►
From YouTube: North York Community Council - June 6, 2018
Description
North York Community Council, meeting 31, June 6, 2018
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=12972
Meeting Navigation:
0:20:07 - Call to order
2:03:17 - Meeting resume
2:11:54 - Meeting resume
2:28:44 - Meeting resume
A
A
A
B
A
C
C
So
I'm
sure
I
will
move
the
alternative
recommendations:
City
Council
city
solicitor,
prepared
by
law
to
alter
the
roadway
to
install
eight
speed
humps
an
over
Brook
place.
We
have.
We
have
gone
to
the
residents
and
majority
of
those
who
responded
to
support
it.
There's
increasing
traffic
chaos
in
the
area,
so
the
alternative
recommendations.
C
A
A
C
C
A
A
D
A
E
A
In
favor,
opposed
carried,
I
have
one
regarding
corner
parking:
prohibition
on
high
view,
Avenue
opposed
to
carry
councillor
Fillion
representation
at
T
lap,
four,
three
one:
nine
Horsham
Avenue,
all
in
favor
opposed
carried
and
councillor
Pasternak.
You
have
one
re,
northbound
left
turn
advanced
feature:
Finch,
Avenue,
West
and
tours
Dale.
A
F
G
A
D
G
E
H
Originates
for
a
couple
of
reasons
number
one.
There
was
a
recent
Ontario
Mis
Board
hearing
at
625,
Sheppard
Avenue
West,
which
sorry
East,
which
raised
some
issues
with
regards
to
the
the
policy
language
in
the
current
secondary
plan,
and
it
would
be
useful
for
staff
to
review
and
revisit
the
wording
of
some
of
the
policies
in
the
secondary
plan
to
clarify
and
possibly
refine
them
and
strengthen
them.
G
So
the
official
plan
now
along
Sheppard
Avenue,
calls
for
six
story:
buildings,
two-story
podiums
along
the
street
edge
mid
block,
mid
rise
and
along
the
401,
the
taller
buildings
28
to
30
stories
at
the
section
at
Leslie,
sorry
at
Bayview
and
Sheppard,
the
nose
which
is
known
as
New
York
towers
and
the
Concord
lands
generally,
which
is
the
Canadian
Tire
site.
That's
correct
the
center
of
it
then,
what's
called
for
in
the
center,
according
to
the
plan
between
those
two
sites
where
there
isn't
high-rise
development.
Sorry,
what
the.
H
G
H
G
I
B
E
B
F
B
E
It
depends
on
how
the
planning
context
is
framed
if
you
frame
a
study
to
focus
on
a
particular
area,
I
think
it's
possible
to
limit
the
geographical
scope
of
those
policy
changes.
However,
you
know
I
think
your
point
is
well-taken
that
perhaps
some
could
view
a
policy
change
in
one
portion
of
it
to
have
an
impact
on
the
other.
The
remaining
portion.
B
H
Through
you,
madam
chair,
it
really
comes
down
to
what
the
result
of
the
study
is
and
the
recommended
changes
to
the
Official
Plan.
So
if
the
changes
to
the
Official
Plan
are
focused
to
the
area
between
Bayview
and
Leslie,
then
we
be
applying
to
that
area.
We
can't
control
how
people
will
view
that
policy
as
it
relates
to
areas
outside
that
area,
but
but
in
terms
of
official
plan
policy.
If
the
change
is
limited
to
those
properties
within
that
corridor,
then
that
is
really
where
it
applies.
B
B
B
J
You,
madam
chair
I,
mean
it
in
full
fairness
to
the
motion.
I
think
it
is
trying
to
limit
that
it
does
say.
The
review
also
evaluate
whether
there
is
potential
for
appropriate
grade
related
low-rise
intensification
opportunities
and
lands,
designated
neighborhoods
and
apartment
neighbourhoods
located
to
the
south
of
Sheppard
Avenue
East
between
the
east
side
of
baby
Avenue
to
the
east
and
Leslie
so
I
mean
for
full
context,
I
think
in
fairness,
the
motion
is
trying
to
focus
it
specifically
on
that
geographic
area.
J
You
know
the
plan
is
contextual
and
I
think
my
colleague
Willie
said
said
it
correctly
that
certainly
changes
to
one
area
of
a
policy.
You
know
if
you're
asking
me
whether
applicants
will
then
you
know,
seek
to
see
if
similar
changes
can
be
made
and
other
geographical
portions
of
the
secondary
plan,
and
why
were
they
made
here
and
not
made
elsewhere?
I
mean
that
it's
a
possibility,
because
the
plan
is
contextual
in
nature
but
as
I
say,
I
think
the
motion
is
trying
to
scope.
It.
B
K
Through
the
chair,
the
the
secondary
plan
is
has
a
number
of
parts
to
it.
Some
of
them
are
general
policies
which
apply
by
land
use.
Some
of
them
are
general
policies
which
apply
to
transportation,
urban
design
and
other
things,
and
then
there
are
site-specific
policies
which
apply
to
specific
nodes.
K
If
the
findings
of
this
study
are
not
do
not
result
in
changes
to
the
general
policies
and
found
themselves
in
either
modifying
existing
or
creating
new
site
specific
policies,
those
I
think
that
that
would
limit
the
ability
for
those
policies
to
spread
to
other
parts
of
the
of
the
of
the
corridor.
For
example,
the
density
numbers
are
found
in
the
sites
and
the
land
used.
Recommendations
are
found
in
the
site-specific
policies
and
in
the
period
I've
been
working
on
the
planet.
Those
policies
haven't,
haven't
migrated
so.
B
H
Want
to
hamper
staffs
ability
to
make
what
might
be
really
useful
recommendations
at
the
end
of
the
study
or
prejudge.
What
the
conclusion
would
be
may
I
would
maybe
suggest
that,
as
part
of
the
process,
we
could
always
bring
forward
a
status
report
to
show
the
progress
of
the
study
and
what
areas
were
looking
at
and
seek
further
direction
from
this
committee.
But
I
wouldn't
want
to
further
limit
the
scope
of
the
study.
The
scope
is
pretty
much
focused
as
it
is
motion
right.
H
The
general
policies
are
more
in
terms
of
urban
design,
built
form
policies
that
may
need
to
be
tweaked,
but
we
also
have
the
ability
to
say
that
those
general
policies
as
they're
revised,
would
only
apply
to
the
area,
that's
been
being
studied.
So
again,
it
really
really
can't
prejudge
what
the
recommendations
are
going
to
be.
B
H
B
B
H
C
G
G
F
A
G
A
A
E
The
wording
of
the
the
North's
work
to
sort
of
the
shepherd
II
Subway
corridor
secondary
plan
has
portions
that
deal
with
key
development
areas,
so
there's
different
context,
plans
that
we've
created
so
the
Bayview
know,
there's
specific
policies,
the
vissarion
know
they're
specific
policies
and
at
the
Parkway
Forest,
there's
specific
policies.
So,
while
there
are
general
policies
that
apply
to
the
entire
plan,
there
are
also
more
site-specific
policies
that
pertain
to
specific.
A
M
A
F
A
M
A
B
B
D
A
A
M
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
So
these
are
reducing
speed
limits
in
on
streets
that
are
having
trouble
with
volume
and
speeding
issues.
So
I,
don't
know
which
one
the
clerk
is
gonna
put
up
first,
but
the
the
first
one
I
have
is
I
ever
rode.
Is
that
what
you
have
to
so
I'd
like
to
reduce
the
speed
limit
to
30
K
on
I
ever
rode,
which
is
an
entry
point
into
hogs
hollow
thirty-one.
A
M
Next
one
would
be
to
reduce
speed
limit
on
Wallace
and
ran
lay
those
two
streets-
border
Bedford,
Park
public
school.
