PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 22(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P.13, as amended
Applicant/Appellant: 1366 Yonge Street Inc.
Subject: Official Plan Amendment
Description: To permit development of forty-one-storey building
containing 489 residential units
Property Address: 1366 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
Municipal File No.: 22 199265 STE 12 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000460
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000460
OLT Case Name: 1366 Yonge Street 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: 1366 Yonge Street Inc.
Subject: Zoning Bylaw Amendment
Description: To permit development of forty-one-storey building
containing 489 residential units
Property Address: 1366 Yonge Street
Municipality/UT: Toronto/Toronto
Municipal File No.: 22 199265 STE 12 OZ
OLT Case No.: OLT-23-000461
OLT Lead Case No.: OLT-23-000460
OLT Case Name: 1366 Yonge Street Inc. v. Toronto (City)
Ontario Land Tribunal
Tribunal ontarien de l’aménagement
du territoire
ISSUE DATE: August 21, 2024 CASE NO(S).: OLT-23-000460
2 OLT-23-000460
APPEARANCES:
Parties Counsel
1366 Yonge Street Inc. David Bronskill
City of Toronto Kasia Czajowski
1148813 Ontario Inc. K. Vergis-Mayo
Catholic Cemeteries & Funeral
Services Inc.
J. White
D. Tang (in absentia)
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY A. MASON ON JULY 23,
2024 AND INTERIM ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL
INTRODUCTION
[1] This Decision arises from a hearing to consider a settlement proposal concerning
appeals by 1366 Yonge Street Inc. (“Appellant”) of the refusal of applications for Official
Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment (together, “Applications”) by Council
for the City of Toronto (“City”) pursuant to sections 22(7) and 34(11) of the Planning Act,
R. S. O. 1990, c. PO.13, as amended (“Act”), for lands municipally known as 1366
Yonge Street, City of Toronto (“Subject Property”).
[2] At a prior Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on August 30, 2023, before a
panel of the Tribunal differently constituted, Party status was granted to 1148813
Ontario Inc. as the owner of 1376-1388 Yonge Street directly to the north of the Subject
Property. Party status was also granted to Catholic Cemeteries & Funeral Services Inc.
as the owner of St. Michaels Cemetery located at 1414 Yonge Street and adjacent to
the Subject Property to the northwest.
Heard: July 23, 2024 by Video Hearing
3 OLT-23-000460
[3] At the same CMC, Participant status was conferred to AVOCA Vale Residents
Association, Deer Park Residents Group Inc., Dr. Carole Newman, Janis Jaffe-White,
and Jayne Hayhoe (together, “Participants”). The Participants each expressed
objections to the Applications primarily on the basis that the medical office and
laboratory uses currently in the building on the Subject Property will be lost under the
proposal and that their function is significantly important to the community and the
health of its residents.
BACKGROUND AND ORIGINAL PROPOSAL
[4] The Subject Property is located at the northwest corner of Yonge Street and
Balmoral Avenue, approximately 210 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West. It is
generally square in shape and approximately 996.4 square metres in area.
[5] The Subject Property is designated as Mixed-Use Area in the City’s Official Plan
and is within the Yonge-St. Clair mixed-use node with direct access to higher-order
transit (Line 1 St. Clair subway station and St. Clair streetcar line). The Yonge-St. Clair
area is evolving with a growing cluster of approved tall buildings up to fifty storeys close
to the transit station and main intersection.
[6] To the immediate north, abutting the Subject Property, is a six-storey mixed-use
building containing retail commercial uses at grade and residential uses above. Directly
to the West on Balmoral Avenue and adjacent to the Subject Property is a three-storey
masonry clad building occupied by Toronto Fire Station 311 that is listed on the City of
Toronto Heritage Register. To the northwest, the Subject Property directly backs onto
the southeast corner of the St. Michael’s Cemetery that is designated under Part IV of
the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O. 18. St. Michael’s Cemetery is accessed via
a driveway from Yonge Street but is not publicly accessible.
4 OLT-23-000460
[7] The original development proposal submitted in August 2022 and deemed
complete as of September 2, 2022, contemplated a forty-one-storey mixed-use
residential building comprised of grade-related retail uses and residential uses above
(“Original Proposal”). The building was proposed to be configured with an eight-storey
base building and a thirty-three-storey tower element with a total of 489 residential
dwelling units, a residential GFA of 32,195 square metres, and a non-residential GFA of
100 square metres, resulting in a density of 32.41 FSI.
