Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process
(High Park)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1) Recommendation Nos. (1) - (18) contained in Section 4 of the joint
report (October 22, 1999) from the Executive Director/Chief
Building Official, South District, Executive Director/Chief Planner,
Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards and the
General Manager, Shelter Housing and Support Division be
adopted; and
(2) the report (December 22, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of
Urban Development Services be adopted.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council,
having:
(1) approved in principle the allocation of $250,000 annually (for two
years) to fund the operations of the Parkdale Pilot Project Group;
and
(2) referred the allocation of the $250,000 for the Parkdale Pilot Project
Group to the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development
Services, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Budget
Advisory Committee for consideration during preparation of the
2000 Operating Budget.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint report
(October 22, 1999) from the Executive Director/Chief Building Official,
South District; Executive Director/Chief Planner; Executive Director,
Municipal Licensing and Standards; and the General Manager, Shelter,
Housing and Support Division:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the status of the
Parkdale conflict mediation process; to propose an approach to
resolving the bachelorette housing issues, and, to seek Council
direction to convene a Public Meeting to discuss the recommendations
of this report.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Since the establishment of the Parkdale Pilot Project Group would
require the allocation of $410,000 per annum for two years to fund the
creation and operation of the Project, this report should be referred to
the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services, and
Community and Neighbourhood Services, the Chief Financial Officer and
the Budget Advisory Committee as per the "Financial Control Protocols
within the Revised Council-Committee Structure" which was adopted by
Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Council:
1. approve, in principle, recommendations 1 to 18 in Section 4 of this
report;
2. defer recommendation 19 in Section 4 of this report to the Toronto
Community Council meeting of December 2, 1999, pending the
conclusion of on-going discussions with stakeholders;
3. authorize staff to convene a Public Meeting to present the
recommended approach;
4. direct staff to report further on the detailed staffing and financial
implications of implementing this approach; and,
5. refer this report to the Commissioners of Urban Planning and
Development Services, Community and Neighbourhood Services,
and the Chief Financial Officer for consideration during the 2000
Operating Budget process.
Background:
At its meeting of October 14, 1998, Toronto Community Council
convened a Public Meeting to consider a report from the Commissioner
of Urban Planning and Development Services that included the following
recommendations:
(1) creation of a conflict resolution process to achieve consensus on
the appropriate approach the City should take to the existing
bachelorettes and illegal rooming houses in South Parkdale;
(2) Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be further amended so as to
limit the creation of units or rooms, through conversion or new
construction, to three per lot.
At the same time, the City Solicitor submitted a draft by-law to
implement the latter recommendation.
A number of deputants spoke to Community Council, expressing
concerns that the proposed zoning limited the future development of
affordable rental units but did not legalize the existing bachelorette
units. Other deputants supported the three-unit limit saying that much
of the area had already been redeveloped to more than three units. They
requested that the bachelorettes not be legalized without meeting
appropriate standards.
Council subsequently endorsed the creation of the conflict resolution
process and the appointment of a facilitator acceptable to all groups.
At the request of the Ward Councillors, the proposed new zoning was
not approved but was included in the mandate of the conflict resolution
process.
Mediator's Comments and Tenant Participation
The groups and individuals involved in this process gave generously of
their time because of their concern about the issues. Hours of phone
calls and weekend and evening meetings were spent learning about and
exploring solutions for housing issues in Parkdale. Unfortunately, a
lack of administrative resources slowed the process and taxed the
patience of the participants.
The lack of resources highlighted the importance of providing
appropriate funding and resources to implement the recommendations.
The groups involved feel strongly that adopting the recommendations
without appropriate funding to follow through could make the current
situation in Parkdale worse.
The recommendations in this report carefully balance the needs of the
groups involved. Changing or removing any of the recommendations
will damage the effectiveness of the report and disrupt the consensus
that has emerged.
Council wanted this conflict resolution process to include the issue of
existing illegal rooming houses in Parkdale. Due to insufficient
resource support the group was not able to properly address the issue
of illegal rooming houses, though some of the recommendations could
be applied. This form of housing has been identified by City inspectors,
tenants, service providers, and residents' groups as a much more
serious issue than the illegal bachelorettes. From the outset, we did not
have appropriate representation from the rooming house sector. The
group is firm in its conviction that rooming houses must be dealt with
as a continuing part of this process, within a global City housing policy.
The perspectives of tenants were very important in this process. The
Parkdale Tenants Association was represented in the first half of the
process and they made their perspective clear in writing when they
chose to withdraw. Members of the Bachelorette Tenants association
attended all the meetings.