It's
been
a
lot
of
problems,
particularly
on
ranley,
so
we
thought
in
support
of
school
zones
that
as
part
of
Toronto's
road
safety
plan,
to
reduce
the
speed
limit
on
both
those
streets
again
that
border
Bedford,
Park,
so
30
K,
and
that
I
think
is
item
41.
Yes,.
M
D
This
is
just
a
really
strange
stretch
of
roadway
where
the
road
curves
as
vehicles,
approach,
Dufferin
and
we're
just
we
don't
know
what
the
answer
is
for
for
to
manage
some
of
the
speeding
so
we're
just
asking.
We
cite
some
specific
ones
for
staff
to
look
at,
but
also
want
to
get
their
expertise
on
what
could
be
done
to
manage
speeding
there
to
make
it
safer
for
pedestrian
crossings.
A
D
A
A
N
A
C
A
A
A
I
Morning,
Andrew
forensic
here
from
wnd
on
behalf
of
the
owners
of
the
site,
simply
want
to
say
that
we
do
support
the
recommendation
number
four
to
continue
discussions
with
staff
on
the
application.
We
haven't
had
a
chance
to
take
it
to
the
public
yet
other
than
this
form,
of
course,
and
we
do
hope
that
we
have
that
opportunity
for
continued
discussions
and
I'm
here
to
answer.
Any
questions
that
might
arise
are.
I
Was
just
brought
to
my
attention
yesterday,
I'm
one
of
the
neighbors
Churchill
Avenue
is
that
better
they
have
48,
Churchill,
Avenue
and
I
was
involved
in
the
process
when
this
original
proposal
went
for,
we
didn't
went
to.
As
most
of
you
will
know,
if
not
all
of
you,
that
this
proposal
originally
went
to
the
OMB
at
the
OMB
hearing
the
original
proposal
of
the
eighteen
townhomes
on
this
subject,
property
was
reduced
to
16
by
the
developer,
so
in
the
course
of
the
meeting,
the
developer
actually
reduced
his
request
from
18
to
16.
I
I
If
I'm
not
mistaken
around
that
entire
block
of
Churchill
Avenue,
there
are
approximately
somewhere
in
the
neighborhood
of
16
detached
homes,
and
so
what
I'm,
suggesting
and
based
on
the
amended
proposal,
that's
been
presented
by
the
developer,
12.5
percent
reduction
in
the
density
to
me
does
not
seem
appropriate
and
I'm
here
with
neighbors.
Who
would
agree
with
that
statement?
So
what
we're
asking
is
that
the
proposal
be
further
amended
and
so
and
rejected
as
presented.
I
We
believe
that
a
lower
density,
particularly
given
the
fact
that
this
is
a
busy
street
with
a
public
school
on
the
street
and
a
church.
The
sidewalk
is
on
the
north
side
of
the
street,
which
is
also
where
the
proposed
development
is
and,
as
you
can
see,
from
the
renderings
that
the
houses
are
very
very
close
to
the
sidewalk.
I
So
we're
concerned
about
the
traffic
we're
concerned
about
the
density
as
a
result,
and
so
what
we're
proposing
is
that
there
be
a
further
reduction
of
approximately
three
of
these
homes
so
that
there
would
be
three
versus
four
facing
Churchill
and
a
reduction
of
two
towards
the
sidewalk
on
Churchill
Avenue
of
those
homes
facing
basswood.
Sorry,
Beecroft,
that's
my
statement.
A
I
B
J
J
The
original
proposal
was
for
back-to-back
towns
and
three
blocks.
As
you
see,
staff
refused
the
application
on
the
grounds
that
it
did
not
comply
with
the
neighbourhoods
policies.
The
Official
Plan,
specifically
the
neighbourhoods
policies
in
regards
to
promoting
a
bill
form
that
is
consistent
and
reflective
of
the
prevailing
character.
It
was
appealed
to
the
board
and
at
the
board
it
was
decided
that
there
was
sufficient
I'll
summarize
and
if
there's
further
questions
you
know,
I
can
elaborate,
but
in
basically
the
bottom
line
it.
J
The
board
decided
that
there
was
sufficient
townhouses
in
the
area
to
justify
the
typology
and
in
the
board's
mind
the
townhouses
were
contextually
appropriate
and
the
use
was
justified
and
in
feel
and
OPA
was
required,
but
they
permitted
the
OPA
in
any
event.
So
there
would
be
no
confusion
as
to
the
board's
intent.
The
townhouses
were
inappropriate
form
and
then
the
board
subsequently
sided
with
the
urban
divides
as
design
evidence
provided
by
the
city.
J
Specifically,
ms,
the
artists
that
the
block
in
in
the
rear
that
you
see-
or
that
was
sorry
that
was
there-
was
particularly
problematic
and
in
the
board's
direction.
It
said
that
in
the
last
paragraph
that
the
city
and
the
applicant
should
meet
to
satisfy
the
concerns
of
Mizzy
artists
and
regards
to
what
would
constitute
an
appropriate
build
form
in
this
location.
So
through
consultation
with
staff,
the
town
houses
were
reoriented.
J
There
was
a
further
loss
of
two
units
and
a
parkland
dedication,
and
essentially
the
units
are
now
in
an
L
configuration
fronting
on
to
Churchill
the
four
units
fronting
on
the
Churchill
and
the
remainder
fronting
on
it's
difficult
to
see
in
this
diagram.
But
they
are
fronting
essentially
on
two
Beecroft
there's,
there's
Beecroft
and
there's
a
remnant
parcel
of
land,
that's
in
under
the
jurisdiction
of
transportation
services
and
then
the
Parkland
dedication
and
then
those
townhouses
having
frontage
there.
J
J
In
order
to
minimize
the
impacts
on
Churchill
and
the
curb
cuts
staff
sought
a
further
revision
here
to
increase
the
side
yard
setback
where
you
see
is
a
bit
of
a
pinch
point
on
the
units,
that's
further
furthest
to
the
east
and
Churchill,
so
we
were
seeking
a
further
increase
of
that
of
that
setback,
but
otherwise
staff
are
largely
satisfied
with
this
configuration
we'd
like
to
see
you
know
in
the
fullness
of
time,
elevations.
However,
this
this
configuration
satisfied
the
concerns
of
Missy
artists
and
staff
in
regards
this
application.
J
B
J
J
B
B
A
J
K
B
Yes,
so
I'll
be
moving,
that
the
number
of
units
be
reduced
to
three
on
Churchill
and
eight
fronting
the
east
side
of
the
and
I'll
speak
to
that.
But
I
just
want
to
address
the
larger
context.
If
and
people
should
pay
attention
begin
because
this
could
be
in
in
any
of
our
wards.
So
it's
a
local
Street
and
it's
in
an
area
where
we
have
there's
all
sorts
of
places.
We
would
like
people
to
build
townhouses.
B
B
So
local
street
applicant
buys
up
properties
on
a
local
street,
proposes
townhouses
the
so
could
happen.
Any
bar
word:
pict
picture
a
street
new
ward
residential
street
local
street.
There
are
main
streets
where
we
would
like
to
see
town
house
that
somebody
comes
in
buys
up.
Properties
on
a
local
street
proposes
town
houses.
The
city
opposes
the
town
houses.
The
OMB
decides
that
town
houses
should
be
allowed
because
town
houses
are
permitted.
Our
permitted
use
in
the
neighborhood
section
of
the
Official
Plan,
but
they
say
there's
it's
to
dance,
there's
too
many
town
houses.
B
So
so
we
basically
lost
on
a
really
important
principle
that
you
can't
just
one
town
houses
on
a
local
street,
because
the
official
plan
technically
allows
them.
We've
always
taken
the
argument
that
it
has
to
be
done
in
context,
so
we
lose
on
that
point.
But
the
board
says
it's
to
dance
which
to
me
means
it's
got
way
too
many
town
houses,
it's
not
just
how
the
town
houses
are
configured,
so
they
were
proposing
18-pound
houses.
They
come
back
in
with
14
townhouses
staff
tells
them
to
turn
them
around.
