►
Description
Planning and Growth Management Committee, meeting 30, June 7, 2018 - Part 1 of 2
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=13068
Part 2 of 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uhxtI2N-NM#t=13m34s
Meeting Navigation:
0:10:01 - Call to order
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Well,
I
appreciate
that
too
counselor,
but
I'm,
not
repeating
that
to
other
members
of
council
and
attendance
and
to
the
members
of
the
public
for
those
in
the
room
with
us.
The
screen
at
the
back
of
the
room
provides
real-time
updates
concerning
where
we
are
in
the
agenda
and
what
is
coming
up
next,
you
can
follow
the
agenda
and
debate
on
your
computer
tablet
or
smartphone
at
wwr,
Anto
CA
ford,
/
console.
Are
there
any
declarations
of
interest
under
the
municipal
conflict
of
interest
Act,
seeing
none
confirmation
of
the
minutes?
A
A
You
do
have
five
minutes
and
we
do
want
to
hear
from
you,
but
if
you
are
repeating
what
someone
else
has
said,
and
you
can
give
it
to
us
a
little
bit
shorter
I
think
most
of
us
would
appreciate
that,
in
light
of
the
fact
that
we
have
to
be
able
to
get
out
of
here
and
give
our
staff
enough
time
to
vote
as
well
today,
along
with
other
people
that
have
interest
in
the
campaigns
going
through
the
agenda.
The
first
item
is
the
Official
Plan
review
draft
built
form
policies.
A
And
the
motion
is
simply
that
in
our
policies
we
should
have
a
description
of
height
in
meters
and
stories,
because
there
are
sometimes
confusions
when
people
bring
forward
buildings
and
do
multiple
do
as
to
what
the
height
of
the
building
should
actually
be
and
has
caused
confusion.
So
that
is
the
amendment
that
I
would
move.
A
A
Adding
the
word
so
the
heights
will
be
in
meters
for
the
exact
purpose,
you're
saying
so.
When
someone
knows
it's
a
50-story
building,
they
also
know
how
many
meters
so
I
am
moving
the
motion
all
those
in
favor
and
he
opposed
that's
carried
the
item
as
amended
all
those
in
favor
and
he
opposed
that's
Kari.
Okay
meetings
adjourned.
A
All
right,
good!
Try
item
number
two
draft
official
plan
amendment
for
dwelling
room
protection
policies.
There
are
speakers
on
that
item
number
three:
zoning
bylaw
amendments
to
implement:
edgington,
crosstown,
LRT
and
Finch
West
LRT.
We
have
to
hold
until
ten
o'clock
it's
a
scheduled
public
hearing.
Midtown
InFocus
is
scheduled
for
10:30.
A
A
And
that
was
to
reach
out
to
the
Ontario
Science
Center
to
discuss
the
future
of
their
lands,
which
is
in
the
same
area.
I
had
been
approached
a
while
back
by
the
former
chair
to
see
if
they
could
work
with
us
through
the
process
and
possibly
relocate
their
facility
onto
some
of
the
city
lands
and
I
thought.
Seeing
as
it's
comprehensive
plan
for
the
four
corners
at
least,
we
should
extend
the
invitation
and
that's
what
this
motion
does
so
I
would
move
my
amendment,
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed.
A
B
A
Have
a
few
motions
that
the
clerk's
is
just
putting
onto
their
screen?
I
will
hold
that
down
for
the
moment,
while
they're
ready
I
know
the
local
town,
sir,
had
some
minor
changes
but
and
I
believe
the
applicant
said
to
us
Iowa
bladder.
They
were
satisfied
with
it
and
we
don't
have
any
speakers,
so
I
might
come
back
to
the
shortly
as
soon
as
the
clerk
has
emotions
ready.
A
A
A
C
A
Was
two
speakers
on
that
members
of
committee
and
I
understand
that
the
chair
is
here,
but
can
only
be
here
in
the
morning
so
I'm
thinking,
if,
with
your
permission,
I'd
move
that
we
deal
with
that
as
a
first
item.
Now
we
deal
with
how
the
speakers
have
the
chair
here
and
to
any
members
of
council
that
are
within
earshot
as
well.
Please,
the
the
chair
is
here:
if
you
have
questions
of
them
as
we
go
forward
now,
it's
your
opportunity
to
ask
those
and
we
could
deal
with
those
items.
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
Please
do
just
very
brief
introductory
would
love
to
hear
from
you.
We
were
very
supportive
of
having
the
T
lab
go
in
place
and
you
are
our
representatives
there
trying
to
deal
with
the
issues
that
you
have
on
these
items.
So
we'd
love
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
this
and,
if
there's
any
other
suggestions
from
yourselves
that
as
well
all.
D
D
This
report
that
you
have
before
you
deals
with
the
calendar
year
of
2017,
but
since
then,
we've
had
five
additional
months
of
hearings,
we've
held
somewhere
between
one
and
two
hundred
appeal
hearings
and
motion
hearings
in
respective
matters.
From
the
four
panels
of
committees
of
adjustment
of
the
city.
D
We
have
new
premises
and
we
have
therefore
overcome
some
of
the
heating
air
conditioning
hvac
issues
that
were
experienced
before
you
may
hear
comments
about
those.
The
tribunal
has
seven
members.
We
are
functioning
I,
think
very
well
and
cooperatively.
They
are
essentially
volunteer
members,
but
they
are
disciplined
and
the
issues
of
variants
and
consent
appeals
and
they
are
senior
members
appointed
through
your
council
as
a
reflection
of
their
interest
in
serving
the
city.
The
annual
report
is,
as
I
say,
a
short
window
of
statistics.
D
We
have
set
several
parameters
and
objectives
for
service
in
the
City
of
Toronto.
One
is
that
appeal
hearings
be
dealt
with
in
approximately
100
days,
roughly
one-third
of
the
time
occupied
in
the
past
by
the
appeal
process
outside
of
Toronto.
We're
almost
meeting
that
schedule,
in
fact
we're
moving
closer
to
it
than
the
annual
report
shows.
We
have
set
a
series
of
rigorous
rules
for
disclosure.
D
Those
rules
have
been
met
with
some
resistance
at
the
outset,
but
it's
there's
a
growing
acceptance
that
they
disclose
the
changes
made
by
applicants
and
the
positions
of
the
parties,
and
we
have
a
growing
indication
that
settlement
is
becoming
a
greater
interest
to
the
parties
because
of
that
disclosure.
We're
also
undergoing
a
very
significant
review
process
of
the
rules
and
making
adjustments
to
those
rules
to
permit
timelines
for
city,
legal
and
others
to
get
instructions,
and
that
process
will
unfold.
Over
the
mid
point
of
this
year,
we've
completed
public
public
hearing
sessions
on
them.
D
We're
an
unusual
body,
as
you
may
recall,
because
we
have
two
two
heads.
We
sit
as
hearing
officers
on
Appeals
in
formal
settings
set
by
the
regulations
under
the
statutory
powers
procedures
act,
but
we
also
hold
public
meetings
whereby
we
act
as
a
kind
of
council
panel,
and
that
is
the
only
time
we
get
together
to
discuss
public
issues
in
public.
D
So
I
would
conclude
by
the
report.
By
commending
it
to
you,
it
has
a
series
of
recommendations.
At
the
end
we
have
we
have
an
interest
in
improving
the
circumstance,
so
there
are
approximately
five
recommendations
and
I
understand.
Court
services
will
later
a
comment
on
some
of
those
to
the
extent
that
they
involve
the
city
other
than
other
than
actions
that
can
be
taken
under
our
current
mandate
and
I
could
say
that
set
that
I
believe
the
general
reception
by
the
public
is
positive
to
the
work
of
the
Toronto
local
appeal
body.
They
are
consents.
D
A
set
of
members
that
are
conscientious.
Our
decisions
are
thorough
and
respond
to
the
issues
that
are
put
before
us
and
while
there
may
be
some
disagreement
with
any
decision
that
resolves
conflict
between
citizens,
we
think
they're.
There
generally
been
accepted.
We've
had
deputations
from
mr.
Cattell.
D
D
So
they
glutes
and
rate
payers
Association
we're
well
aware
of
the
very
strong
participation
of
those
interest
groups,
both
in
our
public
meetings
and
in
their
appearances
before
the
tribunal
on
site,
specific
hearings,
and
there
are
very
good
contributors
to
the
process.
The
only
other
thing
I
would
conclude
with
sir
is
to
say
that
that
not
only
is
there
been
a
an
uptake
recently
in
settlements
because
of
the
disclosure
rules.
D
We
have
had
a
few
mediation
sessions
and
we
have
encouraged
mediation
by
placing
in
our
rules
and
unusual
but
interesting
provision
that
a
member
who
senses
a
mediation
is
advantageous.
As
between
the
parties,
we
can
compel
the
parties
to
meet
for
mediation.
It
would
be
non-binding
mediation,
but
it
does
represent
a
power,
that's
different
than
ever
exercised
in
the
past
by
by
tribunals
and
it's
there
and
it's
ready
to
go.
D
So
we
look
at
our
the
member
that
has
the
file
is
assigned
to
file
a
hundred
days
in
advance
of
the
actual
hearing
tracks,
the
filings
that
are
required
pursuant
to
the
disclosure
rules
and
can
make
an
adjudication
whether
that's
a
particular
candidate
for
mediation,
and
we
think
that
that
is
is
a
benefit
that
can
serve
the
public
by
indicating
early.
Whether
or
not
the
parties
should
be
asked
to
get
together
for
mediation.
D
We
have
not
instituted
a
formal
pilot
project
for
mediation,
but
we
have
instituted
this
review
and
we
have
very
specific
provisions
in
our
rules
as
to
how
to
conduct
mediations
and
as
I
say,
a
small
number
have
occurred,
more
settle
in
advance,
rather
than
require
even
mediation
or
a
hearing.
That's
my
my
comments
for
the
moment.
Thank.
A
So
I
I
will
ask
you
one
because
you
brought
it
up.
We
are
a
little
different
because
we're
going
to
have
deputations
after
you
from
the
same
two
individuals,
so
you
heard
them
speak
to
you
about
concerns.
Could
you
give
us
an
idea
of
what
their
concerns
were
they
expressed
and
whether
you
aren't
able
to
deal
with
those
issues
because
we're
going
to
hear
from
them
after
and
I'll,
ask
you
the
question
now
we.
D
Have
extensive
written
correspondence
from
mr.
Patel
and
mr.
Cavey
on
our
rules
review
process
and
we
have
had
public
deputations
from
both
of
them.
Their
concerns
are
both
positive
and
directed
at
improving
the
process,
so
they
have
made
specific
recommendations
on
the
processing
of
Appeals
and
the
timelines
involved,
and
those
matters
are
all
being
considered
by
the
panel
and
will
be
will
be
responded
to
perhaps
with
a
draft
set
of
revisions,
late,
July,
but
certainly
over
the
summer.
D
So
their
specific
concerns
are
quite
detailed,
but
they're
not
are
not
heavy
in
the
sense
that
they
cannot
be
addressed
or
explained
and
I
think
that
I'd
be
a
bit
presumptuous
to
try
and
prioritize
any
concerns.
They've
had
they
have
had
full
airing
and
very
respectful
hearing
of
their
concerns,
and
we
are
we're
putting
those
in
the
hopper
for
considerations
with
others
as
to
how
to
address
if
it's
appropriate
to
address
them.
Thank.
A
You
and
the
other
question
I
had
some
mediation,
so
you
said,
you've
only
had
a
few
mediations
so
far,
but
you
are
looking
to
come
require
mediations.
If
you
see
that
it'll
be
helpful,
so
I
think
our
staff
in
the
city
and
my
colleagues
know
I'm
often
one
that
pushes
to
get
people
to
talk
to
each
other
to
find
a
way
to
resolve
issues
because
they
may
not
be
as
far
apart
as
they
think,
and
it
really
speeds
up
the
process.
A
Can
you
tell
me
where
you
think
you're
going
on
that
and
and
if
you'll
be
able
to
get
more
mediation
in
effect
and
with
that
involved?
There
is
the
issue
that
we
brought
up
about,
having
to
have
I
think
it's
90
days
in
advance,
written
submissions
which
is
a
little
difficult
for
some
people,
just
a
neighbor
or
a
resident
in
the
area
right.
D
Our
current
rules
required
that
anyone
who
wishes
on
an
appeal,
whether
a
party
or
a
participant
to
to
make
their
concerns,
no
one,
must
file
a
statement
of
their
position
and
disclose
that
midway
through
the
through
the
process,
from
the
notice
of
appointment
to
the
actual
hearing
days.
So
the
public
is
becoming
quite
acclimatized
to
having
to
put
in
writing
their
concerns.
It's
a
form
online,
it's
easily
fillable
and
it's
quite
oh,
it's
an
all-electronic
process,
so
it
it
took
a
little
bit
of
a
learning
curve.
D
There
still
is
a
concern
about
having
to
apply
signatures
or
we're
going
to
deal
with
that,
but
that's
a
learning
curve.
So
on
on
the
suggestions
that
have
been
made
with
respect
to
mediation,
we
are
entertaining
an
express
declaration
as
to
whether
a
party
on
it
on
the
filing
forms
believes
mediation
would
be
relevant
to
be
pursued
and-
and
that's
not
on
the
forms
at
the
moment,
but
has
been
requested
to
be
put
on
the
forms
and
it's
a
good
idea.
The
tea
lab
process
is
so
far
voluntary.
D
There's
no
requirement
that
anyone
petitioned
to
be
a
party
or
a
participant.
They
simply
elect
what
status
they
would
like.
Once
they've
elected
a
status
of
either
a
party
or
participant,
they
are
required
to
fill
out
a
statement
to
reveal
their
position,
and
it
would
be
a
simple
matter
to
include
in
that
that
they
indicate
whether
or
not
mediation
is
also
something
they
would
like
to
pursue.
Voluntarily.
D
The
the
change
from
voluntary
mediation
to
mandatory
mediation
is
a
decision.
We,
the
rules,
still
leave
with
the
individual
members
having
assessed
the
parties
to
their
statements
as
to
what
their
issues
are,
and
we
then
leave
it
to
the
member
to
decide
whether
it's
important
it's
worthwhile
to
compel
them
to
get
together
early,
and
we
haven't
discussed
altering
that.
A
D
And
that's
occurring
daily
yesterday,
I
had
a
hearing,
we
had
had
a
very
contentious
one
day
hearing
and
we'll
only
finished
one
witness.
We
had
an
adjournment
for
a
period
of
time,
they
assembled
yesterday
and
they
they
brought
a
settlement
and
we
we
resolved.
We
had
two
extra
days
set
aside
for
it.
They
had
seen
the
side
of
the
other
of
the
parties
cases
they
had
met.
They
resolved
it
and
they're
doing
that
more
frequently.
A
Okay,
thank
you.
Are
there
questions
so
sorry,
members
of
committee
that
wanted
to
ask
of
mr.
Lord
not
seeing
anything?
No,
not
non-members
of
committee.
First
and
I,
don't
know
if
councillor
Matt
Lowe
had
any
questions
of
mr.
Lord.
Oh
okay,
I
just
wanted
to
be
sure.
