Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 11, 2025
CASE NO(S).: OLT-25-000035
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant and Appellant: 50-64 Merton Limited
Subject: Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit the construction of a 45-storey residential building and demolition of existing structures
Reference Number: 21 233897 STE 12 OZ
Property Address: 50-64 Merton Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000035
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000035
OLT Case Name: 50-64 Merton 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: 50-64 Merton Limited
Subject: Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit the construction of a 45-storey residential building and demolition of existing structures
Reference Number: 22 198241 STE 12 OZ
Property Address: 50-64 Merton Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto
OLT Case No.: OLT-25-000036
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-25-000035
OLT Case Name: 50-64 Merton Limited v. Toronto (City)
Heard: July 14, 2025 by Video Hearing
APPEARANCES:
| Parties | Counsel |
|---|---|
| 50-64 Merton Limited (“Applicant/Appellant”) | David Bronskill |
| City of Toronto (“City”) | Kasia Czajkowski |
| bcIMC Holdco (2007) Inc. | Matthew Schuman |
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SHARON L. DIONNE ON JULY 14, 2025 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
Link to Interim Order
INTRODUCTION
1The matters before the Tribunal are appeals of Applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and a Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”), pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended (“Act”). The affected lands are comprised of an assembly of two parcels and known municipally as 50 and 64 Merton Street, in the City of Toronto (“Subject Site”). The 50 Merton Street portion is subject to a designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.
2The Subject Site is located on the north side of Merton Street in the Davisville Neighbourhood, within a 400 metre walk of the Davisville Subway Station. At present, there is a vacant three-storey building located on 50 Merton Street, which was originally built as the Girl Guides of Canada Headquarters. There is a vacant two-storey non-residential building located on 64 Merton Street, where the Al Green Art Gallery and office uses used to be.
3The Davisville Neighbourhood consists of a mix of land uses, building sizes, and development densities. This neighbourhood is presently experiencing change through the approval of planning applications seeking to intensify and optimize the use of underutilized lands, resulting in the incorporation of new tall building built-form.
4Applications to permit the intensification of the Subject Site were approved in principle by the City in March 2024, however City Council has not enacted the by-laws to approve the actual Amendments to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The Applicant/Appellant appealed the Applications to the Tribunal on January 6, 2025.
5The purpose of this Hearing is to consider the merits of a Settlement Proposal as reached by the Parties.
PARTICIPANT STATUS
6At the start of the Hearing, the Tribunal addressed a procedural issue related to Participant Status.
7Such requests for status were considered at a Case Management Conference (“CMC”) held on May 28, 2025. At that time, the Tribunal considered a written submission submitted on behalf of three Individuals, all of whom reside at 111 Merton Street, and granted Participant Status to each of Anthony Easty, Beth Savan, and Leslie Cadeau on the condition that the Tribunal receive their completed Request for Status form by end of day on May 30th, 2025.
8At the time of issuance of the Tribunal’s Order on June 3, 2025, Mr. Easty and Ms. Savan had fulfilled the condition.
9After the date of issuance of its Order, the Tribunal became aware that Ms. Cadeau had sent the required material by way of email and it was received by the City and other Parties, but that a typographical error in an email address prevented it from being received directly by the Tribunal.
10In the Hearing, the Tribunal granted relief considered necessary and appropriate, under Rule 1.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, to find that Ms. Cadeau’s request for Participant Status should be granted and to confirm receipt of her Participant Statement dated May 28, 2025. None of the Parties took issue with Participant Status being granted to Ms. Cadeau.
BACKGROUND
11By way of background, the Applications were originally initiated in October-November 2021, with only an Application for ZBA to permit the removal of all existing buildings on the Subject Site and redevelop the lands with a 39-storey mixed-use building containing 2,342 square metres (“m2”) of replacement office space and 443 dwelling units (“Original Proposal”).
12Since the time of the filing of the initial Application for ZBA, the City designated the former Girl Guides of Canada building under the Ontario Heritage Act, and the Original Proposal was revised to include partial conservation and adaptive reuse of this building resulting in a reduction of replacement office space to 1,730 m2 and 430 dwelling units.
