Our position

The Shaw Gardens Residents' Association is concerned about three things: the loss of mixed use on this site, the scale and built form of the current proposal, and whether the studies behind it match the building now proposed. We are not asking the City to turn away rental housing. We are asking for a process and an outcome that stand up to planning scrutiny.

This building affects the whole neighbourhood. Residents of The Dupont at 840 Dupont Street and the homes south of Dupont Street are affected too, and we ask the City to weigh all of them.

1. Protect the mixed-use and employment function of the site

This stretch of Dupont Street combines Employment Areas land beside the rail corridor, mixed-use frontage on Dupont and established neighbourhoods behind. The 2014 Regeneration Study stressed its true mixed-use character and the importance of its city-serving uses, and recommended a net gain of non-residential floor area whenever a site redevelops. In 2022 Council approved a mixed-use building. By-law 841-2022 permits up to 2,000 m² of non-residential floor area and reserves the rear 20 m of the lot, beside the rail line, for employment and ancillary uses.

The proposal offers 116 m² of non-residential space in an 18,490 m² building: about 0.6 percent of the floor area and about 6 percent of what the by-law permits. By the figures the Committee approved, the 2024 variance left about 1,617 m², so today's figure is a drop of about 93 percent. Site and area specific policy 805 allows no residential uses on the Employment Areas portion of the site beyond accessory and ancillary uses. Meanwhile the building has grown, to 18,490 m² against the by-law's 14,850 m², and to 19 storeys against 14.

City Planning has already called the elimination of non-residential uses and live-work units, together with residential uses in an employment area, a significant departure from the 2022 and 2024 approvals. The applicant's September 2026 response adds the corner space and removes residential floor space from the employment-zoned lands. It argues that the by-law sets no minimum, that live-work units are allowed but not required, and that live-work units would not count as employment under the current definition. We have not found, in the documents filed, the policy justification analysis the City asked the applicant to provide.

We accept that the by-law sets no minimum. Our point is intent and proportion. A building that asks for this much height and density, on land the City has long planned for a mix of uses, should deliver more than a token.

We ask the City to

• require the justification analysis it requested in March 2026, covering the Provincial Policy Statement, 2024, the Official Plan's Employment Areas and Avenues policies, the site and area specific policy, compatibility and rail safety, and make it public
• explain how 116 m² compares with the by-law maximum, the 2014 net-gain direction and the 2022 mixed-use approval
• seek a meaningful non-residential component, such as employment space in the rear lands or more ground-floor space with flexible depth, and consider whether the added height and density should be tied to it

2. Hold the building to what the Committee approved

The 2024 minor variance raised the by-law's limits to 17 storeys, 56 m (excluding the mechanical penthouse), 17,918 m² of total floor area and 16,301 m² of residential floor area. The current resubmission shows 19 storeys, 62.6 m (basis not stated), 18,490 m² and 18,374 m², plus a reduced east setback and a mezzanine the applicant does not count as a storey. The applicant calls the changes modest. Together, they go beyond what was before the Committee.

We ask the City to

• publish a side-by-side comparison of the current proposal against By-law 841-2022 and the 2024 variance
• explain how storeys and height were counted in 2024 and now, including the mezzanine and the mechanical penthouse
• confirm which standards are exceeded, and require that any further relief go through a new minor variance or a zoning by-law amendment, with public notice, before site plan approval or building permit issuance

3. Require studies that match the current building and the site

• Traffic and access. The site plan allows only right turns into and out of the driveway on Dupont. As we read it, drivers arriving from the north, south or west must pass through the residential streets north of the site, crossing Acores Avenue and Shaw Street, before turning west on Dupont to enter. The September 2026 transportation letter updates a December 2025 assessment, treats the changes as nominal, and does not discuss this routing. We ask the City to require a routing analysis that assigns the forecast peak-hour trips to specific streets and shows how many would use Acores Avenue and Shaw Street. It should also name the local streets and intersections near the site, and weigh the combined effect of this building and nearby approved and proposed development, including 840 Dupont Street.
• Noise and vibration. The October 2026 study measured train vibration of 0.18 mm/s, above the 0.14 mm/s guideline, and leaves the fix to detailed design. It relies on rail volumes from a 2019 request, and says the building's own noise effects could not be assessed numerically at this stage. We ask for current rail volumes, for the vibration mitigation to be designed and on the public file before approval, and for the building's own mechanical noise to be assessed against its neighbours, including The Dupont and the homes south of Dupont.
• Rail safety. The site backs onto a CPKC main line used by freight, including dangerous commodities, with a turnout beginning at the site's east edge. The applicant proposes a 25 m setback to sensitive uses behind a crash wall, where industry guidelines and the 2014 corridor study call for 30 m. The crash wall is designed on a freight speed of 35 mph, while the report lists up to 50 mph on the line. We ask the City to explain why the reduced setback is acceptable and how the design speed relates to the line's actual speeds, and to put CPKC's written position on the public file before approval, not at detailed design.
• Shadow. The shadow drawings show new shadow for four dates. We ask for hourly analysis of the effect on every property the building touches: Garrison Creek Park, the Dupont-Shaw Parkette and Shaw Gardens to the north, 840 Dupont Street (The Dupont) to the east, including its rooftop pool and terrace, and properties south of Dupont. We also ask for a comparison against the shadow that a building within the by-law, and one within the 2024 variance, would cast. Garrison Creek Park is part of the Green Line and the PollinateTO pollinator corridor, and its community garden grows food crops, so lost sunlight there has a direct cost. The Official Plan directs development to minimize additional shadowing on neighbouring parks as necessary to preserve their utility.
• Wind. The wind tunnel study tested the proposal with existing surroundings. We ask that it be updated if the massing changes again.

