Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 16, 2024

CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000182

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tri-Metro Investments Inc. Subject: Official Plan Amendment Description: To permit mixed-use development consisting of 35-storey and 55-storey towers, providing 1,139 residential units Property Address: 2721 Danforth Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto Municipal File No.: 21 235157 STE 19 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000182 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000182 OLT Case Name: Tri-Metro Investments Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Tri-Metro Investments Inc. Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment Description: To permit mixed-use development consisting of 35-storey and 55-storey towers, providing 1,139 residential units Property Address: 2721 Danforth Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto Municipal File No.: 21 235157 STE 19 OZ OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000183 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000182 OLT Case Name: Tri-Metro Investments Inc. v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended

Applicant and Appellant: Tri-Metro Investments Inc. Subject: Plan of Subdivision Description: To permit mixed-use development consisting of 35-storey and 55-storey towers, providing 1,139 residential units Property Address: 2721 Danforth Avenue Municipality/UT: Toronto Municipal File No.: 21 235158 STE 19 SB OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000184 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000182 OLT Case Name: Tri-Metro Investments Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard: October 4, 2024 by video hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Tri-Metro Investments Inc.	Mark Flowers Liam Valgardson
City of Toronto	Jason Davidson Michelle LaFortune Nathan Muscat (in absentia)
Minto Communities Canada Inc.	Cynthia MacDougall Razan Mohamed (student of law)
Jacobs Tent Inc.	Michael Cara Daniel Artenosi (in absentia)
6 Dawes Fitzrovia Inc.	Michael Cara Daniel Artenosi (in absentia)
Dandaw Developments Limited	Daniel Angelucci Michael Foderick (in absentia)
Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited	Jennifer Evola Signe Leisk (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY ERIC S. CROWE ON OCTOBER 4, 2024 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1The Tribunal convened a Settlement Hearing concerning an appeal by the Appellant of the City of Toronto’s (“City”) failure to make a decision on Applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) Zoning-By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) and a Draft Plan of Subdivision (“DPS”) within the statutory timeframes prescribed in the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”).

2The Appellant plans to redevelop lands known municipally as 2721 Danforth Avenue (“Subject Lands”). The proposed development consists of two towers, a 35-storey and 55 storey tower for approximately 1139 residential units and further land dedications to provide for a parkland area and lands allocated for road widening.

3As a result of a series of mediation sessions that occurred, the Appellant’s architect, RAW Design Inc., prepared revised architectural plans dated June 4, 2024 (the “Revised Plans”). These revised plans were developed in concert with the adjacent settlement proposals within the block. Co-ordination of park placement, tower locations, tower separation distances and mid-block connections has occurred as a result.

4Minto Communities Canada Inc., Jacobs Tent Inc., 6 Dawes Fitzrovia Inc, Dandaw Developments Limited and Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited were previously granted Party Status.

SUBJECT LANDS

5The Subject Lands are located on the south side of Danforth Avenue, east of the Main Street and Danforth Avenue intersection. The total lot area of the Subject Lands is approximately 0.566 hectares (“ha”), with 31 metres (“m”) of frontage along Danforth Avenue.

6The Subject Lands are currently occupied by a low-rise commercial store, Canadian Tire store, with vehicular access off of Danforth Avenue. The Canadian Tire store is located across three adjacent properties owned by Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited at 2681 Danforth Avenue, and Talisker Inc. at 2575 Danforth Avenue. These sites are subject to separate Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) appeals which City Council recently endorsed settlement offers for concurrently with the settlement offer for the Subject Lands.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

7The Applicant and the City (collectively, the “Parties”) have agreed to a comprehensive resolution of the appeals and wish to reflect their agreement herein, before the Tribunal for approval.

8The Parties request that the Tribunal allow the appeals and approve in principle the OPA (attached as ATTACHMENT 1) and ZBA (attached as ATTACHMENT 2), and the appeal of the DPS application be adjourned sine die.

