Ontario Land Tribunal

Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement du territoire

ISSUE DATE: January 07, 2026

CASE NO(S).: OLT-24-001132

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

Applicant/Appellant: 2485 Eglinton Holdings Inc. (“Tercot”)

Subject: Request to amend the Official Plan – Failure to adopt the requested amendment

Description: To facilitate the development of a 45-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: 24 121747 WET 05 OZ

Property Address: 2485 Eglinton Avenue W

Municipality/UT: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001132

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001132

OLT Case Name: 2485 Eglinton Holdings Inc. v. Toronto (City)

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

Applicant/Appellant: 2485 Eglinton Holdings Inc. (“Tercot”)

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

Description: To facilitate the development of a 45-storey mixed-use building

Reference Number: 24 121747 WET 05 OZ

Property Address: 2485 Eglinton Avenue W

Municipality/UT: City of Toronto

OLT Case No.: OLT-24-001133

OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-24-001132

Heard: October 30, 2025, by Video-Hearing

APPEARANCES:

Parties

Counsel

2485 Eglinton Holdings Inc.

Justine Reyes Christopher Tanzola (in absentia)

City of Toronto

Mathew Longo Simona Messina (in absentia)

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY YASNA FAGHANI AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

Link to Order

INTRODUCTION

1This Decision relates to an appeal brought pursuant to s. 22(7) and s. 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (“Act”) from the City of Toronto’s (“City”) refusal to approve applications for an Official Plan Amendment (“OPA”) and Zoning By-law Amendment (“ZBA”) (together referred to as “Applications”). The appeal has been filed by 2485 Eglinton Holdings Inc. (“Tercot”/ “Applicant”) regarding lands municipally known 2485 Eglinton Avenue W, within the City (“Subject Property”).

2On October 30, 2025, Tribunal held its first Hearing event regarding the applications which was intended to be a Case Management Conference (“CMC”). In advance of the CMC, the Parties advised the Tribunal that they had reached a settlement and would be filing settlement materials. The Parties also advised that it was their intent to present a settlement proposal to the Tribunal at the CMC.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND STATUS REQUESTS

3The Tribunal confirmed with the Parties that there were no issues with service of Notice of the CMC and as such, no further Notice is required. The Tribunal was in receipt of the Affidavit of Service of Daniel Teichman sworn October 8, 2025, which was marked as Exhibit 1.

STATUS REQUESTS

4Prior to the CMC, the Tribunal did not receive any requests for Party or Participant status. In response to the Tribunal’s inquiry, there were no other persons or entities present at the CMC requesting Party or Participant status. Counsels for the Parties also confirmed no one had contacted them regarding status.

PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

5After addressing preliminary matters at the CMC, and in the absence of any opposition, the Tribunal granted the Parties’ request to convert the CMC to a Settlement Hearing in accordance with Rule 19.6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

6The Tribunal confirmed with the Parties that the OPA and ZBA which are before the Tribunal are the same versions as the instruments that were before City Council.

7The Parties jointly requested that the Tribunal allow the appeal in part and approve the proposed OPA and ZBA as attached to this decision, subject to conditions.

Background

8The Subject Property is an irregularly shaped corner lot located on the south side of Eglinton Avenue West, approximately 500 metres east of the intersection of Keele Street an Eglinton Avenue West. It is approximately 1,710 square metres with 60 metres of frontage on Eglinton Avenue West and 71 metres on Venn Crescent. The irregular lot depth is due to the triangular shape of the property. The Venn Crescent frontage of the Subject Property provides for an east-west slope of approximately 8 metres, sloping downwards to Eglinton Avenue West. Currently, a one-storey autobody with surface parking is located on the Subject Property.

9The neighbourhood is predominantly residential and commercial, with a variety of built forms ranging from detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, townhouses, and mid-to-high-rise apartment buildings, the latter of which is concentrated along Eglinton Avenue West. The area is anchored by the West Side Mall Shopping Centre (2400 Eglinton Avenue West), which is a low-rise auto-oriented plaza that supports a range of small to large scale tenants.

10The Applications seeks to facilitate the development of a 45-storey mixed-use building with two levels below-grade providing 69 vehicle parking spaces, 578 bicycle parking spaces, and storage areas, as well as various building servicing areas for mechanical and electrical equipment (“Development Proposal”).

