Kennedy Road Holdings Limited v Toronto (City), 2025 CanLII 110379

Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 22, 2025

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-000586

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

Applicant and Appellant: Kennedy Road Holdings

Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision

Description: To permit the development of two towers, 21 and 42 storeys in height

Reference Number: 22 121988 ESC 20 OZ

Property Address: 708-712 Kennedy Road

Municipality: Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-000586

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-000586

OLT Case Name: Kennedy Road Holdings Limited v Toronto (City)

Heard: July 30, 2025 by Video Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

Kennedy Road Holdings Limited

Joe Hoffman

City of Toronto

Gabe Szobel Jamie Dexter

DECISION DELIVERED BY bita m. rajaee and n. eisazadeh AND Interim ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Interim Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Hearing arose from an appeal, pursuant to section 34(11) of the Planning Act, by Kennedy Road Holdings ("Owner"), of the failure of the City of Toronto ("City") to make a decision within the statutory timeframes on an application for a Zoning By-law Amendment ("ZBA") with respect to lands located at 708 and 712 Kennedy Road in the City ("Subject Site").

2The purpose of the ZBA is to amend the City-Wide Zoning By-law 596-2013 to allow for redevelopment of the Subject Site, replacing two low rise buildings currently on the site with two new purpose-built rental buildings.

3A Case Management Conference took place on October 18, 2024, wherein it was confirmed that Notice had been adequately served, and a 10-day Hearing was scheduled to commence on July 21, 2024. The Parties subsequently advised that they had resolved all issues on the Issues List, save for one, thereby requiring only one day for the Hearing. The sole issue remaining in dispute between the Parties is whether any non-residential gross floor area ("GFA") is required to secure the proposed ZBA.

HEARING

4A total of four Witness Statements on behalf of the Owner were filed from professionals in land use planning, transportation planning, urban design, and landscape architecture. However, on account of the cooperation between the Parties in scoping the issues down to one, only Alex Savanyu, a land use planner duly qualified to provide expert opinion on behalf of the Owner, was called to provide oral testimony at the Hearing. The Witness Statements from other experts were made exhibits at the Hearing, and the Tribunal relied on those as well in arriving at its conclusions.

Subject Site

5Mr. Savanyu described that the Subject Site is located on the west side of Kennedy Road, south of Eglinton Avenue East. It is comprised of two properties which function as one, and combined, create an irregular "J" shape. The Subject Site ranges in depth from approximately 127.6 metres ("m") to 190.5 m, with an overall site area of 11,254 square metres ("m²") and 54.6 m of frontage along Kennedy Road. It is currently occupied by two 4-storey purpose-built rental apartment buildings, with surface parking, open space, and a playground.

6The Subject Site is located in the Kennedy Park neighbourhood, as defined by the City’s Neighbourhood Profiles. The Kennedy Park neighbourhood is comprised of a variety of land uses, including: low-rise residential uses; low-rise commercial and mixed-use buildings; some high-rise residential buildings; and a large amount of open space associated with the Pine Hills Cemetery and Funeral Home.

7Mr. Savanyu explained that, from a transit perspective, the Subject Site has excellent access to transit, including existing and planned surface and higher-order transit service. The Subject Site is within an approximate 340 m radius to the nearest entrance to the Kennedy subway station on Line 2 (Bloor-Danforth), an approximate 365 m radius distance to Ionview station on the Eglinton Crosstown LRT, an approximate 505 m radius to the nearest entrance to the Kennedy GO station and within the Kennedy Mobility Hub. In terms of planned transit, in April 2019, City Council approved an alignment for the Eglinton East Light Rail Transit line that would extend the Eglinton Crosstown LRT from Kennedy Station to Malvern with up to 21 stops, including the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus.

The Proposed Development

8The proposed development that the ZBA would facilitate ("Proposed Development") consists of a 21-storey residential tower (70.1 m, excluding mechanical penthouse) with a 6-storey streetwall along Kennedy Road ("Building A") and a 38-storey tower (119.15 m, excluding mechanical penthouse) ("Building B") located to the rear. A private road provides access from Kennedy Road to both buildings and to a 1,219 m² enhanced landscape area located at the northwest corner of the Subject Site. A turnaround area is located between Building A and Building B. The Proposed Development includes a trail connection to the Farlinger Ravine to the rear.

