Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Tribunal d’appel de l’aménagement local

ISSUE DATE: May 23, 2018 CASE NO(S).: PL150374 MM170028

The Ontario Municipal Board (the “OMB”) is continued under the name Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), and any reference to the Ontario Municipal Board or Board in any publication of the Tribunal is deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(24) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant: Antorisa Investments Ltd. et al Appellant: Duration Investments Limited Appellant: Magna Hotels (Toronto) Inc. Appellant: Bhushan and Rekha Taneja Appellant: Abtil Realty Limited et al Appellant: Amexon Development Corporation Appellant: 1373365 Ontario Limited Subject: Proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 82 Municipality: City of Toronto OMB Case No.: PL150374 OMB File No.: PL150374 OMB Case Name: Taneja v. Toronto (City)

PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, as amended Appellant: Jarvis Residences Limited Partnership Appellant: Oben Flats Sherbourne GP Inc. Appellant: Bhushan and Rekha Taneja Appellant: MEP Developments Inc. Appellant: Duration Investments Limited Appellant: Lilie Li Appellant: 1722720 Ontario Limited

Appellant 1373365 Ontario Limited Subject: By-law No. 232-2017 – Garden District Heritage Conservation District and Garden District Heritage Conservation District Plan Municipality: City of Toronto OMB Case No.: MM170028 2 PL150374 MM170028

OMB File No.: MM170028 OMB Case Name: Li v. Toronto (City)

Heard: December 7, 2017 in Toronto, Ontario

APPEARANCES:

Parties OPA 82 HCD Counsel PL150374 MM170028 City of Toronto – OPA 82 A. Hill and M. Longo

City of Toronto – HCD C. Barnett and M. Longo

Antorisa Investments Ltd. Appellant D. Baker No.1 M. Connell

Duration Investments Ltd. Appellant Appellant P. Devine No.2 M. Cook

Manga Hotels Toronto Inc. Appellant K. Kovar No.3

Bhushan and Rekha Taneja Appellant Appellant I. Andres No.4

Menkes Residence Ltd. Appellant Appellant N. Mares (student-at-law) (appeal assumed from Abtil No.5 Realty Ltd.)

Amexon Development Appellant Party A. Forristal Corporation No.6

1373365 Ontario Ltd. Appellant Appellant K. Fairbrother operating as Filmore Hotel No.7

Minto Communities Inc. Party M. Foderick

Oben Flats Sherbourne GP Party Appellant K. Kovar Inc.

Jarvis Residences Limited Party Appellant D. Bronskill Partnership

1722720 Ontario Ltd. Appellant K. Fairbrother for S. Rosenthal 3 PL150374 MM170028

Lilli Li Appellant Not present

George Dundas Realty Party S. Ruby

G. Bowers Party Self-represented

Participants

Paulene Kennedy Participant Self- represented

J. Becker Participant Self-represented

MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY H. JACKSON ON DECEMBER 7, 2017 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL

INTRODUCTION

[1] This hearing event was held under the authority of the Ontario Municipal Board (“Board”) which is continued as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). An oral decision was given by the Board during this event approving in principle a modified Official Plan Amendment. However, on April 3, 2018, the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Act, 2017 (“LPATA”) was proclaimed, which provides that the Board is to be continued as the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”). Because this memorandum of oral decision has been issued subsequent to the proclamation of LPATA, it is a decision issued by the Tribunal that documents an oral decision of the Board. All references to the Board in this decision are therefore deemed to be a reference to the Tribunal.

[2] This was the sixth pre-hearing conference (“PHC”) for appeals against the City of Toronto’s (the “City”) Official Plan Amendment No. 82 (“OPA 82”), the Garden District Area Specific Policy. The purpose of OPA 82 is to establish a policy framework that directs where growth can be accommodated, while providing protection for stable neighbourhoods and heritage resources, the provision of additional affordable housing, and public realm enhancements. This matter was assigned Tribunal file No. PL150374. 4 PL150374 MM170028

[3] It was also the first PHC in the appeals pursuant to s. 41(4) of the Ontario Heritage Act which designates the Garden District Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and adopts the Garden District Heritage Conservation District Plan (“HCD Plan”) as the District Plan. The purpose of the HCD Plan is to conserve and enhance the heritage character of the plan area. This is accomplished by requiring heritage permit applications for certain types of alterations visible from the street to buildings and structures within the District. This matter was assigned Tribunal file No. MM170028.