[8] A Decision Report dated March 22, 2023, from the Director, Community
Planning, Toronto and East York District, recommended refusal of the OPA and ZBA
supporting the Original Proposal (“Staff Report”). The Staff Report was considered by
Toronto and East York Community Council on May 10, 2023, and a refusal
recommendation was made to City Council. On April 12, 2023, City Council followed the
Staff Report and recommendation and refused the Applications. Subsequently, the
Applications were appealed to the Tribunal by the Appellant on May 17, 2024. The
Appellant and City staff continued to cooperate and participated in mediation in
February 2024.
[9] Through a mediation process and continued cooperation between the Parties,
counsel for the Appellant ultimately submitted a without prejudice settlement offer to the
City on April 2, 2024, that included revised architectural plans prepared by R. Varacalli
Architect Inc. dated April 3, 2024 (“Settlement Proposal”). The Settlement Proposal was
accepted by City Council at its meeting on April 17 and 18, 2024 with specific pre-
conditions.
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL AND EVIDENCE
[10] On consent, one witness was proffered to give sworn, viva voce and affidavit
evidence to the Tribunal in support of the Settlement Proposal. The Tribunal qualified
5 OLT-23-000460
Michael Bisset, a member of the Canadian Institute of Planners and a Registered
Professional Planner, to provide opinion evidence in the area of land use planning.
[11] The witness provided evidence detailing the changes from the Original Proposal
in the Settlement Proposal for the benefit of the Tribunal, highlighting:
a. Changes to the built-form achieved through increased set backs and other
modifications resulting in a more slender and taller forty-nine-storey
building comprised of 458 dwelling units, approximately 30,000 square
meters of GFA inclusive of 168 square metres of non-residential GFA
comprised of a minimum of two commercial units, resulting in a density of
30.1 FSI;
b. Reduction of the floor plate from 750 square meters to 612 square metres;
c. A shorter base building of five-storeys with levels 1-4 set back 2.0 metres
on Balmoral Avenue creating a 6.0 metre curb to face dimension for those
levels to provide for tree planting opportunities, and cantilevering out to
the Yonge Street and Balmoral Avenue lot lines for one-storey at level 5;
d. No glazing or operable windows permitted on the west and north façade of
Levels 1-5;
e. Increased set back for the tower component to 3.0 metres from both the
Yonge Street and Balmoral Avenue lot lines and 1.5 metres from the west
lot line;
f. A 10.0 metre north tower set back for the eastern portion of the tower
component that, when combined with a minimum 10 metre set back on the
lands at 1376-1388 Yonge Street to the north, would allow for an
6 OLT-23-000460
appropriate separation distance to achieve a minimum 20 metre face-to-
face tower separation distance should a tower be proposed in the future
on those adjacent lands;
g. A 1.5 metre tower component set back from the City-owned listed heritage
property, being the fire hall on 20 Balmoral Avenue, and
acknowledgement that the City may construct a building or structure on
the mutual property line in the future;
h. The western portion of the north face of the tower to be the subject of a
limiting distance agreement with the owner of St. Michael’s Cemetery;
i. No projecting balconies on all sides of the tower component of the
building;
j. No windows on the west or north side of the proposed building base;
k. The east half of the north tower component wall adjacent to St. Michael’s
Cemetery to have window restrictions to mitigate potential light view and
privacy impacts on any future development properties to the north that
front on Yonge Street; and
l. Amenity space increased to a combined rate of 4.0 square metres for
each dwelling unit.
[12] The witness provided evidence that the Settlement Proposal has regard for
matters of provincial interest as required in s. 2 of the Act, highlighting that the proposal
optimizes the use of existing land and infrastructure within a settlement area as
encouraged under the Act. Further, the witness opined that the Settlement Proposal
7 OLT-23-000460
achieves other provincial objectives, including increasing housing options and
encouraging the use of existing higher-order transit infrastructure.