B
B
M
Hope
all
of
North
York
Community
Council,
supports
councillor
Phil
Ian's
recommendations
in
position,
as
he
said.
It
can
happen
to
any
of
us,
and
it
has
happened
to
me
and
it's
quite
flooring
when,
when
staff
takes
such
a
hard
position
off
the
get-go
and
and
then
do
a
180,
so
I'm
fully
supporting
his
his
motion
and
his
fully
supporting
his
position
on
this.
A
A
A
D
D
A
L
Thank
you
for
listening
to
me
and
committee
members.
I
just
wanted
to
be
able
to
go
through
and
to
identify
that
it
was
a
replacement
fence,
the
original
fence
that
was
completed
or
was
on
the
property
back
in
85
when
I
believe
we
purchased
the
property,
was
starting
to
crumble
and
was
becoming
unsafe
being
a
corner
lot.
You
have
concern
for
anybody
walking
through
or
anyone
falling
over
or
anything
happening,
especially
with
children,
so
we
wanted
to
go
through
and
to
replace
it.
L
Unfortunately,
the
advice
that
we
were
given
wasn't
accurate,
so
we've
been
engaged
the
services
of
it
of
another
agent
to
proceed,
and
we
were
looking
at.
Hopefully,
you
approving
the
new
fence
to
continue
to
give
us
privacy
and
eliminate
individuals
just
cutting
through
our
property
and
a
safety
place
for
my
grandchildren
to
also
while
playing
since
I
babysat
them
throughout
the
week.
L
Also,
when
it
comes
to
it,
people
on
corner
Lots
seem
to
disrespect
the
property
itself
on
all
of
our
corner
Lots
about
two
and
a
half
months
ago,
I
actually
had
to
call
3-1-1
and
have
them
pick
up
six
bags
of
garbage,
plus
a
number
of
plastic
household
items.
People
have
parked
on
our
property
since
we
haven't
when
the
fence
we
just
had
the
posts
up,
we
didn't
know
who
they
were
and
where
they
were
coming
from,
but
I'm
really
hoping
that
you
will
consider
our
appeal.
L
Also
in
regards
to
item
D
on
page
two
of
your
correspondence
you
you're,
requesting
that
we
remove
the
wooden
gates,
that's
on
Chamberlin
that
actually
gives
us
access
to
our
side
door,
which
is
the
door
we
use
to
come
in
and
out
of
the
property
on
a
regular
basis.
We
very
rarely
use
our
front
door
and
that
Gabe
was
actually
included
in
the
original
fence
that
we
had
on
the
property.
L
L
F
B
F
F
G
G
G
G
Help
me
I,
see
the
fence.
I,
see
it's
an
encroachment
on
the
public
property.
Can
you
tell
me
where
how
the
distance
between
the
I
guess
that's
a
sidewalk
there
and
the
fence
and
then
the
distance
between
the
fence
and
the
private
property
line?
Because
if
you
can
read
those
small
diagrams
I'd,
like
your
glasses
instead
of
mine,.
G
A
D
A
B
One
is
about
halfway
down
where
it
says
report
back
to
North,
Carroll,
County,
Court
or
of
2019,
with
the
results
of
the
review
and
any
recommended
site
and
area
specific
changes
to
the
secondary
plan
and
context
plans
and
then
further
down
where
it
says
such
reviews
to
consider
whether
any
proposed
I'm
inserting
the
word
syphon
area,
specific
secondary
plan
and
context
plan
changes
that
may
result
in
additional
height,
and/or
density.
So
it's
that
it's
dealing
with
the
migration
issue
that
staff
were
talking
about.
B
So
this
does
I
believe
what
councillor
shiner
wants
to
do,
which
is
focus
on
a
an
area
and
his
word
which
I'm
not
familiar
with,
but
I'll
take
his
word
for
it
that
there's
some
pressures
there
that
he
needs
to
deal
with.
But
whatever
the
solution
for
that
is
I.
Think
his
revised
wording
and
the
addition
of
the
word
site
area
specific
limited
to
solving
that
problem
without
unintended
consequences
for
the
two
neighboring
words
so
I
hope
pieces
broken
out.
G
If
my
colleagues
had
the
opportunity
to
actually
hear
what
the
staff
were
saying
before,
they
were
quite
clear
in
the
fact
that
this
review
would
focus
on
the
areas
which
are
which
I
represent,
and
any
migration
of
any
type
would
not
be
in
the
way
of
density
or
new
development
outside
of
the
area.
It
might
be
in
policies
that
actually
strengthen
the
current
policies
that
are
there
in
place.
G
No
density,
no
change
is
outside
the
reason
that
I
have.
This
motion
in
front
of
us
is
with
recent
applications
and
some
an
appeal
to
the
board
and
concerned
by
our
legal
department
in
the
ability
to
support
the
official
plan
that
is
in
place.
They
brought
up
the
fact
that
the
plan
came
in
in
2002
and
hasn't
been
reviewed
since
well,
that's
16
years
ago,
and
they
want
to
be
able
to
appropriately
defend
it.
G
It
has
particular
policies
talking
about
where
the
heights
and
the
density
should
go,
and
they
want
to
review
that
and
ascertain
that
it's
appropriate
and
continue
with
that,
because
there's
substantial
pressure
now
that
people
are
building
out
those
areas
to
take
the
approvals
that
they
have
and
add
substantial
density
to
those
sites.
In
particular,
Canadian
Tire,
has
got
approval
for
their
new
office
headquarters
over
at
Leslie
and
Sheppard
as
an
office
building,
but
as
they
haven't
built
it
as
an
office
site.
G
G
There's
townhouses
there's
light
it's
a
pleasant
place
to
live,
you're,
not
surrounded
in
these
shadows
and
I
suggest
any
of
you
go
there
and
take
a
look
at
the
way
this
community
was
developed
and
is
actually
quite
nice
and
that's.
What
we're
trying
to
do
is
maintain
it
unless
there's
any
changes
and
be
able
to
support
that-
and
my
disappointment
is
that
this
could
have
been
discussed
at
the
last
meeting.
G
A
A
A
A
C
B
F
D
Thank
you,
madam
a
chair,
I
thought
from
the
resident.
They
we're
gonna
want
to
defer
this,
but
I
note
that
the
staff
recommendation
it
says
that
the
it
does
meet
the
physical
requirements
of
the
code
in
terms
of
setbacks,
and
so
that,
based
on
that,
and
it's
a
pre-existing
condition
that
they
want
to
legalize
that
we
can
also
make
some
money
on
and
it'll
be
better
than
it
is
now.
I'll
move
the
alternate
recommendations.
A
D
D
C
E
I'm,
a
resident,
135,
Cedric
Avenue,
so
very
simply
I'm,
actually
here
in
support
of
the
appeal
and
very
simply
I've
been
living
on
the
street.
Now
for
approximately
year
and
a
half,
as
you
may
be
aware,
there,
a
number
of
the
homes
do
have
legal
pad
parking.
I
happen
to
be
one
of
those
homes
that
does
have
legal
pad
parking,
but
I'm
also
one
of
those
homes
that
has
a
second
car.
E
Not
everyone
does,
but
I
do
and
so
I
park
on
the
street
and
what
I
am
finding
increasingly
is
it's
becoming
more
and
more
of
a
challenge
to
park
on
the
street?
So
so,
naturally,
if
these
two
residences
are
denied
pad
parking,
I'm,
not
sure
how
many
cars
they
have
I
know
that
they
each
have
at
least
one
they
possibly
could
have
a
second
car.
It's
just
simply
going
to
mean
at
a
minimum,
possibly
as
many
as
four
more
cars
parking
on
the
street.
E
Capacity
and
how
much
more
parking
could
comfortably
be
managed
on
the
street,
but
I
can.
