TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 1

1Swansea Town Hall Board of Management -Appointment (High Park)

2Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre -Appointment (Don River)

3Appointments to Board of Management of the Bloor-YorkvilleBusiness Improvement Area (Midtown)

4Request to Amend the Existing Parking Limit -Millbank Avenue, from Strathearn Boulevard to Vesta Drive(Midtown) 487

5Removal of Disabled Person's On-Street Parking Spaces -1131, 1150 and 1158 Dovercourt Road (Davenport)

6Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Privileges -Walter Street, East Side, 5.2 Metres North of Kingston Road(East Toronto)

730 Gates Avenue - Request to Move Hydro Pole(East Toronto)

8Revocation of Liquor Licence -592 Queen Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

9Request for Tree Removal - 999 St. Clarens Avenue(Davenport)

10300, 304 St. Clair Avenue West and 345 Spadina Road, Toronto -Application to Remove Four Trees and Injure One Tree Situated on Private Property (East Toronto)

11Municipal Code Chapter 202 - Request for Natural Garden Exemption- 120 Duvernet Avenue (East Toronto)

12Municipal Code Chapter 202 - Request for Natural Garden Exemption- 239 Havelock Street (Trinity-Niagara)

13Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -(Midtown, Downtown)

14Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -8 South Kingsway (Downtown)

15Residential Demolition Permit Applications -399 - 403 King Street East (Don River)

16Status of Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act -Implications for the Port of Toronto

17Role of the Community Councils

18Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 1

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on January 21, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998

1

Swansea Town Hall Board of Management -

Appointment (High Park)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of Toronto Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"The Toronto Community Council recommends that Ms. Valerie Cooper-Wells be appointed to the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management in the place and stead of Ms. Wilma Hays, to complete Ms. Hays' term of office, and/or until her successor is appointed." )

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Ms. Valerie Cooper-Wells be appointed to the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management to replace Ms. Wilma Hays, for a term of office expiring on May 31, 1999 and/or until her successor is appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (December 24, 1997) from Mr. Jack Slaughter, Chair, Swansea Town Hall:

At its meeting of December 9, 1997, the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management accepted the advice of the Swansea Community Recreation Centre Advisory Council to appoint Valerie Cooper-Wells as its representative on the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management to take the place of Wilma Hayes.

Ms. Cooper-Wells is qualified to serve on the Board pursuant to the terms established by the applicable City of Toronto by-law.

On behalf of the Board, I respectfully request the City take the necessary steps to implement Ms.Cooper-Wells appointment.

2

Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre -

Appointment (Don River)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of Toronto Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"The Toronto Community Council recommends that Ms. Andrea Addario be appointed to the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre in the place and stead of Ms. Linda LaPlante, to complete Ms. LaPlante's term of office, and/or until her successor is appointed."

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Ms. Andrea Addario be appointed to the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre to replace Ms. Linda LaPlante, for a term of office expiring on May 31, 1999 and/or until her successor is appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (December 11, 1997) from Susan Neal, Executive Director, Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre:

Subject: Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre - Nominee for the vacant Committee of Management position for the period ending 1997 12 31.

Please be advised that our Committee of Management nominee for the vacant Committee position for the period ending 1997 12 31 and until her successor is appointed is: Andrea Addario.

To the best of our knowledge, this nominee is qualified for appointment in accordance with City of Toronto election qualifications. This nominations fills a vacancy left from the resignation of LindaLaPlante. The Committee of Management made the appropriate motion to appoint Ms.Addario at their 1997 11 27 meeting, as permitted by the Centre's Constitution.

Please take appropriate action to arrange for appointment by City Council. If further information is required at this time, please advise.

3

Appointments to Board of Management of the Bloor-Yorkville

Business Improvement Area (Midtown)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the following be appointed to the Board of Management of the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area for a term of office expiring on May 31, 1999 and/or until their successors are appointed. Each of the named nominees meets the requirements of Section 220 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended.

Norman Bergstein, Barrister & Solicitor

Joel Carman, Over The Rainbow

Councillor Olivia Chow

Christena Chruszez, Dr. C. Chruszez & Assoc.

John Combs, John W. Combs Ltd. (Honorary (Non-Voting)

Gordon Dreger, L & A Developments

Kathleen Edmonds, Manulife Centre

Mary Gallagher, The Compleat Kitchen

David Hanna, TD Bank & Trust

Allan Hechtman, Winston & Holmes

Norma King-Wilson, Shoppe d'Or Limited

Samuel Kolber, Kornercolor

Barbara Kovacs, Tiffany & Co.

John Lettieri, Lettieri Espresso Bar & Cafe

Clare MacDonald, Bank of Nova Scotia

David Markowitz, David's Footwear

Laurance Rosen, Harry Rosen Inc.

Bob Saunderson, R.S. Saunderson Realty Corporation

Brian Stark, William Ashley China

Oriella Stillo, Accessity

Budd Sugarman, Budd Sugarman Interior Design

Klaus Tenter, Four Seasons Hotel

Leonard Tokey, Summer's Sweet Memories Inc.

Michele Triebsch, MT Hair Design Inc.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (January 21, 1998) from Lisa McGee, General Manager, The Bloor Yorkville Business Improvement Area, addressed to Councillor Adams:

Please find attached a list of the newly elected Board of Management of the Bloor-Yorkville BIA, elected at our Annual General Meeting yesterday.

(A copy of the attached list of the newly elected Board of Management of the Bloor-Yorkville BIA, was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Centre, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

4

Request to Amend the Existing Parking Limit -

Millbank Avenue, from Strathearn Boulevard to Vesta Drive

(Midtown)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January12, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To amend the existing 2 hour maximum parking limit from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily on both sides of Millbank Avenue, from Strathearn Boulevard to Vesta Drive, to operate from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday only.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the existing 2 hour maximum parking limit from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., daily, on both sides of Millbank Avenue, from Strathearn Boulevard to Vesta Drive, be adjusted to apply from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Comments:

Area residents forwarded a petition to former Councillor Howard Joy in October 1997 requesting that consideration be given to amending the parking regulations on Millbank Avenue as noted above.

In the petition area residents indicated that the current regulations are penalizing visitors and residents who are receiving parking tags while parked in front of area homes after 6:00 p.m. at night and on weekends. Originally, the 2 hour maximum parking restriction was implemented to deter long term non-resident parking on Millbank Avenue. The residents have indicated that the recommended amendments noted above would deter long term non-resident parking during the day and still provide for resident and visitor parking in the evenings and on weekends.

The recommendations in this report will alleviate the concerns of the residents on Millbank Avenue and I advise that I concur with their request.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Tom McCulloch, Traffic Investigator

392-7771

5

Removal of Disabled Person's On-Street Parking Spaces -

1131, 1150 and 1158 Dovercourt Road (Davenport)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion from the Councillor Disero:

"Whereas By-law No. 97-0671, enacted by the former Toronto city council at its meeting of December 8, 1997, authorized the removal of a number of disabled person's on-street parking spaces at various locations; and

Whereas three disabled on-street parking spaces were inadvertently removed at the following locations:

(a) The east side of Dovercourt Road, from a point 78.3 metres north of Geary Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north (Premises No. 1131 Dovercourt Road);

(b) The west side of Dovercourt Road, from a point 172.3 metres north of Geary Avenue to a point 5.5. metres further north (Premises No. 1150 Dovercourt Road); and

(c) The west side of Dovercourt Road, from a point 188 metres north of Geary Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north (Premises No. 1158 Dovercourt Road);

Now Therefore Be It Resolved That authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in council to amend the appropriate Schedule of Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code accordingly to allow for the reinstallation of the above noted disabled persons on-street parking spaces."

6

Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Privileges -

Walter Street, East Side, 5.2 Metres North of Kingston Road

(East Toronto)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a licence be granted to Ms. Helen Wengle to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard in a residential zone, on the Walter Street flank north of Kingston Road, and that the City Solicitor be requested to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 9, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on an application for vending privileges which is not permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 315, Street Vending.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

That, should City Council wish to permit the request of Ms. Helen Wengle to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard in a residential zone, on the Walter Street flank north of Kingston Road, which is not presently permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 315, it is recommended that:

(1) the Commissioner conduct a poll of all owners and tenants within 120 metres of the property, as required for proposed boulevard cafes on residential flankages per Chapter 90, Polling Notification and Procedures; and if the poll result is positive, that the City Solicitor introduce the necessary bill in Council to amend Schedule B, Chapter 315, Street Vending, accordingly so that a license may be issued for this location; and

(2) the Commissioner report again one year from the date a licence is issued, on any complaints or issues which may have arisen as a result of the vending operation.

Background:

Councillor Jakobek has asked me to report on an application for vending privileges which is not permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 315, Street Vending.

Comments:

Ms. Helen Wengle is the operator of the business known as "Mr Sujuk", a commercial delicatessen at 706 Kingston Road, Toronto. On December 9, 1997, she applied for a vending licence to sell hot dogs, sausages, and cold drinks from the sidewalk/boulevard on Walter Street, adjacent to her store, 5.2 metres north of Kingston Road. (See sketch in Appendix 'A').

Before Ms. Wengle applied and paid the necessary fee, staff cautioned her that the application would be automatically rejected because it did not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending. The proposed location is zoned "residential" and is therefore not included in the list of designated streets where vending is permitted, as set out in Schedule "B" of Chapter 315. All locations in Schedule "B" are in commercial/industrial and institutional zoned areas.

Ms. Wengle could apply to operate a boulevard cafe on the residential flankage, in the same location she proposes to sell hot dogs. However, if she were to submit such an application and assuming it met all the physical requirements, it would require a positive result from a confidential poll of all tenants and owners within 120 metres of the location.

Permitting vending in a residential location would set a precedent in the City of Toronto. Currently, street vending is prohibited entirely in the communities of Etobicoke, Scarborough and York, and permitted, with various limitations in North York, East York, Toronto and on some Metro roads. None of these communities permit vending in residential areas.

Conclusions:

Approving this request would set a precedent. However, if this is a request which Council wishes to support in principle, I recommend that the local residents' views are also considered, through a confidential poll, as required in Section 90, Polling Notification and Procedures, for boulevard cafes on residential flankages. If the poll is positive, then the City Solicitor would introduce the necessary bill to amend Schedule "B" to add this location to the list of designated streets for vending. Staff could then issue a permit.

In the event a licence is issued, I also suggest that staff report again after one year's operation on any issues that may arise, including any community concerns.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Walter Street

7

30 Gates Avenue - Request to Move Hydro Pole

(East Toronto)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be directed to submit to the next meeting of the Toronto Community Council scheduled to be held on February 18, 1998, the report previously requested by the Toronto Community Council on establishing a policy which would extend this needed benefit to senior citizens in the same circumstances across the City.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that, due to the extenuating circumstances involved, Toronto Hydro be requested to consider moving the Hydro pole located at 30 Gates Avenue, at no cost to the City.