9The key terms of the settlement offer (the “Revised Proposal”) include:

A mixed-use development with one podium and two residential towers including:

a) a 35-storey (including podium) north tower with a height of 118.40 m (including mechanical penthouse);

b) a 59-storey (including podium) south tower with a height of 190.50 m (including mechanical penthouse); and

c) approximately 79,545 square metres (“m²”) total gross floor area as calculated under City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013;

ii. Setbacks, stepbacks, and tower setbacks as shown on the Revised Plans which minimize shadows on Coleman Park located to the north of Danforth Avenue;

iii. A north tower floor plate of 850 m² (gross construction area) above the 12^th floor, and a south tower floor plate of 800 m² (gross construction area) above the 6^th floor. These tower floor plate sizes and their positioning on the Subject Lands minimize shadows on Coleman Park;

iv. A tower separation distance of 25 m between the north and south towers (excluding any balconies);

v. A 4 storey podium along Danforth Avenue with stepbacks to 8 storeys, 10 storeys, and 12 storeys;

vi. A 4 storey podium along Guest Avenue, and a 4 storey podium stepping back to 6 storeys along the future Guest Avenue extension;

vii. A minimum 4 m wide east-west mid-block pedestrian connection and a minimum 4 m wide north-south mid-block pedestrian connection along the west property line that will connect to the proposed east-west midblock connection to the west of the Property, as shown on the Revised Plans;

viii. the provision of live-work units along Guest Avenue and the future Guest Avenue extension, as shown on the Revised Plans;

ix. provision of 556 m² of parkland which is to be consolidated with parkland on adjacent redevelopment sites to form a larger park proposal;

x. implementation of Tier 1, Toronto Green Standards v3; and

xi. provision of 26 affordable rental housing units (affordable for 40 years).

WITNESS

10Evidence in support of the proposed Application was provided by David McKay, a Land Use Planner. Mr. McKay was qualified to provide expert land use planning opinion evidence.

11The Tribunal marked the following documents as Exhibits:

Exhibit 1: Affidavit of David McKay dated September 27, 2024;

EVIDENCE

Section 2 of the Planning Act

12According to Mr. McKay, the Revised Proposal is required to have regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest that are set out in Section 2 of the Planning Act. The proposed development has had regard for relevant matters of provincial interest, in particular, the following subsections:

i. The Revised Proposal does not have any adverse impacts on the environment as the Subject Lands do not contain any, and are not in proximity to, significant natural heritage features (Subsection 2a).

ii. The Revised Proposal will incorporate low impact development and other sustainable measures in accordance with the Toronto Green Standard (“TGS”) and transportation demand management measures, which are intended to make the proposed development become resilient and adaptive to climate change (Subsection 2e).

iii. The Revised Proposal represents an appropriate level of intensification at a density of 15.87 Floor Space Index (“FSI”) given its proximity to two Major Transit Station Areas (“MTSAs’) (not yet in force) (Subsection 2f).

iv. The Subject Lands are designated by the City for intensification and redevelopment as Mixed Use Areas. The purpose of the Applications relates not to whether development can be permitted on these lands, but how much development is appropriate and the form that such development will take. In Mr. McKay’s opinion, the Revised Proposal maintains the orderly development of safe and healthy communities while intensifying in two MTSAs (not yet in force) in accordance with current Provincial policy direction (Subsection 2h).

v. The Revised Proposal will meet and be constructed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and all other required accessibility standards (Subsection 2h.1).

vi. The Revised Proposal includes 1,214 residential units consisting of a variety of unit sizes: 5 studio units (0.4%), 672 one-bedroom units (55%), 422 two-bedroom units (35%), and 115 three-bedroom units (9.4%). Of these, 26 affordable rental housing units are being provided. The variety of units contribute to the City’s overall housing supply and provide a variety of housing options for residents of all ages and economic backgrounds and assist the City in meeting its housing obligations to address the ongoing housing crisis (Subsection 2j).

vii. The Revised Proposal will permit the development of a mixed use building within an existing urban settlement area where growth is focused within two MTSAs (not yet in force), thereby being in an appropriate location for growth and development. It will make efficient use of an underutilized parcel of land and optimize existing infrastructure (Subsection 2p).

viii. The Revised Proposal is supportive of existing and future transit infrastructure given the Subject Lands are located in proximity to existing public transit routes and Main Street Station and Danforth GO Station and, thus, is a transit-supportive development. Furthermore, the proposed building is oriented towards and will frame adjacent street frontages along Danforth Avenue, as well as the Guest Avenue and the Dawes Road extension. Entrances to both the residential use and retail lobby/commercial use are directed to the frontages and will be clearly visible and accessible from the public sidewalks. In addition, ground-related residential units will front onto the proposed park at the south of the site. These features allow the building to be oriented towards pedestrians. Lastly, the proposal will incorporate sustainability measures in accordance with the TGS (Subsection 2q).

