The York Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and the York Solicitor be authorized to advise the Ontario Municipal Board at the Prehearing Conference regarding the above matter, scheduled to be held on April 6, 1998, that:

(1) the York Community Council is requesting approval of the former City of York By-law No. 3623-97, as it applies to the former City of York, save and except those lands with respect to which appeals have been filed, and those lands zoned R-1; and

(2) the York Community Council has no objection to the adding of any former City of York resident, as a party to the Prehearing Conference regarding By-law No. 3623-97.

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services to:

(a) direct the York Commissioner of Development Services, to report to the next meeting of the York Community Council, on the possibility of adding a depth limitation to the provisions of the former City of York By-law No. 3623-97; and

(b) report on proposed methods to introduce additional preservation measures for the ravine side of Strathearn Road between Cedarvale Park and Bathurst Street, including the feasibility of increasing the minimum frontages applied to this street, in order to preserve the established character of the area.

The York Community Council submits the following communication (February 11, 1998) from Mr. Robert Truman:

Please take this as a request from me and others to make a deputation to the York Community Council at its meeting of April 1.

The purpose of this deputation is to provide additional information to the Council which they did not have when the by-law was enacted, and to request the Community Council to reconsider the by-law, particularly as it applies to the area of smaller (predominantly 25 foot) lots west of Jane Street, south of Dundas Street.

My reasons for this request are several.

First, I believe the amount of development permitted by the by-law is excessive for the area.

No study was done of the area to determine the impact and effect of the by-law. The analysis which preceded the enactment of the by-law by York Council consisted primarily, if not exclusively, of a review of Committee of Adjustment applications for a four year period, of which less than 4% were in the area described above.

Second, I am certain that I, and most, if not all, of my neighbours, did not receive notice of the by-law's enactment. The lack of interest at your Council's public hearing where, I understand, three people attended but did not speak, and only two written submissions, should have been an indication of the inadequacy of the notice given for a matter that affected a large portion of the City and its residents.

Thirdly, notwithstanding the notice matter, the introduction of zoning changes of this magnitude should be done on the basis of neighbourhood consultation and analysis, and not on a City-wide basis. There is simply too much variety within the boundaries of the former City of York to permit the generalization of the type proposed in this by-law.

Finally, I have some experience in these matters and I agree it is important to permit change without every application going to the Committee of Adjustment. However, I am not aware of any municipality where this objective has been accompanied by such an extravagant, and potentially harmful, increase in development rights.

I have, incidentally, met with the Planning and Legal staff and I am satisfied that there are no further grounds for discussion with staff in the absence of directions from Council.

I appreciate your assistance in this matter and I would also like to receive confirmation of the date and time of the Council meeting.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (February 11, 1998) from Mr. Robert Truman to Ms. Diana Macri, Secretary and C.A.O., Ontario Municipal Board:

I previously wrote to the Board on November 12, 1997, outlining my concerns and requesting party status in this matter.

I am now writing to confirm that I, and others in the neighbourhood, are hoping to address the York Community Council on this matter on April 1. However, as of this date, discussions with the staff have not resolved any of the concerns I had when I originally wrote to the OMB.

I would like to raise some procedural questions.

First, I requested party status in my letter of November 12, 1997 and provided a copy of that letter to the City Clerk. Am I to provide copies of that request to the other parties? If so, I would appreciate being provided with a list of those to whom any further notice is to be given.

Second, I understand the municipality might request that those parts of the by-law not subject to a formal objection, be approved. Would the Board deal with such a request prior to dealing with the issue of party status for myself and others?

Third, while I am prepared to give evidence on the substance of my concerns about the by-law at any time, I believe the question of notice should be dealt with as a preliminary matter.

Notice was given in the form of a display ad in a weekly paper, the York Guardian, and I believe that notice was inadequate by any standard.

More importantly, based on my own recollections and based on my discussions with may people in my immediate area, I am satisfied that we received no notice at all. The municipality seems to assume that the York Guardian is delivered door-to-door on a weekly basis and it may in fact be in other areas of the City. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from the then City of York Clerk where he makes that assumption.

Since my letter to the Clerk, I have received two issues of the York Guardian, one in December after discussing the matter with an official of the City, and one, inexplicably, last weekend. I don't see how one could assume that notice was given to us by the use of this paper.

