Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: September 25, 2024
CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000553
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended.
Applicant/Appellant: 673 Warden Realty Holdings Inc
Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision
Description: ZBA to facilitate a 15-storey mixed-use building containing 274 residential dwelling units, rooftop amenity space, retail uses on ground floor and 3 levels of underground parking for 148 spaces
Reference Number: 22 203398 ESC 20 OZ
Property Address: 673 Warden Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000553
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000553
OLT Case Name: 673 Warden Realty Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c 11, Sched. A, amended.
Subject: Site Plan
Description: SP to facilitate a 15-storey mixed-use building containing 274 residential dwelling units, rooftop amenity space, retail uses on ground floor and 3 levels of underground parking for 148 spaces
Reference Number: 22 203397 ESC 20 SA
Property Address: 673 Warden Avenue
Municipality: City of Toronto
OLT Case No: OLT-23-000554
OLT Lead Case No: OLT-23-000553
Heard: September 5, 2024 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
Parties
Counsel
673 Warden Realty Holdings Inc.
Justine Reyes Chris Tanzola
City of Toronto
Michelle LaFortune Laura Bissett (In Absentia)
Choice Properties Limited Partnership
David Neligan Eileen Costello (In Absentia)
Rataj Holdings Inc. and Tradition Fine Foods Ltd.
Raj Kehar
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY David Brown ON September 5, 2024 AND INterim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Interim Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matter before the Tribunal concerns Appeals filed by 673 Warden Realty Holdings Inc. (“Appellant”) against the City of Toronto (“City”) for its failure to make a decision on an Application to Amend the Zoning By-law (“ZBA”) within the timeframe prescribed in s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O., c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”), and for the City’s failure to make a decision on an Application for Site Plan Approval (“SPA”) within the timeframe prescribed in s. 114(15) of the City of Toronto Act, S.O. 2006, c. 11 Sched. A. The lands which are the subject of the Appeals are known municipally as 673 Warden Avenue (“Subject Property”).
2The Appellant’s original submission proposed a 16-storey, mixed-use building comprised of 274 residential units and a non-residential gross floor area (“GFA”) of 206 square metres (“m2”).
3The Subject Property is located at the northeast corner of Warden Avenue and Bell Estate Road, approximately 760 metres (“m”) south of St. Clair Avenue East. The Subject Property is rectangular in shape having a total area of 2,753 m2 with frontages of 70 m on Warden Avenue and 38 m on Bell Estate Road. Two easements have been identified on the Subject Property which are located across the southern portion of the lot. The first easement is in favour of the City for stormwater sewer service. The second easement is used for the purposes of vehicular and pedestrian passage to the benefit of the property to the east. The proposed development has been designed to maintain and respect the existing easements.
4The Appellant submitted the ZBA and SPA on September 7, 2022. The Applications were deemed complete by the City on September 14, 2022. A Community Consultation Meeting was held on March 8, 2023.
5The Appellant filed Appeals of the ZBA and SPA on May 1, 2023.
6City Council considered a Settlement Offer at their meeting on May 22, 2024, and endorsed the Settlement.
7The Tribunal was advised that the Parties have settled the issues in the Appeals and the Tribunal have convened these proceedings to consider the Appeals and the Settlement pursuant to Rule 12 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
8The City, Choice Properties Limited Partnership (“Choice”), Rataj Holdings Inc. (“Rataj”), and Tradition Fine Foods Ltd. (“TFF”) were in attendance indicating their support for the Settlement Proposal.
9Mr. Kehar, on behalf of Rataj and TFF, advised that the Settlement included addressing the classification of the Subject Property as a Class 4 Area under the Provincial Environmental Noise Guidelines (NPC-300) (“NPC-300”). This issue arises due to the proximity of the proposed sensitive land use, being the proposed residential uses, to the TFF food production operation located south of the Subject Property.
SETTLEMENT
10The Settlement Proposal seeks to redevelop the Subject Property by constructing a 27-storey, mixed-use building containing a total of 314 residential units and 353 m2 of non-residential GFA. The Settlement Proposal is described on the Architectural plans prepared by Arcadis Architects under project number 137381 with a revision date of May 1, 2024. A copy of the plans is attached at Exhibit F of Tribunal Exhibit 1.