ix. The Revised Proposal represents a well-designed built form that is of high quality, safe, accessible, attractive and vibrant as shown in the Revised Plans. The Revised Proposal establishes an urban built form that is massed, designed, and oriented to people, and creates an active and attractive entrance to the surrounding community. It also provides efficient and enhanced connections to the public streets and sidewalks, including a mid-block connection connecting to the park/midblock connections provided for on adjacent lands, thereby reinforcing sustainable mobility options and providing active transportation opportunities that will result in a more accessible and sustainable environment for all. The Revised Proposal provides an appropriate amount of indoor and outdoor amenity space, as well as parkland, which will be of high quality, accessible to residents of the proposed building, attractive and vibrant (Subsection 2r).

x. Bicycle and pedestrian amenities are proposed, in combination with the proximity to transit, to encourage reduced automobile dependency. The intensification of the Subject Lands in proximity to a variety of amenities and public services will help reduce commute times and emissions. The Revised Proposal will maximize energy efficiency and conservation through energy conservation measures and low-carbon solutions in accordance with the TGS. The Revised Proposal will assist with the efficient use of resources and land as it is contributing to an intensified mixed-use community, assisting the Province and City in meeting greenhouse gas emission targets (Subsection 2s).

13In Mr. McKay’s opinion, the proposed development has appropriate regard for the relevant matters of provincial interest that are set out in Section 2 of the Act.

Provincial Policy Statement (2020) (“PPS”)

14Mr. McKay highlighted that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS. The Revised Proposal will allow for additional residential and retail units to be developed on underutilized lands within a Mixed-Use Area and two MTSAs (as defined by the Growth Plan and delineated as Protected MTSAs in the adopted but not yet in effect OPA 540), through intensification, and assist in meeting housing objectives of the Province and the City. (1.1.3.3, 1.1.3.4)

15Mr. McKay testified the Revised Proposal will allow a development which will efficiently utilize the Subject Lands and existing infrastructure, including municipal water and sewage services, utilities, roads and both existing and planned public transit. (1.1.1 a, e, g) (1.1.3.3)

16Mr. McKay advised the Revised Proposal, located within a Settlement Area, appropriately seeks to increase the permitted height and density in order to make the most efficient use of the Subject Lands. The Subject Lands are located within an existing built-up area and are designated for a mixture of uses. The Revised Proposal supports the existing built-up area by intensifying an underutilized site in a prominent location and offers a range of housing types. (1.1.1 b, d) (1.1.3.3)

17Mr. McKay highlighted the development of the Subject Lands does not cause undue environmental or public health and safety concerns. (1.1.1 c) (1.1.3.4) and the Revised Proposal will ensure that the Subject Lands are developed in a manner which is compatible with existing and future land uses. The proposed infill development will offer a variety of housing types and sizes to residents of all ages; approximately 44% of the proposed units are two-bedrooms or larger, providing more “family sized units”, (1.1.3.3) including complying with all applicable Provincial legislation, including the Ontario Building Code, and will include design considerations related to accessibility. (1.1.1 f)

18Mr. McKay advised the Revised Proposal will incorporate low impact development and other sustainable measures, as well as transportation demand management measures to assist the Province and City in becoming resilient to climate change. (1.1.1 i) The Revised Proposal will permit a development which will allow for the efficient use of the Subject Lands and available infrastructure, including municipal water and sewage services, utilities, roads and both existing and planned public transit.

19In Mr. McKay’s opinion, the proposed development and the implementing planning instruments are consistent with the PPS and he also noted the proposed development does not conflict with the new PPS 2024 that is coming into force on October 20, 2024.

GROWTH PLAN FOR THE GREATER GOLDEN HORSESHOE (GROWTH PLAN)

20Mr. McKay highlighted the Revised Proposal will provide for an appropriate built-form within a defined intensification area and will contribute to creating a complete community. The proposed compact built form of the mixed-use building is transit-supportive and represents an efficient and improved utilization of the Subject Lands.