11On June 11, 2024, the Applications were deemed completed by the City. On November 4, 2024, the Applicant appealed to this Tribunal due to the City’s failure to make a decision within the statutory time frames. Following a February 5, 2025 Council meeting, City Council instructed its Staff to continue discussions with the Applicant to attempt to resolve outstanding issues identified in the Staff Report (which instructed the City to oppose the Applications). Following several discussions between the Applicant and City Staff, a proposed settlement offer was submitted by the Applicant to the City that resulted in further addendums to the settlement offer. The final settlement offer was considered and accepted by City Council at their meeting on July 23 and 24, 2025.

12As part of City Council’s resolution in accepting the settlement offer, City Council directed its counsel to request that the Tribunal withhold the issuance of its final Order until such time that it was advised by the City Solicitor that several servicing conditions had been satisfied.

Evidence

13The Tribunal received, reviewed and considered the uncontested opinion evidence of Sean McGaffey, Registered Professional Planner, as tendered orally as well as contained in the comprehensive affidavit, sworn October 21, 2025 (marked as Exhibit 2 with all exhibits attached thereto).

14The Tribunal understands that the affidavit evidence of Mr. McGaffey reflects revisions to the Applications before the Tribunal that were reached through the cooperative efforts of the Parties. These discussions focused on review of the built form of the building and the resulting shadows cast onto the public realm and nearby existing and planned open spaces, as well as the building’s street wall relationship to the public realm.

15In his affidavit, Mr. McGaffey provided a comprehensive contextual and planning rationale in support of the Development Proposal. He opined that the Development Proposal had regard for matters of provincial interest as its mixed-use, podium tower build form optimizes the use of public transit and active transportation networks, implements a range of housing, and encourages a sense of place within a walkable area of the City. According to Mr. McGaffey, the Subject Property is in an appropriate location for the development of a new tall building and will contribute to reduced greenhouse gas emissions through a reduced parking supply which would make nearby transit and active transportation facilities the choice of travel.

16Furthermore, according to Mr. McGaffey, the Subject Property is located in a Strategic Growth area under the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (“PPS 2024”), identified as an area of growth which are directed to be planned as complete communities with a range of housing options and mixed-use development. In his affidavit, Mr. McGaffey opined that the Proposal is consistent with the PPS 2024 as it contributes to the development of healthy, safe, and livable community by providing an efficient use of infrastructure on an underutilized commercial property. In addition, the Proposal supports existing and planned infrastructure (including transit infrastructure) and will achieve minimum density targets within a Major Transit Station Area.

17Moreover, in his affidavit, Mr. McGaffey opined that the Development Proposal conforms to the City’s Official Plan (“OP”) with respect to polices related to urban structure, design, and built form, and policies relating to “Mixed Use Area” designation and optimizing existing infrastructure. The Subject Property fronts an “Avenue” with a planned right-of-way width of 27 metres. It is located close to Caledonia GO Rail Station (under construction) and along a “Transit Corridor” and within a “Transit Priority Segment”. It is located within “Block B” as identified on the Site and Area Specific Policy No. 31, within the Caledonia Station Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”) as identified in the Site and Area Specific Policy No. 674; and located within “Minimum 2.0 FSI” Area in the Site and Area Specific Policy No. 674.

18As a result, Mr. McGaffey opined that the Development Proposal makes use of existing municipal services and land efficiently by intensifying an underutilized property in an area with transit service, cycling, and pedestrian infrastructure. It will support the PMTSA as a transit-oriented, pedestrian-prominent vibrant urban area. Mr. McGaffey noted that in February 2025, City Council adopted OP No. 778, which amended various “Avenues” related policies including recognizing that “Avenues” in proximity to higher-order transit can be appropriate for taller forms of development beyond a mid-rise. He opined that the Proposal is in line with the policies related to “Avenues” because it is a mixed-use tall building in preexisting to existing and planned higher-order transit (Caledonia Station) which will in the future serve as an interchange station with Crosstown LRT system and GO Rail services (currently under construction).