11As a result of subsequent discussions with the City, the Appellant agreed to provide a minimum 350 m2 of non-residential GFA at grade. A revised Ground Floor Plan demonstrating the additional non-residential GFA was prepared and included at Exhibit K of the Tribunal Exhibit 1.
12The proposed building will be setback to respect the easements along the southerly side of the Subject Property and a 0.4 m road widening will be provided along Warden Avenue.
13The Settlement Plans detail the following:
A building height of 89.4 m plus a 5 m mechanical penthouse;
A 4.5 m setback to Warden Avenue with a 2.25 m step-backs at the fifth floor and again at the seventh floor;
A 12.4 m setback to Bell Estate Road;
A 7.5 m setback to east property line, with the exception of the underground parking ramp, and a step-back of 2.95m at the seventh floor;
A 5.5 m setback to the north property line with a 5.2 m step-back at the seventh floor;
Access to the parking ramp and loading area is by private lane at the south-east corner of the Subject Property;
The main residential lobby entrance is oriented towards the northwest portion of the site and accessed from Warden Avenue;
A Type G and Type B loading space are provided in the service area;
Amenity Area is at a ratio of 4 m2 per unit (2 m2 indoor and 2 m2 outdoor) for a total of 1,256 m2; and
148 vehicle parking spaces are proposed (130 resident and 18 visitor) and 230 bicycle parking spaces are proposed.
SUBMISSIONS
14The Tribunal considered the testimony and affidavit evidence in support of the Settlement from Michael Goldberg, a qualified land use planner. Mr. Goldberg’s Affidavit, sworn on August 30, 2024, was marked as Exhibit 1.
15Mr. Goldberg reviewed the context of the Subject Property explaining that it is located approximately 650 m south of the entrance to the Toronto Transit Commission (“TTC”) Warden Subway Station and the surface transit routes along Warden Avenue and St. Clair Avenue which are part of the TTC’s 10-Minute Network providing 24-hour service, seven days a week. This convenient proximity to the frequent transit and rapid transit stations establishes the Subject Property as being within a Major Transit Station Area (“MTSA”) as defined in A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2020), as amended, (“Growth Plan”).
16The Subject Property is identified in the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) as being designated Mixed Use Areas on the Land Use Plan (Map 20). The Mixed Use Areas designation permits a broad range of commercial, residential and institutional uses. The Subject Property is also located within the Warden Woods Community Secondary Plan Area (“WWCSP”) where transit-supportive, mixed-use redevelopments of mid-range height and densities are anticipated.
17Mr. Goldberg further reviewed the area context explaining that the Subject Property is located within the Clairlea-Birchmount Neighbourhood that includes a combination of open space, retail-commercial, employment-industrial, and residential uses focused along Warden Avenue.
18West of the Subject Property, across Warden Avenue, is Firvalley Woods which connects to the larger Warden Woods. Warden Woods is designated Parks and Natural Areas in the OP. To the Northwest is a Toronto Community Housing Corporation development comprised of two-storey townhouses and a 15- storey apartment building. These lands are designated as Apartment Neighbourhoods in the OP. Immediately north of the Subject Property is a self-storage facility, north of that is a vacant parcel, the Choice lands, that is the subject of an Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”) Appeal which has been settled with the City. The proposed development proposes six towers ranging from 6 to 49 storeys. East of the Subject Property is a four-storey nursing home. South of Bell Estate Road is a 30-unit townhouse development and south of that site is the Rataj lands where TFF operates their food production facility. The lands along the east side of Warden Avenue are designated Mixed Use Areas in the OP.
19Warden Avenue is a Major Street identified in the OP and provides sidewalks along both sides and is well served by TTC Bus Service. Mr. Goldberg proffered that the surrounding area is evolving with tall, high-density buildings as evidenced by recent approvals to the north of the Subject Property. The area is well served by community facilities, indoor and outdoor recreational facilities, retail and service commercial uses, restaurants, places of worship, and educational facilities.
