Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: October 30, 2025 CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001194

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wycliffe Royal York Limited Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment Description: To permit Reference Number: 24 113800 WET 03 OZ Property Address: 464 Royal York Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001194 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001194 OLT Case Name: Wycliffe Royal York Limited v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant and Appellant: Wycliffe Royal York Limited Subject: Application to amend the Zoning By-law – Refusal or neglect to make a decision Description: To permit the development of a 12-storey building Reference Number: 24 113800 WET 03 OZ Property Address: 464 Royal York Road Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001195 OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001194 OLT Case Name: Wycliffe Royal York Limited v. Toronto (City)

Heard: October 30, 2025, in Writing

APPEARANCES:

Parties	Counsel
Wycliff Royal York Limited	Denise Baker
City of Toronto	Adam Ward Nathan Muscat
693380 Ontario Limited	Andrew Jeanrie

DECISION DELIVERED BY N. EISAZADEH AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Appeal arises following a non-decision by the City of Toronto (“City”) with respect to applications filed by Wycliff Royal York Limited (“Applicant”) for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) to facilitate the development of a twelve-storey purpose built rental apartment building on the lands municipally known as 464 Royal York Road, in the City (“Subject Site”).

BACKGROUND

2At a prior Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on April 11, 2025, Party status was granted to 693380 Ontario Limited ("693-Ontario”) and a ten-day Merit Hearing was scheduled to commence on February 2, 2026.

3The statutory Parties subsequently engaged in a two-day Tribunal-led Mediation wherein they reached a settlement agreement on a revised development proposal (“Current Proposal”). 693-Ontario has advised it does not oppose the Current Proposal. Accordingly, disposition of the matter has come before the Tribunal for approval on the merits of the settlement reached.

ADDITIONAL STATUS REQUEST

4On April 23, 2025, after the CMC had concluded and a Decision arising therefrom issued, the Tribunal received an additional request for Party status from Luigi and Concettina Salandra (the “Salandras”), represented by Counsel, Michael Foderick. The basis for the request, as required to be outlined for consideration by the Tribunal, states simply:

Luigi and Concettina Salandra are the owners of land (18 Cremorne Avenue) which are located adjacent to the subject property (464 Royal York Road). The owners wish to ensure that any approved development on the subject property does not adversely impact their land.

5The Salandras did not raise particularized issues nor detail specific concerns. Mr. Foderick advised in a corresponding email that his clients would be relying on the issues identified on the Issues List attached to the Procedural Order governing the proceedings.

6Counsel for the Applicant has confirmed that Mr. Foderick was informed of the settlement reached and was provided with a courtesy copy of the settlement materials on October 15, 2025.

7Despite multiple communications from the Tribunal requesting a status update on the Salandra’s party status request so to determine whether a Hearing to consider the merits of the Current Proposal could proceed in writing, Mr. Foderick failed to provide a response, advising only that he had not had any contact with his clients in a few months.

8Tribunal correspondence dated October 22, 2025, directed that Mr. Foderick provide a definitive status update on his clients’ Party status request, and specifically, whether they would be withdrawing their status request, or, intending to seek standing to oppose the proposed settlement reached. A response was due by no later than 3:00 p.m. on Monday, October 27, 2025, failing which the Tribunal indicated it would deny the status request and proceed to consider the merits of the settlement proposal by way of Written Hearing.

9A response was not received from Mr. Foderick.

10On the basis of the foregoing, including the lack of specificity in the Party status request, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the Salandras involvement in these proceedings will assist the Tribunal in resolving the issues raised in the Appeal. Accordingly, the Tribunal denies the Party status request of Luigi and Concettina Salandra.

