►
Description
Toronto and East York Community Council, meeting 3, February 14, 2019
Agenda and background materials:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/decisionBodyProfile.do?function=doPrepare&meetingId=15390
Meeting Navigation:
0:09:09 - Call to order
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
If
I
could
ask
members
of
the
Toronto
East
York
Community
Council
to
take
their
seats,
please
councillor
Layton
councillor
late,
you
want
to
get
going,
get
going.
Okay,
so
I
just
need
one
person
to
sit
down:
hey
Josh.
Can
you
sit
down
so
I
have
quorum
in
their
seats.
Thanks
all
right,
I
call
this
meeting
to
order.
A
Welcome
everybody
I'd
like
to
begin
by
gratefully
acknowledging
that
the
Toronto
East
York
Community
Council
meets
on
the
traditional
territory
of
many
nations,
including
the
Mississauga's
of
the
credit
Janusz
Navi,
the
Chippewa,
the
bode
nashoni
and
the
wind
at
people's
and
is
now
home
to
many
diverse
First,
Nations,
Inuit
and
maytee
people.
We
also
acknowledge
that
Toronto
is
covered
by
treaty.
Thirteen
with
the
Mississauga's
of
the
credit.
Are
there
any
declarations
of
interest.
B
A
A
A
A
A
Opposed
carried
item,
te,
3.37,
roadway
alteration
and
traffic
parking
amendments,
cleans
away,
Queen,
Street,
West,
King,
Street,
West
and
ronsis
Ville
Avenue
I
need
to
I
need
a
motion.
I'm
gonna
move
a
move
to
withdraw
this.
This
should
actually
properly
be
before
the
infrastructure
and
Environment
Committee,
because
it's
has
impacts
on
the
TTC
and
as
and
therefore
it
isn't
within
the
purview
of
this
committee,
so
I'm
living
withdraw
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carry
okay
item
te,
3.38
removal
of
accessible
loading
zone
spring
first
Avenue
I'm
going
to
move
approval.
A
Opposed
carry
item
T,
3.40,
designation
of
fire
routes,
an
amendment
to
chapter
8,
8,
0,
fire
route,
4
8,
York,
Street,
208
and
218
Queen's
Key
West
councillor
Crecy
I
will
move
staff
recommendation.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
carried
item
te
3.41
extension
of
permit
parking
hours,
Springdale
Boulevard,
councillor,
Bradford,
move.
A
A
A
Item
te,
3.45
installation,
removal
of
on
street
accessible
parking
spaces,
January
2019,
none
delegated
do
I,
have
a
mover
councillor,
Matt
low.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
carried
item
te,
3.46,
installation
removal
of
on
street
accessible
parking
spaces.
January
2019
delegated
do
I,
have
a
mover,
pastor,
Matt
low
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carried.
A
A
B
A
D
D
B
A
A
F
A
A
A
B
A
Okay
item
te,
three
point:
five:
nine:
forty
one
Wabash
Avenue
zoning
amendment
application
preliminary
report,
all
right,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carried
item
te,
three
point:
six:
zero,
Front,
Street
West
and
one
for
one
Bay,
Street
official
plan
amendment
and
zoning
amendment
application.
Preliminary
report,
councillor
cressie,
I,.
A
A
F
A
A
Okay,
it's
good
that
we
acknowledge
that
the
world
happened
as
it
happened.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
to
carry
item;
T;
three
point:
six:
six:
six:
seven
one:
two:
eleven
Delisle
de
lisle
Avenue
and
one
four
nine
six,
two
one:
five:
one:
zero
Yonge
Street
official
plan
and
zoning
bylaw
amendment
applications.
Preliminary
report,
councillor
Matt,
Lowe,
aye,.
A
We
have
that
on
the
record,
then
all
those
in
favor
carried
te
three
point:
six,
eight,
two:
zero
six
Russell
Hill
Road
zoning
amendment
application,
preliminary
report,
counselor
motto:
I
move
the
preliminary
report.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
carry
item
te
three
point:
six:
nine
one:
three,
six:
five,
two
one:
three:
seven:
five
Yonge
Street
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application,
I
move
the
preliminary
reports
Oh
councillor,
Bradford
I
can
I
ask
you
to
step
out
of
the
room,
nothing
personal.
A
A
Just
to
make
everyone
make
sure
everyone
knows
that
he
was
out
of
the
room.
I'm
gonna
ask
for
a
recorded
vote
on
this.
All
those
in
favor
council,
Cressy,
counselor
by
law,
counselor,
Fletcher,
councillor,
perks,
councillor
wong-tam,
council,
late
and
councillor
Matt,
low,
okay
carried,
can
I
ask
someone
to
rescue
our
colleague.
A
You
wouldn't
believe
what
we
got
up
to
while
you
were
away
item
te,
3
point:
7,
0,
2,
1,
0,
0,
2,
2,
1,
1,
0,
Yonge,
Street
and
8
to
12
Manor,
Road,
west
official
plan,
amendment
zoning
amendment
and
renting
rental
housing,
demolition
applications.
Preliminary
report,
councillor
matha,
oh,
did
I
get
them
wrong.
A
A
B
B
A
Construction
management
plan
very
good;
okay,
oh
that's
kind
of
odd,
but
I'll.
Let
it
go
all
those
in
favor
opposed
a
carry
editorial.
Okay
item,
as
amended
all
those
in
favor
carry
item
te
three
point:
seven
one
one:
three:
three:
two
one:
four:
one:
Queen
Street
East
and
128
Richmond,
Street,
East
zoning
amendment
application,
Clemen,
airy
report,
councillor
Wong
town;
yes,.
E
A
A
A
B
B
A
So
you
know
what
this
is
kind
of
an
important
one.
I
would
like
a
recorded
vote
on
this.
All
those
in
favor
of
approving
Karen
Fraser
is
the
recipient
of
the
2019
agnes
macphail
ward
councillor
Cressy
councillor
Bradford
councillor
by
law,
counselor
Fletcher,
councillor
perks,
councillor
wong-tam,
councillor
Layton,
councillor,
mallow,
that's
unanimous,
good.
A
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
How
about
now
so
this
is
the
Wrigley
building,
the
even
the
one
in
Chicago
was
torn
down.
This
is
probably
the
best
version
and
there's
no
heritage,
designation
or
any
heritage
on
it
at
the
moment.
So
we
will
start
this
process
for
this
and
other
other
heritage.
Industrial
buildings
in
the
Carl,
okay,.
A
D
A
A
E
D
A
A
A
A
This
is
78,
okay,
so
item
te,
three
point:
seven,
eight
one
one:
five
one
Queen
Street
East
community
consultation
meeting
councillor
Fletcher,
has
a
motion.
It's
on
the
screen
on
the
amendment.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
carried
on
the
item
as
amend
amended.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
carry
all
right.
That
concludes
the
agenda
run-through.
A
D
I
could
just
spend
two
seconds
reviewing
some
of
the
names
that
were
chosen.
First
I'd
like
to
thank
the
Palmerston
area
resident
Association
for
undertaking
this
process
to
have
a
public
engagement
around
the
the
naming
of
the
lane
ways.
We
introduced
it
to
them
and
they
really
have
taken
it
to
a
quite
different
level.
D
We've
got
Morley
Safer,
Lane,
Wayne
and
Shuster
Lane
there's
they
really
have
gone
I
think
a
little
bit
beyond
what
most
resident
associations
would
do
and
I'd
like
to
thank
them
for
their
time
and
attention
on
the
matter
and
look
forward
to
moving
ahead
with
this.
It
was
a
long
three
four
year
process
to
even
get
to
these,
and-
and
it
was
all
volunteer
led
so
I
think
they've
done
a
great
job.
B
A
A
If
anyone
wishes
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
and
has
not
registered,
you
can
see
the
clerk
staff
over
here.
If
you
could
put
your
hands
nice
and
high
for
this
or
any
other
item
coming
up,
you
can
just
register
in
advance
with
the
clerk
Jeff.
Please
have
a
seat:
okay,
I,
so
Jeff.
If
you
can
just
make
sure
that
the
microphone
is
lit
up
in
front
of
you
is
the
button
light
lit
there,
you
go
what
so
you
have
five
minutes
to
make
a
deputation
yeah
the
clock.
A
G
You
for
hearing
me
I
just
have
a
little
quiet.
My
name
is
Jeff
Zeldin
I
live
at
29
Russell
Hill
Road
I
am
both
alarmed
and
deeply
concerned
about
the
decisions
that
have
been
made
or
about
to
be
made.
Regarding
the
neighborhood
of
South,
Hill
and
77
claritin
Avenue
and
its
effects,
it
will
have
on
Russell
Hill
Road
south
of
st.
Clair
to
allow
an
existing
five-story
apartment.
That's
68
feet
to
be
replaced
by
five-story
condo
over
80
feet.
This
does
not
fit
in
with
a
mix
of
older
residential
homes.
G
This
property
does
not
face
Avenue
Road
or
st.
Clair
where
precedents
have
been
set
in
the
past
Russell
Hill
Road
is
a
beautiful,
winding
tree-lined
Street
in
ravine
setting,
that
is
over
120
years
old.
It
also
has
serious
infrastructure
issues.
It
is
a
main
artery
for
traffic
flow
going
south.
In
the
morning.
G
The
proposal
for
77
claritin
goes
from
existing
10
rental
units
to
proposed
30
condo
units
I
calculate
the
existing
building,
has
70
units
of
wastewater
ports
going
into
the
main
sewer
taking
in
an
account
existing
toilets
sinks,
dishwashers
and
washing
machines
by
expanding
to
the
proposed
30
units.
This
is
equal
to
approximately
225
units
of
wastewater,
going
into
the
main
sewer
I'm,
taking
an
account
once
again
toilets,
sinks,
dishwashers
and
washing
machines,
so
in
effect
you're
adding
a
hundred
and
fifty
five
extra
wastewater
ports
into
the
main
sewer.
