►
From YouTube: North York Community Council - May 22, 2019
Description
North York Community Council, meeting 6, May 22, 2019
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15405
Meeting Navigation:
0:09:45 - Call to order
0:23:37 - Meeting resume
Agenda Items:
0:23:42 - NY6.1 - (9:45 AM) Final Report - Zoning Amendment Application - 1202-1204 Avenue Road (Ward 8 - Statutory: Planning Act, RSO 1990)
0:33:05 - NY6.2 - (9:45 AM) Final Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications - 111 Wenderly Drive, and 746 and 748 Marlee Avenue (Ward 8 - Statutory: Planning Act, RSO 1990)
0:44:56 - NY6.3 - (9:45 AM) Final Report - Official Plan Amendment, and Zoning Amendment Applications - 110 and 112 Sheppard Avenue West (Ward 18 - Statutory: Planning Act, RSO 1990)
0:55:34 - NY6.4 - (10:00 AM) Final Report - City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment to the Planned Right-of-Way Width for Gordon Baker Road (Ward 17 - Statutory: Planning Act, RSO 1990)
0:56:50 - NY6.5 - (10:00 AM) Final Report - Zoning Amendment Application - 101 Gordon Baker Road (Ward 17 - Statutory: Planning Act, RSO 1990)
0:58:07 - NY6.6 - (10:15 AM) Final Report - City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application - Lawrence Avenue West Block Study - South side of Lawrence Avenue West generally between Shermount Avenue and Glenmount Avenue (Ward 8 - Statutory: Planning Act, RSO 1990)
1:10:17 - NY6.7 - (10:15 AM) Request for Directions Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications - 579-585 Lawrence Avenue West (Ward 8)
1:21:34 - NY6.8 - (10:30 AM) Request for Directions Report - Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment - 2901 Bayview Avenue and 630 Sheppard Avenue East (Ward 17)
0:17:24 - NY6.9 - Preliminary Report - Zoning Amendment Application - 1 Tudor Gate (Ward 15)
0:10:57 - NY6.10 - Preliminary Report - Zoning By-law Amendment Application - 20 Godstone Road (Ward 17)
0:16:24 - NY6.11 - Preliminary Report - Zoning By-law Amendment Application - 3358 - 3364 Bayview Avenue (Ward 18)
0:11:46 - NY6.12 - All-Way Stop Control - Harley Avenue and Joicey Boulevard (Ward 8)
0:12:04 - NY6.13 - Traffic Calming - Roselawn Avenue (Ward 8)
0:12:26 - NY6.14 - Parking Amendments - Scarsdale Road (Ward 16)
0:12:43 - NY6.15 - Turn Prohibitions - Sloane Avenue (Ward 16)
0:13:07 - NY6.16 - Parking and Stopping Amendments - Freshmeadow Drive (Ward 17)
0:13:21 - NY6.17 - Parking Regulation Amendments and Left-turn Prohibition - Snowcrest Avenue (Ward 17)
0:13:55 - NY6.18 - Designation of Fire Routes and amendment to Chapter 880 - Fire Routes - 42 Overlea Boulevard (Ward 15)
0:14:17 - NY6.19 - Designation of Fire Routes and amendment to Chapter 880 - Fire Routes - 121 Parkway Forest Drive (Ward 17)
0:14:44 - NY6.20 - Appointment of Public Members to the Larry Grossman Forest Hill Memorial Arena Board (Ward 8)
0:15:09 - NY6.21 - Appointment of Public Members to the Leaside Memorial Community Gardens Arena Board (Ward 15)
2:20:50 - NY6.22 - (10:45 AM) Request to Demolish the Residential Building at 21 Southvale Drive (Ward 15)
2:27:06 - NY6.23 - (10:45 AM) Permanent Public Highway Closures for the Lawrence Heights Revitalization Project - Northeast District - Stage 3 - a Portion of Varna Drive and a Portion of Cather Crescent; Stage 4 - a Portion of Varna Drive and a Portion of Cather Crescent; Stage 5 - a Portion of Cather Crescent and Tafford Lane (Ward 8)
2:28:00 - NY6.24 - (11:00 AM) Encroachment Appeal - 207 Armour Boulevard (Ward 6)
2:29:42 - NY6.25 - (11:00 AM) Encroachment Appeal - 33 Laird Drive (Ward 15)
2:36:20 - NY6.26 - (11:15 AM) Request for Fence Exemption - 28 Bowring Walk (Ward 6)
2:37:14 - NY6.27 - (11:15 AM) Request for Fence Exemption - Rear Yard - 84 Glencairn Avenue (Ward 8)
2:53:08 - NY6.28 - (11:15 AM) Request for Fence Exemption - Rear Yard - 344 Lawrence Avenue West (Ward 8)
2:53:55 - NY6.29 - (11:30 AM) Request for Fence Exemption - Rear - 531 Cranbrooke Avenue (Ward 8)
3:03:33 - NY6.30 - (11:30 AM) Application for Fence Exemption - 153 Strathallan Boulevard (Ward 8)
3:04:41 - NY6.31 - (11:30 AM) Request for Fence Exemption - Rear and Side Yard - 44 Glenallan Road (Ward 15)
3:45:13 - NY6.32 - Enactment of By-laws
A
B
Morning,
everybody
we
have
quorum.
We
can
begin
like
to
welcome
members
of
the
committee
and,
of
course,
members
of
the
public.
We
acknowledge
the
land
we
were
meeting
on
is
the
traditional
territory
of
many
nations,
including
the
Mississauga
of
the
credit
Jasha
Nobby
Chippewa,
the
Honda
Shoshi,
the
wind
up
peoples
is
now
home
to
many
diverse
First,
Nations,
Inuit
and
Metis
people.
We
also
acknowledge
the
Toronto
is
covered
by
2013,
with
the
Mississauga
of
the
credit,
follow
the
meeting
on
your
computer
tablet
or
smartphone
at
Toronto
see
a
back,
slash,
council
and
just
a
reminder.
B
B
B
D
B
C
B
B
B
C
C
B
B
B
Item
counter
filling
preliminary
report:
zoning
bylaw
amendment
30,
33
15,
so
that's
item,
11,
yep,
local
councilors,
moving
staff
recommendations,
all
those
in
favor
hose
that
is
carry
how
was
their
second
one
for
councillor
Fillion.
No,
that
was
it
okay.
So
we
have
to
wait
a
few
minutes
for
the
9:45
timed
item
that
would
be
6.1.
B
B
B
B
B
B
E
Members
of
community
council,
my
name
is
Lindsay
Dale,
Harris
and
I'm.
A
partner
with
both
fields
and
both
fields
are
the
planning
consultants
for
three
octave
elements
with
respect
to
this
property.
1202
1204,
every
new
road
and
it's
at
the
northwest
corner
of
Avenue,
Road
and
Hill
has
Boulevard,
and
it's
about
880
and.
E
Members
of
the
consulting
team-
it
includes
the
architect,
the
engineer,
the
landscape,
architect
and
the
traffic
engineer.
So
all
here
and
on
April
24th
community
council
had
a
report
recommending
approval
of
a
zoning
bylaw
amendment
to
permit
the
development
of
seven
three-bedroom
townhouses
at
this
at
this
location,
and
the
application
was
deferred
pending,
giving
us
an
opportunity
to
discuss
matters
with
residents,
and
you
also
have
before
you
today
second
report
from
the
planning
staff,
which
addresses
the
new
growth
plan
policies
and
makes
the
minor
changes
to
the
bylaw
which
was
presented
to
you
in
April.
E
With
respect
to
the
deferral
to
work
with
the
residents.
We've
worked
very
closely
with
staff
and
the
residents
and
we
hope
to
resolve
all
issues.
First
and
importantly,
the
owner
of
12:06
Avenue
Road,
you
can
see,
there's
a
yellow
highlight
12:06
is
the
property
to
the
north,
and
the
proposed
development
of
the
seven
units
is
to
the
south
in
it
fronts,
on
the
north
side
of
Hillhurst,
the
owner
to
the
north
has
for
years
borrowed
a
portion.
The
subject
property
in
order
that
his
car,
which
is
now
built
to
2019
stand,
is
not
20.
E
20
19
20
standards
can
access.
It's
there's
been
an
agreement
reached
between
the
owner
of
1206
and
are
and
the
applicant
to
provide
an
agreement,
an
easement
which
will
provide
for
the
long
term
security
of
his
access
on
that
existing
driveway
to
the
rear
of
his
house,
so
that
he
doesn't
have
any
problem
getting
in
and
out
of
the
driveway
and
that
will
be
secured
through
the
site
plan
program
through
the
site
plan
process.
Secondly,
there
was
a
meeting
which
my
client
did
not
attend.
E
That
was
held
them
with
planning
staff
and
the
counselor's
office
on
May
the
6th
to
address
other
issues
raised
by
plant
by
the
residents
and
I.
Think
most
of
these
have
all
been
resolved.
The
I
believe
the
majority.
The
residents
on
Hillhurst
are
happy
with
the
design
they
like
the
way,
the
traffic,
the
access
works
with
one
driveway,
no
garages
fronting
on
Hillhurst,
and
we
will
continue
to
work
with
the
residents
through
the
site,
plan,
approval
process
and
work
closely
with
planning
staff.
E
That's
a
rendering
of
the
proposed
development,
which
is
really
very
typical
to
a
lot
of
other
developments
which
have
occurred,
as
you
said,
north
on
avenue,
road
towards
lawrence
at
the
at
the
intersections
of
local
residential
streets
that
been
some
very
attractive.
Townhouse
infill
developments
provided
at
intersections
that
Litton
in
this
location
and
further
up
we'd
like
to
thank
staff
for
all
their
work
in
trying
to
resolve
all
the
issues
and
to
advise
community
council.
E
A
A
E
A
E
E
E
A
D
A
Yeah
North
York
Community
Council
recommend
that
City
Council
adopt
the
staff
recommendations
in
the
recommendation
section
of
the
report.
April
4th
2019
from
the
director
community
planning,
North
York
districts
that
the
following
amendments,
one
that
the
recommendation,
one
in
the
report,
April
4th
2019
from
the
Director
of
Community
Planning
North
York
District,
be
deleted
and
replaced
with
the
following
one:
City
Council
of
men:
zoning
bylaw,
4
3,
8,
8
6
for
the
lands
at
12:02
and
1204
Avenue
Road
substantially.
C
C
A
B
F
Thank
you
very
much
good
morning,
members
of
council,
my
name
is
michael
testa
gucchy
here
from
the
biliary
group
representing
the
owners
of
111
wonderly,
as
well
as
748
marley,
&
746
marley.
So
we'd
like
to
thank
staff
for
bringing
this
application
forward
today
and
would
like
to
very
briefly
go
over
the
history
and
the
benefits
of
the
application
and
then
take
any
questions
that
committee
may
have.
So.
The
application
was
originally
submitted
in
2015
by
a
different
owner
that
application
was
for
111,
wonderly
alone.
F
It
was
later
and
in
that
included
only
six
town
that
was
later
revised
when
the
previous
owner
purchased.
The
two
properties
to
the
south
was
revised
to
29
stacked
townhome
units.
Now
there
was
community
consultation
done
at
that
point,
and
the
surrounding
residents
did
indicate
that
they
were
not
in
favor
of
such
a
dense
proposal
on
the
site.
My
client
purchased
the
site
in
2017
and
revised
the
application
to
consist
of
ten
more
common
townhomes
with
access
from
the
rear.
F
So
again,
that's
a
reduction
of
19
units
having
heard
the
residents
and
their
concerns
with
regard
to
stock
towns
and
such
a
dense
proposal.
19
units
were
removed
and
the
typology
was
changed
to
a
more
conventional
townhouse
style
of
a
development.
So,
as
you
can
see,
the
applicant
or
sorry
the
well,
the
applicant
and
my
client
has
made
significant
changes
to
the
proposal
since
its
outset
and
of
course
that
was
by
a
different
applicant
now.
F
We
do
believe
that
this
site,
which
contains
three
factors
single-family
detached
dwellings
at
the
time,
is
an
appropriate
location
for
a
modest
intensification.
It's
450
meters
from
the
closest
subway
station,
so
very
close,
very
close
to
various
community
schools
of
being
Elementary
in
high
school
and
very
close
to
community
retail,
both
I
Glen
Karen
and
I
Lawrence.
So
it's
a
very
walkable
location
and
it's
a
place
where
the
city
would
like
to
see
some
type
of
moderate
intensification.
F
Further,
it's
located
on
a
major
street,
and
that
is
an
important
distinction
in
our
official
plan
or
in
the
city's
official
plan.
The
current
Official
Plan
does
allow
for
modest
intensification
on
major
streets,
recognizing
that
they
are
different
than
properties
interior
to
the
neighborhood.
Now
that
was
something
that
was
passed
through
Opa
Opa
3:20,
so
that
OPA,
in
that
specific
document
not
recognizes
that
sites
on
major
streets
have
better
access
to
transit,
are
adjacent
to
developments
in
very
varying
heights,
rather
than
interior
to
a
neighborhood,
and
our
experience
do
experience
greater
traffic
volume.
