Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

CORRECTION NOTICE

OLT CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-000460

DECISION ISSUE DATE(S):

August 21, 2024

CORRECTION NOTICE ISSUE DATE:

September 11, 2024

RE: 1366 Yonge Street Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Correction to: the Appearance list page 2 the counsel name for the City of Toronto and 1148813 Ontario Inc.

Originally:

Corrected to:

APPEARANCES:

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Parties

Counsel

City of Toronto

Kasia Czajowski

City of Toronto

Kasia Czajkowski

1148813 Ontario Inc.

K. Vergis-Mayo

1148813 Ontario Inc.

K. Vergis-Mayo

Aaron Platt (in absentia)

“Euken Lui”

EUKEN LUI

REGISTRAR

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE:

August 21, 2024

CASE NO(S).:

OLT-23-000460

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

Applicant/Appellant:

1366 Yonge Street Inc.

Subject:

Official Plan Amendment

Description:

To permit development of forty-one-storey building containing 489 residential units

Property Address:

1366 Yonge Street

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

Municipal File No.:

22 199265 STE 12 OZ

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000460

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000460

OLT Case Name:

1366 Yonge Street Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant:

1366 Yonge Street Inc.

Subject:

Zoning Bylaw Amendment

Description:

To permit development of forty-one-storey building containing 489 residential units

Property Address:

1366 Yonge Street

Municipality/UT:

Toronto/Toronto

Municipal File No.:

22 199265 STE 12 OZ

OLT Case No.:

OLT-23-000461

OLT Lead Case No.:

OLT-23-000460

OLT Case Name:

1366 Yonge Street Inc. v. Toronto (City)

Heard:

July 23, 2024 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

1366 Yonge Street Inc.

David Bronskill

City of Toronto

Kasia Czajowski

1148813 Ontario Inc.

K. Vergis-Mayo

Catholic Cemeteries & Funeral Services Inc.

J. White

D. Tang (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. Mason on july 23, 2024 AND interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision arises from a hearing to consider a settlement proposal concerning appeals by 1366 Yonge Street Inc. (“Appellant”) of the refusal of applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment (together, “Applications”) by Council for the City of Toronto (“City”) pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act, R. S. O. 1990, c. PO.13, as amended (“Act”), for lands municipally known as 1366 Yonge Street, City of Toronto (“Subject Property”).

2At a prior Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on August 30, 2023, before a panel of the Tribunal differently constituted, Party status was granted to 1148813 Ontario Inc. as the owner of 1376-1388 Yonge Street directly to the north of the Subject Property. Party status was also granted to Catholic Cemeteries & Funeral Services Inc. as the owner of St. Michaels Cemetery located at 1414 Yonge Street and adjacent to the Subject Property to the northwest.

3At the same CMC, Participant status was conferred to AVOCA Vale Residents Association, Deer Park Residents Group Inc., Dr. Carole Newman, Janis Jaffe-White, and Jayne Hayhoe (together, “Participants”). The Participants each expressed objections to the Applications primarily on the basis that the medical office and laboratory uses currently in the building on the Subject Property will be lost under the proposal and that their function is significantly important to the community and the health of its residents.

BACKGROUND AND ORIGINAL PROPOSAL

4The Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Yonge Street and Balmoral Avenue, approximately 210 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West. It is generally square in shape and approximately 996.4 square metres in area.

5The Subject Property is designated as Mixed-Use Area in the City’s Official Plan and is within the Yonge-St. Clair mixed-use node with direct access to higher-order transit (Line 1 St. Clair subway station and St. Clair streetcar line). The Yonge-St. Clair area is evolving with a growing cluster of approved tall buildings up to fifty storeys close to the transit station and main intersection.

6To the immediate north, abutting the Subject Property, is a six-storey mixed-use building containing retail commercial uses at grade and residential uses above. Directly to the West on Balmoral Avenue and adjacent to the Subject Property is a three-storey masonry clad building occupied by Toronto Fire Station 311 that is listed on the City of Toronto Heritage Register. To the northwest, the Subject Property directly backs onto the southeast corner of the St. Michael’s Cemetery that is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18. St. Michael’s Cemetery is accessed via a driveway from Yonge Street but is not publicly accessible.