Oh
I
can
only
express
to
you
that,
just
through
experience,
it's
there
have
been
times
actually
when
I've
actually
had
to
park
my
car
off
the
street,
never
overnight,
but
certainly
before
midnight
and
unfortunately,
what
I
have
to
do
then
is
move
my
car,
obviously
back
on
the
tree,
because
my
permit
doesn't
allow
for
parking
anywhere
other
than
Cedric
Avenue,
so
I'm
just
here
to
to
ask
for
consideration
or
in
support
of
the
appeal
in
consideration
of
my
testimony.
D
A
D
A
A
A
A
L
Good
morning,
I
am
the
original
complainant
in
this
matter,
and
actually
I
spoke
before
Council
last
month
due
to
a
lack
of
quorum.
However,
this
decision
was
not
taken.
The
matter
before
you
today
began
almost
a
year
ago
as
a
simple
matter
of
trimming
a
hedge,
so
that
I
could
back
out
of
my
driveway
safely.
That
was
it.
L
What
has
ensued
is
the
use
and
utter
misuse
of
an
outrageous
amount
of
public
time
and
resources,
including
that
of
the
police,
mutual
licensing
and
standards,
right-of-way
management,
counselor,
Burnside
his
office
and
now
council,
because
a
neighbor
to
this
very
day
continues
to
act
in
contempt
of,
let
alone
address.
What
is
a
clear
matter
of
public
safety.
I
will
put
up
on
the
screen
here,
exhibit
one
which
is
a
photograph
of
the
original
fence
which
my
neighbor
it
constructed
along
the
length
of
my
driveway.
L
Exhibit
two
is
a
photograph
of
my
car.
Alongside
that
same
fence,
I
would
ask
you
to
note
that
the
sight
line
to
the
sidewalk
and
roadway
are
completely
blocked
by
that
fence.
Exhibit
three
illustrates
that
my
sight
line,
just
above
the
lowest
point
of
the
fence,
it's
a
gank
that
my
car,
a
very
small
toy,
echoes,
sits
at
the
sidewalk
before
I
have
a
clear
and
unobstructed
view
of
oncoming
pedestrians
or
traffic.
L
This
exemption
shall
be
considered
null
and
void
at
which
time
the
property
at
either
1
3,
4
or
136
Donley
Drive
changes,
ownership
or
either
property
is
subject
to
an
application
for
plaintiff
subdivision
rezoning
official
plan
amendment
site
plan
approval,
minor
variance
or
consent.
All
that
I
find
absolutely
necessary.
This
amendment
serves
the
following.
It
permits
my
neighbor
to
keep
both
the
hedge
and
fence,
which
is
what
he
wants
for
as
long
as
either
he
or
I
remain
owners
of
adjacent
properties.
L
It
addresses
and
clarifies
the
absolute
minimum
visibility
required
in
order
for
me
to
enter
and
exit
my
driveway,
while
limiting
the
threat
or
danger
to
either
pedestrians
or
oncoming
traffic.
Finally,
it
addresses
and
provides
for
the
very
real
potential
of
abuse
and
non-compliance,
and
that
is
important.
I
would
emphasize
that
I
do
not
make
this
request
lightly,
exhibit
six
to
eight
illustrate
that
this
fence
clearly
limits
the
use
of
my
own
driveway
is
a
real
obstacle,
which-which
against
which
I've
already
damaged
my
own
car
and
the
defense
and
hedge
are
both
highly
obstructive.
L
L
F
F
F
A
A
A
K
A
Q
B
Q
We
were
thinking
about
a
pool,
they
identified
our
our
property
as
having
a
violation,
offense
bylaw,
which
actually
was
introduced
back
in
2008
a
couple
years
after
we
purchased.
This
property
should
note
that
you
could
tell
from
this
that
we've
maintained
this
hedge
and
the
whole
time
we've
been
there
since
2006,
and
it
was
well
established
at
least
15
years
old
before
we
even
got
there.
Q
So
I
also
note
that
the
driveway,
that's
there,
the
33
Holcomb
we've
got
a
letter
from
the
property
owners
saying
that
he
has
no
concerns
with
this
hedge,
as
I
mentioned,
this
was
flagged
because
I
called
on
an
unrelated
matter
and
I've
also
got
some
letters
from
others
in
the
neighborhood
saying
that
they
concerns
with
it.
In
fact,
I've
spoken
to
many
and
they're.
Very
they
don't
understand
why
we
have
to
remove
it.
So
when
we
started
out
back
in
December,
we
got
this.
Q
Q
We
basically
would
remove
a
partial
amount.
The
required
amount
was
2.4
meters
by
2
point
5,
meter
triangle
and,
as
you
can
see
from
our
property
that
a
big
chunk
of
those
trees,
in
fact
at
least
12
fully
grown.
You
know
sizable
trees
that
we
would
have
to
remove,
and
so
I
put
this
proposal
together,
which
shows
that,
with
the
removal
of
1.2
meters
by
1.2
meters
that
we
were
able
to
increase.
Q
A
typical
vehicle
would
be
right
so
again,
I
understand
the
safety
concerns
that
this
bylaw
is
trying
to
handle
and
but
I
just
the
impact.
Our
property
is
is
significant
if
we
have
to
take
out
the
whole
2.4
meters
by
2.4
meters
and
again,
there
were
no
complaints
in
the
neighborhood.
There
haven't
been
any
incidents
that
I
know
of
so
you
know
we,
we
understand
we're
trying
to
meet
halfway,
and
we
will
you
know.
Q
Q
Just
because,
if
it
was
someone
who
put
this
hedge
in
or
a
fence,
you
know
after
2008-
and
you
know
contravention
of
the
bylaw
I-
totally
understand
that
I
wouldn't
be
here
today.
If
that
was
the
case,
I
would
I
would
remove
it,
but
just
because
of
our
circumstance
and
the
fact
that
these
trees
have
taken
a
long
time
to
grow,
and
you
know
they
don't
grow
overnight,
and
you
know
realistically
with
2.4
by
2.4,
we
would
have
to
put
some
wooden
fence.
Q
B
Really
nice
guy
buys
a
property
assuming
it's
legal,
then
staff
has
staff
come
to
his
property
on
a
totally
unrelated
matter
because
he's
trying
to
follow
all
the
rules
and
then
they
spot
this
condition
and
and
say
you
have
to
remove
it.
So,
on
the
one
hand,
that
all
seems
completely,
you
know
absurd
and
I'm.
You
know
totally
with
mr.
gall
there.
On
the
other
hand,
it's
a
safety
issue
and
I
don't
know.
B
F
Option
two
would
would
be
to
maintain
the
hedge
as
it
was.
However,
the
modifications
have
been
made
to
the
hedge
after
this
report
was
written.
What
so,
what
they've
done?
So
what
was
there
before
was
the
hedge
was
full
look
at
the
photos.
What
they've
done
is
they
removed
four
feet
of
the
hedge
on
either
side
so
along
the
driveway
and
along
the
sidewalk?
So
now
that's
an
open
space.
B
B
B
A
A
R
At
the
time
our
defense
on
the
north
side
of
our
property
neighboring
with
76
clansmen
Boulevard,
was
already
there.
The
fact
that
the
back
yard
of
76
clansmen
Boulevard
was
fully
fenced
on
three
sides
by
a
uniformed
wooden
fence.
At
the
time
when
we
moved
in
makes
it
obvious
that
it
was
built
by
the
owner
of
76
Klansmen
prior
to
June
2005
in
spring
of
2017,
the
fence
on
the
north
side
of
our
property
started,
leaning
due
to
rotting
posts,
our
neighbor,
the
owner
of
76
Klansmen
would've,
are
hired
a
contractor
to
fix
the
fence.
R
R
As
you
may
see,
on
the
pictures
taken
by
the
inspector,
the
property
line
between
74
and
76
clansmen
Boulevard
is
sloping
at
about
45
degree
angle.
Considering
the
landscape,
it's
physically
impossible
to
have
a
fence
of
a
uniform
height
there.
