Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: March 25, 2025
PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER Section 45(12), subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended (the "Act")
Appellant(s): N. TYERS
Applicant(s): MHBC PLANNING
Property Address: 775 VAUGHAN RD
COA File No.: 24 188931 STE 12 MV (A0810/24TEY)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 249028 S45 12 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): 3/20/2025
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Panel Member T. Kezwer
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
MHBC Planning
Appellant
N. Tyers
T. Sanderson
Party (TLAB)
Northcliffe Project GP Inc
T. Sanderson
Participant Participant
J. Fohrenkamm C. Creese
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This hearing involved a minor variance application for the property located at 775 Vaughan Road (the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Vaughan Road and Northcliffe Boulevard. The Subject Property is designated as Apartment Neighbourhoods in the City of Toronto (the "City") Official Plan, and is zoned Commercial Residential Zone in the City's Zoning By-Law. Site Specific By-Law 818-2023 applies to the Subject Property.
2The Appellant appeals a denial by the Toronto and East York panel of the Committee of Adjustment of a request for five minor variances. The proposal calls to increase the number of storeys to 45 from the approved 38 storeys with several resulting variances, and there is an additional encroachment variance.
Exhibits
3Three exhibits were entered into the record. The exhibits are as follows:
Exhibit 1: Document Disclosure received by the Toronto Local Appeal Body (the Tribunal") on February 18, 2025.
Exhibit 2: Expert Witness Statement of David A. McKay received by the Tribunal on February 18, 2025.
Exhibit 3: Party Witness Statement of Nicholas Tyers received by the Tribunal on February 18, 2025.
Late Filing of Materials
4Staff at the Tribunal marked the above exhibits as being late. The Notice of Hearing has a filing deadline of February 17, 2025, for each of the three types of documents filed as exhibits. The exhibits were filed one-day late, on February 18, 2025.
5Mr. Sanderson argued that per Rule 4.3 of the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure (the "Rules"), the documents were filed on time. Rule 4.3 provides
4.3 When the time for doing an act expires on a Holiday the act may be done on the next Day that is not a Holiday.
6The Rules define a Holiday to include any special Holiday proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Family Day was on February 17, 2025. I agree with Mr. Sanderson that it appears that the Appellant's materials were filed on time.
7In the alternative, where the Appellant's materials were late filed, Practice Direction 7: Late Filings, provides guidance. Pursuant to this Practice Direction, I admit the materials and find that there was minimal non-prejudicial delay to the other Participants in the hearing and I note that aside from the Appellant, there are no other parties to this hearing.
Participant Status
8Ms. Cassandra Creese attended at the hearing and requested Participant status. Ms. Creese had not filed a Form 4: Notice of Intention (Election) to be a Party or Participant (the "Form 4"). Mr Sanderson had no objection to Ms. Creese's participation in the hearing as a Participant. The Tribunal granted Ms. Creese participant status for the hearing, and directed that she file a Form 4 with the Tribunal.
Hearing Synopsis
9This was a one-day hearing and the Tribunal heard evidence from one expert witness, David McKay, and three lay witnesses, including two participants.
Requested Minor Variances
10The variances before the Tribunal are as follows:
- Section (E), Site Specific By-law 818-2023
Despite Regulation 40.10.40.10.(2), the maximum permitted height of a building or structure is the number, in metres, following the letters "HT" as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law 818-2023.
In this case, the maximum permitted height of a building or structure is the number, in metres, following the letters "HT" as shown on the attached "Revised Diagram 3".
- Section (F)(i), Site Specific By-Law 818-2023
Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10.(3) to (8) and (D) above, equipment used for the functional operation of the building including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment, chimneys, and vents, may project a maximum of 6 m beyond the maximum permitted height, as shown on Diagram 3 of By-law 818-2023.
In this case, the maximum permitted projection of equipment used for the functional operation of the building including electrical, utility, mechanical and ventilation equipment, chimneys, and vents, will project a maximum of 7.5 m beyond the maximum permitted height, as shown on the attached "Revised Diagram 3".
