►
From YouTube: North York Community Council - April 4, 2018
Description
North York Community Council, meeting 29, April 4, 2018
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=12970
Meeting Navigation:
0:12:40 - Call to order
A
A
Are
there
any
declarations
of
interest
declarations
of
interest,
confirmation
of
the
minutes
of
the
meeting
held
February
21st,
counselor
Pasternak,
all
in
favor,
opposed
carried?
We
have
scheduled
items
for
beginning
at
9:45
for
those
non
scheduled
items.
I
will
read
them
out,
please
let
me
know
if
you'd
like
any
of
them
held
29.8.
B
A
B
You
they
just
keep
coming
that.
The
preliminary
report
be
approved,
subject
to
the
notice
area
of
the
community
consultation
meeting
being
expanded
to
include,
in
addition
to
the
hundred
and
twenty
meter
radius
notice
area,
all
land
owners
and
residents
residing
in
the
area
bounded
by
both
sides
of
Elmhurst
Avenue
to
the
north,
quilter
road
and
pewter
Road
to
the
east
points
Avenue
to
the
south
and
sunlight
road
to
the
west,
and
that
the
applicant
pay
the
city
for
the
costs
associated
with
extending
the
notice
area.
B
D
D
E
F
A
A
A
B
B
A
Move
staff
recommendations
all
in
favor
opposed
carry
councillor,
Carol
reopening
of
an
item
on
farm
view,
Crescent
Ringwood,
Crescent,
George,
Henry,
Boulevard;
yes,
okay,
so
let's
have
a
show
of
hands
to
reopen
because
it
needs
2/3.
It's
just
a
wording
change
one,
two,
three,
four:
five,
six,
seven
opposed.
D
With
with
thanks
to
staff,
madam
Speaker
removed
this,
but
the
staff
who
visited
the
site
and
we're
waiting
to
order
the
signs
called
my
office
the
next
day
and
said:
didn't
you
mean
Monday
through
Friday,
so
I'm
simply
reopening
to
add
the
words
that
these
parking
prohibitions,
because
their
construction
parking
prohibitions
are
Monday
through
Friday?
Okay,
all.
A
In
favor
opposed
carried
item
27
the
fire
routes,
councillor
Burnside.
Would
you
like
to
move
those
all
in
favor
opposed
carried
item
28
fire
routes
on
Berkeley,
Drive,
councillor
min
and
Wong?
Yes,
move
staff
recommendations,
all
in
favor
opposed
carried
item,
29
fire
routes
again,
councillor
min
and
Wong
on
Lawrence
Avenue,
East,
1325.
A
A
F
A
Thank
you
carried
memo
by
councillor
Carmichael
Greb,
read
item
29
point:
40,
a
request
for
speed
limit
reduction
around
old
orchard
playground,
all
in
favor
of
introduction,
a
post
carried
item
41
again
councillor
Carmichael
Greb,
requesting
a
speed
limit
reduction
on
all
local
streets.
Inward
16
in
favor
of
introduction
all
in
favor
opposed
carry
additional
a
councillor,
Cole
29-point
42
re
report
from
deputy
chief
building
official
and
director
Toronto
Building
regarding
a
residential
demolition
application
for
29:10
Dufferin
Street.
A
All
in
favor
of
introduction
opposed.
Thank
you
carried
councillor,
Cole
item
43
application
for
demolition
on
Glen
Park,
Avenue
numbers,
11
and
15.
All
in
favor
of
introduction
opposed
carry
item,
44
moved
by
councillor,
Robinson
speed,
limit
reduction
on
Brookfield
Road,
Clem
bridge
Crescent,
Slimbridge,
Road,
dony,
no
Avenue,
all
in
favor
of
introduction
opposed
carried
and
last
one
also
councillor
Robinson.
It
will
be
known
as
twenty
nine
point.
Forty
four
speed
limit
reduction
on
Glen
Gowan
Road,
all
in
favor
of
introduction
opposed
carried.
A
A
A
G
Actually,
it's
I
mean
I
know,
what's
called
a
demolition
application,
but
it's
right
now
it's
a
restaurant
and
it
had
a
that
they're
converting
into
office
medical
office
space.
You
know
where
chickaletta
was
the
restaurant
and
Dufferin.
There's
gonna
put
medical
offices
in
there
and
technically
they
need
a
demolition
to
convert.
That.
G
C
C
A
G
G
G
A
A
We
don't
allow
drive-throughs
near
residential
communities
anymore.
However,
this
one
got
through
because
it
was
not
a
change
of
use
before
Tim
Hortons
moved
in.
There
was
a
submarine
there
that
had
the
ability
to
have
a
drive
through,
so
it's
causing
or
mr.
sub,
whatever
it
was
caught,
and
so
it's
it's
causing
some
issues
with
respect
to
safety.
Any
questions
on
sure.
C
A
A
H
A
C
H
I
A
H
I
H
Is
just
a
well
they're
putting
up
this
is
an
application
that
originally
started
off
as
as
mid-rise
condo,
the
residents
wanted
stacked
townhouses.
They
preferred
it
actually
to
to
the
mid
rise.
So
the
developer
agree
to
that.
What's
it,
what
this
motion
does
is:
there's
a
small
piece
of
land
that
was
going
to
be
used
as
a
park.
What
we've
agreed
on
what
this
motion
does
is
the
applicant
has
agreed
to
pay
the
full
cash
in
lieu
to
the
city
plus
an
additional
$1,000,000.
H
D
What
I'm
gonna
have
questions
of
staff,
but
the
question
is
a
mover
is
why
why
you
would
be
taking
cash
there?
There
is
room
for
the
park
on
the
site
as
I
understand
it,
and
this
council
has
been
moving
away
from
taking
cash
instead
of
a
park
wherever
they
can.
Why
would
we
not
want
the
park?
The
the
drawing
shows
room
for
the
park
on
the
site?
Yes,.
D
H
So
the
answer
is,
is
there's
choice
between
having
like
a
small
little
park
at
that
you
know,
quite
frankly,
I,
don't
believe
a
lot
of
people
are
going
to
use.
