Temporary Use By-law Application UD52-98-01 -

Alysse Fogel - 31 Foursome Crescent -

North York Centre South

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (September 24, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Alysse Fogel regarding Temporary Use By-law Application for 31 Foursome Crescent, be refused:

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 24, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this application is to evaluate an application for a temporary use by-law to legalize a professional medical office (dietician's practice) as a home occupation for a period of three years.

Financial Implications:

None

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application be refused.

Background:

The proposal is for a temporary use by-law to permit an existing 19m² dietician's office in a portion of the basement of a two-storey, single detached dwelling for a three year period. The applicant has indicated that a three year temporary use would enable her to continue the business while caring for young children. This application was submitted in response to By-law Enforcement issuing a Notice of Violation dated April 1, 1998, for having a commercial operation on site which is not permitted under the current zoning. The site statistics are as follows:

Site Location:

The site is located at 31 Foursome Crescent, opposite Charo Road. Single detached houses surround the property and it is situated within the interior of a stable residential neighbourhood.

Official Plan

The lands are designated Residential Density One (RD1) which permits primarily single and semi detached dwellings. The official plan also permits minor commercial uses provided they are ancillary to the residential use and serve the local population.

Zoning By-law

The property is zoned One Family Detached Fourth Density Zone (R4). A dietician's office (professional medical office) is not a permitted use in the R4 zone.

Department Comments:

The Works and Emergency Services Department indicates that the applicant is to arrange for private waste collection for the business portion of the dwelling (Schedule D).

Transportation Services indicate that all parking associated with the dietician's office is to be contained on the site (Schedule E).

Community Input:

Through petitions, letters and telephone calls to the Planning Department and to the offices of the local councillors, area residents have expressed concerns related to the impact of the business operation on the residential neighbourhood. It is our understanding that the business began operation approximately one year ago on Foursome Crescent and residents have indicated an increase in traffic, safety concerns for local children, insufficient on-site parking, a large volume of clients and other issues listed in the attached correspondence (Appendix "A").

Discussion:

Policy Context for Home Occupations

Council is guided by principles that aim to enhance residential neighbourhoods and ensure that they continue as pleasant and safe living environments. The Official Plan establishes that a minor commercial use may be permitted in a residential neighbourhood provided it is ancillary to the residential use and serves the local population. Given the nature of the dietician's practice as described by the applicant (Appendix B), this proposed commercial use does not primarily serve the local neighbourhood nor can it be considered a minor ancillary use on days of operation due to the client traffic it generates.

During the preparation of housing policies (OPA 377) staff specifically did not recommend professional medical offices as home occupations. A dietician's office is defined as a "professional medical office" under the previous and current zoning by-laws and theref-ore has never been a permitted home occupation use.

Council removed offices of doctors, dentists and drugless practitioners as permitted home occupation uses from By-law No. 7625 in 1996 recognizing the many changes that had taken place in the health care delivery field over time. These uses no longer serve local residents and their characteristics resemble commercial uses rather than the residential characteristics anticipated by home occupation uses. These businesses draw clients to the neighbourhood and result in a pattern of traffic and visitation that is not typical of residential uses. The only remaining home occupations in the zoning by-law that are permitted as-of-right are teachers of academic subjects or music, provided that only one student is taught at a time.

Impact on the Residential Neighbourhood

Home occupations are not supported where there are impacts generated by the proposed use on surrounding residences. The compatibility criteria outlined in Appendix C were developed by staff as part of the housing policies and have been used to assess the impacts of previous home occupation applications. These criteria have been used as a guideline for the evaluation of this application. The applicant was requested to provide additional information to enable the adequate assessment of the impact of this proposal on the surrounding area (Appendix B).

a)Information Provided by the Applicant Respecting Business Operations

The applicant indicates that the office operates on Mondays from 11:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and on Wednesdays between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The applicant works out of the premises and when on vacation an outside associate comes to this home office and covers the practice for approximately 65 percent of the usual hours. Client traffic includes 20 to 35 patients per day at approximately 15 minute intervals. On average, 2 new patients are seen per day for 60 minute visits. The business draws 75 percent of its clients from the Thornhill area along the Yonge and Leslie Street corridors and 25 percent of the clients originate from further south to Eglinton Avenue. Parking is provided on the driveway which accommodates two cars. In addition, overflow parking is accommodated on Charo Road and occasionally on Foursome Crescent.

b)Compatibility Analysis

The characteristics of the dietician's office are such that it is substantially apparent to persons outside the residence as the client traffic is not typical of visitation in an interior residential community and on days of operation it becomes the primary use on the site. The business does not primarily serve the local population as the majority of clients are drawn from elsewhere. The applicant has an outside associate who covers her vacation time, so the business operates similar to a commercial office rather than a home occupation. The business has become a public nuisance based on the strong response of area residents to its operation and the municipality has commenced legal action in response to by-law contravention. The overall impacts of the proposed dietician's office jeopardize the stability of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Temporary Use

Past applications for temporary use bylaws have generally been for interim uses pending future redevelopment of a site or local investment area. Foursome Crescent is located in the interior of a neighbourhood of well maintained single family residential homes between Yonge Street, Bayview Avenue, Highway 401 and York Mills Road. There is no evidence of decline in the area and there are no recent applications in the nearby vicinity requesting redevelopment. The continuation of the proposed medical office use for a three year period could inappropriately establish this use on site. There is also the potential for the business to expand beyond current operating parameters as the applicant sees, on average, two new clients per day. A commercial use for this stable residential enclave is inappropriate, regardless of imposed time frames.