- Section (H)(i), Site Specific By-Law 818-2023
Despite Regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the maximum permitted gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot is 30,250 m2, of which the minimum required gross floor area for non-residential uses is 500 m2.
In this case, the maximum permitted gross floor area of all buildings and structures on the lot will be 34,000 m2, of which a minimum of 500 m2 will be for non-residential uses.
- Section (M)(i), Site Specific By-law 818-2023
Despite Clause 40.10.40.60. and ((J), (K), and (L) above, canopies and awnings may encroach into the required minimum building setbacks and separation distances by a maximum of 4 m.
In this case, canopies and awnings will encroach into the minimum required building setbacks and separate distances by a maximum of 5 m.
- Section (P)(ii), Site Specific By-Law 818-2023
Despite Regulation 15.10.40.50.(1)(A) and (B), a building with 20 or more dwelling units must provide at least 1.7 m2 of outdoor amenity space for each dwelling unit, of which 40 m2 must be in a location adjoining or directly accessible to the indoor amenity space.
In this case, the minimum required outdoor amenity space will be 1.6 m2 for each dwelling unit (for a total of 941.9 m2 of outdoor amenity space), of which 40 m2 will be in a location adjoining or directly accessible to the indoor amenity space.
Exhibit 1 at Tab 10: Diagram 3 of By-law 818-2003
11I will now review the legal framework guiding this matter.
THE LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
12Provincial Interest - S. 2
A decision of the Tribunal shall have regard to, among other matters, matters of provincial interest, enumerated as (a) – (s) in the Planning Act.
13Provincial Policy – S. 3
A Decision of the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) must be consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement for the subject area.
14Variance – S. 45(1)
In considering the applications for variances from the Zoning By-laws, the TLAB Panel must be satisfied that the applications meet all of the four tests under s. 45(1) of the Act. The tests are whether the variances:
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan;
maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-laws;
are desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land; and
are minor.
15I will now provide a summary of the evidence that was heard at this hearing.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
Mr. McKay
16Mr. McKay was qualified to provide expert opinion evidence in the area of land use planning. Mr. McKay is a Partner and Vice President at MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited ("MHBC"), and he has been with MHBC since 1997. Mr. McKay is experienced in mixed use / high density residential development, having been involved in planning for thousands of units throughout the Greater Toronto Area.
17Mr. McKay is a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners, a Member of Lambda Alpha International, and a Registered Professional Planner in Ontario.
18Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the proposal meets matters of provincial interest, and is consistent with the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement. In addition, Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the proposed variances individually and cumulatively meet the four tests for a minor variance outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
19Mr. McKay stated that the variances have arisen out of the discussions with community stakeholders who want increased community benefits and that the proposed variances are an attempt to provide additional community benefits to meet the needs of the community.
20Mr. McKay noted that the proposal is supported by various community groups. A letter of support dated November 18, 2024, was provided by the Eglinton Vaughan Community Land Trust. A letter of support dated November 19, 2024, was provided by Black Urbanism Toronto to the Committee of Adjustment.
21Mr. McKay also stated that the proposal is supported by the local City Councillor, Josh Matlow. Councillor Matlow provided a letter in support of the application dated October 18, 2024, when the application was before the Committee of Adjustment.
22In addition, Mr. McKay stated that City planning supports the proposal. Mr. McKay's recommended conditions of approval are sourced from a Planning Staff Report for the Committee of Adjustment, dated November 14, 2024. The Comments section of the report contains the following wording:
Community Planning staff support either Section 45(9) benefit proposal and will continue working with the applicant, in consultation with the local Councillor, and the community, to finalize the details of the community benefit and execute a Section 45(9) Agreement.
If the applicant and the City cannot reach an agreement, the proposed mix-use building would revert to the previously approved built form.
23The City was originally a Party to this proceeding, and it withdrew its party status as it did not receive the necessary approval from City Council in advance of the hearing.
24Mr. McKay's evidence will be reviewed in greater detail in the Issues and Analysis section of this decision.