9The Proposed Development includes a total of 257 vehicle parking spaces, comprised of 188 resident parking spaces and 69 visitor parking spaces, located within a two-level underground parking garage. A total of 452 long-term bicycle parking spaces and 50 short-term bicycle parking spaces are proposed for residents and visitors.

Partial Settlement

10Mr. Savanyu explained that the City and the Owner had arrived at a partial settlement agreement. The only outstanding issue between the two Parties was with respect to non-residential GFA, which is discussed in detail below.

11At the Hearing, Mr. Savanyu testified that the ZBA before the Tribunal, as revised by the partial settlement agreement, was appropriate and desirable in land use planning and urban design terms and should be approved, subject to the Conditions requested by the City. Of note, his testimony applied to the whole of the ZBA, including the non-residential GFA. However, in this section, the Tribunal focuses on the aspects of the ZBA that the Parties have settled between them.

12The planning documents affecting this matter include:

a. The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended;

b. The Provincial Planning Statement (2024) ("PPS");

c. The City of Toronto Official Plan ("OP"), including the Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 570 ("OPA 570");

d. The City-wide Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended ("City’s ZBL"); and

e. Other applicable Guidelines and documents such as:

i. Metrolinx Regional Transportation Plan;

ii. Tall Building Design Guidelines (2013);

iii. Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities (2020);

iv. Streetscape Manual User Guide (2019);

v. Complete Street Guidelines; and

vi. Pet Friendly Design Guidelines and Best Practices for New Multi-unit Buildings (2019).

13Citing numerous policies in his comprehensive Affidavit and oral testimony, Mr. Savanyu opined that the Proposed Development is compatible with the existing and planned built form context and will enhance the area by intensifying an underutilized site which is well served by municipal infrastructure, including existing and planned higher order transit. The Proposed Development, as revised by the settlement agreement, will contribute additional residential dwelling units at a density that efficiently uses the land and resources. Mr. Savanyu explained that:

a. From an intensification perspective, the proposed residential intensification on the Subject Site is supportive of and implements numerous policy directions articulated in the PPS and the City’s OP, both of which promote intensification on sites which are well served by municipal infrastructure, particularly higher order public transit.

b. Pursuant to the PPS, the Subject Site is located within a "strategic growth area" and a "major transit station area," as described at paragraph [7] of this Decision.

c. OPA 570 includes the Subject Site within the boundary of the Protected Major Transit Station Areas ("PMTSA") associated with Kennedy Subway Station, as set out in Site and Area Specific Policy 647 ("SASP 647"). Pursuant to SASP 647, the Kennedy PMTSA is planned for a minimum population and employment target of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare and a minimum density of 1.5 Floor Space Index is specified for the Subject Site, and within the Kennedy Mobility Hub.

d. From a land use perspective, the proposed residential intensification is appropriate and desirable, and conforms with the Subject Site’s Apartment Neighbourhoods designation in the OP, and its Residential Apartment (RA) zoning in the City’s ZBL.

e. From a housing perspective, the Proposed Development will contain a total of 664 residential dwelling units, including 98 rental replacement units. The unit mix will be comprised of 5 studio units (0.8%), 341 (5.41%) one-bedroom units, 251 two-bedroom units (37.8%) and 67 three-bedroom units (10.1%), which complies with the minimum unit mix recommended in the Growing Up Guidelines. As such, the proposal contributes to a full range of housing in terms of size and type of units.

f. From a built form and urban design perspective, the Proposed Development is contextually appropriate and will represent a high-quality architectural addition to the area. The proposed tower heights are in line with other recently approved and proposed heights within a similar distance to higher-order transit stations in other transit and mobility hubs.

g. The Proposed Development will increase the amount of housing on the Subject Site (including replacing the existing 98 rental units), which is in proximity to higher-order transit, retail stores, and other community services and amenities. The proposal will provide a comfortable pedestrian scale along Kennedy Road and the proposed private road through the provision of appropriate setbacks and streetwall heights. The massing ensures that appropriate transition to the Neighbourhoods designated properties is maintained. In this respect, the towers will fall under a 45-degree angular plane taken from the opposite side of Kennedy Road. The proposal will also provide substantial public realm improvements including a new enhanced landscaped area trail connection to the Farlinger Trail, as well as enhanced sidewalk zones along Kennedy Road and the proposed private road.