7The original development proposal submitted in August 2022 and deemed complete as of September 2, 2022, contemplated a forty-one-storey mixed-use residential building comprised of grade-related retail uses and residential uses above (“Original Proposal”). The building was proposed to be configured with an eight-storey base building and a thirty-three-storey tower element with a total of 489 residential dwelling units, a residential GFA of 32,195 square metres, and a non-residential GFA of 100 square metres, resulting in a density of 32.41 FSI.

8A Decision Report dated March 22, 2023, from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, recommended refusal of the OPA and ZBA supporting the Original Proposal (“Staff Report”). The Staff Report was considered by Toronto and East York Community Council on May 10, 2023, and a refusal recommendation was made to City Council. On April 12, 2023, City Council followed the Staff Report and recommendation and refused the Applications. Subsequently, the Applications were appealed to the Tribunal by the Appellant on May 17, 2024. The Appellant and City staff continued to cooperate and participated in mediation in February 2024.

9Through a mediation process and continued cooperation between the Parties, counsel for the Appellant ultimately submitted a without prejudice settlement offer to the City on April 2, 2024, that included revised architectural plans prepared by R. Varacalli Architect Inc. dated April 3, 2024 (“Settlement Proposal”). The Settlement Proposal was accepted by City Council at its meeting on April 17 and 18, 2024 with specific pre-conditions.

SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL AND EVIDENCE

10On consent, one witness was proffered to give sworn, viva voce and affidavit evidence to the Tribunal in support of the Settlement Proposal. The Tribunal qualified Michael Bisset, a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and a Registered Professional Planner, to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.

11The witness provided evidence detailing the changes from the Original Proposal in the Settlement Proposal for the benefit of the Tribunal, highlighting:

a. Changes to the built-form achieved through increased set backs and other modifications resulting in a more slender and taller forty-nine-storey building comprised of 458 dwelling units, approximately 30,000 square meters of GFA inclusive of 168 square metres of non-residential GFA comprised of a minimum of two commercial units, resulting in a density of 30.1 FSI;

b. Reduction of the floor plate from 750 square meters to 612 square metres;

c. A shorter base building of five-storeys with levels 1-4 set back 2.0 metres on Balmoral Avenue creating a 6.0 metre curb to face dimension for those levels to provide for tree planting opportunities, and cantilevering out to the Yonge Street and Balmoral Avenue lot lines for one-storey at level 5;

d. No glazing or operable windows permitted on the west and north façade of Levels 1-5;

e. Increased set back for the tower component to 3.0 metres from both the Yonge Street and Balmoral Avenue lot lines and 1.5 metres from the west lot line;

f. A 10.0 metre north tower set back for the eastern portion of the tower component that, when combined with a minimum 10 metre set back on the lands at 1376-1388 Yonge Street to the north, would allow for an appropriate separation distance to achieve a minimum 20 metre face-to-face tower separation distance should a tower be proposed in the future on those adjacent lands;

g. A 1.5 metre tower component set back from the City-owned listed heritage property, being the fire hall on 20 Balmoral Avenue, and acknowledgement that the City may construct a building or structure on the mutual property line in the future;

h. The western portion of the north face of the tower to be the subject of a limiting distance agreement with the owner of St. Michael’s Cemetery;

i. No projecting balconies on all sides of the tower component of the building;

j. No windows on the west or north side of the proposed building base;

k. The east half of the north tower component wall adjacent to St. Michael’s Cemetery to have window restrictions to mitigate potential light view and privacy impacts on any future development properties to the north that front on Yonge Street; and

l. Amenity space increased to a combined rate of 4.0 square metres for each dwelling unit.

12The witness provided evidence that the Settlement Proposal has regard for matters of provincial interest as required in s. 2 of the Act, highlighting that the proposal optimizes the use of existing land and infrastructure within a settlement area as encouraged under the Act. Further, the witness opined that the Settlement Proposal achieves other provincial objectives, including increasing housing options and encouraging the use of existing higher-order transit infrastructure.

13The witness opined that the Settlement Proposal demonstrates consistency and conformity with policy directions in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 (“Growth Plan”) that support intensification within built-up areas serviced by higher-order public transit. The witness provided evidence that the Growth Plan sets out that the Subject Property is located within a “strategic growth area” that is intended to accommodate intensification and higher densities with a mix of uses in a more compact built form. The Witness opined that the Settlement Proposal achieved this policy goal by providing a desirable mixed-use development with access to surface and higher-order transit.