13Through on-going collaborative efforts and evolving building re-design, an Application for OPA was filed and the Proposal underwent revisions which culminated in a Revised Proposal in November 2023 to include the partial retention of the Girl Guide building, and a 45-storey mixed-use building containing 581 dwelling units and 1,758 m2 of office space. This Revised Proposal was recommended for approval by City Planning Staff and was approved in principle by City Council at its meeting on March 20-21, 2024.
14During this same period, the City initiated an Office Space Needs Study (in late 2023) in recognition of continuing trends in the office market, which resulted in a revised approach in City policy for office replacement (July 2024).
15Recognizing the implications of the change in policy direction and evolving office market trends, the Applicant appealed the City Council’s failure to enact the bills for the OPA and ZBA Applications within the timeframes prescribed under the Act to the Tribunal and submitted further revisions on the Revised Proposal to the City on January 22, 2025. More specifically, the revisions propose that there not be replacement office space within the redevelopment.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
16The Tribunal qualified Leigh McGrath, a Registered Professional Planner and Full Member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, upon consideration of Ms. McGrath’s (the “Planner”) CV and signed Acknowledgement of Expert’s Duty, to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning in respect of the matters before it.
17The Tribunal accepts and relies upon the uncontradicted opinion evidence of the Planner, provided both by way of viva voce evidence in the Hearing and as provided in the Planner’s Affidavit, affirmed on July 7, 2025, and marked as Exhibit 1, and which includes the following:
a. The opinion evidence of the Planner, which is comprehensive in providing land use planning context of the Subject Site, the comparison of the Settlement Proposal with the Original and Revised Proposals, as well as the merits of the Settlement Proposal in the context of the statutory requirements under the Act and the applicable provincial and municipal plans, policies, and guidelines;
b. The January 2025 architectural plans prepared by Hariri Pontarini Architects and as attached as Exhibit “20”;
c. A draft OPA is attached as Exhibit “24” (attached to this Decision as Attachment 1);
d. A draft ZBA to the City Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended, is attached as Exhibit “25” (attached to this Decision as Attachment 2);
e. The Applicant/Appellant’s “without prejudice” settlement offer letter dated May 5, 2025, as attached as Exhibit “21”; and,
f. A City Council resolution accepting the Settlement Proposal, adopted at Council’s meeting of May 21-22, 2025, and attached as Exhibit “23”.
18The Settlement Proposal is identical in its built form to that of the Revised Proposal approved in principle by the City in March 2024, and is a 45-storey building, consisting of a 6-storey podium base with a taller element above, with an overall height of approximately 157 m. The building is proposed to have a total Gross Floor Area (“GFA”) of 36,057 m2. The overall site density proposed is 13.41 Floor Space Index (“FSI”), based on the site area of 2,689 m2. There is a total of 603 dwelling units, comprised of a minimum provision of 7 percent three-bedroom units, 15 percent two-bedroom units, and an additional 18 percent as a combination of two- and/or three-bedroom units, or that can be converted as such through the use of adaptable design measures. It includes the retention and adaptive reuse of a portion of the former Girl Guide building.
19The Settlement Proposal includes a draft OPA which seeks to redesignate the Subject Site from Mixed Use Areas under the City Official Plan and Mixed Use Areas “B” under the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (“YESP”) to Apartment Neighbourhoods under both plans. The draft ZBA is intended to rezone the Subject Site to facilitate the January 2025 architectural plans.
20At its meeting on May 21-22, 2025, City Council accepted the Settlement Proposal, which is contingent upon the fulfilment of the conditions as set out in Ex. “23” of Exhibit 1.
21The Parties are seeking the Tribunal’s approval, in principle, of the Settlement Proposal and have filed with the Tribunal a draft OPA and a draft ZBA to facilitate the re-development of the Subject Site. The City requested that the Tribunal withhold its Final Order until certain conditions, as detailed in the Interim Order, have been met.
22The Tribunal is satisfied that the Settlement Proposal before it has been revised to better align with provincial and municipal planning policy based on the cooperative efforts of the Parties.
23The Participant Statements have been reviewed and considered by the Tribunal in the context of the Settlement Proposal before it. The Tribunal recognizes that the Settlement Proposal, if approved, will result in some change and temporary impacts within the immediate Davisville neighbourhood.