14In short, Mr. Savanyu opined that the Proposed Development is supportive of the policy directions set out in provincial and municipal policy documents, which promote the optimization and efficient use of land and infrastructure within built-up areas, particularly in proximity to transit infrastructure, subject to achieving appropriate built form relationships. Moreover, the Proposed Development represents good planning and urban design, and is in the public interest. He recommended that the ZBA, as revised by the settlement agreement, along with the Conditions proposed by the City be approved in full.

Non-Residential Gross Floor Area

15The sole issue in dispute requires a determination of the appropriate level of GFA required for the Proposed Development, and more particularly, if a minimum level of GFA should be imposed. All other issues initially raised by the City were withdrawn as a result of the settlement agreement.

16The Owner sought that the Tribunal approve the ZBA without any non-residential GFA requirement. The City’s position was that a certain amount of non-residential GFA, specifically 4,000 square feet ("sq ft") at minimum, is appropriate for the Subject Site, and this requirement should be included in the ZBA. While the City did not tender its own witness to provide a professional opinion in support of its position, it presented its case through cross-examination of Mr. Savanyu and through legal submissions.

17The Owner’s position was that the City has never required a minimum level of non-residential GFA to be imposed, nor is there any policy rationale or planning basis supporting such a requirement. The Subject Site is not on a street suited for non-residential or retail uses, and comparable developments along Kennedy Road have not included non-residential GFA minimums. Specifically:

a. As Mr. Savanyu testified, the Proposed Development conforms with the Apartment Neighbourhoods policies (Section 4.2) of the OP. The entirely residential use is permitted under both the OP and City’s ZBL. Apartment Neighbourhoods are not intended for substantial retail or commercial components. The parent zoning by-law already limits retail to a maximum of 1,184 sq ft, not a minimum. Imposing a 4,000 sq ft retail requirement would contradict both the OP and the zoning permissions, requiring an unjustified amendment. Large retail or mixed-use elements, such as what the City is requesting, are more appropriate in Mixed Use Areas or main-street-type streets.

b. Contrary to the City’s position (described further below), the area lacks evidence of being or becoming a retail node. No evidence was presented to support it being such. For example, it lacks the foot traffic to support such a large retail space.

c. Examples across the City demonstrate numerous approvals within the Apartment Neighbourhoods designation without any minimum non-residential GFA requirements. These prior approvals demonstrate that entirely residential developments in similar contexts have been deemed appropriate. Mr. Savanyu cited the following examples, wherein no minimum non-residential GFA was required:

i. 150 The Donway & 4 Overland Drive (By-law 359-2025);

ii. 1053 Don Mills Road & 2–6 The Donway East (OLT-approved);

iii. 340 Mill Road (By-law 465-2022);

iv. 191–201 Sherbourne Street (By-law 79-2025);

v. 3050 Pharmacy Avenue (By-law 48-2021);

vi. 2801 & 4500 Jane Street, and 1465 Lawrence Avenue West; and,

vii. 591–620 Kennedy Road (2024) – approved with zero non-residential GFA.

d. Overall, no minimum non-residential GFA should be required, and the application should be approved as proposed. The evidence demonstrated that the Proposed Development represents good planning: it appropriately transitions to lower-scale areas, provides parking and amenity space, improves the streetscape by replacing surface parking, and animates the street through residential entrances and amenities.