F
For
those
reasons,
it
was
understood
that
different
types
of
development
could
occur
in
on
major
streets
rather
than
what
would
occur
interior
to
the
neighborhood.
This
site
is
adjacent
to
a
major
street
close
to
transit
and
across
the
street
from
three-story
walk-up
apartments,
so
it
meets
all
of
those
criteria
and
therefore,
from
an
official
plan
perspective,
it
is
an
appropriate
location
and
staff
have
confirmed
this
through
their
town
through
their
sari
staff
report.
It
is
an
appropriate
location
for
this
built
form
now,
just
to
speak
briefly
on
how
it
transitions
to
the
neighborhood.
F
It's
important
to
note
that
it
conforms
to
the
townhouse
guidelines,
the
city's
implemented
and,
more
than
just
that,
it
far
exceeds
them.
The
city's
townhouse
guidelines
request
7.5
meter,
rear
yard
setback.
This
application
proposes
14
meters
12
to
the
rear
deck.
The
city's
townhouse
guidelines
require
a
45
angular
plane
be
respected.
This
application
meets
that
in
is,
at
its
closest
point,
two
point:
three
meters
from
the
angular
plane
and
having
dealt
with
many
applications
in
North
York
sure
everyone
will
be
aware
that
that's
a
significant
step
back
to
an
angular
plane.
F
Further,
the
rear
yard
is
to
be
constructed
with
an
access
lane
that
access
lane
is
to
be
constructed
of
permeable
pavers
to
ensure
there's,
no
flooding
concerns
for
the
area,
residents
and
all
major
Overland
flow
routes
have
been
directed
to
Marley
and
to
wonderly
to
ensure
that
there's
no
issues
there.
So,
as
you
can
see,
this
application
meets
the
city's
guidelines,
conforms
with
the
Official
Plan
for
the
staff
report
and
is
an
appropriate
location
for
some
moderate
intensification
in
proximity
to
a
subway
station.
F
B
G
I'm
with
the
went
to
the
park,
Community
Association
and
we've
been
looking
at
applications
for
this
corner
and
by
the
way
we
support
intensification
for
this
corner
and
based
on
what
you
just
saw
previously
on
Avenue
Road,
which
is
a
four-lane
road.
A
development
like
that
is
more
suitable
for
Marley,
which
is
only
a
two-lane
road.
The
premise
for
this
whole
justification
is
that
Marley
Avenue
is
a
major
street.
Marley
Avenue
is
not
a
major
street
traffic
services
has
designated
it
as
a
minor
arterial
road.
G
It
is
not
a
major
street
and
I
have
two
documents
from
traffic
services
to
support
that
the
other
thing
that
we
had
a
community
consultation
meeting
on
April
the
4th,
the
final
report
came
out
on
the
15th
and
I
know
how
you
feel
about
the
province
coming
out
with
things
on
a
long
weekend
and
giving
you
no
time
to
hit
to
prepare
for
this.
So
we've
had
three
business
days
to
digest
50
pages
of
report
and
we
sat
down
and
gone
through
it
and
it's
full
of
a
bunch
of
holes.
G
First
one
is
that
Marley
is
not
the
major
street.
It's
a
two-lane
road
and
it's
got
a
speed
limit
of
40
kilometers
per
hour.
It's
not
Avenue
Road,
it's
not
bad.
There's,
it's
not
different,
so
the
same
development
applications
for
those
roads
cannot
apply
to
Marley.
It's
that
simple
in
the
report.
It
says
there
are
other
four-story
buildings
in
the
surrounding
area.
That
is
not
the
case.
I'll
walk
through
with
the
Planning
Department,
the
largest
building
we
have
homes,
are
three
storeys,
not
four.
G
So
that's
an
error,
so
the
prevailing
building
they're,
all
three
storeys,
so
under
the
Official
Plan
under
the
Neighborhood
designation,
directs
that
the
physical
changes
to
our
established
neighborhoods
must
be
sensitive
and
gradual,
generally
fit
into
the
physical
character.
So
a
more
appropriate
build
would
be
a
three-story
building,
not
necessarily
single
family
homes.
We're
not
opposed
to
the
townhomes,
but
we're
opposed
to
how
close
these
buildings
are
to
the
front
of
Marley,
because
all
the
other
buildings
are
pushed
further
back.
G
This
is
being
proposed
to
be
built
on
the
property
line
and
we've
had
on
this
block.
Applications
for
two
single-family
homes,
on
a
50-foot
lot
and
and
Planning
Department
opposed
converting
a
50-foot
lot
into
two
single-family
homes
because
it
didn't
fit
into
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
So
if
that
doesn't
fit
into
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
how
can
possibly
ten
four-story,
townhomes
14
meters
in
height
fit
into
the
character
of
the
neighborhood?
And
that
was
just
two
years
ago:
seven,
twenty
Marley,
so
you
can't
have
it
both
ways.
G
You
know
the
fits
into
the
character
or
it
doesn't
fit
into
the
character.
So
we're
prepared
to
sit
down
and
look
at
a
town
halls,
townhome
applications
that
fit
more
gradually
into
the
development
area
and,
quite
frankly,
giving
us
three
days
notice,
there's
a
lot
of
other
people
that
want
it
to
be
earth
to
talk
to
address
council.
We
don't
think
it's
appropriate
that
three
days
notice
is
adequate
and
due
process.
G
G
G
This
is
a
recent
document
and
you'll
see
here
that
what
we're
looking
at
is
intensification
that
would
be
more
in
line
with
what's
reasonable
and
recently
adopted,
which
is
something
closer
to
11
meters
in
height,
not
the
14,
that's
being
proposed,
and
that
the
building
be
set
back
in
line
with
all
the
other
homes.
On
that
city
block
I,
think
that's
all
I
have
all.
B
B
B
Opposed
as
Carrie
we're,
adopting
I'm
moving
I'm
moving
the
staff
recommendations
and
that's
just
been
adopted.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank
you.
Item
number
three
find
a
report
official
plan,
amendment
zoning
amendment,
applications,
110
112,
Sheppard,
Avenue,
West,
Michael,
just
egusi,
encore,
presentation,
yeah.
F
Assume
my
last
presentation
wasn't
riveting
enough,
so
I'm
being
called
back
again
michael
has
to
go
to
up
from
the
biliary
group
this
time
representing
the
owners
of
110
and
112
Sheppard
Avenue
West.
So
we
have
reviewed
the
staff
report
in
the
bylaws.
In
his
case,
we
appreciate
the
speed
with
which
the
application
was
reviewed
and
brought
forward.
F
So
thank
you
again
now
we
did
look
through
the
bylaw
and
there's
some
minor
issues
with
regards
to
the
required
amenity
space
and
the
height
of
the
the
mechanical
penthouse,
which
are
both
a
bit
over
what
the
bylaw
usually
requires
and
they're.
That
way,
because
that's
how
they're
shown
in
current
proposal.
F
But
again
we
don't
know
how
the
proposals
going
to
evolve,
given
a
different
density,
and
so
we
we
did
speak
with
the
local
councillor
as
well
as
planning
stuff
and
I've
asked
them
to
reconsider
those
certain
items
and
I
understand
that
motion
will
be
coming
forward
on
that
front.
So
with
that
being
said,
I
do
have
a
list
of
those
revisions,
but
I,
don't
think
it's
an
error
or
from
our
and
what
we
think
is
required,
but
don't
believe
it's
required.
We
can
work
with
staff
between
now
and
council
through
that
supplementary
report.
F
H
D
Mr.
chair
I
mean
I,
don't
know
that
we
would
have
necessarily
refused
it
within
the
90
days
that
the
act
is
prescribing,
but
what
it
allowed
us
to
do
is
use
a
good
judgment
of
staff
and
and
Council
to
approve
something
that
conforms
with
their
plans,
which
the
appeal
test
would
be
much
more
difficult.
So
I
think
it
was
a
very
good
tool
for
the
municipality
at
the
time
as
I,
say
and
I
think
mr.
Lyne
turned
the
chief
planner
was
very
clear
that
the
90-day
approval
time
and
their
proposed
bill.
H
Just
sort
of
thank
you
all
around
on
this
one,
a
really
good
job
by
the
staff
cooperative
applicant,
and
it's
a
so
it's
a
case
where
the
applicant
was
asking
for
more
than
what
are
the
secondary
plan
approved
by
council
was
allowing
it
was
not
a
large
amount,
but
rather
than
sort
of
haggle
over
that
or
get
into
a
big
dispute
about
it.
We
were
able
to
approve
it
in
conformity
with
the
plan
and
to
do
it
really
in
record
time,
which
is
always
what's
important
to
applicants,
is
that
it
get
done
quickly.
H
So
this
is
just
a
an
illustration
of
how
the
system
that
we
are
briefly
passing
through
and
maybe
by
some
miracle
will
go
back
to
allows
us
to
deal
with
applications
quickly
intelligently
and
to
approve
them
in
conformity
with
the
Official
Plan.
So
it
really,
it
really
could
have
worked
out
really
well,
and
this
is
a
really
good
illustration
of
it.
H
So
I'm
going
to
move
the
North
urk
Community
Council,
recommend
that
City
Council
adopt
staff
recommendations
and
the
recommendations
section
of
the
report
and
that
city
planning
staff
prepare
a
supplementary
reports
to
City
Council
if
needed,
to
address
any
technical
issues
or
changes
proposed
by
the
applicant.
So
I
think.
B
I
D
B
H
I'll
just
add
four
to
address
the
speaker's
concerned
tonight:
I,
don't
know
what
hurts
specific
concerns
are
because
we
have
not
I,
don't
think
we've
heard
from
you
before,
but
the
site
plan
is
still
has
not
been
finalized,
so
to
whatever
extent
we
can
address
your
concerns
through
site
plan.
If
you
could
please
talk
to
my
staff,
who
were
here
in
the
room
and
we'll
arrange
to
go
over
the
site
plan
with
you
to
see.
If
there's
anything,
we
can
do
to
mitigate
the
impact
on
you.
B
C
H
B
B
C
I'm
just
gonna
move
the
staff
recommendations.
I
think
that
this
report
is
fairly
self-explanatory.
It's
a
dedication
of
right-of-way
that
well,
it
actually
alleviates
the
need
for
a
dedication
of
right
away.
It
really
facilitates
item
number
five
and
creates
a
consistent
use
on
Gordon
Baker
Road,
which
is
now
one
of
the
one
of
the
many
potentially
important
employment
lands.
B
Okay,
thank
you
councillor,
Carol
any
other
speakers
on
this
item.
The
council.
Did
you
want
to
move
the
staff
recommendations,
staff
recommendations
moved
on
the
floor,
all
those
in
favor
host
that
is
carry
item.
6.5
final
report,
zoning
amendment
application,
101,
Gordon,
Baker
Road-
do
not
have
any
deputies
on
this
item.
Any
questions
for
staff.
C
So
quickly,
this
is
this:
is
the
facilitated
just
a
word,
because
I
I
know
we're
not
crazy
about
self
storage,
and
this
is
an
application.
That's
about
self
storage.
One
thing
that
it
does
provide,
though,
is
that
it's
sort
of
in
a
butts
the
employment
land
it's
on
the
edge
of
it,
but
what
it
does
do
is
provide
some
additional
parking
if
there's
there's
more
parking
demand
and-
and
that
means
more
jobs
in
this
employment
land
and
it
helps
us
to
facilitate
their
vehicles.
C
It
gave
me
a
reason
to
look
at
this
and
so
I
think.
That's
also
why
you
don't
see
any
other
from
the
local
residential
community
because
they
don't
want
to
see
you
know.
Unaccommodating
cars
and
the
employment
zone
start
to
move
south
into
two
neighborhood
streets,
so
I'll
adopt
the
staff
recommendations.
So,
with
your
help
to.
I
Thank
you.
It
shouldn't
take
that
long,
I'm
a
resident
of
106
Fairholme,
which
backs
on
to
the
proposal
for
development
and
just
really
want
to
thank
everybody.
Who's
been
involved
in
putting
together
the
plan.
It's
been
a
really
nice
involvement
of
the
developers,
the
city
councilors
and
a
lot
of
the
neighbors
as
well.
We've
been
working
together
to
ensure
that
whatever
goes
on,
Lawrence
Avenue
behind
the
residents
is
respectful
to
the
the
way
that
the
neighborhood
looks
so
in
general.
I
The
plan
that
was
proposed
looks
pretty
reasonable
and
pretty
respectful
of
the
way
that
the
neighborhood
looks.
There's
just
two
points
that
I'd
be
remiss
if
I
didn't
share
with
the
council.
That
is
important
to
me
as
a
neighbor.
Behind
most
of
the
homes
on
my
section
of
their
home
are
small.
They
are
one-story
two-bedroom
homes.
Almost
all
of
the
families
that
live
in
those
homes
have
young
children,
including
myself,
and
we
do
utilize.
Our
backyards
and
I
do
have
a
picture
I'm,
not
sure.
I
If
there's
a
way
to
show
it,
but
okay
I'll
go
over
there
in
a
minute,
but
the
development
that
is
just
west
of
us.
