1161 Kingston Road GP Inc. v. Toronto (City), 2023 CanLII 85327

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: September 12, 2023

CASE NO(S).: OLT-22-002182

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(12) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant/Appellant: 1161 Kingston Road GP Inc.

Subject: Minor Variance

Description: To permit an eight-storey, 57-unit mixed-use building

Reference Number: A0276/21SC

Property Address: 1161 Kingston Road

Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-22-002182

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-22-002182

OLT Case Name: 1161 Kingston Road GP Inc. v. Toronto (City.)

Heard: August 4, 2023 in writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

1161 Kingston Road GP Inc.

Matthew Lakatos-Hayward

City of Toronto

Sara Amini

Bernadette Crowe

Ian Flett

DECISION DELIVERED BY C.I. Molinari and DAVID BROWN AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Final Order

1This matter is regarding a Final Order of the Tribunal related to a settlement (“Settlement Proposal”) between the 1161 Kingston Road GP Inc. (“Appellant”) and the City of Toronto (“City”) for an appeal from an Application for Minor Variance (“MVA”), filed pursuant to s. 45(12) of the Planning Act (“Act”), affecting the lands known municipally as 1161 Kingston Road (“Subject Lands”), located at the south-east corner of Kingston Road and Courcelette Road.

2The Settlement Hearing for both the MVA and a related Site Plan Application (“SPA”) was convened on December 12, 2022. At the Settlement Hearing, the Tribunal approved, in principle, the MVA and the SPA, both subject to conditions and based on Drawings A100 and A201 of the revised plans prepared by RAW Architects and Design, dated September 13, 2022, and Drawings L2.0 and L3.0 prepared by thinc design, dated September 12, 2022 (“Plans”). The conditions of approval for the MVA were provided in Attachment 1 to the Decision and Interim Order issued on February 09, 2023 (“Settlement Decision”), with the Final Order being withheld until such time as the Parties provide the Tribunal with a final list of the requested variances, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner of the City. The conditions of approval for the SPA were provided in Attachment 2 to the Settlement Decision, with the Final Order being withheld until such time as the Parties provide written confirmation to the Tribunal that the conditions have been satisfied.

3This Decision and Final Order is with respect to the MVA only, with the Decision and Final Order for the SPA to be issued separately.

4In paragraph [97] of the Settlement Decision, the Tribunal directed that it would:

…withhold its final order in respect of the MVA appeal until the Appellant and City provide confirmation of the variances required. Should the final list include relief that, in the opinion of the Tribunal, is significantly or substantially different than those variances considered in this decision, the Tribunal may request additional submissions to support the variances identified as referenced above.

5The Tribunal has since been advised that the City has provided such confirmation of the required variances for the Plans as presented to the Tribunal at the Settlement Hearing, and that there are differences in the required variances from those identified before the Tribunal, as well as some additional variances that were not brought before the Tribunal at the Settlement Hearing, notwithstanding that the Plans have not changed.

6In the Settlement Decision, in anticipation of the potential for such differences to the variances or additional variances, the Tribunal contemplated the need for supplementary evidence from the Appellant in support of any further variances that may be identified. In this respect, the Tribunal is in receipt of a supplementary Affidavit of Ryan Doherty (“Affidavit”), qualified by the Tribunal at the Settlement Hearing to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of Land Use Planning. The Affidavit was affirmed on June 22, 2023, and includes the Zoning Notice issued by the City’s Building Department (“Toronto Building”), dated April 28, 2023 (“Zoning Notice”), and a revised list of variances.

7Mr. Lakatos-Hayward, Counsel to the Appellant, has confirmed that the City and Mr. Flett, Counsel to Ms. Crowe, have reviewed the material and consent to the Affidavit.

8The Tribunal has marked the Affidavit as Exhibit 5. The Tribunal is also in receipt of a draft Order, marked as Exhibit 6.

MINOR VARIANCES

9The Zoning Notice identifies a total of 18 areas of non-compliance of the Plans with Zoning By-law 8786 (“ZBL”).