18The City’s position was that 4,000 sq ft of non-residential GFA is appropriate for this Subject Site in particular. Specifically:

a. The City argued that this location is well-positioned to support retail and enhance the pedestrian realm. In cross-examination, Mr. Savanyu stated that, while retail is neither required nor specifically encouraged in the OP for Apartment Neighbourhoods, it can be considered on a site-by-site basis depending on the surrounding context. Moreover, retail uses can improve the quality of life for residents both within a proposed development (such as this one) and in the broader area.

b. The Subject Site is unique, which makes it particularly suitable for non-residential uses to be included and makes it a better candidate for retail use than other sites. The features that make the Subject Site unique are:

i. It fronts a major street (Kennedy Road), which provides accessibility and visibility for retail;

ii. It is adjacent to residential neighbourhoods but also to mixed-used areas, and sites adjacent to mixed-use designations are stronger retail candidates; and

iii. It is within walking distance to transit (PMTSA area), and increased foot traffic can make retail more viable in this area.

c. The City referred to comparable approvals, such as 191 Sherbourne Street, where 5,000 m² of retail was included, and thus successfully incorporated retail to animate the streetscape. The Subject Site is similarly suitable, and including the requested retail space would serve the surrounding community and reflect good planning.

d. As older sites in the area redevelop, inclusion of retail will be one of the planning considerations. Retail inclusion is a discretionary, context-based planning decision, and at the location of the Subject Site it would benefit residents, animate Kennedy Road, and reflect good planning.

Tribunal’s Findings on Non-Residential GFA

19The Tribunal agrees with the Owner that, while sites adjacent to mixed-use areas or within walking distance to transit might be better candidates for retail, proximity to transit alone does not guarantee suitability and is not determinative. Overall neighbourhood context and pedestrian activity must also be considered. The Tribunal was persuaded by Mr. Savanyu that, despite proximity to transit, significant foot traffic was not expected in this area. In this particular case, it was not demonstrated that the Subject Site was such that the amount of non-residential GFA the City requested would be supported. Moreover, the Tribunal further agrees with the Owner that the Proposed Development, if entirely residential, is consistent with the surrounding built form, and, as is, will sufficiently animate the area.

20While the Subject Site does have features that may support retail uses, the Tribunal was not convinced by the evidence presented, including the photographs of the Subject Site, that such a large amount of non-residential GFA should be required. The Proposed Development conforms with OP requirements, and the Tribunal was persuaded that such a large amount of non-residential GFA, as proposed by the City, would not conform with the applicable policies. More particularly, the City’s ZBL provides a limit in this area for non-residential retail, namely allowing a maximum of 1,184 sq ft. Of note, the City’s ZBL provides for this maximum, but does not require it. Thus, to impose a minimum of 4,000 sq ft of non-residential GFA would be to exceed this limit significantly. Sufficient evidence was not provided at the Hearing to demonstrate that such a deviation would be justified. In contrast, the planning evidence before the Tribunal was that mandating non-residential GFA was not required to make this Proposed Development good planning. The Tribunal is persuaded by that evidence.

21The Tribunal further notes that the ZBA before it contemplated a Proposed Development devoid of the amount of non-residential GFA the City requested. The Tribunal was not presented with evidence regarding the overall impact of adding 4000 sq ft of non-residential GFA on the Proposed Development. It was not explained why 4000 sq ft would be appropriate, how that precise number was good planning, or how exactly the development would have to be changed overall in order to accommodate 4000 sq ft of non-residential GFA. Presumably, the Proposed Development would have to be revised somewhat to make room for it. It was not explained how the Proposed Development would remain good planning if revised. Instead, the Tribunal was presented with evidence, agreed to by both Parties and arrived at by way of partial settlement, that the Proposed Development was good planning on all other issues which were ultimately withdrawn by the City. The Tribunal is convinced by this and will maintain the ZBA as is, namely as revised pursuant to the proposed settlement.

22The Tribunal does agree with the City that retail could be appropriate in certain locations, but is not convinced that the Subject Site is one where it should be required.

TRIBUNAL’S OVERALL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

23With respect to the ZBA, as revised by the partial settlement agreement, and the Proposed Development it facilitates, the Tribunal accepts the opinion evidence of Mr. Savanyu, and finds that the ZBA, as revised, meets the required legislative tests. Moreover, the Tribunal finds that the instrument provides an appropriate land use planning framework and performance standards to implement the Proposed Development. The Tribunal further finds that it represents good planning and is in the public interest. As such, the Tribunal finds that the ZBA warrants approval.