21According to Mr. McKay the Revised Proposal is compatible with surrounding land Uses and implements the City’s intensification vision for Mixed Use Areas. The Revised Proposal will assist in meeting the daily needs of local residents and employees. In addition, the Revised Proposal will optimize transit infrastructure by providing an estimated density of 4,434 persons and jobs per ha , thereby contributing to the minimum density within the MTSAs (not yet in force) and maximizing transit ridership.

22Mr. McKay advised the Revised Proposal will improve the public realm through the addition of public parkland, the use of landscaping elements and an appropriate placement of active ground floor uses to enhance the streetscape relationship with the public realm including establishing a mid-block connection through the overall block in this area, connecting to the consolidated park and connections created thereto. The Revised Proposal will permit the development of 1,214 new residential units of varying sizes, including 26 affordable rental housing units, supporting the housing policies set forth in the Growth Plan.

23The Revised Proposal will permit a development which will allow for the efficient use of the Subject Lands and available infrastructure, including municipal water and sewage services, utilities, roads and both existing and planned public transit. The Revised Proposal will incorporate low impact development measures, transportation demand management measures, and other green infrastructure to assist the Province and City in being resilient to a changing climate. The development of the Subject Lands, as facilitated by the OPA and ZBA applications, will not cause any undue environmental or public health and safety concerns.

24Finally, according to Mr. McKay, the Revised Proposal will incorporate green design measures, such as passive and active energy conservation measures, to minimize energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

25In Mr. McKay’s opinion, the proposed development and the implementing planning instruments conform with the Growth Plan.

CITY OF TORONTO OFFICAL PLAN (“City OP”)

26Mr. McKay testified the Revised Proposal will promote the development of a complete community in the City by revitalizing and intensifying underutilized lands and increasing their vitality including provision of upgraded public realm elements along Guest Avenue, Danforth Avenue and creation of new parkland and mid-block connections.

27According to Mr. McKay the Revised Proposal conforms to the policies set out in the City OP for development, as they seek to encourage a more efficient and cost-effective use of existing land and infrastructure. The Revised Proposal provides a built form that appropriately responds to the urban design policies of the City OP and the applicable urban design guidelines. The proposed building provides a high-rise built form design that allows for minimal impacts to the surrounding area, including minimizing shadows on Coleman Park, while also aligning with emerging building patterns and densities along Danforth Avenue.

28Furthermore, the Revised Proposal respects the housing policies of the City OP. The Revised Proposal will permit the addition of 1,214 units within the City and approximately 41% of the proposed units are two-bedrooms or larger, providing for more “family sized units”. Further, 26 affordable rental housing units will be provided.

29Mr. McKay submits the Revised Proposal will provide retail uses at the ground floor, primarily along Danforth Avenue, with live-work units along Guest Avenue, which will improve the local economy by offering employment opportunities within the proposed retail uses and the proposal will allow for a development in a Mixed Use Areas designation, which conforms to the Mixed Use Areas policies of the City OP by: providing residential and retail land uses; is appropriately transitioned from Neighbourhoods designated lands north of the Subject Lands; frames Danforth Avenue; provides for an attractive, comfortable and safe pedestrian environment through new and upgraded sidewalk conditions and mid-block connections; is at a transit-supportive density; has good site access and circulation; provides an appropriate supply of parking, including bicycle parking; provides appropriate indoor and outdoor amenity space; provides parkland area; locates service areas within the building to minimize impacts on streets and adjacent residences; and incorporates sustainable features in accordance with the TGS.

30In Mr. McKay’s opinion, the Settlement Proposal and proposed zoning details conform to the City OP, as proposed to be amended, including OPA 420, OPA 478 and OPA 570.

DESIGN GUIDELINES

31Mr. McKay advised the Revised Proposal incorporates Pet Friendly, Bird Friendly and Toronto Green Standards building features which will all be detailed and meet the requirements of each guideline at the Site Plan Approval stage.

TALL BUILDING GUIDELINES

32In regard to the Tall Building Guidelines, Mr. McKay advised the Revised Proposal will facilitate a development that complements the context of the surrounding area, ensuring that the position, height, scale and transition of the built form provides access to sunlight and an appropriate relationship to the public realm. The placement and organization of the proposed building and its amenities, such as service rooms, public and private open spaces, and pedestrian and cycling connections, will be provided to enhance the pedestrian environment.