20Mr. Goldberg explained that the Site and Architectural Plans were negotiated with City Staff to arrive at the Settlement Plans that formed the basis of the Settlement and the Draft Zoning By-law (“DZB”) found at Exhibit H of his Affidavit and as filed with the Tribunal as Exhibit 2. The DZB includes provisions that address, among other matters, heights, setbacks, step-backs, and parking. The DZB also brings the lands into the City’s Zoning By-law No. 569-2013. Mr. Goldberg also advised that an H, Holding Provision has been included in the DZB to address the designation of the Subject Property as a Class 4 Area under NPC-300.
21To implement the Settlement, a ZBA is required together with an SPA. The proposed development does not require an amendment of the OP.
Planning Submissions
22As set out in s. 2 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to have regard for the matters of provincial interest listed. Mr. Goldberg proffered that the proposed development has regard for the applicable provincial interests, as follows:
The proposed transit-oriented development will contribute to the efficient use of transportation, sewage and water services;
Redevelopment of the Subject Property represents the orderly development of a safe and healthy community;
The development will add a range of residential units to the existing stock of housing;
The Subject Property is an appropriate location of growth and development;
The proposed design is sustainable, poses no adverse negative impacts to the ecological integrity of the area, will support public transit, and is pedestrian oriented; and
The built form is well designed and includes an enhanced streetscape that is accessible, attractive, and increases connection thus contributing to a vibrant sense of place.
23The Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 (“PPS”) provides a policy framework that promotes and encourages intensification in locations well served by municipal infrastructure, including rapid transit. Mr. Goldberg proffered that the proposed development represents intensification on an underutilized site, within an area offering existing and planned transit supportive residential and mixed-use buildings, and in proximity to transit and local community services and facilities. The proposed redevelopment of the Subject Property with a more intense urban form will be an efficient use of land, that will cost-effectively utilize existing infrastructure and community facilities and optimize the land base and infrastructure. Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposed development is consistent with the PPS.
24Mr. Goldberg noted that the Province has introduced a new Provincial Planning Statement (“PPS 2024”) to come into effect on October 20, 2024. The PPS 2024 will replace the PPS and the Growth Plan. Mr. Goldberg advised that he has reviewed the PPS 2024, and finds that the proposed development and the ZBA are consistent with the policy directions contained in the document.
25Similar to the PPS, Mr. Goldberg proffered that the Growth Plan” encourages compact and vibrant complete communities that optimize the use of land and infrastructure in order to support growth in a compact efficient form. The Growth Plan strengthens, reinforces, and supports the Provincial policy direction of promoting intensification and making efficient use of the land base and of available and planned infrastructure as a means to create complete communities. Mr. Goldberg reviewed the applicable policies contained within the Growth Plan pertaining to managing growth, achieving complete communities, strategic growth areas, and MTSA’s.
26Mr. Goldberg advised that the Subject Property is located within a MTSA due to its proximity to the Warden Subway Station and access to Frequent Transit. The City adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 570 (“OPA 570”) which created Site and Area Specific Policy 648 (“SASP 648”) delineating the Warden Subway station as a Protected MTSA. It was noted that OPA 570 is currently awaiting approval from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and is therefore not in force at this time.
27Mr. Goldberg opined that the ZBA through the Settlement Proposal, implements the policies of the Growth Plan by:
Accommodating a well-planned, compact, intensified, transit-supportive, pedestrian-oriented urban form;
Making efficient use of, and optimizing the land base and infrastructure, in a location well served by public transit and within very close proximity to recreation, shops, services, and commercial uses;
Introducing a residential development on an underutilized site, contributing to the evolution of Warden Avenue as a Complete Community; and
Representing intensification in an appropriate location.
28Mr. Goldberg advised it is his opinion the ZBA and conforms with the Growth Plan.
29In consideration of the OP, Mr. Goldberg advised that the site is designated Mixed Use Areas on Land Use Plan (Map 20) of the OP. The Mixed Use Areas is a land use designation where growth is planned to be accommodated and permits a broad range of commercial, residential, and institutional uses, in single use or mixed-use buildings, as well as parks and open spaces.