ORDER

24THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS as follows:

a. The appeal by Kennedy Road Holdings ("Owner") is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation of the satisfaction of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [24b] below, and the Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order is hereby approved in principle.

b. The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation from the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:

i. The form and content of the Zoning By-law Amendment is satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

ii. The Owner has at its sole cost and expense:

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

2. Secured the design and provision of financial securities for any upgrades or required improvements to the existing municipal infrastructure identified in the accepted Engineering Reports, to support the development, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water, should it be determined that improvements or upgrades are required to support the development, according to the accepted Engineering Reports, accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services and the General Manager, Toronto Water;

3. Ensured the implementation of the accepted Engineering Reports does not require changes to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment or any such required changes have been made to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor, including the use of a Holding By-law symbol regarding any new or upgrades to existing municipal servicing infrastructure as may be required;

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

5. Submitted a revised Arborist Report or addendum and Tree Protection Plan acceptable and satisfactory to the General Manager, Parks, Forestry and Recreation;

6. Made revisions to meet the Toronto Green Standard requirements to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review;

7. Satisfied outstanding comments to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and

8. Submitted a revised Housing Issues Report to the satisfaction of the Interim Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

iii. City Council approves Rental Housing Demolition Application 22 137044 ESC 20 RH under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to permit the demolition of the 98 existing rental dwelling units on the lands; and

iv. The Owner has entered into, and registered on title to the lands, an agreement pursuant to Section 111 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, to secure, among other matters, the following:

1. The provision of 98 replacement rental dwelling units consisting of four (4) studio units, forty-four (44) one-bedroom units, and fifty (50) two-bedroom units;

2. The rents of the 98 replacement rental units which shall be based on the rents of the existing rental units by their respective bedroom types at the time of application and secured for a period of at least ten (10) years beginning from the date of first occupancy of each replacement rental unit; and

3. The provision of an acceptable Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan for all Eligible Tenants of the 98 existing rental units proposed to be demolished, addressing the right to return to occupy one of the replacement rental units at similar rents, the provision of rent gap assistance, and other assistance to lessen hardship; the Tenant Relocation and Assistance Plan shall be developed in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

25These Tribunal Members 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.

26If the Parties do not submit the final draft of the Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [24b] of this Decision have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Thursday, July 30, 2026, the Owner 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 issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

27The Tribunal may be spoken to, including, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine any additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent prerequisites and the issuance of the Final Order.

"Bita M. Rajaee"

BITA M. RAJAEE

MEMBER

"N. Eisazadeh"

N. EISAZADEH

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 and Order issued on XXXX in Tribunal File OLT-24-000586

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW XXXX-20XX(OLT)

To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2023 as 708 and 712 Kennedy Road.

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, in its Decision issued on XXXX and its Order issued on XXXX, in File OLT-24-000586, in hearing an appeal under Section 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, 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 708-712 Kennedy Road; and

Whereas the Official Plan for the City of Toronto contains provisions relating to the authorization of increases in height and density of development; and

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, as amended, 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 990.1 respecting the lands outlined by heavy black lines from a zone label of RA (au99.0) (x489) to a zone label of RA (au99.0) (xXXX) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.

4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article 900.7.10 Exception Number [-] so that it reads:

(XXX) Exception RA 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 lands municipally known as 708 and 712 Kennedy Road, if the requirements of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number] are complied with, a building or structure may be constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with Regulations (B) to (U) below;

(B) Despite regulations 15.5.40.10(1), the height of a building or structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 158.36 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;

(C) Despite Clause 15.10.30.40, the permitted maximum lot coverage, as a percentage of the lot area, is 42 percent;

(D) Despite regulation 15.10.40.10(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 number];

(E) Despite regulations 15.5.40.10(2) to (6) and (D) 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 number]:

(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 5.5 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 5.5 metres;

(iii) architectural features, parapets, and elements and structures associated with a green roof, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(iv) building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a maximum of 2.5 metres;