33In addition, according to Mr. McKay, the Revised Proposal addresses base building scale and height to ensure that there are animated street facades with the incorporation of retail uses at-grade. The Revised Proposal will facilitate a development that enhances the public realm and provides private and public open spaces connected to neighbouring streets, communities and transit. The location, orientation and design measures of the Revised Proposal will have limited shadow impact on the surrounding Neighbourhoods. The Revised Proposal provides a maximum tower floor plate size of approximately 800 m² for the south tower and 850 m² for the north tower. While slightly larger than the suggested maximum tower floor plate size of 750 m², the placement of the towers allows for adequate sunlight along a major street, adequately limits shadows on Coleman Park and Neighbourhoods designated lands and contributes to the skyline in this area of Danforth Avenue in an attractive manner. Further, wind impacts associated with the tower size and configuration are minimal and can be appropriately mitigated. Final wind mitigation measures will be implemented through the Site Plan Approval process.

DANFORTH AVENUE URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES

34In regard to the Danforth Avenue urban Design Guidelines, Mr. McKay also advised the proposal being largely a mid-rise built form with appropriate setbacks and Step backs incorporated to create an appropriate street wall along Danforth Avenue (and carrying along Guest Avenue) of four storeys, providing for an at-grade curb to building face distance of over 7 m creating a robust public realm that allows for tree planting, broad pedestrian clearways and animation zones along the frontage of the Subject Lands.

35Provision of active non-residential uses with an appropriate ground floor height of 4.5 m facing Danforth Avenue which activates and contributes to place making. Enhancing the Guest Avenue frontage, with an appropriate street wall condition (four storeys) and a similar robust public realm (7 m at-grade building to curb line) which encourages pedestrian north-south movements south of Danforth Avenue. v. Locates servicing for the building within the built form, well away from Danforth Avenue as to not impact the public realm.

GROWING UP GUIDELINES

36According to Mr. McKay, the Revised Proposal has appropriate regard for the Growing Up Guidelines as it provides a diverse range of housing units, including 35% 2-bedroom and 9.4% 3- bedroom units.

RETAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES

37Mr. McKay advised the Revised Proposal locates retail/commercial space along Danforth Avenue, with significant clear glazing along the storefronts, creating an animated and nearly continuous at-grade pedestrian realm for the majority of the tall building podium, with a residential lobby punctuating the Guest Avenue frontage. Appropriate depths have been provided to allow for a variety of retail uses to occur. Floor to ceiling heights are 4.5 m measured from the ground floor, which provides for an appropriate height for a variety of retail unit types. A 2.4 m setback at grade has been incorporated along Danforth Avenue providing for a wide pedestrian clearance way (over 7 m from building face to curb line), while allowing for potential spill out of display or patio seating to occur, further animating the street. The setback along Danforth Avenue at grade provides for a covered overhang to occur from the building above. Overall, according to Mr. McKay, the Revised Proposal appropriately responds to the Retail Design Manual.

Disposition

38In the absence of any planning evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds and accepts the land use planning evidence and expert opinion provided by Mr. McKay in the form of an affidavit sworn on September 27, 2024, and oral evidence at this hearing, in support of a settlement between the Appellant and the City, which is not opposed by the other parties to this proceeding; namely, Canadian Tire Real Estate Limited, Minto Communities Canada Inc. on behalf of Minto (Dawes) GP Inc., Jacob’s Tent Inc., 6 Dawes Fitzrovia Inc., and Dandaw Developments Limited. The proposed OPA and ZBA has regard for the matters of Provincial Interest under the Act, represents good planning and is in the Public Interest, is consistent with the policies of the PPS and conforms to the City OP.

39The Tribunal acknowledges the cooperation between the Parties in having reached a Settlement.