It's
gonna
be
right
next
to
be
a
very,
very
busy
street
curlew
and
the
alternative
is,
is
to
take
to
take
the
cash
in
lieu.
It
goes
into
the
regular.
It
goes
into
the
system,
but
also
take
an
extra
1
million
dollars.
I
guess
to
be
used
in
nearby
broad
lines
park
for
upgrades
that
are
that
are
needed.
We
could
put
a
splash
pad
there.
H
We
could
1.75
million
dollars.
I'm
told
we're
close
to
building
an
addition
onto
the
community
center.
There
would
be
so
there's
so
I
would
rather
use
it
at
broad
lands
so
that
there,
so
you
could
actually
take
advantage
of
a
larger
broad
lands
park
which
is
within
walking
distance
and
have
a
little
kind
of
small
little
piece
of
land
that
would
be
used
as
a
park
at
that
wouldn't
be
used
very
much.
D
J
H
H
K
K
K
And
knowing
that
we've
been
to
broad
lands
park,
because
our
community
meeting
was
there
and
I
can
tell
you,
the
community
group
was
fantastic
to
work
with
right
from
the
outset.
They
were
reasonable
and
I
think
appreciative
of
the
fact
that
my
client
came
out
at
the
beginning
and
went
from
mid
rise
to
stacked
townhomes,
and
you
can
see
by
the
lack
of
anyone
here.
I
think
there's
one
letter
talking
about
during
construction.
K
K
C
K
K
K
Lou
would
be
probably
half
of
what
it
would
be,
so
whatever
the
value
is
on
the
day
of
the
permit,
so
you
give
half
in
land
a
little
less
than
half
in
land
and
more
than
half
in
cash
and
live
so
now.
Instead,
you'd
have
full
cash
in
lieu
payment
to
the
city
on
permit
plus,
instead
of
seven
fifty
Section
37,
a
million
750.
K
C
Another
twelve
hundred
and
thirty-five
square
meters
or
twelve
thousand
about
that
square
feet
right
and
am
I
correct
that
because
I
was
I
trying
to
find
some
stuff.
I
can
ask
him
after
the
townhouses
here
and
the
layout
that
they
have
and
the
separation
distance
staff
was
satisfied
with
they're,
not
exactly
what
the
guidelines
call
for,
but
they're
close,
and
they
were
willing
to
recommend
this.
They.
K
Happy
to
have
no
part
planned
and
put
it
back.
We
obviously
put
the
plan
in
and
worked
with
staff,
as
is,
and
if
the
community
is
also,
and
the
local
council
are
happier
with
the
money
going
to
broad
lands
to
make
sure
the
splashpad
happens.
They
were
spectacular
community
to
work
with
so
okay,
we're
happy
to
do
that.
Thank
you.
C
A
K
K
A
K
It's
a
lot
easier
to
move
a
mid-rise
or
a
tall
building
around
to
site
to
accommodate
that
once
you
agree,
it's
almost
like
you
say:
okay,
you
agree
to
take
it
from
a
mid-rise
down
to
a
stack
townhouse
scheme,
and
then
you
say
after
you've
agreed
to
do
that.
Just
kidding
give
me
the
land
and
that
makes
it
not
feasible
and
not
viable.
We
wouldn't
have
done
it.
A
H
K
A
F
D
D
Thank
you,
I'm
gonna,
be
talking
about
curlew
Drive
in
my
remarks
later.
Is
there
what
is
the
classification
for
cruller
Drive?
It's
it's
a
it's
a
it's
kind
of
a
unique
road,
it's
sort
of
a
bypass
road
and
the
the
houses
or
rear
fence
oriented
away
from
it,
because
that,
because
these
used
to
be
factories
all
along
one
side,
what's
the
classification
of
the
road?
What
do
we
call
curly
drive.
J
D
D
You
know,
motion
walked
on
like
this,
it
adds
back
units
was
intentions
were
given
that
he
hasn't
defined
them
to
add
back
units
at
the
last
minute
like
this.
Would
would
that
require
you
to
go
back
and
negotiate
with
the
developer
or
between
now
and
council,
or
were
you
would
you
simply
designate
them?
How
do
we
add
back
units
when
you
have
gone
to
the
pains
you've
gone
to
to
to
get
from
240
down
to
222
to
create
the
parkland?
How
do
you
just
add
them
back
now?
The
last
minute
I
think.
F
M
F
Second,
question
is:
when
exception:
when
accepting
section
42,
it's
it's
not
the
same
as
section
37
they're
different
different
provisions
of
the
Planning
Act,
the
local
councilors,
listed
off
a
number
of
things
he
wants
to
do
with
the
section
42
money.
My
understanding
is,
it
was
section
42
money,
there's
restrictions
on
what
you
can
do
with
it,
because
in
fact
it's
it's
in
lieu
of
a
parkland
parkland
on
site,
and
you
can't
spend
that
the
same
way.
You
can
a
section
37
agreement.
It
would
that
be
a
layman's
synopsis
of
the
situation
through.
M
F
B
B
B
M
B
And
the
I'm
having
trouble
following
the
financial.
So
what
would
it
tell
me
if
I've
got
this
right?
It
sounds
like
you:
parks
had
agreed
to
a
smaller
park
outside,
even
though
you'd
rather
have
the
full
park
a
smaller
park,
plus
the
cash
in
lieu
and
then
there's
an
additional
section
37
for
750,000.
M
B
B
J
Three,
madam
chair,
the
section
37
was
going
up
by
a
million,
but
that
wouldn't
be
replacing
the
cash
in
lieu.
So
the
cash
in
lieu
would
be
going
up
because
of
the
removal
of
the
on-site
dedication
and
the
section
37
would
be
going
up.
But
it's
not
proposing
that
the
section
37
would
replace
the
cash
in
lieu.
B
B
M
C
J
J
M
M
M
J
C
M
C
M
M
M
C
E
E
M
M
E
M
E
M
A
A
N
N
Excuse
me:
I
have
a
few
comments
and
I'll
try
to
get
them
through
them
as
quickly
as
possible.
I'd
like
to
begin
my
comments
by
saying
that
I'm
not
entirely
opposed
to
some
kind
of
development
on
the
site.