I
know
how
busy
you
are
on
your
own
items
today
and
then
members
of
committee,
councillor
perks,
had
questions
and
then
Cancer
Campbell.
H
First
of
all,
thank
you
very
much
for
both
coming
today
and
also
the
work
you've
done
in
establishing
this
body
and
it's
very
helpful.
I'm.
Just
looking
at
your
performance,
metrics
and
I
note
that
two
of
the
metrics
that
seem
to
be
a
bit
of
a
struggle
are
the
appeal
received
to
notice
of
hearing
days
did
so
you
get
the
appeal
and
then
the
notice
going
out
I
assume
it
says
that
you've
not
been
meeting
that
in
the
majority
of
cases
and
I'm
wondering
what
the
issue
has
been
there
all.
D
Right
we
we,
the
four
panels
of
the
committee's,
send
appeals
to
T
lab.
They
so
far
have
been
different
in
their
approaches.
They
have
sometimes
sent
them
when
the
appeal
is
lodged
at
the
end
of
the
appeal
period,
but
some
committee
panels
are
grouped
them
into
maybe
20
Appeals
at
a
time
and
send
them
electronically.
The
T
lab
that
creates
a
potential
delay.
Our
goal
staff
goal
is
receive
the
appeal
and
our
notice
of
hearing
goes
out
in
a
five-day
period,
a
very
quick
turnaround
that
becomes
more
difficult
with
with
lumpy
groups
of
Appeal.
D
There
can
be
delays
in
that.
If
there's
an
imperfection
in
the
appeal,
the
field
fee
hasn't
been
filed
or
there's
an
there's,
an
incomplete
form
that
we
have
a
process
of
administrative
review
and
adjudicative
review
that
can
delay
that
five-day
period,
but
in
the
main
I'm
told
by
staff
that
it's
hitting
in
the
5
to
8
day
period
on
the
main
for
matters
that
don't
have
to
be
looked
at
in
the
second
way.
D
H
D
D
D
It's
a
robust
target
because
people
have
things
intervening,
and
some
of
these
hearings
are
quite
complex,
that
one
thinks
the
committee
of
adjustment
hearing
can
be
hearing
appeal
can
be
conducted
in
half
a
day.
Many
are
taking
full
days
and
many
more
a
number
also
go
to
two
and
three
and
four
days
because
they
have
consents
and
lots
of
players
interested
that
doesn't
affect
the
issuance
of
they
hear
that
statistic,
because
that
statistic
is
once
the
hearing
door
is
closed.
D
We
want
the
decision
out
the
door
and
five
in
12
14
days,
but
if
the
decision
is
complicated,
lengthy
and
complex
and
is
marred
with
other
decisions
at
the
same
time,
that
can
slip
a
bit.
But
basically
the
members
are
really
quite
well
responding
and
we
have
a
follow-up
process
whereby,
if
there's
a
lengthy
outstanding
set
of
decisions,
we
have
an
internal
discipline
process.
A
B
B
So
eleven
percent
of
the
items
were
before
you
were
brought
by
the
city,
sixty-six
percent
by
the
applicant,
so
I'm
trying
to
understand
in
terms
of
the
outcome.
It
says
ten
percent
approved,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
from
the
out,
if
that's
from
the
applicant
that
were
approved
or
if
that's
from
you
know,
the
City
of
Toronto
contesting
a
C
of
a
decision
were
approved.
Yes,.
D
That's
that's
a
difficult
thing
to
get
one's
mind
around,
because
mr.
Peavey
mr.
Patel
will
have
perhaps
for
you
advise
that
the
pattern
of
decision-making
at
t
lab
is
reflective
of
the
pattern
of
decision-making
previously
at
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
in
terms
of
development
approvals,
and
the
reason
that
it's
difficult
is
depends
where
you
pick
your
measurement.
The
disposition
by
t
lab
can
be
a
disposition
on
an
appeal
from
an
applicant
and
an
appeal
from
an
appellant
neighbor
on
an
appeal
from
the
City
of
Toronto
or
a
combination
of
appeals.
B
The
but
the
appeals
are
coming:
60,
/,
6
percent
from
the
applicant
or
10
percent
from
the
city,
and
they
were
there
would
be
contrary
positions.
So
that's
why,
anyway,
my
suggestion
would
be
to
if
the,
if
the
next
time,
there's
reporting,
if
you
know
a
little
bit
more
clear,
a
little
clearer,
maybe
a
little
element,
a
little
broader,
a
little
more
detail
and
then
you've
got
five
percent
were
refused
and
16
percent
were
dismissed.
So
I'm
not
sure
what
the
difference
is
between
refused
and
dismissed.
D
Well
again,
the
decision
will
have
categories
some
of
variances
may
be
approved.
Some
may
be
refused
some
conditions.
If
it's
an
appeal
of
a
condition
that
at
a
panel
imposed,
it
can
be
refused
or
approved
or
dismissed.
It
depends
on
how
it's
phrased-
and
this
statistic,
I
think,
is
one
that
you
quite
properly
pointed
needs
definition
good.
B
And
approach
I
can
appreciate
this
the
first
time
you're
going
through
this
now.
The
other
question
I
have
is:
have
you
had
a
case
before
you,
yet
where
a
settlement
was
not
possible,
in
other
words,
where
the
Builder
had
already
built
and
exceeded
the
very
PSA's
that
were
permitted
by
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
then
the
committee
of
adjustment
approved
those
variances,
so
the
Builder
has
gone
beyond
variances
approved
committee
of
adjustment
said:
okay,
we
get
it
and
then
it's
come
to
you
and
in
that
case
there's
no
settlement
possible.
B
D
A
D
A
Then,
in
some
ways
your
work
is
a
review
of
the
work
of
our
committee
of
adjustment
and
I.
Think
the
questions
of
my
colleague,
councillor
Campbell
as
to
how
many
of
the
ones
that
City
Council
wanted
to
refer
to.
You
and
others
are
an
important
way
for
us
to
measure
happening
and
I
also
like
to
get
the
same
information
as
to
what's
happening
at
the
committee
from
our
staff.
So
in
your
next
reporting.
A
Just
you.
We
have
small
lots
that
would
have
variances
and
then
you
have
very
large
lots
and
they
go
for
the
same
variances
to
put
the
maximum
house
on
the
property,
and
that
then
creates
a
style
of
housing.
That
might
not
be
right,
but
it
was
permitted.
So
in
some
cases
we'll
be
looking
towards
T
lab
in
those
worth
two
houses
on
the
street
might
have
had
it,
but
I've
said
to
our
staff:
I.
A
Don't
care,
tell
the
committee
to
challenge
the
individual
and
ask
him
why
that
is
appropriate
for
that
site,
not
just
because
you
sat
on
a
roof
and
looked
in
four
directions
and
saw
a
height
there.
Asajj.
Are
there
a
coverage
here
and
something
else
and
said:
I'll
do
that
and
make
the
application,
because
our
residents,
I,
think
counts
are
fillion
that
way
our
residents
say:
there's
a
zoning
bylaw.
The
zoning
bylaw
has
all
this
information
in
and
how
you're
supposed
to
build.
A
D
D
We
welcome
direction
policy
direction
on
matters
such
as
that
including
precedent
that
city
has
adopted
an
official
plan-
amendment
obj
320,
which
helps
to
focus
the
area
of
comparison
instead
of
a
broad
study
area.
It
brings
the
study
area
of
comparison
of
impact
down
to
a
narrower
location.
That
amendment
is
before
the
entire
municipal
board
has
been
there
a
long
time
and
we
have
the
difficulty
of
applying
the
existing
Official
Plan
and
being
argued
that
the
proposed
official
plan,
amendment
320,
should
be
given
weight
and
we
deal
with
that
every
day.
But
we
have.
D
We
have
the
legal
barrier
of
applying
the
existing
Official
Plan
and
the
inchoate
or
the
pending
Official
Plan
is
have
a
difficult
status.
So
I
certainly
take
your
your
your
direction.
We
will.
We
will
include
what
we
can
in
the
in
an
annual
report,
but
I
would
also
urge
that
the
city
push
that
OPA
amendment
320
on
for
clarity,
get
that
appeal
resolved
at
the
board,
and
maybe
some
of
the
innuendo
and
weight
associated
with
precedent
and
what's
occurred
before
can
be
put
into
a
proper
perspective.
Thank.
D
We
have
had
perhaps
four
I
read
all
of
the
decisions
and
I'm
also
the
reader
for
the
Thomson
Reuters
reporter
service.
So
I
am
looking
for
precedent
decisions
and
the
category
of
decisions
about
that
Radel
with
as-built
or
he
legally
built
construction
recognition,
I'm
alert
to
their
both
I
think.
There
have
been
four
of
those
in
the
roughly
ten
twelve
months
of
hearings,
I.
D
Know
that
the
members
are
except
the
administrative
law
principle
that
they
are
to
review
those
requests,
fresh
as
if
they
did
that
as
if
the
construction
had
not
occurred.
There's
always
the
reality
that
construction
is
out
there,
but
they
they
look
at
the
variances
and
take
the
evidence
in
to
weigh
it
on
the
basis
that
it's
a
fresh
new
variance
and
quite
comfortable
that
the
members
respect
that
administrative
law
principle
and
client
and.
I
I
guess
you
know,
for,
for
example,
wouldn't
be
a
large
enough
sample,
but
I'm
not
aware
and
and
I
know
the
tea
labs
only
year
old,
but
I'm
not
aware
of
either
with
the
Municipal
Board
or
the
tea
lab
ever
making
a
decision
which
results
in
a
house
being
torn
down.
To
pick
an
extreme
example
or
half
torn
down
that
that
would
be
the
only
remedy.
I
D
D
We
have
not
had
a
circumstance
where
that
and
we
have
not
had
a
recognition
and
maintain
variance
for
integral
garages
that
I'm
aware
of
or
below
great
interval
garages.
We
certainly
had
variances
that
have
addressed
integral
garages
in
areas
where
they
are
not
permitted,
and
the
city
is
very
strong
on
its
regulation
and
policy
related
to
below
grade
integral
garages.
A
A
J
So
my
name
is
Jeff
cattell
I'm,
a
co-chair
of
the
Federation
of
North
Toronto
resident
associations
and
al-kabir,
the
neighborhood's
working
group
with
Sarah
the
South
Eglinton
resident
repair
Association,
the
so
the
forwarding
of
this
annual
report,
and
indeed
the
the
presence
here
today
of
mr.
Lord
I,
think
he's
a
remarkable
occasion.
J
If,
a
year
ago,
the
chair
of
the
OMB
would
not
have
been
here
at
Toronto
planning
and
management
committee,
so
that
is
actually
a
significant
event
to
have
that
degree
of
relationship
and
and
friendship
and
and
cordiality
between
the
appeal
body
and
and
City
Council.
So
that's
certainly
a
benefit,
and
the
opportunity
of
that
presentation
provides
an
opportunity
for
us
as
residents
to
comment
on
the
progress
to
date.
The
and
we
commend
the
T
lab
that
recently
conducted
two
open
meetings
intended
to
receive
feedback
from
the
public
regarding
their
rules,
which
they
established.
J
So
what
I'd
like
to
do
this
morning
simply
is
is,
is
quickly
go
through
some
as
chair
of
copious
elise
side,
I
was
there
for
the
first
meeting
more
with
the
concerns,
and
now
was
there
from
Sarah
for
the
concerns
and
then
at
the
second
meeting
we
basically
came
back
with
some.
You
know
moving
beyond
the
concerns.
What
do
we
do
about
it?
The,
as
you
know,
T
lab
is
an
independent
quasi
judicial
tribunal
and,
as
such,
the
processes
that
uses
must
be
fair,
accessible,
affordable
and
understandable.
J
Of
greatest
importance
to
the
public
is
whether
decision
outcomes
are
fair,
as
natural
justice
been
served,
the
analyses
of
decision
outcomes
to
date
as
prepared
by
the
entire
Bar
Association
and
the
South
Eglinton
grape
Association
Sarah
showed
that
the
outcomes
clearly
favored
the
proponent
Sarah's
submission
identified.
Significant
inconsistencies
that
exists
between
committee
of
adjustment
decisions
and
T
lab
decisions.
Majority
of
cases
under
appeal
to
T
lab
have
been
refused
that
C
of
a
but
subsequently
turned
around
approved
at
t
level.
J
The
tea
labs
decisions
on
appeal
are
not
consistent
with
the
decisions
of
the
C
of
a
that
would
be
a
Pierce
of
surprising
to
us
that
the
sieve
a
decision
to
refuse
is
it's
generally,
not
upheld
by
the
T
lab,
so
it
would
appear.
You
know
it
would
appear
that
the
outcomes
are
unbalanced
at
present
and
we're
going
to
suggest
some
changes
to
restore
balance
in
the
overall
process.
J
A
significant
aspect
of
this,
as
we
all
know,
is
the
imbalance
of
resources
between
the
proponent
and
the
and
the
public,
and
one
of
the
things
we
would
propose
is
that
because
there's
no
often
there's
no
lawyer,
there's
no
planner
there
or
maybe
there's
a
planet,
but
no
lawyer
that
there
be
activity
education
by
the
member'
there's
a
clear
need
to
reduce
the
disadvantages
of
under
represented
parties.
The
proponent
will
almost
always
win
when
the
when
the
opponents
are
self-represented
or
without
expert
support.
J
J
Secondly,
we've
come
up
with
a
concept
of
a
local
knowledge
expert.
Several
recent
cases
I've
demonstrated
the
role
of
local
knowledge
experts
in
the
hearing
process.
We
believe
that
the
these
people
can
provide
opinion
evidence
along
with
factual
evidence
right
now.
It's
only
factual
evidence
that
people
are
able
to
provide
and
the
opinion
expert
is
left
to
the
so-called
experts
tdap
adjudicators.
We
believe
should
weigh
the
balance.
Weights
are
weigh
the
evidence
of
local
knowledge
experts
as
they
do,
that
of
other
experts.
J
Somebody
coming
in
from
Richmond
Hill
there's
their
on-site
for
a
couple
of
hours.
What
do
they
really
know
about
the
neighborhood
compared
with
residents
that
may
have
you
know,
attended
committee
have
attended,
be
part
of
resident
associations,
take
a
real
interest
and
passion
in
their
neighborhood.
Thirdly,
city
support
for
residents
in
planning
appeals.
You
know,
as
you
know,
the
Ontario
government
in
its
OMB
reforms
has
established
a
planning
appeal,
support
center,
separate
separate
from
the
Local
Planning
Appeal
Tribunal.
All
l-pad
such
a
planning,
Support
Center,
would,
with
a
similar
function,
could
be
established.
J
J
Fourthly,
the
concept
of
an
intervener
program
there
are
there
are
cases
where
it
would
be
in
the
public
interest
for
a
non
not-for-profit
organization
to
be
funded,
to
intervene
on
systemic
issues
and
landmark
cases
as
with
the
introduction
of
a
new
bylaw
or
to
address
hypergraph
in
selected
communities.
Sorry.
J
B
J
Be
done
in
less
okay,
okay
and
then
I
will
share
the
questions,
so
we're
recommending
that
city
consider
Dean
to
consider
the
introduction
of
an
intervener
program
that
is
specifically
target
to
not-for-profit
organizations
with
specific
interests
in
important
cases
and
that
the
city
provide
funding
for
the
intervenor
program
on
an
annual
basis
similar
to
the
planning
support
center.