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the City Treasurer to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting to be held on February 4, 1998, on establishing a policy which would extend this needed benefit to senior citizens in the same circumstances across the City.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (November 28, 1997) from Councillor Jakobek:

Re: Request to Move Hydro Pole at 30 Gates Avenue

Attached for your perusal is a copy of a letter from Toronto Hydro in response to my request on behalf of the residents at the above-noted address. Mr. and Mrs. Rana are elderly and have limited mobility who are applying for disabled front yard parking. They have requested to have the hydro pole adjacent to their property moved to allow for more room to negotiate the vehicle.

I am requesting that they not be charged for the move of the hydro pole and would like this issue addressed at the next City Services Committee meeting.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (November 6, 1997) from Anne Shephard, Communications Officer, Public Relations, Toronto Hydro, addressed to Councillor Jakobek:

Re: Hydro Pole at 30 Gates Avenue

I am in receipt of your letter dated October 20, 1997 requesting Toronto Hydro to investigate the feasibility of moving the hydro pole adjacent to 30 Gates Avenue. Upon receiving your letter I made an appointment to visit the Rana's. I am now pleased to provide you with the following information.

On inspection we noted that the hydro pole is about 20 years old and in good condition. At present Toronto Hydro would not have just cause to replace this pole unless it became defective or until such time as the neighbourhood is scheduled for new poles under our 13.8kV System Upgrade Project. Our records indicate that there are no plans for this work in our current five year time table. Unfortunately, if the Ranas want to have the pole relocated now (subject to field conditions and stake-outs), they would have to pay the costs of relocating the pole, which is estimated to be in the $5,000 range.

During our conversation, Mr. Rana said he would like the pole relocated a few feet to the west. However on inspection, this would present a conflict with a mature city tree and the underground water supply to their home. It appears that the only alternative would be to move the pole to the front of their next door neighbours house at 32 Gates Avenue, subject to the neighbour's agreement and that the new distance between the poles is within our installation standards.

Mr. & Mrs. Rana do plan to submit an application for front yard parking. Perhaps we should wait for the Rana's to submit their application to the City and proceed in evaluating their request at that time.

Please let me know if further information is required.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also before it communications from the following, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (October 23, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk of the former City of Toronto forwarding City Council's decision respecting a report (October 3, 1997) from the Commissioner of City Works Services respecting "Appeal - Driveway Widening at 17 Lynwood Avenue (Ward14)"; and

- (January 20, 1997) from Gina Tapper.

(Copies of the foregoing communications are on file in the office of the City Clerk)

8

Revocation of Liquor Licence -

592 Queen Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following motion from Councillors Silva and Pantalone:

Whereas the Ward Councillors and the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario ("the LLBO") have been advised by the police and the community of drunkenness, rowdiness and illegal activity associated with the premises at 592 Queen Street West (the F & R Restaurant);

And Whereas the Ward Councillors have now been advised that a hearing before the LLBO has been scheduled for Monday, January 26, 1998 to consider revocation of the liquor licence for the premises due to numerous incidents of service of intoxicated patrons and drunkenness contrary to the Liquor Licence Act;.

And Whereas City staff have been advised that no public interest allegations shall be heard at the hearing scheduled for January 26, 1998;

And Whereas the community has expressed concerns that the premises shall, unless the licence is revoked, continue to contribute to disruptive and illegal activities in the area contrary to the public interest;

And Whereas subsection 15(1) of the Liquor Licence Act ("the Act") provides that a member or employee of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario may direct that a proposal be issued to revoke or suspend the liquor licence for any ground under subsection 6(2) of the Act that would disentitle an applicant to a licence;

And Whereas subsection 6(2)(h) of the Act provides that an applicant is entitled to be issued a licence to sell liquor except if the licence is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located;

And Whereas section 7.1 of Regulation 719 under the Act states that, in the absence of receiving submissions to the contrary, the Board shall consider a resolution of the council of the municipality, in which are located the premises for which a person holds a licence to sell liquor, as proof of the needs and wishes of the residents of a municipality for the purposes of clause 6(2)(h) of the Act;

Now Therefore Be It Resolved:

(1) That City Council advise the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario ("LLBO") that the liquor licence for the premises at 592 Queen Street West should be revoked as not being in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality.

(2) That, in the event that the licence is not revoked as a result of the hearing on January26, 1998, the City Solicitor be authorized to represent the City at any future public hearing scheduled by the LLBO to consider revocation on the grounds of public interest.

(3) That the LLBO be requested to consult with the Ward Councillors to determine if the public hearing to consider revocation can be held in the evening and at an appropriate venue in the community to ensure maximum public participation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Clerk to notify the LLBO, prior to the hearing of January 26, 1998, of the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council with respect to this matter.

9

Request for Tree Removal - 999 St. Clarens Avenue

(Davenport)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for tree removal at 999 St. Clarens Avenue be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 31,1997) from the Commissioner of Community Services:

Origin: Commissioner of Community Services (p:\1997\ug\cms\prk\cs970118.prk)- pm

Subject: 999 St. Clarens Avenue - Request for Tree Removal (Ward 12)

Recommendation:

That this request for tree removal be denied

Comments:

I have received a request from Mr. Antonio Pussar, 999 St. Clarens Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6H3X8, for the removal of a City owned tree. Mr. Pussar wishes to have this tree removed as he is concerned with the constant falling of seeds from this tree clogging his eavestrough and ruining the new roof.

The tree in question is a 67 cm diameter Norway maple which stands in good condition and is valued at $4,231.20. My staff inspected the tree on July 17, 1997 and found that all the branches are well clear of the house and the tree is well pruned. The tree was pruned by my staff on June 19, 1997.

Since this tree is not structurally unsound, dead or dying, I recommend that the request for tree removal be denied.

However, should your Committee approve tree removal, I recommend that the applicant pay all costs involved; this includes the tree value of $4,231.20, the removal costs of $775.60, and the costs to plant a replacement, $474.91, for a total of $5,481.71.

10

300, 304 St. Clair Avenue West and 345 Spadina Road, Toronto -

Application to Remove Four Trees and Injure One Tree Situated on

Private Property (East Toronto)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for the removal of four trees and the injury of one tree at 300, 304 St. Clair Avenue West and 345 Spadina Road be approved, conditional on:

(1) the trees in question not being removed or injured until permitted demolition and construction related activities in accordance with plans approved under Site Plan Approval Application No. 397111 commence which warrant the removal of the trees; and

(2) the applicant planting a minimum of one hundred and five (105) new trees (seventy-seven (77) of which are cedars to be planted as hedging), in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by Terraplan Landscape Architects, dated stamped as received on December 8, 1997 by Urban Development Services, red-lined on December19, 1997 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested staff to continue to work with the applicant to narrow and reconfigure the driveway of the development project at 304 St. Clair Avenue West, in order to protect the Black Locust tree located at 300St.Clair Avenue West.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Community Services:

Purpose:

This report is before Toronto Community Council given that an application for a permit to injure and destroy trees on private property has been filed to the City in accordance with the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III. The application is requesting the issuance of a permit to remove four trees and injure one tree, all trees situated on private property, in order to facilitate the construction of seven (7) residential townhouse units at 304 St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That if Toronto Community Council approves the request for the removal of the four trees and the injury of one tree, all trees noted below, that such approval be conditional on:

1. the trees in question not being removed or injured until permitted demolition and construction related activities in accordance with plans approved under Site Plan Approval Application No.397111 commence which warrant the removal of the trees; and

2. the applicant planting a minimum of one hundred and five (105) new trees (seventy-seven (77) of which are cedars to be planted as hedging), in accordance with the Landscape Plan prepared by Terraplan Landscape Architects, dated stamped as received on December 8, 1997 by Urban Development Services, red-lined on December 19, 1997 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

I have received a request from Mr. Geoffrey Belchetz of 1158528 Ontario Limited, 435 Spadina Road, Toronto, Ontario, M5P 2W3, owner of the subject development property (304 St. Clair Avenue West), that the City consider the removal of four trees and the injury of one other, all trees situated on the private properties noted above. The request forms part of Site Plan Approval Application No. 397111 for the purpose of facilitating the construction of seven residential townhouse units on the above noted property.

Three of the five trees which are the subject of this application are situated on the private properties of 300 St. Clair Avenue West and 345 Spadina Road which are adjacent to the development site. The owners of these two adjacent properties have provided written consent to permit the injury and/or destruction of the trees on their properties. The remaining two trees are situated on the private property of the development site, 304 St. Clair Avenue West.

As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was posted on the property for the minimum 14 day posting period. Nine letters have been received in response to the notice of application to remove and injure the trees in question. At the time of writing this report, one of the nine written objections had been formally withdrawn by the objector.

The five trees in question are as follows:

(Application for a permit has been filed to remove trees # 1 to 4 noted below and injure tree #5)

1. 58 cm diameter Horse Chestnut in fair condition;

2. 32 cm diameter Colorado Blue Spruce in fair condition;

3. 51 cm diameter Black Locust in fair condition. This tree is situated on the private property of 300 St. Clair Avenue West;

4. 50 cm diameter Norway Maple in fair condition. This tree is situated on the private property of 345 Spadina Road;

5. 54 cm diameter Norway Maple in fair condition. This tree is situated on the private property of 345 Spadina Road and is proposed to be injured.

All five trees require a permit and the consent of City Council to remove or injure.

The proposed development in its present form precludes the retention of the five trees noted above due to the size and scale of the development.

The landscape plan which forms part of the Site Plan Approval application indicates the planting of one hundred and five (105) new trees (seventy-seven (77) of which are cedars to be planted as hedging) throughout the development site including ten (10) trees within the City street allowances adjacent to the development site. Eleven (11) of the total number of trees proposed for planting are large growing shade tree species.

Should the Community Council recommend that the request to remove and injure the trees in question be approved, such approval should meet the conditions outlined above in my recommendation.

Contact Name:

Gary R. Le Blanc

Telephone: (416) 392-0494;

Facsimile: (416) 392-6657

E-mail: gleblanc@city.toronto.on.ca

________

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Glen Cohen, owner of property, 435 Spadina Road;

- Mr. Mathew Bernstein, Terraplan Landscape Architects, Consulting Landscape Architect, on behalf of the applicant;

- Ms. Joan Culley, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Nina Czegledy, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Lorne Vineberg, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Geoffrey Belchetz, owner of property, 435 Spadina Road.