[13] The witness opined that the Settlement Proposal demonstrates consistency and
conformity with policy directions in the Provincial Policy Statement 2020 (“PPS”) and the
Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2019 (“Growth Plan”) that support
intensification within built-up areas serviced by higher-order public transit. The witness
provided evidence that the Growth Plan sets out that the Subject Property is located
within a “strategic growth area” that is intended to accommodate intensification and
higher densities with a mix of uses in a more compact built form. The Witness opined
that the Settlement Proposal achieved this policy goal by providing a desirable mixed-
use development with access to surface and higher-order transit.
[14] The witness testified that the Subject Property is within the City Council-adopted
St. Clair Protected Major Transit Station Area (“PMTSA”) as set out in Site and Area
Specific Policy (SASP) 721. The witness explained that under the Growth Plan, a
PMTSA is intended to include a mix of uses to support existing and planned transit
service levels and to maximize the number of potential transit users within walking
distance to the station. The witness opined that although the policies of the St. Clair
PMTSA are not yet in force as the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has not yet
approved them or made a decision on the SASP 721, the Settlement Proposal does
satisfy the policies as adopted by City Council.
[15] The Witness provided evidence that the City’s Official Plan designates the
Subject Property as Mixed-Use Area that imports policies to accommodate growth and
intensification. According to the evidence of the witness, this designation intends the
area to accommodate the largest increase in jobs and population anticipated by the
Official Plan’s growth strategy. Furthermore, the witness gave evidence that the Subject
Property is located along an Avenue, according to the City’s Official Plan, which is an
important corridor along a major street where re-urbanization is anticipated and
8 OLT-23-000460
encouraged to create new housing and job opportunities while improving the pedestrian
environment. As such, the witness opined that the Settlement Proposal appropriately
conforms to Official Plan policies by delivering appropriate new housing and commercial
uses in an intensification area.
[16] From an urban design perspective, the witness provided evidence that, at forty
nine storeys, the Settlement Proposal will fit within the height range of existing and
approved buildings within the area that are up to 50 storeys. The witness also provided
the Tribunal evidence that the built form and massing of the Settlement Proposal are
aligned with the general intent and direction of the Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan. The
witness opined that the increased set backs incorporated in the Settlement Proposal
allow for appropriate separation distances to the adjacent properties that protect for
future development while balancing privacy and overlook concerns through the limiting
distance agreement with St. Michael’s Cemetery and other design modifications to
windows and balconies.
[17] In advance of the hearing to consider the Settlement Proposal, three of the five
Participants provided the Tribunal with additional written statements beyond their
original Participant Statements, with their concerns related to the Settlement Proposal.
The Participants expressed their continued objection primarily on the grounds that
redevelopment of the Subject Property will result in the loss of the medical services and
related uses currently occupying the existing building and that, as a result, the Original
Proposal and Settlement Proposal are to the detriment of the community and not in the
public interest. One Participant who provided further written comments on the
Settlement Proposal also highlighted that a community facilities study has not been
carried out by the Applicant to consider the availability of medical services in the
community and the impact of redeveloping the Subject Property to mixed-use.
9 OLT-23-000460
[18] The witness for the Appellant provided evidence to the Tribunal directed at those
aspects of the Settlement Proposal that address the Participants’ concerns regarding
loss of medical services in the community, namely:
a. Live-work units: The Settlement Proposal includes at least 28 live-work
units with shared amenity area on each of the floors in the base building.
The witness opined that the live-work units may be used for medical
purposes and that the amenity space on each floor accessible to those
units have the potential to act as a shared lobby, meeting rooms, or other
space shared by these businesses; and
b. Ground floor tenant option: The Settlement Proposal includes agreement
by the Appellant that Life Lab and Diagnostic Imaging Inc. (“Life Lab”) will
have the first option to rent or buy the commercial ground floor space at a
rate or price to be determined by the Appellant.
[19] With respect to the concerns of the Participants, the witness also testified that
that there are no policies applicable to the Applications that require replacement of non-
residential uses in the Yonge-St. Clair area. As such, the changes in the Settlement
Proposal set out above to facilitate the potential return of some medical uses are
reasonable.