G
These
20
units
will
add
approximately
a
hundred
and
forty
units
of
waste
water
ports
going
into
the
main
sewer
I'm,
taking
account
toilets,
sinks,
dishwashers
and
washing
machines,
in
effect
you're,
adding
50
condo
units
in
these
two
in
these
two
condo
projects
and
subtracting
10
rental
units.
This
equates
to
40
new
residences
on
Russell,
Hill,
Road
and
295
waste
water
ports
going
into
the
main
sewer.
G
Claire
from
clared
and
down
to
the
bottom
of
Russell
Hill
Road
I
live
right
at
the
bottom
of
Russell
Hill
Road,
and
in
the
nine
and
a
half
years
that
I've
been
living
there,
we've
had
two
major
sewage
floods
in
my
basement,
and
my
house
is
30
feet
above
the
sidewalk
grade
by
adding
all
these
extra
extra
stress
on
the
aging
infrastructure.
Sewer
lines
is
a
major
recipe
for
disaster.
G
We
also
have
a
very
serious
problem
with
noxious
fumes,
animating
from
sewer
manhole
grates
at
the
lower
part
of
Russell
Hill
Road
I've
spoken
to
many
residents
on
Russell
Hill
Road,
who
have
had
the
same
problem
of
sewage
flooding
in
their
basements
and
they're
very
unhappy
with
the
situation.
We've
pasted
some
of
the
highest
property
taxes
in
the
city
and
we
voted
you
into
this
office
to
represent
us
in
the
best
interest
of
the
neighborhood.
We're
asking
you
to
serve
the
interest
of
your
constituents.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
H
Thank
you.
Thank
you
very
much
good
morning
councillors
and
thank
you
for
your
time.
My
name
is
Paul.
Lexia
and
I
live
with
my
wife
and
family
on
Bolton
Drive,
which
is
at
the
bottom
of
Russell
Hill
Road.
A
few
hundred
metres
south
of
the
proposed
project
I
have
lived
in
the
South
Hill
district
for
approximately
25
years
and
relished.
H
The
fact
that
it
is
a
quiet,
leafy
community,
but
still
close
to
downtown
I
value,
this
uniqueness
so
much
that
I've
devoted
countless
hours
on
our
residents
Association
in
order
to
preserve
and
protect
this
neighborhoods
character.
Fortunately,
you
still
hear
of
such
passion,
firm
residents
all
over
the
city.
However
I
can
assure
you
what
you
haven't
heard
is
a
proposal
to
construct
a
building
of
this
size
at
an
elevated
site
in
the
middle
of
comparable
residential
neighborhoods,
and
by
that
you
can
think
Casa,
Loma,
Forest,
Hill,
Summer,
Hill,
Rosedale,
etc.
They
done
it.
H
This
dust
doesn't
exist
so,
regarding
the
size
and
specifically
the
height
I,
am
on
record
with
City
Planning
is
strongly
objecting
to
their
characterization
of
the
proposed
increase
from
the
current
68
feet
to
over
80
feet.
As
a
material
I
maintain
that
is
not
possible
to
mitigate
the
impact
and
perception
of
height
in
this
context,
which
is
their
words
height
is
height,
it
is
it
is
either
there
or
it
isn't,
and
it
cannot
be
hidden
from
view
for
planning
to
suggest
there
is
a
way
not
to
see
another
six.
H
Thirteen
point
six
feet
of
bricks
and
mortar
is
nonsense.
This
added
height
of
over
24%
effectively
an
additional
floor
is
being
piled
on
to
a
grandfathered
building,
which
is
a
standalone.
Nothing
similar
was
built
anywhere
nearby
before
or
after
and
just
to
be
clear.
The
current
68
feet
is
already
50
percent
higher
than
the
surrounding
buildings,
whereas
the
proposed
80-plus
feet
is
close
to
80
percent
higher
towering
over
all
that
around
it
and
we're
not
supposed
to
notice
that
difference.
You'll.
H
H
This
number
of
storeys
is
clearly
misleading
and
has
resulted
in
relentless
unaccountable
alarming
vertical
creep
over
the
entire
course
of
this
application,
and
we
find
this
unacceptable
as
such
our
community,
our
community
vehemently
maintains
that
a
new
building
here
must
be
no
higher
than
the
current
68
feet,
and
if
that
means
only
four
storeys
of
luxury
living,
then
so
be
it.
We
are
not
opposed
to
development,
but
we
are
opposed
to
over
development.
H
In
summary,
I
am
requesting
members
of
community
council
consider
the
distinct
possibility
of
Sydney
City
Planning,
getting
it
wrong
that
they
failed
to
properly
consider
the
context
and
consequences
here.
I
therefore
appeal
to
you,
in
your
capacity
as
a
committee
of
sober
second
thought,
to
reject
this
application.
Thank
you
and
I'd
be
pleased
to
take
your
questions.
A
A
Okay,
so
you're
not
supposed
to
applaud,
because
that's
what
like
influencing
what
we're
doing
so
the
tradition
is
kind
of
do
jazz
hands
because
evidently
jazz
hands
don't
influence
what
we're
doing
never
influence
anybody.
Okay,
okay
is
the
Alan.
So
thank
you
for
being
here.
You
have
five
minutes.
You
can
watch
your
time
on
the
clock
to
my
right.
I
I
I'm
very
I
am
speaking
as
an
individual
here,
I'm
very,
very
concerned
about
the
height
which
is
being
requested,
and
this,
as
my
colleague
said,
has
ism
is
vertical
creep
this
book.
If
it
goes
up
another
10,
storeys,
there's
obviously
a
reason
for
this
ten
feet.
There's
obviously
a
reason
for
this,
and
the
reason
is
that
the
building
then
becomes
much
more
valuable
on
the
top
floors,
because
you
have
an
unimpeded
view
of
the
whole
of
the
City
of
Toronto
from
downtown.
This
building
is
proposed
on
the
escarpment.
I
It
is
the
edge
of
the
lake
of
the
old
lake,
and
it
is
you
the
view
south
will
be.
You
will
be
able
to
see
all
downtown
at
all
points
of
the
year
and
also
to
the
east,
to
the
north
homer
ravine,
which
is
currently
where
the
park
is
currently
under
construction
and
to
the
east.
The
remainder
of
the
buildings
and
I
looked
at
this
last
night.
There
are
over
100
buildings
or
residences
in
our
area
which
fall
below
40
to
45
feet.
I
This
then
says
that
80
feet
and
distorted
the
top
floor
of
this
building
are
going
to
dwarf
anything
that
is
around.
There.
I
had
asked
for
a
comparison
between
the
townhouses
being
viewed
from
Clarendon
Avenue
I
received
something
from
Russell
Hill
Road,
which
does
not
emphasize
at
all
how
high
this
building
is
going
to
be
above.
The
current
one.
I
really
would
ask
you
or
Kay
to
really
consider
this
seriously.
I
We
are
not
averse
to
change.
I
have
worked
in
the
IT
industry
for
over
50
years
and
I
led
very
large
projects,
and
so
on
and
I
those
large
projects
and
a
large
number
who
won
multi-million
dollar
in
the
banking
industry
and
I,
worked
in
three
major
banks
and
did
strategy
fun.
I
am
just
asking
you
to
really
seriously
take
a
look
at
what
is
going
on.
I
So
we
are
going
to
end
up
with
two
five
storey
houses,
which
are
twelve
feet
in
height
that
the
flaws
in
this
building
on
this
five-story
proposal
right
now
will
be
twelve
feet,
ceilings
and
that
will
dwarf
anything
that
is
in
there.
My
own
home
was
around
about
thirty
five
to
forty
feet
and
I
am
on
a
level
plane
with
that
building.
I
A
J
Minutes:
five
minutes:
okay,
okay,
I'm,
just
trying
to
appeal
to
some
common
sense
here:
I
live
at
105,
Russell,
Hill
Road,
just
around
the
corner
from
the
development
I'm
gonna
do
up
for
myself,
so
I
have
nothing
against
development,
the
common
sense
being
that
this
whole
area
is
meant
for
townhouses.
There
are
townhouses
right
next
door
that
semies
they're
sold
for
$5,000,000
$5,000,000
just
recently
and
they're
they're
20
years
old.
J
Okay,
all
he
has
to
do
is
continue
that
same
frame
of
work,
5,
million-dollar,
townhouses
candidum,
so
instead
of
the
guy
George
Grossman
he's,
instead
of
having
his
net
worth,
go
from
a
hundred
million
two
hundred
and
twenty
million
one
hundred
and
thirty
million
I
cut
back,
maybe
ten
million
from
him
from
his
net
worth,
and
he
builds
these
wonderful
townhouses.
That
makes
everybody
happy.
He
does
not
need
to
build
this
monstrous
monstrous
construction.
J
Whatever
it's
too
tall,
everybody
says
it
doesn't
belong
in
the
area
and
not
only
that,
but
he's
already
got
a
strategically
owns
the
next
door
and
across
the
street
and
everywhere
else.
It's
a
precedent.
He
wants
to
change
the
whole
area.
Why
should
we
let
her
bully
come
in
to
our
area
when
he
doesn't
need
the
money,
but
he
doesn't
have
to
do
it.
He
should
have
a
little
bit
of
class
and
put
up
the
townhouses
that
everybody
wants
and
everybody
has
already
the
precedence
right
there.
All
these
lose
copied.
Our
wonderful
president
everybody's
happy.
J
He
makes
money
instead
of
making
30
million
makes
twenty
million
dollars.
Oh,
that's,
not
a
big
terrible
thing
for
something
to
happen
to
him.
His
life
sounds
not
gonna
change,
so
I
just
appeal
to
people.
So
please
please,
please
think
about
what
you're
doing
here.
You
can't
just
sort
of
bully,
come
in
to
our
area
and
put
up
this
monstrosity
and
change
the
whole
area
for
what
what
is
he
doing
it
for
for
money?