The
intervener
program
would
need
to
be
established
outside
of
the
Tila.
J
Fifthly,
the
settlement
process,
both
the
Oba
cocktail
bar
association
and
the
city
solicitor,
are
on
record
as
supporting
changes
to
improve
the
efficiency
of
the
settlement
process.
However,
we
are
concerned
with
procedural
fairness
and,
and
not
just
efficiency
in
with
respect
to
settlements
arrived
at
during
private
negotiations.
We're
recommending
that
the
tea
lab
ensure
that
all
parties
are
allowed
to
be
active
in
settlement
negotiations
and
that
all
participants
have
full
visibility
on
settlement
agreements.
We
recommend
that
settlement
agreements
with
material
changes
should
be
subject
to
mandatory
notifications
are
all
participants.
J
J
J
And
lastly,
administrative
matters:
the
tea
lab,
has
introduced
fully
online
processes,
which
at
least
initial
has
created
barrier
for
many
residents.
However,
it
is
anticipated
agree
with
mr.
Lord
that
these
concerns
will
ameliorate
over
time.
The
additional,
however,
the
the
additional
deadlines
and
the
front-end
loading,
if
you
like,
which
again
mr.
Lord
spoke
to
of
these
deadlines,
has
created
challenges
for
residents.
It
seems
like,
as
soon
as
the
Peola
is
launched,
you
have
to
have
everything
done,
and
then
you
sit
around
for
several
months
waiting
for
the
hearing
date.
J
J
K
So
if
I,
if
I
hear
you
correctly,
the
main
emphasis
of
your
submission
to
this
committee
is
that
there's
the
remains
and
inequity.
Even
in
our
new,
you
know,
city
driven
appeals
body
and
that
that
residents,
if
you're
in
and
I
and
I,
hear
you
if
I
hear
you
correctly
you're,
not
you're,
not
speaking
about
the
maybe
the
average
residents.
So
much
who
might
want
to
you
know,
do
some
Bereans
to
get
some
variances
to
their
house.
K
K
So
if,
if
one
of
the
members
of
this
committee
could
move
a
motion
today
to
respond
to
your
concerns,
would
you
want
to
see
that
that
motion
requests
that
there
be
some
consideration
to
some
of
the
ideas
that
you
suggest
and
perhaps
other
ideas
to
level
the
playing
field
between
between
the
builders
and
the
and
the
average
neighbor?
Is
that
a
fair
analysis?
Is
that
something
that
you'd
like
to
see
them
do
or
is
there
something
else
that
you'd
like
to
see
them
do
Josh.
B
I
think
you're
right.
What
we're
faced
with
very
often
is
for
the
for
the
developers
the
$30,000
fee
that
they
have
to
pay
their
lawyers
and
planners
to
go
to
the
T
lab
now
is
essentially
a
cost
of
doing
business
and
and
they
acknowledge
that
it
reduces
their
profit,
but
not
by
much
I
would
I
would
submit
today
that
that
we
we,
we
and
Sarah
have
had
some
experience
with
mediation
more
at
the
committee
of
adjustment
level,
but
but
mediation
works.
B
When
you
have
a
willing
owner
willing
developer
wanting
to
come
to
the
table,
there's
very
few
of
those
in
the
city.
Most
of
them
prefer
to
simply
go
to
t
lab.
The
cost
of
doing
business
is
$30,000.
Our
recommendation
and
I
haven't
consulted
with
with
Jeff
on.
This
is
really
to
to
direct
some
of
that
mediation
money
to
the
intervening
intervener
program,
because
that
really
equips
residents
associations
to
more
strongly
defend
systemic
problems,
problems
of
what
we
call
hyper
growth.
B
It's
not
not
just
growth,
it's
really
hyper
growth
and
an
intervener
funding
program
which
is
used
in
other
jurisdictions.
Example.
The
Ontario
Energy
Board
would
really
give
us
power
to
to,
in
a
sense,
get
the
$30,000
advantage
in
in
our
favor.
Of
course,
we
would.
We
would
spend
that
money
wisely.
Our
recommendation
is,
is
to
ask
for
an
equivalent
funding
of
some
$200,000
on
an
intervener
program.
I
think
we
would
see
very
dramatic
results
if
we
had
the
availability
of
that
type
of
funding.
Thank
you.
J
There
clearly
are
in
a
neighborhood
situation.
You
clearly
have,
as
you
say,
council
metal.
You
have
somebody
who
wants
to,
you
know,
add
on
to
their
house
yeah
and,
and
generally
there
was
a
reasonable
request.
Indeed,
the
issue
in
the
neighborhood
is
the
look
of
the
street.
You
know
the
character
the
neighborhood
is
based
on.
The
look
at
the
street.
Adding
on
behind
you
know
generally
is
no
is
not
a
problem.
J
The
issue
is
where
somebody's
coming
in
a
stranger
as
it
were,
and
and
simply
wants
to
build
the
biggest
flat-roofed
modernist
structure
possible
and
and
right
now
we
don't
have.
We
simply
do
not
have
the
tools
like
the
t
lab
is
kind
of
at
the
top
of
the
you
know
it's
only
if
somebody
has
appealed.
Are
you
going
to
get
a
t
lab
hearing?
There's
this
whole
the
rest,
the
many
layers
of
the
triangle,
the
you
know,
city
policies,
as
a
mr.
J
Lord
mentioned
in
the
OPA
320,
the
the
lack
of
design
guidelines
in
neighborhoods
lease
side,
we've
got
guidelines,
but
they
were
in
2003
and
and
and
and
it's
claimed
that
they
were
never
approved
by
council.
So
they
meaningless
the
Willowdale
guidelines.
I,
don't
know
what's
happening
with
those
we
need
design
guidelines.
We
need
heritage
to
be
identified
where
appropriate.
So
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
in
that
base
of
the
pyramid.
K
A
And
I
have
to
stop
you
now
I'm.
Sorry,
it's
an
extremely
heavy
agenda
and
we
heard
that
as
what
their
comment
was.
Are
there
any
other
members
of
committee
that
have
questions
for
the
deputy,
not
seeing
any?
Thank
you
very
much,
gentlemen
for
coming.
We
now
have
are
there
speakers
that
are
non
members
of
the
committee
that
wish
to
speak
to
the
item.
K
I'll
speak
briefly
to
respect
the
committee's
time,
because
I
know
we
have
a
heavy
agenda
today,
but
I
really
just
wanted
to
support
what
what
both
Jeff
and
Al
have
said
today.
I've
seen
this
certainly
in
my
community
and
imagine
many
of
you
have
in
your
certainly
in
Midtown
we
are.
There
is
an
enormous
amount
of
development
pressure
within
the
neighborhoods
infill
development
pressure,
and
it's
one
thing
when
it's
sort
of
one
neighbor
and
and
the
other
neighbors
are
having
a
conversation
about
what
kind
of
variances
might
be
considered.
K
But
when
it
goes
to
the
appeal
body
committee
as
well,
when
it's
certainly
when
it
goes
to
the
appeal
body
that
we're
speaking
of
today,
most
residents,
don't
really
know
where
to
start.
They
don't
understand
the
process
as
well
as
a
professional
builder.
Would
they
certainly
don't
have
the
resources
financially
to
be
able
to
hire
the
planner?
K
As
some
people
do,
when
they've
been
subject
to
those
concerns
themselves
and
they
delve
into
the
matter
and
now
what
al
does
is
he
tries
to
go
out
and
support
residents
with
information,
providing
them
with
some
sort
of
support
and
assistance
when
they're
sort
of
in
the
dark,
not
knowing
kind
of
where
to
go,
and
what
to
do.
But
it's
great
that
I
was
doing
that,
but
it
shouldn't
have
to
be
up
to
L
to
do
that.
The
system
should
automatically
provide
that
kind
of
assistance.
K
We're
seeing
that
now
with
the
reforms
at
the
OMB
at
the
provincial
level,
with
the
new
local
appeal
planning,
Appeals,
Tribunal
and
that
should
be
replicated
at
ours
and
we've
often
said
you
know,
we
don't
like
what
the
province
is
doing.
You
know
we
can
do
things
better
well
now,
actually
they're
kind
of
in
the
lead
of
that
kind
of
reform.
K
A
I
L
A
I
I
I
So
if
you
took,
if
you
had
a
large
enough
sample
and
you
took
a
bundle
of
variances
for
whatever
that
that
had
not
been
already
built,
and
then
you
took
the
same
variances
that
had
already
been
built,
I
think
you
can
see
a
much
higher
inclination
to
approve
the
ones
that
have
already
been
illegally
built
and
effect
rewarding
people
for
illegal
construction,
because
I
think
there
is
an
extreme
reluctance
to
force
a
you
know,
a
house
to
be
torn
down
or
half
torn
down.
I
think
you
might
get
refusal
where
it's
okay.
I
I
I,
don't
recall
any
decisions
like
that
ever
being
made
and
I
certainly
recall
a
lot
of
similar
decisions
that
decisions
on
similar
situations
that
haven't
been
built
where
they've
been
turned
down
so
I
just
want
to
test
whether
what's
supposed
to
be
happening
in
theory,
is
actually
happening
in
practice.
My
guess
is
it
isn't.
I
I
A
H
First
of
all,
I
I
am
absolutely
delighted
that
we
even
get
this
report
coming
to
Toronto
to
the
planning
and
growth
committee.
It's
a
good
public
accountability
and
airing
of
a
tribunal
process
that
has
to
be
accountable
to
the
public.
So
thank
you
for
for
that
and
I
think
it's
indicative
hoping
of
a
new
era
of
how
we
handle
these.
We
only
have
one
year
of
experience
here
and
and
looking
through
the
report.
I
don't
see
anything
that
sets
off
an
alarm
bell.
I
see
some
things.
H
I
want
to
keep
my
eye
on,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
first
year
and
I
I
think
the
the
efforts
that
the
appeal
body
has
made
to
to
go
out
and
get
constructive
criticism
indicates
that
there's
going
to
be
some
continuous
approved
improvement
there.
I
do
want
to
note
that
while
there
are
some
concerns
that
in
some
cases
you
know,
as
we
heard
in
the
deputations,
maybe
it's
not
a
completely
equal
playing
field.
H
But
but
remember
if
you
look
at
the
statistics,
the
number
of
appeals
that
get
approved
is
10%
and
the
number
of
Appeals
is
300
and,
as
I
just
discovered.
That's
out
of
an
original
4500
minor
variants
applications
in
a
year,
so
it's
a
tiny
piece
of
a
piece
of
a
piece
where
the
system
isn't
dealing
with
the
minor
variants
before
we're
getting
to
a
hearing
and
a
decision
that
isn't
the
one
that
the
community
wanted
and
I
think
that
that's
that's
interesting
and
valuable
to
know
so.
I,
don't
think
I,
don't
see
anything
here.
A
Thank
you
not
seeing
any
of
the
speakers.
I
do
want
to
speak
on
this
and,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
express
my
thanks
to
mr.
Lord
for
taking
on
this
challenge
and
I
say
that,
because
we
all
know
the
discomfort
that
the
public
had
and
that
this
council
had
with
the
process
at
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
I
think
it
was
extremely
well
documented.
The
results
of
our
very
loud
protest
was
the
province
putting
it
in
our
lap
to
try
and
say
fine.
A
You
think
he
can
do
better,
go,
do
it
and
we're
never
taking
that
back
and
you
pay
for
it
and
you
manage
it.
I
think
that
mr.
Lord
has
taken
on
that
challenge
and
understands
that
and
him
and
his
colleagues.
There
have
done
a
really
good
job
of
trying
to
help
us
work
through
this
process
and
understand
that
and
in
particular,
the
different
levels
of
playing
fields
or
abilities
for
those
that
can
hire.
A
Professionals
against
those
that
have
concerns
at
the
site,
so
really
I
think
sincere
appreciation
for
that,
but
also
a
continued
huge
challenge,
because,
together
this
council
and
the
appeal
board,
the
appeal
body
has
to
continue
to
try
and
look
as
good
and
better
than
we
have
to
work
out.
The
disagreements
between
people
and
neighborhoods
that
affect
themselves
so
personally,
because
these
are
variances
that
affect
the
people
closest
to
the
area.
And
that
is
a
very,
very
tough
task
to
do.
A
A
The
other
focus
is,
as
my
colleagues
are
saying,
of
the
work
that
we
do
at
the
committee
of
adjustment,
because,
in
my
opinion,
it's
not
just
giving
funds
to
neighbourhoods
to
our
residents
to
fight
an
appeal,
because
our
rules
should
be
in
place.
That
clearly
say
what
we
want
in
the
first
place,
and
those
rules
should
be
one
that
are
clear
just
because
the
neighbor
got.
It
doesn't
mean
you're
going
to
get
it.
Why
do
you
have
to
change
the
side
yards
if
you're
required
a
meter
meter
and
a
half
whatever
it
may
be?
A
That's
the
rules
and
you
bought
the
property,
knowing
that
the
same
with
the
coverage
the
same
with
the
heights,
I
believe
that
we
have
to
go
ahead
at
our
committee
of
adjustment
and
I've
said
it
to
mr.
Mitzi
and
he's
trying
to
explain
it.
Members
that's
the
test.
Why
do
you
need
something
different
than
what's
in
the
zoning
bylaw?
Not
just
because
I
want
to
put
a
larger
house
or
the
neighbor?
Has
it
or
I
think
I
need
it?
A
If
the
house
is
giving
you
problems
to
build,
you
can't
get
a
decent
house,
then
you
may
wish
a
variance
but
prove
why
you
actually
need
it,
so
it
never
even
gets
to
the
tribunal,
and
then,
if
it
does,
we've
done
our
due
diligence
and
our
rules
to
put
them
in
place.
So
people
know
what
a
level
playing
ground
is
and
I
think
the
work
we're
doing
through
mr.
A
Mitzi
and
the
committee
of
adjustment
and
our
staff
and
ourselves
with
changing
the
zoning
bylaws
and
trying
to
bring
those
through
and
the
work
that
the
appeal
body
is
trying
to
do
with
eternal
local
appeal
body.
Is
there
and
I'm
very
pleased
with
the
work
that's
gone
forward
with
the
resolution
we've
had
to
date
with
the
fact,
as
it
was
said
where
the
chair
has
come
to
speak
to
us
about
the
matters
and
hear
the
concerns
not
just
from
us
but
heard
it
from
the
public.
A
This
is
something
unprecedented
when
it
comes
to
trying
to
deal
with
planning
issues
in
the
province
of
Ontario
and
Toronto.
The
City
of
Toronto
has
bitched
and
complained
and
led
the
way
in
it,
and
we
appreciate
everything
you're
doing
I,
believe
mr.
Lord,
and
look
forward
to
continuing
to
understand
those
issues
and
help
us
make
the
process
better
and
with
that
in
mind,
I
think
there
is
a
motion
from
councillor
Fillion.
We
should
vote
on
the
amendment
first
city
has
and
that's
all
I
need
to
vote
on
all
those
in
favor.
A
Any
opposed.
That's
carried.