Mr. Tyers
25Mr. Tyers is Vice-President at Shannondale Developments, having worked for the business for 10 years, Mr. Tyers is involved in the acquisition of land, development, design, planning, construction and engagement with the community for the proposal before the Tribunal.
26The proposal is for a purpose built rental building. Mr. Tyers asserted that Shannondale Developments intends to hold the purpose built development for the long term, and that it is paramount that the project provisions of amenity space, parking elevator, pet access service, etc. to be appropriate for all residents, including those returning to site as part of the City's rental replacement program.
27Mr. Tyers explained that in 2022, the local City Councillor put the proponents of the project in touch with key community stakeholders for the purpose of outreach and consultations. After the Site Specific Zoning By-law was approved in September 2023, Mr. Tyers continued to consult with community groups, which he asserted is unusual. Talks have taken place with five different community groups on a quarterly basis address the priorities of the community and to see how everyone could work together on the proposed development. Mr. Tyers explained that each group operates a bit differently and is focused on slightly different items. Two groups are resident ratepayers groups, there is the community benefits network, and two local planning groups.
28Mr. Tyers asserted that the proposal is to increase the gross construction area by roughly 10%. Mr. Tyers further asserted that it is a challenging development context at the moment. Not many projects are being built, and Mr. Tyers is working with the local community and stakeholders to make sure the project is financially viable. The proposed additional floors allow the project to provide additional community benefits.
29Mr. Tyers asserted that he is excited if he can demonstrate that an extended consultation process can lead to a positive conclusion resulting in affordable housing and / or an Afrocentric food co-operative. Mr. Tyers noted that the goal of the community benefits is to provide what may be most beneficial to the community and that this requires flexibility because that may change due to consultations. The approval conditions allow the City to ultimately change the benefits depending on how the final development unfolds.
Ms. Fohrenkamm
30Ms. Fohrenkamm lives in the premises which are slated for redevelopment and has lived in the neighbourhood for 26 years. She is a future participant in the City's tenant relocation program, which requires that developers provide replacement units. Ms. Fohrenkamm understands that she will need to relocate for 2 to 3 years while the proposed rental tower is constructed.
31Ms. Fohrenkamm asserted that adding 7 floors and 76 units is not a minor variance but a major change to the building application which will negatively impact the future residents of the building and be harmful to the community in general.
32Ms. Fohrenkamm's position is that a modification to the tallest proposed building the neighbourhood should involve official rezoning and the full public consultation process usually required by the City.
33Ms. Fohrenkamm is concerned about the following: the reduction in outdoor amenity space, that there is no increase in number of elevators or parking spaces, and potential wind remediation which she believes should be handled through rezoning.
34Ms. Fohrenkamm was also concerned about the need to have additional affordable housing units, and asked whether there was a potential for the long-term low cost lease on the main floor for the grocery co-op to be provided instead of the affordable housing units. Ms. Fohrenkamm's concern is that there are very few affordable housing units in the area, and there is an approximate 25 year waitlist for affordable subsidized housing.
35Ms. Fohrenkamm's concern with the reduction in outdoor amenity space from 1.7 m2 to 1.6m2 is that in her estimation, there will be 900-1,000 residents in the building with a minimal amount of balconies. In addition, outdoor amenity space in the neighbourhood may be limited due to what she described as upcoming extreme densification. Ms. Fohrenkamm also expressed concern that outdoor amenity space such as grass on the roof not being available for tenants to walk on.
36Ms. Fohrenkamm asserted that the properties slated for demolition have significant backyards almost all with trees which have been cut down, and she is concerned with the loss of green space.
37In terms of wind mitigation, Ms. Fohrenkamm asserted that there is already a wind issue, and she is concerned about increasing the height of the proposed tower without a further requirement for detailed wind studies.
38Ms. Fohrenkamm also outlined what she considered to be an elevator issue. There are 4 proposed elevators for 45 floors, which she believes is insufficient.
39Ms. Fohrenkamm noted that 79 parking spots for an earlier 37 floor proposal is now reduced to 78 with 45 floors. She believes this is an insufficient number of parking spots because individuals drive even though they live near transit such as the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.