10The Tribunal notes that the additional variances (related to bicycle parking spaces, indoor and outdoor amenity space, and a landscape strip abutting certain residential zones) were identified by Mr. Doherty at the Settlement Hearing as potential additional variances and documented by the Tribunal in the Settlement Decision. These additional variances closely align with the additional variances identified by the City. Although there are 18 variances identified in the Affidavit and 17 identified in the Zoning Notice, they are substantially the same, with some variances combined together in the Affidavit and others combined together in the Zoning Notice.

11In this respect, Mr. Doherty has addressed the differences and the additional non-conformities identified by Toronto Building in his Affidavit. The additional required variances include the following, as aligned with the variance numbers listed in the Settlement Decision:

Variance #15 – Performance Standard 205, Zoning By-law No. 8786 (Affidavit Variance X1, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 1)

Required bicycle parking spaces may encroach into or obstruct a required vehicle parking space provided that the encroachment is no more than 0.6 metres (“m”) into the length of the required vehicle parking space.

Variance #16 – Performance Standard 301, Zoning By-law No. 8786 (Affidavit Variances X11 and X12, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 11)

The proposed building will have 104 square metres (“m²”) of indoor amenity space, with at least one amenity room containing a directly accessible kitchen, and a washroom accessible from the abutting corridor.

The proposed building will have 80.5 m² of outdoor amenity space.

Variance #17 – Performance Standard 298, Zoning By-law No. 8786 (Affidavit Variance X9, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 9)

The proposed building will provide a 1.0 m landscaping strip along the south lot line abutting the Two-Family Residential (T) Zone, and a 0.7 m landscaping strip along the east lot line abutting the Single-Family Residential (S) Zone.

12The variances that Mr. Doherty identified to have some minor alterations from the variances submitted at the Settlement Hearing, based on the interpretation of the ZBL by Toronto Building, include the following, as aligned with the variance numbers listed in the Settlement Decision:

Variance #1 - Performance Standard 284, Zoning By-law No. 8786 (Affidavit Variance X2, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 2)

Toronto Building identified a difference of 0.69 m in height from the variance submitted at the Settlement Hearing, resulting in the following required variance:

The proposed building height is 8 storeys, with an overall height of 27.1 m, excluding privacy screens, generators, ladders, green roof elements, chimneys, skylights, vents, antennae, elevator machine rooms, and parapet walls.

Variance #2 - Performance Standard 284, Zoning By-law No. 8786 (Affidavit Variance X3, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 3)

Toronto Building identified a difference of 0.05 times the area of the lot/parcel from the variance submitted at the Settlement Hearing, resulting in the following required variance:

The proposed gross floor area is 4.0 times the area of the lot.

Variance #5 - Performance Standard 293, Zoning By-law No. 8786 (Affidavit Variance X6, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 6)

Toronto Building identified an additional angular plane from the variance submitted at the Settlement Hearing, resulting in the following required variance:

The proposed building exceeds a 45-degree angular plane from the south lot line abutting the Two-Family Residential (T) Zone and the 45-degree angular plane from the east lot line abutting the Single-Family Residential (S) Zone.

Variance #9 – Clause VI (12)(2), Zoning By-law No. 8786

(Affidavit Variance X13, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 13)

Toronto Building revised the language from the variance submitted at the Settlement Hearing, resulting in the following required variance:

The proposed area for landscaping is 61 m², of which at least 56 m² will be soft landscaping.

Variance #12 – Clause VII (1)(4)(1), Zoning By-law No. 8786

(Affidavit Variance X16, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 16)

Toronto Building revised the language from the variance submitted at the Settlement Hearing, resulting in the following required variance:

Required vehicle parking spaces may be obstructed with a minimum length of 5.0 m, provided that the obstruction consists of a bicycle parking space and that the encroachment is no more than 0.6 m into the length of the required parking space.

13Remaining variances numbered 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 and 14, as aligned with the variance numbers listed in the Settlement Decision, are either substantially the same as the variances submitted at the Settlement Hearing or require no change.

PLANNING EVIDENCE

14In his Affidavit, Mr. Doherty opined that the revised variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, are minor in nature, and are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the lands.