14The witness testified that the Subject Property is within the City Council-adopted St. Clair Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”) as set out in Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) 721. The witness explained that under the Growth Plan, a PMTSA is intended to include a mix of uses to support existing and planned transit service levels and to maximize the number of potential transit users within walking distance to the station. The witness opined that although the policies of the St. Clair PMTSA are not yet in force as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not yet approved them or made a decision on the SASP 721, the Settlement Proposal does satisfy the policies as adopted by City Council.

15The Witness provided evidence that the City’s Official Plan designates the Subject Property as Mixed-Use Area that imports policies to accommodate growth and intensification. According to the evidence of the witness, this designation intends the area to accommodate the largest increase in jobs and population anticipated by the Official Plan’s growth strategy. Furthermore, the witness gave evidence that the Subject Property is located along an Avenue, according to the City’s Official Plan, which is an important corridor along a major street where re-urbanization is anticipated and encouraged to create new housing and job opportunities while improving the pedestrian environment. As such, the witness opined that the Settlement Proposal appropriately conforms to Official Plan policies by delivering appropriate new housing and commercial uses in an intensification area.

16From an urban design perspective, the witness provided evidence that, at forty nine storeys, the Settlement Proposal will fit within the height range of existing and approved buildings within the area that are up to 50 storeys. The witness also provided the Tribunal evidence that the built form and massing of the Settlement Proposal are aligned with the general intent and direction of the Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan. The witness opined that the increased set backs incorporated in the Settlement Proposal allow for appropriate separation distances to the adjacent properties that protect for future development while balancing privacy and overlook concerns through the limiting distance agreement with St. Michael’s Cemetery and other design modifications to windows and balconies.

17In advance of the hearing to consider the Settlement Proposal, three of the five Participants provided the Tribunal with additional written statements beyond their original Participant Statements, with their concerns related to the Settlement Proposal. The Participants expressed their continued objection primarily on the grounds that redevelopment of the Subject Property will result in the loss of the medical services and related uses currently occupying the existing building and that, as a result, the Original Proposal and Settlement Proposal are to the detriment of the community and not in the public interest. One Participant who provided further written comments on the Settlement Proposal also highlighted that a community facilities study has not been carried out by the Applicant to consider the availability of medical services in the community and the impact of redeveloping the Subject Property to mixed-use.

18The witness for the Appellant provided evidence to the Tribunal directed at those aspects of the Settlement Proposal that address the Participants’ concerns regarding loss of medical services in the community, namely:

a. Live-work units: The Settlement Proposal includes at least 28 live-work units with shared amenity area on each of the floors in the base building. The witness opined that the live-work units may be used for medical purposes and that the amenity space on each floor accessible to those units have the potential to act as a shared lobby, meeting rooms, or other space shared by these businesses; and

b. Ground floor tenant option: The Settlement Proposal includes agreement by the Appellant that Life Lab and Diagnostic Imaging Inc. (“Life Lab”) will have the first option to rent or buy the commercial ground floor space at a rate or price to be determined by the Appellant.

19With respect to the concerns of the Participants, the witness also testified that that there are no policies applicable to the Applications that require replacement of non-residential uses in the Yonge-St. Clair area. As such, the changes in the Settlement Proposal set out above to facilitate the potential return of some medical uses are reasonable.

20The witness also provided evidence that a community facilities study was not required by the City as part of the Applications since the City had completed its own study of the area and did not request additional work from the Appellant. The witness testified that community facilities studies do not normally review the provision of private medical services of the type found in the existing building at the Subject Property and therefore, even if it had been required, would not have addressed the Participant’s concern. In summary, the witness opined that the Yonge-St. Clair area is a dense, urban neighbourhood and that there are other opportunities to access medical uses elsewhere in the direct neighbourhood or the wider community and that the Settlement Proposal provides a reasonable opportunity for some medical uses to continue at that location in the future.

21The witness opined that the replacement of employment uses in the current building as set out in the Settlement Proposal meets all applicable policy tests and is in the public interest. In conclusion, the witness opined that the Settlement Proposal struck an appropriate balance between providing an opportunity for medical services to return through the provision of the live-work units and ground floor retail as detailed in Paragraph [20] above, while also delivering additional high-quality mixed-use housing with access to existing surfaces and higher-order transit.