Do
I
have
to
do
that
anything
else,
madam
clerk
nope.
So
we
are
done
with
that
item
and
thank
you
all
again
and
for
their
and
we
will
go
on
from
there
on
the
agenda.
What
I
would
suggest
next,
if
I
could
I'll
get
you
in
a
moment,
councillor
Fletcher.
We
have
item
number
three.
A
Which
is
a
timed
item
for
ten
o'clock
PG
30.3
zoning
bylaw
amendments
to
implement
the
Eddington
crosstown
LRT
and
Finch
West
LRT.
We
have
no
deputies.
The
time
has
passed.
Are
there
any
speakers
or
members
of
none?
No
members
of
committee
that
wish
to
speak,
don't
see
any
any
members
of
committee
that
wish
to
speak,
don't
see
any
I
am
going
to
move
the
recommendations.
A
A
I
A
I
M
A
A
N
D
B
N
F
Thank
you
good
morning,
chair,
I,
guess,
I
could
speak
to
this
item
and
you
are
dude.
My
name
is
Tom
Schwartz
I'm,
the
author
of
the
reports
that
supports
us.
This
item
before
the
committee
today
and
and
I
have
spoken
to
councilor
Kreutz
about
the
sight
of
this
letter
that
he
submitted
to
the
committee.
Do.
F
We
have
gone
through
an
extensive
process
to
figure
out
where
the
different
elements
of
the
Finch
West
LRT
should
be
located.
So
we
are
quite
advanced
in
that
and
City
Planning
did
arrive
at
an
agreement
with
Metrolinx
on
where
these
elements
would
be
located.
That
was
over
a
year
ago,
so
Metrolinx
has
proceeded
to
tender.
The
project
award
the
project
and
enter
into
contracts
based
on
knowing
the
locations
of
the
elements
of
the
project.
F
So
at
this
point
it's
a
little
late
to
be
revisiting
where
some
of
those
elements
might
be
there's
there
is
a
property
negotiations
that
are
now
well
advanced
and
are
expected
to
close
in
the
next
few
months
again,
based
on
where
these
elements
are
are
to
be
located.
As
is
known
today,
the
motion
also
requests
staff
to
to
revisit
these
locations,
but
it
doesn't
actually
request
to
amend
any
of
the
zoning
bylaw
amendments
that
are
before
the
committee
today.
N
B
A
A
F
O
A
F
I
wasn't
actually
there
thrower
for
the
EI
process,
so
I
can't
speak
to
that
directly,
but
the
counselor
had
had
through
the
a
process
plenty
of
opportunity
to
to
chime
in
and
to
offer
his
his
suggestions
and
his
errors
concerns
through
the
EI
process.
That
does
absolutely
involve
a
public
process
and
the
involvement
of
the
local
ward
councillor.
Thank.
K
I
recognize
that,
but
like
councillor,
Burnside
and
and
Robinson
and
others
who
you
know,
we
we
represent
a
community
along
Eglinton
I.
Just
I
can't
express
my
frustration
well
enough.
How
often
it
feels
like
you
know
the
question
I
would
have
asked
you
is,
you
know,
do
we
work
for
Mitch
and
I
rhetorically?
Admittedly,
but
do
we
work
for
Metrolinx
or
do
we
work
for
the
community
of
Toronto,
because
I've
just
found
time
and
time
again
that
we
keep
finding
out
about
us?
K
You
know
a
contract
that
Metrolinx
is
made
with
cross
links
or
another
contractor
or
their
requirements,
so
there
needs
that
override
the
concerns
of
the
community.
Now,
in
this
case,
it's
about
the
impact
on
a
potential
development,
but
in
other
cases,
is
about
the
impact
on
public
realm
or
the
impact
on
quality
of
life
of
residents
or
night
work
or
what-have-you,
and
the
answer
is
always
well.
We
got
to
do
this.
We
got
to
do
this.
You
know
that
you
know
I
know
it.
K
I
know
it's
messing
up
everyone's
lives,
but
we
got
to
do
this
because
we
already
signed
a
contract
rather
than
the
focus
being.
What
is
what
is
what
is
in
the
interests
of
the
City
of
Toronto
and
our
public
realm
and
our
official
plan,
the
community's
quality
of
life,
rather
than
what
Metrolink
says
needs
are
so
I
see
this
only
because
I
don't
know
what
councillor
Pruett
says
trying
to
achieve
here.
K
I've,
never
spoken
with
him
about
this
I
I,
don't
know
about
the
details
of
this,
but
what
I
do
know
is
that
if
a
councillor
is
asking
a
mere
request
to
look
into
an
issue,
and
then
you
all
have
already
arrived
at
your
conclusion
that
there
might
be
some
problems
with
it,
then
you
passed
the
motion.
You
allow
at
least
for
the
due
diligence
to
be
done.
You're
responsible.
A
I
will
speak
on
it.
Staff
briefed
me
on
this.
They
were
very
clear
to
say
that
all
of
the
locations
went
through
a
very
extensive
environmental
assessment
process,
with
public
open
houses,
opportunities
for
people
to
comment
completely
along
the
line
that
the
locations
are
established
to
be
able
to
ride
the
power
needs
of
the
of
the
line
within
particular
parameters
and
relocating
anything
is
not
easy.
The
councillor
Perutz
I
had
multiple
opportunities
through
the
process
to
address
us
and
didn't,
and
that
going
forward
with
a
request.
A
So
I
will
not
support
this
here
and
I
would
suggest
that
my
colleagues
make
the
same
decision
and
councillor
parousia
is
not
without
an
opportunity
to
present
it
to
us
at
Council,
but
the
courtesy
for
us
to
deal
with
that
here.
All
of
you
as
members
of
council
and
non-members,
do
speak
to
us
about
what
your
needs
are
and
just
dropping
a
motion
that
this
that
could
have
a
substantial
impact
on
the
line
into
cost.
A
Without
any
explanation,
don't
think
it's
something
that
we
should
just
say
yes
to
automatically,
because
the
counselor
hasn't
taken
the
time
to
even
show
up
or
speak
to
us
or
send
us
a
letter.
There's
no
letter
saying
it
well,
there's
now
a
letter
here,
but
no
one
called
my
office.
No
one
called
any
of
us,
except
for
councillor
Fillion.
So
personally,
I
won't
support
it.
A
I'll
leave
it
for
councillor
Perutz
to
have
his
opportunity
at
council,
because
I
have
no
evidence
that
Metrolinx
hasn't
consulted
with
people
and
hasn't
worked,
and
our
staff
hasn't
work
throughout
this
process
to
deal
with
this
problem
itself
and
I.
Think
that's
the
question
that
has
to
be
asked.
So
there
is
the
amendment
that
councillor
Fillion
as
a
courtesy
has
put
forward
for
councillor
Perla
route,
sir,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
that
doesn't
carry
the
item
as
the
staff
recommendations
as
our
before
us
all.
A
Now
members
of
committee
I
know
we
have
a
public
hearing
for
item
number,
seven,
which
our
colleague
councillor
Burnside
is
here
and
I
know
he's
giving
us
his
complete
attention,
and
time
is
8:44
Don,
Mills,
Road,
11:50
and
1155
eddington
Avenue,
East
I
know
that
the
applicant
is
here
as
well.
The
applicant
has
sent
in
a
letter
saying
they're
satisfied
with
everything.
There
are
two
motions
that
are
to
be
placed
with
it.
N
Can
do
it
in
20?
Essentially,
it's
there
are
two
neighborhood
improvement
areas,
just
on
the
in
close
proximity
to
this
development
I'm
trying
to
ensure
that
money,
there's
money
from
section
37
available
to
upgrade
some
of
their
facilities
in
the
community
and
I
just
want
to
move
an
extra
two
hundred
and
fifty
thousand
dollars
from
public
art
to
parks.
Improvements
in
though,
in
those
areas,
yeah,
yep.
C
It's
basically
giving
authority
to
direct
er
of
affordable
housing
to
negotiate
and
secure,
affordable,
rentals
at
different
levels
of
affordability,
for
three
hundred
and
ninety
three
units
on
the
site
and
to
take
advantage
of
the
open
door
program
and
other
affordable
housing
incentives.
So
that
is
a
four-page
motion
that
is
asking.
C
C
Been
exciting
everybody's
been
working
together
to
secure
this
is
a
large
site,
but
we
all
what
we
also
want
to
ensure.
Is
that
not
only
do
we
have
the
units
but
we're
trying
to
deepen
the
subsidies
as
well?
So
that
is
why
we're
trying
to
create
different
levels.
So
not
only
at
80
percent
or
a
hundred
percent.
We
were
trying
to
create
different
levels
of
affordability
in
the
393
units
and.
A
N
A
A
This
is
what
you
really
want
to
see
on
applications
where
all
parties
are
benefiting
and
the
area
is
getting
redeveloped
in
an
area.
That's
in
a
site,
that's
appropriate
for
it,
along
with
the
retention
of
historical
sites
on
it
and
many
other
issues
that
came
up
during
the
process.
It
was
a
long
and
extensive
process,
and
but
I
will
tell
you
at
the
end
of
it
it's
not
as
if
anyone
got
beat
up
at
all.
A
K
A
The
two
motions
and
I'll
move
the
staff
recommendations,
all
of
them,
which
is
a
little
bit
extensive
in
it
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed
that
is
carries
and
thank
you
all
for
your
help
on
it
then
Don
Mills
crossing,
which
we
dealt
with
I,
would
like
to
move
to
reopen
it
item
number
six,
reconsider
it
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed.
That's
carried.
A
The
motion
that
I
had
is
simply
and
looking
at
the
other
three
corners
and
the
rest
of
the
site
to
try
to
work
as
we
have
in
other
areas
and
report
back
if
there's
a
way
to
put
a
section,
37
value
in
place.
So
if
people
asked
for
additional
density,
they
know
what
they're
going
to
have
to
pay
and
it's
not
something
that
is
negotiated
every
turn.
A
In
this
particular
case,
almost
all
the
balance
of
the
land
is
actually
city-owned,
because
it's
create
yo
that
is
carriage
of
the
other
three
sites,
but
they
won't
have
it
forever
at
one
time
they
will
sell
it,
and
then
others
will
have
it
and
may
wish
to
change
the
plans,
no
matter
what's
approved
so
I'm
moving.
This
motion
to
try
and
get
a
response
in
some
idea
as
what
it
might
be
to
a
number
to
go
forward.
All
those
in
favor
staff
have
written
the
motion.
Did
you
have
a
question
council
person?
No,
that's
fine!
A
You're!
More
than
welcome
to
mr.
Lyne
turn.
Are
you
in
support
of
this
motion?
Yes,
I
am.
Thank
you
all.
Those
in
favor
any
opposed.
That's
carry
the
item
as
amended
all
those
in
favor.
The
previous
motion,
all
those
in
favor
for
the
science
that
are
opposed.
That's
carry.
The
item
is
amended.
All
those
in
favor
opposed.
That's
carried.
We've
dealt
with
that
item
twice
now.
I
have
item
number
two.
A
Where
I'm
doing
number
two
counseling,
please
I,
know
it's
a
very
big
agenda
and
we're
trying
to
get
items
done
so.
Staff
that
are
here
can
and
people
that
are
here
can
go
item
number
two
was
a
draft
official
plan.
Amendment
dwelling
room
protection
policies.
We
had
three
speakers.
That
was
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
before
the
timed
item.
A
So
I'm
going
to
deal
with
the
three
speakers
that
are
here
and
deal
with
the
item,
because
the
other
items
are
very
lengthy,
so
I
have
a
Jeremy,
withers,
Parkdale
neighborhood
land
trust
is
Jeremy
here
Jeremy.
Please
come
forward
to
you
and
to
the
other
speakers.
Today
we
allow
five
minutes
as
a
maximum.
G
Everyone,
my
name,
is
Jeremy
withers
I'm,
a
PhD
student
at
the
University
of
Toronto
and
a
longtime
member
of
the
Parkdale
neighborhood
land
trust
I'm,
so
glad
to
have
the
opportunity
to
speak
in
support
of
this
draft
official
plan.
Amendment
and
I
want
to
thank
the
growth
and
planning
committee
and
councillor
perks
in
particular,
for
initiating
this
discussion.
I'll
do
my
best
to
speak
on
behalf
of
many
in
Parkdale
when
I
say
it's
high
time.
G
It's
high
time,
we
extended
the
protections
enjoyed
by
most
renters
in
Toronto
to
most
rooming
house,
tenants,
rooming
houses
and
those
who
call
them
home
have
for
far
too
long
been
subjected
to
stigma
by
their
neighbors
and
by
the
city
as
a
whole
in
Parkdale,
Cabbagetown
and
all
across
the
city.
Rooming
houses,
smaller
unit
sizes
and
shared
facilities
provide
a
last
bastion
of
affordable
housing
for
an
array
of
tenants
who
often
experience
exclusion
from
employment,
often
related
to
their
mental
health,
physical
disabilities
or
age.
G
Just
as
many
of
these
tenants
are
faced
every
day
with
the
indignity
of
having
their
more
affluent
neighbors
actively
avoid
eye
contact
as
they
pass
on
the
street.
So
the
Official
Plan
has
permitted
the
demolition
and
renovation
of
rooming
houses
to
go
unnoticed
and
unchecked.
Well,
for
a
decade,
the
right
of
return
has
been
commendably
insured
for
renters
and
buildings,
with
six
or
more
units.
G
Protections
for
Toronto's,
most
vulnerable
type
of
renters
have
been
conspicuously
absent
city
planners
estimate
that,
since
these
protections
of
rental
units
were
brought
into
effect
in
2007,
they
have
secured
the
replacement
and
creation
of
almost
1,800
rental
housing
units.
The
power
of
this
policy
to
save
so
many
renters
from
anxieties
and
disruptions
caused
by
eviction
is
worth
celebrating,
but
we
are
not
to
do
so
without
wondering
at
how
many
rooming
house
units
have
been
lost
during
the
same
period.
G
How
many
tenants
have
been
torn
from
the
social
safety
nets
of
their
neighborhoods
forced
to
seek
out
rent
and
more
isolating
and
underserviced
suburbs?
How
many
of
these
evictees
have
ended
up
on
the
streets
trying
to
face
find
space
and
Toronto's
already
overcrowded
shelters?
The
answer
is
that
it's
very
difficult
to
know,
as
so
many
of
these
dwellings
operate
in
a
kind
of
legal
limbo
which
leaves
their
residents
in
an
under
protected
and
under
studied
condition
in
Parkdale
members
of
our
land.
G
Trust
have
undertaken
an
extensive
study
last
summer
to
identify
the
scope
of
our
neighborhoods
current
rooming
house
talk
and
the
scale
of
its
disappearance.
In
recent
years.
Our
research
has
found
that,
while
there
are
currently
over
2700
rooming
house
dwellings
in
Parkdale
over
the
past
10
years,
347
of
these
rooms
have
been
lost,
often
converted
into
single-family
homes.
We're
still.
We
found
the
pace
of
this
loss
as
quickened
in
recent
years,
and
today,
in
Parkdale
alone,
more
than
800
dwelling
rooms
are
at
imminent
risk
of
disappearance.