My
prime
concerns
are
the
noise
and
construction
over
the
7
years.
The
project
will
take
to
complete
and
the
affordability
of
either
continuing
to
live
in
the
existing
building
or
after
the
completion
of
the
development
and
that
of
the
development
itself.
Should
we
be
able
to
possibly
afford
some
kind
of
unit
within
the
new
buildings.
N
My
family
is
one
of
just
many
young
families
in
the
area,
finding
it
difficult
to
live
with
the
rising
cost
of
living
in
the
area,
especially
with
ongoing
development,
but
more
to
the
point
of
the
existing
concerns
of
the
existing
residence.
There
is
a
concern
for
the
residents
currently
affected
by
the
so
called
demolition
plan.
Firstly,
there
are
issues
of
the
buildings
plan
to
remove
corner
units
corner
unit
residents
from
the
first
to
at
least
the
10th
floor
temporarily
or
permanently,
depending
on
what
happens
from
the
premises.
N
Some
affected
by
the
plan
are
not
only
Jewish,
not
only
Orthodox
in
their
observance,
but
are
also
elderly
or
have
mobility
issues.
These
are
people
whose
religious
observance
is
of
great
importance
to
them,
and
removal
from
the
premises
would
make
it
extremely
difficult
for
them
to
hold
to
their
religious
observance,
specifically
on
Shabbat
and
holidays
I
know.
Some
of
these
points
are
being
have
already
been
addressed
in
some
way
or
another.
Councillor
Cole
recently
came
to
the
building
as
well.
N
Those
that's
the
first
one.
Secondly,
I'd
like
to
know
how
the
owner
and
developer
plan
on
handling
the
traveling
cockroach
issue
in
recent
years,
especially
the
building,
has
had
a
recurring
role.
Certain
units
have
it
far
worse
than
others.
For
example,
I'm
aware
of
a
unit
on
the
15th
floor
of
the
building
that
had
its
kitchen
completely
torn
out
and
replaced
because
of
the
severity
of
the
infestation
only
to
have
the
new
residents
who
had
just
moved
in
right.
N
After
said,
renovation
find
young
roaches
in
the
kitchen
area
within
the
first
three
weeks
of
moving
in,
if
not
properly,
handled
prior
to
or
during
construction.
The
proposed
buildings
would
simply
offer
the
insects,
broader
range
of
movement,
so
I'd
like
to
know
how
the
owner
and
developer
plan
on
addressing
that
issue.
I
was
working
on
some
other
notes,
but
here
we
are
and
I
kind
of
ran
out
of
time.
So
there
is
one
other
point
which
was
raised
during
the
meeting
in
January,
which
councillor
Cole.
F
Normally,
when
renters
are
displaced
during
some
kind
of
construction,
there's
a
specific
targeted
meeting
with
a
city
staff,
member
and
the
applicant
to
go
over
many
of
the
questions
that
you
have
proposed
today.
Was
there
a
community
meeting
with
city
staff
to
talk
about
your
rights
obligations
which
are
entitled
to
your
protections
and
and
so
forth?
There's
a
long
list
of
of
items
that
protect
tenants
if
they're
displaced
during
construction
to.
N
Be
clear:
I
am
NOT
a
corner
unit,
resident
I'm
in
the
exact
middle
of
the
building.
So
this
address
this
concern
is
more
about.
For
instance,
I
happen
to
be
on
a
floor
that
is
affected
just
not
one
of
the
direct
units
that
is
affected
so
councillor
Cole
might
be
able
to
address
that
better
than
I
would.
N
A
K
A
K
K
K
I
think
we
have
a
resolution.
We
can
work
through
to
find
proximate
area
improvements
that
can
deal
with
our
particular
site,
despite
the
fact
that
it's
our
position,
that
the
standards
have
somewhat
changed
due
to
the
patience
of
our
applicant
and
going
through
a
process
but
I
think
we
can
work
it
out
with
staff
and
one
of
your
recommendations
directs
that
so
we'd
be
happy
to
do
that.
Staff
and
the
local
councillor
as
well.
So
again,
I.
Thank
you
for
allowing
us
to
speak
today.
J
Madam
chair,
yes,
there
were
several
consultation
meetings
on
this
application.
The
community
consultation
meeting
was
May
3rd
2012.
That
was
the
the
first
meeting.
There
was
also
meeting
on
May
26
2016.
We
were
meeting
specific
to
the
tenant
consultation.
Those
were
June
27,
2016
and
July
27
2016.
There
was
also
a
tenant
survey
that
was
done
with
the
tenants
of
the
billing
to
identify
possible
improvements
to
the
amenity
and
building
enhancements
for
the
existing
rental
building,
and
that
was
initiated
on
June
27
2016.
A
G
I've
worked
with
a
lot
of
I'm
in
my
first
apartment
building,
meeting
I'm
working
a
lot
with
the
the
Tennis
Association
there
and
residents,
and
a
lot
of
changes
have
been
made.
There's
still
some
concerns,
obviously
because
it's
a
big
change.
Having
said
that,
the
applicant
or
the
representative
of
the
applicant
didn't
mention
this
issue,
that's
come
about
and
I've
never
seen
this
before.
Where
there's.
G
Basically,
our
staff
have
said
the
infrastructure
doesn't
common,
eight
what's
be
proposed
here,
and
so
that
has
to
be
dealt
with
and
paid
for
in
advance
of
approval,
and
so
we're
now
kind
of
on
the
road
to
the
OMB
with
this.
But
that
is
the
the
biggest
outstanding
issue,
and
so
obviously
the
part
of
the
recommendations
defer
making
decision
on
this,
but
I
expect
conversations
on
that
front
and
still
to
be
carried
out.
I,
don't
know
what
how
that's
resolved,
because
I've
never
seen
this
before.
H
I,
just
I
just
want
to
briefly
because
so
I'm
withdrawing
my
motion,
but
I
still
want
to
speak
to
them.
So
so
I
will
tell
you
this
I've
lived
in
that
area
for
forty
years
and
that
little
people
they
talk
about
it
as
parkland,
but
it's
not
parkland.
It's
a
park
at
okay,
so
I
have
three
children
that
live
in
the
area.