[20] The witness also provided evidence that a community facilities study was not
required by the City as part of the Applications since the City had completed its own
study of the area and did not request additional work from the Appellant. The witness
testified that community facilities studies do not normally review the provision of private
medical services of the type found in the existing building at the Subject Property and
therefore, even if it had been required, would not have addressed the Participant’s
concern. In summary, the witness opined that the Yonge-St. Clair area is a dense,
urban neighbourhood and that there are other opportunities to access medical uses
10 OLT-23-000460
elsewhere in the direct neighbourhood or the wider community and that the Settlement
Proposal provides a reasonable opportunity for some medical uses to continue at that
location in the future.
[21] The witness opined that the replacement of employment uses in the current
building as set out in the Settlement Proposal meets all applicable policy tests and is in
the public interest. In conclusion, the witness opined that the Settlement Proposal struck
an appropriate balance between providing an opportunity for medical services to return
through the provision of the live-work units and ground floor retail as detailed in
Paragraph [20] above, while also delivering additional high-quality mixed-use housing
with access to existing surfaces and higher-order transit.
FINDINGS
[22] The Tribunal finds the affidavit and viva voce opinion evidence presented by the
witness setting out the changes from the Original Proposal to the Settlement Proposal
was thorough, and no contrary evidence was presented. Those changes made to the
Original Proposal address the Participants’ concerns around the loss of medical
services; namely, the mix of live work units with shared amenity space and the
agreement to provide Life Labs with a right of first return to rent or buy the non-
residential ground floor retail space; are found to be reasonable in light of the evidence
that there are no policies in the Yonge-St. Clair area that compel replacement of non-
residential uses.
[23] The Tribunal finds that overall, the suite of changes to the Original Proposal,
including the set backs, smaller floor plates, design changes to protect opportunities for
adjacent future development, and built form changes minimizing overlook and impacts
are appropriate and satisfactory to deliver a high-quality, mixed-use development that
utilizes existing infrastructure and higher-order transit.
11 OLT-23-000460
[24] The Tribunal accepts the affidavit and viva voce opinion evidence of the planning
witness and finds that the subject Applications, as revised, have appropriate regard to
those applicable matters of provincial interest found in section 2 of the Act, are
consistent with the PPS, conform to the Growth Plan, Zoning By-Law, and Official Plan,
and otherwise reflect principles of good land use planning.
ORDER
[25] THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT the appeals are allowed, in part, on an interim
basis contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction, and receipt of those pre-requisite
matters identified in paragraph [26] below, and in accordance with the settlement offer
evidenced in Exhibit E of the Affidavit of Michael Bisset, the Official Plan Amendment
and Zoning By-Law Amendment set out as Attachment 1 and Attachment 2,
respectively, to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle.
[26] The Tribunal will withhold issuance of its Final Order contingent upon
confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following pre-requisite matters adopted by City
Council at its meeting of April 17 and 18, 2024, have been satisfied, specifically:
a. The proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law
Amendment(s) are in a final form and content satisfactory to the City
Solicitor and Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
b. The owner has revised the Functional Servicing and Stormwater
Management Report, Hydrogeological Report, Hydrogeological Review
Summary, and Groundwater Summary providing confirmation of water,
sanitary, and stormwater capacity to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer
and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services;
12 OLT-23-000460
c. The owner has addressed all comments contained in the Engineering and
Construction Services memorandum dated November 29, 2022, to the
satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and
Construction Services;
d. The owner has entered into and registered a financially secured
agreement satisfactory to the Chief Engineer and Executive Director,
Engineering and Construction Services to construct, provide, make
operational, and warrant any necessary upgrades to existing services and
facilities or new services and facilities;
e. The owner has provided a revised Wind Study to the satisfaction of the
Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
f. The owner has provided Vehicle Maneuvering Diagrams to the satisfaction
of the General Manager, Transportation Services; and,
g. The owner has registered on title a Limiting Distance Agreement over
1366 Yonge Street, including the City and Catholic Cemeteries & Funeral
Services Inc. as parties, that ensures a no-build area over St. Michael’s
Cemetery and includes provisions for the property line between 1366
Yonge Street and St. Michael’s Cemetery as described in the settlement
letter.
[27] The Member will remain seized for the purposes of reviewing and approving the
final draft of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment and the
issuance of the Final Order.