30Section 4.5 of the OP sets out development criteria for developments in Mixed Use Areas which Mr. Goldberg reviewed concluding that the proposed development satisfies the criteria as follows:
The shadow impacts on the streets, open spaces, and the nearest Neighbourhood designated lands located to the southeast of the Subject Property, are limited;
The proposed development will frame Warden Avenue and create an enhanced pedestrian environment on the street with comfortable wind conditions and sufficient access to sunlight;
Sufficient off-street parking for vehicles and bicycles is provided for residents and visitors;
Access to the underground garage is from a private lane off Bell Estate Road limiting impact and visibility from the adjacent streets and the public realm. Waste storage and service areas are located within the building, further minimizing impact on the street and adjacent properties;
A 0.4 m road widening along Warden Avenue together with enhanced landscaping and public realm features located within the Warden Avenue right- of-way contribute to creating an attractive and safe pedestrian environment; and
Ground floor retail space will be provided along the Warden Avenue and Bell Estate Road.
31Mr. Goldberg reviewed the Public Realm and Built Form Policies in the OP and opined that the policies have been appropriately considered, as the proposed development will support both active transportation and public transportation and the proposed building will frame and define the street edge while providing sufficient space for landscaping to enhance the public realm while at the same time being street related. The proposed building will achieve appropriate street-related massing and has appropriate setbacks and massing so that it will fit in with the existing and planned context. The scale and form of the proposed development is an appropriate fit and landscaping will enhance the streetscape and the character of the area.
32The Housing Policies have been addressed as the proposed development will broaden the housing type and choice of housing in this neighbourhood, providing options for families with larger units and in having this community evolve as a more ‘complete community’. Mr. Goldberg opined that the proposed ZBA conforms with the applicable Housing Policies of the OP.
33The provision of additional housing, in proximity to transit, retail and service commercial opportunities, and a range of employment and institutional uses in the immediate surrounding area, contributes to the achievement of a more complete community. Mr. Goldberg proffered that the proposed development complements and augments the range of built form planned in the area and contributes to the evolution of Warden Avenue, as envisioned in the WWCSP.
34Mr. Goldberg addressed the issue of compatibility and mitigation in respect of the proposed development due to the proximity of the proposed development to the TFF operation. He explained that a Land Use Compatibility Assessment has been completed as required by the OP. The Assessment concluded that residential uses are feasible for the Subject Property and recommended a Class 4 designation under NPC-300. The Report was peer reviewed by TFF’s Engineers, who indicated they are in agreement with the conclusions of the Appellant’s Engineers. The classification of the Subject Property is recommended as a condition of the approval of the DZB.
35Mr. Goldberg further advised that a report is currently being prepared for City Council’s consideration recommending the designation of the Subject Property as a Class 4 Area site under NPC-300.
36Mr. Goldberg confirmed that discussions with City Planning Staff resulted in agreement that the proposed development conforms to the WWCSP and no amendment to the OP is required. Further, the Subject Property is located within the lands covered by SASP 648, which is still awaiting approval from the MMAH, and the proposed development will conform with the provisions of the SASP 648 once it is in effect.
37Mr. Goldberg advised that he has reviewed the Tall Building Design Guidelines, the Growing Up Guidelines, and the Pet Friendly design Guidelines and proffered that the proposed development has had appropriate regard for the Guidelines at this stage of the process and the Guidelines will be further reviewed during the ongoing processing of the SPA.
38Mr. Goldberg concluded and opined that the ZBA is consistent with the PPS, conforms to the Growth Plan and the OP and recommended the approval of the ZBA in principle as set out in the DZB included in Exhibit 6 to Tribunal Exhibit 1 and subject to the conditions set out in the Settlement, including the adjournment of the SPA sine die.
39It was noted that should City Council approve the designation of the Subject Property as a Class 4 site under NPC-300, the proposed DZB will be revised to include provisions acknowledging the designation.
40Should City Council refuse the designation as a Class 4 site, the Appellant confirmed that it will refer the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication.
41Mr. Kehar confirmed that his clients understand the process of the designation of the property and the resultant impact on the final form of the DZB.
42The City confirmed that they are currently reviewing the request for the Class 4 designation as described by Mr. Goldberg.
43Mr. Goldberg proffered his professional opinion that the ZBA as described in the Settlement Proposal represents good planning and is in the public interest.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
44The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Goldberg.
45The urban fabric of the area contains a mix of building forms including a range of heights and densities and an emerging pattern is being established in the area along the Warden Avenue Corridor focused towards the TTC Subway station at St. Clair and Warden Avenue. The proposed development supports the policy intent of the Province and the City to direct growth close to existing and planned rapid transit infrastructure. The proposed development contributes to the emerging urban pattern and supply of housing near a significant transit node.