[4] The area of OPA 82 applies to lands bounded generally by Jarvis Street, Carlton Street, Sherbourne Street and Queen Street East. The HCD Plan applies to lands within the area of OPA 82.

[5] The purpose of this PHC, as defined in the disposition and Board Order from the previous PHC held on June 14, 2017 for the appeals of OPA 82, was to “discuss whether and how the two appeals can be consolidated or heard together” given that the two matters will likely engage common facts, issues, and questions of law and involves many common Appellants and parties as noted in the Appearances section above. Many of the Appellants to OPA 82 are also Appellants to the HCD Plan.

HCD Plan Appeal

[6] Christopher Barnett advised that the City has brought a number of areas forward for consideration for Heritage Conservation Districts and is attempting to define a common approach for dealing with these throughout the City. For the purposes of this PHC, Mr. Barnett indicated that the City has not confirmed whether it wishes to consolidate the appeals of this HCD Plan with the appeals of OPA 82 or whether it is preferable that the appeals be ‘heard together’.

5 PL150374 MM170028

Status Requests – HCD Plan Appeals

[7] Amexon Development Corporation (“Amexon”) requested Party status to the HCD Plan appeals for the purposes of monitoring the HCD Plan matter. Amexon is an Appellant to OPA 82 however; their appeal to OPA 82 has been resolved as discussed later in this Decision. Party status to the HCD Plan appeals was also requested by George Dundas Realty and Grant Bowers who each own property in the area. There was no objection to these requests and Party status was granted to the three entities.

[8] There were two requests for Participant status to the HCD Plan appeals by property owners in the area. Paulene Kennedy owns a personal care home on Sherbourne Street and Ms. J. Becker owns a number of rental properties on George Street. Both were granted Participant status as requested.

City’s Motion to Approve Modified OPA 82

[9] By way of background, at the previous PHC on June 14, 2017, party status was granted to the appeal of OPA 82 to three entities: Minto Communities Inc. (“Minto”), Oben Flats Sherbourne GP Inc. (“Oben Flats”) and Jarvis Residences Limited Partnership (“Jarvis Residences”), with the understanding that these parties are sheltered under Appeal No. 4 (Bhushan and Rekha Taneja) and Appeal No. 7 (1373365 Ontario Ltd, operating as Filmore Hotel (“Filmore Hotel”)), which are general appeals of OPA 82. Party status was also made contingent upon identification of the OPA 82 policies which are disputed.

[10] In accordance with the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the City served on the Appellants of OPA 82 and the Board a motion to be heard at this PHC requesting an Order of the Board, now the Tribunal, to allow the appeal, in part, to bring OPA 82 into full force and effect except for the site specific appeals. The City did not clarify under which section of the Planning Act the motion was pursuant to, however; the motion materials alluded to s. 17(30) of the Planning Act. 6 PL150374 MM170028

[11] The impetus for the motion, as explained by the City, was that the City has settled with Appellants No. 4 and No. 7, noted above, who had general appeals, and OPA 82 has been modified on the basis of this settlement. The modifications to OPA 82 were endorsed by City Council on November 7 to 9, 2017. The motion requests that the Board grant the approval of this modified version of OPA 82.

[12] The City served only a ‘courtesy copy’ of the motion materials to Minto, Oben Flats and Jarvis Residences. The City’s position is that these three entities are not proper parties to OPA 82 and could not participate in the motion either because they did not have party status perfected for each entity by the time of the motion; or, they lost their status because these parties were sheltered under Appellants No. 4 and No. 7 who had general appeals and whose appeals had now been resolved.

[13] Minto, Oben Flats and Jarvis Residences objected to the motion. At the hearing of the motion, the City clarified that as part of the settlement agreement, Appellants No. 4 and No. 7 were to withdraw their appeals upon the Board’s approval of the modified OPA 82; however, they had not yet withdrawn their appeals. The City suggested that s. 17(50) of the Planning Act therefore applied to the requested approval of the modified OPA.

[14] Section 17(30) of the Planning Act reflects the approval of an OPA by operation of law; whereas, s. 17(50) deals with approval of a modified OPA.

17(30) Withdrawal of appeals. If all appeals under subsection (24) in respect of all or part of the decision of council are withdrawn and the time for filing appeals has expired, the secretary of the Municipal Board shall notify the clerk of the municipality that made the decision and, a) The decision or the part of the decision that was the subject of an appeal is final; and b) The plan or part of the plan that was adopted and in respect of which all appeals have been withdrawn comes into effect as an official plan or part of an official plan on the day that last outstanding appeal has been withdrawn.