APPLICATION HISTORY

11The initial applications sought to facilitate the development of a twelve-storey purpose built rental apartment building consisting of 113 residential dwelling units. Access to the development was provided from a laneway located to the west of the Subject Site named Royal York North Evans (the “Laneway”), and included a dedicated entrance as well as a ramp leading to a single level of underground parking at the southern end of the Subject Site. A second access to an at-grade parking level was provided from the Oxford Street cul-de-sac. This proposal included a widening of the Laneway to a full 6 meters (“m”) to accommodate two-way vehicle movements. The road widening was proposed to be conveyed to the City to satisfy the right-of-way requirements for Royal York Road. Following the public consultation process and comments returned from City Staff, a resubmission (“2024 Resubmission”) was provided which included the following key changes:

a. An OPA to redesignate the Subject Site from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods rather than Mixed-Use Areas;

b. A ZBA to rezone the Subject Site from Class 1 Industrial to Residential Apartment, rather than Commercial Residential;

c. A reduction in unit count from 113 to 112;

d. A relocation of one vehicular parking garage entrance from the Laneway to the north building face via the Oxford Street cul-de-sac;

e. An increase in visitor parking spaces from 0 to 8;

f. Removal of projecting balconies and supporting columns at parts of the south and southeast building face;

g. Shifting the tenth-floor outdoor amenity area further away from the Gardiner Expressway;

h. New locations for tree planting; and,

i. Technical revisions and report updates in response to Engineering Review, Bridges and Structures, and Transportation Services.

12The 2024 Resubmission was appealed to this Tribunal on November 28, 2024, on account of the City’s failure to render a decision within the statutory timeframe. The Parties have now come to an agreement which satisfy the initial comments of City planning staff pertaining to, inter alia:

a. The availability of space for the publicly accessible space due to proposed underground garage ramp;

b. The degree of slope for the proposed accessible walkway connection from the Laneway to Royal York Road;

c. Site organization and circulation;

d. Appropriate building articulation to mitigate adverse wind conditions;

e. Relocation of outdoor amenity space;

f. Screening or relocating the Type G loading space;

g. A reduction in the amount of proposed resident parking spaces to encourage active modes of transportation and use of the transit network;

h. Setbacks to be shown to the new the property line, as would be adjusted for the conveyance of road widenings;

i. Balancing shadow impacts through addressing comments related to rear transition and site organization;

j. Mitigation of the overall massing of the mechanical penthouse;

k. Relocating site access from the Laneway to the Oxford Street cul-de-sac;

l. Relocating the underground garage driveway entrance to the Oxford Street cul-de-sac;

m. Providing for a pedestrian clearway easement along the walkway; and,

n. Increasing the number of 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units.

13The Current Proposal is now being considered by the Tribunal, the determination of which is based on the evidence before it, and whether all necessary legislative tests have been met.

CURRENT PROPOSAL

14The Current Proposal maintains a twelve-storey purpose build rental apartment building with a total of 112 residential units, the key features of which are as follows:

a. A unit mix consisting of forty-eight 1-bedroom units, fifty-three 2-bedroom units, and eleven 3-bedroom units;

b. A gross lot density of 4.62 floor space index;

c. The residential lobby entrance accessed from Oxford Street, adjacent to the proposed north driveway;

d. A Pedestrian ramp to be located along the south lot line, adjacent to the south driveway ramp in a manner that does not present conflict, with a maximum slope of 5.6%, and a minimum width of 2.1 m where not constrained by the ramp to the underground parking level;

e. 61 parking spaces for residents, along with 2 layby spaces adjacent to the Laneway serving as a pick-up/drop-off zone;

f. 85 bicycle parking spaces, including 10 adjacent to the main entrance to the building from Oxford Street;

g. Vehicular access provided from Oxford Street to the north, at-grade level parking access through a northern ramp, and below-grade level parking access through a southern ramp;

h. Amenity spaces located in key locations including a lounge area on each residential floor, and a connected indoor/outdoor area located on the eleventh-floor consisting of 190 square meters (“sq m”) of indoor space, 183 sq m of outdoor space with contemplated dedicated children’s area in each, and an outdoor dedicated area for dogs; and,

i. Exclusive balconies for the majority of units.