46The proposed development as described in the architectural plans supporting the Settlement is a well-designed organization of the Subject Property, and represents an appropriate height and density, within a built form that responds to the City’s OP policies.
47The Tribunal notes that the designation of the Subject Property under NPC-300 will be addressed by City Council. Should the outcome not be favourable to the Appellant, the Tribunal acknowledges that the matter may be referred to the Tribunal for further consideration. This Tribunal has heard no evidence to determine the matter in issue with respect to the designation of the Subject Property under NPC-300 and this Decision is not to be construed as support, or otherwise, for the designation of the Subject Property under NPC-300.
48The Tribunal finds that the appropriate regard has been had for the matters of provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act.
49The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal to be implemented through the DZB arising from the ZBA is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan.
50The Tribunal finds that the DZB conforms with the OP.
51The Tribunal allows the Appeal in part and approves the ZBA in principle on the conditions as set out in the Settlement Offer and as recommended by Mr. Goldberg in his Affidavit, save and except item viii., as the matter addressed in item viii. is more appropriately addressed in the final form of the ZBL.
52The Appeal of the SPA is adjourned sine die to allow the City and the Appellant to continue to negotiate an acceptable set of architectural plans for approval. The Parties are to report back to the Tribunal on the status of the SPA Appeal by Friday May 30, 2025.
53The Tribunal finds that the proposed development and the ZBA required to implement same represents good planning.
INTERIM ORDER
54THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Appeal filed pursuant to subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, (OLT Case File No. OLT-23-000553) is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [55] below and that the Zoning By-law Amendment, as set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is approved in principle.
55The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order respecting the Appeal referred to in the preceding paragraph contingent upon receipt and approval of the Zoning By-Law Amendment in its final form and confirmation from the City Solicitor of the following:
a. The Zoning By-law Amendment is of a final content and form satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the City Solicitor;
b. The Owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report or addendums, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water;
c. The Owner has secured the design and provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Functional Servicing Report, Stormwater Management Report, and Hydrogeological Review, including the Foundation Drainage Report or addendums, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water;
d. The Owner has provided an addendum to the Transportation Impact Study, dated September 2022, including acceptable Transportation Demand Measures to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with the General Manager, Transportation Services;
e. The Owner has submitted a revised full Landscape drawing set including Soil Volume Plans and Chart to address compliance with the Toronto Green Standard, including the parts of the ecology section, which pertain to existing and proposed trees and soil volume requirements, as well as Manufacturer specific soil cell layouts, sections and specifications (stamped by a licensed professional Civil Engineer and Structural Engineer in the Province of Ontario warranting that the product as proposed satisfied all City of Toronto loading requirements) along with a Public Utility Plan inclusive of Quality Level A data, all acceptable and satisfactory to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation;
f. The Owner has submitted an updated complete Toronto Green Standards (TGS) Checklist and Statistics Template, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
g. The Owner has submitted a Compatibility and Mitigation Study for Air Quality, Dust, Odour, Noise and Vibration, that is peer reviewed by a qualified third-party consultant retained by the City of Toronto, at the Owner’s expense, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
h. The Owner has submitted an updated Wind Tunnel Study to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, with any required wind mitigation measures to be secured through the Site Plan approval process; and
i. The Council of the City of Toronto has rendered a decision supporting the designation of the Subject Lands as a Class 4 Area under the Provincial Environmental Noise Guidelines (Publication NPC-300).
56Should the Council of the City of Toronto render a decision that does not support the designation of the Subject Lands as a Class 4 Area under the Provincial Environmental Noise Guidelines (Publication NPC-300), the Parties may request the Tribunal to convene a hearing on the Zoning By-law Amendment Appeal for the sole purpose of determining whether the Subject Lands should be identified as a Class 4 Area under the Provincial Environmental Noise Guidelines (Publication NPC-300) but for no other purpose. Upon the determination of the designation and upon receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in the preceding paragraph, save and except item “i”, the Tribunal shall then issue a Final Order with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment Appeal.