If
I
take
a
picture
from
Fairholme
of
what
that
large
development
looks
like,
which
is
four
stories
high,
but
it
has
a
basement,
you
basically
don't
see
the
house,
you
see
the
development
and
while
the
developing
guidelines
that
have
been
proposed
for
Lauren's
are
reasonable,
with
four
storeys
and
an
angular
plane,
four
stories
about
a
basement
is
quite
a
bit
higher
than
even
what
was
than
even
what
was
before.
I
That
was
placed
west
of
us
on
Lawrence.
So
it
is
our
request.
It
says
generally
four
stories.
It
is
our
request
to
lower
that
to
three
stories,
if
at
all
possible,
because
again
without
basements,
three
stories
really
means
three
stories
starting
from
the
ground
and
going
up
and
considering
the
different
planes
and
levels
of
Lawrence
Avenue
compared
to
fare
home
I.
Don't
think
it
would
be
unreasonable
to
consider
that.
I
This
is
what
it
does
look
like
now
and
that's
quite
a
discrepancy
and
a
difference
to
what
it
looked
like.
You'll
notice,
even
right
here,
these
trees
are
from
what
is
likely
going
to
be
torn
down,
so
even
if
they
do
put
in
new
trees,
which
would
be
lovely
and
they're
not
going
to
be
that
mature,
and
it's
likely
going
to
look
like
what
the
picture
that
I
just
showed
you.
Thank
you.
K
Help
me
with
some
questions
so
following
along
with
tomorrow.
My
name
is
Elaine
Mirren's
I'm,
a
long-term
Fairholme
homeowner,
and
what
we're
asking
for
specifically
are
these
four
items:
I
represent
Fairholme
residents,
as
well
as
the
incorporated
residents
Association,
so
I'm
just
going
to
show
some
slides
that
back
up
the
reasons
for
these
for
everything
I'm
going
to
show,
you
is
from
an
OPA
or
the
City
of
Toronto
townhouse
guidelines,
the
first
one
same
one
that
you
saw
earlier.
This
is.
K
Identical
but
the
point
being
that
Lawrence
Heights
Lawrence
Heights
OPA
162
secondary
plan
does
allow
for
four
stories,
but
they
limit
to
low-rise
of
11
meters
for
the
reason
to
have
a
good
transition
to
the
neighborhood
adjacent
area.
We
recognize
that
Lawrence
is
a
major
street,
but
policy
4.15
of
OPA
320
also
asked
to
take
into
consideration
the
same
thing
as
this
one
does,
which
is
the
adjacent
area
also
from
the
Lawrence
Heights
secondary
plan.
Our
homes
are
along
here.
K
K
K
Or
in
seventy
West,
additionally,
we're
asking
that
properties
that
are
more
than
four
hundred
meters
from
parks,
which
is
a
major
part
of
Lawrence
Avenue
West,
have
designated
perk
space
when
in
Kathy
had
consultations
with
the
neighborhood.
They
asked
us
to
point
out
some
areas
that
would
be
great
for
Park
area,
so
we
sat
down
looked
at
the
whole
strip
from
Glen
Mount
to
sure
mount,
and
we
suggested
some
areas
at
least
a
park
head
or
somewhere
to
sit
when
I've
since
talked
to
planning.
K
It
appears
that
unless
I
misunderstand
that
they're
just
going
to
take
funds
from
the
developers
and
there's
no
nothing
written
in
the
OPA
that
you're
voting
on
today,
that
includes
park
lands.
The
last
item
that
I
wanted
to
point
out
is
where
the
45
degree
angle,
er
plane
will
be
measured,
which
is
item
D,
and
it's
in
the
letter
that
I
had
sent
you
all
of
this
in
other
neighborhoods.
K
K
B
A
E
Ryou
chair
the
budding
develop
at
that
she's
referring
to
is
in
a
different
land
use
designation,
it's
mixed
use
and
it's
right
at
the
Lawrence
Avenue
West
subway
station.
It
is
four
stories
it
has
some
mitigating
factors
in
terms
of
a
trellis
system
that
was
installed
to
deal
with
a
neighborhood
interphase
we're
here.
We
are
talking
about
neighborhood
lands
that
are
being
proposed
for
an
official
plan
amendment
for
a
variety
of
different
types
of
housing,
including
townhouse
development.
E
The
Official
Plan
amendment
that's
as
proposed,
actually
goes
beyond
what
we
would
normally
have
in
terms
of
a
rear
yard
condition
going
from
7.5
meters
to
9
meters
and
also
the
landscape
strip.
There
was
a
reference
to
the
existing
mature
vegetation
at
the
rear
of
the
houses.
We
are
trying
to
maintain
that
with
a
three
meter
wide
landscaped
area,
which
again
goes
beyond
that
townhouse
and
low-rise
guidelines,
which
would
require
1.5
meters
and.
E
Chair
the
angular
plane
would
be
measured.
There
was
reference
to
retaining
while
we're
trying
to
minimize
the
retaining
wall
along
these
properties.
If
there
is
to
be
retained.
Well,
the
45
degree
in
your
plane
is
actually
measured
from
the
grade
of
the
above,
a
budding
single
detached
homes,
not
the
top
of
the
retaining
wall
that
could
occur
on
these
properties.
E
A
B
L
Good
morning,
members
of
the
committee,
my
name,
is
Mark
flowers,
I'm,
a
lawyer
with
Davies,
Howe
and
I
represent
the
applicant.
The
applicant
is
proposing
12
townhouse
units
on
the
south
side
of
Lawrence
Avenue
West
between
Bathurst
Street
and
Allen
Road,
and
our
request
of
you
today
is
that
you
forward
this
matter
to
City
Council
next
month,
without
a
recommendation
and-
and
our
reasons
for
that
request
are
as
follows.
We
just
received
the
staff
report
late
last
week.
L
L
So
again,
rather
than
asking
you
which
I
would
normally
do
which
be
to
reject
the
staff
recommendations,
we
are
instead,
hopefully
trying
to
be
constructive
here
and
therefore
ask
that
you
simply
forward
the
matter
to
Council
without
a
recommendation
again
on
the
understanding
that
the
city
will
receive
revised
plans
that
address
the
staff
comments
in
the
meantime.
Thank
you.
K
I,
don't
know
if
there's
much
point
me
talking,
but
since
I
have
five
minutes,
so
maybe
I
can
take
three
of
them.
So
I
was
hoping
that
you
would
be
open
to
some
of
the
amendments
that
we
asked
for
and
then
three
of
them
would
apply
here
so
I'm.
Sorry,
if
I'm,
you
know
wasting
your
time,
but
I'm
gonna
go
for
it
anyway,
and
thank
you
for
not
texting,
but
so
the
problems
that
we
have
with
this
development
we've
shared.
We
love
the
report
that
the
city
wrote.
K
This
is
what
we
see.
This
is
an
urban
forest
that
I
know
doesn't
belong
to
me,
but
how
are
we
gonna
get
to
a
thirty
to
forty
percent
tree
canopy?
If
we're
tearing
down
all
of
these
urban
forests,
I
thought
what
I
asked
for
earlier
was
pretty
reasonable.
Having
backyards,
in
fact
this
it
isn't
the
developer
and
I
have
it
somewhere,
but
the
real
estate
company,
that's
trying
to
sell,
did
these
townhomes
that
are
going
to
they
actually
advertised
rear
backyards.
K
So
what
we
were
asking
for
is
not
just
the
three
meters
of
green
space
that
children
can't
play
in,
but
9.2
meters
for
children
to
play
in
for
people
to
take
their
dogs,
some
green
space.
That
will
be
good
for
the
people
that
are
moving
into
these
townhomes
as
well
as
the
backyards.
This
is
my
backyard.
It
floods
all
the
time.
We
have
a
really
big
flooding
issue.
Three
metres
isn't
going
to
do
it.
They're
gonna
propose
building
cisterns,
underneath
these
townhouses
that
aren't
going
to
be
maintained
or
checked.
K
So
what
we're
asking
is
when
the
city
does
go
and
fight
the
OMB
appeal
that
they
add
and
go
beyond
the
OPA.
You
just
passed,
which
I
don't
even
know,
is
possible
and
that's
to
ask
for
what's
reasonable
in
this
area,
despite
it
being
on
Lawrence
Avenue,
the
building
that
tomorrow's
showed.
You
is
actually
three
and
a
half
stories.
There
are
no
four-story
buildings
in
this
whole
area.
I
know
you
want
to
build
up
housing
around
Tran,
but
the
Lawrence
Heights
Community
Plan
is
adding
at
least
10,000
people.
K
So
it's
not
like
our
area
isn't
undergoing
intensification.
What
we're
asking
for
is
just
a
gradual
transition
to
our
homes
and
also
to
build
townhomes
on
Lawrence
Avenue
West
that
are
going
to
be
livable,
as
livable
is
what's
being
built
at
Lawrence,
Heights,
okay,
so
Fairholme
isn't
a
fancy.
Neighborhood
we've
had
to
fight
for
everything
that
we
had.
We
had
to
fight
for
storm
sewers.
We
even
had
to
fight
to
get
lights
on
the
street,
and
so
I
really
would
really
appreciate
some
consideration.
K
Thinking
about
adding
backyards
which
the
developer
had
gotten
close
to
negotiating
on,
as
well
as
the
angular
plain
measurement
I
heard
Allan's
answer,
but
in
the
OPA
it
doesn't
actually
mention
the
adjacent
properties
and
we
still
open
ourselves
up
to
having
that
angular
plane,
measured
from
a
higher
elevation
other
areas
in
Toronto.
How
this
amendment
I?
K
Don't
think
it's
fair
that
we
don't
get
it
on
fair
home,
but
we
didn't
have
streetlights
until
people
went
door
to
door
and
god
you
know,
signatures
for
street
lights,
our
last
fight
it
took
three
years
to
get
a
four-way,
stop
sign
that
we
just
got
last
year.
So
please
it's
not
a
fancy
neighborhood,
but
give
us
something.
So
we
can
protect
what
you
see
here
and
also
try
to
make
homes
that
are
livable
on
Lawrence.
Thank
you.
Okay,.
C
Yeah
I
do
I,
do
have
a
question
for
staff
because
it
is
it's
I
understand
the
difficulty
for
the
residents.
The
one
row
townhouses
that
has
just
beyond
the
contacts
plan
on
the
south
side
of
the
street
is
I.
Remember,
I,
remember
when
it
went
through,
it
was
under
councilor,
Moscow
I
think
it
goes
back
that
far
yeah,
but
the
application
was
even
before
that
and
they
argued
about
it
for
a
long
time.
C
C
A
E
A
D
Yes,
mr.
chair
through
you,
that's
that's
correct,
but
I
would
note
that
even
recommendation
to
direct
staff
to
continue
discussions
with
the
applicant
so
there's
nothing
wrong
with
adopting
the
staff
recommendation
today
and
directing
staff
to
consider
the
revisions
that
they've
just
advised
this
they're
going
to
be
submitting
and
with
a
supplementary
report
to
Council
but
in
terms
of
today,
certainly
be
better
I
think
to
have
standing
instructions
for
the
L
Pat
hearing
in
in
November.
D
A
Certainly,
I'll
move
the
recommendations
of
staff
to
essentially
proceed
on
that
track
of
opposing
this
application
and,
at
the
time,
continued
a
dialogue
with
the
applicant
to
hopefully
come
to
a
resolution.
But
if
don't
come
to
any
resolution
with
the
outstanding
matters,
at
least,
we
have
the
ability
to
stand
before
the
tribunal
later
on
in
November,
with
a
substantive
position
here.
So
I
support
and
move
the
staff
recommendation.
B
G
Like
to
thank
the
council
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
on
this
matter
on
the
proposed
development
on
the
site
of
the
Bayview
Village
Mall
and
the
seeking
direction
reports
submitted
by
the
City
Planning
staff
I
represent
the
Bayview
Shepherd
neighborhood
Alliance,
otherwise
known
as
busines
business
ents,
a
community
of
ten
condominiums
in
the
immediate
area
of
the
mall,
consisting
of
over
3500
units
and
a
population
of
about
five
to
six
thousand
people.
The
boards
of
these
condos
plus
the
two
Amica
buildings,
have
all
signed
a
letter
of
concern
regarding
this
development.
G
The
highlights
of
a
major
concerns
regarding
this
development
are
the
follows:
one
increasing
increased
traffic
from
residential
densification
occurring
in
the
Shepherd
and
Bayview
area,
which
is
already
highly
congested.
Neither
the
developer
nor
the
city
has
proposed
any
solution
to
this
very
serious
problem.
G
Second,
changes
to
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
mall
due
to
intense
densification,
three
nonconformity,
with
building
height
and
density
limits
for
the
site,
as
per
the
Sheppard
subway
corridor
plan,
for
no
provision
for
bicycle
paths.
Yet
over
800
bicycle
parking
spots,
five
potential
negative
effects
on
vital
services
such
as
schools,
hospitals,
emergency
medical
services,
fire
water
sewer
and
electricity,
and
finally
dedicated
parkland
space,
not
meeting
City
Planning
standards
and
the
loss
of
mature
trees.
G
Given
the
time
constraint,
I
shall
only
deal
with
two
of
these
issues,
which
is
density
and
height
and
I
have
other
residents
from
this
area.
