July 8, 1998

 To:Toronto Community Council

 From:Angie Antoniou, Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services

 Subject:Maintenance of a Fence - Palmerston Avenue Flank of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens (Midtown)

 Purpose:

 To report on a fence which was approved and constructed in compliance with § 313-33 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and subsequently objected to by four of the six homeowners located within the same block as the fence. As these residents are requesting that the fence be modified, this matter is scheduled as a deputation item.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 Should removal or modification of the fence be required, the fence owner may make a claim against the City for the cost of the fence and its removal or its modification. Costs of such claim are unknown at this time.

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)the 1.8 m high fence on the Palmerston Avenue flank of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens be permitted to remain;

 OR

 (2)that the property owners of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens be required to modify the fence so that it does not exceed 1.0 m in height;

 OR

 (3)that the property owners of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens be required to remove the fence from the City boulevard.

   Background:

 The City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of October 9, 1996, received my report dated September 3, 1996 and requested the deputants to convene a meeting between themselves to try and resolve a dispute over a fence on the City street allowance. The fence was constructed with the City's permission according to the by-law. The parties have been unable to come to any resolution and so I am reporting again.

 Comments:

 Mr. David Pratt and Mrs. Natasha Pratt, owners of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1V8, submitted an application on June 27, 1994, requesting permission to construct a 1.8 m high wooden fence on the Palmerston Avenue flank. The application met the criteria set out in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and was approved on April 13, 1995. The fence was constructed in accordance with the by-law and the required fence agreement has been executed. Subsequently, four of the six property owners, located on the same block as the fence, objected to the fence.

 Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code regulates the construction and maintenance of fences within street allowances. Section 313-33 permits a fence up to 1.9 m in height beyond the front wall of the building. The fence must comply with various criteria in the Code, and must be circulated to the Ward Councillor (there is no separate circulation to area residents). Where no objections are received, the application is approved and the owner is required to obtain a permit and enter into a fence agreement.

 The four property owners object to the fence, as built, because it:

 (a)obstructs the view of the street and park across the street;

 (b)limits their view of their children beyond the limit of the fence;

 (c)creates a safety hazard for pedestrians by obscuring the view of people on bikes or roller blades;

 (d)provides an enclosure for people who may be loitering in the area; and

 (e)is not consistent with the front yards of the houses on Palmerston Avenue.

 In a letter dated May 6, 1997, one of the adjacent property owners advised that there had been no further progress on this matter since the former City Services Committee's request and asked that the City take further action to address their opposition to the fence. In response, City staff tried to coordinate a meeting with two of the property owners, the applicant and a conflict resolution mediator from the St. Stephen's Community House. The fence owner, however, declined participation.

 Two additional letters dated May 22, 1998 and June 4, 1998, have been received from one of the abutting property owners noting that No. 1 Palmerston Gardens is now occupied by tenants using the area enclosed by the fence for storage and again requesting that the City take further action to address their opposition to the fence. In response, this report is being submitted for your Committee's consideration.

 Conclusions:

 As attempts to have the four concerned property owners and the fence owners work out a resolution to this problem have been unsuccessful, it would be helpful for Council to reaffirm the original approval of the fence and permit it to remain as constructed or, in consideration of the residents concerns, require the fence owner to modify or remove the fence.

 If Council decides to reopen this matter and decides to require the fence to be removed or modified, there is a concern that a precedent would be set as we deal with approximately 110 fence applications annually and currently have over 1200 agreements for fences on file.

 Contact Name and Telephone Number:

 Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

      Acting Assistant Director

 (p:\1998\ug\cws\bae\to981088.bae) - gp