(The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 19, 1998) from Ms. Lisa Landreth

- (January 19, 1998) from Ms. Joan Culley

- (January 18, 1998) from Mr. Dave Culley

- (January 12, 1998) from Ms. Mary Louisa Gaby

- (January 19, 1998) from Ms. Lyn Carter

- (January 16, 1998) from D. A. Robaszewski

- (January 19, 1998) from Mr. Carl Tacon

- (January 20, 1998) from Mr. Cyril Reade

- (January 19, 1998) from Mr. Geoff Belchetz

- (January 19, 1998) from K. Dalik

(A copy of the following communications, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (December 29, 1997) from S. Ainley, North Hill District Home Owners' Association

- (December 22, 1997) from Ms. Joan Culley

- (December 31, 1997) from D.A. Robaszewski

- (December 19, 1997) from Ms. Nina Czegledy

- (December 28, 1997) from K. Dalik

- (December 23, 1997) from Mr. Lorne Vineberg

- (January 8, 1998) from Ms. Mary Louisa Gaby

- (December 19, 1997) from Ms. Lyn Carter

- (December 19, 1997) from Mr. Carl Tacon

Councillor Miller declared his interest in the foregoing matter and stated that the general nature of the interest is that his spouse owns property within 300 metres of the subject site.

(Councillor Miller, at the meeting of City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his spouse owns property within 300 metres of the subject site.)

11

Municipal Code Chapter 202 - Request for Natural Garden Exemption

- 120 Duvernet Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 120 Duvernet Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Acting Commissioner of Community Services review the natural garden after one year and report back thereon to the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Clause 13, contained in Report No.25 of the Executive Committee of the former City of Toronto, titled "Municipal Code Chapter202-- Request for Natural Garden Exemption - 120 Duvernet Avenue (Ward 10)".

________

The Executive Committee recommends that the joint report (November 5, 1997) from the Director of Inspections and Chief Building Official and, the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be forwarded to the new City Council/a Standing Committee thereof, for consideration and the hearing of deputations.

The Executive Committee advises that although there is no Statutory requirement for a public hearing, it has been the City of Toronto's practice to schedule a matter like this as a deputation item and to inform the neighbourhood.

The Executive Committee submits the joint report (November 5, 1997) from the Director of Inspections and Chief Building Official and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Origin: Director of Inspections and Chief Building Official (p:\1997\ug\uds\bld\ex970071.bld) -bs

Recommendations:

1. That City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 120 Duvernet Avenue; or

2. That City Council confirm the served notice and direct that a second notice be given under Municipal Code Chapter 202, Section 202-2D requiring the cutting of grass and weeds, as prescribed in the regulations.

Comments: On October 16^th, 1997 a notice was served to the owner of the property known as 120Duvernet Avenue to require that tall grass and weeds be cut, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 202. A submission was received October 17^th, 1997 from the owner of the property, requesting exemption from grass and weed cutting requirements on the basis that the property contains a natural garden. A copy of this submission has been provided to the Executive Committee. Provision and procedures for such exemption are contained in Municipal Code Chapter 202, Section 202-2D. In accordance with these provisions such a request for exemption is to be reviewed by the Neighbourhoods Committee and Council. Due to the fact that the final Neighbourhood's Committee meeting for 1997 has already occurred but that City Council has indicated that it would call any necessary meetings prior to the end of 1997 to address any outstanding issues, this matter is being referred to the Executive Committee in order that the matter might be dealt with and sent on to Council at its subsequent meeting.

On October 23^rd, 1997, a report was received from the Parks Division stating that their inspection indicated that the yard at 120 Duvernet Avenue contains no noxious weeds, with the presence of plant material that represents native species which are regenerating on their own, although no clear purpose or plan appeared to be ongoing regarding the naturalization.

This report was prepared in consultation with staff of the Parks Division.

John Morand, Commissioner of Urban Development Services concurs with this report.

The Executive Committee also had before it the following communication (undated) from Nancy Kay, addressed to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Having received your registered letter yesterday (October 16th) I have asked my spouse, Mr.PatrickMcDonald to reply by fax within the 72 hours as per section 202-2D of Chapter 202 for an exemption under the "natural garden" concept which arose after the Pickering Avenue case.

Mr. McDonald has been a member of several environmental organizations, including the City's Task Force to Bring Back the Don, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, and the Canadian Nature Federation. A former Wildlife Biologist with the Ministry of Natural Resources, he has participated for the past 2 years in the CNF's Ladybug Beetle Survey and became aware of the rapid inroads made by exotic species on our native 2-spot variety. The wild garden in the yard provides habitat for this and other insects in an otherwise pesticide infested sterile "perfect lawn" habitat. For him, this is an ethical issue.

Please consider this application. Thank you.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (January 21, 1998) from Patrick McDonald, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

12

Municipal Code Chapter 202 - Request for Natural Garden Exemption

- 239 Havelock Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 239 Havelock Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Clause 12 of Report No. 25 of the Executive Committee of the former City of Toronto, titled "Municipal Code Chapter202-Request for Natural Garden Exemption - 239 Havelock Street (Ward 3)".

________

The Executive Committee recommends that the joint report (October 31, 1997) from the Director of Inspections and Chief Building Official and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be forwarded to the new City Council/a Standing Committee thereof, for consideration and the hearing of deputations.

The Executive Committee advises that although there is no Statutory requirement for a public hearing, it has been the City of Toronto's practice to schedule a matter like this as a deputation item and to inform the neighbourhood.

The Executive Committee submits the joint report (October 31, 1997) from the Director of Inspections and Chief Building Official and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Origin: Director of Inspections and Chief Building Official (p:\1997\ug\uds\bld\ex970070.bld) -bs

Recommendations:

1. That City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 239 Havelock Street; or

2. That City Council confirm the served notice and direct that a second notice be given under Municipal Code Chapter 202, Section 202-2D requiring the cutting of grass and weeds, as prescribed in the regulations.

Comments: On October 1^st, 1997 a notice was served to the owner and occupant of the property known as 239 Havelock Street to require that tall grass and weeds be cut, in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 202. A submission received October 3^rd, 1997 from the occupant of the property, requesting exemption from grass and weed cutting requirements on the basis that the property contains a natural garden. A copy of this submission has been provided to the Executive Committee. Provision and procedures for such exemption are contained in Municipal Code Chapter 202, Section 202-2D. In accordance with these provisions such a request for exemption is to be reviewed by the Neighbourhoods Committee and Council. Due to the fact that the final Neighbourhoods Committee meeting for 1997 has already occurred but that City Council has indicated that it would call any necessary meetings prior to the end of 1997 to address any outstanding issues, this matter is being referred to the Executive Committee in order that the matter might be dealt with and sent on to Council at its subsequent meeting.

On October 22^nd, 1997, a report was received from the Parks Division stating that their inspection indicated that the yard at 239 Havelock Street contains a substantial amount of trees, shrubs and native wild flowers, as would appear to be appropriate in a naturalized residential garden.

This report was prepared in consultation with staff of the Parks Division.

John Morand, Commissioner of Urban Development Services concurs with this report.

The Executive Committee also had before it the following communication (September 29, 1997) from Carole Boucher, addressed to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Regarding the notice I received, September 26, 1997, requesting all grass/weeds exceeding 8"/20 cm in height be cut from the lands adjacent to the house on the above mentioned address, I wish to request an exemption for these lands as a "natural" garden. A portion of the yard has been maintained in a similar manner as neighbouring houses (the front yard). The portion nearest the house outback is a food garden nearing the end of the productive season. The rest has been left to regenerate naturally. The height of the plants offers some seclusion/illusion of places outside the city. This arrangement has been much enjoyed by everyone visiting the property.

Please consider this "request for exemption on the basis that the growth constitutes a natural garden".

13

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Midtown, Downtown)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

(January 8, 1998)

Subject: 511 Queen Street West: Request for approval of variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated projecting sign (Ward 24).

Origin: Commissioner, Urban Development Services, upon referral of an application by 555726 Ontario Inc., 511 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2B4, on behalf of 498330 Ontario Limited, 89 Ridge Hill Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M6C 2J7. (p:\1997\ug\uds\pln\lu971496.pln) - jc

Recommendations:

1. That City Council approve Application No. 997039 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated projecting sign.

2. That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997039, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south side of Queen Street West, between Augusta Avenue and Spadina Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 2.5storey mixed-use building with residential units on the upper storey and retail uses at grade.

The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated projecting sign on the north elevation of the building (see Figures 1 and 2). The sign has a length of 2.4 metres and a height of 1.6 metres, with an area of 4.0 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the area of the sign (4.0 m²) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 1.2 m² by 2.8 m²;

2. the sign is located within 10 metres from a residential use;

3. the sign projects 2.7 metres over a public walkway instead of the permitted 1.0 metre; and

4. the sign is located within 0.6 metres from the curb line of a public roadway.

The first variance occurs because the sign is larger than permitted by the Municipal Code. The maximum area for projecting signs is based upon the amount of frontage the unit has on the street. I was concerned about the impact of such a large sign on the streetscape and requested the applicant to reduce the overall size of the existing sign. The applicant has advised that the bottom portion of the sign is detachable and that he would remove it, thereby reducing the size of the sign from 4m² to 3.0m². Although the sign would still be substantially larger than permitted, the modified sign would be more in keeping with other signs along this section of Queen Street, which I consider acceptable. The second variance occurs because the sign is located within 10 metres of a residential window. In this case, however, the sign has been installed well below the window level and would not adversely affect the tenant's enjoyment of this unit.

The last two variances occur because the sign projects 1.7 metres further than permitted by the Municipal Code and is located within 0.6 metres from the curb line of a public roadway. A recent site visit has confirmed that the sign cannot be moved any closer to the building. The applicant has advised that the sign was installed approximately 18 years ago and was refaced within the last 5 years.

Given that the revised proposal represents a modest improvement over the original proposal and that the sign is located well above grade and does not interfere with pedestrians, I am prepared to support the requested variances in this circumstance. I am, therefore, recommending that this application be approved.

(January 8, 1998)

Subject: 601 Yonge Street: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit three non-illuminated fascia signs (Ward 24).

Origin: Commissioner, Urban Development Services, upon referral of an application by SashaMilenov Architect, 63 St. Clements Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4R 1H1, on behalf of PuffinDevelopments Ltd., 16 Birch Avenue, 3^rd floor, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1C8. (p:\1997\ug\uds\pln\lu971497.pln)

Recommendations:

1. That City Council approve Application No. 997105 respecting a minor variance from Chapter297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit three non-illuminated fascia signs.

2. That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997105, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-east corner of Yonge Street and Gloucester Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a five storey commercial building which is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant is requesting permission to remove three existing fascia signs and install three new fascia signs in the same location (see Figures 1 and 2). The signs have dimensions as follows:

Sign No. 1 has a length of 3.81 metres and a height of 0.76 metres, with an area of 2.89 m²;

Sign No. 2 has a length of 5.43 metres and a height of 0.76 metres, with an area of 4.12 m²;

Sign No. 3 has a length of 2.36 metres and a height of 0.76 metres, with an area of 1.79 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that they will obstruct and interfere with windows of the building. The ground floor of the building contains floor to ceiling windows making it impossible to display signs without partially obstructing windows. In this instance, however, the signs would be installed in the same location as the existing signs which are to be removed, approximately 2.87 metres above grade, and would not adversely affect views or light transmission.