Who
will
speak
to
the
other
matters?
I
will
not
quote
regulations
and
Official
Plan
numbers
or
policy
numbers,
but
all
of
my
comments
are
in
compliance
with
such
regulations
and
policies
and
mirror
those
in
the
seeking
direction
report
height.
G
Secondly,
the
surrounding
existing
buildings
near
to
the
site
and
including
those
facing
the
mall
on
the
south
side
range
at
height
from
7
to
10
story
7
to
19
stories.
I'm.
Sorry
currently,
the
tallest
building
is
28
stories,
but
this
building
is
adjacent
to
the
401
fair
distance
from
the
Sheppard
Avenue.
The
maximum
approved
height
on
the
northwest
corner
is
25
stories
and
that's
the
one
approved
by
the
OMB
recently,
whereas
the
proposed
towers
on
the
south
side
are
28
and
33
stories.
G
The
existing
19
story,
building
on
Shepherd
and
Roxbury
has
a
setback
from
the
sidewalk
of
about
a
hundred
feet
without
a
similar
setback.
The
buildings
of
the
28
and
33
stories
would
be
overpowering
for
the
pedestrians.
In
our
view,
the
application
is
not
in
harmony
with
the
height
and
architectural
treatment
of
nearby
existing
towers.
G
G
The
area
bounded
by
Steel's,
401
and
young
to
Leslie
is
undergoing
intensive
densification,
as
you
well
know,
about
40
new
buildings
are
expected
to
be
built,
resulting
12,000
new
units
which
could
increase
the
population
by
20,000
people
in
this
area,
20,000
people
we
have
seen
no
concrete
plans
from
the
city
or
the
province
to
develop
and
improve
the
infrastructure
to
accommodate
this
growth
infrastructure
items
such
as
water
sewer,
electricity,
fire,
emergency,
medical
services,
hospitals
and
schools.
In
conclusion,
the
be
SNA
agrees
with
the
city
planners.
You
know
posing
this
application
in
its
current
form.
C
M
M
I
have
to
tell
you
your
Shepherd
East
corridor
plan
is
excellent,
and
if
you
look
at
what's
happened
between
Bayview
and
Leslie
over
the
years,
you'll
see
sort
of
a
mid-rise
six
to
eight
story,
abutting
the
sidewalks
along
Sheppard,
and
then
the
density
moving
further
to
the
south
in
the
north,
as
was
mentioned,
some
large
buildings
right
up
against
the
401.
This
meets
your
avenues,
plan
for
keeping
these
avenues,
comfortable,
residential,
look
to
them
and
it
meets
the
provincial
statement
which
says
you
know
that
they
should
be
new.
M
Developments
should,
in
current,
be
encourage
conservation
of
the
local
features.
Also,
may
I
suggest
that
the
Official
Plan,
which
says
new
development,
should
relate
to
its
neighbor.
Let's
talk
about
the
neighbor,
the
neighbor
is
that
building
which
we
often
refer
to
as
the
arc,
and
it's
right
on
baby.
On
the
other
side
of
the
corner,
it's
15
stories
high
when
it
came
and
I
remember
these
days
there
was
a
proposal
for
twinning
around
the
corner.
Wrapping
the
corner,
15
stories
on
each
side.
M
I
suggest
that
that's
what
you
should
keep
you
should
get
staff
to
go
back
and
negotiate
more,
maybe
lengthen
it
out,
but
keep
it
at
a
height.
That's
reasonable!
This
site
is
the
high
point
between
York
Mills,
Yonge,
Street,
Finch
and
Leslie.
There
used
to
be
a
water
tower
because
it
was
the
high
point
it
dominates
and
to
put
a
33
and
twenty
eight
story.
Building
on
that
corner.
It
just
boggles
the
mind
and
I
really
hope
you
will
keep
to
your
official
plan
and
stay
with
the
15
stories.
M
You've
got
a
chance
to
do
it
right.
The
other
big
issue
for
me
is
the
infrastructure.
It's
been
mentioned
and
I
agree
over
20,000
new
residents.
Do
you
know
that's
the
size
of
Lindsay
or
Brockville
or
Kohlberg
or
Owen
Sound?
That's
what
we're
talking
about
between
Bayview
and
Leslie,
the
401,
and
so
we
have
to
be
concerned
about
the
infrastructure,
the
soft
infrastructure,
the
schools,
the
children.
Now
south
of
Sheppard
are
all
being
bussed
five
kilometres
away
to
go
to
school.
M
M
Think
of
the
growth
here
on
Yonge,
Street,
think
of
the
growth
on
Sheppard
on
a
Parkway
for
us,
if
peanut,
that
thank
you,
Don
Mills
and
Finch,
it's
huge
and
yet
the
hospital
hasn't
grown
there
is.
There
is
city
property
where
we
could
have
an
expansion,
but
like
the
schools,
the
province
has
to
come
up
with
the
money.
M
M
Of
course,
all
of
us
I
don't
know
whether
you
measure
the
length
of
time
I
wait
three
or
four
lights
to
go
through
that
intersection
on
a
regular
basis,
but
that's
the
way
it
is
I'm
most
concerned
about
the
sewage
treatment
we've
got
four
plants
in
this
city,
they've
been
there
for
40
years
and
look
at
the
growth
but
where's
the
money.
But
surely
there
has
to
be
thinking
about
infrastructure
and,
lastly,
I
want
to
talk
for
a
minute
about
the
parkland.
M
Do
you
know
you
have
a
policy
says
that
if
any
application
over
five
hectares
up
to
20%
of
that
land
should
go
to
park
space?
Well,
this
one's
8.69,
Hector's
20%,
that's
over
19,000
square
meters
and
we're
arguing
we
can't
even
get
them
up
to
to
the
children's
south
of
Shepherd
our
bus
to
school
and
they
come
home
to
a
condo
complex.
M
M
M
M
M
By
the
chair,
okay,
my
momma
finish
this
little
park
land
up
on
the
corner,
where
the
city
says
we
have
to
put
in
a
traffic
light
cuz,
it's
so
busy,
it's
so
small
that
your
kids
won't
be
able
to
play
there.
You
can't
swing
up
baseball,
you
have!
No,
you
can't
go
to
your
local
school
cuz.
You
have
to
be
bused
in
your
bust
home.
Where
are
these
kids
going
to
manage?
Look
at
it?
You
can't
just
look
at
this
application
on
its
own
look
at
the
park
space.
They
should
be
looking.
M
A
A
Still
have
the
amazing
passion
for
where
you
live
and
for
North,
York
and
I
congratulate
you
for
still
keeping
the
fires
burning
and
it
was
good
to
see
you
again
I'm
such
an
important
issue
in
your
community
here.
Just
wondering
have
you
had
a
copy
of
our
chief
planners
report?
Yeah
Greg
Lynn
turns
on
108
well,
I
saw.
A
You
are
basically
echoing
what
our
chief
planner
talked
about
all
of
council
meeting
last
week,
basically
saying,
if
you
think,
there's
a
lack
of
resources
for
sewers
and
Parks.
Well,
you
haven't
seen
anything
yet
because
bill
108
calls
for
a
dramatic
reduction
in
development
charges,
section
37,
section
42
by
developers,
and
then
we've
got
to
make
a
choice
between
parks
and
sidewalks
our
roads.
So
I
just
hope
that
you
I'll
send
you
a
copy
of
his
analysis
of
that,
because
it
is
frightening.
What
is
being
proposed
so
and
I
and
I
appreciate
your.
M
The
province
can't
just
push
through
oh
and
be
all
this
stuff
without
coming
up
with
the
money
to
support
it
and
that's
I,
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
say-
and
you
know
I
think
this
is
a
good
one.
It's
so
funny
that
we
came
right
after
the
four
storey
issue
over
at
the
subway
station
and
now
we're
talking
about
a
33
story
issue
over
the
subway
station.
You
know,
there's
gotta
be
some
sense
and
there's
got
to
be
the
overall
look,
so
I
agreed
the
Park
line.
M
C
N
N
People
who
come
along
that
way,
so
I
really
think
that
adding
another
stop
line
a
baby,
a
muse
and
the
additional
traffic
coming
out
of
the
mall,
which
has
to
go
along
baby
Muse
to
make
a
left
turn
to
go
south
on
on
Bayview
is
just
going
to
be
further.
It's
just
going
to
be
totally
unacceptable,
and
if
this
is
what's
called
progress,
I'm
against
this
I
believe
it
just
to
be
unacceptable
in
terms
of
other
traffic
can
issues
around
Bayview,
Village
Mall
redevelopment
and
as
a
former
logistics
and
transportation
manager.
I
have
several
concerns.
N
Both
Hawkesbury
and
AVM
use
were
designed
as
residential
streets.
They're
never
contemplated
to
have
the
additional
traffic
now
going
to
be
required.
Large
transport
trailer
trucks
cannot
make
a
proper
right
turn
onto
Bayview
EMU's
off
of
Bayview
even
now.
The
second
left
turn
lane
the
one
on
the
left
side
I've
been
in
that
Lane
several
times
and
had
to
move
my
car
back,
so
the
tractor-trailer
could
actually
make
the
turn
so
in
large.
In
baby
news
is
not
going
to
be
solving
the
problem.
N
Additional
traffic
in
the
form
of
larger
vehicles
such
as
tractor-trailer
state
school
buses,
will
now
be
routinely
using
Hawkesbury,
which
has
not
set
up
to
accommodate
such
volume
of
traffic.
I
understand
you
propose
that
the
widened
baby
amuse
will
perhaps
help
ease
the
traffic
congestion
I'm
a
little
doubtful
on
that.
What
is
planned
for
Hawkesbury?
It
needs
to
be
widened.
Also,
neither
one
of
these
streets
is
going
to
have
any
capacity
for
bike
lanes.
Well,
there
are
a
substantial
number
of
bike
parking
places
proposed
for
the
redevelopment
Housing.
N
In
terms
of
parkland,
I
think
that
even
taking
side
Jones
comment
about
the
extra
thousands
of
square
meters,
the
existing
parkland
dedicated
is
still
almost
two
thousand
meters
short
of
what
the
redevelopment
site
calls
for.
In
fact,
nineteen
nineteen
hundred
and
seventy
six
square
meters
to
be
precise,
the
thousand
thirty
six
residential
units
will
have
a
number
of
families
who
will
need
nearby
places
to
play.
The
condo
units
on
the
south
side
of
Shepard
know
that
there
is
a
lack
of
parkland
around
their
buildings.
N
N
From
my
perspective,
with
the
allotment
of
parkland,
there
will
also
be
adequate
area
to
plant
the
98
new
trees
that
are
expected
to
happen,
which
is
on
page
17,
and
that
only
allows,
if
you
max
it
right
out
about
70
square
metres
per
tree,
which
isn't
an
awful
lot
for
a
decent
sized
tree,
and
hopefully
that
provides
a
wonderful
canopy
of
shade
for
future
residents
play
under
and
enjoy.
So.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
attention.
Thank.
C
C
You
you've
just
highlighted
something
that
that
most
people,
anyone
who
stops
me
in
the
mall
or
walking
around
the
the
issue
of
large
transport
and
delivery
trucks
in
the
turning
radius.
That's
a
common
experience
of
people
are
having
that
right
now,
they're
having
a
difficulty
turning
it.
There
are
proposals
to
take
away
medians
where
they
need
to
be
and
and
deal
with
that
intersection,
but
you
won't
be
satisfied
without
real
physical,
real
time
measurement
with
a
real
large
while.
N
Unless
you're
going
to
cut
into
the
park,
I,
don't
know
how
a
little
park
at
that's
sitting
on
the
what
I'd
call
the
south
I
used
to
corner
of
being
a
muse
and
Bayview
unless
you're
gonna
cut
into
that,
you
can't
possibly
make
that
truck
turn
because
you've
got
two
left
turns
and
they've
got
another
turn
that
goes
right
up
north
on
Bayview.
So
you
have
got
four
lanes
right
there.
N
Even
taking
the
medians
out,
will
only
give
you
three
lanes
down
and
further
on
down
and
even
taking
some
of
the
space
on
the
back
you're
only
gonna
get
three
or
four
lanes
max.
You
really
need
five
lanes
to
make
that
turn
adequately
at
Bayview
coming
east
on
be
amused.
If
you're
gonna
use
like
Loblaws
when
they
bring
their
transfer
trucks
and
then
I
assume,
there's
gonna
be
more
trucking,
so
you
never
get
more
trucking
coming
into
this
site
right.
N
School
buses
are
probably
coming
in
off.
Hawkesbury
they'll
have
a
tight
turn
to
be
getting
to
the
back
end.
To
probably
pick
up
the
children
who
are
at
the
rental
apartment
building,
so
I
just
see
the
streets
are
really
not
set
up
to
manage
these
of
this
larger
vehicles
it'll
be
on
the
road.
Thank
you.
B
J
J
I
cannot
find
it
from
there,
but
for
the
city
standard
for
walk,
speed
for
the
intersection,
let's
say
baby
went
sharpen
the
city
previously
standard
is
one
going
to
second,
and
now
it's
currently
changed
to
one
meter
per
second.