Yes
for
money,
but
so
let
him
make
twenty
million
instead
of
thirty
million
dollars
and
make
everybody
happy.
J
A
K
Thank
You,
mr.
chairman
and
members
of
committee,
this
is
an
application
for
probably
what's
before
your
community
council,
one
of
the
smallest
most
modest
developments,
you're,
going
to
see
replacing
a
five-story
50
plus
year
old
apartment,
building
with
a
five-story
residential
condominium,
the
site
location.
Just
to
give
you
a
bit
of
perspective
is
down
Russell
Hill
Road,
just
just
up
from
or
down
south
from
st.
Clair
and
giving
you
just
a
blow-up
of
the
area.
What
you'll
see
is:
there's
a
four-story
apartment
next
door,
townhouses
on
one
side,
four-story
apartment.
K
Here
again
we
have
more
another
five
storey
proposal
here,
that's
being
constructed
and
a
three-story
multi-unit
dwelling
here.
So
at
this
particular
area
you
have
existing
apartments,
including
the
existing
apartment
on
the
subject
site
I'll
be
at
correct
at
12
feet
lower
than
what
we
have.
This
is
a
process
where
we've
gone
through
the
process
prior
to
the
submission
of
the
application
and
following
since
2015
so
nobody's
rushed
through
the
process.
K
This
is
an
applicant
who
never
appealed,
despite
Planning
Act
changes,
who
said
I'm
going
to
work
through
the
community
process
and
had
two
meetings
with
the
community
before
the
application
went
in
when
that
happened.
One
of
the
owners
on
the
street
was
mr.
Mancos.
Mr.
Minkus
lives,
two
doors
away
and
some
of
the
people
who
are
here
speaking
to
you
called
him
and
said
you
live
on
the
street.
K
Why
don't
you
change
the
building
from
a
six
story,
building
with
almost
sixty
units
and
bring
it
to
more
of
a
luxury,
different
architectural
form
for
the
area?
So
mr.
makers
called
mr.
Grossman.
The
name
was
brought
up
who's
the
owner
and
said
we'll:
do
it
jointly,
so
they
scrapped
the
original
design
came
back
with
a
proposal
that
was
five
stories:
30
units
in
total,
a
density
of
1.71
times
the
area
of
the
law,
five
floors.
It
has
a
and
garage
area
screen
from
Street
View
off
of
Clarendon
as
you
sloped
down
to
it.
K
It's
got
a
management
office,
a
condo
lobby
and
yellow
interior
amenity
space
and
a
gym.
These
are
the
statistics
in
terms
of
the
changes
again
over
the
last
four
years:
six
to
five
stories:
54
to
30
units,
6900
square
meters,
to
5437
square
meters,
on
any
evaluation
that
you've
done
in
seeing
applications
in
your
area,
I'm
replacing
five
floors
with
five
floors.
K
There
have
been
also
increases
to
the
setbacks,
to
all
sides
that
have
been
requested
to
the
rear,
Jason
to
the
four-story
apartment
and
again
to
the
other
sides,
both
for
tree
protection
and
additional
tree
planting
and
landscaping,
and
a
complete
redesign
to
the
design.
That's
before
you
to
make
it
look
more
akin
to
what
you'll
find
in
that
area.
What
we've
also
done
is
we've
taken
the
time
to
shoot
in
the
existing
built
form
and
take
a
look
for
a
minute.
That's
the
existing
five
story.
Apartment
building
and
people
are
correct.
K
It's
not
as
large
in
terms
of
its
bulk
50
years
ago,
as
it
is
proposed,
that's
correct,
we're
still
at
1.71
times
density.
This
is
the
street:
that's
the
apartment,
building
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
street,
and
now
what
we've
done
is
we've
had
a
representation
of
the
proposed
building
inserted
into
that
photo.
So
that
gives
you
one
perspective.
K
K
Don't
think
I've
had
an
applicant
who's
waited
four
years
through
a
process
for
a
smaller
building
as
this
to
proceed
through
the
process,
5,400
just
a
little
over
that
square
metres
in
terms
of
total
GFA,
1.71
or
1.7
two
times
the
density
and
again
completely
scrapped
the
proposal
halfway
through
and
redesigned
it
and
actually
retained
a
new
architect
and
brought
in
one
of
the
owners
of
the
street,
because
the
community
went
to
that
owner
and
said:
please
become
involved
and
he
said
I
will.
So.
This
is
a
joint
development
through
mr.
K
Grossman's
company
and
and
meant
developments,
and
that
happened
because
of
the
input
of
the
community
through
a
very
lengthy
process
and
city
staff,
work
diligently
with
a
very
detailed
report
that
reviews
this
again
from
beginning
to
end,
and
this
is
a
proposal
that
we
would
ask
that
you
adopt
the
recommendations
of
city
planning
staff,
Thank
You.
Mr.
chairman,
just
under
thank.
A
B
A
A
D
B
A
A
On
the
motions
aren't
ready
yet
so
so
can
I
ask
counselor.
Batlló
can
I
hold
this
in
your
name
for
five
minutes?
Yes,
until
we
have
the
motions
prepared-
and
this
is
your
regular
regularly
scheduled
reminder
to-
please
have
your
motions
in
writing.
Well
advance
of
the
item
to
the
clerk.
Okay,
I
have
a
couple
of
pieces
of
business
that
we
can
do
here.
Routine
business
I
have
items
te
three
point.
A
A
B
A
I'm
gonna
try
something
here.
Item
te
three
point:
four:
five:
seven:
eight
to
five:
eight:
zero
King
Street
West
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
final
report:
are
there
any
members
of
the
public
that
are
here
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
Seeing
none?
This
is
councillor
cressie.
Do
you
have
anything
to
say
to
us
so.
C
I'm
gonna,
first
of
all,
move
the
staff
recommendations,
which
is
to
refuse
and
I,
have
a
couple
of
comments
here.
I
will
just
say
this
is
the
first
refusal
report
in
Ward
10,
that's
coming
in
under
the
new
L
Pat
system,
as
an
immediate
refusal
and
I'm
glad
it
is,
and
I
want
to
commend
staff
for
the
hard
work
they've
taken
and
for
being
very
clear
when
we
have
applications
come
in
there's
a
green
light,
yellow
light
red
light
and
if
it's
a
red
light,
let's
just
say
it:
let's
not
waste
the
time.
C
In
this
case
this
is
a
king,
Spadina
property.
It's
you
know:
1996
942
people
lived
in
King
Spadina
today,
nearly
25,000,
that's
a
success
that
is
intensification
of
a
downtown
core
to
allow
it
to
develop
into
a
dynamic
mixed
use.
Neighborhood.
But
it's
been
thoughtful
city
staff
have
been
diligent
in
creating
a
planning
framework
whereby
we
were
building
a
neighborhood,
not
just
building
buildings,
as
we
intensify
and
with
the
Heritage
Conservation
District.
The
looming
secondary
plan,
tÃo
core
and
others.
C
We've
been
very
clear
around
our
expectations
on
Heights
and
setbacks
and
heritage
protection,
and
in
this
case
we
have
a
low-rise
building
and
there
aren't
many
of
them
left
in
King's
pedina.
Where
a
tower
is
proposed,
everybody
doesn't
get
a
tower
in
King
Spadina
and
it's
time
that
the
sector
realizes
that
and
I
want
to
commend
our
HPS
staff
and
our
city
planning
staff
for
their
work
on
rapport
and
I
want
to
thank
them
and
I.
Ask
for
your
support.
C
A
A
F
The
reason
that
I'm
asking
for
your
support
and
I've
spoken
to
a
number
of
you
and
I
and
I,
know
I
appreciate
that
many
of
you
understand
how
both
complex
this
has
been,
but
also
how
why
the
right
thing
to
do
is
to
refuse
this
specific
proposal.
So,
first
of
all,
mr.
Broun,
when
he
spoke
earlier,
he
mentioned
that
there
were
two
community
meetings.
That
is
true,
however,
in
both
of
the
community
meetings,
the
applicant
heard
the
very
same
concerns
from
the
community,
as
you
have
heard
today.
F
Yes,
the
applicant
made
changes
to
their
proposal,
but
it
still
was
never
in
concert
with,
certainly
what
the
community's
views
were
about,
what
should
be
on
that
site
beyond,
though
just
the
community's
reaction
to
this.
So
from
a
planning
perspective,
this
is
not
an
apartment
neighborhood
this
this.
These
the
buildings
that
are
there
were
grandfathered
in
a
stable
neighborhood
for
many
years,
and
you
know
people
whether
they
liked
it
or
not.
F
They
recognized
that
that
was
the
status
quo
and
those
were
the
heights
for
an
applicant
to
come
and
say
we
not
only
want
to
redevelop
it
and
by
the
way
the
community
has
never
said
we're
opposed
to
redeveloping
the
site,
but
to
then
set
a
new
precedent
where
this
this
height
is
even
going
to
go
up.
Another
four
meters
is
unacceptable.
F
What
it
does
is
that
it
essentially
allows
then
for
the
next
redevelopment
to
go
up
another
few
meters
in
etc,
and
that's
not
something
that
we
want
to
see
right
in
the
heart
of
this
neighborhood.
Moreover,
we
want
them
to
continue
negotiating
with
us
in
the
future
about
bringing
down
the
height
so
that
they
can,
you
know,
perhaps
even
internalize
the
mechanical
plant
house
and
do
something
that
is
more
appropriate
for
the
site
bottom
line
is.
This
is
an
area
that
the
opie
designation
allows
for
four
storeys.
F
This
is
a
grandfathered
site
for
five
storeys,
but
five
storeys,
as
you
know,
can
be
different,
based
on
exactly
how
many
feet
or
how
many
meters
and
there
in
the
end
the
number
of
feet
and
meters
that
they
want,
is
excessive.