19With respect to the public realm, Mr. McGaffey explained that the Development Proposal will expand, enhance, and activate the pedestrian realm abutting with Subject Property with new residential and non-residential uses, as well as landscaping improvements within the public right-of-way. To support active transportation use, he opined that the Development Proposal provides short-term bicycle parking along both frontages, in addition to long-term bicycle parking within the building. Regarding built form, the Development Proposal provides a “flat iron form” aligned to both frontages in a manner consistent with policy directions, as well as providing public open space at the corner of Eglinton Avenue West and Venn Crescent. According to Mr. McGaffey, the Proposal represents a well-scaled, well-designed built form that responds to existing and planned context around the Subject Property, and it conforms to the “Mixed Use Areas” policies of the City OP.

20Mr. McGaffey explained that OPA No. 253 (By-law No. 728-2014) was approved by this Tribunal in 2014 which implemented new and amended Site and Area Specific policies for certain lands abutting Eglinton Avenue between Jane Street and Kennedy Road, including the Subject Site (“SASP 31”). The changes included redesignating lands on the south side of Eglinton Avenue West to “Apartment Neighbourhoods” and “Mixed Use Areas”. To optimize transportation infrastructure expansion, the redesignation of the lands to east of the Subject Property from “Neighbourhoods” lands to “Mixed Use Areas” reflects the recognition that these lands can accommodate a heightened level of intensification due to their location along an “Avenue”, and in close proximity to a soon-to-be-operating GO Transit and LRT interchange station and transit hub. He concluded that the draft OPA is necessary to facilitate the built form and tall building typology contemplated in the Proposal in “Block B” of the SAPS 31 which reflects City Council’s policy direction (as adopted in OPA No. 778) that “Avenues” designated areas can accommodate forms of tall buildings greater in height than a mid-rise.

21In addition, in his affidavit, Mr. McGaffey noted that in August 2025, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing approved six OPAs including OPA No. 570, which contains delineations for 57 PMTSAs across the City. The Subject Property is located within the Caledonia Station PMTSA under the Site and Area Specific Policy No. 674 (“SASP 674”). According to Mr. McGaffey, the Development Proposal will support the achievement and exceedance of the planned minimum density targets set out in SASP 674 and support both the provincial and municipal direction to locate density in proximity to existing and planned higher-order transit infrastructure.

22Finally, Mr. McGaffey testified that the Development Proposal has regard for applicable design guidelines, including the Tall Buildings Design Guidelines and the Growing Up: Planning for Children in New Vertical Communities Urban Design Guidelines (“Growing Up Guidelines”). Detailed reasons were outlined in his affidavit which the Tribunal reviewed and accepts.

23With respect to the ZBA, Mr. McGaffey noted that the draft ZBA proposes site-specific exceptions in order to implement the height density standards as well as site-specific development standards, including restrictions on the location, size, and number of balconies on each tower face, including a restriction on any balconies being placed on the east-facing façade of the tower within the 10-metre setback. The ZBA will also require a minimum composition of non-residential uses at grade in order to provide for the mix of uses discussed in the settlement proposal. There are also requirements for the indoor and outdoor amenities.

24Upon inquiry from the Tribunal, Mr. McGaffey noted that traffic and height of the building were topics discussed at the Council Meetings. According to Mr. McGaffey, these concerns had been discussed and addressed. He explained that the City and the Applicant worked together to refine the look of the building so that it maintains the height but appears less bulky. Regarding traffic, he noted that the building is highly transit supportive since there are only 69 parking spaces and there needs to be an understanding that not every resident will get a parking space. The City had taken significant steps to remove the minimum parking requirements since the Subject Property is in a PMTSA (as such there is no amendment to parking requirements in the ZBA) and both a Traffic Impact Assessment was completed with no significant issues.

CONCLUSION

25The Tribunal acknowledges that the evidence of Mr. McGaffey, which the City adopts and agrees with in support of the settlement reached, represents good planning.

26The Tribunal, having accepted the uncontroverted opinion evidence of Mr. McGaffey as presented, finds that the Applications have regard to those applicable matters of Provincial interest found in s. 2 of the Act and are consistent with the PPS 2024. In considering the matter, the Tribunal accepts Mr. McGaffey’s opinion that the OPA and ZBA, which will facilitate the Development Proposal, represent a development in an area with existing infrastructure and services on an underutilized commercial property. The Development Proposal will contribute additional housing options in the Province and is a form of intensification in proximity to existing and planned higher-order transit infrastructure.