So
in
this
sense,
if
somebody
is
senior,
you
really
have
to
walk
very
quick-
and
this
is
my
biggest
concern
and
I'm
sure
everybody
in
this.
J
J
J
O
We
live
almost
entirely
in
that
area
that
it's
south
of
the
Bayview
Village
Mall.
Our
complex
includes
672
units
and
34
townhomes.
Our
board
is
a
founding
member
of
the
BSN,
a
my
colleagues
on
the
board
of
directors,
and
indeed
many
of
the
residents
have
expressed
concerns
regarding
the
proposed
development
as
presented
to
the
community.
We
share
the
issues
expressed
by
others.
Our
board
has
reviewed
the
reports
regarding
the
Official
Plan
and
the
zoning
amendments
and
the
City
response,
and
for
the
most
part
we
support
the
city
response.
O
Well,
I
would
like
to
take
just
whatever
time.
I
have
and
I
know.
Some
of
my
colleagues
have
referred
to
these
things,
but
I'd
like
to
take
the
time
to
draw
your
attention
to
page
37
of
the
report
and
the
section
entitled
the
Toronto
District
School
Board
responds
personally.
My
life
work
was
spent
serving
the
children
and
youth
of
Scarborough
as
teacher
principal
and
superintendent
and
I'm.
O
The
children
who
live
in
our
communities
are
essentially
very,
very,
very
important.
We
need
to
be
investing
in
our
children,
the
designated
schools
for
the
children
and
youth
that
would
be
generated
in
the
that's
presented.
Our
4.6
four
point,
four
and
four
point:
seven
kilometers
away
from
where
these
children
will
live
all
will
be
transported,
many
of
them
by
school
bus.
O
Have
a
similar
situation
to
what
I
envisage
happening
for
the
children
who
will
live
in
the
proposed
development?
Currently
we
have
five
large
buses
picking
up
and
dropping
off
students
in
our
particular
area.
There
are
several
other.
Smaller
vehicles
also
make
stops
in
the
area.
Our
street
is
an
extension
of
Hawkesbury,
so
it's
the
same
with
the
same
construction,
the
same
regulations.
O
It's
a
community
street
school
buses
by
law,
stop
observe
the
traffic
ways
they
they
stopped
the
traffic
both
ways:
students,
wait
with
their
parents
or
caregivers
to
board
or
on
alternately
disembark,
some
caregivers
walk
to
and
from
the
designated
spots,
others
bring
their
vehicles
and
they
park
along
the
road
along
that
along
the
street.
So
you
add
a
delivery
truck
or
two,
maybe
a
waste
management
vehicle
it
perhaps
a
cement
truck
making
its
way
to
a
construction
site,
and
you
have
a
considerable
situation
twice
a
day
through
ten
months
of
the
year
on
rain.
O
We
manage
this
because
we're
more
isolated
and
because
we
work
hard
at
the
safety
of
our
children
and
that's
a
cooperation
between
the
bus
drivers,
the
staff
of
the
complexes,
the
parents
and
the
children
themselves
so
picture.
Transferring
this
to
Hawkesbury
and
Hawkesbury
is
the
one
of
on
the
eastern
side
of
the
plaza
complex.
O
Our
concerns
basically
for
the
children
who
will
be
generated,
expand
from
the
busing
situation.
Others
have
talked
about
areas
for
them
to
play.
Where
will
they
kick
a
ball?
Where
will
they
shoot
a
hoop?
Where
will
they
do
any
of
the
things
that
are
our
children
or
we
experienced
as
we
grew
up?
Where
will
they
meet
their
friends?
They
can't
go
to
their
local
school
because
it's
what
far
way
too
far
away.
O
So
we
wanted
to
bring
these
and
other
issues
before
you,
because
it's
it's
all
part
of
the
livability
I
live
near
the
top
of
one
of
our
our
condominiums,
so
I'm
not
opposed
to
condominium
life.
In
fact,
we
work
hard
at
making
our
condominium
your
community,
but
I,
don't
see
in
this
plan
is
a
way
to
do
that.
I
see
only
a
conglomeration
of
people
in
basically
a
concrete
area
with
a
complete
retail
mall,
so
respectfully
offer
those
comments
for
my
board
for
my
residents
and
for
the
BSN
a
thank
you
thank.
D
D
Those
community
workshops
were
made
up
of
a
cross-section
of
members
from
the
community.
We
had
members
of
babyyou
village
association,
PB,
Shepherd,
neighborhood
Alliance,
a
number
of
our
immediate
neighbors,
the
arc
building
baby
Mews,
the
Bayview
apartments
and
a
number
of
different
stakeholders.
D
D
We've
also
appreciate
the
engagement
of
councillor
Carol
and
her
team,
who
have
been
able
to
quickly
get
up
to
speed
on
this
file
and
have
continued
to
provide
us
with
valuable,
valuable
feedback
to
the
process
as
we're
all
where
the
application
continues
to
track
through
the
l-pad
process.
We
have
our
an
Excel
Pat
meeting,
I
believe
on
June
26,
and
we
look
forward
to
continuing
to
work
with
the
community
staff
the
counselor's
office
to
to
resolve
some
of
the
old
static
matters.
Thank
you.
B
C
Yes,
just
based
on
on
the
deputations,
where
you're
recommending
that
we
oppose
today
in
directions
that
you'll
take
back
to
the
to
the
hearing.
You
want
to
have
direction
from
Council
to
oppose,
but
I'm
wondering
if
you
wanted
to
speak
to
what
sort
of
box
were
in
now,
because
as
I
recall
prior
to
my
starting
to
represent
the
area,
what
the
what
the
deputed
appeal
to
was
the
former
OMB
and
we
watched
in
hearings
that
sort
of
turned
into
it
seemed
to
have
an
L
Pat
dynamic
to
it
is
this?
C
H
M
C
So
well
so
well,
the
appeal
was
OMB
passed.
The
appeal
was
to
that
OMB
we've
seen
a
pretty
cooperative
approach
in
pre
hearings,
but
that
was
partly
because
they
were
they
were
in
the
new
realm
sort
of
thing.
Well,
the
vote.
The
OMB
still
applied
to
this
application.
I'm
sure
other
councils
have
noted
the
same.
The
dynamic
seemed
to
seem
to
recognize
that
we're
moving
out
of
this
type
of
planning,
but
we're
right
back
there
now
with
any
future
applications.
C
D
C
C
C
C
L
Transportation
services
staff
have
indicated
they
are
accept.
They
accept
the
measures
that
were
submitted
to
the
city
for
review.
They
have.
We
have
requested
a
phasing
plan
to
identify
how
traffic
will
occur,
since
this
is
proposed
to
be
a
long
term
development
that
will
occur
in
phases,
so
additional
information
would
come
with
every
phase,
and
these
matters
have
been
accepted
by
our
engineering.
C
Q
L
C
And
if
development
goes
in,
I've
had
this
in
the
in
the
area
for
the
reefs
that
I've
represented,
where
we
prioritize
signals,
we
make
pedestrian
realm
safe
for
the
residents
in
the
area,
which
generally
means
timing
lights,
such
that
they
may
challenge
the
movement
of
cars
that
are
just
trying
to
go
straight
across
Sheppard.
If
this
much
density
goes
in,
will
those
signal
timings
that
we
need
to
make
people
safe
crossing
from
Reno
ver
to
the
to
the
north
intersection
of
Sheppard
and
Hawkesbury?
C
Well,
that
take
precedence
or
the
next
complaint
from
some
car
who
likes
to
drive
west
on
Sheppard
takes
the
timing
right
back
again.
Can
we
can
we
actually
register
with
this
timing
before
we
get
to
an
approval
situation
here,
we're
in
the
settlement
we're
agreeing
to
prioritize
those
people
live
in
the
neighborhood
being
able
to
walk
across
Sheppard.
D
N
D
A
B
A
Long
time
ago,
okay,
so
the
question
I
have
about
the
secondary
plan.
In
terms
of
did
the
secondary
plan
identify
those
two
sites
were
the
two
mixed-use
buildings
of
28
and
33
stories
are
basically
being
proposed.
What
was
in
the
secondary
plan
for
that
specific
area
where
the
two
towers
will
be
proposed
are
being
proposed?
The.
L
A
A
If
you're
going
to
consider
this
application
in
light
of
what
exists
today,
where
there's
parked
there's
a
deficiency
of
parkland,
will
you
take
into
account
as
you
deal
with
this
application?
The
fact
is
that
the
possibility
is
that,
with
bill
108
that
there's
even
going
to
be
less
requirement
for
any
park
space
dedication
by
developers
so
before
you,
you
know
deal
with
the
reality
of
this
application
with
the
ALP
at
or
the
legacy
OMB
Board,
whatever
the
heck
it
is.
A
Would
you
take
into
account
in
the
future,
there's
a
possibility
that
there
could
even
be
less
park
space
available
going
down
the
road?
So
therefore,
do
you
sort
of
blend
the
two
and
say
well,
this
is
something
that
is
going
to
have
an
incredibly
double
negative
impact
because
in
the
future
there's
going
to
be
no
park,
lands
requirements
from
a
future
development
given
108.
D
L
In
the
context
of
what
is
before
us
and
the
applicable
laws
and
policies,
we're
looking
at
what
we
have
before
us
now
and
parks
and
staff
have
indicated
that
there's
a
20%
dedication
that's
required,
and
that
is
what
city
staff
are
seeking
bill.
108
is
not
law
yet,
so
we
are
working
within
the
present-day
framework,
and
so
that
is
the
requirement
for
the
20%
dedication
and
park.
Staff
have
indicated
that
the
preference
is
that
the
entire
20%
be
provided
on-site.
L
A
There
any
way
we
could
put
forth
the
case
saying
that
we
should
be
demanding
for
more
parkland
dedication,
given
the
fact
we're
not
going
to
get
any
access
to
any
park
line
going
in
the
future,
potentially
I'm
saying
because
108
is
not
law
right
now,
but
they
do
have
a
majority
government.
So
can
we
at
least
do
that?
A
And
because
this
is
future
planning,
you
know
we're
trying
to
figure
out
what
we're
gonna
do
with
the
deficiency
of
parkland,
and
this
is
obviously
gonna
have
a
major
impact
on
the
you
know,
as
one
of
the
deputies
said
is
when
you
build
vertical
housing,
you
know
it's
not
like
single-family
homes,
where
John
King
lives.
You
need
more
parkland
because
everybody's
in
boxes
in
the
sky,
so
should
we
be
doing
something
and
dealing
with
this
application
to
protect
ourselves
against
the
future
dearth
of
parkland
going
forward.
Potentially
that's
what
I'm
trying
to
guess.
A
D
Chair
I,
don't
think
we
legally
that
there's
no
basis
for
requiring
this
application
to
provide
more
parkland
than
then
they're
legally
required
to
do
said.
You
can
always
use
its
reserve
funds
for
parks
that
they
collect
from
other
sites
to
buy
more
park
land,
but
they
wouldn't
be
I,
don't
see
any
legal
basis
for
requiring
this
applicant
to
provide
more
than
they
legally
have
to
on
on
this
application.
B
C
You,
mr.
chair,
so
this
is
similar
to
the
the
application
we
were
looking
at
before
in
that
staffer
seeking
direction
to
continue
to
oppose
when
they
go
to
the
next
hearing
and
I
just
wanted
to
take
a
minute
to
thank
the
community
for
really
doing
a
great
job
of
outlining
for
you,
the
the
issues
that
are
outstanding
still.
C
C
C
Right
now,
they'll
have
to
make
a
big
behavior
change
if
this
becomes
the
major
road
that
the
trucks
turned
into
and
then
go
into
a
delivery.
This
this
becomes
a
whole
different,
neighborhood
route,
and
so
all
of
those
things
still
need
to
be
addressed
missing
brought
up
the
the
issues
around
pedestrian
crossing
standards,
the
volumes.
Now
we
should
at
least
pat
ourselves
on
the
back.
For
one
thing,
the
volumes
of
pedestrians
crossing
Shepard
from
the
Southside
mean
that
we
have
done
some
good
plenty
in
the
past.
C
There
are
a
huge
number
of
pedestrians
in
this
neighborhood
and
so
to
demand
that
we
that
we
take
special
measures
for
those
pedestrians
anytime
of
the
day,
because
I
live
east
of
the
mall
I
Moton
Hawkesbury
to
get
back
on
Shepard
a
generally
Park
at
the
back,
because
that's
where
the
Starbucks
is
so
when
I'm
coming
out
that
road
I
always
have
to
be
careful.
There
are
pedestrians
there
I,
never,
never
envisioned,
making
that
same
turn.
C
C
C
They're
asking
us
for
this
application
just
doesn't
happen
to
be
there
yet
and
so
dealing
with
how
school
kids
are
going
to
get
in
and
out
pedestrians
getting
to
the
subway
are
gonna
get
in
and
out,
and
people
who
choose
to
drop
their
family
off
of
the
subway
are
gonna
get
in
and
out
really
have
to
be
addressed
before
we're
ready
to
have
a
minutes
of
settlement
to
take
to
a
hearing
so
I.
Thank
you
for
your
patience
and
listening
to
the
residents,
even
though
I
know
you're
going
to
agree
with
them
adopt
the
opposition.