Neither
ours
nor
the
neighbor
of
76,
Klansmen
or
the
owner
of
76
Klansmen
are
concerned
about
the
condition
of
the
height
of
the
fence,
since
it
is
in
solid
shape
and
provides
privacy.
We
would
like
to
keep
defense
on
the
north
side
of
our
property,
as
is,
however,
if
there
are
any
recommendations
from
the
council.
R
In
our
opinion,
they
should
be
addressed
to
the
owner
of
76
Klansmen
regarding
the
fence
on
the
west
side
of
our
property
in
the
fall
of
2016.
The
owner
of
23
Prestwick
Crescent,
which
is
our
neighbor
on
the
west
side,
approached
us
complaining
that
the
vegetation
which
is
growing
and
along
the
property
line
is
getting
too
tall
and
it
impedes
the
growth
of
grass
in
their
backyard.
R
R
I
can
show
Council
a
picture
that
I
have
on
that
side
of
the
fence
taken
on
May
30th,
which
shows
that
the
height
of
the
wood
planks
is
6
feet
and
the
height
of
the
wood,
like
the
top
edge
of
the
fence,
is
slightly
over
7
feet
which
exceeds
the
code
requirements
by
marginal
20
centimeters.
A
written
information
confirmation
was
obtained
from
the
owners
of
the
23
Prestwick
and
76
Klansmen,
declaring
that
none
of
the
neighbors
have
concerned
about
the
height
of
the
fence.
Copies
were
attached
to
our
original
exemption
application.
R
A
R
R
R
A
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
A
G
F
The
notes
don't
indicate
the
midpoint.
The
way
the
bylaw
is
written
is
that
we
must
measure
one
meter
on
to
each
on
each
side
of
the
property
and
one
meter
away
from
the
offense,
and
then
we
measure
the
fence
height,
add
the
two
together
and
take
the
difference
between
and
that's
what
the
average
grade
would
be.
So.
G
F
G
G
F
G
I
just
wanted
to
know
the
excess,
so
nine
feet
at
the
worst.
It's
about
32
inches
more
than
it
should
be
at
the
tallest
point
and
that
tallest
point
takes
in
for
the
cap,
which
is
about
six
inches.
So
at
the
tallest
point
were
about
26
inches,
and
that
means
that
the
other
end
of
it-
it's
probably
at
the
six
at
the
two
meter
mark.
So
it's
going
from
two
meters
up
to
two
meters
to
feet:
I'm.
F
G
R
A
A
F
G
For
the
staff
and
yourself
you've
got
a
property.
The
elevation
changes
along
the
line
of
it,
both
neighbors
are
happy
with
the
fence.
They've
sent
in
letters
of
support,
along
with
the
applicant
I,
have
no
problem,
letting
them
have
their
fence
with
a
slight
variance,
which
is
about
two
feet
along
the
top
of
it
and
everybody's
happy
with.
Why
would
I
want
to
make
people
unhappy
today.
A
G
A
G
A
A
I
need
2/3
to
reopen
all
in
favor
opposed
carried
to
grant
the
exception
for
the
property
at
31
Holcomb
Road,
to
maintain
an
area
of
1.2
meters
by
1.2
meters
in
the
rear,
flank,
Adyar,
clear
of
any
hedges
trees
or
shrubs
to
direct
that
at
such
time
as
replacement
of
the
fence
is
required,
the
replacement
fence
will
comply
with
Municipal
Code
Chapter,
four
for
seven
or
its
successor
by
law.
Okay,
Carrie!
A
I
Thank
you
good
afternoon.
My
name
is
Andrew
forensic
I'm,
the
planning
consultant
for
the
owner
of
the
site.
We
were
happy
to
have
worked
with
staff
on
this
application,
resulting
in
significant
reduction
in
the
scope
of
the
project
from
10
units,
10
townhouses,
down
to
5
townhouses
within
the
interior,
a
rear
portion
of
the
site
which
is
an
infill
site
and
then
maintaining
two
semi
detached
dwellings
along
along
the
streetscape
to
provide
for
that
continuity.
That
already
exists
there.
I
C
F
F
There's
a
Montessori
School
there
so
to
add
a
garage
I'm
concerned
about
visibility
as
well
as
even
it's
sort
of
a
blind
corner
when
you
turn
off
of
it
or
straight
off
of
Mount
Pleasant
and
so
I'm,
just
worried
about,
like
I,
said
having
kids
about
being
able
to
come
and
go
safely
from
my
own
house,
it's
already
quite
congested
because
of
the
Montessori
School
on
the
corner
in
the
winter.
You
know
the
sidewalk
gets
really
icy,
I'm
concerned
about
being
able
to
navigate
the
stroller
with
an
increase
in
garbage,
bins
and
stuff.
F
F
C
P
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
having
me
I'm.
Actually,
a
neighbor
of
the
property
that's
being
built
to
reconstruct
them
right
across
the
street,
so
I'll
be
looking
at
the
new
development
and
a
couple
of
concerns.
I
have
I
would
commend
Kelly,
because
those
are
safety
concerns
of
big
issues
for
us,
but
right
now
the
the
location.
That's
there,
the
buildings
that
they're
looking
at
rebuilding
it's
already
on
a
land,
that's
higher
than
what
my
property
is
so
I
would,
instead
of
being
a
two-story
right
now
it's
a
three-story.
P
P
You
know
I
have
a
garage,
I
closed
the
door
every
night
every
day,
all
the
time
so
I
don't
want
to
see
that
as
well
as
I
have
young
kids
I'm
worried
about
the
safety,
because
the
school
that
goes
in
there,
you
should
see
it.
A
drop-off
and
pickup
every
day,
I've
seen
almost
accidents
all
the
time.
The
young
kids
running
down
the
street
and
I
think
and
I
believe
that
the
visitor
parking
that
they
have
located
for
this
site
will
be
totally
on
act
and
will
not
be
able
to
hold
it
all.
P
The
visitor
parking
our
street
now
is
is
packed
with
cars
24/7.
That's
because
of
the
development
that
went
across
the
street
many
years
ago
that
the
apartment
building
on
Mount
Pleasant,
which
is
right
across
from
our
studio,
vina
Gardens
that
will
have
a
big
hindrance.
I
watched
a
lady
yesterday
she
came,
she
had
two
cars,
she
didn't
live
on
our
street.
P
She
lived
on
I,
think
on
Mount
Pleasant
or
a
street
erskine
on
the
other
side
and
I
said:
oh,
do
you
live
down
the
street
and
she
said
no
I
just
parked
my
cars
here
all
day.
So
there's
a
big
issue
for
me.
I
watch
to
go,
walk
drive,
one
car
come
back
and
pick
up
her
next
car
and
she
didn't
even
live
in
our
street
or
a
closed
neighboring
story.
I
think
she
lived
up
more
on
Keewatin
on
the
west
side
of
Mount
Pleasant.
P
So
it's
a
big
concern
because
that
that
increased
as
time
goes
on,
as
well
as
with
these
10
or,
as
the
gentleman
said,
7
properties.
Now
it's
gonna,
the
visitor
parking
is
not
adequate
and
the
biggest
thing
is
I.
Don't
want
to
look
at
garbage,
bins,
I
think,
seven
properties
or
they're
trying
to
wheel
them
in.
We
have
them
out.
C
S
That
will
be
much
higher
than
other
houses
on
our
street,
but
actually
how
much
my
and
kind
of
reduced
quality
of
my
life,
which
is
my
my
privacy
I
work
all
day,
I
actually
need
a
rest
at
the
end
of
the
day,
like
any
other
people,
why
I
need
to
suffer?
Tell
me
they
are
they
concerned
that
I
have
is
that
Michael
mentioned
is
about
transportation,
about
vehicle
vehicles.
Did
this
part
of
the
street?
S
Those
patients
who
visit
those
doctors
actually
leave
their
cars
on
our
street
in
order
to
visit
their
doctors
and
make
an
appointment
and
car
sustained
in
the
kind
of
on
the
street
or
quite
alone.