15Further, in his Affidavit, Mr. Doherty opined that the changes to the variances are minor in nature and that the changes do not arise from any changes to the Settlement Proposal; rather, they arise from a different interpretation of the Settlement Proposal by Toronto Building. He submitted that, given the Settlement Proposal has already been reviewed by the Tribunal and approved in principle, the effect of these changes is simply to confirm the list of variances that Toronto Building would expect to see in an approval issued by the Tribunal.

16Mr. Doherty provided detail in his Affidavit regarding each minor variance, and his opinion on how they meet the four tests as set out in s. 45(1) of the Act, much of which the Tribunal heard during the Settlement Hearing. The additional variances identified by Toronto Building, being variances numbered 15, 16 and 17, as aligned with the variance numbers listed in the Settlement Decision, were also addressed by Mr. Doherty during the Settlement Hearing, and further addressed in his Affidavit, as summarized below.

Variance #15 – Performance Standard 205, Zoning By-law No. 8786

(Affidavit Variance X1, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 1)

17This variance is required to permit bicycle parking spaces to encroach into, or obstruct, a required vehicle parking space provided that the encroachment is no more than 0.6 m into the length of the required vehicle parking space.

18In his Affidavit, Mr. Doherty advised that this variance was captured in Variance #12 (Affidavit Variance X16 re Clause VII(1)(4)(1)) in his testimony at the Settlement Hearing; however, Toronto Building interpreted the ZBL in a manner whereby separate variances are required, one from Performance Standard 205 and one from Clause VII(1)(4)(1).

19As such, Variance #15 is required to permit the location of required bicycle parking spaces within the length of a required vehicle parking space, while Variance #12 is required to permit the reduced length of the required vehicle parking spaces from 5.6 m to 5.0 m, to allow for the 0.6 m bicycle parking space obstruction.

20It is Mr. Doherty’s opinion that the addition of Variance #15 is entirely technical in nature and that the Settlement Proposal will continue to provide a total of 63 bicycle parking spaces (57 long-term spaces; six short-term spaces), thereby meeting the requirement for bicycle parking spaces set out in Performance Standard 205.

21Further, Mr. Doherty proffered that such vehicle-bicycle parking arrangements are common in the City, and have been previously approved for developments along Kingston Road. Additionally, he advised that the conclusions offered by the Appellant’s transportation consultant confirm that the proposed encroachment of bicycle parking spaces into the length of required vehicle parking spaces will be entirely functional for both bicycle and vehicle users and is appropriate from a traffic perspective.

22Mr. Doherty opined that Variance #15 maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, is minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.

Variance #16 – Performance Standard 301, Zoning By-law No. 8786

(Affidavit Variances X11 and X12, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 11)

23This variance is required to permit 104 m² of indoor amenity space, with at least one amenity room containing a directly accessible kitchen and a washroom accessible from the abutting corridor. Additionally, this variance is required to permit 80.5 m² of outdoor amenity space.

24In his Affidavit, Mr. Doherty advised that the portion of the variance related to indoor amenity space is interpreted by Toronto Building to mean that washrooms, which are not directly accessible from an indoor amenity space, cannot be included in the calculation of the required indoor amenity space. Similarly, with respect to the outdoor amenity space portion of the variance, Mr. Doherty advises that Toronto Building interprets the performance standard to mean that planters, gardens and associated elements cannot be included in the calculation of the outdoor amenity space.

25It is Mr. Doherty’s opinion that Variance #16 is semantic in nature and only required to ensure that the proposed building complies with the method of calculating amenity space, as per the interpretation of the ZBL by Toronto Building.

26Further, Mr. Doherty proffered that the variances do not seek a physical reduction in amenity space within the proposed building, and, in practice, the separate corridor washroom and outdoor terrace planters are intended to form part of the amenity offering of the proposed building. As such, the variances would have no material impact on future residents, given that the amenity space requirements are effectively achieved, both in terms of size, and facility requirements.

27Mr. Doherty opined that Variance #16 maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, is minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.

Variance #17 – Performance Standard 298, Zoning By-law No. 8786

(Affidavit Variance X9, Zoning Notice Non-compliance Item 9)

28This variance is required to permit a 1.0 m landscaping strip along the south lot line abutting the Two-Family Residential (T) Zone, and a 0.7 m landscaping strip along the east lot line abutting the Single-Family Residential (S) Zone.