15In order to facilitate the Current Proposal, the following planning amendments are required:

a. An OPA redesignating the Subject Site from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods and a modification to the City land use plan to affect this amendment; and,

b. A ZBA rezoning the Subject Site to Residential Apartment within Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 and delineating new building requirements through proposed Exception 277 in order to allow, namely, the following:

i. A maximum gross floor area of 13,500 sq m;

ii. A maximum building height of 40 m;

iii. The provision of dwelling units subject to:

1. A minimum of fifteen percent of the total number of dwelling units required to be 2-bedrooms or more;

2. A minimum of ten percent of the total number of dwelling units required to be 3-bedrooms or more;

3. Any dwelling units with 3-or-more-bedrooms provided to satisfy paragraph 15.II.iii(b) above, are not included in the provision required by paragraph 15.II.iii(a) above; and

4. If either of the calculations as a percentage of total dwelling units pursuant to paragraphs 15.II.iii(a) and 15.II.iii(b) above results in a percentage with a decimal place, the percentage will be rounded up to the nearest whole number from 0.5 or above;

iv. Redefining the manner in which the height of the building is calculated;

v. Landscaping of:

1. A minimum of thirty percent of the area of the lot;

2. A minimum of fifty percent of the landscaping area required in paragraph 15.II.v(a) above to be soft landscaping;

vi. A minimum amenity space of:

1. 2 sq m for each dwelling unit to be indoor amenity space; and,

2. At least 1.5 sq m for each dwelling unit to be outdoor amenity space;

vii. Minimum yard setbacks of:

1. 3.2 m from the north lot line, fronting Oxford Street;

2. 10.3 m from the south lot line;

3. 1.6 m from the east lot line, fronting Royal York Road; and,

4. 7.3 from the west lot line, fronting the Laneway;

viii. Allowance for a vertical clearance of a parking space to be obstructed by a bicycle parking space mounted to a wall;

ix. Accessible parking space at minimum dimensions of:

1. 5.6 m in length;

2. 3.4 m in width;

3. 2.1 m of vertical clearance; and,

4. An adjacency requirement to a 1.5 m wide accessible barrier free aisle or path, for the entire length of an accessible parking space;

x. A minimum of a 3 m distance from the lot line of the abutting street for vehicle entrances and exists to the building; and

xi. Allowance for projections and encroachments reflective of the Current Proposal’s bult form (Exhibit 1, Tab 6).

THE SUBJECT SITE AND AREA CONTEXT

16The Subject Site is located on the west side of Royal York Road, south of the Gardiner Expressway and Oxford Street and north of Evans Avenue. It abuts Royal York Road directly to the east, and the Laneway directly to the west. It is located at the northern end of the Mimico-Queensway Neighbourhood which has been evolving with approved and proposed residential building types and heights at various densities. Royal York Road bisects the neighbourhood with the Gardiner Expressway forming a definite boundary to the north.

17The Subject Site is generally rectangular in shape consisting of approximately 2,440 sq m in area. It is currently occupied by a one-storey industrial building with vehicular access from the Laneway and Oxford Street. A land conveyance to the City of approximately 236 sq m is proposed for the purpose of widening the adjacent lane to permit two-way traffic. A further widening along Royal York Road has been determined to be necessary by City Staff, resulting in an overall net site area of 2,204 sq m.

18The immediate neighbourhood surrounding the Subject Site includes low-density residential and commercial uses with higher-density housing concentrated along Royal York Road nearing the rail corridor to the south. The existing building heights along Royal York Road predominantly range between 1-to-3 storeys including recently constructed 3-storey contemporary townhouses. There also exists a 16-storey apartment building, approval for a nine-storey mixed-use condominium, and interim approval for a ten-storey mixed use building along Royal York Road. A more detailed summary of the surrounding land uses include:

a. North: Oxford Street being an east-west oriented local road that terminates in a cul-de-sac immediately adjacent to the property; and the Gardiner Expressway. Royal York Road elevates into a bridge structure as it extends north in order to cross over the Gardiner Expressway.

