the owner shall, at its sole cost and expense:

i. Provide building permit drawings, including notes and specifications for the panelization, reconstruction and protective measures keyed to the approved Panelization Plan and approved Reconstruction and Restoration Plan required above, including a description of materials and finishes, to be prepared by the project architect and a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning;

ii. Provide a Letter of Credit(s), including provisions for upwards indexing, in a form and amount and from a bank satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, to secure all work included in the approved Panelization Plan; the approved Reconstruction and Restoration Plan; and the approved Interpretation Plan;

d) Prior to the release of one or more of the Letters of Credit required above, the owner shall:

i. Provide a letter of substantial completion prepared and signed by a qualified heritage consultant confirming that the required works have been completed in accordance with the Panelization Plan, Reconstruction and Restoration Plan and Interpretation Plan, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and

ii. Provide replacement Heritage Easement Agreement photographs to confirm works have been completed in the approved Plans to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.

46The Tribunal 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.

47If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 44 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order within nine months of the date of issuance of this Interim Order, the Parties 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 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 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.

48The 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 instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

49The Tribunal may be spoken to should any issues arise with respect to the implementation of this Order.

“C. Hardy”

C. HARDY 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.

SCHEDULE “A”

Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [DATE] in Tribunal File OLT-22-004622

CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW XXXX-2023 (OLT)

To approve Amendment XXX to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2022 as 18 Portland Street and 1 and 9 Niagara Street.

Whereas the Owner of the lands known municipally in the year 2022 as 18 Portland Street and 1 and 9 Niagara Street appealed a proposed official plan amendment to the Ontario Land Tribunal pursuant to Section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended; and

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, by its Decision and Order issued effective on [DATE], 2023 in Tribunal File OLT-22-004622, approved amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto with respect to the lands known municipally in the year 2022 as 18 Portland Street and 1 and 9 Niagara Street;

The Ontario Land Tribunal Orders:

1. The attached Amendment XXX to the Official Plan is hereby in force pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended.

Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Order effective on [DATE] in Tribunal File OLT-22-004622.

AMENDMENT XXX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2022 AS 18 PORTLAND STREET AND 1 AND 9 NIAGARA STREET

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

1. Chapter 7, Site and Area Specific Policies is amended by adding Site and Area Specific Policy XXX for the lands known municipally in the year 2022 as 18 Portland Street and 1 and 9 Niagara Street:

"XXX. 18 Portland Street and 1 and 9 Niagara Street

a) The existing building subject of Designation By-law 69-2023 located at 18 Portland Street may be temporarily relocated to a location off-site to be reconstructed and restored prior to a portion of the building being returned to be incorporated into a new mixed-use development on the site.

b) The portion of the former heritage building shall be incorporated into the new development on site in accordance with the conditions of the consent to demolish issued for the building in accordance with Section 34.1 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

c) Chapter 7, Map 29, Site and Area Specific Policies, is amended to add the lands known municipally in the year 2022 as 18 Portland Street and 1 and 9 Niagara Street, shown on the map above as Site and Area Specific Policy XXX”

SCHEDULE “B”