[15] The circumstances described in s. 17(30) had not occurred by the time of the 7 PL150374 MM170028

hearing of the motion. Rather, the situation reflects the request for approval of a modified OPA, which is made pursuant to s. 17(50), as described below:

17(50) Powers of O.M.B. On an appeal or a transfer, the Municipal Board may approve all or part of the plan as all or part of an official plan, make modifications to all or part of the plan and approve all or part of the plan as modified as an official plan or refuse to approve all or part of the plan.

[16] The objections by Minto, Oben Flats and Jarvis Residences to the motion relate to the City’s position regarding whether these three entities had full party status and had the right to participate in the motion, and the City’s request at the motion hearing that the approval of the modified OPA 82 be considered pursuant to s. 17(50) of the Planning Act, amongst other issues. The City had not advised that it was bringing the motion pursuant to s. 17(50) in its motion materials.

[17] The Board stood down to allow the City and parties the opportunity to determine if there was common ground to resolve the dispute. Subsequently, the parties and City reached agreement such that the City would request that the Board exercise its powers pursuant to s. 88 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act (“OMB Act”), in order to modify the City’s motion such that a modified OPA 82 could be approved pursuant to s. 17(50) of the Planning Act.

[18] The OMB Act s. 88 provides as follows:

May grant partial or other relief than that applied for 88. Upon any application to the Board, the Board may make an order granting the whole, or part only, of the application, or may grant such further or other relief in addition to, or in substitution for, that applied for as to the Board may appear just and proper as fully in all respects as if the application had been for such partial, other, or further relief. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.28, s. 88.

[19] The request was to allow the general appeals, in part, to bring into force the amended OPA 82 except for the site specific Appeals to OPA 82 and except for the policies identified by each of the three parties (Minto, Oben Flats and Jarvis Residences) as they apply on a site-specific basis. The three parties agreed this was a 8 PL150374 MM170028

satisfactory resolution as did the site specific Appellants, given that the dispute is limited to specific policies on a site specific basis.

[20] The parties agreed that the planning evidence provided by affidavit supports the adoption of the modified OPA. As part of agreement, David Bronskill’s clients agreed that they would not seek to consolidate the OPA matter with the HCD matter.

Modified OPA 82 – Planning Merits

[21] The Board heard viva voce expert planning evidence from Giulio Cescato, a Manager with Community Planning for the City. He testified that OPA 82, as modified, reflects the settlement with Appellants 4 and 7, and as modified, conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2017 and the City’s Official Plan.

[22] The Board, now the Tribunal, relied on this evidence and the affidavit evidence of Mr. Cescato to find that the modified OPA 82 provided in evidence as Exhibit 1 conforms to the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the City’s Official Plan, and on that basis, modified OPA 82 was approved in principle.

[23] The parties indicated that minor clarifications were required to the text of the OPA and requested that the Board, now the Tribunal, withhold its Final Order pending resolution of the wording of the OPA and upon agreement of all the parties.

[24] Since that time, the parties have confirmed that the Order is acceptable to all parties. The Final Order is provided in this Decision.

Appeal Updates

[25] Antorisa Investments Ltd. (“Antorisa”) is an Appellant to OPA 82. Antorisa owns 9 PL150374 MM170028

properties on Jarvis Street, Gerrard Street and Mutual Street. Antorisa’s site specific appeal is before the Tribunal under a separate file, as PL170765. The matter has not had the first PHC as of the date of this PHC.

[26] Duration Investments Ltd. (“Duration”) has appealed both OPA 82 and the HCD Plan in relation to their properties at 308 – 314 Jarvis Street and 225 Mutual Street. This site specific appeal is before the Tribunal under a separate file, as PL150016.

[27] Manga Hotels (Downtown) Inc. (“Manga”) has a site specific appeal for their property located at 203 Jarvis Street that is before the Tribunal under file No. PL170099. Magna is an Appellant to OPA 82, but not the HCD Plan as their lands are outside the HCD Plan area. A four day hearing for the matter in March 2018 was previously scheduled.

[28] Bhushan and Rekha Taneja own properties on Sherbourne Street. Ian Andres indicated that his clients are satisfied with the modifications to OPA 82 as contemplated by the settlement with the City, but continue to maintain their appeal to the HCD Plan.