Heritage Toronto has advised that they have no objections to the proposed signage.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

(January 6, 1998)

Subject: 111 Carlton Street: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit three illuminated fascia signs (Ward 24).

Origin: Commissioner, Urban Development Services, upon referral of an application by Trans Canada Signs Inc., 9310 Blvd. Parkway, Anjou, Quebec, H1J 1N7, on behalf of Arsandco Investments Limited, 111 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2G3. (p:\1997\ug\uds\pln\lu971498.pln) jc

Recommendations:

1. That City Council approve Application No. 997102 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit three illuminated fascia signs.

2. That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997102, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-west corner of Carlton Street and Jarvis Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates the Primrose Hotel.

The applicant is requesting permission to replace the existing corporate logo signs on the north, east and west elevations of the building and maintain the existing signs identifying the company/hotel name, as shown on Figures 1-3 attached.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the area of each sign will exceed the maximum permitted area of 25 m².

The size of signs is regulated in order to reduce their visual impact on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. Although the signs are within the permitted 3.0 metre height limit for fascia signs in this district, the 25 m² area restriction of the logo and name combined will be exceeded. However, given that the signs are existing and that the applicant is only requesting modifications to the logo component, I am prepared to recommend approval of this application.

14

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -

8 South Kingsway (Downtown)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Application No. 997073 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 21illuminated signs and 3 non-illuminated signs at 8 South Kingsway be refused.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services to report on design guidelines of gas stations and gas bars within the context of the urban environment.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 15, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Subject: 8 South Kingsway: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 21 illuminated signs and 3 non-illuminated signs (Ward 1).

Origin: Commissioner, Urban Development Services, upon referral of an application by WesleyRobbins, c/o Petro Canada, 3275 Rebecca Street, Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6N5. (p:\1997\ug\uds\pln\lu971406.pln) -jc

Recommendations:

1. That City Council approve Application No. 997073 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 21 illuminated signs and 3non-illuminated signs.

2. That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997073, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of South Kingsway and accommodates a Petro Canada gas station.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect 24 identification signs of varying types for a new gas bar, car wash and retail store that is proposed to replace the existing gas station on the site (see Figure 1). The dimensions and characteristics of each sign are described in Table 1 attached.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that they are not permitted in a "G" parks district.

Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code has very restrictive sign provisions for Parks districts. Illuminated signs in parks districts are only allowed in conjunction with uses that are normally permitted in these districts (i.e. for the purposes of conveying community information or identifying a public park, playing field or garden). In this instance, the property was rezoned from AC (a now deleted designation that permitted an auto service station) during the Cityplan process. The owner has made application to the City to allow the replacement and limited expansion of the existing use, which is expected to be before City Council on October 6, 1997.

The proposed signs will replace existing signs currently on the property and would be used for safety and directional purposes as well as for building identification. In my opinion, the signs are appropriately sized and located for their intended function and will not adversely impact the adjoining public park or surrounding uses.

On this basis, I am recommending approval of this application.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports having before it the communications from the following: and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 19, 1998) from G. V. Martinsons, Swansea Area Ratepayers' Association

- (January 20, 1998) from Ms. Victoria Masnyk, Vice-President, Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd.

- Petition with 50 signatures in opposition, submitted by Ms.Victoria A. Masnyk

(Copies of the foregoing communications are on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The following appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Andrew Paton, Q.C., Barrister & Solicitor, on behalf of the Applicant

- Mr. Vladimir Braun, Toronto, Ontario

- Ms. Victoria Masnyk, on behalf of Ripley Area Ratepayers' Group Ltd

- Mr. John Woodburn, on behalf of Swansea Historical Society

- Mr. Don Jennison, on behalf of Swansea Area Ratepayers

- Mr. William Phillips, Toronto, Ontario

- Ms. Joan Miles, on behalf of Humber Heritage Committee

15

Residential Demolition Permit Applications -

399 - 403 King Street East (Don River)

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that residential demolition permits for 399-403King Street East be refused.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services to ensure that the buildings located at 399-403 King Street East are properly secured and lit, and that the grounds are appropriately kept in order, to ensure that they are not a danger to local neighbours and do not deteriorate any further;

(2) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report on incentives that can be recommended to City Council to encourage the preservation of historical properties.

(3) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit a report directly to Council for its meeting to be held on February 4, 1998, on an exemption for the taxes to be paid on the properties located at 399-403 King Street East, given that they are owned by a religious institution;

(4) the Ward Councillors and the community to examine the possibility that the housing initiative previously designated for the site but cancelled by the provincial government, be reinstated;

and having referred the housing initiative previously designated for the site but cancelled by the provincial government to the Task Force on Homelessness.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Subject: Residential Demolition Permit Applications, 399 - 403 King Street East (New Ward 25)

Origin: Commissioner of Urban Development Services (p:\1997\ug\uds\bld\nh970077.bld) - db

Recommendation:

That the demolition permits be refused.

Comments:

On December 17, 1997, Delbert Jackson applied on behalf of the owner, Trinity East Anglican Church, for permits to demolish the pair of semi-detached residential buildings at 399 and 403KingStreet East. The vacant buildings contain a total of four dwelling units.

The owner does not intend to construct a replacement structure at this time, but to re-grade and landscape the site to match their adjoining property, the Little Trinity Church at 417 King St. East. In accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 146, Article II, Demolition Control, I refer the demolition applications to you to recommend to Council whether to grant or refuse the applications, including conditions, if any, to be attached to the permit. The former Toronto City Council has twice before considered applications to demolish the pair of semi-detached houses. Applications filed on June 3, 1986 and April 29, 1992 were both refused.

399 and 403 King Street East are both listed on the City's inventory of heritage properties, and Heritage Toronto will be reporting separately to you with their concerns.

Section 6.19 of the Official Plan of the former City of Toronto states:

It is the policy of Council not to issue demolition permits for the demolition of residential property containing dwelling units where, pursuant to the Planning Act, it is lawful to refuse their issuance, and where, in the opinion of Council:

(a) such demolition is not to be followed within a reasonable period of time either by new development on the lot which contains the residential property, or by the reuse of the lot in accordance with the Zoning By-law; or

(b) such demolition would result in:

(i) the loss of residential property or dwelling units in good structural repair; or

(ii) the loss of residential property or dwelling units which serve a necessary social housing need; or

(iii) the undue hardship of relocation upon the occupants of the building to be demolished.

The Planning Act allows that where no building permit has been issued for a replacement building on the property, Council may issue or refuse to issue a demolition permit. The Planning Act does not provide for conditions to be attached to this type of demolition permit, but the City of Toronto Act, 1991 does allow the City to attach conditions. Specifically, The City of Toronto Act, 1991 permits Council to impose as a condition on the demolition permit any condition that, in the opinion of Council, is reasonable, having regard for the nature of the residential property to be demolished, including conditions,

(a) requiring the preservation of significant natural features; and

(b) requiring the erection and maintenance of structures and enclosures around the residential property proposed to be demolished and requiring the submission and approval of plans of the structures and enclosures.

Should Council wish to issue the demolition permits, the permits could be issued on the condition that the owner agree to re-grade and landscape the site in accordance with the December 8, 1997 landscaping plan.

However, in light of the stated Official Plan policy of encouraging the physical maintenance and, where appropriate, upgrading of the existing housing stock in the City, I recommend that Council refuse the applications to demolish the residential buildings at 399 and 403 King Street East.

Summary

On October 27,1996, a special congregational meeting unanimously approved, with only one abstention, that the Corporation of Little Trinity Church Abe empowered to proceed with demolishing the buildings at 399-403 King St. E. and to leave the land as parkland pending future development opportunities.@ Following demolition of the two row houses, the land would form an extension of the existing church park. Also, a hedge would be planted along the north-west line of the site as a buffer for the adjacent Derby Building.

Development of the 399-403 King St. E. properties over the past 10 years has been attempted repeatedly without success. Financial viability and a freeze on government support for social housing projects terminated two major development proposals, which included market driven and social housing. Nevertheless, Little Trinity will continue to search out development proposals, which include housing possibilities.

The Toronto Historical Board does not have a documented professional assessment report on file regarding the condition of the buildings at 399-403 King St. E. A building assessment report by E.R.A. Architects Inc. commissioned by Little Trinity Church in July, 1997, states that the buildings are in a serious state of disrepair and estimates a cost of $651,000 to renovate the four dwelling units in these two small row houses to a medium quality rental standard and to comply as closely as possible with the Ontario Building Code for new buildings. A modest and lower quality renovation project is estimated to cost $530,000. Based on this report and other realty material, neither medium nor modest quality renovations would be financially viable and no prudent landlord would proceed with renovation of these properties.

Sale of the site by the Church is neither desirable nor possible. As residential growth is rapidly taking place in the surrounding area, Little Trinity Church will need the 399-403 King St. E. land, which abuts the Little Trinity House Site, in order that we can provide adequate facilities and expanded services for a growing parish community. Moreover, a hypothetical purchaser of the site would face the same costly renovation investment plus the additional cost of buying the property. Thus, the expectation that the church sell the row houses is not realistic.

In today's economic climate, churches are experiencing growing demands for their services in the face of shrinking resources. Little Trinity Church already bears a considerable financial burden in preserving and maintaining its Designated Historical buildings at 425 and 417 King St. E. Nevertheless, we are committed to the preservation of these heritage buildings known as Little Trinity Church and Little Trinity House. This commitment has been demonstrated by our capital expenditures of over $600,000 during the past six years on the restoration of these historical buildings. The Toronto Historical Board recognized this accomplishment with a special commendation award in 1992.

If the demolition application is approved, Little Trinity Church would be able to continue and increase its support to such social outreach groups as Neighborlink, Kindercare and Stephen Ministry. It would be a distortion of community and social values if a Council decision forces Little Trinity Church to limit needed outreach programs because it has to continue paying property management expenses and realty taxes for buildings it can neither take down, renovate, nor sell. From 1985 to the present, these expenses and taxes totalled approximately $70,000 and these costs will increase in the future. An additional $1800 will be spent this year to provide property security requested by Derby residents.

Despite Little Trinity Church's best efforts to protect the 399-403 King St.E. properties, transients and intruders have on a number of occasions broken into and trashed the interiors of the buildings. As there is evidence of fire being set by these individuals there is an implicit fire hazard for the occupants of the adjacent new building constructed on the old Derby Tavern site. Further, although discarded hypodermic needles etc. are removed from the site on an as-need basis, the properties are becoming a potentially serious health risk to inquisitive youngsters who access the fence enclosed site.

Also, a Derby Building resident reported that an intruder tried to break-in by gaining access to his condominium unit through the second floor of the adjacent 399-403 King St. E. buildings. In a recent letter to municipal authorities, this resident expressed the same safety concerns as have been identified by Little Trinity Church. More recently, members of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty targeted the vacant row houses as a site in which to encourage unauthorized occupancy by the homeless. During their staged protest, a Derby Building resident received a five stitch cut over his eye in an altercation with a protestor who was subsequently charged, as reported by the Toronto Sun. A police sergeant has advised that the buildings are a cause for policing concern.

