School Levy - 2276 Lake Shore Boulevard West

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 3, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide further information relating to the clearance of the requirement as stipulated by the City, regarding an agreement between the Toronto District Board and the Developer.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that financial conditions to approval in plans of subdivision and site control agreements should be cleared by written compliance rather than verbal advice.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Clause 16 in Report No. 6 of the Etobicoke Community Council, as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on June 3, 4, and 5, 1998, directed that a report to the Etobicoke Community Council be submitted as to the reasons why the contribution to the School Board was not received as required under the Development Agreement for phase one of the project. A report dated July 20, 1998, was provided to the Etobicoke Community Council setting forth the history of the negotiations between the parties. The report indicated that the condition relating to the agreement between the school board and the developer was released by the City on receipt of verbal advice.

At its meeting held on Wednesday, July 22, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council requested a further report as to the exact nature of the release of the condition.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The development proposal was circulated in the usual course. One of the standard conditions for approval was that the developer was required to resolve levies and financial contributions toward the provision of school services, including the signing of any necessary agreements to the satisfaction of the City of Etobicoke.

On March 17, 1997, Fabian Bianchi forwarded a memorandum to Paulo Stellato in which Mr. Bianchi enclosed certain clearance letters relating to conditions imposed upon the developer. Included in that package was a letter dated December 12, 1996, from the Board of Education for the City of Etobicoke to the consultants, in which the Board of Education provides the consultants with comments regarding the draft agreement, and an amended draft agreement for execution.

In a note to file dated May 9, 1997, Paulo Stellato indicated that "T. Davidson advises that the School Board issues (have) been resolved." Additionally, Mr. Stellato indicated that he "spoke to S. Daoust and Mario Da Silva, who confirmed that the condition has been addressed (ConditionNo. 14) and the draft plan can go forward. Said the Applicant's Consultant had negotiated a settlement?"

By memorandum dated July 9, 1997, Paulo Stellato advised Metro Planning that the issue of financial contributions for school services had been resolved, making reference to the letter dated December12, 1996, from the Board of Education for the City of Etobicoke.

According to Sherryl Daoust, the Board provides a compliance letter, when compliance is obtained. In speaking with Ms. Daoust, she confirmed that no compliance letter was issued. Additionally, Ms.Daoust recalls that she did not give any verbal clearance to the City.

Mario Silva (referred to above as Mario Da Silva) recalls that he did not give any verbal clearance to the City.

Conclusions:

Financial conditions to approval and plans of subdivision and site control agreements should be cleared by way of written compliance letters, rather than verbal advice. The use of written compliance letters not only eliminates ambiguity, but provides a permanent record for the file.

Contact Name:

John R. Hart, Solicitor

Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson

Tel: (416) 622-6601, Fax: (416) 622-4713