29In his Affidavit, Mr. Doherty advised that, with respect to the south lot line:

…the full width of the landscaping strip is approximately 1.5 metres, however the width of required soft landscaping within the buffer itself is only approximately 1.0 metre. The reduced width of soft landscaping is required to accommodate a jog in the landscape buffer around a required exhaust shaft, in addition to the required hardscaped curb/barrier elements which are intended to protect the soft landscaping from vehicle and loading movements within the adjacent driveway. However, the intent of the Bylaw is met in this location given the provision of a full landscape buffer along the south lot line, despite the reduced width of soft landscaping elements to a minimum of 1.0 metre. Moreover, it is noted that the width of the rear landscaping strip increases to approximately 2.0 metres (with soft landscaping provided in excess of 1.5 metres), as the strip extends closer to the east lot line.

30Additionally, Mr. Doherty advised that, with respect to the applicable portion of the east lot line:

…the width of the soft landscaping is narrowed to 0.7 metres as it wraps the southeast corner of the site and extends northward along a small segment of the east lot line. The reduced width of soft landscaping in this location is required to accommodate for the location of the adjacent transformer pad.

31Mr. Doherty proffered that soft landscaping within a dedicated landscape buffer is provided along the entire length of the applicable lot lines, as required by the ZBL, and that the portion along the south lot line is effectively provided at a full 1.5 m. He added that the reduced 1.0 m soft landscaping along the south lot line, and a minimum of 0.7 m along the east lot line width, are required to accommodate the mechanical requirements of the building, and that the variance would accommodate the same landscape strip that is illustrated in the Settlement Proposal and the Minutes of Settlement signed by Ms. Crowe.

32Mr. Doherty opined that Variance #17 maintains the general intent and purpose of the ZBL, is minor in nature and is desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land.

33Collectively, Mr. Doherty opined that the revised variances meet the four tests set out in s. 45 (1) of the Act, as they:

maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan, and in particular, the policies pertaining to growth management, the Subject Land’s Mixed Use Areas designation, infrastructure and servicing, transition to lands designated Neighborhoods, built form and public realm and housing;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the ZBL and provide for a built form and massing that is appropriate for the area. The revisions made to the previously granted variances, in addition to the proposed new variances, are largely technical in nature, due in part to the intricacies of the ZBL and the interpretation of Toronto Building, as it relates to applying the performance standards to the Settlement Proposal. In this regard, the revised list of variances will not facilitate any proposed use or built form changes to the Settlement Proposal;
are minor in nature as the revised variances continue to provide for an eight-storey built form that is consistent with the mid-rise development anticipated for the Subject Lands by way of the Kingston Road Revitalization Study and the ZBL, in addition to the existing development along this stretch of Kingston Road, which includes recently developed mid-rise buildings of up to 10 storeys in height. The variances do not reflect any built form changes to the Settlement Proposal which would bring additional built form impacts. The variances which relate to the location of bicycle parking spaces, rear landscaping strip, indoor amenity space and outdoor amenity space, are due largely, in part, to the intricacies of the ZBL and the interpretation of the ZBL by Toronto Building. Moreover, these variances are, in essence, to accommodate for detailed design matters and the functional layout of the proposed building; and,
are desirable for the appropriate development and use of the land as they continue to provide for the redevelopment of a low-intensity automotive use with a mid-rise, mixed-use building that provides new housing and convenience retailing options in a transit supportive manner envisioned for this stretch of Kingston Road by the Kingston Road Revitalization Study. Moreover, the Settlement Proposal maintains a strong focus on sustainable design, and intends to provide a low carbon, sustainable living arrangement that supports the City’s broader goals of tackling climate change.

34In his Affidavit, Mr. Doherty recommended that the Tribunal issue its Final Order in this proceeding, approving the requested variances for the Subject Lands.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

35The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted planning opinion evidence of Mr. Doherty in support of the Settlement Proposal and the revisions to the required variances from those identified before the Tribunal at the Settlement Hearing, notwithstanding that the Plans have not changed.

36The Tribunal relies on Mr. Doherty’s prior submissions and the Tribunal’s findings during the Settlement Hearing, that the Settlement Proposal has appropriate regard for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 and conforms to the policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe.