4. Assess built form and transition against the area's planning framework

The City's own comments, as reproduced in the applicant's letter, say the 19-storey height is not reflective of the existing and planned context, and that the setbacks and separations are those of a midrise building. The applicant answers that the form largely matches what was approved before.

The proposal is taller than the buildings around it. The recent mid-rise buildings at 500, 740 and 840 Dupont stand between 36.55 m and 38 m, against the 62.6 m the applicant reports for this one. Before 2022, the City's corridor policy limited mixed-use portions of the study area to nine storeys. 888 Dupont was approved at 14 storeys in 2022, varied to 17 in 2024, and is now proposed at 19. Built form is how a building fits with its street, the park and the homes behind it. The 2022 by-law already put this site well above its neighbours, at 14 storeys and 50 m, in return for community benefits. The current proposal keeps the height and density while the non-residential space falls and the affordable units are reconfigured.

We ask the City to

• assess the current height against the existing and planned context of the corridor, not only against what was previously approved for this site
• state publicly how the current massing performs against the Official Plan's built form and compatibility policies, the Dupont Street Regeneration Study (2014) and the site and area specific policy cited in the applicant's planning rationale, including transition to the rail corridor and to the park

5. Protect the neighbours next door

The east wall faces 840 Dupont Street from 14.7 to 15.5 m away, against the 11.0 m the applicant calls typical, and part of it is set back 4.92 m where 5.30 m is described as required. City urban design asked for privacy planters on the east-facing terraces, and the applicant declined. Site work is already permitted, with dewatering registered through 2029. The Dupont also has a rooftop pool and terrace that the new building's shadow could reach.

We ask the City to

• require the privacy screening urban design recommended, or a design that restores the required east setback and separation
• measure the shadow on The Dupont's rooftop pool and terrace, by date and hour, and say what mitigation is possible
• take evidence from residents of 840 Dupont on how the windows facing the new wall are used, since the applicant calls them secondary windows
• put the dewatering monitoring and contingency plans on the public file, and confirm that the monitoring covers neighbouring buildings and streets

6. Hold the affordable housing secured in 2022

The 2022 approval secured 20 affordable rental units. The applicant now asks to change where they sit and how they are grouped.

We ask the City to

• explain how it assessed the requested changes to the affordable units, and make that assessment public

7. Reconcile the record

Council directed in 2022 that no building permit be issued until the Section 37 agreement is executed and registered. A permit for standalone shoring and excavation was issued on June 2, 2026 and revised on October 8, 2026, and City and Ministry filings describe the building differently. Details are on the Open questions page.

We ask the City to

• confirm the status of the Section 37 agreement
• explain how the 2022 direction applied to the shoring permit
• say which building each filing refers to

What a good outcome looks like

We are not asking for the building to disappear. We are asking for one that stays within what the City has already approved and answers the questions on this page. For Shaw Gardens and its neighbours, that means:

• Nothing beyond what the Committee approved. At the very least, no more than 17 storeys, 56 m (excluding the mechanical penthouse) and 17,918 m², with any further relief going through a new variance or zoning amendment and public notice. That is the ceiling. Our request is for less.
• Next door protected. Privacy screening or a compliant east setback at 840 Dupont, and construction monitoring that covers neighbouring buildings and streets.
• Lower, and stepped back where it meets the rail corridor and the park. Reduced height or added stepbacks on the north side, so the tallest mass sits away from the park and Shaw Gardens.
• Shadow that is measured, disclosed and reduced. Hourly analysis for every affected property, and mitigation where the community garden, the pollinator plantings, The Dupont's rooftop pool and terrace, and the homes south of Dupont lose sun.
• A real mix of uses. Non-residential space well above 116 m², such as employment space in the rear lands or more ground-floor space, and the policy justification the City asked for on the public file.
• Traffic kept off Acores Avenue and Shaw Street. A routing analysis, and measures agreed before approval if a right-turn-only driveway pushes trips onto the local streets.
• Rail and noise questions answered before approval. CPKC's written position, an explanation of the reduced setback and the 35 mph design basis, and vibration mitigation designed and on the file.
• The 2022 commitments kept. The 20 affordable units delivered on the terms Council set, and the Section 37 agreement in place as Council directed.

We will keep every request tied to a document or a policy, and we will update this page as the file moves.