It
goes
from
the
existing
height
at
the
top
of
the
the
top
of
the
mechanical
handouts,
19.22
meters
they're
demanding
twenty
four
point.
Four
five,
the
other
consider
the
other
critical
component
of
this.
F
Negotiating
so
here's
something
that
is
important
about
what
I'm
trying
to
do
here.
I
want
to
reject
this
proposal,
because
this
proposal
isn't
the
right
proposal,
we're
not
saying
as
a
community
that
we're
not
going
to
accept
any
proposal,
but
this
isn't
the
one
that
we
can
accept
number
two.
The
other
motion
is
to
go
back
to
the
community
if
there
is
a
more
appropriate
and
reasonable
proposal
that
we
can
discuss.
F
The
other
thing
that
you
need
to
be
aware
of,
if
you
are
not,
is
that
because
of
the
new
because
of
our
success
in
abolishing
the
old
OMB
rules,
this
is
now
would
go
if
it's
appealed
to
the
new
L
patch
with
the
new
L
patch.
We
do
get
another
kick
at
the
can,
where
they
would
send
this
back
to
community
council
for
reconsideration.
If
there's
another
another
opportunity
to
see
a
revised
proposal,
so
we
would
have
an
opportunity
to
reconsider
something
for
the
site.
F
I
ask
you
both
on
behalf
of
the
community,
but
also
on
behalf
of
what
I
hope
would
be
a
process
to
actually
lead
to
maybe
a
better
negotiated
resolution
to
support
rejecting
this
proposal
and
hopefully
there'll
be
an
opportunity
to
move
forward
with
the
community
meeting
where
we
can
actually
discuss
something
that
would
be
more
appropriate
for
the
site.
Thank
you.
B
F
F
But
yes,
there
is
a
threshold,
and
you
know
Ana
would
know
better
than
I
do
about
sort
of
you
know
exactly
what
what
what
what
price
range
it
triggers,
but
I'm
surprised
by
that,
because
even
if
it's
expect,
even
if
it's
even
if
it's
a
like
luxury
rental,
there's
still
an
opportunity,
if
it's
rental,
to
work
towards
a
more
a
more
affordable
level,
and
that's
that's
that's
what
we
would
like
to
achieve.
You.
F
A
Have
a
question
of
the
mover,
so
your
motion
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
motion
number
two
City
Council
authorized
the
city
solicitor,
together
with
appropriate
city
staff,
to
appear
before
the
l-pod
in
support
of
councils
decision
to
refuse
here's.
What
I'm
trying
to
understand
city
city
planning
staff
have
written
in
favor.
A
A
F
A
five
storey
building,
but
it's
a
different
height
okay.
So
what
we're
concerned
about
is
that,
even
though
it's
called
five
storeys,
it's
actually
going
up
a
few
meters
and
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
limit
the
envelope
so
that
there's
there
isn't
a
new
precedent
set
for
not
only
this
building
but
any
other
future
redevelopment.
B
C
You
and
thank
you
for
the
debate
and
the
motions
have
just
been
moved.
I
will
acknowledge
around
the
table
and
councillor
perks.
I
think
your
mic
is
on
I
will
acknowledge
that
I
feel
conflicted
I,
because
there
is
a
staff
report
in
front
of
us
that
is
supportive
and
and
also
as
a
councillor
in
downtown
with
a
tremendous
amount
of
del
L
development.
C
But
I
will
say-
and
this
is
how
I
will
be
casting
my
vote-
that
here
today
I
trust
the
work
of
the
local
councillor
and
will
be
supporting
him.
But
I
want
to
put
on
note
and
on
record
here
for
all
of
us
that
we
have
a
big
job
ahead
of
us
as
it
relates
to
stable,
neighborhoods,
and
the
housing
crunch
were
in
in
the
range
of
housing
options
that
are
necessary.
This
term
and
I
will
be
looking
for
ways
to
enable
that,
but
I
will
respect
and
trust
the
local
councillor.
Thank
you.
D
Thank
you
very
much.
I
I
get
I'm
gonna
echo
counselor,
Krusty's
sentiment.
Iii
am
feeling
very
conflicted
about
this
as
well.
I
am
gonna
support
the
local
councillor
and
give
him
the
benefit
of
the
doubt.
I
also
have
concerns
around
the
rent
or
a
replacement.
I.
Think
that
we're
far
too
quick
to
say
well
they're,
not
there
they're
there
not
in
this
band
of
rentals.
So
let's
not,
let's
not
protect
them.
I
think
we
could
see.
D
Then
in
that
case
also
some
of
the
attended
properties
around
Rosedale
that
are
legally
non-conforming,
then
get
flipped
and
I
think
it
would
be
a
mistake
to
start
to
remove
that
rental
stock,
despite
the
fact
that
its
high-end
rental
stock
I
would,
though,
point
out
two
things:
one
bit
of
the
irony
in
in
in
some
of
the
voices
of
opposition
to
this
particular
development.
A
file
have
actually
come
from
developers
and
themselves
and
we're
hearing
things
like
we're,
not
against
development.
D
Just
not
this
development
and-
and
you
can't
like
I'm
sure
you
understand
just
how
much
we
hear
that
from
non
developers
to
developers
constantly
at
meetings.
I
heard
it
15
times
last
night
and
that
a
bully
is
coming
in
and
dictating
what
the
city's
gonna
do
again
word
for
word.
What
we
would
hear
about
developers
at
any
development
across
the
city
they're
only
doing
it
for
money,
I
haven't
been
to
a
development
meeting.
D
I
hope
that
this
sheds
new
insight
onto
your
consideration
of
community's
concerns
and
your
expectation
of
okay.
What
what
a
community
is
supposed
to
absorb
in
the
way
of
density
and
height
on
your
future
I
develop
applications.
I
would
I
would
I
took
issue
with
one
comment
that
was
made
that
we
were
sent
here
by
by
the
residents
which
we
were,
but
there
was
a
reference
to
the
highest
tax
payers
and
I
really
do
take
issue
with
that.
D
My
vote
almost
changed
based
on
that
comment
alone,
because
we
are
not
only
the
voice
of
the
highest
tax
payers,
but
the
lowest
tax
payers
and
everyone
in
between
we
all
contribute
based
on
our
means.
Unfortunately,
we
use
an
impact
system
that
isn't
exactly
fair
based
on
that,
but
we
do,
and
so
it
doesn't
matter
who
you
are.
We
should
be
listening
to
you
always
and
so
coming
in
and
saying
that
you're
a
high
in
the
band
of
highest
taking
paying
tax
payers.
Well,
that
does
absolutely
nothing
to
convince
me.
A
A
Number
three:
the
City
Council
direct
the
city
solicitor
to
retain
outside
consultants
as
necessary,
so
so
this
will
allow
them
to
retain
planning
staff
in
the
event
that
our
planning
staff
are
unable
to
attend
because
they've
written
in
favor.
So
this
one
from
this
one
for
me
is
is
right
on
the
edge.
This
is
the
I
think
it's
very
important
that
we
wreck
it.
A
One
of
the
tools
we
use
for
understanding
how
that
growth
takes
place
inside
a
neighborhood
is
to
look
at
the
character
of
that
neighborhood.
Every
neighborhood
is
has
got
a
slightly
different
character
and
in
this
neighborhood
yes,
there
is
a
five-story
building,
but
stories
aren't
actually
a
fact
height
is
a
fact.
The
actual
measurement
is
a
fact,
and
these
are
five
very
tall
stories
if
they
were
if
this
building
was
the
same
height
as
the
building
kitty-corner
I
would
be
voting
in
support
of
the
application.
A
The
problem
that
we
we
have
is
when
we
put
in
something
that
permits
a
developer,
to
do
something
interesting
like
saying:
look
around
the
prevailing
character.
If
you
can
find
examples
like
a
five-story
building
go
ahead,
somehow
five
becomes
a
tall
five
and
a
tall
five
becomes
a
six
and
A
six
becomes
a
seven
and
a
seven
becomes
an
eight,
and
if
we
are
going
to
be
able
to
persuade
people
in
communities
to
accept
some
intensification,
there
have
to
be
ground
rules.
A
There
has
to
be
some
limit,
some
some
assurance
to
the
community
that,
even
though
there
are
going
to
be
more
people
moving
into
your
neighborhood
and
there's
going
to
be
more
intense
use
that
it's
done
with
an
agreed
set
of
rules,
and
here
the
applicant
has
decided
to
put
their
foot
over
the
line,
so
I'm
going
to
be
supporting
the
local
councillor
and
the
local
community
I
understand
why
staff
might
have
come
to
a
different
conclusion,
because
this
is
really
close
to
the
line.
I
just
wish
that
developers
would
say.
Oh
look,
there's
the
line.
A
Why
don't
I
not
cross
it
once
in
a
while?
Looking
at
you,
mr.
brown
have
a
great
day
so
with
that
first
on
the
amendment,
why
don't
we
take
all
the
three
amendments
as
a
package,
all
those
in
favor
all
those
opposed
I
saw
that
carries
item
as
amended
that
carries
a
posed.
Anyone
posed.
Okay,
that
carries
actually
I,
didn't
need
a
do,
I
Adam
as
amended,
because
we
changed
it.
Didn't
we
okay?
Yes,
we
only
needed
to
vote
once
I'm,
sorry,
not
on
my
game
today.
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
A
A
B
A
So
members,
just
to
just
be
clear,
this
is
a
slightly
new
approach
and
as
a
result
of
the
l-pad
backlog,
which
is
the
request
for
interim
directions,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
everyone
had
seen
that
so
I
have
no
no
request
for
deputations.
Are
there
any
questions
of
staff
seeing
none?
This
is
councilor
one
Tam.
Yes,.
A
E
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
chair
I
will
be
moving
the
staff
recommendations
in
the
in
terms
report.
I
do
take
note
of
what
you've
just
said.
I
have
three
of
these
particular
reports
on
the
agenda
today.