A
Yes,
I
think
councillor
Carol
really
made
an
important
point.
This
development
really
has
citywide
impact
because
there
are
malls
across
the
city
that
are
undergoing
the
same
type
of
pressure
and
I
happened
to
represent
York
Dale
and
if
you
want
to
see
them
all
in
transition-
and
we
just
approved
three
I-
think
30
storey
buildings
across
the
street
in
the
Old
Hall
the
insight
on
the
east
side
of
Dufferin.
So
you
try
crossing.
A
You
talked
about
baby
you
and
Shepard
to
try
crossing
Dufferin,
401
Wilson
anytime,
a
day
or
night.
You
can't
you
cannot
cross
the
street.
You
have
to
basically
circumvent
and
go
all
the
way
around,
or
else
you
risk
your
life
and
meanwhile,
Yorkdale
is
proposing
major
developments
that
will
include
residential
towers.
A
More
retail
I
mean
it's
a
wonderful
mall,
it's
the
most
profitable
mall
in
Canada.
So
what
goes
on
in
York
Dale's
future
plan
is
going
to
have
a
dramatic
impact,
never
mind
pedestrian
safety
in
terms
of
impact
on
services,
parkland
and
right
now,
as
I
said
I,
dare
you
to
try
to
get
near
Yorkdale
by
car
by
a
bicycle
about
bicycle?
Forget
it?
You
can't
do
it
so
I
think
what
happens
here
baby.
You
is
very
important
because
there
is
a
secondary
plan
in
place
and
I
know.
A
Imagine
what
we're
going
to
be
in
for
at
Yorkdale
and
coming
down
to
the
future.
So
what
happens
here
and
the
decisions
are
made
by
the
tribunal,
whatever
it's
called
these
days
in
the
interim,
is
going
to
really
have
an
impact
on
what
decisions
are
made
in
York,
Dale's
and
other
malls
going
forward.
So,
that's
why
it's
important
that
city
staff
take
a
strong
position
trying
to
defend
the
secondary
plan
and
because,
as
councillor
Carroll
said,
this
has
significant
impact
on
many
other
malls
and
commercial
centers
right
across
the
city.
A
So
it
is
daunting,
but
I
think
it's
critical
that
we
try
to
protect
our
secondary
plans
and
that's
why
we're
anxiously
awaiting
for
the
Midtown
and
focus
plan
that
we
spent
eight
years
on
right,
councillor,
Robinson
that
the
province
is
supposed
to
sign
off
on,
but
we'll
hope
anyways.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
C
R
Also
hoping
to
have
better
clarity
and
transparency
from
parks
with
respect
to
timeline
and
guidelines
for
the
eventual
twenty-one
cell
fail
drive
project
I
was
not
consulted
on
this
demolition
plan
or
advised
of
it
by
the
developer,
even
though
they
communicate
that
I
would
be
the
demolition
permit
and
conditions
outlined
are
extremely
vague
and
don't
alleviate
any
of
my
safety
and
privacy
concerns
as
a
most
immediate
neighbor
to
the
proper
to
the
project.
These
concerns
have
been
noted
numerous
times
to
concert
and
parks
over
the
last
several
months.
R
With
regards
the
demolition
permit,
it
outlines
only
the
following
conditions
must
be
met
for
option
three:
a
construction
fence
to
be
erected,
debris
and
rubble
to
be
removed,
then
to
place
down
soil
and
backfill
any
holes.
Even
though
I
met
with
parks
and
concert,
March
5th
and
March
13th
to
have
conversations
about
this
property,
this
project,
nothing
came
out
of
it.
R
I
still
have
no
line
of
sight
or
feedback
on
how
they
will
leave
a
my
concerns,
even
though
I
asked
them
both
were
form
of
outlines,
and/or,
a
proposal
to
action
items
pertaining
to
the
property
prior
to
demolition.
They
have
asked
for
more
time
to
get
back
to
me.
In
addition,
I
have
no
clarity
on
timeline.
R
Next
steps
will
I
be
living
next
to
a
vacant
piece
of
land
for
2,
3,
4
or
5
years,
because
I
would
far
rather
live
next
to
a
vacant
home
until
there
is
a
plan
in
place
and
I,
don't
think
anyone
would
want
to
live
next
to
a
vacant
piece
of
land
with
no
plans
in
sight.
This
vacant
piece
of
land
has
the
prospect
of
becoming
a
landfill
mud
Park,
for
what
could
be
the
long
term
so
again.
R
Another
reason
why
I'm
not
sure
why
this
is
being
pushed
through
future
planning
is
lacking
right
now,
I
truly
feel
like
the
card
is
pretty
being
put
in
front
of
the
horse,
and
things
were
being
rushed
so
that
developer,
move
on
the
developer
can
move
on
from
this
until
further
planning
has
been
put
into
place,
there's
no
rush
to
have
this
property
torn
down.
In
my
opinion,
the
current
building
presents
no
safety
concerns
and
is
not
housing
homeless
people.
R
There
is
still
a
lot
of
work
that
needs
to
be
done
to
ensure
mutually
beneficial
project
here
and
I.
Believe
that,
should
you
approve
this
demolition
permit
both
concert
and
parks
engagement
with
myself,
the
homeowner
will
be
negatively,
impacted
and
deteriorate.
It's
important
that
we
keep
these
parties
engaged
and
concerned
about
the
impact
this
property
will
have
to
the
immediate
neighbors,
also
I,
believe
refusing
this
demolition
plan
will
put
a
sense
of
urgency
under
the
developer
and
Parks
to
start
engaging
a
more
meaningful
and
well-thought-out
planning
conversations.
I
will
finish
off
with
these
last
thoughts.
R
I
know
I'm
the
little
guy
in
this
situation,
and
this
has
been
tough
for
me
so
far
to
be
honest,
but
it's
also
important
that
I
stick
up
for
what's
right
and
I
know
with
your
support
here.
This
would
be
a
huge
step
in
ensuring
a
more
solid,
detailed
and
well
thought-out
demolition
and
action
plan.
Moving
forward,
I
can
promise
that
again.
I
will
reiterate
that
this
project
should
have
a
positive
impact
to
all
stakeholders,
including
myself,
as
the
immediate
neighbor
living
within
one
foot
of
this
property
line.
R
I'm
really
hoping
and
pleading
that
you
select
option
1
or
defer,
and
let's
encourage
further
conversations
with
myself
parks
in
concert
I'm
all
for
this
project
and
I
think
it
will
be
fantastic
but
also
know,
there's
a
lot
of
planning
that
still
needs
to
be
completed,
there's
more
time,
more
effort
that
needs
to
be
allocated
for
myself
parks
and
concert
to
ensure
again
a
mutually
well
planned
and
enjoyed
project
for
all
stakeholders.
I,
just
don't
want
to
be
left
with
no
voice
and
supporting
me
here
today.
You
will
give
me
that
voice.
B
Q
Mr.
chair,
what
I'm
gonna
recommend
to
counsel
is
that
we
do
defer
this
to
our
next
NYCC
meeting.
For
two
reasons,
you've
heard
some
of
the
arguments
made
by
the
deputy,
but
also
the
Leeside
Memorial
community
gardens
arena
are
not
fully
aware
of
this
proposal
and
I'm
meeting
with
them
actually
tonight
this
evening
at
7:00
p.m.
to
discuss
it.
So
if
you
would
be
open
to
that,
I'd
like
to
defer
this
item
for
one
month,
okay,.
B
O
B
F
B
D
N
D
D
B
D
B
D
B
P
B
B
D
D
B
D
D
L
D
B
B
B
Yes,
that's
fine,
so
we're
gonna
defer
defer
to
the
next.
Our
scheduled
North,
York,
Community
Council,
meeting
I'm
going
to
be
I,
don't
know
whether
you're
the
homeowner
or
an
interested
party
I'm
going
to
be
visiting
the
site
and
I
would
strongly
recommend.
We
do
that
or
this
is
going
to
be
declined.
B
A
S
A
C
S
L
Good
morning,
Council
I
when
I
was
on-site,
the
actual
material
and
the
structural
integrity
of
the
actual
fence
was
called
into
question.
At
the
time
of
my
inspection,
the
gate
that
led
into
the
pool
enclosure
area
wasn't
structurally
sound
into
the
point
where
it
wasn't
able
to
close
securely
and
safely.
C
L
C
C
Thank
You
mr.
chair
councillor,
Cole,
is
a
recent
addition
to
our
community
council.
So
he
wouldn't
understand
why
you
were
saying
here:
we
go
I'm
going
to
move
recommendation
number
one
I
want
it
to
be
voted
on
by
recorded
vote
and
I'm.
Sorry
if
the
counselor
was
was
wanting
to
move
number
two
unanimously
this.
This
is
exactly
why
we
have
a
pool
enclosure,
bylaw,
there's
really
no
point
in
this
fence.
Well,
III!
C
That
looks
like
that,
and
this
fence
makes
that
possible
every
winter
for
the
current
owner
and
for
whoever
else
owns
it
afterwards,
and
our
job
in
adopting
pool
enclosures
is
to
adopt
enclosures
who
will
save
any
child
who
lives
there
now
or
in
future
owners?
That's
our
job
in
creating
bylaws
and
enforcing
them,
and
so
I'm
going
to
move
recommendation.
One
and
I
ask
for
a
recorded
vote.
Thank
You.
A
A
B
C
On
a
point
of
order,
like
there
is
a
procedural
and
policy
reason
why
staff
are
required
to
offer
an
option
to
that,
that
would
at
least
be
safe
and
protect
their
own
liability,
and-
and
this
is
awkward,
I
I-
think
on
a
point
of
order.
We
have
to
explain
the
overall
procedure
of
why
they
are
bound
to
offer
an
option
to
in
the
report,
even
though
they're
quite
clearly
not
ambiguous
about
how
they
feel
about
the
fans.
C
B
The
clerk
clerk
makes
a
good
point.
It
was.
It
was
discussed
prior
prior
to
your
entry
entry
into
the
room.
But,
however,
however,
if
you
want
to
go
back
to
questions
for
staff,
I
can
deviate
procedure
and
we
can.
We
can
do
that.
These
are
always
tricky
messy
situations
and
I
don't
and
me,
the
local
councillor
and
next
community
council
meeting
I'm
going
to
be
fist
facing
a
fence
exemption
for
a
pool
as
well.
C
L
The
position
of
municipal
licensing
and
standards,
when
its
relation
to
any
type
of
fence
exemption
is
always
to
take
the
position
that,
because
the
the
requirements
of
the
bylaw
indicate
the
the
sections
of
the
bylaw,
we
take
the
position
that
it's
against
the
bylaw
right.
So
at
which
point
in
time,
our
position
is
always
that
the
applicant
is
against
the
bylaw.
So
therefore
that
would
be
our
first
position
in
relation
to
safety
and
other
matters.
L
L
Our
position
at
that
point
in
time
is
that
the
the
liability
is
then
on
the
council
in
order
to
provide
what
they
believe.
They
would
like
to
see
going
forward
with
this
fence
exemption,
at
which
point
in
time
it
goes
against
what
our
department
stands
by,
because
we
are,
the
individual
is
enforcing
the
bylaw.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank.
B
Yes,
Carol
I
I
have
a
couple
of
questions
as
well.
Now,
when
you
were
speaking
earlier,
you
focused
a
lot
on
the
latching
system
and
and
the
gate
should
the
should
the
request
be
denied.
Would
the
owner
be
required
to
redo
the
gate
and
the
latching
system
or
the
whole
thing
comes
down
and
has
to
be
rebuilt?
According
to
code,
the.
L
Fence
enclosure
as
a
whole,
3
sides
of
the
fence
enclosure
for
the
pool
are
in
compliance.
The
only
major
question
is
the
fourth
fence,
which
is
the
enclosure
leading
towards
the
dwelling
itself,
which
is
where
the
the
requirements
are
in
terms
of
the
height,
the
self
closing
self
latching
device,
the
materials
and
the
structural
integrity.
B
L
They
would
actually
have
to
install
what
was
approved
in
the
original
drawings,
which
would
have
been
a
four
foot
1.2
meter,
either
board
on
board
fence
or
a
wrought
iron
fence
or
glass,
and
at
which
point
in
time
they
would
meet
the
material
requirements
at
that
point
in
time
if
they
installed
those
particular
materials
correctly.
The
structural
integrity
should
be
intact
in
order
for
the
gate
to
be
self
closing
self
latching,
as
well
as
lockable.
So.
B
L
Would
basically
be
our
our
position
number
one
where
the
what
is
existing
there
is
not
permitted.
Therefore,
staff
would
then
enforce
the
pool
enclosure
part
of
the
fence
by
law,
as
is
requiring
them
to
put
a
minimum
four
foot
fence
with
the
self
closing
self
latching
device,
as
well
as
structural
integrity.
So
that
would
be
where
our
position
would
be.
B
A
L
What
they
would
be
told
is
what
you
see
in
the
photos
would
have
to
be
torn
out
and
they
have
to
put
down
what
is
required
of
the
bylaw.
So
your
aye
there
would
be
no
amendments
to
the
actual
section
because
in
this
particular
set
of
circumstances,
we're
saying
what
is
there
is
not
permitted
to
be
there
so
therefore
going
forward.