57If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and provide confirmation that the contingent prerequisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [55] above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Friday, May 30, 2025, the Appellants 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 Zoning By-law Amendment and request for the issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
58The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties to determine the additional timeline for the submission of the final form of the instruments and the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order.
59The Tribunal grants the adjournment of the Appeal of the Site Plan Application (OLT Case File No.OLT-22-000554) sine die. The Appellant and the City shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by Friday, May 30, 2025, updating the Tribunal on the status of the Appeal and the expected timelines for the resolution of the Site Plan Application.
60The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.
61The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event any matter or matters should arise in the connection with the implementation of this Order.
“David Brown”
DAVID BROWN
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on [date, 2024] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File [OLT-23-000553]
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW [Clerks to insert By-law number]
To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2024 as 673 Warden Avenue.
Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, by its Decision issued on [date] and its Order issued on [date], in respect of Tribunal File [OLT-23-000553], 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 2024 as 673 Warden Avenue; 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
The Ontario Land Tribunal Orders:
The lands subject to this By-law are outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.
The words highlighted in bold type in this By-law have the meaning provided in Zoning By-law 569-2013, Chapter 800 Definitions.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending the zone label on the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.10 respecting the lands outlined by heavy black lines to CR (XXX) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article 900.11.10 Exception Number XXX so that it reads:
([assigned exception number] Exception 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 673 Warden Avenue, shown on Diagram 1 of By-law XXX-2024, if the requirements of By-law XXX-2024 are complied with then an apartment building may be constructed in compliance with (B) to (P) below;
(B) For the purpose of this exception, the lot is shown in heavy line on Diagram 1 of By-law XXX-2024;
(C) 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 141.75 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;
(D) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.1(1), residential lobby and amenity portions of the building are permitted to be located on the same storey as non-residential use portions of the building provided.
(E) Despite regulation 40.10.40.10(1), 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 ##];
(F) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.10(7), the permitted maximum number of storeys in a building is the number following the letters "ST" as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##]; and
(i) For the purpose of this exception, the following portions of a building do not constitute as a storey:
(a) Mechanical penthouse levels;
(b) Any portion of a building below the ground level;
(c) A “mezzanine” which is located between the ground floor and second floor which is partly open to the floor below.
(G) Despite regulations 40.5.40.10(3) to (8) and (E) and (F) above, the following equipment and structures may project above the permitted maximum height shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##]:
i. a mechanical penthouse by a maximum of 5.0 metres
ii. structures that enclose, screen or cover the equipment, structures and parts of a building and a machine room with elevator overrun may project beyond a mechanical penthouse, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
iii. architectural features, ornamental elements, and 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, cooling towers, heating, cooling or ventilating equipment, chimneys, and vents may project beyond the mechanical penthouse by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
iv. building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
v. trellises, pergolas, landscaping features, fences, awnings, lightning rods, light fixtures, divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace, and unenclosed elements or structures providing safety or wind protection of rooftop amenity by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
vi. structures associated with a green roof, may project above the permitted height limit for the mechanical penthouse as set out in the sections abvove by a maximum of 1.5 metres;
(H) Despite regulation 40.10.40.40(1) and 40.5.1.10(3), the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures provided on the lot is 25,107 square metres, of which:
i. the permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is 24,770 square metres; and
ii. the required minimum gross floor area for non-residential uses is 348 square metres;
(I) Despite regulation 40.10.40.50(1) and (2), amenity space must be provided on the lot as follows
i. a minimum of 2.0 square metres of indoor amenity space per unit; and
ii. 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; and
iv. indoor and outdoor amenity space may be located on the same storey as a mechanical penthouse and shall not constitute a storey;
(J) Despite regulation 40.10.40.70(1), the required minimum building setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];
(K) Despite clause 40.10.40.60 and (J), the following may encroach into the required minimum building setbacks on Diagram 3 as follows:
i. Architectural features, cladding, air intake and air handling units, chimneys, lighting fixtures, communication equipment, flues, window washing equipment, screens cornices, architectural elements, pilasters and eaves, bay windows, window sills and light fixtures, canopies and awnings, ornamental elements, landscape features, railing, vents, shafts, mechanical and ventilation equipment, air conditioners, pipes, piers and pillars by a maximum of 1.5 metres;
ii. Exterior stairs, stair enclosures, doors, access ramps, screens, site servicing features and underground garage ramps and associated structures many encroach by a maximum of 3.0 metres; and
iii. Balconies by a maximum of 2.0 metres;
iv. Balconies and associated architectural features on the east face of the building between a building height of 7.0 m and 23.0 m by 3.3 m.