These
interim
directions
report
I,
do
recognize
that
the
hard-working
city
planning
staff
are
working
at
full
tilt
to
try
to
get
these
applications
reviewed,
but
as
much
as
they
are
doing
their
work.
It's
constantly
hard,
when
the
timeline
to
provide
adequate
time
for
reviewing
of
the
applications
that
to
report
out
in
a
in
a
sufficient
manner.
E
The
growth
plan
for
the
day,
the
Golden
Horseshoe
nor
the
provincial
policy
statement
and
staff
have
been
very
clear
that
they
that
currently
and
I
want
this
to
be
noted
that
currently
the
the
tower
height,
the
setbacks,
the
the
shadow
impacts
and
and
any
on-site
heritage
resources
are
still
yet
to
be
determined,
including
heritage,
adjacencies
and
the
protection
of
the
view
corridor
of
st.
James.
E
It
is
still
an
application
that
is,
is
woefully
inadequate.
The
staff
have
note
that
and
they're
in
the
preliminary
report
and
I
wanted
to
just
specify
that,
specifically,
especially
since
there
may
be
with
further
refinements
and
I
hope
that
the
applicant
will
take
my
comments
today
into
further
consideration.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
A
B
A
A
Happy
Valentine's,
Day,
sister,
okay
item
te,
three
point:
six:
two:
nine
five
Jarvis
Street
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
request
for
interim
directions.
Reports.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
Seeing
none
are
there
any
questions
of
staff,
seeing
none
counselor
Who
am
I
looking
for
here
long
tan.
Yes,.
E
Thank
you
very
much.
Mr.
chair
I
would
also
be
moving
the
the
recommendations
in
the
the
interim
directions
report
and
also
just
to
note
that,
as
staff
are
preparing
in
case,
we
get
to
in
case
we're
having
to
defend
this
application
at
a
tell
pad,
because
we
have
not
been
able
to
provide
a
final
report
as
of
yet.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
we
haven't
even
had
a
community
consultation
meeting
with
the
members
of
the
general
public.
E
So
that's
how
far
back
we
are
with
this
application
and
I
just
want
to
highlight
that,
while
we're
in
the
throes
of
a
housing
crisis
and
a
homelessness
crisis,
this
particular
application
happens
to
sit
on
the
edge
of
the
Downtown
East.
It
sits
along
Jarvis,
Street
and
a
part
of
this
application
is
the
proposed
demolition
of
an
88
unit,
dwelling
room
house.
Sorry,
a
rooming
house
and
and
also
on
top
of
that
is
another
two
individual
units,
so
there'll
be
100
units
they'll
be
taken
out
of
the
lower
end
rental
inventory.
E
By
way
of
this
application.
Whatever
comes
out
of
the
the
application
review,
whatever
comes
out
in
terms
of
resubmissions,
a
message
very
clearly
that
has
to
be
sent
to
the
applicant
right
now
is
that
anything
coming
back
will
have
to
at
least
meet
that
minimum
requirement
and
I
would
say
much
more,
because
this
is
the
type
of
housing
stock
that
we
do
desperately
need
in
the
City
of
Toronto,
including
rooming
house
facilities.
E
On
top
of
that,
of
course,
there's
still
other
key
considerations
that
staff
cannot
be
satisfied
with
right
now,
and
that
includes
tower
separation,
tower
setbacks,
podium
form,
heritage,
adjacencies
and
and,
of
course,
as
I've
noted
already
the
supply
of
the
that
diminishing
dwelling
rooms
in
the
city's
rental
inventory.
Thank
you
very
much.
Thank.
A
You
very
much
questions
the
mover.
Anyone
else
to
speak,
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carry
moving
right
along
te,
3.7,
409
and
415
young
Street
9
and
17
McGill
Street
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
request
for
interim
directions.
Report
councillor
want
am
sorry
before
I
do
that
I
do
have
a
deputy,
my
bad
mr.
Ralph,
Silva
hi
Ralph
come
on
out.
B
A
L
For
listening,
my
name
is
Ralph
Silva
I
live
at
74,
McGill,
Street
and
I'm.
Here,
basically
representing
the
Gill
and
Granby,
we
have
a
little
heritage
community
there,
that's
being
inundated
by
a
forest
of
buildings,
I
honestly
believe,
and
so
do
my
neighbors
that
we
are
under
siege.
I'll,
give
you
the
number
over
the
past
four
years
we
have
seen
three
hundred
and
forty-four
stories
built
or
are
being
built
within
one
city
block
of
my
house
and
on
my
neighbor's
house.
L
That's
not
hyperbole,
literally
within
one
city
block
of
where
I
lived,
there's
three
hundred
and
forty-four
stories,
including
the
79th
story
or
a
building,
and
the
proposed
98
stories
that
are
going
up
for
the
YSL
building.
We
are
a
very
small
little
part
of
Toronto's
heritage
where
we
still
have
single-family
dwellings.
It's
a
small
street
designed
initially
to
be
small.
It
has
single
homes
and
our
homes
are
very,
very
close
to
the
street,
which
was
initially
designed
as
a
residential
street.
L
Yet,
with
these
344
new
stories
that
are
coming
in,
we
have
seen
an
exponential
increase
in
pedestrian
traffic
and
an
exponential
increase
in
vehicular
traffic.
Now,
to
date,
none
of
the
residents
of
these
new
buildings
or
these
new
stories
are
actually
driving
into
our
street.
Thankfully,
but
what
we
are
seeing
is
all
their
visitors,
all
their
trades.
People
are
actually
coming
down
our
streets
to
try
to
find
parking.
L
But,
honestly,
my
biggest
concern
about
this
new
addition
to
this
building,
which
would
bring
the
total
to
405
stories
within
a
city
block
of
where
we
live,
is
the
fact
that
these
new
residents
that
are
going
to
be
living
in
on
top
of
this
building
are
going
to
be
parking
on
McGill
and
Granberry,
or
need
to
enter
Granberry
an
exit
McGill
to
get
to
their
parking
right.
Now,
it's
a
commercial
building
which
means
at
5
like
2
minutes
after
5
o'clock,
everyone
leaves
so
the
evenings
are
still
relatively
quiet.
L
We
put
residents
in
that
area
and
our
homes
will
be
unlivable.
We
will
have
too
much
noise
now
remember,
we
are
in
a
heritage
place.
I
cannot
because
I
live
in
a
heritage
home
put
a
wall
in
front
of
my
building.
You
won't.
Let
me
I,
can't
put
extended
windows
in
front
of
me
to
protect
myself
from
the
noise.
You
won't.
Let
me
I
can't
move
my
bedroom,
you
won't!
L
Let
me
and
the
window
to
my
bedroom
is
2
meters
from
the
street,
and
yet
all
these
cars
are
coming
down
all
and
our
garbage
delivery,
or
so
our
garbage
pickup,
is
in
midnight,
we're
gonna,
add
another
building
with
residential
garbage
coming
out
there.
We're
gonna,
see
this
coming
out.
I
guarantee
you
that
at
some
point
somebody
on
our
streets
gonna
be
a
cliche
and
get
hit
by
a
garbage
truck
because
of
the
amount
of
traffic
that's
going
down
here,
we're
not
a
wealthy
neighborhood
we're
all
middle-class.
We
have.
L
L
So
we're
asking
you
to
help
us
put
a
stop
to
this
and
you've
done
this
before
we
have
a
whole
series
of
townhouses
on
Granberg
and
their
application
initial
applications
a
few
years
back
said
that
they
wanted
to
put
their
parking
garage
coming
out
on
to
Granberry,
and
you
helped
us
stop
that
and
you
made
sure
that
they
put
their
parking
garage
exiting
on
college.
On
the
college
side,
the
new
building
that
came
up
with
Ryerson
the
Ryerson
research
building.
You
also
helped
us
make
sure
that
no
cars
would
come
out
of
our
delivery.
L
Trucks
would
go
into
the
Ryerson
building
or
out
of
the
Ryerson
building
on
to
McGill
onto
the
residential
street
to
help
us
out
and
we're
asking
you
to
do
the
same
thing
with
this.
We
have
no
problems
with
development,
but
Ward
13
and
McGill
Granby
has
done
its
part.
We
have,
as
I
mentioned
before
three
hundred
and
forty
four
stories
that
have
been
put
up
in
the
past
few
years.
We've
done
our
part.
L
A
E
Thank
you
very
much
mr.
speaker,
I'd
like
to
move
to
adopt
the
staff
recommendations
and
to
direct
the
city,
solicitor
and
appropriate
staff
to
return
and
continue
to
oppose
the
application
in
its
current
form.
Councillors.
I
want
to
just
highlight
the
the
gravity
of
what
is
happening
in
this
particular
patch
of
the
neighborhood
that
you
walk
by
probably
drive
by
and
bite
by
every
single
day.
There
is
an
existing
19
story,
office.
Building
that
sits
on
the
southeast
corner
of
Gerard
and
Yonge.
You
can
pretty
much
visualize
it
there
is.
E
This
proposal
is
to
place
a
42
storey
tower
on
top
of
the
19
storage
tower
office
building.
It
also
is
suggesting
that
we
take
over
that
the
application
takes
over
McGill,
Park
and
obliterate
that
green
space,
but
also
to
elevate
that
green
space
on
top
of
the
podium
of
the
building
and
that's
how
the
public
members
of
the
public
would
go
and
access
that
space.
Obviously,
this
proposal
does
not
conform
to
provincial
policy
statement
as
no
perform
conform
to
the
growth
plan
for
the
Golden
Horseshoe.
E
It
does
not
have
appropriate
regard
to
any
of
the
development
policies.
It's
probably
one
of
the
worst
applications.
I
have
seen
and
I've
seen
many
bad
ones,
as
you
can
tell
in
our
existing
ward,
but
it's
also
an
application
that
still
gets
to
be
filed,
regardless
of
how
much
City
Planning
object
or
how
much
the
neighborhood
has
objected.