G
We
look
on
these
numbers
in
horror
in
the
context
of
a
mounting
citywide
crisis
of
affordability.
345
of
our
most
vulnerable
residents
have
been
evicted
from
our
most
affordable
units
to
make
way
for
a
far
smaller
group
of
affluent
families
and
renters.
This
is
the
context
in
which
we've
come
to
understand
why
Park
Dale's
population
is
shrinking.
G
Why
there
are
citywide
increases
in
the
number
of
people
seeking
overnight
shelters
and
why
the
hopelessly
long
waiting
list
for
social
housing
is
lengthening
at
the
Land
Trust,
our
current
primary
focus
is
acquiring
and
protecting
our
neighborhoods
rooming
houses
to
prevent
them
from
disappearing.
The
this
year
we
finally
set
we're
finally
set
to
acquire
our
first
property
and
save
a
cluster
of
our
neighbors
from
the
dread
of
displacement,
but
even
in
our
excitement
to
do
so,
we
remain
sobered
by
the
pace
of
displacement
revealed
by
our
research.
G
We've
come
to
see
that,
in
the
absence
of
substantial
government
intervention
and
support,
these
problems
will
continue
to
grow
faster
than
our
solutions.
That's
why
all
of
us
we
want
to
commend
everyone
who
has
put
this
amendment
forward
and
is
committed
to
keep
batting
for
it
and
ensuring
other
counselors
see
eye
to
eye
on
it.
But
I
ask
you
to
do
so
with
an
urgency
born
in
the
recognition
that
for
347
people
in
Parkdale
alone,
this
amendment
has
already
come
too
late.
G
So
on
that
note,
I
want
to
offer
some
concluding
food
for
thought
and
ask
you
to
seriously
consider
whether
the
drafted
amendment
also
offered
too
little
because
for
the
almost
400
residents
in
Parkdale
alone,
who
live
in
rooming
houses
with
nine
or
less
units.
This
amendment
will
offer
cold
comfort
I'd
really
like
to
understand
better
the
reasoning
behind
choosing
10
or
more
units
as
the
appropriate
threshold,
because
I
honestly
found
the
reason
given
by
planners
in
the
drafted
framework
pretty
inadequate
here,
I'll
quote
them.
G
The
threshold
of
10
dwelling
rooms
represents
the
average
number
of
rooms
in
the
462
licensed
rooming
houses
in
the
city.
As
of
August
2017.
On
this
basis,
it
is
considered
to
be
a
reasonable
and
appropriate
threshold.
So
I
don't
understand
how
the
fact
that
only
half
of
these
dwellings
will
continue
to
be
at
risk
of
disappearance
qualifies
this
to
be
a
reasonable
and
appropriate
threshold.
G
In
conclusion,
I
strongly
endorse
this
amendment
and
warmly
congratulate
everyone
who
helps
move
it
forward,
because
it's
high
time
the
Official
Plan
see
eye
to
eye
with
all
of
its
renters
and
stop
giving
its
most
vulnerable
renters
the
cold
shoulder.
But
I
also
want
to
register
my
hopes.
You
will
seriously
consider
extending
the
protection
of
rooming
house
tenants
to
at
least
those
in
buildings
of
eight
or
more
units
in
doing
so,
you'd
be
further.
Extending
protections
and
relief
to
almost
200
park
deals
most
vulnerable
residents.
Thank
you.
B
B
G
Six
would
I
think
also
be
an
acceptable
amount.
It
would
actually
see
completely
see
completely
eye-to-eye
with
the
number
that
is
prescribed
for
for
renters
at
present,
I
I,
don't
I
mean
eight
would
really
help
for
the
groups
of
nine
and
eight
which
there
are
a
great
deal
of,
and
there
are
less
that
are
seven
or
six
that
it'd
be
lost.
I
would
like
to
see
all
of
these
saved
I,
don't
know
the
politics
of
what
it
needs
to
get
this
through.
A
A
A
E
For
having
me
I'm
a
researcher
and
advocate
on
issues
of
housing
and
homelessness
and
I've
been
working
with
the
Parkdale
Land,
Trust
and
other
organizations
in
the
city
on
the
issues
facing
rooming
houses
and
other
forms
of
very
affordable
private
market
housing.
I'm
here
to
also
express
enthusiastic
support
for
the
proposed
Official
Plan
amendment
as
an
important
step
in
protecting
dwelling
rooms
alongside
councillor
perks,
May
23rd,
luncheon
at
Council
on
rooming
house,
property
acquisition
and
modernization.
E
This
proposed
amendment
demonstrates
welcome
action
by
the
city
to
address
the
loss
of
this
critical
stock
and
the
stock
is
important
not
only
because
it's
affordable,
but
also
because
it's
low
barrier
dwelling
rooms
offer
long
term
stable
if
poor
quality
housing
for
people
with
history
of
homelessness,
part
of
the
low
barrier.
Nature
of
this
housing
is
related
to
informality
in
the
Landlord
and
Tenant
relationship,
and
this
informality
tends
to
cut
two
ways
with
landlords
or
purchasers
buying
out
tenants
who
don't
realize
that
the
dwindling
stock
means
that
they
won't
be
able
to
find
another
room.
E
So
we
often
hear
from
tenants
who
accept
a
cash
settlement
from
their
landlord
only
to
discover
that
they
can't
find
another
room
to
rent
in
their
neighborhood,
so
loss
of
this
low
barrier
and
affordable
stock
is
likely
contributing
to
escalating
demand
in
the
shelter
system.
The
proposed
amendments
aim
to
address
both
sides
of
this
problem,
both
the
need
to
prevent
the
loss
of
this
dwindling
stock,
but
also
the
need
for
supports
to
tenants
to
prevent
hardship
and
facilitate
relocation.
E
The
background
report
for
this
motion
identifies
alarming
risk
of
immediate
loss
of
as
many
as
200
dueling
rooms
in
connection
with
development
applications
and,
as
we've
just
heard
from
mr.
withers,
the
Parkdale
rooming
house
study
found
that
in
Parkdale
alone,
50
not
in
buildings
comprising
over
800
rooms,
are
at
risk
of
immediate
loss,
and
a
key
risk
in
Parkdale
is
not
necessarily
from
the
redevelopment
of
these
buildings
that
would
require
planning
approvals,
but
from
upscaling
of
dwelling
rooms
within
the
building,
such
as
turning
them
into
short-term
rentals
student
residences
and
micro
apartments.
E
The
upgrading
of
these
units
doesn't
always
require
planning
approval,
so
it's
important
to
recognize
also
that
the
context
for
these
changes
is
upscale
development
adjacent
to
the
park
Dale
in
the
inner
hood.
That's
pushed
a
plant
values
and
rents
throughout
the
neighborhood
and
has
introduced
new
higher
income
rental
demand
that
dwelling
room
landlords
are
aiming
to
capture.
E
It's
also
important
to
recognize
that
single
room
occupancy
takes
a
range
of
forms,
so
these
include
rooming
houses
and
residential
hotels,
but
they
also
include
forms
that
we
might
not
be
thinking
about
right
now,
such
as
motels
an
example
would
be
the
redeveloped
motels
on
the
tobacco
Motel
strip
that
made
way
for
the
Humber
Bay
shores
development.
We
also
hear
that
some
units,
above
stores
that
used
to
be
apartments,
are
now
in
single
room
occupancy
and
that
even
the
large
purpose-built
rental
apartments
in
the
inner
suburbs
are
being
subdivided
into
single
room
occupancy
arrangements.
E
The
loss
of
dwelling
rooms
stock
is
certainly
not
unique
to
Toronto,
Vancouver
and
Chicago
have
enacted
comprehensive
policy
frameworks
and
programs
to
preserve
and
protect
SRO
stock.
These
frameworks
combine
regulatory
powers,
planning
powers
and
policies
with
the
coordination
and
stacking
of
resources
from
you,
miscible
and
higher
levels
of
government
to
address
the
need
to
protect,
preserve
and
expand,
dwell
room
stock
in
Montreal.
E
There
are
long-standing
programs
funded
by
both
the
city
and
the
province
to
support
the
nonprofit
and
public
acquisition
and
operation
of
rooming
houses.
As
a
result
of
these
programs
about
half
of
Montreal's
rooming
house
stock
is
now
non-profit
or
publicly
owned
and
operated
and
tenants
report
much
better
conditions
and
more
affordable
rent
in
these
houses.
This
draft
official
plan
and
last
week's
council
motion
aren't
important
beginning
to
address
this
issue
in
Toronto.
I
particularly
welcome
the
plan
for
further
consultation
and
urge
the
city
to
emphasize
direct
inclusion
of
tenants
in
these
consultations.
E
B
E
B
E
You
councillor
perks,
my
other
recommendations.
Well,
my
other
concern
points
to
the
requirement
to
replace
gross
floor
area
up
this
provision
in
Chicago
has
led
to
a
reduction
in
the
number
of
units,
so
I
think
we
do
need
to
be
careful
and
cautious
in
the
application
of
gross
floor
area
versus
units
replacement,
and
given
that
so
much
of
this
stock
has
already
been
lost.
E
I
recommend
that
the
city
city
consider
measures
to
take
a
prevention
oriented
approach,
so
this
would
include
analysis
of
emerging
trends
to
meet
low-income
demand
in
the
private
market
as
traditional
options
or
redevelop.
So
this
it
could
include
trends
such
as
the
subdivision
of
inner-city
purpose-built
apartments.
We
need
to
be
conscious
of
what's
happening
there.
E
We
also
need
planning
frameworks
that
take
into
account
not
only
the
affordable
rooms
in
units
that
stand
to
be
directly
impacted
by
development,
but
also
the
longer-term
impacts
of
upscale
development
on
land
values
and
rents
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood,
as
has
happened
in
Parkdale.
We
also
need
proactive
measures
to
identify,
protect,
preserve
and
improve
dwelling
rootstock
in
its
many
forms
throughout
the
city,
with
comprehensive
policy
frameworks
and
dedicated
resources.
E
B
E
E
E
Those
houses
were
sometimes
D,
converted
back
into
single-family
dwellings,
but
the
Parkdale
study
also
pointed
to
a
new
trend
which
is
the
upscaling
of
the
existing
units,
and
that
trend
seems
to
be
on
the
increase.
So
we've
been
re,
converting
into
larger
apartments
or
back
into
a
single-family
home.
We
see
landlords
taking
the
existing
footprint
of
the
existing
small
units
and
just
dressing.
Those
up
to
me.
B
E
B
E
It
if
we
allow
the
market
to
just
dictate
the
way
in
which
these
rooms
progress.
That's
why
we
see
market
interventions
in
cities
like
Chicago,
Vancouver
and
Montreal,
that
assured
that
nonprofit
operation
in
perpetuity
of
affordable
housing.
The
concern
with
making
these
rooms
nicer
is
that
the
aim
is
to
increase
the
rents
and
to
run
to
a
higher
income
populous
and
because
this
causes
the
whole
dwelling
room
stock
to
diminish
the
folks
who
need
that
affordable
and
low
barrier
form
of
housing
that
rooming
houses
provide.
E
B
Last
question:
how
do
the
other
cities
with
which
you're
familiar,
how
did
they
regulate
the
improvements
or
upscaling
of
rooms
on
a
one-to-one
basis?
So
if
you
have,
if
you
have
eight
rooms
that
are
rundown,
how
do
you
prevent
them
from
from
improving
them?
How
do
you
prevent
them
from
improving
on
the
charging
more?
How
did
those
cities
do
that.
E
I,
do
you
prevent
rent
evictions
is
what
you're,
asking
and
Vancouver
has
I.
Think
Hoover
has
some
some
good
frameworks
for
this,
as
does
Chicago
Vancouver's
had
frameworks
to
protect
protected
single
room,
occupancy
stocks
since
2003
they
require
permissions
and,
and
they
place
stringent
requirements
on
owners
of
single,
would.
Q
Thank
you
for
your
time,
we're
in
the
middle
of
a
very
severe
housing
and
affordability
crisis
and
the
inflation
has
applied
to
some
of
us
that
don't
have
as
much
money
it's
kind
of
brutal
there's
a
lot
of
irregular
housing
and
situations.
We
don't
have
necessarily
the
ability
to
know
how
the
systems
work
I,
found
that
the
province
and
to
some
degree
the
city
is
kind
of
useless
on
actually
providing
protections
and
guidance
and
preserving
housing.
They'll
help
you
out,
but
help
you
out
of
the
housing
rather
than
help
you
stay
there.
Q
But
you
know
we
have
very
few
options
in
some
ways,
and
very
few
of
these
opportunities,
like
forty
a
table
was
in
near
near
Parkdale,
was,
was
the
situation
about
a
what
twenty
odd
years
ago,
where
that
should
have
been
preserved
more
as
an
artist
loft
building
I
would
urge
that
you
go
down
a
little
bit
from
merely
ten
to
eight,
sometimes
you've.
You
know
everything
is
needed.
I'm
also
worried
that
sometimes
above
the
commercial
stores
on
our
Main
streets,
those
protections
aren't
necessarily
as
strong
as
they
could
be
for
protecting
housing.
Q
In
some
situations
we've
lost
housing
like
where
I
was
at
Brunswick
around
the
corner.
There
was
a
you
know,
pair
of
buildings
owned
by
one
of
them
owned
by
the
city.
That's
been
vacant
for
a
decade,
or
so
it's
pretty
frustrating
in
order
to
actually
move
this
along,
because
sometimes
you
actually
do
need
to
repair
a
building
and
get
in
there
and
and
and
and
do
appropriate
upgrades
I
think
we
should
be
in
investing
in
a
more
aggressive,
nonprofit
public
ownership
situation.
Q
And
yes,
it's
going
to
be
costly,
I,
don't
always
think.
Maybe
the
city
should
be
the
best
person
to
best
body
to
work
on
it,
but
I
think
there
is
a
need
for
some
form
of
support,
nonprofit
public
ownership,
as
other
cities
are
doing,
and
it
would
be
a
much
better
value
for
the
taxpayers
money
to
avoid
doing
a
suspect,
subway
extension
out
in
Scarborough,
where
risk
all
squandering
the
billions.
Putting
some
of
it
into
this.
This
this
ability
to
actually
provide
better
housing,
and
certainly
with
mr.
A
Q
Says
but,
as
as
other
deputy
ins
have
been
saying,
the
crises
is
very
severe
right
now,
sir,
so
yes
go
ahead,
let's
do
it,
but
there's
another
there's
another
point
that,
like
the
the
mr.
Ford,
was
talking
about
scooping
the
subway
systems,
because
hey
they're
paid
for
older
buildings
are
already
paid
for
too.
So
why
don't
we
go
after
them,
some
of
the
existing
apartments.
Thank
you,
sir.
Okay.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Are
there
any
questions,
mr.
Wilson,
not
seeing
any
other
any
questions
of
staff
by
non
members
of
committee?
This
is
on
a
this
is
really
responding
to
the
committee's
request,
which
is
counselor
perks,
put
forward
to
go
out
and
get
a
policy
similar
to
the
way
that
we
protect
rental
apartments
to
do
the
same
on
the
rooming
houses,
and
this
is
going
out
for
public
consultation
on
counselor
perks
as
efforts
which
are
great.