Ms. Creese
40Ms. Creese is a member of the Toronto Community Benefits Network (the "Benefits Network"), and has been involved in talks with the developer for several years, beginning in December 2022. Ms. Creese was participating in the meeting on her own initiative, and not as a representative of the Benefits Network.
41Ms. Creese stated that the proposal before the Tribunal creates an opportunity to provide affordable housing, commercial space and economic empowerment to the local community through local and equity hiring during construction phase.
42Ms. Creese is concerned with providing enough green space and addressing systemic barriers that prevent locals and equity deserving groups from gainful employment in their own city and neighbourhood. Ms. Creese stated that she hopes that regardless of the outcome of this hearing, the developer is willing to involve the community in deep, meaningful engagement and negotiate commitments.
43Ms. Creese concluded her brief statement by asserting that there is a need to addressing an affordability crisis, employment and equity issues, and the impact of the trade war on Torontonians.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Provincial Interest
44I find that the proposal meets matters of provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, including: (h) the orderly development of safe and healthy communities; (j) the adequate provision of a full range of housing, including affordable housing; (p) the appropriate location of growth and development. With regards to the appropriate location of growth and development, the proposal is located in the proposed Fairbank Station Protected Major Transit Station Area. This type of area is meant for increased densification, which the proposal achieves.
2024 Provincial Planning Statement
45Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the proposal is consistent with the policies contained in the Provincial Planning Statement. Relevant policies are contained in Chapter 2: Building Homes, Sustaining Strong and Competitive Communities. Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the proposed variances are consistent with the following Policies: 2.1.4(a), 2.1.6(a), 2.2.1(b), (c) and (d), 2.3.1.2, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.4.3. I have considered the cited policies and the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement in general, and I find the proposal to be consistent with this document.
Minor Variance Test
Do the Variances Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Official Plan
46Mr. McKay reviewed various policies of the Official Plan and provided his opinion that the proposed variances maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
47Mr. McKay reviewed the Chapter 2 policies which deal with growth management, specifically, policy 2.1(1), 2.2(1), 2.4(4), 2.4(8), and 2.3.1(8). I agree that the proposal maintains the general intent and purpose of these growth management policies, including the revitalization of priority neighbourhoods, the building of new housing, and creating new partnerships and mechanisms for revitalization.
48Mr. McKay also looked at Chapter 3 policies, and opined that the increase in height continues to conform to the urban design policies outlined in policy 3.1.3 and 3.1.4. I agree with Mr. McKay's opinion on this matter.
49Mr. McKay reviewed the Land Use Policies, stating that the Subject Property is designated as Apartment Neighbourhoods, which provides for modest growth opportunities. In addition, the Subject Property is subject to Site and Area Specific Policy ("SASP") 477 as amended by Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") 663, which specifically permits a tall building. Mr. McKay provided his opinion – which I accept – that the density and height are not restricted by the City Official plan and that the additional height and increased Gross Floor Area being proposed do not offend the land use policies and meet the general intent and purpose of the City Official Plan to permit a tall building on the Subject Property.
50Mr. McKay provided his further option that the adoption of OPA 570 through SASP 675 encourages further density to increase transit ridership at the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Fairbank station. I accept Mr. McKay's opinion, and acknowledge that SASP 675 is still awaiting approval.
51Mr. McKay reviewed the general policy direction regarding proposed development within Apartment Neighbourhoods as outlined in Policy 4.2(2), and provided his opinion that the proposal meets the general intent and purpose of this policy direction. I accept Mr. McKay's opinion on this matter, which I outline below:
a. Policy 4.2(2)(a): That the property continues to locate the massing of a new building on an underutilized site at an appropriate height and density that provides appropriate setbacks and step-backs (which are unchanged by the variances).
b. Policy 4.2(2)(b): That the increase in height does not produce a significant increase in shadows from the approved development. Mr. McKay reviewed a comparison of the as-of-right and proposed shadows prepared by Studio JCI in February 2025.