Comments:
Parkdale is a dense, inner-city neighbourhood that contains many types
of housing. The proliferation of illegally converted small dwelling spaces
has contributed to the decline of the health of the community. All of the
participants in the conflict resolution process supported a wide variety
of housing forms for singles and families and, in particular, affordable
housing. As a result of the discussions, it became clear that there are
a number of groups that care about the housing needs and issues in
Parkdale, but there is no on-going structure in place for those interests
to be discussed.
As a result, there is no shared vision about housing in the community.
When opportunities to develop new types of housing emerge, or when
a crisis arises (e.g. building fires or tenant evictions), there is often an
element of mistrust and a breakdown in communications. The
complexity of the problems, and the lack of a consistent and co-ordinated approach by the City, has contributed to the failure to develop
a consensus and resolve long-standing issues. In some small way, the
conflict resolution process began to re-build these connections within
the community; however, there is clearly a need for a more permanent
way to discuss and deal with housing issues within Parkdale and the
city as a whole.
1. Conflict Resolution Process:
In response to Council's endorsement, City staff invited representatives
from community organizations, residents and tenants associations, and
the bachelorette owners to participate in the conflict resolution process.
The following organizations were represented:
a) The community: the Bachelorette Tenants Association, Parkdale
Tenants Association, the Parkdale Village Business Improvement
Area, Roncesvalles-MacDonell Residents Association (RMRA),
Parkdale Village Residents Association (PVRA), the Delivery of
Government Services (DOGS) Working Group, the Joint Mental
Health Committee, and the Bachelorette Owners Association.
During the course of the negotiation process, representation from
the Parkdale Tenants Association was withdrawn; however the
stated position of that group was acknowledged throughout the
process.
b) Community service agencies: St. Christopher House, Habitat, the
Queen Street Mental Health Centre Joint Neighbourhood
Committee, Parkdale Activity and Recreation Centre (PARC);
Parkdale Community Legal Services was invited but chose not to
attend throughout the process.
c) Initially, staff from Community Planning, Municipal Licensing and
Standards, Buildings, Legal, Housing, Health and Fire were asked
to attend to observe and offer professional input to the
discussions. Later, staff were requested to prepare a report which
included a summary of the participants' viewpoints and
recommendations for Council's consideration.
Councillors Miller and Korwin-Kuczynski were also in attendance
throughout the process.
John Schaffter of the Corporate Services Department led the mediation
process. It evolved into a series of 12 evening and 3 all-day meetings in
which issues were defined, the interests of the various participants were
discussed and options for dealing with those interests were explored.
The group decided that all solutions and recommendations should be
based on consensus. At the end of the process, the group met for a
number of extended sessions to discuss key issues.
2. Focal Points of the Mediation Process:
The current mediation process has focused on three broad categories
of existing units:
a) In the late 1970's and early 1980's many of the large houses in
South Parkdale that had been converted to rooming houses were
renovated to add culinary/kitchen facilities to the rooms to create
self-contained units. Most of these units were, prior to the
addition of culinary facilities, in conformity with approved
standards and Building Permit plans for rooming house units. The
conversion to small, self-contained units was frequently completed
without a Building Permit and, in many cases, the resulting
buildings were unable to meet the Zoning By-law requirements for
such things as minimum unit size, parking and open space, and in
some cases, Building Code requirements. The legal status of
these buildings has yet to be resolved and was a major part of the
negotiation process.
b) The construction of new rooming houses was prohibited in South
Parkdale in 1978. However, many single-family buildings were
subsequently converted to either rooming house or bachelorette
units. A small proportion of these rooming houses, which may
have been created after 1978, were licensed by the Rooming House
Licensing Tribunal due to uncertainty about the date of their
conversion. The Tribunal took considerable latitude for
interpretation. Construction had often been done without a
Building Permit, and the lack of permit and proper inspection
raised concerns that many of these units did not meet current
Building Code, Health or Fire standards. Although similar to
converted rooming house units in some respects, these units have
no basis for claiming to be an approved rooming house prior to
conversion to self-contained units.
c) The amendments and proposals resulting from the conflict
resolution process could play a role in developing standards for
future affordable single-person occupancy units that may be
developed in response to the recommendations of the Mayor's
Homelessness Action Task Force.
3. Stakeholder Perspectives:
This report outlines an approach for regularizing small units which have
existed for a number of years, and improving and enforcing standards
for safe, good quality housing in Parkdale. The issues this report deals
with are symptoms of a much larger problem - the loss of affordable
family and single person units and the growth of illegal units across the
city. The groups felt strongly that this approach is only a small part of
the action that is needed to deal with housing issues in Toronto.