If
we,
if
our
family
was
deciding
whether
to
go
to
a
little
park
yet
or
walk
to
a
bigger
park,
we'd
go
to
that
bigger
park
and
I
would
prefer
to
take.
H
H
You
can't
do
anything
with
them.
You
can't
run
and
you
can't
play
with
them
and
I
mean
they're
just
sometime
in
the
downtown
they're.
Okay,
like
maybe
that
works
for
you,
but
it
doesn't
work
in
Don,
Mills
and
I
would
have
rather
taken
an
extra
money
to
improve
a
very
large
Park,
but
the
votes
aren't
there.
So.
D
Request
for
direction
to
the
OMB
to
to
refuse
what
they
want
to
do
is
build
a
35-story
building
in
the
backyard
and
a
three-story
above
grade
parking
structure
and
the
reason
I'm
taking
a
moment.
Even
though
I'm
doing
staff
directions
is
because
over
the
coming
months,
you
will
see
that
the
apartment
building
beside
it
and
the
apartment
building
behind
it
want
to
do
the
same
thing.
D
We
said
that
we
wanted
development
on
the
park
in
tower
in
the
park
built
forms
in
North
York,
but
this
is
how
it
was
interpreted
by
the
development
community,
and
this
is
not
what
we
meant
so
I
say
this
because,
as
you
know,
I'm
not
gonna,
be
in
council
soon,
but
you're
going
to
see
two
more
of
these
in
the
same
neighborhood
and
I.
Think
you're
gonna
see
them
all
over
North
York.
D
If
we
don't
get
this
right,
so
the
request
for
direction
before
you
is
is
to
to
allow
staff
to
go
forward
with
the
refusal,
but
it
also
gives
them
direction.
If
the
OMB
in
in
in
some
wacky
moment
decides
to
approve
it
any
way
that
they
withhold
long
enough
for
much
further
process
between
City
Planning
and
the
applicant
before
before,
finalizing
I
wish
that
the
overhead
projector
gave
you
a
better
view
of
the
existing
building.
D
But
it's
in
your
certainly
in
your
agendas
and
because
there
is
not
a
single
person
sitting
here
who
doesn't
have
a
tower
in
the
park
built
forum
somewhere
in
there
there
Ward,
you
really
should
have
a
look
at
this
application.
It's
a
it's.
A
very
troubling
trend
and
staff
are
taking
great
pains
to
to
procedurally
get
it
right
on
the
first
time
such
an
egregious
application
comes
before
us
in
this
term,
so
that
so
that
going
forward
they've
really
flagged,
not
only
for
the
OMB
for
the
L
Pat
that
that
will
exceeded
that.
D
This
is
our
approach.
If
this
is
the
type
of
application
that
comes
forward
in
terms
of
tower
renewal,
which
which
meant
light
development
and
and
an
interesting
approach
to
tower
in
the
park,
not
obliterating
an
existing
building
with
that
with
that
type
of
build
forum
surrounding
it.
Thank
you,
madam
Speaker.
Any.
A
O
It's
currently
used
as
a
gas
station
and
therefore
represents
an
underutilized
property
in
a
prominent
location
within
a
short
45-minute,
walk
of
the
Lawrence
subway
station
and
extensive
commercial
services,
all
parks
and
amenity
space.
There
can
be
no
dispute
that
the
provincial
municipal
planning
policy
called
for
significant
intensification
on
this
property
and,
despite
the
city
having
passed
the
new,
harmonized
zoning
bylaw
in
2013,
the
zoning
of
this
property
remains
outdated.
O
It
hasn't
been
reconsidered
since
the
early
90s
and
as
it
stands
today,
it's
out
of
conformity
with
the
applicable
policies
of
the
Official
Plan,
PPS
and
growth
plan
and
within
the
Official
Plan
itself.
As
you
know,
the
site's
designated
mixed
use
areas
and
it's
located
on
a
designated
Avenue,
meaning
that
it
is
intended
to
be
redeveloped
with
significant
density,
provided
it
does
not
result
in
unacceptable
impacts
and
that
it
generally
fits
with
the
existing
and
planned
context
of
the
area
in
our
respectful
submission.
This
13
storey,
building
designed
by
raw
architects,
does
just
that.
O
It
contains
a
slender
floor
plate
above
the
7th
floor.
It
steps
back
at
the
8th
and
11
stories.
It
would
result
in
85
dwelling
units,
with
90%
of
them
being
two
and
three-bedroom
units
and
about
400
square
meters
of
ground
floor
and
mezzanine
level,
retail
on
Yonge
Street,
it's
an
attractive
building.
O
Specifically
policy.
Two
point:
two
point:
three:
three:
our
client
has
submitted
an
Avenue
segment
study
which
is
used
to
assess
impacts
of
incremental
development
while
allowing
for
distinguishing
circumstances
and
in
our
respectful
submission.
It
supports
the
proposal
here.
This
is
a
unique
site,
as
there
are
no
adjacent
houses
or
dwellings
to
this
property
to
the
west.
To
the
immediate
West
is
an
entrance
to
the
ravine
and
beyond.
O
That
is
a
former
church
site
with
a
five-story
development
proposal
currently
on
it
and
to
the
immediate
south
is
another
entrance
to
the
ravine
and
parkette
and
beyond
that,
a
nine
story.
Apartment
building
this
site
is
essentially
the
lowest
point
in
the
valley
which
extends
from
Glen
Grove
to
the
south,
to
Lawrence
to
the
north.
O
The
topography
mitigates
the
visual
impact
of
height
in
this
location,
and
given
these
unique
characteristics,
we
believe
it's
an
appropriate
location
for
additional
height
beyond
the
eight
to
nine
stories
that
would
otherwise
be
permitted
under
the
mid-rise
guidelines
and
of
note,
I
would
say
that
there
are
apartment
buildings
just
to
the
north,
about
a
block
at
3030
18,
Yonge
Street
that
have
existed
for
a
long
time
with
similar
Heights
of
13
stories
and
similar
densities
have
about
seven
and
a
half.
We've
reviewed
the
staff
report,
which
has
received
last
week
and
those
fields.