There
is
no
possibility
to
actually
walk
around
and
it's
actually
service
cars
like
Rogers,
like
Canada
Post,
like
any
any
maintenance
cars
who
come
to
our
street
to
provide
service,
actually
live
cars
on
the
side
of
this
tree
for
its
big
rate,
bigger
concern
for
the
kids,
who
actually
sometimes
driving
on
on
a
bicycle
now
street.
It's
actually
it's
really
concerning.
S
There
are
the
biggest
concern
that
I,
actually
don't
even
see
and
hear
that
people
addressed.
Is
that
the
future
of
those
people
who
supposed
to
live
in
those
development
developmental
houses?
There
is
no
arcs
that
they
will
not
be
access
of
ambulance
to
any
of
that
properties
from
inside
I.
Don't
know
I
raised
my
question
with
the
like
meeting
with
the
city,
but
I
don't
know
if
it's
been
addressed,
so
the
garage
told
that
that
was
proposed
to
put
on
our
street.
S
It's
actually
damaged
a
nice
greeny
environment
that
our
street
is
actually
quite
well
maintained.
In
addition
to
that,
there
are
some
very
well
development
greens
on
the
backyard
that
they
are
going
to
remove,
and
actually
this
will
damage
and
wildlife
that
actually
uses
those
three
for
me.
So
all
this
mom,
like
minor,
bigger
kind
of
comments,
I,
please
please
please
take
into
consideration,
and
we
are
other
neighbors
were
very
unhappy
about
this
development.
It's
not
appropriate
it's
over
world--well
overwhelming
and
this
will
damage
absolutely
damage
and
reduce
quality
of
our
life.
N
N
N
N
C
N
G
N
N
N
N
N
G
Well,
III
under
I'm,
trying
to
understand
the
white
for
someone
owns
a
right-of-way
which
gives
them
owns
the
land
and
gives
them
right
of
access
to
their
own
land,
and
you
have
an
access
over
their
property.
Why
they
shouldn't
be
allowed
to
use
their
access
on
their
property
and
you're
concerned
about
the
increase
in
traffic.
But
you
are,
and
the
other
neighbors
are
using
it
and
have
the
same
increase
in.
N
N
G
You
would
like
the
access
to
come
off
Alvina
for
these
homes
and
not
on
their
right-of-way
I'm,
trying
to
understand
it
because
the
counselors
in
a
very
difficult
position,
there's
an
application
which
I
believe
is
an
amendment
over
here.
That
I
don't
think
our
staff
are
totally
opposed
to.
That
might
think
it
works
to
redevelop
it
with
some
townhouses
in
the
middle
of
the
property,
which
is
much
better
than
a
much
denser
development.
G
It
will
cause
a
little
extra
traffic
on
the
lane
way,
but
I'm
trying
to
understand
what
the
alternative
is,
that
she
might
be
able
to
suggest
to
us.
That
would
be
better
for
it
and
I
I'm,
not
hearing
what
the
alternative
is
I'm
just
hearing
what
the
problem
is.
I
don't
mean
to
be
difficult
with
you
either,
but
know.
S
N
N
C
C
O
I
press
oh
it's
on
already
hi.
My
name
is
Ronnie
bhardwaj
I'm,
a
part
of
the
neighborhood
and
have
I
suppose
for
the
past
six
months,
so
organised
a
community
group
against
the
proposed
development,
we've
kind
of
gone
through
multiple
levels
of
conversation
with
our
City
Planning,
Department
and
and
our
peers
here
in
the
city
I'd
like
to
raise
a
couple,
concerns
that
that
I
have
around
zoning
around
design
and
fit
for
neighborhood
I.
O
It
is
by
having
front
entrances
that
do
not
face
the
street.
You
are
separated
from
that
public
realm,
even
for
something
as
simple
as
how
do
you
move
in?
Do
you
move
in
from
the
front
street?
How
do
you
get
your
deliveries?
How
do
you
coexist
as
a
part
of
a
neighborhood
when
you're
within
and
buried
inside,
that
neighborhood
the
access
to
public
schools
where
our
children
go
to
may
or
may
not
be
available
to
this?
O
This
small
community
of
new
neighbor
so
I
think
that
there's
something
to
be
said
about
responsible
development
around
fostering
healthy
neighborhoods,
that
this
development
is
moving
away
from
I.
Think
that
there's
something
they
also
be
said
about
safety,
so
so
talking
on
the
Elvina
side
of
the
street.
If
you
look
at
both
the
entrance
to
the
garage
area,
it
may
not
show
up
in
terms
of
a
density
of
traffic,
but
that
is
a
relatively
high.
O
Intersection
of
traffic
from
perspective
that
there's
businesses
across
street
there's
houses,
there's
an
adjacent
plaza
and
then
there's
also
a
children's
school
that
by
the
time
the
proposal
was
first
submitted
was
erected
with,
let's
call
it
between
50
and
100
children.
Every
morning
you
also
get
traffic
from
the
high
school,
which
is
a
block
away
where
people
would
drop
off
in
the
morning.
So
I
think
that
that
intersection
becomes
a
very
interesting.
O
Section
where
you
can
have
the
potential
for
collisions
I've
seen
other
developments
have
dual
access
in
and
out
of
of
properties,
but
I
think
that
that's
something
to
be
called
upon
from
Italy
from
the
safety
of
people,
passers
people
passing
by
with
children
and
other
things.
The
garbage
collection
is
something
else
that
I
think
is
important
to
call
out.
If
you
only
have
one
small
space
for
front
street
access
and
half
of
that
is
taken
up
by
a
garage.
Where
do
you
put
your
garbage
bins?
Where
do
you?
Where
do
you
collect
that
for
pickup?
O
In
our
neighborhood
we've
previously
had
multiple
rat
infestations
from
our
friends,
who've
developed?
The
rats
had
to
relocate
with
all
the
condos
that
moved
into
the
neighborhood,
so
so
they
found
our
neighborhood,
so
I
think
I
think
there's
somebody
said
about
about
a
health
and
safety
concern
there,
but
in
general,
fit
for
a
neighborhood
is
very
important
thing:
I'm,
not
talking
about
cosmetic
designs,
I'm
talking
about
12
foot
front
facing
buildings,
that
engulf
the
neighboring
properties,
I'm
talking
about
orientation
and
and
how
it
doesn't
help
improve
our
neighborhood
and
the
character
of
our
neighborhood.
C
T
Thank
you
being
that
I
did
arrive
a
little
late,
I
appreciate
the
opportunity.
I
reside
at
271,
Sheldrake
Boulevard
and
there's
been
a
lot
of
changes
that
have
happened
around
the
area.
I.
Think
for
me,
the
main
concern
with
this
is
it's
not
really:
it's
not
a
part
of
a
part
of
Erskine
or
Elvina,
where
they're
trying
to
do
some
development.
It's
not
even
a
street
they're,
basically
trying
to
create
access
between
two
streets
because
which
is
I
guess
backing
on
to
retail,
on
Mount
Pleasant
and
yes,
gentleman
who
just
spoke
has
basically
brought
forward.
T
T
It's
a
it's
a
it's
an
odd
misfit
in
the
neighborhood
and
it
will
cause
problems
with
traffic
and
I
have
no
idea
how
people
are
gonna,
move
their
things
in
and
out
it's
beyond
me
how
they
will
be
able
to
get
any
furniture
in
one
of
those
townhouses
the
access,
it's
just
wrong
and
yes,
if
it
went
through
from
one
side
to
the
other,
and
people
could
drive
in
one
way
and
drive
out
the
other
way.
That
might
make
some
difference.
T
But
it's
just
an
odd
spot
to
put
something
like
that
and
I
understand,
there's
a
piece
of
land
there,
that's
sitting
there
really
just
crossed
in
treat
in
unused
at
the
present
time.