[29] The Menkes Residence Ltd. (Menkes) appeal is site specific and relates to properties at 219 – 231 Dundas Street East. Menkes are appellants to both the OPA 82 and the HCD Plan appeal.

[30] The site specific Amexon appeal is related to the property at 225 Jarvis Street and was before the Board under a separate file, as PL150845. Amexon have reached a settlement with the City and as part of the settlement Amexon are to be taken out of OPA 82 as provided in the Order in this Decision. The Board Decision of May 3, 2016 implements the settlement with Amexon, however they remain a Party to the HCD Plan appeal.

[31] Similar to the Bhushan and Rekha Taneja Appellants, Filmore Hotel is satisfied with the modifications to OPA 82 as contemplated by the settlement, but continues to 10 PL150374 MM170028

maintain their appeal to the HCD Plan.

[32] Minto owns lands at 295 Jarvis Street and is a party to the OPA 82 appeal, but not the HCD Plan appeal. Oben Flats is a party to the appeal to OPA 82 and an Appellant to the HCD Plan. Jarvis Residences is a party to OPA 82 and an Appellant to the HCD Plan.

[33] 1722720 Ontario Ltd. is an Appellant to the HCD Plan.

[34] Lilli Li is an Appellant to the HCD Plan but was not present at this PHC.

Next Steps

[35] The remaining site specific appeals, and remaining site specific policies of OPA 82, and the HCD Plan appeals, are to be ‘heard together’ at the next PHC, which is to be scheduled by the Case Coordinator in coordination with the parties. The determination of whether these appeals will continue to be heard together can be addressed at the next PHC.

ORDER

[36] The Tribunal Orders that:

1. Jarvis Residences Limited Partnership, Oben Flats Sherbourne GP Inc. and Minto Communities Inc. are parties to the Taneja Appeal and the Filmore Hotel Appeal.

2. The Taneja Appeal and the Filmore Hotel Appeal are allowed, in part, and that Modified OPA 82, as modified substantially in accordance with Attachment 1 to this Order, is approved, except as it applies to the properties listed in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3, as set out below: 11 PL150374 MM170028

a. Modified OPA 82 does not apply to, nor is it approved for, the properties listed in Attachment 2, and any decisions reached by the Board, now the Tribunal, for each of those individual properties will be incorporated into Modified OPA 82 through site-specific official plan amendments, if required;

b. Policies 3.3, 3.4 and 6.6 of Modified OPA 82 do not apply to, nor are they approved for, the properties known municipally in 2017 as 319, 321 and 323 Jarvis Street and any decision reached by the Board, now the Tribunal, for these properties will be incorporated into Modified OPA 82 through a site-specific official plan amendment, if required;

c. Policy 3.3 of Modified OPA 82 does not apply to, nor is it approved for, the property known municipally in 2017 as 307 Sherbourne Street and any decision reached by the Board, now the Tribunal, for this property will be incorporated into Modified OPA 82 through a site-specific official plan amendment, if required;

d. Policy 3.14, and Table 4.2 – Hazelburn Character Area Block 2, of Modified OPA 82 does not apply to, nor is it approved for, the properties included within Block 2 of the Hazelburn Character Area in Table 4.2 of Modified OPA 82 and any decision reached by the Board, now the Tribunal, for these properties will be incorporated into Modified OPA 82 through a site-specific official plan amendment, if required.

[37] The remaining appeals of OPA 82 are adjourned sine die.

[38] The approval of Modified OPA 82 as set out in Attachment 1 does not prejudice the list of Appellants set out in Attachment 2 or the list of Parties set out in Attachment 3 12 PL150374 MM170028

in relation to any future site-specific hearing regarding those properties.

[39] The Tribunal may be spoken to in the event some other matter should arise in the implementation of this Order.

“Helen Jackson”

HELEN JACKSON MEMBER

If there is an attachment referred to in this document, please visit www.elto.gov.on.ca to view the attachment in PDF format.