Until 1988 when the 140 year old Derby Tavern was demolished, the adjacent row houses at 399-403King St. E. constituted part of a more extensive building formation. Today, however, these row houses have become an isolated fragment and do not form an environment with other such buildings, nor are they part of a contextual setting. In fact, the prevailing scale and architectural context of the immediate area are now established by the five story high Commercial warehouse style of both the newly constructed Derby Building and of the older commercial building at 334KingSt.E. across the street.

Your decisions have placed Little Trinity Church in a CATCH 22 situation. In the past, the City's refusal to permit Little Trinity to take down the existing structures have left us with only two options - to redevelop the site or to rehabilitate the existing structures. However, in spite of our best efforts over the past ten years, changes in government philosophy and in the economic climate have left the Church without the necessary financial support to engage in such redevelopment. In addition, we have learned from past experience the folly of incurring debt to fund projects that are not fiscally sound. Further, these buildings are not eligible for heritage grants from the City.

In light of the above facts, we ask the City Council to approve Little Trinity Church's attached application to take down the buildings at 399-403 King St. E., Toronto.

Background to Little Trinity Church's Application Dated December 5, 1997 to Take Down the Buildings at 399-403 King St. E. Toronto

Congregational Approval

On October 27,1996 a special congregational meeting unanimously approved, with only one abstention, "that the Corporation of Little Trinity Church be empowered to proceed with demolishing the 399-403 King St. E. properties and leaving the land as parkland pending future development opportunities."

Following demolition of the two row houses, the land would form an extension of the existing church park. As well, a hedge would be planted as a buffer between the western boundary of the site and the adjacent Derby Building.

Historical Background of 399-403 King St. E. Properties

The row houses at the 399-403 King St. E. site were constructed in c.1855. There is nothing known about the architect, if in fact there was one. The buildings were originally owned by Francis Beale and later by Little Trinity Church.

At one time the properties at 399-403 King St. E. comprised three separate rental units in a block of five income producing row houses owned by Little Trinity Church. Three of the row houses were in an advanced state of disrepair and were demolished in the late 60's. The two remaining houses were renovated and occupied by several members of the congregation until 1985 when the buildings were vacated and boarded up because the Church could not afford to renovate them to acceptable standards.

Contiguous Properties

The historic Little Trinity Church [425 King St. E.], Enoch Turner Schoolhouse [106 Trinity St.] and Little Trinity House [417 King St. E.] are separated from the 399-403 King St. E. property by vacant land and a back lane. The vacant land is owned by Little Trinity Church and is presently maintained as parkland and a children's playground for the surrounding community.

The buildings at 399-403 King St. E. are beside the Derby Tavern site at 393 King St. E. The historic Derby Tavern was constructed in 1848 and stood until 1988 when the City of Toronto approved a demolition permit. Subsequently, a five-story condominium/retail complex was constructed at 393King St. E.; no historic or architectural features of the old Derby Tavern were incorporated in the new complex.

The two buildings at 399-403 King St. E. are not designated under the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act. As they are only included on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties they are not eligible for restoration/maintenance heritage grants.

Site Development Proposals

In 1987, redevelopment of the 399-403 King St. E. site, which included social housing was proposed; however, the Little Trinity Church congregation determined that the proposal was not in keeping with the mission of the church at that time. Further, the financial viability and funding of this project were in question.

In 1995, a proposal involving City Home and the Yonge Street Mission was developed and approved by Little Trinity Church which included the 399-403 King St. E buildings; however, a new provincial government cancelled funds for this type of social housing and the project was terminated.

Between 1985 and 1996 Little Trinity Church did not consider rehabilitation of these buildings because the two proposals involved their demolition. Although its efforts to redevelop the site have been in vain, Little Trinity Church will continue to search out development proposals, which have housing possibilities.

Architectural Assessment of the Condition of the 399-403 King St . E. Buildings

Little Trinity Church engaged E.R.A. Architects Inc on July 13, 1997, to perform a thorough condition assessment and outline of the work required to bring the two buildings at 399-403KingSt.E. back into use as medium quality rental dwellings complying as closely as possible with Ontario Building Code requirements for new buildings. The architectural report states that the buildings are structurally stable though in a serious state of disrepair and estimates that the medium quality renovation costs would total $650,878.

A modest and lower quality renovation of the 399-403 King St. E. buildings is estimated by the architects to lower the total cost by $121,040 to $529,838 by eliminating building insulation, cutting back on fixtures, etc. However, property management expenses would rise significantly together with an increase in maintenance, heating, insurance and bad debt costs. Also, market rents and occupancy rates would be lower.

Concurrent with the architect's study, reviews of market rental rates and capitalization rates for comparable type dwelling space were conducted by a real estate professional. The rental rates were adversely affected because each dwelling unit has only one bathroom and no clothes closets.

Based on the costs in the report prepared by the architectural firm, the current market rental rates and capitalization rates, it was obvious that renovation of the existing buildings to either a medium quality or a lower modest rental standard was not financially viable. No prudent landlord would proceed with a renovation project for these properties.

The ongoing costs of maintaining Little Trinity Church [425 King St. E.] and Little Trinity House [417King St. E.] are high because of their age and heritage value. Given its limited resources and the high maintenance costs of these designated historic buildings, Little Trinity Church cannot fund a financially non-viable renovation of the 399-403 King St. E. buildings

Sale of Properties

Over the years, Little Trinity Church would time and again accumulate debts to finance budget shortfalls and various outreach projects. The funding of these debts created the need to sell part of the property, which depleted instead of increasing the parish endowment that Mr.WilliamGooderham had so carefully built up 150 years ago. In light of the anticipated growth of the surrounding area, it would not be prudent to sell off the last remaining land [399-403KingSt.E.] which is available to Little Trinity Church for the future needs of expanded church facilities and community outreach services.

Further, no astute investor would purchase the 399-403 King St. E. property, when renovating the buildings is not financially viable for Little Trinity Church which already owns the property.

Property Management Expenses and Realty Taxes

From 1985 to the present, Little Trinity Church has promptly complied with the City of Toronto building inspectors' requests for items beyond regular maintenance, such as demolition of the garage at the rear of the building, and trimming and removal of trees.

Debris removal costs have risen significantly in the past few years due to the danger associated with broken hypodermic needles, used condoms etc. which are discarded by intruders in the rear yard and inside the buildings. These materials are gathered up and removed on an as need basis by contractors hired by Little Trinity Church.

Little Trinity Church has repeatedly boarded up the vacated buildings at 399-403 King St. E. In spite of these efforts, transients and unauthorized parties have broken in and trashed the interiors. Also, there is evidence of fire being set inside the buildings by these intruders.

The current annual cost for property maintenance, realty taxes, boarding up and securing the buildings is approximately $7000. Based on past history, these costs are expected to accelerate rather than decrease or stabilize. Over the past 12 years, these expenditures have been a considerable drain on the financial resources of Little Trinity Church which could have been used to continue and increase its support for social service groups such as Neighborlink, Kindercare and Stephen Ministry.

Neighbourhood Concerns and Safety Issues

Little Trinity Church is seriously concerned because there is a potential medical risk for adventuresome and inquisitive youngsters who scale the fence enclosed yard and possibly handle or fall on the discarded material. As well, fire is an implicit hazard for these intruders and for the residential and retail occupants of the adjacent Derby Tavern complex, because of the fire that has been set inside the buildings at 399-403 King St. E. by the illegal occupants.

A residential occupant of the adjacent Derby Building, in a letter dated September, 1997 to municipal authorities, expressed serious concerns about his safety and well being. Some of theses concerns included the fact that the buildings at 399-403 King St. E. were being occupied by illegal intruders whose behaviour necessitated a 911 call to the police, an attempted break-in to his condominium through access from the second floor of the adjacent row houses, and his "being awakened at 3:30am by screaming crack addicts". Little Trinity Church will spend $1800 in 1997 to address the neighbouring residents' security and safety concerns related to the 399-403 King St. E. buildings.

In November 1997, members of the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty targeted the vacant row houses as the site of a protest to encourage unauthorized occupancy of empty buildings by the homeless. As reported by the Toronto Sun on November 2, 1997, a Derby building resident received a five stitch cut over his eye in an altercation during their staged protest and a protestor was subsequently charged.

At a meeting of the Derby Building residents on November 13, 1997 a police sergeant, 51 Division, advised that the buildings at 399-403 King St. E. are a "policing concern."

Little Trinity Church's Commitment to its Tradition and Heritage Buildings

Little Trinity Church, 425 King St. was designed by the gifted architect, Henry Bowyer Lane, who also designed Holy Trinity Church, St. George-the-Martyr, parts of Osgoode Hall and the second City Hall. Mr. Lane designed Little Trinity Church in the style of undecorated, perpendicular thirteenth century Gothic. The foundation stone was laid in July 1843 and the church was dedicated in February 1844.

Today, Little Trinity Church is the oldest church building in Toronto. No other church building which was constructed prior to Little Trinity Church has survived. Little Trinity Church and Little Trinity House are included in the City of Toronto Inventory of Buildings of Architectural and Historical Importance.

In 1853, Little Trinity House was erected at 417 King St. E. and served as the parsonage for nearly 75 years. In later years, it was slum housing, a halfway house, church offices and Sunday School rooms.

In 1943, the Anglican diocesan Church Extension Committee tried to persuade Little Trinity Church, whose congregation had been seriously depleted by the depression and two world wars, to move out to the suburbs and dispose of its various properties. However, the congregation voted to stay put. By 1950, attendance at Little Trinity Church had seriously dwindled, the endowment had been largely liquidated, various properties had been sold and debt was chronic. The buildings had so badly deteriorated that it was almost impossible to obtain insurance at replacement cost. The best financial wisdom at that time was to close Little Trinity Church and sell the properties.

In January 1961, thieves ransacked the church and set fire to it to cover their tracks. Only a small portion of the damage to the building and contents was covered by insurance. In March 1962, the damage was repaired thanks to the sacrificial givings of the congregation, and contributions from the Atkinson Foundation, the Gooderham family, missionaries and other friends and supporters. Because of another fire, Little Trinity House ceased its use as a halfway hostel and was converted to barely adequate office space for the church.

In 1992, thanks to a special five-year congregation fund raising campaign among the parishioners and from their sacrificial givings, Little Trinity Church was able to extensively renovate and repair both the Church and Little Trinity House at a cost of over $600,000. In recognition of the renovation efforts, the Toronto Historic Board of the City of Toronto made a special commendation award to Little Trinity Church. It was not realistic to expect the Church to simultaneously fund the rehabilitation costs of the row houses at 309-403 King St. E. as well as the restoration of the Church and Little Trinity House.