They
have
to
remove
everything
there
and
put
down
what
is
required
of
the
bylaw
okay.
B
B
B
B
A
B
D
D
Said
absolutely
talked
to
the
iron
builder
company
fence.
They
said
no
problem,
they'll
be
they're,
conforming
to
divide
city,
we
put
him
in.
These
are
six-foot
iron,
solid
right
on
the
house,
they're
installed
permanently,
and
then
we
had
the
inspection
and
we
were
told.
Oh,
they
changed
the
rules.
Mid-Year.
These
are
no
longer
valid.
C
E
D
D
B
C
S
No
we're
not
in
essence,
and
the
there
was
an
understanding.
There
was
a
memo
from
our
director
that
was
actually
rescinded
last
year
and
that
that
direction
was
at
for
a
limited
time
was
that
we
were
allowing
these
type
of
gates.
We
had.
We
had
a
challenge
on
that
from
our
legal
department
who
led
to
that
memo
being
rescinded
and
as
such
now
we're
consistent
on
the
fourth
fence
of
a
complete
separation
between
the
dwelling
and
a
swimming
pool
itself.
S
S
C
S
A
S
Certainly
so
there
was
some
the
by
design.
This
fourth
fence
is
quite
restrictive
on
swimming
pool
designs,
so
we
were
getting
a
lot
of
pool
companies
and
home
owned
that
wish
to
build
this
type
of
gate
by
putting
up
a
metal
gate
across
the
exterior
of
a
house,
and
it
was
looked
on
it
that
we
would
accept
those
as
long
as
the
gate
was
built
properly
in
lieu
of
having
a
separate
fourth
fence.
S
S
Think
that's
exactly
what's
happened,
I
think
they've,
they've
taken
some
advice
from
and
these
pool
contractors
are
building
these
things
all
the
time
they've
taken,
advise
that
this
is
what
the
city
will
permit,
but
unbeknown
to
them,
the
this
has
been
rescinded
and
we're
now
sticking
rigidly
to
the
letter
of
the
bylaw.
Yes,.
S
S
S
A
A
Decide
to
have
the
homeowner
having
to
comply
with
building
a
new
fence,
given
that
it
wasn't
really
his
fault
and
he
did
things
in
good
faith.
I
think
and
on
the
other
hand,
I've
got
the
conundrum
about
the
safety
issue,
as
we
all
do
like
the
previous
item,
so
I,
just
I
would
like
to
essentially
defer
this
item
and
I
would
like
to
visit
the
site
and
and
talk
to
staff
by
law
enforcement
here
proper
standards
before
make
this
decision,
because
it's
not
an
easy
decision.
You
can
see
on
both
sides
here.
Thank
you.
B
D
B
D
D
A
B
P
Thank
you
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
David
Brown
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
the
owners
of
the
property
at
forty
four
at
Glen
Allen.
The
application
before
council
is
to
ask
for
exemption
from
the
site
by
the
fence
by
law,
with
respect
to
the
height
of
the
fence
along
what
is
the
rear
property
line
here
and
also
the
height
of
the
fence
along
the
Glen
Allen
exposure
of
the
property
or
flank
is
yard
along
here
and
that's
the
fence
in
this
area.
P
Here,
we've
asked
for
relief
from
the
byline
and
discussions
with
staff
have
determined
that,
because
of
the
topography
of
the
property
that
the
application
for
relief
makes
sense,
this
is
looking
in
the
rear
yard
if
the
property,
the
subject
property
is
here.
This
is
the
neighboring
property
at
forty
two,
and
you
can
see
that
there's
quite
a
change
in
topography
between
the
two
yards,
we're
proposing
to
install
a
fence
along
this
property
boundary
here
and
in
doing
so
we're
asking
for
relief
from
the
height
of
the
fence,
restricted
by
the
bylaw.
P
Fog
Rafi
is
that
their
driveway
slopes
down
to
Glen
Allen
and
it's
quite
high
up
where
the
garages
so
coming
down
that
driveway
the
elevated
height
of
the
driveway
over
the
fence-
and
this
is
approximately
the
location
of
the
property
line.
This
is
City
Boulevard.
It's
just
around
20
feet
in
depth.
The
sight
line
down
that
and
I
apologize
when
these
photos
were
taken,
there's
the
tree
hoarding,
which
obviously
wouldn't
be
there.
The
johnny-on-the-spot,
the
tractor
and
the
dump
truck
would
not
be
there
in
a
normal
situation
and
it's
that
sight
line.
P
P
Obscured
any
sight
lines
along
the
street
and
there
was
always
a
certain
amount
of
comfort.
If
you
will
in
that
there
was
a
20
foot,
Boulevard
that
when
you're
coming
down
that
driveway,
you
had
a
good,
clear
sight
line
along
Glen
Allen.
It
is
just
one
house
up
from
the
corner,
so
it's
not
as
if
there's
a
considerable
amount
of
through
traffic
that
is
moving
at
a
great
velocity
through
that
area.
It
would
be
people
just
turning
onto
the
street
that
would
see
you'd
be
looking
for
and
watching
as
they
come
around
the
corner.
P
T
First
of
all,
my
name
is
Frank.
Good
morning
good
afternoon,
I've
lived
at
this
residence
for
45
years,
since
I
was
five
years
old
and
I
plan
to
stay
here
for
the
rest
of
my
life.
I
know
the
neighborhood
inside-out
I
grew
up.
I
went
to
school
in
the
neighborhood
I've
been
here
for
45
years,
I'm
married
with
three
children.
My
children
are
14
13
and
8.
We
have
one
dog
we're
active
in
the
community.
We
spend
lots
of
times
outdoors.
T
We
love
the
tranquil
feel
of
Lawrence
Park
and
my
two
older
children
will
be
driving,
probably
well
within
the
next
two
years
my
children
play
in
the
street.
They
bike.
They
learn
to
ride
a
bike
as
I
did
on
the
street
and
they
love
to
walk
our
dog
and
spend
time
outside
all
year
long.
Our
main
concern
about
this
proposed
offense
is
safety.
That
is
not
20
feet
that
is
inside
of
18
feet.
T
Anything
within
the
2.4
meters
allowance-
that's
2
meters,
it's
not
transparent,
makes
people
children,
animals
vulnerable,
walking
through
that
that
that
area
under
that
city,
tree
Glenallen
road,
is
a
foot
way
to
Blythewood
school
and
Lawrence
Park
as
it's
not
a
through
Street
like
dollars.
Therefore,
a
lot
of
people
walk
on
it.
T
Dogs
nannies
with
strollers
elderly,
you
name
it.
People
are
on
the
street
from
morning
to
afternoon
tonight
and
dogs
do
their
business
under
that
tree.
It's
the
last
city
tree
on
the
lot.
By
the
way
the
owners
have
destroyed
every
single
other
tree,
they've
also
cut
into
that
tree
protection
when
that's
clearly
states
not
to
but,
however,
it's
it's
city,
property
and
people
walk
their
dogs.
Go
there,
it's
very
important
to
us
in
order
to
clear
sight
lines
as
per
the
bylaw
in
that
area.
T
We
discussed
before
the
meeting,
yes,
possibly
on
the
turn,
1.5
meters,
which
is
5
feet
with
18
inches
of
lattice.
Well,
if
that's
the
case,
we
would
ask
that
no
shrubbery
grow
into
that
18
inches
of
lattice.
Otherwise
you
might
as
well
put
a
2
point:
2
meter
fence
there
enclosed
corner
so
anyway,
the
building
next
door.
It's
been
humid.
If
they
continue
to
put
concrete,
they
continue
to
build
more
walls.
There's
been
no
communication
of
what
they're
building.
Maybe
it's.
T
None
of
our
business
they've
dropped
the
feet
to
drop
the
grade
and
that
property
I
can't
say
for
sure
I'm,
not
a
professional.
That
looks
like
three
feet,
so
they
talked
about
privacy,
we're
saying
a
five
meter.
A
1.5
meter
fence
is
five
feet,
plus
you're
three
feet:
lower,
that's
more
than
enough
space
for
for
privacy
44.
The
interesting
thing
is
they
call
this
their
side
lot
on
a
technicality,
their
address
and
their
front
doors
on
Glenallen,
but
they're
calling
this
their
side
lot.
T
Our
home,
as
this
gentleman
mentioned,
is
one
house
in
from
the
corner
of
Danes
wood,
where
there's
no
stop
signs.
I've
grown
up
here.
Cars
whip
around
that
corner,
especially
teenagers,
driving
the
car
they
whip
around
that
corner.
So
when
my
kids
are
biking
down
or
scootering
down
the
driveway
or
a
ball
rolls
down
or
my
dog
runs
down,
you
have
to
be
careful
when
I
back
or
I
Drive
out
or
my
kids
when
they
start
driving
out,
you
have
to
be
extra
careful.
As
per
the
bylaw.
You
need
excellent
sight
lines.
T
We
hope
the
council
agrees
that
this
offense
should
be
built
as
per
the
city
bylaw,
and
it's
crucial
to
take
every
precaution
to
make
everybody
and
everything
is
safe
as
possible.
But
my
other
point
is
neighborhood
character.
I
know
the
neighborhood,
wouldn't
all
due
respect
the
neighbors
moving
in
don't
I've
been
there
all
my
life
Lawrence
Park
has
that
country
feel
it's
full
of
trees.
It's
full
of
natural
boundaries.
There's
more
people
walking
on
the
street,
it's
full
of
beautiful
gardens.
T
You
don't
see
a
2-meter
fence.
Besides
someone
else's
driveway,
that's
not
their
own.
It's
just
not
there.
My
neighbor
across
the
street,
adjacent
to
these,
the
new
neighbors
wrote,
wrote
a
letter
that
the
council
has
saying
he's.
Had
five
new
houses
built
around
him,
every
one
of
the
new.
No
owners
have
worked
with
him
to
make
natural
boundaries.
T
Q
T
That
city
tree
is
three
feet
higher
than
the
rest
of
their
property.
We've
we've
dealt
with
this
for
two
years:
a
porta
potti
to
the
left
of
our
driveway
and
and
I.
Don't
think
the
homeowners
are
very
understanding
of
the
fact
that
my
wife
and
I
covered
in
dust,
our
kids
are
playing
sports
on
or
playing
on
the
weekend
outside
and
strangers
are
using
a
port-a-potty
right
there
and
it's
constant
noise
with
7:01
to
5:00
p.m.
for
two
years.
Okay,.
I
Hi
I'm,
Tracy,
Panos
and
I
am
Frank's
wife.
I
just
wanted
to
speak
about
the
adverse
impacts
to
us
with
this
fence.
So
first
and
I
wasn't
gonna
bring
this
up,
but
my
main
concern.
What
am
I,
not
my
main,
but
one
of
my
main
concerns
is
safety,
so
I
won't
be
able
to
see
kids
or
animals
walking
passable
and
through
that
Boulevard
in
which
they
do
like
I
know
it's
city,
property
and
people
say
well.
You
like
you,
can
back
out
and
you
have
the
room
to
the
road,
but
I'm
parked
right
there.
I
So
someone
walks
across
I
can't
see
them.
I
can't
see
a
dog
or
a
child.
The
other
thing
about
safety,
and
this
is
more
so
affecting
our
neighborhood.
Because
of
them
there
were
two
attempted
carjacking
yesterday
on
our
street
and
there
was
also
two
break-ins.
So
I
belong
to
the
Lord's
Park.
They
send
us
all
the
emails
about
all
these
things
that
are
happening.
The
neighborhood
watch,
sorry
I'm,
nervous
I.
I
Just
my
first
thought
with
a
six
foot,
six
fence
beside
me
beside
my
car
is
anyone
could
stand
behind
it
and
it
gets
me
and
that's
what
they
sent
out
in
this
neighborhood
watch.
What
burglars
look
for
high
fences,
overgrown
trees-
and
you
know
what
I
get
I
would
at
6:00
5:30
6:00
in
the
morning
with
my
daughter
to
take
her
to
swimming
I.
Don't
I,
don't
need
that
extra
stress
of
wondering,
if
someone's
out
there
and
for
the
look
of
what
our
neighborhood
would
look
like.
I
We
have
beloved
like
the
look
of
trees,
now
we'll
be
looking
at
a
board
fence,
and
every
single
tree
has
been
taken
out
with
the
exception
of
the
one
tree.
That's
left,
I
I
called
the
city
for
the
tree
that
was
left
there
because
there
was
a
hose
wrapped
around
it
with
the
water
draining
onto
the
tree,
and
my
concern
was
yes.
I
did
call
this
city
because
my
concern
was
that
city
was
gonna.
That
tree
was
gonna,
die
as
well
and
possibly
fall
on
our
driveway.
So
that's
that's
how
it
affects
us.
I
It's
it's
been
emotional,
because
we've
been
dealing
with
this
for
quite
some
time
now
and
had
they
come
to
us
at
the
beginning
and
tried
to
work
with
us,
we
would
have
been
more
than
happy
to
work
with
them.