Local Planning Appeal Tribunal A constituent tribunal of Environment and Land Tribunals Ontario Website: www.elto.gov.on.ca Telephone: 416-212-6349 Toll Free: 1-866-448-2248

ATTACHMENT 1

The Official Plan of the City of Toronto is amended as follows: 1. Map 18 is amended by re-designating the areas shown in the map below from Neighbourhoods to Apartment Neighbourhoods

2. Chapter 7, Site and Area Specific Policies, is amended by adding the following Policy 461:

“461. Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy, located generally bounded by Jarvis Street, Carlton Street, Sherbourne Street and Queen Street East and excluding 225 Jarvis Street:

Maps 29 in Chapter 7 of the City of Toronto Official Plan, entitled Site and Area Specific Policies, are amended by adding the lands shown above to the “Areas affected by the Site and Area Specific Policies” as Policy No. 461.

GARDEN DISTRICT SITE AND AREA SPECIFIC POLICY

1. PREAMBLE

The Garden District is a unique area within the Downtown, housing and supporting some of the City's most vulnerable populations, and containing a rich heritage built form and iconic parks, particularly Allan Gardens. Future growth and investment in this area will need to be sensitive to this character ensuring that new development further strengthens the Garden District as a distinct, vibrant mixed use community in the Downtown.

The lands shown on Maps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are subject to the following policies:

2. OBJECTIVES

2.1 Development will encourage the provision of additional affordable housing to ensure the Garden District continues to offer a full range of housing, in terms of form, tenure and affordability.

2.2 Publicly operated institutional uses, such as Seaton House, will continue to play an important role in the Garden District, delivering services and supporting the current and future needs of residents.

2.3 Community development initiatives in the Garden District will focus on achieving greater levels of equity, equality, access, participation, social cohesion and community capacity. To achieve this, plans and strategies will be developed for the Garden District to assist in optimizing the delivery of community and social services, improve community safety, pursue local housing initiatives, and stimulate local economic development.

2.4 The public realm will be protected and enhanced, by providing well designed streets that inform the public realm structure.

2.5 The height and density of development will be encouraged at appropriate locations taking into account, among other matters, massing to protect the public realm from adverse effects taking into consideration: shadowing, wind impact, skyview, separation distance and hospital helicopter flight paths.

3. DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

3.1 Development Performance Standards in this section apply to the entire study area, including character areas unless otherwise specified.

3.2 New tall buildings are only permitted in the Character Areas identified on Map 1 and in the locations identified on Maps 2, 3, 4 and 5. New tall buildings are not permitted outside Character Areas.

3.3 No net new shadows are permitted on Allan Gardens as measured on March 21 and September 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

3.4 No net new shadows are permitted on conservatory buildings in Allan Gardens or any significant permanent structures that exist or are planned at the time of the development application, as measured on March 21, September 21, June 21 and December 21 at all times of the day.

3.5 No net new shadows are permitted on Moss Park as measured on March 21 and September 21 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

3.6 No net new shadows will be allowed on the playground of École Gabriele Roy measured from September 21 to June 21 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.

3.7 No new surface parking lots, above-grade parking structures or boulevard parking spaces are permitted in the Garden District Area Specific Policy.

3.8 The Garden District area is well served by public transit, bicycle lanes and is located in close proximity to the core. Notwithstanding the minimum parking standards in the zoning by-law, reduced parking rates may be considered on a site by site basis where the impacts can be demonstrated to be sufficiently mitigated.

3.9 Tall Buildings will develop with a Tower-Base typology except as otherwise specified in table 4.2.

3.10 Tower-Base Typology is characterized by slender point towers spaced apart and set atop of pedestrian-scaled base buildings that define the street edge. Base buildings are encouraged to be no taller than 80% of the right- of-way. The tower frontage of a Tower-Base typology building shall be encouraged to step back at least 3 metres from the base building, except as specified in table 4.2.

3.11 Tall Buildings are encouraged to have a floor plate no larger than 750 square metres, unless required for institutional and commercial uses or where it can be demonstrated that the impact of a larger floor plate

(sunlight/shadow, transition, skyview and wind) can be sufficiently mitigated.

3.12 A separation distance between towers of 25 metres or greater measured from the exterior wall of the building, excluding balconies shall be provided.

3.13 Tall Buildings will be setback a minimum of 20 metres from areas designated Neighbourhood in the Official Plan except as otherwise specified in table 4.2.

3.14 Tall Buildings design will have regard for the City of Toronto adopted Tall Building Guidelines, including the Downtown Supplementary Guidelines, except as otherwise specified in table 4.2.

3.15 New Tall Building applications in the North George Street Character Area and the Hazelburn Character Area will be circulated to St. Michael's Hospital and the Hospital for Sick Children.