ORDER

40THE TRIBUNAL MAKES AN INTERIM ORDER THAT the appeals under subsections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act are allowed, in part; and

41The draft Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, which are intended to permit a development that is substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings prepared by RAW Design Inc. dated June 4, 2024, are approved in principle, contingent upon satisfaction of the conditions identified in paragraph 42 below;

42The Tribunal’s Final Order in respect of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment for the Lands shall be withheld until such time as the Tribunal receives confirmation from the Applicant and the City that the following conditions are satisfied:

• the final form and content of the draft Official Plan Amendment is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

• the final form and content of the draft Zoning By-law Amendment is to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and shall include holding (H) provisions not to be lifted until such time as the owner/applicant has satisfied the relevant City official that:

1. the Owner/Applicant has secured the design and the provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure and/or new 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, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades and/or new infrastructure are required to support the development

2. the Owner/Applicant has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study, and a parking and Loading Study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such studies be secured, if required; and

3. the Owner/Applicant has submitted a revised Landscape Plan which includes a notation that a volume of 30 cubic metres of soil will be provided for each tree with utilities shown to Quality Level A (QL-A), and provides any necessary financial securities, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and that such matters arising from such study be secured, if required.

• the Owner/Applicant has executed an agreement with the City pursuant to subsection 37(7.1) of the Planning Act to secure the provision of twenty-six (26) affordable rental units, or, alternatively, a holding provision shall be included in the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment, not to be lifted until such time as the Owner/Applicant has executed an agreement with the City pursuant to subsection 37(7.1) of the Planning Act to secure the provision of the above-noted affordable rental units;

• the Owner/Applicant has provided confirmation of water, sanitary and stormwater capacity (and conformity with the accepted Master Functional Servicing Report respecting Character Area C in Official Plan Amendment 478) to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, or, alternatively, a holding provision shall be included in the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment, not to be lifted until such time as the owner/applicant has satisfied this obligation; and

• the Owner/Applicant has submitted a pedestrian level wind tunnel study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and that any built form requirements arising from such study be implemented in the final form of the Zoning By-law Amendment, if required.

43The 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.

44The Tribunal may be spoken to by the parties with respect to the implementation of this Interim Order, including any difficulties that may arise with respect to the satisfaction of the above conditions.

45The Parties shall provide a written status update to the Tribunal on the progress of the fulfilment of the conditions in paragraph 42 above within six months of the date of this Interim Order unless the issuance of the Final Order has been requested in the meantime.

46The appeal of the Draft Plan of Subdivision application is adjourned sine die.

“Eric S. Crowe”

ERIC S. CROWE

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-2024

To adopt Amendment XXX to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the lands known municipally in the year 2024 as 2721 Danforth Avenue.

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

The Official Plan of the City of Toronto, as amended, is further amended by the Ontario Land Tribunal as follows:

1. The attached Amendment X to the Official Plan is hereby adopted pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended.

Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on XXXX XX, XXXX and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on XXXX XX, XXXX in Tribunal File OLT-23-000182.

AMENDMENT XXX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN FOR LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2024 AS 2721 DANFORTH AVENUE

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

1. Maps 31 and 32, Site and Area Specific Policies (Key Maps) are amended by adding Site and Area Specific Policy XXX to apply to the lands as shown below in Map 1.

2. Chapter 7, Site and Area Specific Policies, is amended by adding a new Site and Area Specific Policy XXX for lands known municipally in 2024 as 2721 Danforth Avenue, as follows:

XXX. 2721 Danforth Avenue For the lands known municipally in 2024 as 2721 Danforth Avenue and shown as Area A in the map below, the following applies:

Notwithstanding Policy 7.4.3 of Site and Area Specific Policy 577, building heights above 14 metres may be considered by way of a Zoning By-law Amendment without meeting the requirement to fit under a 45 degree angular plane taken from the curb of the sidewalk on the north side of Danforth Avenue.

ATTACHMENT 2

Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on [date] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File OLT-23-000183

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. XXXX-2024

To amend the City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands known municipally in the year 2024 as 2721 Danforth Avenue

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, in its Decision issued on [date] and its Order issued on [date], in file OLT-23-000183 in hearing an appeal under Section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P13, as amended, ordered the amendment of Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2024 as 2721 Danforth Avenue; and

Whereas authority is given to the Ontario Land Tribunal by Section 34 and Section 36 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, to impose the holding symbol (H) and to remove the holding symbol (H) when Council is satisfied that the conditions relating to the holding symbol have been satisfied;

The Ontario Land Tribunal, by Order, amends By-law 569-2013 as follows:

1. The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.

2. The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 800 Definitions.

3. The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 800 Definitions.

4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands subject to this By-law to the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.10 respecting the lands subject to this By-law to a zone label of “(H) CR (XXx)” and “OR(xXXX)” as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.

5. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands subject to this By-law to the Policy Areas Overlay Map in Section 995.10 and applying the Policy Areas Overlay label of Policy Area 3 and the Major Street label to Danforth Avenue, as shown on Diagram 3 attached to this By-law.

6. Zoning By-law 569 -2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands subject to this By-law to the Height Overlay Map in Section 995.20 and applying a height label of HT 183.0 as shown on Diagram 4 attached to this By-law.

7. Zoning By-law 569 -2013, as amended, is further amended by applying no lot coverage label to the Lot Coverage Overlay Map in Section 995.30, as shown on Diagram 5 attached to this By-law.

8. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by applying no rooming house label to the Rooming House Overlay Map in Section 995.40, as shown on Diagram 6 attached to this By-law.

9. Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending Article 900.7.10 Exception Number XXX so that it reads: (XXX) Exception (H) CR (XXX)

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) On the lands municipally known as 2721 Danforth Avenue, as shown on Diagram 1 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##], a building or structure may be constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with Regulations (B) to (S) below;

(B) Despite regulations 40.5.40.10(1) and (2), the height of any building or structure is the vertical distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum elevation of 130.05 metres and the highest point of the building or structure;

(C) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.10(2), the permitted maximum height of a building or structure is the number following the HT symbol in metres as shown on Diagram 7 of By-law [Clerks to supply By-law ##];

(D) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(3) to (8), and (C) above, the following equipment and structures may project beyond the permitted maximum height of a building shown on Diagram 7 of By-law [Clerks to supply By-law ##]:

(i) elevator overruns, mechanical equipment, and mechanical / stair enclosures may project to a maximum of 9.0 metres;

(ii) terraces and balcony guards, elements of a green roof and insulation and roof surface materials, planters, railings, wind mitigation structures, parapets, and ornamental architectural features, may project to a maximum of 4.5 metres;

(iii) window washing equipment may project to a maximum of 11.0 metres;

(iv) building maintenance units, and access ladder on top of mechanical penthouse and a ladder for maintenance purposes may project to a maximum of 3.0 metres; and

(v) public art may project above the applicable height and storey limit.

(E) Regulation 40.10.40.1(1), requiring residential uses to be located above non-residential uses, does not apply;

(F) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted minimum gross floor area is 80,000 square metres, of which:

(i) the permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 79,050 square metres; and

(ii) the permitted minimum gross floor area for non-residential uses is 950 square metres;

(G) Despite Regulation 150.5.20.1 (1), (2), (3) and (6) shall not apply.

(H) Non-residential uses are permitted on the ground floor facing a park.

(I) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.50(1), a building with 20 or more dwelling units must provide amenity space of at least 2.5 square metres for each dwelling unit, of which:

(i) at least 0.5 square metres for each dwelling unit is outdoor amenity space;

(ii) at least 2.0 square metres for each dwelling unit is indoor amenity space; and

(iii) no more than 25% percent of the outdoor component may be a green roof;

(J) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.70, the required minimum building setbacks and separation of main walls are as shown in metres on Diagram 7 of By-law [Clerks to supply By-law ##];

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

(i) eaves, cornices, columns, landscape features, wheelchair ramps, light fixtures, stairs and stair enclosures, balustrades, guardrails, bollards, awnings, arcades, canopies, raised planters, patios, retaining walls, fences, vents, screens, underground parking ramp and associated structures, damper equipment, window washing equipment to a maximum of 2.5 metres;

(ii) balconies and bay windows to a maximum of 2.2 metres;

(iii) structures used for outside or open air recreation, safety, noise mitigation, and wind mitigation, to a maximum of 2.4 metres;

(iv) architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column, cornice, sill, belt course, chimney breast, by a maximum of 3.1 metres;

(v) eaves, by a maximum of 1.0 metres;

(vi) window projections, including bay windows and box windows, by a maximum of 1.0 metres;

(vii) light fixtures, satellite dishes, antennae, vents, and pipes, by a maximum of 1.0 metres;

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

(ix) a canopy or awning with or without structural support may encroach into a required minimum building setback that abuts a street;

(L) The provision of dwelling units is subject to the following:

(i) a minimum of 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units must have two or more bedrooms;

(ii) a minimum of 9 percent of the total number of dwelling units must have three or more bedrooms;

(iii) any dwelling units with three or more bedrooms provided to satisfy (ii) above are not included in the provision required by (i) above; and

(iv) if the calculation of the number of required dwelling units with two or three bedrooms results in a number with a fraction, the number shall be rounded down to the nearest whole number;

(M) Despite Regulation 200.15.10(1), 200.15.10.5(2) and Table 200.15.10.5, a minimum of 4 accessible parking spaces are required;

(N) Despite Regulation 200.5.10.1(1) and Table 200.5.10.1, parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the following:|

(i) A maximum of 294 residential parking spaces;

(ii) A maximum of 25 residential visitor parking spaces;

(iii) No maximum parking space restriction applies to non-residential uses;

(iv) “Car-share” parking spaces may be provided;

(O) For the purposes of this exception:

(i) "car-share" or "car-sharing" means the practice where a number of people share the use of one or more cars that are owned by a profit or non-profit car-sharing organization and such car-share motor vehicles are made available to at least the occupants of the building for short-term rental, including hourly rental; and

(ii) "car-share parking space" means a parking space exclusively reserved and signed for a car used only for car-share purposes;

(P) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(4)(C), the required minimum dimensions of a stacked bicycle parking space are:

(i) Length of 1.8 metres;

(ii) Width of 0.4 metres; and

(iii) Vertical clearance of 2.4 metres;

(Q) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(10), “short-term” bicycle parking spaces may also be located in a stacked bicycle parking space;

(R) In addition to the locations a "long-term" bicycle parking space may be located as in Regulations 230.5.1.10(9)(A)(i)(ii) and (iii), and despite Regulation 230.40.1.20(2), bicycle parking spaces may also be located in the following:

(i) “long-term” and “short-term” bicycle parking spaces may be located on any floor of a building below, at, or above grade, and may be located more than 30 metres from a pedestrian entrance;

(ii) “short-term” and “long-term” bicycle parking spaces may be located within a secured room, enclosure, or any combination thereof;

(iii) “short-term” bicycle parking spaces located in stacked bicycle parking spaces may be located indoors or outdoors;

(S) Despite Clause 220.5.10.1, one Type "G” and one Type “C” loading space must be provided and maintained on the lot;

(T) Despite Regulation 200.5.1.10(2), a maximum of 10 percent of the total parking spaces provided on the lands may have a minimum width of 2.6 metres, despite being obstructed on one or both sides as described in Regulation 200.5.1.10(2)(D) without being required to provide additional width for the obstructed sides of the parking space;

(U) Despite Regulations 200.5.1.10(2)(D), electric vehicle infrastructure, including electrical vehicle supply equipment or an energized outlet, does not constitute an obstruction to a parking space;

(V) A building or structure may also be constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with sections 1 and 2 of By-law 249-2000.

Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections (None Apply)

10. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article 900.42.10 Exception Number XXX so that it reads:

(XXX) Exception OR XXX

The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) A building or structure may also be constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with sections 1 and 2 By-law 249-2000.

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

11. 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.

12. Temporary use:

(A) None of the provisions of By-law 569-2013, as amended, apply to prevent the erection and use of a “temporary sales office” on the lot for a period of not more than 3 years from the date this By-law comes into full force and effect, provided:

(i) A "temporary sales office" means a building, structure, facility or trailer, or portion thereof, on the lot used for the purpose of the sale, marketing, leasing or rental of dwelling units to be erected on the lot and related to construction on the lot.

13. Holding Symbol Provisions

(A) The Owner has secured the design and the provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure and/or new 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, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades and/or new infrastructure are required to support the development;

(B) The Owner has submitted a revised Transportation Impact Study, and a Parking and Loading Study acceptable to, and to the satisfaction of, the General Manager, Transportation Services and that such matters arising from such studies, be secured if required; and

(C) The Owner has submitted a revised Landscape Plan which includes a notation that a volume of 30 cubic metres of soil will be provided for each tree, with utilities shown to Quality Level A (QL-A), if required, and provides any necessary financial securities, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation and that such matters arising from such study be secured, if required.

Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on [date] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File OLT-23-000183.