37Pursuant to s. 45(18.1) of the Act, the Tribunal amends the request as set out in the Final Order and, pursuant to s. 45(18.1.1) of the Act, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the amendments are minor and, as such, no further notice is required.

38The Tribunal is satisfied that the four tests for a minor variance are met in the Settlement Proposal for each of the minor variances required for the proposed development, including those addressed at the Settlement Hearing, and the revised variances addressed herein.

39Accordingly, the Tribunal allows the appeal, in part, and grants Final Approval of the Minor Variances, as amended. The Tribunal will continue to withhold the Final Approval of the SPA until the required conditions, set out under Attachment 2 of the Settlement Decision, are fulfilled. The Parties are to advise the Tribunal, in writing, when a Final Order for the SPA appeal can be issued.

FINAL ORDER

40THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeal is allowed in part and the variances, as amended, to Zoning By-law 8786 as set out below, are authorized subject to the conditions set out in Attachment 1 to this Order:

X1. Performance Standard 205, By-law No 8786

Where bicycle parking spaces are to be parked in a horizontal position, the space shall have horizontal dimensions of at least 0.6 m by 1.8 m per bicycle and a vertical dimension of at least 1.9 m; and where bicycles are to be parked in a vertical position, the space shall have horizontal dimensions of at least 0.6 m by 1.2 m per bicycle and a vertical dimension of at least 1.9 m.

Required bicycle parking spaces may encroach into or obstruct a required vehicle parking space provided that the encroachment is no more than 0.6 m into the length of the required vehicle parking space.

X2. Performance Standard 284, By-law No. 8786

The maximum permitted building height is 6 storeys or 20 m, excluding basements and rooftop mechanical penthouses.

X3. Performance Standard 284, By-law No. 8786

The maximum permitted gross floor area is 3.5 times the area of the lot or parcel.

The proposed gross floor area is 4.0 times the area of the lot.

X4. Performance Standard 290, By-law No. 8786

A minimum building setback of 3 m from the lot line along Kingston Road for all uses permitted in the "CR" Zone, with the exception of dwelling units on the first floor.

The proposed building setback from the lot line along Kingston Road is 2 m, excluding canopies used for weather protection which have a 0 m building setback.

X5. Performance Standard 291, By-law No. 8786

A minimum building setback of 1.5 m from a lot line abutting a public street other than Kingston Road.

The proposed building setback from the lot line along Courcelette Road is 0 m.

X6. Performance Standard 293, By-law No. 8786

Buildings shall not exceed a 45-degree angular plane from the lot line of abutting Single-Family Residential (S), Two-Family Residential (T) and Multiple-Family (M) Zones.

X7. Performance Standard 294, By-law No. 8786

Minimum 7.5 m building setback from the rear lot line abutting Single-Family Residential (S), Two-Family Residential (T) and Multiple-Family (M) Zones.

By-law No. 8786, as amended, considers Courcelette Road as the front lot line as the site is located on a corner lot and Courcelette Road is the shorter of the two frontages. The proposed building provides a 0 m setback from the east (rear) lot line.

X8. Performance Standard 296, By-law No. 8786

For that portion of a building above 14 m in height, buildings shall be stepped back an additional 1.5 m from the main wall abutting a public street.

Above 14 m in height, the proposed building will provide a varying 0 to 2.0 m step-back from the main wall along Kingston Road and a 0 m step-back from the front main wall along Courcelette Road (average of 1 m).

X9. Performance Standard 298, By-law No. 8786

A minimum 1.5 m strip of land immediately abutting Single-Family Residential (S), Two-Family Residential (T), Multiple-Family (M) Zones shall be used for soft landscaping purposes only.

X10. Performance Standard 300, By-law No. 8786

Minimum floor to ceiling height of the first floor shall be 4.5 m for buildings or structures.

The proposed floor to ceiling height of the first floor is 3.5 m.

X11. Performance Standard 301, By-law No. 8786

The minimum required indoor amenity space is 114 m², with at least one amenity room containing a directly accessible kitchen and washroom.