c. Policy 4.2(2)(c): The proposal provides for a further defined street edge and public realm experience with a slightly increased canopy / awning permission while maintaining appropriate transitioning to adjacent apartment buildings and the surrounding area through step-backs and setbacks.
d. Policy 4.2(2)(c): That the wind conditions will be similar despite the increase in height and will continue to be mitigated through the podium-tower design and the use of canopies and awnings to break up any down draft. Mr. McKay reviewed an addendum letter from RWDI dated February 18, 2025.
e. Policy 4.2(2)(d): The proposal continues to provide for by-law compliant parking (vehicular and bicycle) which is supportive of the transit infrastructure in the immediate area.
f. Policy 4.2(2)(f): While there is a minimal reduction (from 1.7 m2 to 1.6 m2 per unit) of outdoor amenity space, the overall amenity space requirement of 3.7 m2 per unit (total of 2,131.2 m2) is being exceeded (at 2,143.0 m2). Therefore an appropriate amount of amenity space is being provided, despite the overall increase in the number of units.
g. Policies 4.2(2)(e), (f), and (g): The overall design of the building is being maintained, with active ground floor uses being provided for, service uses being appropriately located and screened and the building being fully accessible in accordance with OBC and AODA requirements.
52In conclusion, I find that the proposed variances meet the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.
Do the Variances Maintain the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning By-law
53The Subject Property is zoned as Commercial Residential, CR 2.5 (c2.0, r2.5) SS2) (x865) under the City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended by Bylaw 818-2023 which permits a mixed-use building.
Variances 1 and 2: Maximum Height and Mechanical Penthouse Encroachment
54The proposed building heights are to be revised as shown on the revised Diagram 3 of By-law 818-2013. This includes an increase of the amenity level height from 122.8 m to 141.4 m (increase of 18.6 m), overall tower height from 126.8 m to 145.9 m (increase of 19.1 m) and the increased mechanical penthouse height encroachment to 7.5 m. This will permit taller floor-to-floor heights for structural and mechanical purposes, as well as additional storeys.
55The general intent and purpose of these provisions is to ensure a general consistent building height in order to control shadowing on the surrounding context. Further, the maximum height limit is used to control architectural design and ensure compatible scale and built form is maintained within the context of the surrounding urban environment.
56Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the design intent of the Zoning By-law to provide for a tall building on the Subject Property will be maintained and that the additional height will continue to be compatible within the existing and planned context. I agree and accept Mr. McKay's opinion in this matter. I find that the proposed height increases maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Variance 3: Gross Floor Area
57The gross floor area of the building is proposed to increase from a maximum of 30,250 m2 to 34,000 m2. The general intent of a maximum gross floor area is to ensure there is appropriate density on a site.
58Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the increase is appropriate in light of the proximity to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Fairbank station. Mr. McKay also opined that the increased GFA will not have negative impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood, will facilitate the implementation of additional market-rate rental units, including affordable rental units and/or community space. I agree and find that the proposed Gross Floor Area increase maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Variance 4: Setback Encroachments
59Encroachments are intended to provide modest relief from the setback requirements of the by-law, allowing for architectural design flexibility to occur. Typically, canopy or awning encroachments allow weather protection to occur.
60Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the proposed canopy encroachment increase from 4.0 metres to 5.0 metres will not have negative impacts on the public realm and will permit increased weather protection for future residents. Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the increase is appropriate and maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law. I accept Mr. McKay's opinion on this matter.
Variance 5: Amenity Space
61The purpose of the amenity space provisions is to ensure that appropriate amenity space is provided for residents, especially in an urban area. The required outdoor amenity space for the building is proposed to decrease from 1.7 m2 per dwelling unit to 1.6 m2 per dwelling.
62Mr. McKay provided his opinion that this represents a small decrease in amenity space area, representing a total of approximately 37 m2 of area. In Mr. McKay's opinion, future residents of the building will maintain ample access to outdoor amenity space throughout the building across above-grade amenity areas. Furthermore, the overall amenity space requirement (indoor and outdoor) continues to be exceeded. I accept Mr. McKay's opinion, and find that the variance maintains the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
63Overall, I find that each of the proposed variances individually and cumulatively maintain the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.