Today, Little Trinity Church has a vibrant, growing congregation that is committed to the preservation and maintenance of its two Designated Historic buildings. It also serves the surrounding community through its parkland, children's playground, and services such as Neighborlink, Kindercare and Stephen Ministry.

Past and Present Demolition Applications

On June 3, 1986 an application to demolish the two buildings at 399-403 King St. E. was filed which the Toronto Historical Board opposed. On July 4, 1986 the Board recommended that the City of Toronto refuse the demolition request.

On April 29, 1992 Little Trinity Church made another application to demolish the same buildings. On May 22, the Toronto Historical Board recommended that the demolition request be refused.

In both cases, the City of Toronto declined approval of the demolition applications.

On July 4, 1986 The Board's Managing Director suggested to the Neighbourhoods Committee of the City of Toronto on the 399-403 King St. E. buildings that "these Georgian buildings, once typical in Toronto, constitute part of the nineteenth century landscape and are contextually important for their proximity to the Enoch Turner Schoolhouse, Little Trinity Church and Little Trinity House."

At that time, the City had not approved demolition of the neighbouring Derby Tavern.

When the 138 year old Derby Tavern was intact in 1986, the 133 year old row houses at 399-403King St. E. related to it as part of a more extensive building formation. However, once the Derby Tavern was demolished in 1988, these row houses became an isolated fragment and no longer form an environment with other such buildings, nor are they part of a contextual setting. In fact, the prevailing scale and architectural context of the immediate area are established instead by the five story high "commercial warehouse" style of both the newly constructed Derby building and of the older commercial building at 334 King St. E. across the street.

The City of Toronto Building and Inspection Department was asked at a meeting on June 30, 1992 to review the structural soundness of the 399-403 King St. E. buildings. At a subsequent meeting on July 14, 1992 a one line verbal statement was provided by a City employee that he "did not find the building to be unsound." However, a review of the Board's file for 399-403 King St. E. under the freedom of information access, did not disclose any record of a written professional building assessment by the City of Toronto or any outside firm to substantiate the employee's statement.

Further, the Board's Managing Director, in a memo dated May 25, 1992 to the City's Neighbourhoods Committee, "suggested that if the upkeep of the buildings was a burden to the Church, it should consider selling them rather than demolish them". However, sale of the site by the Church is neither desirable nor possible. As residential growth is rapidly taking place in the surrounding area, Little Trinity Church will need the 399-403 King St. E. land, which abuts the Little Trinity House site, in order that we can provide adequate facilities and expanded services for a growing parish community. Moreover, a hypothetical purchaser of the site would face the same costly renovation expenditures plus the additional cost of buying the property. Thus, the expectation that the church sell the row houses is not realistic.

Another notation on an internal memo from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board to the City's Neighbourhoods Committee advised "that it would be desirable if some way might be found to retain these houses for continued residential use at least until plans are processed for any new proposed new residential development." It is our contention that rehabilitation of the properties for residential occupancy while possible to accomplish with unlimited resources, is nevertheless a financially unsound proposition.

Little Trinity Church engaged E.R.A. Architects Inc on July 13, 1997, to perform a thorough condition assessment and outline of the work required to bring the two buildings at 399-403KingSt.E. back into use as four medium quality rental dwellings complying as closely as possible with Ontario Building Code requirements for new buildings. The architectural report states that the buildings are structurally stable though in a serious state of disrepair and estimates the renovation costs would total $650,878.

Concurrent with the architect's study, reviews of market rental rates and capitalization rates for comparable type dwelling space were conducted by a real estate professional. The rental rates were adversely affected because each dwelling unit has only one bathroom and no clothes closets.

The architects estimated that a modest and lower quality renovation of the 399-403 King St.E. buildings would lower the total cost by $121,040 to $529,838 by eliminating building insulation and cutting back on fixtures, etc. However, property management expenses would rise significantly together with an increase in maintenance, heating, insurance and bad debt costs. Also, market rents and occupancy rates would be lower.

Based on the costs in the report prepared by the architectural firm, the current market rental rates and capitalization rates, it was obvious that renovation of the existing buildings to either a medium or lower modest quality rental standard was not financially viable. No prudent landlord would proceed with a rehabilitation project for these properties

On November 17, 1992, the City of Toronto Commissioner of Finance was asked to advise the Neighbourhoods Committee if any grants had been given to the Church to assist it in maintaining or securing 399-403 King St. E., and to advise whether any such grants may be available in the future for this property. On November 19, 1992 in response to this request, the Board's Deputy Director stated that these properties "are not designated under the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act but only included on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties and, therefore, not eligible for heritage grants." Therefore, no grants were forthcoming for masonry repairs or to rehabilitate these properties and all such costs would have to be funded solely by Little Trinity Church.

At a community meeting held in the Derby Building on October 16, 1997 the Ward Councillor stated that there was an agreement in place which had permitted the demolition of the old Derby Tavern provided that the two buildings at 399-403 King St. E. were not torn down. Her executive assistant clarified that the agreement was more of an understanding. Little Trinity Church had no knowledge nor was it advised of such an agreement or understanding.

We are concerned that our past and present requests to demolish the buildings at 399-403 King St.E. have not been and will not be treated in a fair and equitable manner. If this application is denied by the City Council, we will have no choice but to pursue other alternative actions including an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 8, 1998) from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:

Recommendation:

That the Residential Demolition Applications #407-282 and #407-281 be refused.

Background:

We are in receipt of Residential Demolition Applications # 407- 282 and 407-281 dated December17, 1997. The Applications made by Delbert Jackson on behalf of the Rector and Wardens of Trinity East Anglican Church were received in our office on December 23, 1997. The properties in question are row houses dating to the mid 19^th century in one of the oldest areas of the City. These properties were included on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties as part of List#45 as adopted by City Council on May 5, 1986.

Discussion:

These Georgian Style Pre- Confederation houses, once typical of houses in the old Town of York, continue to be important to retaining the 19^th century character of this very historic part of the City now known as Corktown. Adjacent early landmarks include Enoch Turner Schoolhouse, Little Trinity Church and the rectory immediately next door. There are numerous other historic buildings in the area including the former Consumers Gas Complex to the south as well as the site of Upper Canada's first Provincial Parliament Building.

The buildings in question are located in the planning area covered by the King-Parliament Part II Plan. One of the planning objectives of this area is to preserve the heritage character of the area. City policies encourage the preservation of historic buildings by providing incentives such as density bonuses and parking exemptions. In addition, City Council recently approved a Commercial Improvement Plan for this area. It also encourages the preservation of heritage buildings, through a facade improvement programme. In our opinion, replacing historic buildings with vacant land certainly does not preserve the architectural significance of the individual buildings nor does it enhance the heritage character of the area.

We have been circulated, by City Officials, a copy of a nine page attachment to the demolition application which provides summary conclusions as to why the Church cannot retain the historic buildings. This attachment would have us believe that the buildings are so badly deteriorated that they are not only too costly to renovate, but impossible to sell. If they are badly deteriorated, it is because the church has left the housing units vacant and deferred needed maintenance. An architectural report prepared by ERA Architects and other real estate documentation referred to in the nine page attachment has not been shared with Heritage Toronto staff.

Further, we remind you that this is the third time the Church is seeking demolition of these historic houses. As with previous attempts, Heritage Toronto recommends refusal. We also request that the owner share with us their consulting Architect's Report. We are willing to meet with the Church's representatives and other parties concerned to find an alternative to demolition. If a suitable use could be found, Heritage Toronto would be prepared to recommend Designation under the Ontario Heritage Act and to support a restoration grant and other incentives that might be available as part of the King-Parliament area.

________

The following appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Rollo Myers, Coordinator, Citizens for the Old Town;

- Mr. John Ridout, President, Town of York Historical Society;

- Reverend Chris King, on behalf of the applicant;

- Ms. Judith Kennedy, on behalf of the applicant;

- Mr. Delbert Jackson, on behalf of the applicant;

- Mr. Douglas Grant, on behalf of the applicant;

- Mr. Howard Levine, Chair, Citizens for the Old Town;

- Mr. Ian Wheal, Ontario Society for Industrial Archaeology;

- Ms. Lenee Badhwar, Cabbagetown Preservation Association.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, had having before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 7, 1998) from Councillor McConnell;

- (January 5, 1998) from Mr. Rollo H.H. Myers;

- (January 8, 1998) from Mr. Howard Levine, Chair, Citizens for the Old Town;

- (January 6, 1998) from Ms. Marie Day;

- (January 6, 1998) from Ms. Vanena Laufer;

- (January 12, 1998) from Mr. Cyrus Sundar-Singh;

- (January 12, 1998) from Mr. Brian Anthony, Heritage Canada;

- (January 12, 1998) from Mr. Michael Cruickshank, York Heritage Properties;

- (January 17, 1998) from Mr. David Hutchinson;

- (January 19, 1998) from Mr. Delbert Jackson, on behalf of the applicant;

- (January 19, 1998) from Mr. Radford Cook, President, Corktown Residents & Business Association Inc.;

- (January 19, 1998) from Ms. Peggy Kurtin, President, Cabbagetown Preservation Association;

- (January 20, 1998) from Mr. Rodger W. McLennan;

- (January 20, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Morris;

- (January 20, 1998) from Mr. James Cowan, Hambros Canada Inc.;

- (January 19, 1998) from Helene St. Jacques, Colette French, Michael Thomas, QUEBA;

- (January 19, 1998) from Canlight Property Management, The Derby Condominiums;

- (January 20,1998) from Elenor Wright;

- (January 19, 1998) from William O. Menzel, Brown Beck & Ross Architect.

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (February 3, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report responds to a request from the Toronto Community Council for information regarding a tax exemption for two properties located at 399-403 King Street East.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of January 21, 1998, the Toronto Community Council requested that I report "directly to Council for its meeting to be held on February 4, 1998 on an exemption for the taxes to be paid on the properties located at 399-403 King Street East given that they are owned by a religious institution".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The properties at 399-403 King Street East are two semi-detached residential houses, both of which are vacant. Although the assessed owner is the Anglican Church - Trinity East, the properties are currently assessed as taxable. In 1997, the total assessment for both was $5,150.00 and taxes levied totaled $2,437.86.

Jurisdiction to determine property tax exemptions rests with Provincial Regional Assessment Commissioners and specific types of property that are eligible for tax exemptions are included in the Assessment Act. Section 3(3) of the Act provides for an exemption from property tax for "places of worship" for properties owned by a church or religious organization and used for the purposes of worship. Ancillary space such as a manse or rectory are taxable at the residential tax rate. Vacant buildings, owned by a church, are also taxable. The properties on King Street East, while owned by a church, are not being used for religious purposes and even if used for residential units, would remain taxable. However, the Regional Assessment Commissioner informs me that if these lands became vacant as is proposed by the owners, they would likely become exempt as they would be considered an extension of the main church property.