But
if
you
were
developing
something
from
either
of
Alvina
or
Erskine
Avenue,
that
was
something
else
and
they
were
had
proper
access
and
it
fit
in
with
the
neighborhood.
It
would
make
more
sense
and
there
are
a
lot
of
families
with
small
children
who
are
going
to
suffer.
G
Same
I'm
over
here
the
same
question
this
this
is.
This
is
not
an
application
where
the
city
can
say
yes
or
no
to
because
it's
been
appealed
to
the
intera
Municipal
Board.
So
the
city
has
to
come
back
in
a
case
and
see
if
there
was
an
opportunity
to
find
something
which
may
be
the
least
worst
solution.
G
Because
if
we
don't,
we
leave
it
up
to
an
adjudicator
who
sits
in
a
panel
and
looks
at
planning
arguments
to
make
a
decision,
and
that's
what
we're
about
today.
So
that's
why
I
was
asking
the
other
gentleman
that
was
computing
before
what
else
would
you
suggest
doing
with
this,
where
it's
a
single
family
or
a
townhouse
area,
townhouse
homes
right
away,
exists,
I.
G
T
Touching
on
future
development
that
encompasses
maybe
all
of
the
Mount
Pleasant
strip
of
retail
and
I,
don't
know
it's
something
like
that,
would
work
and
make
more
sense,
but
it's
still
going
to
be
infringing
on
people
in
that
location
in
between
it's
sort
of
like
the
backyards
of
people's
homes.
All
of
a
sudden
you're
plunking,
these
down
the
middle
I'm,
just
like
a
laneway
development,
is
really
what
it
is.
Isn't
it
it's
just
a
not
a
that
great.
T
It's
not
a
large
enough
space,
maybe
to
actually
answer
to
that
people
have
looked
at
the
same
thing
when
you
go
down
too
young
and
Sheldrake
coming
in
down
Sheldrake
over
towards
the
church
conversion
and
there's
very,
very
deep
lots
there
and
the
same
thing
has
happened.
Nothing
has
really
come
about
with
that,
but
there
is
this.
You
know
290
feet,
deep
backyards
that
people
have
well.
Maybe
some
of
these
other
people
can
make
use
of
some
of
that
land
and
and
purchase
it
or
have
it?
Has
anybody
tried
I
have
no
idea.
T
M
G
Do
briefly,
so
this
definitely
isn't
great
sticking
townhouses
in
people's
backyards,
which
is
what
it
is
on,
a
right-of-way
that
exists
over
there
and
I.
Don't
think
people
ever
envisioned
it
would
happen.
Is
there
any
other
suggestions
that
we
have
recommendations
we
could
make
or
just
give
an
out-and-out
refusal
on
this
not
do
deal
with
it.
From
your
perspective,.
H
That's
not
notwithstanding
there's
many
ways
to
slice
slice,
an
apple
we
haven't
been
presented
with
any
alternative
schemes
that
address
our
concerns.
The
one
before
you
now
addresses
many
of
the
concerns
we
originally
had
and
I
agree
it's
less
than
ideal,
but
it
is.
It
is
a
challenging
sight,
a
challenging
configuration
to
develop.
G
H
I
believe
so,
and
that's
what
similarly,
what
we
had
before
it
was
one
block
one
long
block,
including
townhouses
on
Alvina,
that's
been
broken
into
two
blocks
now,
with
a
semi-detached
unit,
Alvina
to
respect
the
character
valve
ena
and
to
create
more
space
around
the
two
blocks
in
terms
of
separation,
distances
between
the
adjacent
properties,
so
I
think
that
that's
vastly
improved
okay.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
M
You
mr.
chair,
or
vice
chair,
acting
as
chair
I,
do
have
a
motion.
That's
been
pre
circulated
to
my
colleagues
on
council
and
the
clerk's
Department
on
the
screen.
I,
don't
even
know
where
to
begin
except
to
say
that
I
want
to
thank
the
residents,
because
it
was
any
of
them
to
get
here
today,
and
if
this
was
in
the
evening
the
chamber
would
have
been
filled.
They
also
wrote
and
I
hope
you've
had
a
chance
to
read
these
beautifully
articulated
letters
that
had
they
have
sent
in
quite
thick
and
comprehensive.
M
That
talked
about
the
really
the
planning
applications
that
have
we've
really
strayed
from
as
a
city
with
this
report,
so
I
have
to
be
a
little
bit
careful
of
what
I
say,
because
some
of
this
is
confidential.
But
I
do
want
to
thank
particularly
Ronnie,
who
spoke
second
last
and
who's
really
taken
a
leadership
in
the
community,
a
leadership
role
in
really
bringing
the
community
together
to
to
oppose
this
and
try
to
work
as
closely
with
planners
as
possible.
M
I
have
never
in
my
eight
years
as
a
city
councilor
ever
written,
like
colleagues
a
letter
the
day
before
council,
to
ask
you
to
support
me
on
an
application.
I
have
never
met
with
the
city
manager
or
the
chief
planner
on
an
application,
but
in
this
case
I
did
and
I
have
to
say:
I
have
never
felt
so
let
down
by
planners.
This
was
identified
as
a
red
light
application
when
it
came
in
it,
violated
major
planning
policies
and
is
completely
inappropriate
and
just
based
on
principle
alone.
M
I
cannot
believe
we're
sitting
here
with
this
report
in
front
of
us
John
Fillion,
when
this
came.
As
a
preliminary
report
stated
this,
we
can
compare
this
to
the
now-infamous
OMB
folly
and
you
know
John
Fillion
councillor
Fillion
has
a
lot
of
experience
in
planning,
so
we
had
this
strong
refusal
report
before
us
and
council
voted
to
direct
it
illegal
to
oppose
this
and
all
the
way
to
the
OMB.
And
if
you
read
that
original
report,
which
I
sent
to
all
of
you
yesterday,
it
was
uncompromising
on
page
15.
M
The
proposal
is
not
in
conformity
with
the
Official.
Plan
is
considered
an
inappropriate
development
for
these
lands
and
it
goes
on
and
on
and
on
I
wish
I
shouted
to
the
mountaintops.
When
I
saw
that
original
refusal
report
and
somewhere
in
the
last
few
months,
things
completely
went
off
the
rails
and
I
honestly
I'm
still
an
I'm,
shell-shocked
and
so
is
community.
A
number
of
meetings
happen
with
developer
with
a
developer
and
suddenly
planners
are
on
board.
M
So
I
think
these
people
I'm
shocked
they're,
even
here,
because
we're
completely
disillusioned
and
feel
abandoned
by
the
city
and
I
have
such
a
long
list
and
I
don't
have
time
to
go
through
it.
But
I
will
tell
you
this.
It
is
in
blatant
contravention
of
our
official
plan
that
these
interior
townhomes
tonne
townhouses
will
not
face
a
public
street.
M
They
are
not
facing
a
public
street.
Read
the
Official
Plan
section
three
point:
one
point:
two
stipulates
that
building
entrances
should
be
clearly
visible
and
directly
accessible
from
a
public
sidewalk
section
four
point:
one
point:
nine
specifically
speaks
to
irregular
Lots,
which
planners
are
saying.
It
is
just
that,
but
guess
what
it
still
says
it
has
to
front
on
to
an
existing
or
newly
created
public
street.
M
So
I
just
cannot
believe
what
is
happening
here.
This
proposal,
if
think
about
your
backyard
right
now,
just
visualize
your
backyard
and
visualize
a
wedding
cake
and
pretend
it's
being
plopped
in
behind
your
in
your
backyard,
because
these
are
going
to
be
higher
than
the
actual
neighborhood.
There
are
no
examples
of
this
internal
townhouse
units
in
this
neighborhood
forget
the
neighborhood
in
this
vicinity
of
Toronto,
not
a
one,
there's
not
one
example
of
it
and
it
can
be
rarely
found
anywhere
outside
of
the
downtown
core.