b. West: the Laneway being a north-south oriented laneway extending from Oxford Street and owned by the City; Simpson Avenue which provides access to many of the properties fronting onto Royal York Road; and a series of 1-to-2-storey semi-detached and detached dwellings.

c. East: Royal York Road being a major street with a 27 m right-of-way width and a Transit Priority Segment as set out on Maps 3 and 5 of the TOP, respectively; and the continuation of Oxford Street opposite the Subject Site, being a local road supporting a series of 1-to-2 semi-detached and detached residential dwellings.

d. South: a series of 2-to-3-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings; Evans Avenue being an east-west oriented minor arterial road that extends between the West Mall and Royal York Road in the east and which converts to a major arterial road west of Horner Avenue (approximately 1.5 kilometers west of the Subject Site); six 2-storey commercial and mixed-use buildings at 418-434 Royal York Road including an approved proposal for a nine-storey mixed use condominium containing 60 residential units and 100 sq m of retail at-grade located at 428-430 Royal York Road.

STATUTORY, LEGISLATIVE, AND POLICY CONTEXT

19The statutory, legislative, and policy scheme applicable to the relief sought includes:

a. The Planning Act, (the “Act”);

b. The Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS”);

c. The City of Toronto Official Plan (“TOP”);

d. The City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 (“ZBL”);

e. The City of Etobicoke Zoning By-law No. 11,737 (“EZBL”); and,

f. 2024 Draft Mid-Rise Building Design Guidelines (“2024 Mid-Rise Guidelines”).

THE EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

20The Tribunal confirms that it has received, reviewed and considered: (i) the entire underlying municipal file inclusive of all of the documents and materials before City Council; and (ii) the uncontested evidence of Adam Layton, a Registered Professional Planner and full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, and so qualified to tender expert opinion, as contained in his detailed and comprehensive Affidavit sworn October 14, 2025, with a total of thirteen exhibits attached thereto (marked as Exhibit 1).

21Mr. Layton expressed his opinion that that the Current Proposal is appropriate and desirable from a land use planning perspective, represents good planning and is in the public interest. Citing numerous statutory and policy provisions within his comprehensive Affidavit, Mr. Layton more specifically opines, and the Tribunal accepts, the following key points:

a. The Subject Site serves as an appropriate location for growth and development per its proximity to a frequent transit corridor and to the Mimico GO Station only 800 m away; thereby the Current Proposal will provide transit supportive density in a compact built form. The proposed density also introduces the critical mass necessary to support continued investment in transit in the area.

b. The Current Proposal optimizes the efficient use of existing transportation, sewage and water infrastructure which already services the Subject Site.

c. A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Implementation Report prepared by Counterpoint Engineering Inc. dated September 2025, concludes that the surrounding storm and sanitary sewers, as well as the existing City watermains, have the capacity to support the Current Proposal without the need for infrastructure capacity upgrades.

d. The Current Proposal represents the orderly development of safe and healthy communities by expanding the diversity and supply of residential options available within the community as well as accessibility to existing and future residents. The range and mix of unit types vary in sizes and configurations, including 1-bedroom, 2-bedroom, and 3-bedroom units, and are inherently accessible being single-storey in height, thereby responding to a variety of end users.

e. The proposed built-form enhances the streetscape along Royal York Road in a manner that is accessible, attractive, and increases connection thereby contributing to a vibrant sense of place.

f. The Current Proposal improves the public realm by removing the existing automobile focused condition of the Laneway, and installs new sidewalks, vegetation, and street furniture along the Laneway transforming the space to a true complete street. This will in turn also advance policy objectives aimed at mitigating potential conflicts between automotive and pedestrian activity by emphasizing a pedestrian focused public realm.

g. The Current Proposal incorporates plantings along the pick-up/drop-off laybys abutting the bike parking towards the northwest and southeast corners of the Subject Site.

h. The Current Proposal provides an intensified urban form which revitalizes a “brownfield site” within a “designated” and “strategic growth area”, at a density that is “transit supportive” and optimizes the use of land and existing municipal infrastructure – all terms as defined in the PPS.