FINDINGS

22The Tribunal finds the affidavit and viva voce opinion evidence presented by the witness setting out the changes from the Original Proposal to the Settlement Proposal was thorough, and no contrary evidence was presented. Those changes made to the Original Proposal address the Participants’ concerns around the loss of medical services; namely, the mix of live work units with shared amenity space and the agreement to provide Life Labs with a right of first return to rent or buy the non-residential ground floor retail space; are found to be reasonable in light of the evidence that there are no policies in the Yonge-St. Clair area that compel replacement of non-residential uses.

23The Tribunal finds that overall, the suite of changes to the Original Proposal, including the set backs, smaller floor plates, design changes to protect opportunities for adjacent future development, and built form changes minimizing overlook and impacts are appropriate and satisfactory to deliver a high-quality, mixed-use development that utilizes existing infrastructure and higher-order transit.

24The Tribunal accepts the affidavit and viva voce opinion evidence of the planning witness and finds that the subject Applications, as revised, have appropriate regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in section 2 of the Act, are consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, Zoning By-Law, and Official Plan, and otherwise reflect principles of good land use planning.

order

25THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, on an interim basis contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, and receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [26] below, and in accordance with the settlement offer evidenced in Exhibit E of the Affidavit of Michael Bisset, the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment set out as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2, respectively, to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.

26The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters adopted by City Council at its meeting of April 17 and 18, 2024, have been satisfied, specifically:

a. The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment(s) are in a final form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

b. The owner has revised the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report, Hydrogeological Review Summary, and Groundwater Summary providing confirmation of water, sanitary, and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

c. The owner has addressed all comments contained in the Engineering and Construction Services memorandum dated November 29, 2022, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;

d. The owner has entered into and registered a financially secured agreement satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services to construct, provide, make operational, and warrant any necessary upgrades to existing services and facilities or new services and facilities;

e. The owner has provided a revised Wind Study to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;

f. The owner has provided Vehicle Maneuvering Diagrams to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Transportation Services; and,

g. The owner has registered on title a Limiting Distance Agreement over 1366 Yonge Street, including the City and Catholic Cemeteries & Funeral Services Inc. as parties, that ensures a no-build area over St. Michael’s Cemetery and includes provisions for the property line between 1366 Yonge Street and St. Michael’s Cemetery as described in the settlement letter.

27The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

28If 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 [26] above have been satisfied and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Monday, January 23, 2025, the Applicant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Official Plan Amendment and draft Zoning By-Law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

29The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final from of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, and the issuance of the Final Order.

30The Member may be spoken to should issues arise in the implementation of this Order.

“A. Mason”

A. Mason

MEMBER

Ontario Land Tribunal

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

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

ATTACHMENT 1

Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Order and Decision issued on , 20, in Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-000460

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW ###-2024(OLT)

To adopt Amendment ### to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the lands known municipally in the year 2023 as 1366 Yonge Street.

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

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

1. The text and map attached to Amendment XXX to the Official Plan is hereby adopted pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended.

Pursuant to Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on , 20 and Order issued on , 20 in OLT-23-000460

AMENDMENT XXX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2023 AS 1366 YONGE STREET.

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

1. Map 6-2, Site and Area Specific Policies, Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan, is amended by delineating the boundaries of Area XXX as shown on the attached Map 1.

2. Chapter 6, Section 6, Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan, is amended by inserting the following policy in subsection 8, Site and Specific Policies:

XXX. “1366 Yonge Street

a) For the lands shown as XXX on Map 6-2:

(i) the maximum permitted height for the building is 155 metres excluding projections and the mechanical penthouse roof; and

(ii) on Balmoral Avenue, a building may be setback 0 metres from the lot line.”

Map 1

ATTACHMENT 2

Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Order and Decision issued on , 20, in Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-000460

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW ###-2024(OLT)

To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2023 as 1366 Yonge Street.

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, by its Decision issued on [date] and its Order issued on [date], in respect of Tribunal File OLT-23-000460, upon hearing an appeal under Section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P13, as amended, determined to amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2023 as1366 Yonge Street; and

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, as amended, to pass this By-law; and

Whereas pursuant to Section 39 of the Planning Act, as amended, the council of a municipality may, in a by-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize the temporary use of land, buildings or structures for any purpose set out therein that is otherwise prohibited in the by-law.