O
The
planning
consultants
on
this
matter
have
submitted
a
preliminary
response.
As
of
yesterday,
we
felt
it
was
important
to
respond
to
some
of
the
staff
comments
and
the
policy
issues
discussed
in
the
report.
We
want
to
ensure
you
had
the
benefit
of
both
fields,
planning,
analysis
and
opinions
before
making
a
decision
on
this
matter
and
in
short,
most
fields
and
mr.
Volpone
testa
specifically
disagree
with
the
policy
interpretations
and
inclusions
expressed
by
city
staff
and
the
report
specifically
in
respect
to
the
growth
plan
of
PPS
policies
and
staff's
assertions
of
nonconformity
and
inconsistency.
O
Given
the
location
of
this
site
within
a
mixed-use
Avenue
and
its
close
proximity
to
transit
service
and
amenity,
the
clear
provincial
policy
direction
is
to
intensify
these
lands
and
the
suggestion
that
natural
heritage
or
open
space
policies
are
not
being
adhered
to.
We
believe,
is
not
supportable
and
ignores
the
extensive
analysis,
natural
heritage
and
and
otherwise
that
were
submitted
by
our
client
in
support
of
the
application
and
since
the
form
of
development
proposed
by
our
client
is
permitted
by
the
city's
Official
Plan.
O
It's
our
suggestion
that
the
PPS
and
growth
plan
and
opie
policies
are
not
being
contravened
by
this
proposal.
The
bill
form
in
massing
contributes
positively
to
the
public
realm
of
this
corner
location.
The
transition
measures
to
the
adjacent,
open
space
and
neighborhood
designations
are
appropriate.
In
this
instance,
and
in
our
submission,
the
proposal
fits
comfortably
within
this
segment
of
Yonge
Street,
with
no
unacceptable
shadow
or
wind
impacts
on
either
private
property
or
the
public
realm,
and
with
respect
to
staffs
request
for
an
on-site
parkland
dedication.
O
This
is
not
something
that
we've
had
sufficient
time
to
digest.
This
there's
been
a
minimal
feedback
in
consultation
with
our
client.
This
refusal
reports
come
forward
within
about
three
months
of
the
application
being
submitted,
and
you
know,
if
that's
what
staff
want
to
see
on
this
site,
that's
something
our
client
is
prepared
to
consider,
but
at
the
moment
we
have
no
no
sort
of
firm
requests
as
to
where
that
would
be.
So.
O
C
O
C
But
it
also
talks,
I
mean
Planning.
Act
also
has
a
city's
official
plan.
We
have
mid-rise
guidelines
and
the
growth
target.
Is
there
if
I
understand
correctly,
to
make
sure
that
each
municipality
does
intensify?
What's
in
a
sport
is
based
on
a
plan
that
it
has
and
based
on
a
provincial
requirement?
That's
why,
as
we've
exceeded
the
growth
plan,
so
well,
it's
always
an
argument
internally
in
this
board.
It
has
been
the
past
its
besides
that,
what's
the
other
arguments,
what
are
the
neighboring
buildings
like
in
height
the.
O
Neighboring
building
is
a
nine-story
building
once
you
get
past
the
entrance
to
the
park.
Yet
in
the
ravine
to
the
south,
to
the
north.
On
the
north
west
corner
of
Chatsworth,
there
are
six
story:
apartment
buildings
for
a
couple
Lots
up
and
once
you
get
further
north,
there
are
existing
13
story,
buildings
with
densities
north
of
7
times.
There's.
C
C
It's
out
of
Lawrence
tonight,
I
think
there's
one
good.
Oh
it's
an
older
one,
my
apologies!
So
there's
a
new
one
that
was
approved
at
the
board
of
13
and
an
old
one.
If
you're
talking
a
nine-story
building,
do
you
know
the
height
in
meters
for
a
nine-story
building
for
the
nine
story,
building
that
you're
comparing
us
to.
O
O
C
O
Again,
it's
not
the
provincial
target,
not
the
numerical
target
that
I'm
suggesting
to
you
as
the
justification
here,
and
if
you
were
to
use
that
logic
than
no
development.
If
you're
saying
the
city's
exceeded
its
targets,
then
no
development
would
be
appropriate
here
because
you
know
there'll
be
no
basis
if
we've
already
met
the
targets,
I'm
saying
that
the
intensification
policies
both
in
the
municipal
official
plan
and
provincial
policy
show
that
this
site
is
an
appropriate
location
for
significant
intensification
to
improve
transit,
ridership
and
all
those
other
things.
O
But
to
answer
your
question
in
addition
to
intensification,
we
believe
the
built
form
in
this
unique
location
is
appropriate
and
does
fit
comfortably
and
there's
a
few
reasons
for
that.
One.
It's
unique
in
the
sense
that
it's
located
at
a
low
point
of
land
and
it's
next
to
open
space.
So
there's!
No,
although
there's
a
neighbourhood
designation
to
the
west,
there
are
no
houses
that
are
gonna,
be
right
up,
abutting
against
this
development
and
there's
no.
The
studies
we've
submitted
demonstrate
that
there's
no
unacceptable
wind
impacts.
O
We
believe
there's
no
unacceptable
shadow
impacts
and
in
terms
of
overall
fit
with
the
context
of
this
segment
of
Yonge
Street.
The
nine
story
building
to
the
south
is
not
as
tall
I,
acknowledge
that
and
nor
the
six
storey
buildings
on
the
northwest
corner.
But
this
is
not
an
unprecedented
or
out-of-character
proposal
for
the
neighborhood,
given
that
there
are
13
storey
buildings,
just
a
block
away,
two
of
them
already,
which
are
equivalent
Heights.
C
Sorry
I'm
in
planning
do
the
urban
planners
come
back
and
recommend
taller
buildings
in
areas
where
there
are
low
points
of
land?
Well,
the
I
understand
it,
but
I
mean
every
time
the
road
dips,
the
neighboring,
the
ones
are
similar
in
height.
Just
because
the
elevation
goes
down
then
you're
saying
well,
we
should
get
a
taller
building
because
the
road
goes
down
when.