Conclusions:

The introduction of a dietician's office for a period of three years is inappropriate in this stable residential area as the use serves a population well beyond the local neighbourhood. Council removed offices of doctors, dentists and drugless practitioners from the home occupation category in the zoning by-law due to the incompatibility of these types of uses with residential areas. The proposed medical office will impact the stability of this well-established residential neighbourhood. This medical office use can be relocated to other premises within the City which are already zoned for this purpose. Refusal of this application is recommended.

Contact Name:

Mary McElroy

Telephone: (416) 395-7143

(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:

(i)(October 8, 1998) from Jean Roy forwarding a petition signed by 19 area residents in opposition to the application;

(ii)(October 7, 1998) from Ms. Josephine Cosentino, expressing her concerns with the application;

(iii)(October 6, 1998) from D. Badger, concurring with the staff recommendation of refusal of the application;

(iv)(September 30, 1998) from Mr. John H. Stevens, advising of his opposition to the application;

(v)(September 30, 1998) from Macgregor and Diane Small, advising of their objections to the application;

(vi)(September 29, 1998) from Ms. Merle Lightbound, expressing her views with the application;

(vii)(September 29, 1998) from Mr. Peter Scats, expressing his opposition to the application;

(viii)(September 29, 1998 and September 3, 1998) from Ms. Carolyn J. Hopkins, expressing her concerns and objections to the application;

(ix)(September 28, 1998) from Stephen and Deborah Dunn advising of their opposition to the application; and

(x)(undated) from Ms. Ida Jacobs, advising of her opposition to the application.

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

-Mr. Murray Chusid, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, who commented on the merits of the application. During his submission he indicated that one of the reasons he believes that there is opposition from both the Planning Department and the neighbours is because this application goes against the traditional suburban view of planning. With advancement in computer technology many people find it easier to work from their home rather than going to the office. In his opinion the City should be conducting a study of this and determining how prevalent this is throughout residential areas. In this particular case his client spends two days a week in her home seeing people for dietician type of advice. This type of use does not create a dangerous situation.

Mr. Chusid requested that this matter be deferred until such time as an appropriate study is conducted by staff. He also pointed out that Community Council could, as a condition of approval, regulate the hours for this dietician's office. He believed however that since there is a trend in the direction of mixed uses and a return of vitality within neighbourhoods, that home occupations uses such as this be studied within a different kind of planning context.

-Mr. Gordon Sterling, Board Member, on behalf of the St. Andrew's Ratepayers Association, who expressed the Association's concerns with the application. During his submission he indicated that prior to submitting this application, the applicant sought the Association's support. The Executive Committee suggested some ideas that would resolve problems with parking, traffic and influx of patients or alternatively look for office space in the nearby plaza. After considerable deliberation the St. Andrew's Ratepayer Association is of the opinion that a professional medical office is not appropriate in their community and support the conclusions of the planning report which states that a dietician's office is inappropriate in this stable residential area. The Association is also concerned about the precedent setting nature of this application.

In concluding Mr. Sterling requested that the Community Council refuse the application; ensure that the existing by-law be enforced and the business operation cease while this application is under review.

-Mr. Gordon Weinstein, on behalf of the Foursome Neighbourhoods; who spoke in opposition to the application. During his submission, Mr. Weinstein indicated that the Association supported the recommendations of planning staff and requested that the Community Council refuse the application. In his opinion the introduction of a business in a stable residential neighbourhood is neither good planning or good sense. He further indicated that a deferral of the application would only allow the applicant to continue her business without the necessary approvals until the study referred to by the applicant's solicitor has been completed. While he was sympathetic to the applicant, he believed that an alternate location should be explored.

-Ms. Jane Stephens, who commented in opposition to the application. During her submission she indicated that since this business has been in operation, the traffic on Foursome Crescent has increased. She has also noted that since some of these patients are running late for their appointments, they speed through stop signs thereby creating a hazardous situation for children living on this street.

Ms. Stephens further indicated that the existing by-law does not allow this type of use and the application should be refused. She also requested that the current by-law be enforced and the applicant be encouraged to look for another location for her business.

-Mr. Mel Schwartz, who spoke in opposition to the application. During his submission he indicated that there is an almost unanimous rejection of this application by the residents. In his opinion, any business that generates client traffic of approximately 20 to 35 patients per day at approximately 15 minute intervals belongs in a commercially zoned setting and not an established residential neighbourhood. He believed that allowing this use would jeopardize the stability of this residential neighbourhood. In his opinion there are real human concerns which go beyond planning concerns. The City should cherish and promote this type of residential community. To defer consideration of this application for a study is merely a delay tactic.

Mr. Schwartz concluded by requesting the Community Council to support the planning recommendations and the residents.

________

A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, King

AGAINST:Councillor Feldman

ABSENT:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Gardner, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

Carried