i. The proposed redevelopment would improve the current condition of the Subject Site occupied by an aged industrial building with a purpose-built apartment building in a compact built form that is compatible and fits with the evolving character of the Royal York corridor while maintaining the direction of the City’s design guidelines with no adverse planning impacts on adjacent uses.

j. The Current Proposal provides sufficient setbacks and articulation of its building mass to minimize shadows and overlook onto adjacent dwellings, adequately screens parking and building operation areas, and will not negatively impact traffic, wind or noise conditions.

k. The proposed massing provides an appropriate transition to the low-rise land uses in close proximity to the Subject Site, and all shadows will be clear of the adjacent residential uses by noon in all seasons.

l. The proposed mechanical penthouse is 4.5 m high and located on the roof, setback considerably from the Royal York frontage in order to reduce visibility from the public realm.

m. The Subject Site is designated Neighbourhoods within the OP and is abutted on three sides by further Neighborhoods designation as well as Mixed Use further south. The proposed redesignation to Apartment Neighbourhoods is consistent and compatible with the land use plans for the area.

n. Within the former EZBL, the Subject Site is zoned Class 1 Industrial which included limited residential use permissions. The rezoning will facilitate a 12-storey building and will bring the Subject Site within the City-Wide Comprehensive zoning.

o. A Compatibility Mitigation Study prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. dated January 2024 concludes the Current Proposal is anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding land uses from an air quality perspective with the inclusion of at-receptor mitigation measures and a warning clause. The Current Proposal also meets the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks Guidelines D-6 and Regulation 419/05m, and will not impact the ability of industrial facilities to comply with applicable environmental policies.

p. A Pedestrian Wind Assessment Study completed by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd. dated November 2024, further concludes that the wind conditions across most of the Subject Site are expected to meet safety criteria and suitability for the intended use including rooftop terrace and main entrance. Wind control measures are recommended for the northwest and southwest corners of the building at grade where the wind safety criteria are predicted to be exceeded.

q. While the Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan conclude that three trees must be removed to facilitate the Current Proposal, eleven trees will be preserved and incorporated into the proposed development to protect the existing natural environment.

22The Tribunal is satisfied by the evidence of Mr. Layton and finds that the Current Proposal therefore:

a. Has regard for the applicable provincial interests, and in particular subsections (e), (f), (h), (h.1), (j), (l), (m), (o), (p), (q), (r), and (s);

b. Is consistent with, and advances the policy directives set out, within the PPS including subsections 2.1(1), 2.1 (2), 2.1 (4), 2.1 (6), 2.2(1)(a), 2.2(1)(b), 2.2(1)(c), 2.2(1)(d), 2.3.1(1), 2.3.1(2), 2.3.1(3), 2.3.1(4), 2.3.1(5), 2.3.1(6), 2.4.1(1), 2.4.1(2), 2.4.1(3)(a), 2.4.1(3)(b), 2.4.1(3)(c), 2.4.1(3)(e), 2.4.3(1), 2.9(1), 3.1(2), 3.2(1), 3.2(2), 3.6(2), 3.6(8), 3.9(1)(a), 3.9(1)(b), 3.9(1)(c), and, 3.9(1)(d);

c. Conforms to and maintains the intent of the TOP, and specifically subsections 2.3(1)(3), 2.4(1), 2.4(8), 3.1(1)(10), 3.1(3)(1), 3.1(3)(3), 3.1(3)(4), 3.1(4)(4), 3.1(4)(5), 3.1(4)(6), 3.2(1)(13), 4.2(1), and 4.2(a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g)(h);

d. Applies the standards and provisions of the more modern City Comprehensive ZBL, in an appropriate manner consistent with the designation of lands within the OP; and,

e. Has appropriate regard for the 2024 Mid-Rise Guidelines including subsections 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.3.1, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8,3.9, 4.1, and 4.2.