E
We
have
asked
the
applicant
to
be
a
better
neighbor
to
work
with
us
and
and
I
have
to
admit
it's
actually
been
extremely
frustrating
over
a
number
of
years
to
even
just
to
get
them
to
clean
up
some
of
the
edges
that
that
they
have
some
responsibility
to.
It
does
not
have
appropriate
transition
to
the
adjacent
neighborhood
that
mr.
Silva
was
speaking
to,
which
is
a
very
unique
low-rise,
stable
residential
neighborhood.
That
is
being
a
completely
boxed
in.
E
There
are
three
applications
that
have
been
approved
through
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
3355,
365,
Church
Street,
as
well
as
70-72
Carleton,
which
is
sitting
at
the
Carleton
in
church
intersection,
it's
being
dwarfed.
So
there
is
inadequate
outdoor
amenity
space,
that's
being
provided
in
this
application,
they're,
actually
taking
away
a
part
not
giving
us
more
and
for
all.
These
reasons
have
already
been
stated
and
there's
numerous
more
that
are
in
the
report.
I
encourage
you
to
read
it.
E
It
is
a
great
example
what
bad
City
Planning
is
and
for
those
who
may
be
interested,
who
are
may
perhaps
urban
design
students
take
note
that
this
is
what
you
do
not
want
to
ever
sign
on
for
as
a
private
consultant
for
a
developer
when
they
come
to
you
with
these
type
of
applications
to
say,
can
you
take
this
on?
You
should
say
no,
because
it
actually
I
believe
harms
your
integrity,
because
the
next
time
you
come
back
to
City
Council
with
an
application
that
perhaps
a
little
bit
better.
E
A
Okay,
we'll
take
that
a
point
as
a
point
of
foolishness
anyway,
any
other
questions
of
the
mover.
Anyone
else
to
speak
to
the
item
on
on
the
motion,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carried.
Okay
members
I
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
something.
The
next
item
we
are,
we
are
supposed
to
consider,
is
item
te,
3.8
64
to
66
Wellesley.
It's
a
development
application,
we're
sorry
a
request
for
directions.
Later
on
the
agenda.
We
have
te
3.15
intention
to
designate
64
Wellesley.
The
two
items
need
to
be
considered
together.
A
We
need
to
actually
vote
on
the
intention
to
designate
first
I.
Here's
the
fun
bit
so
I
have
deputies
listed
on
both
Paul
fairly
Paul
you're
listed
to
speak
to
both.
Will
you
need
to
separate
speaking
times,
or
can
you
handle
it
all
in
one
all
in
one?
Is
there
any?
We
wanted
to
speak
to
both
items
and
needs
to
speaking
times.
No
members
I
propose.
We
deal
with
the
two
items
in
terms
of
deputations
together.
Is
that
the
will
of
the
committee?
Yes,
okay,
Paul?
Why
don't
you
come
on
up
and
share
your
wisdom?
A
M
Very
much
much
thank
you
for
being
here.
So
it's
something
shrunk
about
this,
but
I
know
that
the
caliber
of
the
people
who
have
survived
will
sustain
and
represent
the
Old
City
of
Toronto
East
York
and
excellently,
as
you
have
always
done,
and
just
seeing
you
the
other
day
in
planning
and
housing
meeting.
That
is
a
real
step
forward
to
have
such
an
engaged
involvement
in
planning
and
housing
by
people
from
Toronto
and
New
York.
M
The
current
planning
framework
studies
take
a
great
involvement
in
heritage,
and
so,
at
the
end
of
these
studies,
more
and
more
you're
seeing
buildings
getting
listed
and
protected,
but
that
wasn't
the
case
when
this
planning
framework
was
being
developed.
This
building
was
notated
as
potential
heritage.
Well,
when
the
architects
from
that
young
one
property
was
hired,
they
had
some
very
big
visions
for
this
iconic
corner.
Good
community
was
very
enthusiastic,
but
they
really
didn't
take
it
into
account
much
the
planning
framework,
and
so
the
application
was
submitted.
M
It
was
around
double
of
what
the
planning
framework
had
established
for
a
building
on
that
corner
and
I
said
all
we
need
more
land,
and
so
they
brought
about
the
apartment.
64
Wellesley,
which
had
been
mentioned,
was
a
potential
heritage,
because
that
was
the
planning
regime
at
the
time
and
of
course,
then,
the
gaudiya
rare
architects
to
say
no
that
there
was
no
heritage.
They
are
on
66
Bosley,
so
around
64
Wellesley,
so
it
took
a
while,
but
heritage
preservation
services
looked
at
it
and
sure
enough.
M
When
this
was
originally
mooted,
they
said
well,
you
should
really
put
a
local,
your
local
Portland
dedication,
so
we
saw
so
they
wanted
to
so
they
put
in
the
local
parkland
dedication
in
the
last
request
for
direction,
but
our
taking
it
out
now
so
long
story
to
say
that
we
value
the
things
that
are
the
prevailing
character
of
the
neighborhood.
This
particular
building
is
very
much
in
line
with
the
prevailing
character
of
the
village.
M
A
B
A
E
Thank
you
very
much
and
my
thanks
to
the
deputies
for
taking
the
time
to
sit
through
the
waiting
period.
So
you
can
have
your
a
few
minutes
to
share
your
remarks
with
us.
I
want
to
just
number
one:
let's,
let's
move
the
there
there's
a
there's
three
particular
reports
before
us
that
are
dealing
with
the
same
subject
matter
the
three
or
two
sorry
I.
My
apology
so
report
number
eight
and
report
number
thirteen
I'd
like
to
move
the
staff
recommendations
on
report
number,
eight
and
13
and
15
I'm.
Sorry,
15.
E
But
those
four
applications
were
appealed
to
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board
and
the
change
that's
taking
place
in
the
church
and
Wellesley
village
is
largely
dictated
by
the
outcomes
of
the
Ontario
Municipal
Board.
It's
not
necessarily
being
led
by
the
local
community.
In
conjunction
with
the
city
planning
staff.
We
are
literally
on
the
balls
of
our
heels,
trying
to
respond
to
what
developers
want
in
this
particular.
E
We
would
like
to
say
yes
to
both.
We
also
want
to
say
yes
to
responsible
development
and
right
now
we
are
not
seeing
that
at
the
north
west
corner
of
church
and
Wellesley,
and
let
us
note
that
it
will
this
application
and
if
we
don't
move
forward
with
this
designation,
and
if
the
application
is
successful
at
l-pad
it
will,
it
will
change
the
village
forever
in
a
way
that
we
will
not
be
able
to
recognize
it
and
I.
Think
that's.
E
What's
important
and
I
wanted
to
highlight
why
the
community
is
so
concerned
about
the
changing
face
of
the
village?
Is
that
it's
not
changing
in
a
way
that's
contextually
and
and
and
and
culturally
sensitive
to
what's
already
there,
it's
actually
just
removing
the
history
and
the
context,
and
that
is
that's
unacceptable,
especially
for
a
population
that
is
oftentimes
erase
and
ignored
in
history,
books
in
school
books
and
in
politics.
Thank
you.
Thank.
A
You
any
questions
of
the
mover,
no
anyone
else
to
speak
to
the
item.
Okay,
members.
We
need
to
vote
on
item
15
first
so
on
the
intention
to
designate
64
Wellesley
under
part
4
section
29
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act.
Do
you
have
your
recommendations
in
front
of
you
all?
Those
in
favor
opposed
carried
now
on
item
8,
which
is
the
request
for
directions
report
in
the
same
property,
all
those
in
favor
posed
carried
it
okay,
moving,
oh
so
I'm
gonna
do
a
little
bit
of
administrative
business,
counselor
Leighton!
A
Point
five:
zero,
which
is
the
speed
hump
pull
results;
Brunswick
Avenue
need
to
approve
the
I'll,
reconsider
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carried,
and
you
would
like
to
move
this
instead
approve
the
alternate
recommendation:
improve
the
alternate
recommendations.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
Kerry,
Thank,
You,
councillor
Layton.
You
also
have
a
motion
to
introduce
new
business
te
3.90
read
the
T
lab
representation
for
eight
seven,
eight
Palmerston
Avenue,
yes,
motion
introduced
all
those
in
favor
opposed
Kerry,
okay,
returning
to
our
regular
scheduled
programming.
A
This
takes
us
to
item
te
three
point:
nine,
two:
seven
six,
two:
two:
nine
four
Main
Street
and
one
for
for
Stephen,
Stevenson,
Avenue,
formerly
two:
eight
six,
two:
two:
nine
four
Main
Street
zoning
bylaw
amendment
application
request
for
directions
regarding
the
Local
Planning,
Appeal,
Tribunal,
Local,
Planning,
Appeal
tribunal,
hearing.
Believe
it
or
not
that
made
sense.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
A
B
B
C
A
A
B
L
Okay,
so
to
go
through
briefly
the
application
from
the
original
submission
to
a
settlement
proposal,
it
was
submitted
on
June
30th
for
2017.
We
did
a
prelim
report
before
Toronto
East,
York
Community
Council
on
November
7
2017.
At
that
report
we
had
raised
certain
concerns
with
in
terms
of
height
and
density,
as
well
as
whether
or
not
the
proposal
could
meet
at
our
and
for
that
specific
location
on
December
19th
2017.
The
app
can
appeal
their
application
to
the
Local
Planning
Appeal
Tribunal.
B
B
A
A
Item
te
3.10
alterations
to
Harrod
to
heritage
properties,
intention
to
designate
under
part
for
section
29
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
authority
to
enter
into
a
heritage
easement
agreement
for
15,
Duncan,
Street
and
158
Pearl
Street.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
A
In
favor
opposed
carries
item
3,
1
1,
alterations
to
a
heritage
property
intention
to
designate
under
part
4
section
29
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
authority
to
enter
into
a
heritage
easement
agreement,
49
Spadina
Avenue.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
Seeing
none
questions
of
staff
no
councillor
Cressy.