24The Tribunal also considered the Planner’s detailed response to the comments provided by the Participants, wherein the Planner referred to the concerns into two categories: (1) the impact of the demolition and construction phases; and (2) the post-construction concerns pertaining to infrastructure adequacy, cycling use, vehicular congestion, and pedestrian safety. As noted by the Planner, some of these concerns relate to construction and demolition impacts which may be addressed by way of a Construction Management Plan, and some of the concerns may be addressed by way of conditions of planning approval.
25Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the land use planning issues will be adequately addressed by way of the design of the redevelopment and the fulfilment of the City’s requested conditions, namely:
a) the provision of on-site vehicle and bicycle parking within the redevelopment in accordance with the City’s Zoning By-law No. 569-2013, as amended;
b) a 6.0 metre building setback from the south lot line to accommodate an improved sidewalk condition given a wider boulevard and additional landscaping;
c) an internal driveway and motor court to accommodate pick-up and drop-off functions in an off-street location; and
d) the provision of a Functional Servicing Report and Stormwater Management Report to deal with adequacy of infrastructure to support the Settlement Proposal, coupled with the requirement for the Applicant/Appellant to financially secure such infrastructure that may be identified as necessary by way of the Reports.
26The Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal, to be implemented by way of the draft OPA and draft ZBA, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the Interim Order, will optimize the use of the Subject Site in supporting growth and intensification within the Davisville neighbourhood which leverages existing and planned infrastructure in a manner that incorporates a mix of land uses in a built form that will meet urban design guidelines so as to be compatible within the existing and planned built form context of this neighbourhood.
27With respect to the statutory requirements set out in the Act, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal and the draft OPA and draft ZBA, subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions requested by the City, and as recommended by the Planner, are consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), maintain the intent of the City Official Plan and YESP, and in the case of the ZBA conforms with, the City Official Plan, as amended.
28The Tribunal also finds that the Settlement Proposal has regard to the City’s relevant/applicable urban design guidelines and notes that there may be refinements as the architectural plans are finalized and that minor adjustments to the site-specific provisions in the draft ZBA may be necessary as a result.
29Further, the Tribunal finds that the Settlement Proposal, draft OPA, and draft ZBA have appropriate regard for matters of Provincial interest as set out in s. 2 of the Act, and the Tribunal is satisfied that they are in the public interest and represent good planning.
30The Tribunal finds that the proposed redevelopment of the lands known municipally in the City of Toronto as 50 and 64 Merton Street should be approved in principle in accordance with the January 2025 architectural plans found in Exhibit “20” to the Planner’s Affidavit and as filed with the Tribunal.
31The Tribunal makes its findings in accordance with s. 2.1(1) of the Act, having considered that the Settlement Proposal has been endorsed by the City.
INTERIM ORDER
32THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal pursuant to s. 22(7) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [34] below, and the draft Official Plan Amendment set out in Attachment 1 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.
33AND THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER ORDERS THAT the appeal pursuant to s. 34(11) of the Planning Act is allowed, in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite matters identified in paragraph [34] below, and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim Order, is hereby approved in principle.
34The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon receiving written confirmation from the City Solicitor of the following pre-requisite matters:
a. The final form and content of the Official Plan Amendment and the draft Zoning By-law Amendment are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Executive Director, Development Review;
b. The owner has submitted a revised Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
c. The owner has entered into a Municipal Infrastructure Agreement to financially secure the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure in connection with the accepted Functional Servicing Report by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements to such infrastructure are required;
d. The owner has entered into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the property at 50 Merton Street substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings dated November 23, 2023 prepared by Hariri Pontarini, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated November 30, 2023, prepared by GBCA, all on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, subject to and in accordance with the Conservation Plan below, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including execution of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; and,
e. The owner has provided a detailed Conservation Plan, prepare by a qualified heritage consultant that is substantially in accordance with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment for the property at 50 Merton Street, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning.
35The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and the issuance of the Final Order.
36If the Parties do not provide confirmation that all contingent pre-requisites to the issuance of the Final Order as set out in paragraph [34] above have been satisfied and do not request the issuance of the Final Order within 120 days from the date of issuance of this Interim Order, a written status report shall be provided to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
37The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties by Telephone Conference Call to determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final form of the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites and the issuance of the Final Order.