Are the Variances Desirable for the Appropriate Development of the Land
64Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the proposal which will result in 76 additional new rental housing units is appropriate and desirable for the City, neighbourhood and the Subject Property. The variances will allow the Subject Lands to be optimized and meet projected housing needs as a result of anticipated population growth, that is also located in walking proximity to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT Fairbank station.
65Mr. McKay's opinion is that the variances will permit the redevelopment of a strategically located property with a high-quality development that will contain retail uses / community space at-grade and provide additional housing. The proposal will facilitate the development of a 45-storey mixed use building, which will allow for additional community benefits including affordable housing and / or community space which has been agreed to with Councillor Matlow, City staff, and the community groups in the area.
66Mr. McKay opined that no undue impact that arise to that of a planning nature are anticipated on adjacent properties should the variances be approved.
67I agree, and find that the proposed variances will provide for the efficient use of the land at a density and built form that is transit supportive, and appropriate for this location. The proposal is desirable for the appropriate development of the land.
Are the Variances Minor
68Mr. McKay's opinion based on the context of the existing Site Specific Zoning By-law and the various physical characteristics of the design and the lot, is that the proposed variances, individually and collectively, are minor in nature from a qualitative and quantitative basis.
69The test of minor is not intended to be a solely numerical assessment, but also an assessment of impact. Further, the test for a development is not a test of no impact, but impact that is acceptable in the context of the development and avoiding adverse impacts of a planning nature.
70Mr. McKay provided his opinion that the proposed variances do not create any adverse impacts on the streetscape or adjacent properties, including with respect to shadowing, wind, traffic, servicing or other concerns. For instance, Mr. McKay opined that there is little incremental shadow impact on Neighbourhoods or on the public realm. In addition, Mr. McKay opined that the variances for gross floor area, amenity space and the canopy encroachment result in a cumulative impact which is minor in nature, with no adverse impact on the design and function of the development.
71I agree with Mr. McKay and find that the requested variances respect the existing and planned context of the immediate neighbourhood while providing for additional community benefits in the form of affordable housing units and / or community space which would otherwise not occur if the variances are not approved. The requested variances are minor in nature.
CONCLUSION
72In conclusion, I find that the five requested variances meet the matters of provincial interest outlined in section 2 of the Planning Act, are consistent with the policies contained in the 2024 Provincial Planning Statement, and individually and cumulatively meet the four statutory tests outlined in section 45(1) of the Planning Act.
DECISION AND ORDER
73The Appeal is allowed and the variances requested are approved, subject to the following condition:
The Owner enter into a Section 45(9) Agreement, and any other agreements required, to be registered on title to the lands, to the satisfaction of the Executive Director, Development Review and the City Solicitor, to secure the following:
a. A minimum of nine (9) affordable rental housing units, with a unit mix of one (1) studio, two (2) one-bedrooms, four (4) two-bedrooms and two (2) three-bedrooms, be provided and maintained by the Owner, as per the Official Plan and the City's definition of affordable rents and over an appropriate affordability period, and in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. The number and mix of affordable housing units may be amended, at the discretion and satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, if the need for larger units or additional units is determined; or
b. A community cultural space, a minimum of 325.2 square metres in size including the implementation of the interior fit out of the space, secured at ground level, and leased at a below-market commercial retail rate for a minimum of 49-years by the owner to a non-profit organization for a cultural community use, in consultation with and to the satisfaction of Executive Director, Development Review, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management; or
c. A combination of a minimum of six (6) affordable housing units will be provided under the terms of subsection a. above and a ground level community cultural space leased to a non-profit organization leased at a below-market rate commercial retail rate for a minimum of 49-years will be provided under the terms of subsection b. above. The number and mix of affordable housing units and/or the size of the ground floor community cultural space and terms of the fit out may be amended, at the discretion and satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, Executive Director, Development Review, the General Manager, Economic Development and Culture, and the Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management.
T. Kezwer
Panel Member