The proposed building will have 104 m² of indoor amenity space, with at least one amenity room containing a directly accessible kitchen, and a washroom accessible from the abutting corridor.

X12. Performance Standard 301, By-law No. 8786

The minimum required outdoor amenity space is 112 m².

The proposed building will have 80.5 m² of outdoor amenity space.

X13. Clause VI 12.2, By-law No. 8786

In areas designated on Schedule "A" as "CR", the lands not covered by permitted buildings, structures and required parking spaces, shall be used only for landscaping, 50% of which shall be soft landscaping. Outdoor patio areas ancillary to a non-residential use in the "CR" Zone shall not be considered landscaping and shall be permitted.

The proposed area for landscaping is 61 m², of which at least 56 m² will be soft landscaping.

X14. Clause VI 19, By-law No. 8786

In areas designated in Schedule "A" as "CR", the basement shall be used only for storage purposes for the occupants of the building.

The P1 level shall be used for storage purposes for the occupants of the building, in addition to indoor residential amenity space and mechanical and electrical rooms.

X15. Clause VII 1.1, By-law No. 8786

A total of 59 parking spaces are required, consisting of 57 resident spaces, 0 visitor spaces and 2 non-residential spaces.

A total of 34 parking spaces shall be provided, consisting of 32 resident spaces, 1 car share space and 1 residential visitor / non-residential space. Four of the proposed parking spaces will be designated small car spaces.

X16. Clause VII 1.4.1, By-law No. 8786

The minimum dimensions of a parking space accessed by a 6 m wide drive aisle shall be 5.6 m in length, 2 m in height and 2.6 m in width and where accessed by a less than 6 m wide drive aisle shall be 5.6 m in length, 2 m in height and 3 m in width.

X17. Clause VII 1.4.1, By-law No. 8786

A total of four (4) designated small car parking spaces will be provided. Where the drive aisle has a width of 6 m or greater, the proposed building will contain two (2) small car parking spaces which have a minimum width of 2.6 m and a minimum length of 5.6 m, despite being obstructed on one or two sides. Where the drive aisle has a width of less than 6 m, the proposed building will contain two (2) small car parking spaces, which have a minimum width of 2.9 m and a minimum length of 5 m, despite being obstructed on one or two sides.

X18. Clause VII 1.4.2.3, By-law No. 8786

For uses other than those set out in Subsections 1.4.2.1 and 1.4.2.2, a driveway shall have a minimum width of 3 m per lane.

The two-way driveway has a minimum width of 3.5 m.

“C. I. Molinari”

C. I. MOLINARI

MEMBER

“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 CONDITIONS OF MINOR VARIANCE APPROVAL

The Owner shall construct the ground floor area fronting Kingston Road and the Kingston Road street yard substantially in accordance with Drawings A100 and A201 of the Revised Plans prepared by RAW Architects and Design, dated September 13, 2022, and Drawings L2.0 and L3.0 prepared by thinc design, dated September 12, 2022, all drawings being subject to Site Plan Approval Condition 1 as set out in the Tribunal’s Order issued February 9, 2023 in respect of this matter.
The Owner shall construct the southeast area of the proposed development on the Property substantially in accordance with Drawings A100, and A201 prepared by RAW Architects and Design, dated September 13, 2022, and Drawings L2.0 and L3.0, prepared by thinc design, dated September 12, 2022, all drawings being subject to Site Plan Approval Condition 1 as set out in the Tribunal’s Order issued February 9, 2023 in respect of this matter.
The proposed development shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the revised plans appended as Schedule “C” to the Minutes of Settlement between the Owner and Ms. Bernadette Crowe, appended as Exhibit “M” to the Affidavit of Ryan Doherty being Exhibit 1 filed with the Tribunal, which for greater certainty are the revised architectural, landscape and civil engineering drawings filed with the Tribunal on September 13, 2022, subject to any minor revisions to the revised plans that may occur in the course of finalizing the drawings as required by the City of Toronto to issue site plan approval for the proposed development; and
The Owner shall design the lighting for the Subject Site to meet or exceed the City of Toronto’s Best Practices for Effective Lighting (2017), which in any event, does not reasonably lead to light trespass from the Subject Site to 191 Courcelette Road.