So
are
there
members
of
committee
that
have
questions
or
staff
members
of
committee?
A
L
Through
the
chair,
we
did
an
analysis
of
the
existing
rooming
and
licensed
rooming
houses
across
the
city,
and
it
is
correct.
We
found
that
the
median
was
nine
I
think
in
the
mean,
was
11,
and
so
as
a
starting
point
for
consultation.
We
we
selected
the
number
of
10
and
that
captures
42
percent
of
the
existing.
B
H
Thank
you
very
much.
I'll
I'll
get
this
done
as
quick
as
I
can
in
Parkdale.
As
you
heard,
we've
lost
about
400
of
these
units
I'm
aware
of
plate
places,
in
other
words
like
the
Waverly
hotel
and
so
on,
and
so
forth
of
at
least
another
400
units
and
that's
within
the
last
two
or
three
years
for
context.
Those
thousand
lost
units,
given
that
we
are
not
building
anything
in
this
income
range
at
all
anywhere
in
the
city,
and
there
are
no
free
units
out
there.
H
The
option
for
those
nine
hundred
or
thousand
people
that
I'm
aware
of
and
I
know
many
of
their
names
because
they
come
to
me
and
ask
where
do
I
go
wind
up
in
our
shelter
system.
So
currently
there
are
about
8,000
people
in
the
shelter
system.
The
fact
that
we
didn't
do
this
two
years
ago
accounts
for
almost
a
thousand
of
those
people
there's
an
urgency
here.
H
So
while
the
staff
report
says
that
they
want
to
go
out
and
have
consultation
and
come
back
for
the
second
quarter,
I'm
gonna
be
watching
this
and
I'm
really
hoping
they
can
come
back
in
January
and
I.
Really
really
hope
they
will
and
I'll
be
watching.
Oh,
look
they
here.
Okay,
so
there
are.
There
are
some
issues
outstanding,
there's
a
lot
of
complexity,
about
dwelling
rooms
and
units
and
how
they
relate,
and
the
square
footage
and
the
number
and
all
that
stuff
and
I
encourage
everyone.
H
Who's
got
questions
and
issues
about
that
to
take
part
in
the
consultation
and,
let's
see
if
we
can
get
this
to
be
a
little
bit
tighter.
But
let's
get
er
done,
I
am
I
am
heartsick
at
the
number
of
times.
I
have
had
people
come
and
say
my
unit
is
going
to
disappear,
I
am
gonna,
be
homeless
and
they
said
they
won't
and
can't
do
anything
and
it
has
to
stop.
C
Gonna
be
very
brief,
but
I
think
I
want
to
echo
councillor
perks,
remarks
and
I
certainly
hope
that
this
is
the
beginning
of
this
council
and
and
next
council.
Taking
this
series
really
this
issue
really
really
serious.
Not
only
are
we
losing
units,
we
have
lots
of
illegal
units,
I
mean
we.
A
few
years
ago
we
had
at
the
affordable
housing
office
a
program
to
even
in
the
area
where
they're
legalized,
to
help
legalize
a
lot
of
these
units.
C
So
there's
that
issue
as
well
and
then
we
have
thousands
of
people
that
are
living
in
illegal
units.
We
had
a
death
in
an
illegal
rooming
house
of
a
student
not
too
long
ago,
and
it's
about
time
that
we
have
the
political,
political
leadership
and
these
council
chambers
to
finally
deal
with
this
issue.
This
is
a
form
of
housing
that
needs
to
be
protected,
it
needs
to
be
licensed,
it
needs
to
be
regulated
and
we
need
to
ensure
that
people
have
decent
living
conditions
in
this
city
of
Toronto.
We
need
it.
C
We
need
it
for
all
kinds
of
different
people
from
students
around
our
universities
to
downtown
for
people
that,
for
years
and
years
have
been
living
in
these
houses
and
has
been
has
been
a
form
of
housing
in
many
parts
of
the
city
Parkdale
being
of
one
of
them.
So
let's
get
our
heads
around
this
that
this
I
certainly
hope
that
this
is
certainly
the
beginning
of
a
serious
discussion
and
that
this
is
not
the
only
issue
that
we
need
to
tackle
around
rooming
houses.
A
The
amendment
is,
we
changed,
2nd
quarter,
not
two
firs,
but
two.
The
first
quarter
with
the
teeth
and
I
am
placing
the
amendment
first
of
all,
to
remind
people
what's
in
front
of
us,
which
is
the
fact
that
we
now
have
a
policy
that
we're
looking
at
to
go
out
for
public
consultation
on
and
bring
that
back.
A
If
you
note
in
the
decision
history,
the
affordable
housing
committee
actually
asked
in
September
2nd
of
2015
for
single
rooming
occupancy
buildings
with
15
or
more
dueling
arenas
to
examine
a
policy
option
and
we
didn't-
and
it
came
back
at
counts
of
purchases,
urging
in
October
when
we
all
had
last
year
adopted
it,
and
now
it's
already
June
and
it
took
six
months
to
come
back
with
the
policy.
While
we
can't
have
it
take
a
long
time
further.
It's
absolutely
necessary.
A
My
colleagues
have
spoken
well
cancer
by
though
and
councillor
perks
and
are
huge
advocates
that
for
this,
but
I
wanted
to
move
this
motion
to
show
that
all
of
us
are
supportive
of
this,
and
we
all
want
to
push
our
staff
to
put
this
as
one
of
the
top
items
of
the
agenda.
So
we
can
try
as
every
day
every
week
and
every
month
goes
on
to
have
a
policy
in
place
to
protect
those
affordable
units
that
so
many
people
in
the
city
depend
upon.
So
I
will
move
my.
G
A
B
A
You
very
much
and
thank
you
to
everybody's
patience
for
letting
us
move
things
around
on
the
agenda.
Now.
I
have
one
more
item
that
I
would
like
to
deal
with.
If
I
could
quickly,
it
is
item
number
five.
It
is
a
unilever
precinct
planning
study
I
only
had
one
speaker,
mr.
jurasky,
but
he
is
somewhat
satisfied
with
not
speaking
if
we
adopt
it.
He
really
wanted
to
tell
us
all
the
huge
benefits
which
we've
heard
before,
but
I
think
my
colleague
will
speak
a
little
bit
on
his
behalf.
A
M
They
do
see
mr.
chair
and
chief
planner
help
me
write
that,
and
it's
simply
to
once
we
get
it
up.
There
defer
the
recommendation
E,
which
is,
although
section
37,
and
just
have
a
look
at
trying
to
achieve
better
dollars
in
the
same
envelope
for
the
estimate
for
double
off-site
off-site,
affordable
housing.
So
that
would
be
that
motion
today,
not
changing
nothing
else
and
I
just
have
to
say
this
is
a
big
big
project.
I
think
we
all
know
that
and
I
think
that
mr.
M
jerski
and
his
team
have
spoken
to
a
number
counselors
on
this
committee,
and
you
all
know
that
it's
a
62
acre
master
plan.
That
is
just
a
massive
massive
project
in
the
City
of
Toronto
we're
dealing
with
that
we're
dealing
with
the
zoning
bylaw
Official
Plan
amendments.
This
is
now
adding
office
use
into
the
Eastern
Avenue
employment
district
and
adding
a
lot
of
jobs
to
go
into
those
offices
when
this
passes
so
a
little
bit
a
few
other
things.
M
As
far
as
couple
of
other
matters,
the
we
can
press
goal
on
starting
this
project,
starting
with
the
existing,
so
factory
building
and
starting
that
conversion
to
jobs
in
the
East
End
of
the
city.
There
are
twenty
acres
here
that
belong
to
the
city,
they're
under
the
scope
of
the
master
plan.
How
they
will
be
triggered
is
still
under
discussion.
As
you
know,
we
have
to
find
replacement
sites
for
the
important
services
that
are
servicing
the
south
end
of
the
city,
transportation,
licensing
parks
everywhere
and
particularly
solid
waste
is
working
out
of
there.
M
This
is
550
thousand
fifty
thousand
jobs.
That's
the
target
for
this
site,
it's
a
massive
new.
They
call
it
the
downtown
of
the
East,
but
it's
just
a
massive
new
office
complex
in
the
East
End
to
be
built
out
over
a
number
of
years
and
it's
a
job
zone,
one
hundred
percent.
It's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we've
kept
the
Eastern
Avenue
employment
district
intact,
because
these
are
the
jobs
of
the
future.
M
These
are
the
jobs
for
kids
and
grandkids
people
in
this
room,
and
we
have
to
maintain
that
as
an
employment
use,
but
there's
other
incredible
things
that
are
happening
exactly
around
here.
We
have
the
works
for
the
mouth
of
the
dawn
happening
exactly
in
the
same
area.
Transforming
the
river
and
part
of
this
project
will
also
be
part
of
that
transformation
in
the
river
works
in
flood
proofing,
this
site
and
flood
proofing,
all
of
the
Eastern
Avenue
employment
and
all
of
Leslie
Ville.
M
There's
the
gardener
take
down
it's
right
here
again
and
we'll
be
removing
the
gardener.
This
will
open
up
this
site.
It
will
open
up
the
portland's.
It's
such
an
important
decision
that
was
made
to
transform
the
gardener
and
allow
for
this
type
of
growth.
I
know
you
all
know
that
smart
track
has
a
station
here
and
that
were
under
discussion
on
that.
It's
in
here
in
the
report,
as
well
as
a
downtown
relief
line.
This
is
what
a
job
zones
bring.
It
brings
transit.
They
are
very
much
woven
together
in
this
report.
M
The
Broadview
streetcar,
Broadview
Avenue,
will
be
extended
and
the
bravia
streetcar
will
eventually
go
down
to
meet
the
Villiers
Island,
the
Portland's
redevelopment.
So
I
can't
tell
you
how
exciting
this
is
to
have
all
of
this
going
on
within
called
the
North
Waterfront
or
just
north
of
the
Portland's.
It
is
truly
transformative.
I
can't
underscore
that
enough.
It
is
transformative,
it's
the
biggest
city
building
site
underway,
it's
the
biggest
long-term
economic
driver,
actually
in
the
City
of
Toronto
of
62
acres
and
it's
being
built
from
the
ground
up.
Currently,
there
is
one
building
there.
M
It's
the
former
lever
brothers
soap
plant.
This
area
entirely
will
be
transformed
and
be
made
a
very
modern
and
exciting
place,
a
lively
spot
for
those
who
work
there
and
those
who
are
living
in
the
neighborhood,
and
it's
been
many
many
years
in
the
making
I
just
checked
2014.
It
started
with
a
pre-application
and
community
conversation
and
that
the
application
came
in
and
16
and
17
the
city
took
it
on
and
we've
had
five
major
open
houses.
M
We've
been
at
this
committee
many
times
with
status
reports,
because
this
is
not
a
simple
application
and
I
think
for
mr.
jerski
and
first
golf.
This
is
the
Legacy
Project
of
a
lifetime
and
I
just
want
to
remark
here
and
note
the
incredible
work
by
the
developer
and
his
team,
and
that
would
be
mr.
jerski
David
goring
Rene
Gomes
George,
dark,
beautiful,
beautiful
master
plan.
All
the
river
works,
the
public
art
and
everything
else,
and
to
the
city
staff
we'll
have
poured
ours
and
their
hearts
into
this,
particularly
Carli
Bowman.
Doing
a
fantastic
job.
M
Kyle
connect,
Mike
Williams
around
the
employment
features,
and
so
many
from
so
many
divisions,
it's
a
very,
very
complicated,
complicated
project,
but
it
is
a
sensational
transformative
project.
I
think
the
city
will
be
proud
of
and
I'm
very
happy
that
we'll
be
dealing
with
that.
Mr.
chair
I
know
you're
going
support
this
motion
and
move
the
move.
The
report
today
thank.
A
You
what
I
didn't
do
is
I
didn't
ask
mr.
jurasky
if
he
could
signal
to
the
staff
if
he
was
okay
with
not
speaking.
Yes.
Thank
you.
I
didn't
want
anyone
to
say
after
that
I
overstepped
my
boundaries
on
it
and
I
don't
think
he
was
really
okay
with
not
speaking,
but
he
is
okay
with
not
speaking.
Are
there
other
members
of
the
committee
that
wish
to
speak
counselor,
Bravo
you're,
simply
placing
a
motion.
C
A
M
M
A
I
I
did
ask
mr.
jerski
if
there
was
a
way
we
could
move
this
on
and
not
work,
but
it
still
has
to
you
know
what
counsel
my
colleague
has
said
in
an
unusually
quiet
voice,
because
councillor
Fletcher
is
often
a
little
bit
louder
when
she
speaks
when
she's
so
passionate
about
things.
This
is
in
what
my
colleague,
along
with
great
Gulf
and
mr.
giraffe
key
and
planning
staff,
have
been
able
to
achieve
in
the
report
coming
here
and
creating
a
new
office
community
of
10
million
square
feet
is
phenomenal.
A
It's
the
largest
going
forward
in
the
GTA.
It
creates
employment
in
the
downtown,
it's
not
residential,
which
is
what
we
always
see
everybody
trying
to
do
with
land,
and
it
is
a
app
believe
together.
It's
been
a
fantastic
achievement.
It's
phenomenal,
but
we've
been
able
to
do
this
and
in
a
quite
reasonable
and
short
period
of
time,
for
an
application.
This
large.
A
It
is
the
dedication
and
hard
work
of
my
colleague
of
the
applicant
and
of
city
staff
to
bring
this
forward
now
in
this
way
in
such
a
short
matter
for
such
a
difficult
and
comprehensive
development.
As
my
colleagues
at
extending
Broadview
a
smart
track
station,
the
relief
line
going
through
redevelopment
of
the
air
getting
affordable
housing
policies
into
it,
protecting
the
jobs
and
expanding
on
that
in
the
area.
It's
an
example
of
what
can
be
done
when
people
want
to
work
together
and
see
the
city
grow
together
and
I
really
want
to
thank
mr.
A
So
I
am
moving
the
technical
amendments
that
we
have
to
do.
What
do
I
have
to
vote
on?
Madam
clerk
motion,
we
have
the
motion
from
councilor
ballo,
all
those
in
favor
any
opposed.
That's
carried.
We
have
the
amendment
I
had
to
move,
because
I
do
with
clerks.
Tells
me
to
do
all
those
in
favor
opposed.
That's
Carrie!
Then
we
have
the
item
as
amended.
Oh
wait,
a
sec
was
that
the
enemas
amended
then
I
want
to
vote
on
that
on
a
recorded
vote,
all
those
in
favor.
This
is
the
item
as
amended
all.
B
A
A
B
A
And
the
green
stems:
okay,
we
won't
be
dealing
with
the
green
standards.
I
will
try
and
deal
with
it
after
lunch,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
people
that
have
been
sitting
here,
so
we
want
to
start
with
the
deputations.
So
if
I
can
get
some
order
in
the
room
still
I
have
quite
a
number
of
people
that
wish
to
speak
to
Midtown
and
focus
the
first
for
those
that
are
here.
It's
five
minutes.
You
have
your
full
five
minutes
to
speak.