27Furthermore, the Tribunal finds that the Development Proposal conforms to the City’s OP, has regard for the Tall Building Design Guidelines and the Growing Up Guidelines, is in the public interest and constitutes good planning.

ORDER

28THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeal by 2485 Eglington Holdings Inc. is allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of the conditions identified in paragraph 31 below.

29THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Draft Official Plan for the City of Toronto set out in Attachment 1 to this interim Order is hereby approved in principle, subject to the conditions identified in paragraph 31 below.

30The TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the Zoning By-Law Amendment set out in Attachment 2 to this Interim order is hereby approved in principle subject to the conditions identified in paragraph 31 below.

31The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City of Toronto and 2485 Holdings Inc. that the following conditions have been fulfilled:

(i) the final form and content of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are satisfactory to the Executive Director, Development Review, and the City Solicitor;

(ii) 2485 Holdings Inc. has satisfactorily addressed matters from Development Engineering as contained in the Development Engineering Memorandum, dated June 25, 2024, and any outstanding issues raised by Development Engineering, arising from the ongoing technical review (including the provision of acceptable reports and studies), to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review;

(iii) 2485 Holdings Inc. has submitted an updated Hydrogeological Review Report, Hydrological Review Summary, Foundation Drainage Summary Form, Subsurface Utility Engineering Investigation, Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Servicing Report Groundwater Summary Form, and any other reports or documents deemed necessary in support of the development to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review;

(iv) 2485 Holdings Inc. has satisfactorily addressed the Transportation Services matters in the Development Engineering Memorandum, dated June 25, 2024, and any outstanding issues raised by Transportation Services, arising from the ongoing technical review (including the provision of acceptable reports and studies), to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

(v) in the event that upgrades are required to the infrastructure to support the development according to the accepted Functional Servicing Report and/or the Transportation Impact Study, 2485 Holdings Inc. has secured the design, construction, and provision of financial securities for any new or upgraded municipal infrastructure in a financially secured agreement to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering Review and the General Manager, Transportation Services;

(vi) 2485 Holdings Inc. has satisfactorily addressed matters from the Tree Protection and Plan Review, Urban Forestry Memorandum, dated April 12, 2024, and any outstanding issues raised by Urban Forestry, arising from the ongoing technical review (including the provision of acceptable reports and studies), to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Environment, Climate, and Forestry;

(vii) 2485 Holdings Inc. has provided a revised Pedestrian Level Wind Study, including a Wind Tunnel Study, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review; and

(viii) the submitted Noise Impact Study and Land Use Compatibility/Mitigation Study, both dated February 2, 2024 and prepared by RWDI, have been peer reviewed by a third-party consultant retained by the City at 2485 Holdings Inc.’s expense, and 2485 Holdings Inc. agrees to implement any necessary control measures and recommendations identified by the peer review, with the control measures to be secured through the Site Plan Control process, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review.

32The Panel Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the final draft of the Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendment and the issuance of the Final Order.

33If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent conditions to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph 31 above have been satisfied, and do not request the issuance of the Final Order, by Tuesday, June 30^th, 2026, the Applicant and the City of Toronto shall provide a written status report to the Tribunal by that date, as to the timing of the expected confirmation and submission of the final form of the draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.

34The 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 instrument(s), the satisfaction of the conditions and the issuance of the Final Order.

“Yasna Faghani”

Yasna Faghani

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 ~-2025

To adopt Amendment XXX to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the lands known municipally in the year 2025 as 2485 Eglinton Avenue West

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 22(7) 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 2025 as 2485 Eglinton Avenue West; and

Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal has the authority pursuant to Section 22 of the Planning Act, as amended, to pass this By-law;

The Ontario Land Tribunal Orders:

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

Enacted and passed on ~ ~, 2025

AMENDMENT XXX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN

LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2025 AS 2485 Eglinton Avenue West

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

XXX. 2485 Eglinton Avenue West

1. Site and Area Specific Policy No. 31, is amended by deleting subsection (h), and adding a new subsection as follows:

(x) On the lands identified in Schedule A below, a mixed use building is permitted in a podium-tower form with a height of 45-storeys.