“Sharon L. Dionne”
SHARON L. DIONNE
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: www.olt.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248
The Conservation Review Board, the Environmental Review Tribunal, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Mining and Lands Tribunal are amalgamated and continued as the Ontario Land Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Any reference to the preceding tribunals or the former Ontario Municipal Board is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW XXX-202X
To adopt Amendment XXX to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the lands known municipally in the year 2023, as 50 and 64 Merton Street.
Whereas authority is given to Council under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and
Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;
The Council of the City of Toronto enacts:
- The attached Amendment XXX to the Official Plan is hereby adopted pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended.
Enacted and passed on XXX XX, 202X.
Frances Nunziata, John D. Elvidge,
Speaker City Clerk
(Seal of the City)
AMENDMENT XXX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2023 AS 50 AND 64 MERTON STREET
The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is amended as follows:
Map 17, Land Use Plan is hereby amended by redesignating the lands known as 50 and 64 Merton Street from Mixed Use Areas to Apartment Neighbourhoods in accordance with Schedule A attached hereto.
Chapter 6, Section 21, Yonge and Eglinton Secondary Plan, Map 21-4, Land Use Plan, is amended by re-designating the lands known municipally in 2023 as 50 and 64 Merton Street from Mixed Use Areas ‘”B” to Apartment Neighbourhoods in accordance with Schedule B attached hereto.
Chapter 6, Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan, is amended by amending by adding Site and Area Specific Policy XXX for the lands known municipally in 2023 as 50 and 64 Merton Street as follows:
XXX. 50 and 64 Merton Street
a. Notwithstanding Policy 7.1 of this Secondary Plan, any development containing more than 80 new residential units will include:
i. A minimum of 15 percent of the total number of units as 2-bedroom units;
ii. A minimum of 7 percent of the total number of units as 3-bedroom units; and
iii. An additional 18 per cent of the total number of units will be a combination of 2-bedroom and/or 3-bedroom units, and/or units that can be converted to 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units through the use of adaptable design measures.
ATTACHMENT 2
Authority: Toronto and East York Community Council Item [-], as adopted by City of Toronto Council on ~, 2024
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 2023 as 50 and 64 Merton Street.
Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and
Whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act, as amended; and
Whereas pursuant to Section 39 of the Planning Act, as amended, the council of a municipality may, in a by-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize the temporary use of land, buildings or structures for any purpose set out therein that is otherwise prohibited in the by-law.
The Council of the City of Toronto enacts:
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, as amended, 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 from a zone label of CR 2.0 (c2.0; r2.0) SS2 (x2495) to a zone label of R (d2.0) (x###) as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law.
Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by Article 900.2.10 Exception Number ### so that it reads:
(963) Exception R (###)
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 50 and 64 Merton Street, 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 (X) below;
(B) Despite regulation 10.5.40.10(1), the height of a building or structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 153.39 metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;
(C) Despite (H) below, Regulations 10.5.40.10(2), (3) and (4), and 10.10.40.10(8) and (9), 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 8.5 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 8.5 metres;
(iii) elevator overrun, by a maximum of 10.5 metres;
(iv) architectural features, parapets, and elements and structures associated with a green roof, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
(v) building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a maximum of 7.5 metres;
(vi) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, and divider screens on a balcony and/or terrace, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
(vii) antennae, flagpoles and satellite dishes, by a maximum of 3.5 metres; and
(viii) trellises, pergolas, and unenclosed structures providing safety or wind protection to rooftop amenity space, by a maximum of 3.5 metres;
(D) Regulation 10.5.40.10(4), Horizontal Limits on Elements for Functional Operation of a building, does not apply;
(E) Despite regulation 10.5.40.50 and 10.5.40.60 and (L) and (M) below, 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 2.5 metres;
(ii) canopies and awnings, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
(iii) exterior stairs, access ramps and elevating devices, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