Thank.
A
Okay,
that's
an
interesting
way
to
do
it
I,
like
that
all
those
in
favor
of
the
amendment
closed
carried
on
the
item
as
amended.
All
those
in
favor
opposed
carried,
moving
right
along
item
te
3.1
to
alterations
to
a
designated
heritage,
property
and
authority
to
enter
into
a
heritage
easement
agreement
at
33,
Avenue,
Road
Square.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item,
seeing
none
any
questions
of
staff?
No
counselor.
D
A
Just
the
staff
and
we're
split
on
the
okay:
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carried
next
item;
te
3.13
alterations
to
a
heritage;
property
intention
to
designate
under
part
4,
section
29
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
authority
to
enter
into
a
heritage;
easement
agreement,
three
six:
three:
two:
three:
six:
five
Yonge
Street,
three:
six:
seven
Yonge
Street,
three,
eight
1
Yonge
Street
and
three
eight
five,
two,
three
nine
one
Yonge
Street!
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
E
Yes,
thank
you
very
much.
I
would
like
to
move
the
recommendations,
the
staff
report
and
just
to
alert
members
of
council
that
this
is
a
this
is
a
follow
up,
work
after
a
settlement
offer
which
City
Council
adopted
in
November,
2018
overall
I
think
that
it's
what
we
can
describe.
It
is
now
a
fairly
good
resolution,
because
we
did
accept
the
settlement
and
now
that
we
get
to
work
on
the
heritage
alterations
which
will
result
in
in
the
applicant
entering
into
into
a
heritage
agreement
with
the
City
of
Toronto.
E
So
moving
forward,
we'll
definitely
have
stronger
I
guess
tools,
let's
say
the
tools
to
ensure
proper
preservation
and
retention
strategies,
and
that
to
me
is
a
very
good
outcome
of
what
started
off
as
a
very
tricky
application
that
ended
up
in
a
fairly
good
place
and
I
believe
that
this
is
going
to
be
a
very
good
addition
to
Yonge
Street
and
just
note.
My
remarks
in
tone
is
very
different,
because
this
happens
to
be
the
exact
corner
of
the
42
stories
sitting.
E
On
top
of
the
19
story,
we
were
still
able
to
work
out
a
resolution
and
I
want.
Thank
the
heritage
staff,
the
city
planners
and
even
the
applicant
who
I
believe
has
worked
really
hard
with
the
local
community
and
including
the
downtown
young
BIA,
so
crust
furred,
if
you're
out
there
listening.
You
just
want
to
say
thank
you.
A
On
the
item,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carried.
That
brings
us
to
te
3.14
intention
to
designate
under
part
4
section
29
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
authority
to
enter
into
a
heritage
easement
agreement
on
2
to
6
st.
George
Street.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
A
Those
in
favor
opposed
carried;
ok,
we've
already
done
15,
so
that
takes
us
to
three
point:
one:
six
intention
to
designate
under
part
four
section:
29
of
the
Ontario
Heritage
Act
and
authority
to
enter
into
a
heritage,
easement
agreement
to
seven
or
sorry,
seven
to
one
Eastern
Avenue.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
Seeing
none?
Are
there
any
questions
of
staff?
None
councillor
Leighton!
You
have
courage
of
this.
Yes,.
D
A
In
favor
opposed
carried
item
te
3.17
demolition
of
a
designated
heritage,
property,
64,
woodland,
avenue,
west
original
report,
titled
actions
taken
under
delegation
of
authority
to
deal
with
heritage
matters
during
and
after
the
2018
municipal
election
Ward
12
good
luck
to
all
of
you
and
following
along
with
that,
are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
Please
we've
been
feeling
lonely
do
come
up
and
share
your
wisdom.
A
B
So
I'd
like
to
thank
Josh
I'd
like
to
thank
the
heritage,
people
behind
me
as
Deborah
Scott,
an
architect
was
given
a
lot
of
her
own
time.
We've
got
many
people
and
whatnot
Avenue
West,
who
have
donated
hours
and
hours
to
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
next
decision
is
the
right
decision
and
I
appeal
to
all
those
who
are
here
to
to
not
recommend
that
64
Woodlawn
be
demolished.
The
previous
owners,
who
we
knew
well
spent
a
lot
of
money.
B
B
Woodlawn
is
an
area
which
celebrates
the
exterior,
victorian
and
edwardian
facades,
and
it
could
be
kept
as
a
neighborhood
which
keeps
its
personality
and
you've
listened
to
many
people
say
this
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
all
the
others,
but
I
peeled
that
Woodlawn
Avenue
West
is
a
neighborhood
and
a
very
distinct
neighborhood
and
the
homes
on
the
north
side
and
the
south
side
should
be
allowed
to
keep
their
particular
historic
heritage.
Eden
Smith
was
a
founder
of
the
Arts
and
Letters
Club.
F
So
I
certainly
am
moving
the
recommendations
to
oppose
the
demolition
for,
for
some
of
the
very
reasons
you
just
heard,
this
is
Anita
Smith,
Eden,
Smith
house.
It's
it's
a
wonderful
example
of
the
period
Revival
style
of
architecture
in
the
20th
century
that
is
on
display
on
the
street,
which,
as
was
just
said,
has
a
very
distinct
character,
both
architectural
II,
but
also
geologically,
and
the
topography
of
it
is
quite
unique
in
the
city.
F
It
sits
above
the
escarpment
and
you
see
the
way
that
both
the
houses,
but
also
the
way
that
the
hill
is
really
is
part
of
our
city's
story.
And
if
you
lose
either
the
house
or
the
word
that
hill,
it
will
destroy
that
part
of
the
story.
I'm
Woodlawn
forever
and
I
invite
any
of
you
to
go
for
a
walk
on
Woodlawn
in
person.
That's
just
on
a
personal
note:
I
have
thousands
and
thousands
of
streets
as
all
of
us
do
now
in
our
large
wards,
I
love,
every
one
I
must
say.
F
But
I
get
no
greater
joy
than
walking
down
Woodlawn
and
looking
at
the
architecture,
and
just
just
you
know,
just
the
whole
feel
of
that.
Street
is
quite
remarkable.
You
feel
like
you're,
you
feel
like
you're
in
the
kind
of
you
know,
European
city,
that
you
wished
Radha
was.
It
really
is
quite
remarkable.
So,
for
those
reasons,
I
encourage
you
to
support
my
motion.
I
also
just
want
to
acknowledge
that
this
is
like.
F
This
is
another
example,
as
we've
seen
many
times
with
all
of
you,
where
local
democracy
works,
because
it
was
the
local
residents
who
really
brought
this
to
my
attention.
We
work
together
as
a
team
we
brought
in
our
heritage
staff,
they
did
a
remarkable
job
and
all
together,
I'm
really
kind
of
proud
of
how
we
we
work
to
to
achieve
both
the
designation,
but
also
now,
with
this,
your
your
support
to
to
protect
this
property.
A
After
that
musical
interlude,
are
there
any
questions
of
the
mover?
No
any
other
members
to
speak.
No
on
the
item,
all
those
in
favor
opposed
carried.
Thank
you
very
much
item
te
3.18,
impose
operating
conditions
to
a
boulevard
cafe,
permit
located
98
Portland
Street.
My
god
were
on
the
Boulevard
permits
before
new
and
I
can't
believe
it
I'm
not
so
sure.
A
C
A
All
those
in
favor
opposed
carried
item
te
3.19
refusal
of
a
boulevard
cafe
permit
application
located
six-eight
college
street
Beatrice
Street
flanca
CH.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
on
this
item?
Seeing
none
questions
of
staff,
seeing
none
councilor
lately
where'd
you
go
counselor.
They,
okay,
I'm
gonna
hold
this
item
until
we
find
our
erstwhile
colleague
and
the
next
one
is
also
counselor
late
and
I'm
gonna
hold
dot
too
I,
don't
know
guys.
We
might
not
make
lunch
if
councillor
Leighton
isn't
found
that
takes
us
to
te.
A
F
So
I'm
gonna
move
in
favor
of
the
staffer
I'm,
going
to
support
staff
recommendations.
I
just
wanted
to
make
a
comment
about
this.
I
I'm,
a
big
supporter
of
vibrant
Main
streets
and
I-
think
patios
are
part
of
the
culture
that
really
contribute
to
an
animated
and
vibrant
Main
streets
that
I'd
like
to
see
more
in
Toronto.
F
In
this
particular
case,
we
have
a
combination
of
both
a
clear
lack
of
support
from
the
adjacent
residents,
but
but
but,
moreover,
a
concern
around
accessibility
in
the
industry
and
clearance
on
the
street,
which
just
doesn't
make
this
fit,
but
I
hope
to
you
know
work
with
with
with
the
owner
of
this
property
or
the
restaurant
and
the
future
to
see.
If
maybe
there
can
be
creative
solutions
in
the
future,
because
I
everything
or
anyone
who
knows
about
Cape
Cod.
F
A
Thank
you
any
questions
the
mover
seeing
none.
Then
he
wants
to
speak.
Seeing
none
on
the
item.
All
in
favor
opposed
carried.
Okay.
Returning
now
to
te
3.19
refusal
of
a
boulevard
cafe
permit
application
located
at
six
eight
College
Street
Beatrice
Street
flanca
CH,
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
seeing
none
questions,
no
councillor
Layton.
Yes,.
A
Motion
to
defer
indefinitely
all
those
in
favor
opposed
that
carries
item
te,
3
flex
time
0
to
report
upon
the
issuance
of
a
boulevard
cafe
permit
located
at
4
4-0
Bloor
Street
West
Holland
Avenue
flanca
CH,
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
make
a
deputation
seeing
none
questions
of
staff.
None
councillor.