L
A
I
think
so
so
I
have
to
also
breathe
in
the
planning
and
growth
management
committee
is
holding
a
statutory
special
public
meeting
in
accordance
with
section
26
of
the
Planning
Act
for
item
PG
30
for
Midtown
and
focus
final
report,
then
the
first
speaker
I
have
is
Bob
Murphy,
then
I
have
Urban's
snide
sends
and
then
I
have
Jane
Peppino.
There's
mr.
Murphy
here
mr.
Murphy
now
in
the
room
here
to
my
colleagues
and
members
of
staff
and
others
can
I
get
some
order
in
the
room.
So
mr.
Murphy
can
be
heard.
P
Councillor
Matt
Lowell
was
quoted
in
the
North
Toronto
Post
in
May.
As
saying
he
agrees
with
the
intent
behind
the
places
to
grow
act.
Nothing
in
the
provincial
legislation
ensured
that
adequate
social
services
and
infrastructure
would
keep
up
with
growth.
Was
the
places
to
grow
Act
enacted
with
no
planning
behind
it
at
all?
Or
did
the
development
industry
choose
to
to
ignore
the
expectation
set
out
in
the
legislation
that
growth
be
rational
and
balanced?.
P
In
L
versus
Ontario,
Ontario
reports,
volume,
83
third
series
2007
at
page
521,
the
interior
Court
of
Appeal
cited
the
House
of
Lords
in
the
Supreme
Court
of
Canada
in
Canada.
In
applying
the
Cooper
Ann's
tests
was
harm
reasonably
foreseeable.
Was
there
a
relationship
of
proximity
between
the
parties?
Sir.
P
15
of
the
places
to
grow
act,
the
government
gave
itself
municipalities
and
planners
blanket
immunity
against
liability
arising
from
bad
planning,
but
subsection
15
7
does
not
expressly
shield
developers
or
their
hired
gun
planners
from
liability
arising
from
aggressive
development.
If,
as
mr.
Matt
Lowe
suggests
Midtown
and
focuses
about
infrastructure
and
services,
why
does
it
go
even
farther
than
the
places
to
grow
act
and
confer
extreme
density
rights?
P
I,
had
an
assistant
deputy
minister
tell
me
that
our
problem
is
that
our
zoning
bylaw
hasn't
kept
up
to
date
with
our
official
plan,
but
the
growth
plan
already
overrides
our
growth
plan,
our
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw.
It
is
section
1,
B
of
the
places
to
grow
act
that
stipulates
that
growth
be
rational
and
balanced,
where
it
is
not.
It
is
contrary
to
the
statute
law
that
provides
the
template
for
the
growth
when
I
was
at
the
February
session
of
the
atonement
focus.
P
I
saw
what
looked
like
representatives
of
the
sewer
and
water
divisions
and
I
reminisced
with
them
about
my
time
with
Ann
Johnston
dealing
with
sewer
backups
in
Forest
Hill,
leading
to
the
installation
of
a
holding
tank
in
Memorial
Park
on
chaplain,
Crescent
and
I
wondered
if
someday
soon
we
may
see
a
holding
tank
being
constructed
under,
say,
Davisville
Park.
All
there
is
in
this
plan
is
a
few
cliches
on
page
44.
Will
there
be
holding
tanks
under
individual
condos?
If
not,
why
not?
P
Is
there
a
an
engineering
report
on
the
cumulative
effects
of
sewage
from
young
Eglinton
young
Davisville
young
Sinclair
young
Bloor,
the
accumulated
effects
down
the
system?
It
will
be
many
years
before
sewers
can
be
reconstructed,
new
sewers
can
be
constructed
and
new
schools
built.
The
broader
question
is:
do
working
people
owe
it
to
condo
developers
to
subsidize
their
greed
if
the
growth
met,
the
section
1,
B
standard
of
rationale
and
balance
would
Midtown
and
focus
be
necessary
if
we
continue
to
build
extreme
densities
and
sewers
back
up?
P
Is
the
city
immune
from
liability
under
section
15?
Can
the
places
to
grow
act,
for
instance,
compel
the
city
to
give
a
permit
where
there
is
non-compliance
to
the
building
code?
Well,
of
course
not
so
we're
issues
of
liability
such
as
sewer
backups,
are
concerned.
They
are
beyond
the
competence
of
the
OMB
or
lab.
That
is
a
point
of
law.
The
conditions
are
there
to
impose
a
duty
of
care
as
set
out
in
the
Cooper
Ann's
tests.
The
harm
of
sewer
backups
is
foreseeable.
P
There
is
a
relationship
of
proximity
between
the
City
of
Toronto
and
its
taxpaying
residents.
Without
the
validation
of
the
place
to
grow
act,
it
would
be
unlawful
to
approve
density
where
to
I
of
the
Planning
Act
has
not
been
met.
I
argued
in
my
written
submission
that,
where
the
growth
plan
is
is
invalid,
where
the
growth
plan
is
involved,
ministerial
consent
is
necessary
to
step
beyond
the
planning
act.
Sewer
backups,
though,
have
nothing
to
do
with
places
to
grow
act.
P
P
P
C
P
C
P
You
know
why
do
they
go
to
community
consultation
meetings
and
I
repeated
what
was
said
at
a
community
consultation
meeting
in
that
community
council
and
councillor
Vaughn
asked
planter
named
Burke
Burkholder
about
it
and
they
had
a
little
huddle
at
the
back
and
said.
Oh,
they
will
deal
with
the
problems
problems
on
the
subway
with
signalling
improvements,
so.
C
Many
trains,
two
people
wait
to
get
on
I,
certainly
hear
about
it
all
the
time
and
there's
a
reliability
issues,
but
there's
also
capacity
issues.
So
from
your
knowledge,
if
you're,
a
transit
user,
how
many
trains
do
people
wait
at
peak
hours
to
get
on
to
the
actual
physically
get
on
to
the
Train?
Well,.
P
C
P
C
You
aware
of
these
very
severe
park
deficit
at
the
particularly
in
the
northeast
quadrant.
I
know
you
don't
live
in
that
area,
but
the
northeast
quadrant.
Are
you
aware
of
the
lack
of
green
space,
public
realm
and
parks
which
none
are
being
proposed
on
the
parks
front
in
this
proposal?
But
my
school.
P
Was
with
parks
and
recs,
so
I
have
a
great
familiarity
with
Eglinton
Park
and
even
the
little
tiny
park
at
at
red
paw
at
the
top
of
red
path
at
Erskine.
But
that's
pretty
well
it
when
you
get
the
parks
I,
don't
the
next
part
is
Davisville.
There's
a
few
parkette
sont
Belsize
and
there's
talk
about
the
park
Yonge
and
Eglinton.
Once
the
bus.
A
A
O
So
my
name
is
Erwin
smidgens
and
one
of
my
goals
in
life
is
to
live.
1
million
hours
and
I
met
65.7%
of
my
goal,
so
that
means
I
have
over
30%
still
to
live
in
my
own
home
I
also
live
a
38
Hallandale,
which
has
been
inundated
with
the
assault
of
condos
and
I,
represent
the
homeowners
on
Hallandale
Avenue
I
was
at
a
bit
town
in
focus,
open
house
that
presents
something
that
perhaps
has
never
been
done
before
the
development
of
a
group
of
old
homes.
O
One
of
them
is
mine
by
the
homeowners
themselves
in
the
context
of
the
redevelopment
that
is
going
on
all
around
us,
so
on
Hallandale
there
right
now,
two
condos
being
built.
There
are
over
twenty
three
twenty
five
stories
high,
but
this
is
not
a
redevelopment
by
a
developer,
who
has
assembled
a
series
of
locks
and
put
them
together.
These
are
six
separate
owned
homes
that
will
redevelop
as
individual
homeowners.
Then
the
planner
told
me
that
the
city
had
bought
homes
on
Hallandale
and
duplex,
which
they
will
demolished
for
parkland.
O
Then
I
saw
the
map
that
suggested
they
Wallis
the
entire
block
of
homes.
On
the
north
side
of
Helen
Dale
and
the
south
side
of
Montgomery
include
in
mind
for
parkland,
so
on
page
20
on
schedule,
three
to
amend,
meant
405.
The
planner
said
how
they
will
go
about
doing
this.
The
phrase
including
but
not
limited
to
does
not
preclude
rule
out
expropriation.
O
It
is
necessary
that
if
council
is
going
to
spend
money,
it
really
doesn't
have
buying
home,
which
they
will
then
demolish
are
entitled
to
some
certainty
that
any
purch
of
our
homes
will
be
voluntary
on
our
part
and
that
you
will
not
expire
it.
We
also
want
to
surance
that
the
homeowners
on
Hallandale
are
able
to
rebuild
their
properties
to
enhance
their
neighborhood
and
that
the
city
will
not
prevent
them
from
doing
so.
O
Right
now,
my
home
is
r1,
which
means
basically
one
time
a
lot,
and
so
I
want
to
build
a
townhouse,
because
there
are
townhomes
on
our
street.
Now
three
storey
and
four
so
I
want
to
do
a
four-story
townhouse
on
my
street.
Oh,
my
god
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
not
prevented
from
doing
so,
because
the
whole
street
is
gone.
O
Furthermore,
I
had
been
told
that
also
the
because
the
city
has
identified
an
interest
in
my
house.
The
city
will
not
allow
me
to
improve
it,
while
developers
are
building
50
plus
stories
around
this
neighborhood
I
cannot
improve
a
host
of
their
own
before
the
subway
was
even
built.
I
expect
that
my
rights
will
be
prospective
and
the
homeowners
and
Hallandale
rights
will
be
respected
as
well.
O
I
expect
that
we'll
be
afforded
the
same
property
rights
as
any
other
property
owner
in
the
city,
while
the
and
if
you
want
to
build
a
part
out
around
me
and
as
long
as
they
are
willing
to
sell
I
will
not
object,
but
I
expect
you
to
knowledge
my
right
to
remain
my
house
and
to
improve
it.
So
I
can
build
a
four-story
townhouse
for
my
handicapped,
daughter,
and/or,
take
care
and
like
my
children
and
so
on.
So
what
right
to
the
belt?
O
O
A
O
A
K
So
I
also
there
there's
a
lot
of
good
in
this
plan,
but
there
are
some
changes
that
are
going
to
have
to
be
made
and
some
of
the
things
that
I'm
looking
at
are
I'm
concerned
about
some
of
the
heights
that
are
that
are
recommended
in
the
plan
that
I'm
working
with
the
chair
to
to
address,
along
with
the
transit
capacity
load
and
a
number
of
other
issues
in
the
area.
Have
you
have
you
worked
with
your
local
counselor
on
may
be
looking
for
a
tweak
or
any
changes
that
affect
your
property
directly?
O
O
Trait
and
assurances
that
I
can
build
a
four-story,
because
right
next
to
me,
is
a
four-story
stacked
townhouse,
that
the
condo
is
over
Montgomery
the
key
case
station
and
there's
three-story,
townhouses
and
I
basically
have
a
small
lot,
so
it's
25
by
65.
So
the
only
way
I
can
sort
of
improve
my
extended
family
is
by
building
up
okay.
O
K
But
but
we
have
an
opportunity
to
approve
amendments
or
motions
that
could
address
I.
Think
our
shared
concerns
around
the
impacts
of
some
of
the
density
that
would
be
allowed
under
under
this
proposal
and
to
try
to
bring
down
the
heights
and
make
it
more
reasonable.
So
we
could
allow
for
the
services
and
infrastructure
to
keep
up
with
the
with
the
girls.
Oh
man.
O
A
L
Morning,
mr.
chair
members
of
in
an
effort
to
assist
you
with
efficiency,
may
I
suggest
that
mr.
Bronzeville
be
allowed
to
take
my
place.
I
will
then
take
mr.
Brahn
skills
place
in
the
order.
I'm
sure
it
will
come
as
no
surprise
to
committee
that
we
believe
that
there
are
very
significant
legal
issues
with
respect
to
the
suggestion
that
this
proceed
under
sections
26
of
the
Planning
Act,
and
to
the
extent
that
mr.
L
A
N
N
Let
me
also
be
clear
that
concern
is
not
a
suggestion
that
the
city
shouldn't
update
the
secondary
plan
for
the
Yonge
and
Eglinton
area.
That's
not
what
I
am
suggesting
to
the
committee.
What
I
am
instead
saying
is
that
this
is
a
late
choice
and
recommendation
and
an
incorrect
choice
and
recommendation
to
you
if
I
can
very
quickly
track
some
of
the
chronology
for
Midtown
and
focus.
N
As
you
may
well
know,
a
review
of
Midtown
of
young
Eglinton
began
in
July
2012
the
formation
of
the
Midtown
planning
group
that
was
at
the
request
of
councilor
Matt
low
and
then
councilor
stints.
The
intent
of
that
planning
group
was
to
create
a
comprehensive
strategy
for
planning
in
the
Yonge
and
Eglinton
area
in
August
of
2014
City
Council
adopted
recommendations
related
to
parks,
open
space
and
streetscape,
and
in
June
of
2015
OPA
289
was
adopted
and
in
all
of
those
instances
there
was
no
reference
to
the
Midtown
and
focus
review.
N
Proceeding
as
an
official
plan,
amendment
initiated
under
Section,
26
and
I'm
gonna
come
back
to
that
language
because
that's
important
language,
an
official
planning
amendment
or
an
official
plan
review
initiated
under
Section
26
in
July
of
2016
council,
considered
a
status
report.
Again.
There
was
no
suggestion
that
this
was
initiated
under
Section
26
part
of
the
city's
old
peer
review,
part
of
a
conformity
exercise.
The
first
reference
I
could
find
to.
N
It
was
in
October
of
2017
and
in
a
staff
report
that
came
forward
to
committee
and
then
to
Council
and
I
quote
on
page
9
staff
are
determining
determining
whether
proposed
official
plan
amendment
updating
the
againg
ting
secondary
plan
will
proceed
under
Section,
17
or
section
26
of
the
Planning
Act.
So
even
at
that
time
there
had
been
no
determination
as
to
which
way
to
proceed.
The
second
sentence,
given
that
the
new
growth
plan
came
into
effect,
July
1,
27
2017.
N
It
may
be
necessary
for
the
OPA
to
proceed
as
a
section
26
amendment
requiring
provincial
approval
as
part
of
a
conforming
exercise.
There
is
nothing
through
the
provinces,
enactment
of
the
growth
plan
in
2017.
That
would
make
it
necessary
for
the
young
Eglinton
review
to
proceed
under
Section
26
as
it
can
for
many
exercise.
It
was
not
initiated
as
such,
and
it
has
not
been
continued
as
such
the
language
that
I
read
to
you
earlier
about
whether
its
initiate
under
Section
26.
N
That's
in
fact,
in
the
definition
of
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review
in
the
very
document
that
the
city
staff
in
that
report
suggests
may
be
the
trigger
for
a
section,
26
review.
So
the
growth
plan
itself
says,
if
you're
doing
a
municipal,
comprehensive
review,
a
can
be
an
Opie
and
it
can
be
an
OPA.
It
can
be
something
like
this,
but
it
has
to
be
initiated
by
the
city
under
Section,
26
and
I'm.
Just
suggesting
you
the
record.
When
we
go
through
it
does
not
at
any
time
say:
young
Eglinton
was
initiated
under
Section
26.
N
What
are
the
implications?