(iv) architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column, cornice, sill, belt course, or chimney breast, by a maximum of 1.0 metres;
(v) architectural features associated with balconies, including balcony dividers, screens, structures, handrails and other decorative elements, to a maximum of 2.2 metres;
(vi) window projections, including bay windows and box windows, by a maximum of 1.0 metres; and
(vii) air conditioners, satellite dishes, antennae, vents, and pipes, by a maximum of 1.0 metre;
(F) Regulations 10.5.50.10(4) and (5) regarding landscaping and soft landscaping do not apply;
(G) Regulation 10.5.80.30 regarding parking space separation from apartment building does not apply;
(H) Despite regulation 10.10.40.10(1)(A), the permitted maximum height for a building or structure is the number following the HT symbol in metres as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number];
(I) Regulation 10.10.40.30(1)(B), regarding maximum permitted building depth does not apply;
(J) Despite regulation 10.10.40.40(1)(B), the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot is 36,500 square metres;
(K) Despite regulation 10.10.40.50(1), amenity space must be provided at a minimum rate of 2.45 square metres of amenity space per dwelling unit, of which:
(i) at least 1.45 square metres of indoor amenity space is required for each dwelling unit;
(ii) at least 1.0 square metres of outdoor amenity space is required for each dwelling unit; and
(iii) indoor amenity space may include space adjacent to the lobby;
(L) Despite Clause 10.10.40.70, the required minimum building setbacks for buildings and structures are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number];
(M) Despite regulation 10.10.40.80, the required separation of main walls are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law number];
(N) The provision of dwelling units is subject to the following:
(i) a minimum of 15 percent of dwelling units must contain two bedrooms;
(ii) a minimum of 7 percent of dwelling units must contain three bedrooms or more;
(iii) any dwelling units with 3 or more bedrooms provided to satisfy (ii) above are not included in the provision required by (i) above;
(iv) an additional 18 percent of the total number of dwelling units will be any combination of 2 bedroom or 3 bedroom dwelling units or dwelling units that can be converted into any combination of 2 and 3 bedroom dwelling units; and;
(v) dwelling units, as described in (iv) above, may be converted using accessible or adaptable design measures such as knock-out panels;
(O) Despite regulations 10.5.80.1(1), 200.5.1.10(10) and 200.10.1, the residential visitor parking spaces may be provided on a non-exclusive basis within a public parking use;
(P) Despite Regulation 200.5.1.10(2)(E), equipment for the charging of electric vehicles is permitted to be located within a parking space, subject to the equipment being located in the same parking space as the vehicle to be charged and does not constitute an obstruction;
(Q) 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 0.11 residential occupant parking spaces for each dwelling unit, but not exceeding the permitted maximum in Table 200.5.10.1 for dwelling units in a Mixed Use Building in Parking Zone A; and
(ii) a minimum of 2 residential visitor parking spaces and a minimum of 0.01 residential visitor parking spaces for each dwelling unit;
(R) Despite Regulations 200.5.1.10(2)(A), a maximum of 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces may have the following minimum dimensions:
(i) Length – 5.1 metres;
(ii) Width – 2.6 metres;
(iii) Vertical Clearance – 2.0 metres; and
(iv) The minimum Width in (ii) must be increased by 0.3 metres for each side of the parking space that is obstructed according to 200.5.1.10(2)(D);
(S) Despite Regulation 200.15.1(1)(B), accessible parking spaces must have a minimum width of 3.4 metres;
(T) Accessible parking spaces must be the parking spaces closest to a barrier free:
(i) entrance to a building; and
(ii) passenger elevator that provides access to the first storey of the building.
(U) Notwithstanding (T) above, an accessible parking space may be no greater than 40 metres from an entrance in (Q)(i) and (ii) above;
(V) Despite regulations 220.5.1.10(5) and 220.5.10.1(2), one Type "G" loading space and one Type “C” loading space must be provided and maintained on the lot; and
(W) 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) 0.9 "long-term" bicycle parking spaces for each dwelling unit;
(ii) 0.2 "short-term bicycle parking spaces for each dwelling unit;
(X) Despite Clause 230.10.1.20(2) “short term” bicycle parking spaces may be further than 30 metres from a pedestrian entrance to the building and may be located inside a building.
Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections: (None Apply).
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.
Temporary Use(s):
(A) 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 centre and construction management office on the lands to which this By-law applies for a period of 5 years from the date this By-law comes into full force and effect, after which this temporary use permission expires.
Enacted and passed on [Clerks to insert date].
[full name], [full name],
Speaker City Clerk
(Seal of the City)