The Ontario Land Tribunal Orders:

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

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

3. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the zone label on the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.11 respecting the lands outlined by heavy black lines from a zone label of CR 3.0 (c2.0; r2.5) SS2 (x2523) to a zone label of CR 3.0 (c2.0; r2.5) SS2 (xXXXX) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.

4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending Article 900.11.100 Exception Number #### so that it reads:

(xxxx) Exception CR (xXXXX)

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 1366 Yonge Street, if the requirements of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##] are complied with, 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 a building or structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 142.4 metres and the elevation of 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 in metres following the letters "HT" as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];

(D) Despite Regulation 40.10.40(1), residential use portions of the building may be located on the same storey as non-residential use portions of the building;

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

(i) equipment used for the functional operation of the building, including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment, as well as enclosed stairwells, roof access, maintenance equipment storage, elevator shafts, chimneys, and vents, by a maximum of 6.0 metres;

(ii) structures that enclose, screen, or cover the equipment, structures and parts of a building listed in (i) above, including a mechanical penthouse, by a maximum of 6.0 metres;

(iii) architectural features, parapets, and elements and structures associated with a green roof, by a maximum of 1.5 metres;

(iv) building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a maximum of 3.6 metres;

(v) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, and divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace, by a maximum of 1.5 metres;

(vi) antennae, flagpoles and satellite dishes, by a maximum of 3.0 metres; and

(vii) trellises, pergolas, and unenclosed structures providing safety or wind protection to rooftop amenity space, by a maximum of 3.6 metres;

(F) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot is 30,100 square metres, of which:

(i) the permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 29,900 square metres; and

(ii) the permitted maximum gross floor area for non-residential uses is 200 square metres;

(G) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.50(1), a building with 20 or more dwelling units must provide amenity space at a minimum rate of 4.0 square metres for each dwelling unit, of which:

(i) a minimum of 2.0 square metres for each dwelling unit is indoor amenity space;

(ii) a minimum of 0.5 square metres for each dwelling unit is outdoor amenity space of which at least 40.0 square metres is outdoor amenity space in a location adjoining or directly accessible to the indoor amenity space; and

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

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

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

(i) canopies and awnings, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;

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

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

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

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

(vi) eaves, by a maximum of 1.0 metres; and

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

(J) No balcony projections into required minimum building setbacks are permitted;

(K) Despite Regulations 40.10.50.10(1) and (3), no soft landscaping is required along a lot line abutting a lot in the Residential Zone category;

(L) Despite Regulation 40.10.50.10(2), no fence is required along a lot line abutting a lot in the Residential Zone category;

(M) Despite Regulation 200.5.10.1(1) and Table 200.5.10.1:

(i) no parking spaces are required for residential visitors to the building; and

(ii) a minimum of two “car-share parking spaces” must be provided on the lot;

(a) For the purposes of this exception, "car-share” means the practice whereby a number of people share the use of one or more motor vehicles 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

(b) for the purpose of this exception, "car-share parking space" means a parking space exclusively reserved and signed for a vehicle used only for "car-share" purposes; and

(c) for the purpose of this exception, a "car-share parking space" means a parking space exclusively reserved and actively used for "car-share" purposes, including by non-residents;

(N) Despite Regulation 200.15.10.10(1), no accessible parking spaces are required;

(O) Despite Regulation 220.5.10.1(2), a minimum of one Type “G” loading space must be provided;

(P) Despite Regulations 230.5.1.10(6) and 230.5.10.19(9) both “long-term” and “short-term” bicycle parking spaces may be located outdoors, indoors, or in an enclosed room or enclosure, and located on any floor of a building, above or below grade; and

(Q) Despite Regulation 230.40.1.20(2), “short-term” bicycle parking spaces may be located more than 30 metres from a pedestrian entrance to the building;

(R) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(10), both “long-term” and “short-term” bicycle parking spaces may be provided in a stacked bicycle parking space;

(S) Dwelling units on the second to fifth storeys may be used for home occupation purposes.

Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections: None Apply

5. 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.

Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Order issued on , 20, in Tribunal Case No. OLT-23-000460