Conclusion:

Under existing provincial statute, provisions for tax exemptions for churches extend only to properties owned by a church which are used as places of worship. Ancillary uses such as residential units are taxable at the residential rate.

Contact Name:

Audrey Birt, Director, Revenue,

Phone: 392-7820, Fax: 392-0364, E-mail: abirt@city.toronto.on.ca.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications from the following individuals, in opposition to the proposal to demolish the properties at 399-403 King Street East:

(i) (January 26, 1998) from Mr. P. D. Pellier, Oakville, Ontario, forwarding a copy of a communication (January 26, 1998) addressed to the Anglican Diocese of Toronto;

(ii) (January 27, 1998) from Ms. E. Hudson, President, Toronto Region Architectural Conservancy;

(iii) (January 29, 1998) from Mr. R. W. McLennan, Toronto;

(iv) (January 30, 1998) from Ms. B. Dashwood, Toronto; and

(v) (undated) from Ms. C. Robson, Toronto.)

16

Status of Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act -

Implications for the Port of Toronto

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause, by:

(1) amending the recommendations of Toronto Community Council by:

(a) deleting from Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) the words "Toronto Community Council's" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Toronto City Council's"; and

(b) deleting from Recommendation No. (3) the words "Councillors from affected wards" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "interested Members of City Council"; and

(c) adding thereto the following new Recommendation No. (9):

"(9) the Mayor or his designate be requested to participate in this process.";

so that the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council shall now read as follows:

"The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Federal Government be advised of the Toronto City Council's position on BillC-9, the Canada Marine Act;

(2) the Senate Committee be notified of the Toronto City Council's position;

(3) appropriate officials and interested Members of City Council form a delegation to appear before the Senate Committee considering Bill C-9;

(4) the Senate Committee be requested to hold hearings in Toronto on the proposed Canada Marine Act;

(5) appropriate officials negotiate with the Federal Government on an alternative strategy for the administration of the Port and associated lands, beginning with an exemption from the proposed Canada Marine Act;

(6) appropriate officials prepare a full inventory, maps and an estimated evaluation of the value of the Toronto Harbour Commission's land, and that this inventory and evaluation be made available to all Councillors as soon as possible;

(7) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Toronto Community Council concerning the impact on the assets of the City of Toronto which would result from the federal takeover of the Toronto Harbour Commission lands;

(8) in the unfortunate event that the Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act, is passed by the Senate, the Federal Government be requested to remove the provision which excludes elected Members of Council from serving on the new Port Authority; and

(9) the Mayor or his designate be requested to participate in this process."; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) City Council request the Councillors who are members of the Toronto Harbour Commission to request an urgent meeting of the Toronto Harbour Commission to take place before the end of February in order to take a position on the new Port Authority legislation;

(b) the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to provide appropriate staff support to assist the delegation of Councillors in arranging, attending, and making a presentation to the Senate Committee on the question;

(c) the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services be requested to conduct an evaluation of the assets of the Toronto Harbour Commission and the municipal interest in those assets that will be lost by the passage of Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act; and

(d) a copy of the Clause, as adopted by Council, be referred to the Office of the Mayor, with a request that the Mayor meet with the GTA Members of the Federal Caucus or the appropriate Federal Officials to discuss this matter.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Federal Government be advised of the Toronto Community Council's position on Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act;

(2) the Senate Committee be notified of the Toronto Community Council's position;

(3) appropriate officials and Councillors from affected wards form a delegation to appear before the Senate Committee considering Bill C-9;

(4) the Senate Committee be requested to hold hearings in Toronto on the proposed Canada Marine Act;

(5) appropriate officials negotiate with the Federal Government on an alternative strategy for the administration of the Port and associated lands, beginning with an exemption from the proposed Canada Marine Act;

(6) appropriate officials prepare a full inventory, maps and an estimated evaluation of the value of the Toronto Harbour Commission's land, and that this inventory and evaluation be made available to all Councillors as soon as possible.

(7) the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report to the Toronto Community Council concerning the impact on the assets of the City of Toronto which would result from the federal takeover of the Toronto Harbour Commission lands; and

(8) in the unfortunate event that the Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act, is passed by the Senate, the Federal Government be requested to remove the provision which excludes elected Members of Council from serving on the new Port Authority.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1) reiterated its opposition to the federal takeover of the important waterfront land;

(2) referred this matter to the next meeting of the Toronto Community Council for deputations and directed that marina users and all interests on the waterfront be so advised.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

At the request of the Chair of the Toronto Community Council, I am informing you on the status of Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act, comment on some of the implications of the proposed Act for the City, and outline the position of the former City of Toronto Council on this matter.

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act, was passed by the House of Commons on December 4, 1997. The Bill is now before the Senate. The Act consolidates the federal legislation governing the establishment of port authorities, public ports and public port facilities and establishes a regulatory framework for the Federal government in relation to ports and harbours. The new Act proposes amendments to and repeals the existing Acts, including the Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Act 1911 and 1985. The main objective of the new Act is the creation of a system of ports which are competitive, efficient and commercially oriented.

The most significant impact of the new Act on the City will be the organizational structure affecting the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC). The THC will be replaced by the Toronto Port Authority having a seven member Board consisting of an appointee from the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government and four members nominated from the users of the Port. Currently, the THC consists of a five member Board with three appointees from the City. Provisions in the Act will permit the Toronto Port Authority to operate the port as well as hold and manage the lands it now owns. In addition, the new Act will allow a subsidiary of the Port Authority, established under the letters patent, to operate the airport. The Port Authority will be a federally affiliated body but will have to pay an annual stipend to the Federal Government based on gross tonnage values. The Port Authority will be required to make payments in lieu of taxes on all its land holdings. The THC does not pay realty taxes on any of the property it currently owns and occupies.

The previous City of Toronto Council opposed the introduction of the Canada Marine Act because it was assumed that the new Port Authority would be used by the Federal Government to gain control of the Port lands which were transferred by the THC to the Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO). The motions of the former City Council are attached and reflect Council's position that it should negotiate, with the Federal Government, an alternative strategy for the administration of the Port and associated lands beginning with an exemption from the provisions of the new Canada Marine Act. Currently, there are four Ontario municipalities seeking a similar condition whereby the municipality would be given a "first right of refusal" in accepting the organizational model offered by the Canada Marine Act.

The Senate resumes sitting in the first part of February 1998. There is no schedule or agenda available at this time. Bill C-9 could be referred to the Senate Transportation and Communication Committee where witnesses and/or submissions may be requested. However, any recommended changes to the Bill will require approval by the House of Commons. Otherwise, the Bill could be passed by the Senate sometime in March 1998.

Contact Name:

Joe D'Abramo

Telephone: (416) 392-7616

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: jdabramo@city.toronto.on.ca

________

Appendix I

City of Toronto Council Actions Concerning the Canada Marine Act

September 22, 1997

1. That Council re-affirm its position opposing the federal takeover of the port area and inform the Federal Government of our position.

2. That Council direct staff to map out a strategy for protection of the City's control of this land.

3. That Council convene a meeting of federal Liberal Members of Parliament in the Metro Toronto Area with the Mayor of Toronto, the Mayors of the other Metro Municipalities, the Chair of Metro Council, and interested Councillors to discuss the future of the port area.

4. That the Federal Government be requested to exempt the Corporation of the City of Toronto and its successor from the provision of any legislation with intent similar to that set out in the "Canada Marine Act" as considered by the last Federal Parliament".

5. That the Federal Government be requested not to make changes to the current Port and its administration.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (January 16, 1998) addressed to Councillor Rae from Councillor Chow:

I am writing to request that the Canada Marine Act be added as an agenda item on the January 21, 1998 Toronto Community Council agenda. I would also ask that appropriate staff be requested to provide a status report detailing how the new legislation will impact the City of Toronto.

It is my understanding that the Canada Marine Act is presently before the Senate and therefore must be dealt with urgently if we are to have any further input.

This matter is of considerable significance to Toronto and especially the citizens living along the waterfront. The role of the port and the Island Airport continues to attract intense public interest because of the waterfront's emerging role as a residential and recreational centre in the city. Any changes to the balance of use along the waterfront should be subject to extensive public consultation. Under the Canada Marine Act, with the port and airport being managed primarily by Federal appointees, the residents are very concerned about losing their opportunity to influence what happens to their communities on the waterfront.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

17

Role of the Community Councils

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) appropriate officials, in consultation with a team consisting of interested councillors, be requested to prepare a community information package on the Recreation and Parks user fee issue, enumerating the programs facing fees or fee hikes, listed by facility;

(2) appropriate officials be requested to provide all users, instructors, boards, residents' associations, community centres and libraries with the community information package referred to in Recommendation No. (1);

(3) appropriate officials be requested to prepare motions respecting delegation of powers concerning policy areas which could or should be delegated for final decisions to Community Councils.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having taken the following action:

(1) agreed that a group consisting of interested members of Toronto Community Council and citizens will meet and report back to the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998 on how the following goals outlined below could best be fulfilled and implemented:

(a) citizens are encouraged to play a strong role in decision-making, and Community Councils act and are responsible to the residents of the community;

(b) the Community Councils adopt and implement policies which strengthen communities by giving them better information and more control over decisions that affect them;

(c) Community Councils have the mandate to decide on the issues and policies important to communities, and to spend the funds needed to make those decisions meaningful; and

(d) Community Councils have the staff needed to carry out these tasks.

(2) requested the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to recommend to City Council that Recommendation #19 be amended to allow panels or sub-committees, to assist in the timing, administration and processing of agenda items before Community Councils;

(3) requested the Acting Executive Commissioner of Urban Development Services to report to the Community Council, at its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998, on a mechanism that would provide Councillors with timely notification of Committee of Adjustment appeals;

(4) referred the following motion from Councillor Pantalone to the Acting Executive Commissioner of Urban Development Services and requested her to report thereon to the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998:

"That the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be requested to recommend an amendment to the procedural by-law so that Committee of Adjustment decisions are not brought forward to the Community Council unless requested by the Ward Councillor or department head."

(5) referred the following motions from Councillor Johnston to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team:

"(1) That all traffic, parking and sidewalk matters on all City streets be considered by the Community Council;

(2) That all policy setting matters be considered by the appropriate Standing Committee, but with the input of the Community Councils".

The Community Council also reports having adopted the following motion placed by CouncillorLayton on behalf of Councillor Rae:

"WHEREAS the Interim Procedural By-law adopted by Council on January 2, 6, 8 and 9 requires that anyone wishing to make oral submissions to a Committee shall give written notice thereof including a written outline of the submissions to be made to the Committee secretary at least 8 days in advance of the Committee meeting;

AND WHEREAS the said Interim Procedural By-law enables the Committee to decide, by majority vote, to waive compliance with the aforesaid requirement;

AND WHEREAS the Toronto Community Council considers the aforesaid requirement to be a disincentive to open and accessible community participation in local government issues;

AND WHEREAS it is the mandate of Community Councils to afford all citizens an opportunity to participate in local decision-making;

NOW THEREFORE IT IS MOVED that the Toronto Community Council waive the requirements of s. 131(2) and 131(3) of the Interim Procedural By-law adopted by Council on January 2, 6, 8 and9, 1998, and hear oral submissions by any person in respect of matters on the agenda for any meeting of the Toronto Community Council, without the necessity of the deputant making written submissions in advance of the meeting.