O
In
this
case,
it's
not
really
that
and
I'm
not
and
all
I'm
saying
is
that
it
mitigates
against
what
the
height
of
a
13
story
building
be
otherwise
I'm,
not
you
know
this
isn't
I'm
not
saying
this
is
the
number
one
justification
for
it,
but
it
helps
to
contribute
to
an
appropriate
bill
form
of
the
area.
Thank
you.
C
P
P
P
Yes,
there
are
13
story,
buildings
closer
to
Lawrence
closer
to
the
subway,
but
this
is
this
is
further
away,
there's
a
proposal
for
for
retail
at
grade,
but
there's
no
other
retail
at
grade
in
the
area,
and
it's
just
not
something
that
would
work
on
this
site.
It's
a
very
small
site.
If
you
know
it,
it's
the
petrol
can
station
on
Yonge
Street,
just
south
of
Lawrence
and
entrance
to
the
park
right
next
door,
so
I
will
be
moving
staff
recommendations,
because
this
is
just
not
acceptable
in
this
area.
A
I
Thank
you
very
much,
madam
chair
echo.
My
colleagues
comments,
I'm
the
counselor
to
the
east
of
this
application
and
also
attended
the
public
meeting
along
with
councillor
Carmichael
grab.
I
just
want
to
say
two
words
and
say
thank
you
to
stop
for
an
excellent
report.
I
think
they've
done
a
really
great
job.
Moving
this
through
and
the
report.
As
you
can
see,
the
content
is
well
developed.
I
It
is
a
postage
if
you're
not
familiar
with
the
site.
It's
a
postage,
stamp-sized
law,
very,
very
small,
inappropriate
right
right
up
against
a
park.
A
many
trees
will
be
victims
of
this.
If
this
was
to
move
forward,
trees
that
really
line
the
park-
and
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
perks
in
that
area,
so
very
important.
So
this
truly
represents
an
over
development
of
the
site.
Grossly
and
I
just
again
want
to
thank.
C
Tend
to
decide
that
what
they
think
is
the
only
way
that
works
and
I
understand
the
consultants
with
this
team,
because
very
often
that's
the
way
they
work.
This
is
a
tiny
little
site
and
a
little
dip
on
Lawrence
Avenue
on
Yonge
Street,
south
of
Lawrence
Avenue,
with
older
buildings
beside
that
are
six
stories
and
nine
stories,
and
we
know
they
have
eight-foot
ceilings,
not
10-foot
ceilings
and
there's
one
new
building
north
of
it
13
stories
that
the
city
didn't
support
right
almost
by
the
corner
of
Yonge
and
Lawrence
that
the
board
approved.
C
And
then
it's
referred
to
the
places
to
grow
act.
Well,
the
places
to
grow
act
was
meant
to
be
sure
that
municipalities
do
intensify
within
their
communities
instead
of
continuing
to
build
out
into
farmland.
They
set
us
targets.
The
city
is
meeting
and
exceeding
them
and
Bo
who
he
is
what
it
is.
When
someone
says
that
to
the
board,
because
they
say
it's
places
to
grow
out,
it's
an
area
of
intensification.
C
So
the
staff
report
is
an
excellent
report.
I'm
well
supportive,
but
I
would
say-
and
part
of
my
message
here
is
to
those
in
the
development
community
what's
happening
here
on
this
application
is
what's
happened
around
the
city
and
it's
why
the
province
has
act
to
change
what
the
injera
municipal
ward
does
to
stop
this
type
of
application
to
stop
development.
C
Take
our
argument
to
the
board
we'll
take
it
away
and
let's
see
what
the
board
does,
because
this
is
why
the
provincial
government
has
lost
so
much
trust
from
residents
right
around
the
province
because
of
the
runaway
decisions
that
the
internal
award
has
given
on
many
applications,
not
all
to
permit
this
and
the
fact
that
an
applicant
would
think
that
they
could
win.
There
tells
us
how
bad
the
board
has
performed
in
many
instances.
C
It's
almost
like
you
know
almost
like
and
I've
said
it
to
people.
You
ever
hear
that
credit
commercial
for
Alpine
credit
where
they
say
what
have
you
got?
Oh
you
own.
A
house
approved
well
some
of
the
members
of
the
board
where
well
it
looks
like
a
pretty
building.
Where
do
you
want
it
approved
and
that's
been
what's
been
happening
and
that's
what's
gonna
change
so
I
hope
our
staff
do
the
excellent
job
they
can
to
make
sure
that
this
is
one
where
the
message
is
given
that
the
city's
not
gonna.
Take
it
anymore.
C
A
Q
Q
This
is
our
family.
We
have
a
small
two-year-old
son.
His
name
is
Nathaniel
and
we're
hoping
to
grow
our
family
in
the
very
near
future.
We're
really
looking
forward
to
moving
into
this
home
and
growing
roots
into
the
Lawrence
Park
north
community.
We
already
actually
are
so
excited
that
we
have
our
son
on
the
wait
list
for
a
Bedford
Park
daycare
to
orient
you
on
the
house
itself.
Q
It's
located
that
the
busy
intersection
of
Mount,
Pleasant
and
Rosslyn
Avenue
we've
built
a
garage
in
the
back
off
of
Mount
Pleasant
behind
our
yard,
the
store
that's
for
storage
and
for
overnight
parking.
However,
we
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
present
our
specific
personal
circumstances
to
make
this
appeal
a
valid
one.
Comparables
in
the
neighborhood
and
mitigating
actions
will
willing
to
take
and
have
already
taken
to
respect
the
zoning
requirements.
Q
So
we
have
two
personal
circumstances
that
we
want
to
share
with
you.
The
first
is
being
able
to
safely
load
and
unload
our
family.
This
is
a
significant
concern
for
us,
given
it's
at
a
very
busy
intersection,
you
may
wonder
if
we
can
park
in
the
back
on
the
drive
behind
the
garage,
but
in
fact
we've
tried
that
and
you
can
see
in
the
image
a
car
would
completely
overhang
in
front
of
and
block
the
sidewalk.
Q
The
second
personal
concerns
we
want
to
share
with
you
is
that
of
accessibility.