3.16 Redevelopment for residential uses or infill residential uses may only be considered within the Helicopter Flight Paths for the Hospital for Sick Children and St. Michael's Hospital provided that there will be no negative impacts on the long-term function of those flight paths. In this regard, among other matters, the City will require proponents of redevelopment or infilling to provide studies and undertakings to provide satisfactory mitigation measure when making applications for development approval.

4. CHARACTER AREA POLICIES

The Character Areas have a particular land use function and built form character. Development will be responsive to these functions and character with built form and public realm solutions.

Table 4.1 – Character Area Policies

Character Area Applicable Policies North George Street i. North George Street is an important street in the Character Area Downtown East. It is a mixed-use street with residential and institutional uses, with a number of heritage properties. ii. North George Street will continue to host institutional uses and act as a community hub. iii. The heritage fabric of North George Street will be preserved and maintained. iv. Tall Buildings are permitted in the North George Street Character Area in the form articulated by this Area

Specific Policy. Dundas Corridor i. The Dundas Corridor Character Area has the potential to Character Area be a vibrant retail strip serving the residents of the Downtown East. It will be treated as a priority retail street. New developments fronting onto Dundas Street will include retail at grade. ii. Tall Buildings are permitted in the Dundas Corridor Character Area in the form articulated by this Area Specific Policy. Hazelburn Character i. Jarvis Street is named after Samuel Peters Jarvis, whose Area estate (Hazelburn) was sold to create the neighbourhoods that exist today. ii. Jarvis Street is an important cultural corridor and the streetscape will reflect that importance. iii. The corner of Dundas and Jarvis is an important gateway to the Downtown East. Framing these corners with tall buildings is appropriate. iv. With a particularly large right-of-way, the Hazelburn Character Area is the appropriate place for Tall Buildings. v. It is important, however, that Tall Buildings be constructed in a manner that is sensitive to neighbouring uses. Although a portion of George Street is captured by the Hazelburn Character Area, George Street south of Dundas Street East is primarily low-rise in character. vi. Tall Buildings are permitted in the Hazelburn Character Area in the form articulated by this Area Specific Policy. Sherbourne Corridor i. The Sherbourne Corridor Character Area is characterized Character Area by primarily residential uses designated Apartment Neighbourhoods in the Official Plan. ii. The Sherbourne Character Area is not intended to change, only infill as permitted by the Apartment Neighbourhood policies of the Official Plan is permitted with the exception of Block 1 shown on Map 5.

Table 4.2 Character Area Performance Standards

Character Area Applicable Performance Standards North George Street i. Publicly owned Institutional uses are permitted in the Character Area North George Street Character Area. ii. Retail uses, including restaurant uses, are permitted in the North George Street Character Area.

iii. Tall Buildings are only permitted in the North George

Street Character Area on the Blocks shown on Map 2, as follows:

Block 1 i. Notwithstanding any other provisions in site and Area Specific Policy 461, a 37 metre tall institutional building shall be permitted on the lands known municipally, in 2016, as 295, 297, 299, 301a, 303, 305, 309, 311, 315, 339 and 349 George Street.

Block 2 i. Two towers are permitted on Block 2. ii. A mid-block connection will be provided in Block 2 connecting George Street with Jarvis Street as shown on map 6. Dundas Corridor i. A minimum of 60% of the Dundas Street frontage of any Character Area new development in the Dundas Corridor Character Area will be retail. ii. Retail bays in new portions of development will be broken up into two or more units with frontages no greater than 6 metres. iii. Tall Buildings are only permitted in the Dundas Corridor Character Area, on the Blocks shown on Map 3, as follows:

Block 1 i. Maximum building height compatible with and transitional to the tower heights of the development approvals at 219-231 Dundas Street East and at 200 Dundas Street East, 241-251 Jarvis Street East, 280 George Street, for the tower portion of the development, which is to be located at George Street and Dundas Street East. ii. Despite policy 3.12 the base building on Block 1 will step down in height from 47 metres to 38 metres. iii. Despite policy 3.16, tower setbacks to property lines may be reduced provided the provisions of polices 3.14 and 3.15 are complied with. iv. Any development on Block 1 will step down gradually in height towards Pembroke Street to a maximum height of 16 metres.

Block 2 i. Maximum building height of 25 metres.

ii. Maximum base building height will not exceed 80% of the

width of the right-of-way, after which a 3 metre step back is required.