(L) Despite 200.25.15.2, 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 148 parking spaces shall be provided on the lot and distributed as follows:
a) a maximum of 130 parking spaces for residential use; and
b) a minimum of 2.0 plus 0.05 parking spaces per dwelling unit for visitor use, inclusive of non-residential uses;
(M) Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on the lot in accordance with the following:
i. a minimum of 0.68 long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit;
ii. a minimum of 0.05 short term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided for each dwelling unit; and
(N) In addition to regulation 230.5.1.10(10), both short-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces may also be located in a stacked bicycle parking space arrangement, in any combination of vertical, horizontal or stacked positions, may be located indoors or outdoors, may be located in a secured room or enclosure or area on any floor of a building, may be located below, or above established grade, and may be located more than 30 metres from a pedestrian entrance.
(O) For the purpose of this exception, each word or expression that is in bold font in this exception shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in Chapter 800 of this By-law, as amended, except for the following:
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;
Car-share parking spaces means a parking space exclusively reserved and signed for a vehicle used only for “care-share” purposes;
Long Term Bicycle parking space means an area that is equipped with a bicycle rack or locker for the purpose of parking and securing bicycles, and:
a. where the bicycles are to be parked on a horizontal surface, dimensions shall be as follows:
i. minimum length of 1.8 metres
ii. minimum width of: 0.6 metres, and
iii. minimum vertical clearance of 1.9 metres
b. where the bicycles are to be parked in a vertical position, dimensions shall be as follows:
i. minimum length or vertical clearance of 1.9 metres
ii. minimum width of 0.6 metres, and
iii. minimum horizontal clearance from the wall of 1.2 metres
c. where bicycles are to be parked in a stacked bicycle parking space, dimensions shall be as follows:
i. minimum length of 1.8 metres
ii. minimum width of 0.37 metres, and
iii. minimum vertical clearance for each bicycle parking space of 1.0 metres; and
d. May be located outdoors or indoors including within a secured room or enclosure, or combination thereof.
- Short Term Bicycle parking space means an area that is equipped with a bicycle rack or locker for the purpose of parking and securing bicycles, and:
a. where the bicycles are to be parked on a horizontal surface, dimensions of a bicycle parking space shall be as follows:
ii. minimum length of 1.8 metres
iii. minimum width of 0.6 metres, and
iv. minimum vertical clearance of 1.9 metres
b. where the bicycles are to be parked in a vertical position, on a wall, structure, or mechanical device, or parking stacker, dimensions shall be as follows:
i. minimum length or vertical clearance of 1.9 metres
ii. minimum width of 0.6 metres, and
iii. minimum horizontal clearance from the wall of 1.2 metres
c. where bicycles are to be parked in a stacked bicycle parking space, dimensions shall be as follows:
i. minimum length of 1.8 metres
ii. minimum width of 0.37 metres, and
iii. minimum vertical clearance for each bicycle parking space of 1.0 metres;
(P) The provisions of this by-law will continue to apply despite any future severance, partition, dedication or division of the lands outlined by heavy black lines on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law.
(Q) None of the provisions of Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, or this By-law apply to prevent the erection and use of a temporary sales or leasing office on the lot, used exclusively for the initial sale and/or initial leasing of dwelling units on the lands to which this By-law applies.
Holding Provisions:
(R) The lands zoned with the “(H)” Holding Symbol delineated by heavy lines on Diagram 2 attached to, and forming part of this By-law shall not be permitted to be used for any purpose other than those uses located in the buildings and structures, and existing on the lands as of the date passage of this By-law and any Temporary Use permitted by provision (Q) above, until the “(h)” symbol has been removed. An amending By-law to remove the “(h)” symbol may be enacted by City Council when the following conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City:
i. 673 Warden Avenue is approved by Council to be designated as NPC-300 Class 4, as confirmed by the City solicitor.
Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:
(A) None Apply
Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on [date] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order effective on [date] in File OLT-23-000553.