Schedule ‘A’

“Attachment 2”

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW XXX 2025

To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands municipally known in the year 2024 as 2485 Eglinton Avenue West

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 2025 as 2485 Eglinton Avenue West; 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, 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 XXXXX to a zone label of CR XXXXX, as shown on Diagram 2 attached to this By-law;

4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by adding Article900.11.10 Exception Number XXXX so that it reads: (XXX) Exception CR XXX. The lands, or a portion thereof as noted below, are subject to the following Site Specific Provisions, Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections:

Site Specific Provisions:

(A) On lands municipally known as 2485 Eglinton Avenue West, if the requirements of By-law [Clerks to supply By-law Number] are complied with, a building or structure may be constructed, used or enlarged in compliance with Regulations (B) to (P) below;

(B) Despite regulation 40.5.40.10(1) and (2), the height of a building or structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum elevation of 153.94 metres and the highest point of the building or structure;

(C) Despite regulation 40.10.40.1(1), residential use portions of the building may be located at the same level as non-residential use portions of the building;

(D) Despite regulation 40.10.40.10(2), the permitted maximum height of a building or structure is the number in metres following the letters “HT” shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to supply By-law Number];

(E) Despite regulations 40.5.40.10(3) to (8), and (E) above, the following building elements and structures may exceed the permitted maximum building height:

(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 2.5 metres within the area identified on Diagram 3 as “Area Subject to Regulation 4(E) (i) and (ii)”;

(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 2.5 metres within the area identified on Diagram 3 as “Area Subject to Regulation 4(E) (i) and (ii)”;

(iii) architectural features, parapets, and elements and structures associated with a green roof, by a maximum of 1.8 metres;

(iv) building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a maximum of 5.0 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 3.0 metres; and

(vii) trellises, pergolas, and unenclosed structures providing safety or wind protection to rooftop amenity space, by a maximum of 3.5 metres;

(F) Despite regulation 40.10.40.40 (1) the permitted maximum gross floor area of all buildings and structures is 33,500 square metres;

(G) Despite regulations and 40.10.40.70(2) and 40.10.40.80(2) the required minimum building setbacks and required minimum separation between main walls are as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to supply By-law Number];

(H) Despite regulation 40.5.40.60(1) and Clause 40.10.40.60, and (G) above, the following elements may encroach into the required minimum building setbacks and main wall separation distances as follows:

(i) balconies, by a maximum of 2.5 metres within the areas identified on Diagram 3;

(ii) canopies and awnings, by a maximum of 4.5 metres;

(iii) exterior stairs, access ramps and elevating devices, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;

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

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

(vi) eaves, by a maximum of 0.5 metres; and

(vii) air conditioners, satellite dishes, antennae, vents, and pipes, by a maximum of 1.5 metres;

(I) Notwithstanding (H)(i) above, the cumulative horizontal distance of balcony projections from a main wall facing the front lot line shall be equal to or less than 50% of the horizontal distance of the main wall facing the front lot line;

(J) 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 two bedrooms;

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

(iii) 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; and

(iv) any dwelling units provided to satisfy (ii) above are not included in the provision of dwelling units to satisfy (i) above.

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

(i) At least 1.4 square metres for each dwelling unit is outdoor amenity space.

(L) Despite regulation 220.5.10.1(1), a minimum of one (1) Type "G" loading space and one (1) Type C loading space must be provided on the lot;

(M) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10 (9) a required “long-term” bicycle parking space may be located on any storey of a building or structure including all levels of the building or structure below established grade;

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

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

(P) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10 (9)(A)(iii) a “long-term” bicycle parking space may be located on the first level below grade or on the first two levels, including a mezzanine, above grade.

(Q) Despite Regulations 230.5.1.10 (4)(A)(ii) and (B)(ii), the minimum width of a bicycle parking space is 0.45 metres;

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

5. Despite any existing or future severance, partition or division of lands, the provisions of this By-law apply to whole of the lands as if no severance, partition or division occurred.