(v) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, and divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;

(vi) antennae, flagpoles and satellite dishes, by a maximum of 1.0 metres;

(vii) trellises, pergolas, and unenclosed structures providing safety or wind protection to rooftop amenity space, by a maximum of 3.0 metres; and

(viii) elements listed in subsections E(iii) and E(iii) may project above the permitted height limit for the mechanical penthouse as set out in subsection E(i) up to a maximum of 5.0 metres;

(F) Despite regulation 15.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures is 50,500 square metres;

(G) Despite regulation 15.10.40.50(1), amenity space must be provided at the following rate:

(i) at least 2.0 square metres for each dwelling unit as indoor amenity space;

(ii) at least 2.0 square metres of outdoor amenity space for each dwelling unit of which 40 square metres must be in a location adjoining or directly accessible to the indoor amenity space; and

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

(H) Despite regulation 15.10.40.70(1) to (4), the required minimum building setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number];

(I) Despite regulation 15.10.40.80(1) and (2), the required separation of main walls are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number];

(J) Despite clause 15.5.40.50, clause 15.5.40.60 and (H) and (I) above, the following elements may encroach into the required minimum building setbacks and main wall separation distances as follows:

(i) decks, porches, and balconies, by a maximum of 2.2 metres;

(ii) canopies and awnings, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(iii) exterior stairs, access ramps and elevating devices, by a maximum of 1.5 metres;

(iv) cladding added to the exterior surface of the main wall of a building, by a maximum of 1.0 metre;

(v) architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column, cornice, sill, belt course, or chimney breast, by a maximum of 1.5 metres;

(vi) window projections, by a maximum of 1.0 metre; and

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

(K) Despite regulation 15.5.50.10, a minimum of 40% of the area of the lot is required for landscaping, of which a minimum of 33% must be soft landscaping;

(L) Despite regulation 200.5.1.10(2)(A)(iv), 10% of the required parking spaces may be obstructed 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;

(M) 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 minimum of 0 residential occupant parking spaces for each dwelling unit, but not exceeding the permitted maximum in Table 200.5.10.1 for dwelling units in an Apartment Building in all other areas of the City; and

(ii) a minimum of 2.0 residential visitor parking spaces plus 0.05 for each dwelling unit;

(N) Despite regulation 200.15.1(1), an accessible parking space must have the following minimum dimensions:

(i) length of 5.6 metres;

(ii) width of 3.4 metres;

(iii) vertical clearance of 2.1 metres; and

(iv) the entire length of an accessible parking space must be adjacent to a 1.5 metre wide accessible barrier free aisle or path on one side of the accessible parking space;

(O) Despite regulation 200.15.10(1) and (2), a minimum of 8 of the required parking spaces are required to be accessible parking spaces;

(P) Despite regulation 200.15.1(4), four of the required accessible parking space in (O) above are required to be closest to a barrier-free passenger elevator that provides access to the first storey of the building or the shortest route from the required entrance to an elevator;

(Q) Despite regulation 230.5.1.10(4)(A), the required minimum dimensions of a bicycle parking space are:

(i) length of 1.8 metres;

(ii) width of 0. 4 metres; and

(iii) vertical clearance of 1.9 metres;

(R) In addition to the places a "long-term" bicycle parking space may be located as in regulations 230.5.1.10(9)(B)(i)(ii) and (iii), "long-term" bicycle parking spaces may also be located in the following locations:

(i) a mezzanine level;

(S) Despite regulation 230.5.1.10(10), "short-term" bicycle parking spaces may also be located in a stacked bicycle parking space;

(T) Despite regulations 230.5.10.1(1)(3) and (5) and Table 230.5.10.1(1), bicycle parking spaces must be provided in accordance with the following minimum rates:

(i) 0.68 "long-term" bicycle parking spaces for each dwelling unit;

(ii) 0.07 "short-term bicycle parking spaces for each dwelling unit;

(U) Despite regulation 230.20.1.20(2), a "short-term" bicycle parking space may be no more than 60 metres from a pedestrian entrance to a building on the lot;

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 XXXX in Tribunal File OLT-24-000586.