Instead
of
bringing
us
a
drawing
of
a
fence
and
saying
this
is
our
15-foot
fence
that
the
city
wants
us
to
do,
but
we're
not
going
to
do
that
to
you
and
then
it
just
kept
changing
from
there
so
that
that's?
I
O
As
well
is
the
yellow
area
at
the
top
shows
that
long
dollars,
they're
all
15,
meter
lots
so
they're
good,
wide
light
so
on
this
20
meter.
Lots
in
fact
the
subject:
property
44
is
almost
22
meters
wide,
and
so
you
get
that
Lawrence
Park
solution
when
you're
looking
at
things
where
people
sort
of
do
a
lot
of
their
privacy
with
landscaping
rather
than
building
walls.
O
So
generally,
the
green
dotted
streets
are
where
you
see
a
lot
of
people
walking
and
the
like,
and
so
that's
where
we're
located
here
so
as
much
as
there's
less
traffic,
if
getting
out
of
your
driveway,
you
do
have
to
be
careful,
as
you
saw
on
the
photograph
that
quite
often
there's
a
lot
of
people
on
the
street.
The
these
photographs
part
and
the
reflection
they're
all
I
want
is
provide
here
with
some
examples
of
streetscape.
So
we
see
that
yes,
there's
a
lot
of
green
landscaping
and
shrubberies
etc.
O
There
are
two
examples
here:
the
middle
left
and
that's
a
fence
that
you
can
see
a
step
back
because
it
was
near
the
corner
of
Street
keeping
a
view
line
good
there.
The
bottom
left
one
is
actually
sort
of
the
bad
boy.
That's
fence
is
built
right
on
the
city
property
for
the
first
pillar
and
a
half
in.
O
So
that's
not
a
good
example,
but
when
you
look
at
all
the
other
pictures
all
these
houses,
there
are
no
fences
in
the
front
yards
between
houses
and
that's
very
much
the
character
of
Lawrence,
Park
and
again
you'll
find
even
in
backyards.
People
will
have
very
low
fence
as
many
cases,
not
necessarily
here
and
then
they'll
use
landscaping
so
that
they
have
privacy,
but
they
get.
You
know
it's
a
view
of
the
open
space
and
the
rears.
O
My
point
in
this
one
is
just
to
say:
here's
the
house
and
south
is
Lynn
Allen,
that's
where
they
show
on
the
drawing
that's
the
entry
side
of
the
house,
so
that's
in
a
sense,
truly
their
front
yard.
Although
on
the
right-hand
side,
that's
the
the
side
street,
which
is
known
as
the
front
for
the
fencing
purposes,
so
at
the
back,
this
fence
is
referred
to
as
a
rear
yard
fence
between
the
properties
along
here.
O
Okay-
and
if
this
were
the
front
yard
here,
they
would
actually
be
subject
to
a
1.2
meter
requirement
maximum
for
a
fence,
but
because
it's
addressed
here,
although
every
way
it
truly
is
oriented
on
this
side,
you
know
any
height
gets
to
be
a
problem
in
terms
of
when
you
look
at
the
whole
streetscape.
This
is
just
showing
the
house
on
the
back
yard
under
construction.
O
You've
seen
this
already,
you
can
see
the
height
of
the
retaining
wall
on
the
upper
left
and
then
stepped
down
with
the
pool
and
the
pool
undercuts
again
the
angle
of
repose
of
the
foundation.
So
there's
some
problems.
This
is
showing
before
the
fence
got
built
and
I.
Think
we've
looked
at
this
already,
but
here
it's
showing
the
difference
in
height
and
as
you
come
back
here,
it
gets
be
higher.
So
it's
the
five
foot,
four
height
difference
in
height
between
grades,
so
you
work
with
average
grade
for
this
stuff.
O
The
blue
lines
here
are
showing
what
the
problematic
areas
here
we're
you
know,
this
must
be
transparent
by
the
street.
I
won't
go
into
too
much
detail
on
that
now.
The
fencing
is
actually
over
the
weekend
got
built
all,
except
for
the
last
bit
to
the
right,
and
these
are
the
actual
height
showing
and
now
they
talk
about
this
thing,
stepping
up
at
1.5
meters,
above
the
height
of
my
clients,
driveway
in
actuality
and
the
far
right,
they're,
actually
at
one
point
five
two,
and
they
still
have
one
board
to
go
on
the
tops.
O
But
ultimately,
you
come
down
in
my
conclusion.
The
letter
that
I
put
into
you
about
you
know
that
it
should
be
transparent
at
the
street
should
be
low
and
then
my
very
last
paragraph
is
quite
frankly,
I
do
think
that
it
would
be
best
at
the
my
client
and
the
development
for
the
next
door.
Word
I'd
sit
down
work
out
a
solution
for
this
and
bring
it
back
to
Council,
but
I
cannot
recommend
that
they
should
have
a
solid
fence
in
that
two
point,
four
meter
distance
back
from
the
road.
B
That's
one
here:
I
have
a
question
for
you.
So
this
is
your
letter
with
these
pictures.
Here,
yes
and
I
see
some
guy
in
a
tracksuit
putting
up
a
board,
it
looks
like
the
front
of
the
house.
It
looks
like
the
house
in
question
is
under
construction,
so
I
don't
know
what
I'm
looking
at
here.
This
looks
like
like,
like
construction
hoarding
or
something
I,
don't
know
whether
there's
a
tree
protection
zone
around
the
tree
in
the
ground
there.
This.
O
B
D
I
My
name
is
Maria.
This
is
Chris
husband
and
wife
and
were
the
owners
of
44
Glen
Allen.
We
wanted
to
express
our
concerns
and
tell
you
a
little
bit
about
the
history
of
the
lot.
We
are
the
third
owners
under
the
development
that
purchased
it
to
live
here,
because
the
other
sellers
that
had
approved
Lots
found
it
difficult
to
work
with
42
Glenallen,
and
we
were
actually
warned
when
buying
the
property
that
there
was
a
history
of
a
difficult
individual
that
lives
next
door.
Having
said
that,
the
typography
of
our
lot
is
very
interesting.
I
It
has
very
low
high
points.
So
when
we
did
design
the
house,
it's
designed
to
be
a
residence
that
are
my
in-laws
Chris's
parents
can
move
into
who
are
in
walkers,
and
so
we
needed
a
flat
residence
which
addresses
the
reason
why
the
design
is
the
way
it
is
because
they
will
be
at
times
living
with
us.
We
we
live
in
a
neighborhood
that
doesn't
have
sidewalks.
We
live
in
a
neighborhood
that
has
you
know
that
doesn't
have
the
sidewalks.
I
We
also
bought
a
lot
that
had
a
lot
of
obstructions
which
are
coming
to
the
concerns
of
our
neighbors.
We,
at
the
end
of
the
day
just
want
a
secure
lot.
You
know,
Tracy,
our
neighbor
just
spoke
about
the
individuals
that
were
affected
yesterday
with
with
the
concerns
of
security.
They
were
actually
my
friends
that
were
affected
on
the
street
and
we
know
that
they
were
trying
to
jump
people's
backyards
by
having
a
clear
fence.
Looking
into
our
yard.
We
have
two
young
children.
We
have
been
you
know
affected
by
by
robbery
in
the
past.
I
You
know
we
have
neighbors
that
continuously
look
over
our
yard,
which
we're
fine
with,
and
we
understand
the
lot
and
the
topography,
but
to
have
somebody
staring
at
us
and
to
have
you
know.
People
who
walk
by
and
and
have
no
security
at
all
is
something
that
we
think
is
unreasonable
and
we've
been
dealing
with
unreasonable
issues
all
along
the
way.
Yes,
there's
tree
protection
around
that
tree,
we've
respected
it
along
the
way.
It
did
grow
an
inch
over
the
two
years
of
our
built,
and
it's
now
you
know
you
know,
we've
addressed
it.
D
Picture
shows
I,
guess
the
eastward
view
from
42
down
the
street
to
the
corner.
You
can
see
the
stop
sign
in
the
backyard
on
the
left-hand
side,
where
the
wrought
iron
fences
there.
That
would
be
where
the
fence
would
would
end
there.
As
you
can
see,
there's
plenty
of
viewing
capability
to
see
almost
City
and
once
the
hoarding
does
come
down,
people
can
be
able
to,
you
know,
see
them,
walk
on
jog,
etc.
H
D
H
D
Fence,
as
you
can
see,
a
hockey
fence
is
just
as
high
as
the
board
fence
behind
that
it
was
always
a
concern
about
scalability
and
someone
even
using
the
wrought
iron
fence,
to
jump
over
into
our
property
where
they
can
even
use
to
see
a
hockey
net.
That's
left
on
the
driveway
to
be
able
to
climb
over
there's
plenty.
Other
pictures
I
can
show
like
I
said.
Visibility
is
okay,.
D
N
I
Q
D
B
Q
S
Q
Q
S
So
in
essence,
if
you
are,
if
you're,
removing
that
that
provision
and
you're
making
that
solid
board-
and
it's
it's
only
gonna-
make
that
less
safe
by
doing
so,
because
you
are
restricting
the
visibility
from
the
driveway
of
42,
albeit
that
it's
set
back
some
five
meters
from
the
road,
in
any
case,
to
the
property
line,
but
I
think
any
anything
further
is
removing
element
and
safety.
Now
so.
S
Q
S
If
the
fence
was
solid
and
it's
and
it's
right
the
way
up
to
the
property
line,
then
yes,
it
is
going
to
obstruct
the
driveway.
It's
a
matter
of
how
much
is
obstructing
and
how
much
of
a
safety
concern
it
is.
But,
yes,
it
is
obstructing
it
from
from
from
what
it
should
be
by
the
letter
of
the
bylaw
and.
S
B
The
fencing
question
swimming
pool,
enclosure,
I,
don't
I,
don't
see
any
any
indication.
A
swimming
pool
is
either
under
construction
working
planned
in
any
of
the
report
before
us,
nor
in
the
aerial
photographs,
I'm
just
wondering
how
this
relates
and
many
of
the
photographs
we've
been
provided,
or
actually
it
looks
like
front
yard
photographs.
B
Q
Speak
briefly,
I
think
my
counselor
colleagues
realized.
This
is
incredibly
difficult
for
me
because,
as
I
said
earlier,
it
just
it's
just
putting
neighbor
against
neighbor
and
that's
really
not
the
way
I
like
to
work.
Having
said
this,
a
decision
has
to
be
made.
We
have
this
before
us
and
we
have
to
decide
which
way
to
go
and
I
don't
want
to
defer
it,
because
you
see
that
there's
already
activity
happening
on
the
site,
but
I
think
councilor.
Q
Carol
alluded
to
this
may
be
offline
more
than
online,
but
I
I
just
feel
like
we're
being
a
bit
let
down
on
these
issues.
Our
neighbors
are
being
let
down
residents
by
simply
our
frontline
staff,
who
aren't
really
clarifying
for
residents
the
implement
implications
of
building
pools
and
fences
and
trees,
etc.
There's
not
a
big-picture
approach,
which
has
been
really
my
frustration,
there's
that
silo
effect
still
reigned
supreme
at
City
Hall
and
the
neighbors
who
are
building
this
family.
Q
Q
So
I
think
this
is
in
it's
an
important
point
and
it's
it's
really
unfortunate,
but
I
think
just
based
on
what
I've
heard
from
staff
today
through
this
process
that
we've
been-
and
we've
heard,
heard
from
a
number
of
speakers
that
we
have
to
support
what
staff
are
saying,
and
that
is
simply
that
it
could
be
it's
not
within
the
spirit
of
the
bylaw
1
&
2.
It
could
be
a
safety
issue
and
I
think
at
the
end
of
the
day.
As
a
city
council,
we
have
to
think
of
safety.
C
Just
Robinson
being
the
only
bad
guy,
because
I
did
make
those
comments
offline,
but
they
really
are
heartfelt
I
reached
the
point.
Maybe
it's
the
expansion
of
the
words
I'm
now
seeing
it
more
often,
but
I
got
to
the
point
where
I
just
can't
help
thinking
that,
if
you
know
when
someone
comes
in
with
their
plans
for
their
building,
we-
and
there
is
some
look
at
the
site.
But
time
and
again
we
have
people
come
to
us
in
this
chamber,
which
means
by
then
a
considerable
amount
of
staff.
C
Time
and
money
has
been
spent,
reviewing
and
and
and
to
actually
launch
a
report
writing
write.
It
then
put
it
on
an
agenda,
etc,
etc,
etc,
because
someone
came
in
building
a
two
million
dollar
home,
a
three
or
a
four
million
dollar
home
and
and
no
one
said
by
any
chance
millionaire.
Will
you
be
putting
a
pool
in
the
backyard?
Let's
talk
about
that
so,
like
I,
don't
think
I
I
just
can't
believe
that
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
more
work
with
their
architects
and
their
contractors.
C
If
they
didn't
get
the
whole
picture
at
the
counter
council
will
take
a
dim
view
of
this.
You
really,
you
really
are
well
advised
not
to
go
there,
because
so
will
turn
you
down.
So
go
back
to
your
architect
and
come
up
with
something
that
isn't
gonna,
require
a
huge
amount
of
variance
and
isn't
going
to
end
up
in
this
chamber.
Thank
you.