SUMMARY OF DISPOSITION

23The Tribunal understands that the aforementioned sworn Affidavit evidence of Mr. Layton reflects revisions to the applications before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties, and that the non-appellant Party, 693-Ontario, does not oppose the Current Proposal.

24The Tribunal accepts the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. Layton as presented in his Affidavit and finds that the Current Proposal will make more efficient use of underutilized property, enhance the surrounding community, improve local pedestrian and road infrastructure, and provide housing along Royal York Road that is proximate to existing and planned transit. The Tribunal is further satisfied by Mr. Layton’s evidence and finds that the Current Proposal will contribute towards the Municipal and Provincial intensification targets while respecting and complementing the character of the community by providing housing supply which aligns with the neighbourhood fabric and vision established in the TOP and associated City design guidelines. The Tribunal further finds that the proposed ZBA reflects appropriate development standards for the Subject Site and will result in a built form that is compatible with existing development activity within the Mimico-Queensway Neighbourhood.

25Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the subject applications, as revised by the Current Proposal, have regard to those applicable matters of provincial interest found in section 2 of the Act; are consistent with the PPS; conform to and maintain the intent of the TOP; maintain appropriate zoning by removing the Subject Site from within the former EZBL to apply the standards and provisions of the more modern City Comprehensive ZBL, specifically the Residential Apartment zone which is suitable for the Subject Site; have appropriate regard for the 2024 Mid-Rise Guidelines, and otherwise reflect principles of good land use planning and is in the public interest.

ORDER

26THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that the appeals are allowed in part, and:

1. The Party status request of Luigi and Concettina Salandra is hereby denied.

2. The Official Plan for the City of Toronto is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 1 to this Order.

3. Zoning By-law No. 569-2013 is hereby amended as set out in Attachment 2 to this Order. The Tribunal authorizes the municipal clerk of the City of Toronto to assign a number to this by-law for record keeping purposes.

“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 [date], in Tribunal File OLT- 24-001194

CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW ### - 202X(OLT)

To approve Amendment 853 to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the lands known municipally in the year 2024, as 464 Royal York Road

Whereas the proposed official plan amendment was appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal pursuant to Section 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended; and

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, by it’s Decision and Order issued on [date] in File OLT-24- 001194, approved amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto Official Plan with respect to the lands

The Ontario Land Tribunal Orders:

1. The attached Amendment 853 to the Official Plan is hereby approved pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended.

Pursuant to Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File OLT-24- 001194

City of Toronto By-law No. ~~-20~

AMENDMENT NO. 853 TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2024 AS 464 ROYAL YORK ROAD

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

1. Map 15, Land Use Plan, is amended by re-designating the lands known municipally as 464 Royal York Road from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods, as shown on the attached Appendix A.

City of Toronto By-law No. ~~-20~

Appendix A

ATTACHMENT 2

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

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 464 Royal York Road.

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, by its Decision issued on [date] and its Order issued on [date], in respect of Tribunal File [-], 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 464 Royal York Road; and

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, as amended, to pass this 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, as amended, Chapter 800 Definitions.

3. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands subject to this By-law to the Zoning By-law Map in Section 990.10, and applying the following zone label to these lands: RA (d3.0) (277) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.

4. Zoning By-law 569-2023, as amended, is further amended by amending the Lot Coverage Overlap Map in Article 995.30.1 respecting the lands as shown on Diagram 1 attached to this By-law, and applying no value to these lands.

5. Zoning By-law 569 -2013, as amended, is further amended by adding the lands to the Height Overlay Map in Article 995.20.1, and applying the following height and storey label to these lands: “HT 27.0” as shown on Diagram 3 attached to this By-law.

6. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article 900.7.10 Exception Number (277) so that it reads:

(277) Exception RA (277)

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 464 Royal York Road, 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) For the purposes of this exception, a pedestrian walkway connection between Royal York Road and a public laneway is not considered a building or structure;

(C) For the purposes of this exception, in accordance with regulation 5.10.30.20(1), the front lot line is the lot line abutting Royal York Road;

(D) Despite regulation 15.5.40.10(1), the height of a building or structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 103.47 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;

(E) Despite regulation 15.5.50.10(1), a lot in the Residential Apartment Zone category must have:

(A) a minimum of 30% of the area of the lot for landscaping; and

(B) a minimum of 50% of the landscaping area required in (A), above, must be soft landscaping;

(F) Regulation 15.5.50.10(2) does not apply;

(G) Regulation 15.5.100.1(2) does not apply;

(H) Despite regulation 15.5.80.20(1), a parking space that is not within a building or structure shall not require a setback from a property line where it abuts a public lane.

(I) 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 4 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];

(J) Despite regulations 15.5.40.10(3) to (6) and (J) above, the following equipment and structures may project beyond the permitted maximum height shown on Diagram 4 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 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 1.6 metres;

(iv) building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a maximum of 5.0 metres;

(v) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, by a maximum of 1.8 metres;

(vi) divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace, by a maximum of 3.0 metres; and

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

(K) Despite regulation 15.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures is 13,500 square metres;

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

(i) a minimum of 15 percent of the total number of dwelling units must have 2 or more bedrooms;

(ii) a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of dwelling units must have 3 or more bedrooms;

(iii) any dwelling units with 3 or more bedrooms provided to satisfy (ii) above are not included in the provision required by (i) above; and

(iv) if either of the calculations as a percentage of total dwelling units pursuant to subsections (i) and (ii) above results in a percentage with a decimal place, the percentage will be rounded up to the nearest whole number from 0.5 or above;

(M) Despite regulation 15.10.40.50(1), a building with 20 or more dwelling units must provide 4.0 square metres of amenity space for each dwelling unit, of which:

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

(ii) at least 1.5 square metres for each dwelling unit is outdoor amenity space;

(N) Despite Clause 15.10.40.70, the required minimum building setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram 4 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];

(O) Despite Clause 15.5.40.60 and (O) 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 1.75 metres.

(ii) notwithstanding (i) above, decks, porches, and balconies located on the south or east main wall by a maximum of 1.75 metres, and no closer than 1.25 metres to the east lot line;

(iii) canopies and awnings, by a maximum of 1.5 metres, or a maximum of 3.0 metres for wind mitigation purposes;

(iv) exterior stairs, access ramps and elevating devices, by a maximum of 2.0 metres;

(v) cladding added to the exterior surface of the main wall of a building, by a maximum of 0.75 metres;

(vi) architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column, cornice, sill, belt course, or chimney breast, by a maximum of 1.75 metres;

(vii) notwithstanding (vi) above, architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column, cornice, sill, belt course, or chimney breast located on the south or east main wall by a maximum of 1.75 metres, and no closer than 1.25 metres to the east lot line;

(viii) window projections, including bay windows and box windows, by a maximum of 0.8 metres;

(ix) eaves, by a maximum of 2.0 metres; and

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

(P) Despite regulation 200.5.1.10(2), parking spaces must be provided as follows:

(i) 2 parking spaces must comply with the following minimum dimensions and requirements:

(a) Width of 2.5 metres;

(Q) Despite regulation 200.5.1.10(2)(A)(iii), the vertical clearance of a parking space may be obstructed by a bicycle parking space mounted to a wall;

(R) Despite regulations 200.15.1.(1) and (3) an accessible parking space, an accessible parking space must comply with the following:

(i) accessible parking spaces must have the following minimum dimensions:

(a) length of 5.6 metres;

(b) width of 3.4 metres;

(c) vertical clearance of 2.1 metres;

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

(S) Despite regulation 200.5.1.10(12)(C), the vehicle entrance and exit to the building must be at least 3.0 metres from the lot line abutting a street;

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

7. 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 issued on [date] and Ontario Land Tribunal Order issued on [date] in Tribunal File [-]

City of Toronto By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number]

City of Toronto By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number]

City of Toronto By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number]

City of Toronto By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number]