I
acknowledge
very
plainly
to
this
committee.
The
big
implication
that
worries
me
and
many
of
my
clients
when
it
goes
to
the
province,
is
that
decision
of
the
province
cannot
be
appealed.
I
acknowledge
that
up
front.
That
is
one
of
the
main
concerns
I
would
suggest
to
residents
and
this
committee.
That
should
also
be
your
concern.
N
That
decision,
when
it's
made
by
the
province,
will
be
made
by
the
minister,
whoever
that
is-
and
we
won't
know
who
the
minister
of
municipal
affairs
is
frankly
until
we've
all
finished
voting
today
and
a
cabinet
is
selected
and
there
will
be
a
new
minister
of
municipal
affairs.
It
is
up
to
that
minister
to
make
a
decision
and
that
Minister
can
make
modifications
to
your
secondary
plan
and
they
cannot
be
appealed
and
so
I
just
want
to
understand.
That's
the
implications
of
what
we're
talking
about
so
I
am
suggesting
that
recommendations.
N
Three
and
four
should
be
deleted.
You
should
make
a
decision
under
Section
17.
There
would
be
appeals.
Those
appeals
would
go
to
I,
know
sir
I
don't
know
quite
where
I
am
506,
so
you
passed
your
time.
Thank
you,
sir
I
will
finish
in
20
seconds,
sir.
If
that's
all
right
yeah,
they
will
proceed
to
the
new
tribunal.
There
are
time
limits
on
those
appeals
and
there
is
deference
to
your
decision
there
under
the
new
rules,
so
I
would
suggest
that's.
A
K
A
A
K
N
Through
you,
mr.
chair,
first
of
all,
I
am
a
lawyer
who
works
for
certain
developers.
I
am
also
a
lawyer
who
works
for
resident
associations
for
individual
residents
and
for
those,
in
fact,
who
have
attended
at
T
lab,
which
you're
discussing
earlier
to
oppose
committee
of
adjustment
matters,
so
I
have
to
reject
the
characterization
that
I
am
a
developer,
who
works
only
for
the
development
industry.
N
I
have
clients
who
are
developers
and
I
recognize
that
I
also
have
to
reject
very
strongly
the
insinuation
that
I
would
not
come
to
this
committee
and
give
my
objective
legal
opinion
to
this
committee
based
on
the
client
I
am
representing,
and
with
all
due
respect,
sir,
it's
a
little
bit
offensive.
That
is
my
objective
legal
opinion.
I
A
N
C
Oh,
it's
hard
to
see
I
know,
there's
all
that
equipment.
That's
fine,
so
I
guess
you've
said
that
you're
not
happy
that
the
plan
cannot
be
appealed
and
so
I
guess
what
would
your
take
on
the
neighbors
and
there
are
a
number
of
neighbors
here.
Some
of
them
still
aren't
aware
of
it,
but
there
are
neighbors
here
and
I
think
they
think.
That's
a
good
part.
There's
some
there's
certainly
some
challenges
with
this
plan,
but
that
is
a
good
part
that
it
can't
be
appealed.
N
N
If
I'm
residents
and
landowners
I
would
like
to
have
notice
of
those
and
an
opportunity
to
review
them
an
opportunity
to
have
come
back
and
make
deputations
to
this
committee
on
those
amendments,
especially
when
there's
no
right
of
appeal,
and
especially
when
this
is
allegedly
proceeding
under
Section
26
and
the
third
thing
I
would
say
to
those
residents
if
I
was
advising
them.
As
a
lawyer
in
my
objective
opinion,
be
careful
what
you
wish
for,
because
you
cannot
control
the
amendments
that
the
new
minister
of
municipal
affairs
may
or
may
not
make
to
the
document.
N
There
may
be
none,
there
may
be
none,
but
there
may
be
some
and
we
don't
know
which
way
they
would
go
in
any
direction.
Those
amendments
similarly
could
not
be
appealed,
and,
and
so
it
could
cut
both
ways.
So
so
absolutely
three
mr.
chair
councillor
I
appreciate
that
that
would
give
them
comfort
absolutely
okay,.
C
So
maybe
something
that
doesn't
give
them
comfort
and
I'd
like
your
take
on
this-
is
that
my
understanding
just
recently
is
the
plan
is
cannot
be
appealed,
but
applications
can
be
amended
after
two
years.
Are
you
aware
of
that?
Two
years
window?
Yes,
and
what
your?
What's
your
feeling
on
the
two
years,
because
I've
had
residents
say
it
should
be
five
I.
N
Through
you,
mr.
chair
I,
have
to
be
careful,
I
I,
don't
know
that
I
have
an
opinion
whether
the
two
years
is
the
right
limit
or
not
whether
it
should
be
one
whether
it
should
be
to
whether
it
should
be
five
I
would
simply
say
that
that
two-year
moratorium
on
applications
to
amend
the
secondary
plan
would
apply
whether
or
not
this
decision
is
made
under
Section,
17
or
section
26.
N
C
N
They
would
three
mr.
chair.
They
could
come
in
after
that
two
year
period
file
an
official
plan,
amendment
application
that
official
plan
amendment
application
would
then
be
reviewed
under
the
balance
of
the
Official
Plan
policies.
Under
the
growth
plan
and
under
the
provincial
policy
statement,
there
would
be
a
decision
based
on
a
recommendation
coming
forward
out
of
the
community
council
to
council
and
that
decision
based
on
the
changes
in
bill
139
would
be
subject
to
some
degree
of
deference,
because
that
is
the
new
standard
under
bill.
N
A
N
A
N
I'd
have
to
pull
up
my
planning
to
tell
you
how
long
they
have
to
respond.
I.
Actually,
don't
I'm,
not
sure
there
is
such
a
time
limit
for
them
to
have
to
respond.
I
would
have
to
pull
it
out,
sir
and
double-check,
for
you,
I
didn't
bring
that
with
me.
So
if
it
is
six
months,
yeah
assume
it's
six
assume
it's
nine
whatever
it
is,
sir
I'm
happy
to
accept
a
date
if
it
is
six
months.
N
The
difference
here
is
there'll
be
no
right
of
appeal,
and
so
there
can
be
an
application
that
has
been
in
the
process
and
even
supported
now
by
city
staff.
Once
the
Minister's
decision
issues
under
section
24
of
the
Planning
Act,
the
rules,
change
and
conformity
is
now
assessed
under
those
plans.
That's
a
significant
issue
and
I,
don't
think.
N
I
also
have
to
say
under
the
new
under
the
post
bill,
139
we're
not
gonna
have
the
OPA
320,
because
there
are
timelines
in
the
regulations.
For
example,
10
months
40
lab
sorry
for
El
Pat,
it's
too
many
acronyms
for
El
Pat
to
schedule,
hearing
hold
a
hearing
which
is
only
submissions
from
council
and
then
issue
a
decision,
so
we're
not
going
to
have
the
spiralling
OPA
I
call
them
conventions
of
municipal
lawyers.
When
we
attend
when
we
turn
up
a
pre-hearing
conferences,
that's
not
going
to
happen
under
the
new
regime.
N
A
One
question
you
expressed
concern
that
amendments
might
be
moved
here
that
you
have
no
opportunity
to
respond
to
yes,
sir,
but
if
amendments
are
moved
at
committee,
if
amendments
are
moved,
that
committee
cannot
at
council,
you
do
have
an
opportunity,
sir
right
to
counsel.
Is
that
satisfactory?
Or
would
you
actually
like
to
have
an
opportunity
to
speak
to
committee
I.
N
Would
want
a
second
statutory
public
meeting,
sir,
if
there
are
amendments
that
could
come
forward
that
change
the
substance
of
the
proposed
plan.
I
think
there
should
be
a
second
statutory
public
meeting.
I.
Take
your
point,
sir.
There
is
the
opportunity
to
write
a
letter
into
Council,
but
there
there
wouldn't
be
the
opportunity
to
address
those
amendments
at
a
statutory
public
meeting.
Okay,
thank.
A
L
L
It's
uncover
to
sites
if
I
may.
The
first
is
and
I.
Allow
me
just
to
say
that
I
share
mr.
Brahn
skills,
independent
legal
opinion
as
to
someone
as
someone
who
acts
not
only
for
the
development
industry,
but
also
individual
landowners
rate
payer
groups
and
from
time
to
time,
even
this
municipality.
The
first
item
that
I'd
like
to
address
is
addressed
in
30
point
4.2
to
submission.
L
It
is
the
southeast
corner
of
Bayview
and
Eglinton
and
I
act
on
behalf
of
Condor,
the
owner
of
one
of
the
pieces
of
property
there
and
of
the
effectively
the
air
rights
from
the
Metrolink
station.
That
is
under
construction.
At
the
moment,
it
is
clear
in
my
review
of
OPA
405
that
council
and
the
planners
intend
to
protect
the
neighborhoods.
That's
why
you
have
corridors
zones
and
quite
compressed
intensification
areas
provided
in
this
case.
L
My
sense
is
that,
in
this
circumstance,
the
knowledge
about
the
proposed
application,
which
will
be
filed
shortly,
there's
been
pre
consultation
and
the
knowledge
about
the
Metrolinx
agreement
to
intensify
this
location
was
not
available
to
staff,
certainly
when
they
started
back
in
2014
2015.
2016.
L
Second
point
I
wish
to
make
that
set
out
in
the
correspondence
is
that-
and
this
is
a
broad
submission
that,
when,
in
just
an
April
of
this
year,
your
staff
put
in
the
Metro
the
major
transportation
station
areas
and
put
in
two
yellow
rings
with
the
500-meter
in
my
respectful
submission.
Certainly,
as
it
comes
to
Bayview,
they
use
the
wrong
minimum
density
target
where
the
crosstown
is
below
grade
and
where
it
has
short
track
turnaround
capacity
at
either
end.
L
L
Secondly,
it
does
not
use
the
standard
of
the
area
that
is
now
directed
by
the
province
now
directed
by
the
province
under
the
growth
plan
to
optimize
the
infrastructure
investment
by
looking
to
not
simply
500
meters,
but
also
a
10-minute
walking
distance,
and
in
that
regard,
that
has
not
been
addressed
and,
finally,
with
respect
to
the
actual
calculations,
there
has
been
no
disclosure
whatsoever
of
any
calculations
that
have
been
done.
That
established
support
for
the
proposition
of
the
staff
statement
in
the
OPA
that
the
minimum
density
targets
satisfied
the
PPS
and
the
growth
plan.
L
Let
me
turn
to
the
second
site
that
I'm
addressing
and
this
is
808
Mount
Pleasant.
There
is
detailed
correspondence
in
front
of
you,
I'm,
sorry,
I
don't
have
the
number
that
it
is
on
your
agenda.
This
is
on
the
west
side
of
Mount
Pleasant,
a
directly
adjacent
to
the
Mount
Pleasant
station.
On
the
north
side,
there
was
an
application
filed
on
November
14th
of
2017
that
has
been
deemed
complete.
Therefore,
legally
is
effective
as
of
November
14th.
L
That
data
is
important
because,
as
you
will
recall,
in
December
council
backdated
approval
and
said
no
application
that
came
after
November
15th
should
be
processed
other
than
under
OPA.
What
is
now
opioid
405?
Your
staff
has
made
a
factual
legal
error
by
stating
and
treating
that
application
as
if
it
is
one
of
the
latter,
as
opposed
to
one
that,
in
fact
has
predated
the
effective
date
of
processing.
Secondly,
I
simply
wish
to
point
out
that
there
have
been
there
was
a
detailed
submission
made
in
writing
with
respect
to
this
site
in
April
of
this
year.
L
Your
record
has
absolutely
nothing
that
gives
you
any
information
about
the
review
of
the
issues
that
were
raised
or
an
appropriate
response
to
those.
So
in
my
respectful
submission
again
for
you
to
make
a
decision
on
that
site
and
indeed
on
any
of
the
sites
that
are
before
you
today,
you
do
not
have
the
appropriate
information
to
meet
the
standards
of
the
new
regime.
Thank.
A
A
K
You
know
you
earlier
stated
that
that
you
you're
submitting
that
this
LR
to
you
and
Eglinton
below
grade
is
in
fact
a
subway.
Yes,
aside
from
a
bean
below
grade,
may
ask
you
to
clarify
that
comment.
How
do
you,
how
do
you?
How
do
you
submit
that
that
that
an
LRT
is
a
subway
given
that
they
are
two
different
vehicles?
Well,.
L
There
might
be
two
different
vehicles,
but
when
one
looks
at
the
definition
and
and
particularly
the
fact
that
for
the
below
grade
or
subway
section
of
the
LRT,
there
is
short
term
capacity
which
is
intended
to
allow
more
back-and-forth
a
feeding
than
the
surface
routes.
It
meets
the
intention
and
the
operational
characteristics
of
a
subway.
It
is
that
which
I
am
advised
would
qualify
it
for
the
larger
or.
K
A
Statistics
I
have
from
staff
was
in
2006.
The
population
in
the
area
was
51,000
for
in
2011,
57,000,
2016
62,000
as
well,
there's
another
19,
the
units
for
another
19,000
people
approved
and
under
review
as
another.
Ninety
four
hundred,
so
we're
talking
about
ninety
one
thousand
persons
of
population
in
this
area
from
fifty
one
thousand
and
two
thousand
and
six
much
of
it
not
built,
and
this
plan
suggests
going
to
a
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
persons
and
population.
A
L
Submitting
something
different,
and
that
is
that
the
and,
as
mr.
Braun
school
said,
I
think
perhaps
bill
139.
That
will
turn
out
to
be
like
that
all
curse.
May
you
get
what
you
asked
for
the
new
rules
are
that
the
province
gets
to
set
the
standards
for
density,
around
major
transit
stations
by
virtue
of
the
growth
plan
and
big
moves
and
the
and
the
more
recently
adopted
Metrolinx
initiatives
and
they
have
set
minimum
targets
and
they
have
suggested
if
I
may,
please
minimum
distances
within
which
those
persons.
B
A
L
L
A
About
the
comprehensiveness
of
the
plan,
where
it's
talking
to
more
than
double
the
population
that
lived
in
the
area
in
2006
and
whether
from
your
review
of
the
larger
plan,
not
those
particular
areas
uh-huh,
that
plan
can
manage
more
than
the
proposed
population
of
a
hundred
and
twenty
thousand
people,
because
I'm
not
looking
at
just
your
space
I'm.
Looking
at
the
slightly
larger
area,
which
is
Midtown
yes,
and
is
it
your
submission
that
the
infrastructure
in
place
transportation,
water,
sewage
parts
everything
else
can
manage
in
that
growth
area?
More
than
120,000
people?
My.
L
Submission,
rather,
is
that
the
rules
have
now
changed
and
with
respect
to
the
issue
of
capacity
and
population
that
is
driven
now
by
the
provincial
numbers
that
have
been
given
and
the
staff
reports
and
all
the
material
that's
been
provided
has
not
addressed
those.
So,
although
I
recognize
that
that
folks
are
believing
that
405
is
in
itself
comprehensive,
it
doesn't
meet
the
new
way
of
planning
that
is
coming
down
as
a
direction
from
the
province
it
couldn't.
It
wasn't
initiated
as
such
and
in.