Peters
parents
have
significant
accessibility
challenges;
they
are
both
over
80,
my
father-in-law
has
Alzheimer's
and
they
require
an
accessibility
parking
permit.
So
access
to
the
front
door
is
very
important
to
them
and
to
us,
and
would
also
resolve
the
issue
of
being
able
to
safely
load
and
unload
our
family
in
terms
of
impact
to
our
neighbors,
as
it
is
a
corner
lot
and
at
an
intersection,
we
have
never
seen
anyone
parked
directly
in
front
of
97
Rosalyn.
Q
In
other
words,
allowing
for
front
yard
parking
will
in
actuality,
not
only
have
a
direct
and
profound
positive
impact
on
our
family,
but
it
would
also
not
have
any
negative
impact
on
available
parking
on
Rosalind,
which
was
confirmed
in
the
transportation
report
as
well
and,
on
the
contrary,
it
would
be
able
to
allow
us
to
load
and
unload
without
getting
in
the
way
of
our
neighbors
by
parking
on
the
street.
In
terms
of
comparables.
Q
In
the
neighborhood,
we
found
that
nearly
all
corner
lot
homes
with
a
garage
out
back
on
the
flanking
side,
have
sufficient
space
in
front
of
the
garage
for
parking.
In
addition,
every
detached
home
on
our
street
between
BOE
castle
and
Mount
Pleasant
have
front
yard
driveways,
there's
also
an
example
of
an
existing
home
in
a
corner
law
with
a
with
a
garage
on
the
flanking
side,
as
well
as
front
yard
parking.
Without
this
appeal
approved
our
home
would
not
have
a
driveway
at
all
in
terms
of
minimizing
the
amp
impact.
These
are
some
of
them.
Q
The
mitigating
actions
that
we've
can
we
recognize
that
one
of
the
city's
main
concerns
is
stormwater
runoff
as
a
mitigating
action.
During
our
construction,
we
enabled
our
immediate
neighbor
who
was
having
water
leaking
in
their
basement,
the
time
and
access
to
water
proof
their
basement,
which
has
resolved
that
issue.
In
addition,
we
plan
to
finish
the
front
yard
parking
surface
with
environmentally-friendly
permeable,
interlocked
pavers,
as
recommended
in
the
transportation
report,
and
as
a
corner
lot,
we
will
exceed
the
minimum
requirement
percentage
of
soft
green
landscaped
area,
even
with
the
front
yard
parking
approved.
Q
Q
This
shows
to
us
that
there
is
significant
support
for
this
appeal,
even
though
we're
not
yet
in
the
neighborhood,
and
none
of
those
polled
would
have
any
intimate
knowledge
of
our
personal
circumstances,
and
even
more
so
in
our
minds,
is
that
the
result
shows
this
isn't
a
black
and
white
decision
that
there
is
complexity
here,
and
we
hope
that
will
allow
youth
to
put
more
weight
on
the
personal
considerations
that
we
have
here.
In
summary,
we
are
appealing
for
a
small
parking
pad
with
minimal
changes
to
an
already
approved
walkway.
Q
We
have
two
specific
personal
circumstances
to
make
this
appeal
we're
only
asking
for
what
comparable
homes
on
Rosman
already
have
in
terms
of
a
driveway,
and
we
have
taken
measures
to
minimize
the
impact
and
are
willing
to
take
additional
steps.
We're
sincerely
very
thankful
for
the
opportunity
to
have
this
conversation
with
you,
and
we
hope
that
the
shows
our
family's
particular
circumstances
to
make
this
an
acceptable
approval.
Thank
you
very
much.
A
A
R
My
husband
and
I
have
our
own
health
issues.
Therefore,
accessibility
is
a
key
concern
for
us.
This
is
why
I
wish
to
speak
to
you
today
about
the
impact
denying
this
appeal
request
would
have
on
my
well
being
and
in
being
able
to
provide
care
and
support
to
my
family.
My
husband
suffers
from
else.
I
emerged
no
longer
drives
and
does
not
provide
care
to
our
grandson.
Without
my
supervision,
I
have
the
responsibility
of
driving
us.
R
Wherever
we
go
without
a
driveway
by
the
front
entrance
of
that
new
home
for
us
to
be
able
to
park,
we
would
be
required
to
find
parking
somewhere
along
the
street
and
then
walk
the
added
distance
to
their
home.
This
is
specially
challenging
given
the
traffic
in
the
area
and
will
be
even
more
so
during
the
winter
months.
I
recognize
that
this
property
will
have
a
garage
in
the
bed.
However,
that
garage
serves
no
purpose
in
providing
a
driveway
parking
space
near
the
front
entrance
for
someone
with
accessibility
needs
such
as
mine.
R
I
have
had
my
own
experience
with
the
committee
in
the
early
90s,
when
my
husband
and
I
applied
for
an
extension
to
our
existing
home
to
accommodate
our
growing
family.
Even
though
there
there
was
some
opposition.
The
committee
wisely
saw
through
the
facts,
and
we
were
granted
our
request.
It
was
such
a
positive
change
for
the
efficient
functioning
of
our
family.
R
This
appeal
for
a
parking
space
will
also
make
a
world
of
difference
in
our
lives,
which
is
why
I
am
here
today.
The
last
point
I
would
like
to
make
is
that
over
the
years,
I
have
also
received
many
polling
requests,
including
driveway,
paving
land
severing
and
many
other
changes
in
my
own
neighborhood,
the
majority
of
which
of
which
I
have
not
responded
to
thinking.
It
makes
no
difference
to
me
either
way.
R
A
L
L
L
So
you're
building
the
house,
the
house
that
was
there
before
did
it
have
a
driveway
at
the
front.
No
did
not
okay,
the
garage
at
the
back.
It
looks
fairly
wide.
Is
it
like
a
double
wide
or
3/4
wide,
okay,
you're
building
it
and
in
the
picture
it
looks
like
you've
already
put
in
a
driveway,
just
gravel.
We
have
the
landscaping
and
the
gravel
is
just
there
so
that
when
materials
are
delivered,
they
don't
get
stuck
in
the
mud.
Okay
and
I.