So
this
undermines
the
lauding
pattern
of
the
area.
M
It
introduces
an
inappropriate
way
of
organizing
development
and
it
is
wrong-
and
you
can
tell
I
guess
by
my
emotion
that
I
feel
this
is.
This
is
a
critical
issue
that
is
before
this
council
today
to
take
a
stand
on
this.
It's
unprecedented
way
of
organizing
development,
tall,
townhouse
units
behind
Mount,
Pleasant
and
Erskine,
and
all
the
surrounding
streets,
it's
devastating
as
Ronny
beautifully
said,
and
all
all
the
all
the
speakers
did.
A
great
job
today,
because
it's
not
easy
to
do
these
to
get
up
and
speak
before
council.
M
It
destroys
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
It's
like
clapping,
a
neighborhood
in
the
middle
of
a
neighborhood.
So
I
cannot
stress
enough
how
important
it
is
for
this
community
council
to
send
a
message
and
support.
My
motion
directing
staff
to
continue
to
oppose
this.
This
application,
because
it's
wrong
and
it
sets
a
wicked
precedent
and
planners
will
say
no,
because
it's
a
unique
parcel
and
I
say
no
to
you
on
this.
It
will
not
face
a
public
street.
Is
this
the
kind
of
Toronto
that
we
want?
Is
this
the
kind
of
communities
we
want?
B
Briefly
because
I
know
it's
late,
I'll
be
supportive.
Council,
Robinson
and
I've
noticed
an
alarming
alarming
to
me
anyway,
and
obviously
to
some
councillors.
I'll
call
it
a
trend
because
it
didn't
use
to
happen
before
where
the
staff
will
take
a
firm
position.
The
community
councillor
council
will
support
the
staff
firm
position.
The
residents
are
happy,
everybody
thinks
everything
is
good
and
then
the
next
thing
you
know
there's
a
settlement
report
at
Council,
with
no
consultation
with
the
community.
B
F
I
just
wanted
to
say,
I
will
be
supporting
council
Robinson's
motion.
I
also
agree
with
councillor
Fillion
that
this
is.
This
is
an
issue
that
is
becoming
greater
and
greater
I've
experienced
it
in
my
own
ward
and
not
with
townhouses,
but
with
mid-rise
buildings
that
are
far
too
big
for
for
neighborhood
designations,
not
on
avenues,
and
it
is
a
trend
that
is
getting
worse.
So
I
will
be
supporting
councillor
Robinson's
motion
on
this.
C
K
K
Maybe
that's
why
I'm
supporting
you
then,
however
I'm?
Having
said
that
I
just
want
to
I'm
just
reminded
of
a
development
that
went
in
some
years
back
I
believe
was
in
construction.
Mary's
Ward,
where
a
fella
went
in
I
mean
so
there's
a
road.
It's
got
a
bunch
of
houses
on
it.
There's
Wilson
avenues
got
a
bunch
of
apartment
apartments
on
it.
There's
another
road.
Coming
downs
got
a
bunch
of
houses.
There's
a
road
down
here.
K
It's
called
down
to
you
having
who's
got
a
bunch
of
houses,
but
what
the
houses
on
downs
you
have,
and
you
have
these
long
backyards
like
some
two
hundred
feet,
long
or
something.
So
what
did
the
real-estate
guy
do
in
the
neighborhood
he
went
to
each
and
every
homeowner
there
bought
up
half
their
backyard
right,
a
good
chunk
of
their
backyard,
so
bought
them
all
up.
Then
he
bought
a
house
at
the
end
of
the
street
on
a
side
street,
so
he
came
in
with
an
application.
He
demolished.
K
The
one
house
created
an
access
and
in
all
of
these
backyards
he
came
in
with
a
planning
application.
For
you
know
a
new
subdivision,
some
condo,
stuff
and
I,
don't
know
some
other
things
and
I.
Remember
it
going
through
the
planning
process
and
and
the
planners
were,
you
know
initially
somewhat
tepid
on
it
and
then
later
you
know
like
like
this
one.
You
know
the
you
satisfy
some
of
the
conditions
you
satisfy
some
of
the
some
of
the
sort
of
you
know
entrance.
G
C
G
I
asked
the
question
of
people
to
try
and
see
what
their
perspective
was.
I
can
only
imagine
what
it's
like
to
be
living
in
a
house
for
many
years
and
find
out
that
there's
a
house
going
in
your
backyard
and
that's
really
what
we're
faced
with
is
trying
to
understand
the
issues
from
the
different
perspectives.
The
original
plan
really
had
a
long
block
of
a
house
coming
in
off
one
Street
Elvina
and
then
having
people
walk
into
it.
G
City
staff
tried
to
accommodate
that
in
a
manner
to
at
least
provide
some
better
separation
distances
and
access
inside
of
it,
because
there
were
policies
within
our
official
fund
documents
that
do
talk
about
irregular
locked
and
they
were
trying
to
work
with
that
and
I
know
they
were
trying
to
come
out
to
something
that
was
at
least
a
little
bit
better.
I
also
know
and
I
think.
G
All
of
you
should
be
very
very
aware
that
some
of
our
colleagues
on
council,
by
pushing
for
things
like
laneway
housing,
and
they
have
no
idea
that
that's
as
bad
as
this,
if
not
worse,
we'd,
take
a
garage
in
the
back
and
start
to
add
people
living
there
and
a
lot
of
people
in
our
more
suburban
areas.
Don't
hear
about
it
because
we
don't
think
about
it
because
most
you
don't
have
laneways
well.
G
This
is
laneway
house,
but
it's
big
laneway
housing,
it's
not
on
a
garage
or
on
top
it's
huge
and
it's
massive
so
not
to
belabor
the
point.
My
colleague
is
going
to
try
to
do
her
best
to
defend
your
rights
through
the
hearing
process
and
see
in
that
regard,
whether
there
can
be
refusal
for
this
application
and
we'll
see
what
it
is.
G
It's
very
interesting
to
me
that
the
person
that
could
actually
have
made
these
things
better,
being
the
premier
of
the
province
of
Ontario
to
my
understanding,
lives
in
a
very
close
proximity
to
this
house.
And
let
me
tell
you
when
we
had
a
problem
in
my
colleague
had
a
problem
on
Erskine
Avenue
with
John
Fisher
public
school.
G
It
was
another
one
that
was
through.
The
interim
initial
board
ended
up
with
a
settlement
and
a
decision
which
was
very
distasteful
to
my
colleague
I
think
when
she
moved
it
but
had
to
to
get
away
from
something
worth
and
a
new
owner
was
there,
but
I
received
a
phone
call
from
the
premier
as
chair
of
planning
and
growth
committee.
Could
I
find
some
miracle
to
fix
that
and
I
said
like
what
well
could
you
move
it
to
a
piece
of
parkland
and
I
said?
Can
you
give
me
a
piece
of
provincial
land?
G
Well,
we
don't
think
so,
and
someone
else
gets
to
adjudicate
on
this,
and
that
is
really
the
flaw
in
the
system
of
the
ability
to
have
the
real
jurisdiction
to
deal
with
planning
matters
for
all
of
us
here,
because
we
all
get
caught
in
many
of
these
instances
at
different
times
so
I'm
fully
supportive
of
my
colleague
I
hope.
We
can
give
some
kind
of
message
and
find
someone
that
will
support
that.
G
C
C
Okay,
Shelby
shall
this
bill
be
passed
and
declared
as
a
bylaw
recorded
vote,
all
those
in
favor
counselor,
so
sorry,
counselor,
shiner,
counselor,
so
councillor
Robinson,
councillor
Fillion,
councillor,
Pasternak,
councillor,
Carmichael,
grab
and
count
sir
/
oza
that's
carried
unanimously.
Thank
you
very
much
city
staff,
counselors
members
of
the
public,
our
clerk
staff.
We
are
adjourned
enjoying
the
rest
of
the
day.