Block 3 i. A minimum setback of 7.5 metres from the rear property line and a 45-degree angular plane from a height of 10.5 metres above the 7.5 metre setback line. ii. Where a public laneway abuts a site the laneway may be included for the purposes of establishing the setback and angular plane.

Block 4 i. A minimum setback of 7.5 metres from the rear property line and a 45-degree angular plane from a height of 10.5 metres above the 7.5 metre setback line. ii. Where a public laneway abuts a site the laneway may be included for the purposes of establishing the setback and angular plane.

Block 5 i. A minimum setback of 7.5 metres from the rear property line. ii. Where a public laneway abuts a site the laneway may be included for the purposes of establishing the setback. iii. Heights of new tall buildings will be compatible with, but not limited to, the heights of existing apartment buildings on the east side of Sherbourne Street. Hazelburn Character i. Tall Buildings are only permitted in the Hazelburn Area Character Area, on the Blocks shown on Map 4, as follows:

Block 1 i. Only 1 tower is permitted on Block 1.

Block 2 i. Only 1 tower is permitted on Block 2.

Block 3 i. Only 1 tower is permitted on Block 3.

ii. Any base building located at Block 3 will be setback a minimum 15 metres to create a public square at the north west corner of Jarvis Street and Dundas Street West. The square will have a minimum area of 225 square metres.

Block 4 i. Only 1 tower is permitted on Block 4. Sherbourne Corridor i. Tall Buildings are only permitted in the Sherbourne Character Area Corridor Character Area, on the Blocks shown on Map 5.

5. COMMUNITY BENEFITS

5.1 The policies of Section 5.1.1 of the Official Plan regarding Section 37 of the Planning Act will apply to the Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy, with the additional following policy direction.

In determining community benefits, one or more of the following may be considered priorities, although others may also be secured, as appropriate, and should be considered in the context of the policies of the Official Plan and the Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy:

i. the provision of affordable housing. The amount of mandatory units will be a minimum of 10 percent of the units for a proposed residential development;

ii. improvements for the completion of the community services and facilities space at 200 Dundas Street East;

iii. improvements to Moss Park; and

iv. the construction of a green linkage between Moss Park and Allan Gardens.

v. Improvements to the public realm and facilities associated with the proposed indigenous district.

6. IMPLEMENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

6.1 The Garden District Site and Area Specific Policy shall be read as a whole and with the policies of the Official Plan to understand its comprehensive and integrative intent as a policy framework for decision making.

6.2 Mid-block connections on Map 6 are intended to provided suggested locations and move north or south as required to implement them.

6.3 Character areas shown on Maps 2, 3, 4 and 5 show specific blocks where a vision for redevelopment has been articulated and can occur. Areas not defined by Blocks are expected to remain stable, and guided by the prevailing Official Plan Policies.

6.4 Section 5 - Community Benefits are considered to be Area wide policies for the purposes of interpretation.

6.5 Tall Buildings are defined as any building taller than the right-of-way of the street on which they have frontage. On corner properties the lesser of the right-of-way widths will be taken.

6.6 "Net new Shadow" shall mean shadow cast by a proposed development in excess of the shadow already cast by existing and approved developments as well as buildings permitted by the existing zoning by-law."

Map 1 – Garden District Area Specific Policy Character Areas

Map 2 – North George Street Character Area

Map 3 – Dundas Corridor Character Area

Map 4 – Hazelburn Character Area

Map 5 – Sherbourne Corridor Character Area

Map 6 – Garden District Public Realm Plan

ATTACHMENT 2

(a) Antorisa Investments Ltd. (280-290 Jarvis Street, 102, 104 and 110 Gerrard Street and 189, 191 and 183 Mutual Street).

(b) Duration Investments Ltd. (308 – 314 Jarvis Street and 225 Mutual Street).

(c) Manga Hotels (Downtown) Inc. (203 Jarvis Street).

(d) Abtil Realty Limited/Menkes Residences Ltd. (219 – 231 Dundas Street East).

ATTACHMENT 3 a) Jarvis Residences Limited Partnership (319, 321 and 323 Jarvis Street) re: policies 3.3, 3.4 and 6.6.

(b) Oben Flats Sherbourne GP Inc. (307 Sherbourne Street) re: policy 3.3.

(c) Minto Communities Inc. (295 Jarvis Street) re: policy 3.14 and Block 2 of the Hazelburn Character Area in Table 4.2.