________

Mr. John Sewell, on behalf of Citizens for Local Democracy, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Toronto Community Council reports having before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 20, 1998) from Mr. John Sewell

- (January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding City Council's action at its meeting held on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998 respecting Report of the Toronto Transition Team; and

- (January 21, 1998) from Councillor Kyle Rae.

(Copies of the foregoing communications are on file in the office of the City Clerk).

18

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause for information, subject to adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that, notwithstanding subsection 128(5) of the Council Procedural By-law, the City Clerk be requested to forward a copy of the report dated August27, 1997, from the Commissioner of City Works Services, as listed under Item(d), entitled 'Oakwood Avenue at its Intersection with Burlington Crescent - Installation of an all "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport)', to the Toronto Transit Commission, with a request that the Commission submit comments thereon to Toronto Community Council for its meeting scheduled to held on February18, 1998.".)

(a) 647 Gerrard Street East: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to Permit One Illuminated Projecting Sign (DonRiver).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred the following report until its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998:

(January 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services respecting 647Gerrard Street East: Request for Approval Of Variances From Chapter 297, Signs, Of The City Of Toronto Municipal Code To Permit One Illuminated Projecting Sign (Don River) and recommending that the application be refused.

(b) 69 Bloor Street East: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to Permit One Undefined, Illuminated Non-encroaching Sign on the North and West Elevations of the Third Storey, Containing Animated and Changeable Copy (Downtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred the following report until its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998:

(September 4, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services respecting 69 Bloor Street East: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one undefined, illuminated non-encroaching sign on the north and west elevations of the third storey, containing animated and changeable copy (Downtown), and recommending that the application be refused.

(c) 928 Bloor Street West - Designation Under Part Iv of the Ontario Heritage Act (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(December 17, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk, former City of Toronto respecting 928Bloor Street West - Designation Under Part IV of The Ontario Heritage Act (Davenport), and recommending that the report be received for information.

(d) Oakwood Avenue at its Intersection with Burlington Crescent - Installation of an all "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred the following report until its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998:

(August 27, 1997) from the Commissioner of City Works Services respecting Oakwood Avenue at its Intersection with Burlington Crescent - Installation of an All "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport), and recommending that the report be received for information.

(e) Public Hearing - Maintenance of a Wooden Fence - 745 Markham Street (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred the following report until its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998; and

(2) requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services to report on the policy and process for fences; such report to include the roles and responsibilities of the applicant, staff and the Community Council, suggested ways to provide for community input and also setting out a dispute resolution process:.

(January 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of City Works Services respecting Maintenance of a Wooden Fence - 745 Markham Street (Midtown), and recommending that City Council approve the maintenance of the wooden fence within the City boulevard fronting 745Markham Street, provided that the height of the fence is reduced so as not to exceed 1.0m and subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

(f) Preliminary Report on Application No. 197024 to Amend Site Specific By-law No.22037 to Permit a Reduction in the Number of Parking Spaces Required for 103-105 West Lodge Avenue (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) adopted the following preliminary report; and

(2) requested the applicant to provide the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services with a report on the demolition of the garage at 103-105West Lodge Avenue, for submission to the public meeting to be held in the community:

(January 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services on Application No.197024 to amend Site Specific By-law 22037 to permit a reduction in the Number of Parking Spaces required for 103-105 West Lodge Avenue (High Park), and recommending that:

(1) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify tenants and owners within 120 metres of the site and the Parkdale Village BIA and the Roncesvalles/Macdonell Residents Association and the Ward Councillors;

(2) the owner submit to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services a parking study satisfactory to the Commissioner of City Works Services; and

(3) the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they related to this project by the Commissioner of City Works Services.

(g) Preliminary Report on Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 197018 to Permit a 4-storey Mixed-use Building Containing Ground Floor Retail Space and 40 Residential Units - 1117 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(January 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services on Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 197018 to permit a 4-storey Mixed-use Building containing Ground Floor Retail Space and 40 Residential Units - 1117 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that:

(1) the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify tenants and owners within 120 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors; and

(2) the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project by the Commissioner of City Works Services.

(h) 92 Avenue Road: Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to Permit One Illuminated Fascia Sign (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred the following report until its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998:

(January 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services respecting 92Avenue Road: Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City Of Toronto Municipal Code to Permit one illuminated fascia sign (Midtown), and recommending:

(1) that City Council approve Application No. 997083, as revised, respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign; and

(2) that the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997083, as revised, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

(i) 794 Bathurst Street: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to Maintain Seven Illuminated Fascia Signs (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred the following until its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998, for deputations:

(1) (January 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services respecting 794 Bathurst Street: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain Seven Illuminated Fascia Signs (Midtown), and recommending:

(1) that City Council approval Application No. 997100 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain seven illuminated fascia signs; and

(2) that the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997100, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services; and

(2) Motion placed by Councillor Adams:

"That City Council refuse Application No. 997100 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain seven illuminated fascia signs, because the extensive encroachment onto the second floor level has resulted in unnecessarily prominent signage which also sets an undesirable precedent for other properties along this section of Bloor Street West."

(j) 50 Prince Arthur Avenue - Committee of Adjustment Hearing and Potential Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred the communication (September 7, 1997) from Councillor Adams respecting 50 Prince Arthur Avenue - Committee of Adjustment Hearing and Potential Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board (Midtown) until its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998 (such communication requests that City Council give instructions to the City Solicitor, if necessary, to deal with this application in the event that the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is appealed by any party to the Ontario Municipal Board); and

(2) requested the Acting Executive Commissioner of Urban Development Services to report on the Rezoning Application at that time.

(k) 17 Elwood Boulevard - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(December 1, 1997) from the City Solicitor respecting 17 Elwood Boulevard - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (North Toronto) and recommending that the report be received for information.

(l) 44 Price Street - Toronto Lawn Tennis Club - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(October 14, 1997) from the City Solicitor respecting 44 Price Street - Toronto Lawn Tennis Club - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Midtown), and recommending that the report be received for information.

(m) Appeals.

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Acting Executive Commissioner of Emergency and Protective Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on:

(1) the following appeals, for deputations:

(2) a mechanism whereby a poll could be conducted in respect of boulevard cafe applications within the 2 year time frame if there is an indication that opinion in the neighbourhood respecting an application has changed:

(i) (December 1, 1997) from Mr. Mark Kowalczyk - Vending Appeal - Wellington Street West (Downtown);

(ii) (December 9, 1997) from Mr. M.J. Anderson, President, The Parking Authority of Toronto -Commercial Boulevard Parking Application Appeal -30Alvin Avenue - (Midtown);

(iii) (September 8, 1997) from Ms. Gina Tapper - Front Yard Parking Appeal - 17Lynwood Avenue (Midtown);

(iv) (July 12, 1997) from Ms. Kerri Larson - Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 1212Dundas Street West, Cafe Aquario (Trinity-Niagara);

(v) (July 12, 1997) from Ms. Kerri Larson - Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 495Eglinton Avenue West, Autogrill Restaurant (North Toronto);

(vi) (December 19, 1997) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, Environmental Probe Ltd. - Boulevard Cafe Privileges Appeal - 1510 Yonge Street - Delisle Avenue Flankage And 2387 Yonge Street - Broadway Avenue Flankage (North Toronto And Midtown);

(vii) (July 12, 1997) from Ms. Kerri Larson - Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 1043Gerrard Street East, B-52 Restaurant & Bar (Don River);

(viii) (July 12, 1997) from Ms. Kerri Larson - Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 889QueenStreet East, King Muffin (Don River);

(ix) (July 12, 1997) from Ms. Kerri Larson - Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 1021Gerrard Street East, King Muffin II (Don River);

(x) (January 6, 1998) From Mr. G. Francis Deck - Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 45Eglinton Avenue East, Holly Street Flankage (North Toronto);

(xi) (January 20, 1998) from Mr. Gilbert Formella - Vending Appeal - Scott Street East Side (Downtown);

(xii) (October 14, 1998) from Mr. Norman Day - Front Yard Parking Appeal - 17Marlborough Avenue (Midtown); and

(xiii) (October 4, 1997) from Mr. Konstantinos Koutoumanos - Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 2827 Dundas Street West - Shoxs Cafe And Billiard Lounge (Davenport).

(n) Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising.

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the Urban Environment and Development Committee to defer this matter to its subsequent meeting;

(2) requested the Acting Executive Commissioner of Emergency and Protective Services to canvas the Community Councils for their positions;

(3) requested the Acting Executive Commissioner of Emergency and Protective Services to convene a meeting of staff from the former municipalities to prepare a comprehensive report with options for the consideration of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and subsequently to City Council;

(4) referred the following motion from Councillor Adams:

"That the Toronto Community Council affirm the position of the former City of Toronto that advertising signage on outdoor telephone booths on private property not be permitted, and forward that position to the Urban Environment and Development Committee"; and

(5) forwarded the former City of Toronto's position on this matter to the Urban Environment and Development Committee.

(o) 153 Bowood Avenue: OMB Hearing (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(January 20, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting 153 Bowood Avenue: OMB Hearing (North Toronto) and recommending that the report be received for information.

(p) Minor Changes to Permit Parking Hours of Operation on Manning Avenue (from Harbord Street to Ulster Street).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred the following communication for deputations until its meeting to be held on February 18 and 19, 1998, to permit the statutory requirements to be fulfilled, and having requested the City Solicitor to submit the draft by-law for consideration at that time:

(undated) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva respecting Minor Changes to permit parking hours of operation on Manning Avenue (from Harbord Street to Ulster Street) and recommending:

(1) that this item be introduced at the Toronto Community Council meeting of January21, 1998;

(2) that the requirement for advertisement and subsequent possible hearing in the reduction of permit parking hours for 15 minutes (from 12 midnight to 10 a.m. to 12midnight to 9:45 a.m.) be waived in this circumstance;

(3) that the Permit Parking hours by-law for Manning Avenue (from Harbord Street to Ulster Street) be adjusted by the afore-mentioned 15 minutes;

(4) that the City Solicitor introduce the necessary amending bill at the City Council meeting of February 4, 1998; and

(5) that officials give effect thereto.

(Councillor Balkissoon, at the meeting of City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in Item (n), headed "Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he is an employee of Bell Canada.)

(Councillor Giansante, at the meeting of City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in Item (n), headed "Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that his wife is an employee of Bell Canada.)

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, January 21, 1998

(Report No. 1 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998.)