D
D
Sorry
they're
just
putting
the
closed
time,
so
it's
extending
from
10:00
to
11:00
during
the
week
and
11:00
to
12:00
and
weekends.
The
patio
has
been
operating
for
a
year.
The
original
conditions
that
councillor
Cressey
had
put
on
were
10
and
11
with
review
in
a
year
depending
on
what
what
MLS
concerns
and
complaints
came
in
we've
checked.
I
of
the
conditions
were
put
on
for
some
reason
we're
actually
attached
to
the
permit.
D
So
this
is
actually
attaching
those
original
set
of
conditions
and
extending
them
by
the
hour,
because
we've
checked
and
there
have
been
no
complaints,
fortunate
for
them.
I
didn't
stay
late.
Some
of
those
evenings
but
I'm
happy
moving
ahead
and
there
is
still
a
condition
to
check
in
after
after
a
year
to
see
how
they're
doing
and
if
they're
not
doing
well,
we'll
pull
it
back.
A
A
A
Okay,
any
questions
the
mover
anyone
else
to
speak
on
the
motion
posed:
Carrie,
okay,
te
3.23
refusal
of
an
extension
of
the
boulevard
cafe
area
located
at
four
four
three,
four
four
or
five
Danforth
Avenue.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
wish
to
speak
to
this
item?
Seeing
none
questions
of
staff?
No
council
leading
you
on
behalf.
A
A
H
E
I,
happily,
move
the
recommendations
in
the
staff
report
and
to
note
that
you
can
actually
spend
the
rest
of
your
life
on
temperance
period
on
that
Park
like
cafe,
but
unfortunately
it's
only
seasonal,
but
during
that
season
you
will
be
able
to
enjoy
the
coffee
of
Boxcar
social
as
well
as
the
good
oysters
from
from
Jon
&
Sons
Easter
house.
All
of
that
is
is
a
very,
very
wonderful
move,
also
note
that
these
are
parklet
cafes.
E
These
are
sitting
on
the
side
of
the
road
by
the
side
of
the
the
sidewalk
and
hopefully
we'll
see
many
more
of
these
wonderful
sort
of
social
urban
interventions
to
come.
The
first
one
was
done
on
Church,
Street
2013
and
since
then
it's
now
become
an
official
policy
of
the
city.
So
these
are
the
things
that
we
welcome.
So
we
want
to
see
more
of
those
Thank
You.
A
B
The
request
to
have
this
on
the
agenda-
it's
very
simple
I-
would
like
us
to
consider
holding
one
of
our
meetings
in
East
York
at
the
Civic
Centre
it.
Of
course
we
are
Toronto
East.
Your
community
council
and
I
know
that
staff
has
has
looked
at
these
options
before,
and
this
is
just
a
it's.
Ok,
don't
shake
your
head,
yet
it's
just
just
a
request
to
see
what
the
feasibility
would
be
like.
We,
we
spoke
with
clerks
and
that's
that's
something
that
they
would
be
prepared
to
look
into
and
report
back
to
this
committee.
B
I
would
have
liked
to
chat
with
all
of
you
beforehand.
It
came
together
very
quickly
because
we
only
have
10
meetings
this
year
so
wanted
to
start
the
process.
Now,
and
you
know
it's
it's
just
about
bringing
local
governance
closer
to
the
community.
We
have
the
facilities
there
and
would
appreciate
your
support
on
this
you're
proof
and
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Ok,
any
questions
of
the
mover,
no
I
have
some
comments.
I
would
like
to
make
and
then
are
there
any
oh
call
for
other
speakers
after
that.
So
members,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
express
that
if
we're
doing
something
about
the
way
we
conduct
business
here,
I
would
appreciate,
as
the
chair
having
some
kind
of
a
heads
up.
This
was
submitted
after
the
agenda
date,
so
I
didn't
get
that
and
just
I
would
have
been
able
to
have
this
conversation
before
the
letter
was
submitted
in
open
council.
A
So
it's
worth
noting
that
the
facility
that
is
suggested
here
has
since
become
office,
space
primarily
occupied
by
municipal
licensing
and
standards
staff.
It's
also
further
worth
noting
that
that
facility
has
not
been
set
up
to
meet
the
broadcast
requirements
that
we
have
for
live-streaming
and
will
require
some
retrofitting
and
therefore
there
would
be
some
cost
associated
with
it.
So,
on
the
basis
of
that,
I
think
this
is
premature.
A
If
members
of
council
want
to
consider
alternate
venues,
I
would
urge
them
in
future
before
putting
it
on
the
agenda,
we
should
have
a
conversation
with
the
appropriate
city
staff
and
with
the
chair.
Those
are
my
comments.
Are
there
any
other
members
who
wish
to
speak
to
the
item?
Counselor
Layden
just.
D
Just
very
quickly
I
think
we
can
term
counselor
Bradford
the
the
new
or
replacing
the
outgoing
counselor
Janet
Davis.
As
the
chair
of
the
respect
for
East
York
Committee
I.
Remember
her
motion
to
move
the
budget
committee
actually
out
there
every
year
from
2014
to
2018
I
was
the
member
of
that
particular
budget
committee.
So,
as
councillor
Bradford
would
know,
we
do
we
now
do
we
were
doing
three
because
we
included
York
the
York
Civic
Center,
because
councillor
Davis
included
the
the
East
York
Civic
Center
I
thought
it'd
be
a
wonderful
experience.
D
D
My
residents
would
have
quite
a
distance
to
go
in
in
in,
in
that
case
kind
of
twice
as
far
going
west,
some
of
them,
some
of
them
would
probably
be
just
as
close
the
folks
up
in
Governors,
bridge
or
even
closer,
but
the
central
location
was
only
one
aspect.
It
also
has
to
do
with.
This
is
where
most
of
our
staff
are
and
so
having
them.
D
Just
for
the
purpose
of
a
single
meeting
one
day,
if
I
could
make
a
suggestion
that
would
be
to
have
if
there
were
East
York
specific
items
that
a
subcommittee
on
a
subcommittee
of
the
Toronto
and
Eastern
Community
Council
for
East
York
could
meet
there
any
time
and
it
be
a
committee
of
two
but
we've
had
Committees
of
two
before
in
in
this
setting.
I.
B
Very
quickly,
I
share
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
have
been
brought
forward.
I
think
there
are
serious
complications,
I
think
for
some
of
us
that
have
been
here
now.
For
a
few
years,
we've
tried
from
budget
from
executive
to
go
around
and
we
know
that
their
cost
involves
and
logistics
involves.
But
this
is
a
report
request
and
I
wouldn't
mind
to
actually
have
the
report
to
be
able
to
show
to
the
people
of
East
York
the
reasons
why
it
can
be
done.
A
A
A
F
A
F
Pax
vobiscum,
so
and
and
just
to
clarify
in
the
record
I
my
understanding
and
I'm
I
am
the
new
counselor
for
this
location.
My
understanding
is:
there's
been
a
very
difficult
relationship,
I'm
going
to
be
diplomatic
between
the
old
owner
and
the
local
residents.
This
new
owner
would
like
an
opportunity
to
engage
the
local
residents
to
see
if
there
can
be
a
more
positive
and
respectful
dynamic,
and
he
also
intends
to
work
on
the
the
dimensions
of
his
request
so
that
it
fits
into
what
the
city's
expectations
are
so
be
fully
accessible.
A
A
A
C
C
I
want
to
get
just
quickly
for
some
background
and
context
on
this,
so
I'm.
First
of
all,
moving
the
recommendations.
In
my
letter
at
our
previous
meeting
of
Toronto
nice
to
our
Community
Council,
we
set
a
subcommittee
on
Ontario
Place,
which
the
meeting
scheduled
for
the
evening
of
March
the
fifth
that
subcommittee
since
we
had
that
meeting
since
community
council
gave
that
direction.
The
province
has
outlined
its
criteria
for
its
terms
of
reference.
C
That
is
currently
for
the
expressions
of
interest
that
is
currently
out,
and
so
in
that
context
our
office
has
been
in
close
conversation
with
City
Planning
on
other
departments
and
given
how
quickly
the
province
is
moving.
We
feel
it's
important
for
the
city
to
develop
its
own
principles
so
for
the
city
to
engage
in
the
conversation
based
on
how
quickly
the
province
is
moving
and
city
staff
are
already
working
on
what
they
see
as
principles.
D
Lee
so
I'll
move
the
recommendation
in
the
letter
and
that's
to
oppose
the
the
committee
from
the
decision
from
the
committee
of
adjustment.
This
is
a
really
interesting
one
because
it's
a
laneway,
a
pre-existing
laneway
house.
They
came
in
for
approval
that
got
approved
at
the
committee
of
adjustment,
but
it's
already
been
built
and
apparently
they've
done
all
the
interior
work
to
make
it
a
laneway
suite.
D
But
a
letter
came
on
the
it
was
on
the
agenda
from
ECS
saying
you
need
to
meet
the
one
meter,
wide
clearance
and
the
45
meter
distance
from
a
hydrant
and
we'll
check
when
we
inspect
your
permits,
but
they
don't
have
any
permits
left
to
inspect
so
they're,
not
gonna
meet
the
life-saving
requirements
of
the
Building
Code
and
they've
done
all
their
work.
A
parent
I'm
told
they
have
done
all
their
work
and
we
just
found
out
yesterday
some
of
this
information.
D
So
we're
we're
going
to
oppose
at
the
at
the
L
pot
on
the
piece
from
ECS
to
ensure
that
they're
meeting
the
life-saving
requirements,
the
forty
five
meters
and
the
they
need
to
fill
in
a
stairwell
to
provide
a
meter
wide
clearance
to
the
unit.
I
know
it's
weird,
but
it's
only
so
it's
not
opposing
the
laneway
suite
just
that
they
meet
those
building
code
requirements
that
I
don't
know,
there's
apparently
other
ways
they
can
meet
them.
So
I'm
think
they'll
settle
it's
not
opposing.