[28] If the Parties do not submit the final drafts of the Official Plan Amendment and
Zoning By-Law Amendment, and provide confirmation that all other contingent pre-
13 OLT-23-000460
requisites to the issuance of the Final Order set out in paragraph [26] above have been
satisfied and do not request the issuance of the Final Order by Monday, January 23,
2025, the Applicant and the City 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 Amendment and draft Zoning By-Law Amendment and
issuance of the Final Order by the Tribunal.
[29] The Tribunal may, as necessary, arrange the further attendance of the Parties to
determine the additional timelines and deadline for the submission of the final from of
the instruments, the satisfaction of the contingent pre-requisites, and the issuance of the
Final Order.
[30] The Member may be spoken to should issues arise in the implementation of this
Order.
“A. Mason”
A. MASON
MEMBER
Ontario Land Tribunal
Website: 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.
14 OLT-23-000460
ATTACHMENT 1
Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Order and Decision issued on ~, 20~, in Tribunal
Case No. OLT-23-000460
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW ###-2024(OLT)
To adopt Amendment ### to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto respecting the
lands known municipally in the year 2023 as 1366 Yonge Street.
Whereas authority is given to the Ontario Land Tribunal under the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. P.13, as amended, to approve this By-law; and
The Official Plan of the City of Toronto, as amended, is further by the Ontario Land
Tribunal, as follows:
1. The text and map attached to Amendment XXX to the Official Plan is hereby
adopted pursuant to the Planning Act, as amended.
Pursuant to Ontario Land Tribunal Decision issued on ~, 20~ and Order issued on ~,
20~ in OLT-23-000460
15 OLT-23-000460
AMENDMENT XXX TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN
LANDS MUNICIPALLY KNOWN IN THE YEAR 2023 AS 1366 YONGE STREET.
The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is amended as follows:
1. Map 6-2, Site and Area Specific Policies, Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan, is
amended by delineating the boundaries of Area XXX as shown on the attached
Map 1.
2. Chapter 6, Section 6, Yonge-St. Clair Secondary Plan, is amended by inserting
the following policy in subsection 8, Site and Specific Policies:
XXX.
“1366 Yonge Street
a) For the lands shown as XXX on Map 6-2:
(i) the maximum permitted height for the building is 155 metres
excluding projections and the mechanical penthouse roof; and
(ii) on Balmoral Avenue, a building may be setback 0 metres from
the lot line.”
Map 1
16 OLT-23-000460
ATTACHMENT 2
Authority: Ontario Land Tribunal Order and Decision issued on ~, 20~, in Tribunal
Case No. OLT-23-000460
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW ###-2024(OLT)
To amend Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, with respect to the lands
municipally known in the year 2023 as 1366 Yonge Street.
Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal, by its Decision issued on [date] and its Order
issued on [date], in respect of Tribunal File OLT-23-000460, 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 2023 as1366 Yonge Street; and
Whereas the Ontario Land Tribunal has the authority pursuant to Section 34 of the
Planning Act, as amended, to pass this By-law; 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 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 990.11 respecting the lands outlined
by heavy black lines from a zone label of CR 3.0 (c2.0; r2.5) SS2 (x2523) to a
zone label of CR 3.0 (c2.0; r2.5) SS2 (xXXXX) as shown on Diagram 2 attached
to this By-law.