I would like to request the OMB to direct the municipality to give better notice of the proposed by-law. Could you please advise me of the proper way of bringing such a motion and must I be added as a party first.

I will appreciate any assistance you can provide."

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (February 5, 1998) from the Acting Secretary, Ontario Municipal Board:

At the request of AJP Investments Ltd., Robert and Sandra Carson, Kaukab Billah, Kinsale Investments Ltd., 1087993 Ontario Limited and 1179510 Ontario Inc., the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has referred to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 17 (11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, proposed Amendment No. 127 to the Official Plan for the former City of York, now the City of Toronto.

Minister's File No. 20-OP-0002-127

OMB File No. 0960036 Case No. PL968690

Kinsale Investments Limited, Kaukab Billah and Marl L. Kerr have appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board under subsection 34(11) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c P.13, as amended, against Zoning By-law 3623-97 of the former City of York, now the City of Toronto.

OMB File No. R970320 Case No. PL971323

The Ontario Municipal Board will conduct a prehearing conference respecting this matter.

If you do not attend the prehearing conference, the Ontario Municipal Board may proceed in your absence and you will not be entitled to any further notice of these proceedings.

TIME AND PLACE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE:

A prehearing conference will be held in the Council Chamber, York Civic Centre, 2700 Eglinton Avenue West, on Monday, 6, 1998, at 10:00 a.m.

PURPOSE OF PREHEARING CONFERENCE:

The conference will deal with preliminary and procedural matters, including the following:

- Identification of parties. These persons have the right to participate throughout by presenting evidence, questioning witnesses, and making final arguments. In order for the Board to determine your status for the hearing, you or your representative should attend the prehearing conference and ask to be added as a party. Groups, whether incorporated or not, who wish to become parties should name a representative. Parties do not need to be represented by lawyers.

- Identification of participants. Persons who do not wish to participate throughout the hearing may attend the hearing and make a statement to the Board. Such persons should also attend the prehearing conference.

- Identification of issues.

- Start date of the hearing.

- Duration of the hearing.

- Directions for prefiling of witness lists, expert witness statements and written evidence.

- Possibility of settlement of any or all of the issues.

- The hearing of motions.

- Such further matters as the Board considers appropriate.

Everyone present should come prepared to consider specific dates for proceedings in this matter.

EVIDENCE:

Evidence or formal statements may also be heard at the prehearing conference in an attempt to settle the matters in dispute. Note that even if no settlement is reached the Board may make a final decision on the evidence it has received.

All parties or their representatives should attend the prehearing conference.

DATED at Toronto this 5th day of February, 1998.

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (March 31, 1998) from Ms. Margo Duncan and Ms. Sandra Melville, Co-Chairs, Warren Park Ratepayers' Association:

On behalf of the Warren Park Ratepayers' Association, we are requesting that the hearing for the By-law No. 3623-97 be postponed, that the by-law be revoked pending further studies into the ramifications of this said by-law.

It is also being requested that due to the fact that proper notification was not, prior to submission of this by-law, forwarded to our neighbourhood association or to our residents on an individual basis allowing people time to read and understand and therefore be able to make an educated decision regarding the by-law changes.

The fact that no community member addressed the council on this important matter, should provide some insight into the lack of proper notification to the public at large. As well the apparent notification in "The Guardian", provided no real indication of the magnitude of the proposed changes in understandable terms and how it would affect each and every neighbourhood.

This by-law provides a major change in the procedures that, in the past, have required Committee of Adjustment approval. Taking away the process of notification to neighbours could be disastrous (where neighbours do not get along) in what would appear to be allowances of up to a 50% addition to dwellings without having to go before Committee of Adjustment. This is extreme on the other side from what had been in effect.

We need further clarification of this by-law change and are requesting that the hearing be postponed pending full neighbourhood hearings as to how this will affect all of us.

Further information can be addressed to Warren Park Ratepayers' Association, Toronto.

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

- Mr. Robert Truman;

- Ms. Sandra Melville, Warren Park Ratepayers' Association; and

- Ms. Marjorie Sutton.

(A copy of the aforementioned former City of York By-Law No. 3623-97, To Amend former City of York By-law No. 1-83, is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)