L
L
R
R
L
If
I
can
just
add
one
comment
about
the
actual
street
space
in
front
of
the
house,
there
was
an
instance
where
again
they
were
stopped
in
front
of
the
house
again
just
to
visit,
observe
construction
and
someone
who
drove
by
I
don't
know
if
they
live
in
the
neighborhood
or
favor
they're
just
passing
through.
They
did
slow
down
next
to
them,
roll
down
their
window
and
basically
comment
to
them.
Q
C
Q
C
S
C
S
S
S
C
S
C
I
Just
to
advise
my
colleagues,
the
applicants
been
in
touch
with
my
office,
pretty
diligent
about
connecting
with
our
office
and
myself,
and
so
I
was
going
to
move.
The
alternate
recommendations
in
the
staff
report
which
the
applicant
referred
to,
which
were
permeable,
pavers
and
I.
Think
most
councillors
are
most
are
very
familiar
with
those
alternate
recommendations.
So
I
would
like
to
move
those
on
behalf
of
the
resident
are.
L
I'm
going
to
actually
vote
against
thee
just
to
make
a
point.
I
vote
against
the
referral,
simply
because
the
the
resident
in
her
in
her
presentation
said
that
no
cars
ever
parked
in
front
of
that
house.
So
with
the
accessible
permit
you
can
without
having
to
fight
anyone
else.
For
that
spot.
The
resident
could
park
in
front
of
their
house.
F
F
Park
in
front
I'm
not
sure
whether
city
staff
have
given
this
family
all
the
options
that
are
available
to
them.
Handicaps
poles
that
come
up
are
an
option.
There's
our
family.
We
have
to
use
what
rules
are
in
place.
I.
The
undertone
of
the
presentation
was
that
a
real
estate
agent
said
that
yeah
there's
no
parking
pad,
but
you
can
go
to
Community
Council
and
get
an
exemption.
These
real
estate
agents
have
to
stop
telling
prospective
buyers
that
you
can
come
here
and
get
the
rules
changed.
F
These
parking
pads
invariably
lead
to
basement
flooding
and
problems
with
neighbors,
and
it
creates
more
problems
than
it
solves,
but
I
think
there
are
some
many
options
for
this
family.
They
don't
seem
aware
of
and
I
think
it's
the
duty
of
staff
and
and
the
owners
to
to
seek
those
out
and
to
to
use
them.
I
I
I
A
M
C
A
L
Here,
actually,
on
behalf
of
my
father,
said:
I
might
meet
you
earlier.
My
name
is
DeWitt
majority
and
he's
the
applicant
I
asking
for
the
reason
for
the
refusal,
because
no
reason
was
given
and
then
basically
subsequent
to
that.
Obviously
I'm
asking
for
the
time,
given
you
know
basic
postponing
of
the
discussion
so
that
we
have
time
to
digest
them.
L
T
And,
moreover,
when
when
I
took
over
this,
when
we
took
over
this
location,
we
saw
the
young
and
park
on
the
beauty
of
Yonge
and
park
home
and
the
city
plan
to
make
it
more
improved
and
I
would
say
if
we
have
any
kind
of
selling
card
over
there
right
at
the
corner,
which
will
which
will
be,
which
will
be,
which
will
kind
of
destroy
the
beauty.
Why
I'm
saying
is
because
if
you
sell
a
food
openly,
there'll
be
a
de
breeze
around
it.
T
So,
regardless
how
much
impact
you
put
it
that
we
have
to
keep
the
place
clean,
there'll
be
de
breeze,
which
will
be
floating
around
in
any
direction
because
it
makes
a
tunnel
a
heavy
wind
flows
in
both
the
direction,
and
we
are
Roma.
Espresso
bar
8
Park
on
Avenue
works
with
the
monkeys
closely
to
actually
maintain
both
the
parks,
the
maintains
parts.
They
have
right
at
the
in
front
of
the
building
to
make
it
safe
for
the
community,
and
we
are
that's
the
way
we
are
giving
back
to
the
community,
and
this
will.
T
F
T
F
T
F
T
A
B
You
I'm
using
the
staff
recommendations
to
refuse
the
permit
and
just
briefly
the
the
food
retailers
along
this
section
of
Yonge
Street,
really
struggled
because
they
have
to
pay
so
much
in
rent
and
property
tax,
and
we
are
having
difficulty
attracting
quality
food
retailers
such
as
Roma,
and
we
need
to
do
it.
We
can
to
support
them.
This
is
an
inappropriate
location.
B
B
Moving
all
of
the
food
vendors
once
the
street
is
rejuvenated
in
what
other,
whatever
form
I,
would
hope
to
see.
Some
food
vendors
but
I
think
they
should
be
food
vendors
that
are
connected
with
some
of
the
local
food
retailers,
for
example,
a
food
cart
that
would
sort
of
introduce
and
showcase
Korean
food
or
Persian
food.
Some
of
the
some
of
the
great
small
restaurants
we
have
in
the
area
maybe
get
on
the
sidewalk
as
well,
but
that
you
know
that
that
all
has
to
be
done
after
we
rebuild
the
place,
but.
B
C
C
A
L
A
L
A
I
I
A
A
I
A
I
T
A
E
A
E
E
P
Both
streets,
kind
of
the
north
gray
road
ends
at
Deloraine
in
the
south
and
old
orchard
in
the
north,
and
so
it's
kind
of
a
straight
shoot
on
either
side
we've
just
put
in
a
new
playground.
It
was
busy
before
it'll
be
even
busier
now
and
we're
working
to
put
in
some
sidewalks
and
stop
signs.
But
at
this
point
we
need
to
lower
the
speed
limit
around
the
playground,
because
there
is
high
pedestrian
volume
at
this
location.
P
Hour,
so
this
is
just
similar
to
what
councillor
Cole
did
a
couple
of
meetings
ago.
We
have
a.
There
are
a
couple
of
not
even
full
streets,
just
like
single
blocks
left
that
are
still
at
50
kilometers
that
got
left
out
of
changes.
I
have
one
where
it
goes
from,
50
to
40,
to
30,
to
50
for
one
block
so
I'm,
just
making
consistent
40,
where
it's
not
30
and
in
a
more
consistent
speed
limit
throughout
the
neighborhoods.