4. Zoning By-law 569-2013, as amended, is further amended by amending Article
900.11.100 Exception Number #### so that it reads:
(xxxx) Exception CR (xXXXX)
17 OLT-23-000460
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 1366 Yonge Street, 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) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(1) and (2), the height of a building or
structure is the distance between the Canadian Geodetic Datum of 142.4
metres and the elevation of the highest point of the building or structure;
(C) 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" as
shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##];
(D) Despite Regulation 40.10.40(1), residential use portions of the building
may be located on the same storey as non-residential use portions of the
building;
(E) Despite Regulations 40.5.40.10(3) to (8) and (C) above, the following
equipment and structures may project beyond the permitted maximum
height shown on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert By-law ##]:
(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 6.0
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 1.5 metres;
(iv) building maintenance units and window washing equipment, by a
maximum of 3.6 metres;
(v) planters, landscaping features, guard rails, and divider screens on
a balcony and/or terrace, by a maximum of 1.5 metres;
(vi) antennae, flagpoles and satellite dishes, by a maximum of 3.0
metres; and
(vii) trellises, pergolas, and unenclosed structures providing safety or
18 OLT-23-000460
wind protection to rooftop amenity space, by a maximum of 3.6
metres;
(F) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.40(1), the permitted maximum gross floor
area of all buildings and structures on the lot is 30,100 square metres,
of which:
(i) the permitted maximum gross floor area for residential uses is
29,900 square metres; and
(ii) the permitted maximum gross floor area for non-residential uses is
200 square metres;
(G) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.50(1), a building with 20 or more dwelling
units must provide amenity space at a minimum rate of 4.0 square
metres for each dwelling unit, of which:
(i) a minimum of 2.0 square metres for each dwelling unit is
indoor amenity space;
(ii) a minimum of 0.5 square metres for each dwelling unit is outdoor
amenity space of which at least 40.0 square metres is
outdoor amenity space in a location adjoining or directly
accessible to the indoor amenity space; and
(iii) no more than 25% of the outdoor component may be a green roof;
(H) Despite Regulation 40.10.40.70(2), the required minimum building
setbacks are as shown in metres on Diagram 3 of By-law [Clerks to insert
By-law ##];
(I) Despite Clause 40.10.40.60 and (H) above, the following elements may
encroach into the required minimum building setbacks and main wall
separation distances as follows:
(i) canopies and awnings, by a maximum of 3.0 metres;
(ii) exterior stairs, access ramps and elevating devices, by a maximum
of 1.0 metres;
(iii) cladding added to the exterior surface of the main wall of a
building, by a maximum of 0.5 metres;
(iv) architectural features, such as a pilaster, decorative column,
cornice, sill, belt course, or chimney breast, by a maximum of 1.0
metres;
19 OLT-23-000460
(v) window projections, including bay windows and box windows, by a
maximum of 1.0 metres;
(vi) eaves, by a maximum of 1.0 metres; and
(vii) air conditioners, satellite dishes, antennae, vents, and pipes, by a
maximum of 1.0 metres;
(J) No balcony projections into required minimum building setbacks are
permitted;
(K) Despite Regulations 40.10.50.10(1) and (3), no soft landscaping is
required along a lot line abutting a lot in the Residential Zone category;
(L) Despite Regulation 40.10.50.10(2), no fence is required along a lot line
abutting a lot in the Residential Zone category;
(M) Despite Regulation 200.5.10.1(1) and Table 200.5.10.1:
(i) no parking spaces are required for residential visitors to the
building; and
(ii) a minimum of two “car-share parking spaces” must be provided on
the lot;
(a) For the purposes of this exception, "car-share” means the
practice whereby a number of people share the use of one
or more motor vehicles and such "car-share" motor vehicles
are made available to at least the occupants of the building
for short-term rental, including hourly rental; and
(b) for the purpose of this exception, "car-share parking space"
means a parking space exclusively reserved and signed for
a vehicle used only for "car-share" purposes; and
(c) for the purpose of this exception, a "car-share parking
space" means a parking space exclusively reserved and
actively used for "car-share" purposes, including by non-
residents;
(N) Despite Regulation 200.15.10.10(1), no accessible parking spaces are
required;
(O) Despite Regulation 220.5.10.1(2), a minimum of one Type “G” loading
space must be provided;
20 OLT-23-000460
(P) Despite Regulations 230.5.1.10(6) and 230.5.10.19(9) both “long-term”
and “short-term” bicycle parking spaces may be located outdoors,
indoors, or in an enclosed room or enclosure, and located on any floor of a
building, above or below grade; and
(Q) Despite Regulation 230.40.1.20(2), “short-term” bicycle parking spaces
may be located more than 30 metres from a pedestrian entrance to the
building;
(R) Despite Regulation 230.5.1.10(10), both “long-term” and “short-term”
bicycle parking spaces may be provided in a stacked bicycle parking
space;
(S) Dwelling units on the second to fifth storeys may be used for home
occupation purposes.
Prevailing By-laws and Prevailing Sections: None Apply
5. Despite any severance, partition or division of the lands, the provisions of this By-
law shall apply as if no severance, partition or division occurred.
Ontario Land Tribunal Decision and Order issued on ~, 20~, in Tribunal Case No. OLT-
23-000460
21 OLT-23-000460
22 OLT-23-000460
23 OLT-23-000460