The recommendations in this report reinforce the directions of the
Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force. The stakeholders urge
Council to develop strategies to meet affordable housing targets over
the next 20 years throughout the city, and provide opportunities for
family and single person housing as-of-right in all parts of the city.
Each of the groups brought a unique perspective to the mediation
process:
a) The Parkdale Village BIA also represented other business interests
within the community. The BIA seeks improved conditions within
the bachelorette units, and, more broadly, within the community.
It supports diversifying the mix of residential units to include
family housing, and believes that more diverse housing will
enhance commercial opportunities within South Parkdale.
b) The Roncesvalles-MacDonell Residents Association and the
Parkdale Village Residents Association represent residents within
the larger community. RMRA and PVRA wish to improve the
condition of existing units and ensure that future units are
regulated. They support a mix of units that will provide options for
various household sizes. They would like to stop the close to 30-year proliferation of illegal small unit housing, which they believe
is abusive of tenants and detrimental to the health of the
community.
c) Community Service representation was from diverse backgrounds.
The agencies provide continued support within the community for
people marginalized because of poverty or mental health issues.
This group wants to improve living conditions within the
bachelorette units, and seeks a greater diversity of housing
options for future residents.
d) The Bachelorette Tenants Group represents tenants within the
bachelorette buildings. They wish to protect existing housing
alternatives for low-income households, and improve living
conditions within existing and future units with no loss of existing
units.
e) The Parkdale Tenants Association withdrew from the mediation
process, but made their views clear. They take the position that
zoning should not discriminate against certain types of housing.
Areas that are zoned for residential use should permit all forms of
rental housing. They believe that housing standards should be
based only upon standards such as structural integrity, fire safety
and public health; standards should not be used as a means of
restricting housing forms. Parkdale Tenants support licensing of
rental housing, and increasing the number of inspectors to ensure
that housing meets standards. Parkdale Tenants believe that there
should be no evictions, and that the City should do repairs as
needed to ensure safe living conditions and then bill or tax the
property owner accordingly.
f) The Bachelorette Owners Association (BOA) represents 17 owners
who own 27 of the 65 bachelorette buildings currently known to
the City. BOA takes the position that these buildings existed as
rooming houses prior to 1978 and were created with City Building
Permits. Many of these buildings were designed and "purpose
built" for rooming house units and were previously licensed by the
City. BOA does not believe that licensing of bachelorettes is
necessary, since the objectives sought through licensing can be
achieved in other ways. BOA believes that their buildings should
be legalized as they exist.
All of these groups were provided an opportunity to comment on the
contents of this report. Comments are attached as Appendix 1.
The group as a whole agreed that the essential issue was the creation
and maintenance of high quality housing options, suitable for a wide
range of economic and household circumstances. This requires a new
process of regulation, inspection and licensing of existing and future
units.
4. Recommended Strategy:
As discussed in more detail in the following sections, based upon the
elements of consensus that emerged after extensive discussions,
staff recommends the following strategy for dealing with the
bachelorette units:
1. Establishment of a "Parkdale Housing Committee", with broad
community representation, to consider housing issues in South
Parkdale and provide input to the recommended review process.
2. Creation of a dedicated and funded City Pilot Project Group to deal
with housing issues in Parkdale (bounded by Lakeshore
Boulevard, Dufferin Street, the rail lines, Dundas Street and
Roncesvalles Avenue) as a high priority.
3. Building owners to be provided an opportunity to prove that the
existing units, save for the addition of culinary facilities, were built
in conformity with Building Permits issued before the 1978 by-law
which outlawed rooming house units.
4. The Pilot Project Group to conduct the review to legalize the pre-1978 units as "self-contained rooming house units" with input from
the Housing Committee.
5. Those buildings that are not proven to be legal pre-1978 rooming
houses (as defined in point 3), to be subject to a further review
against new criteria related to unit size, parking, landscaping and
common space. The Pilot Project Group would also conduct this
review, with input from the Housing Committee.
6. If successful, those units defined in point 5, to be legalized
through the building permit process and be subject to rezoning
and the licensing process set out below.
7. Both categories of approved units to be subject to a by-law that
contains site-specific provisions. This rezoning process would
include the normal notification and public consultation process.
8. Buildings that were created after 1978 but before the Interim
Control By-law (November 1996) to have the option of applying to
the Committee of Adjustment, or applying for a rezoning to
regularize their units where they do not meet the new standards.
However, the City will vigorously defend its policy at any related
Committee of Adjustment hearings.
9. Buildings that were converted after the introduction of the Interim
Control By-law in 1996 to be considered to be illegal conversions.
These buildings should be subject to review, using the current by-law standards, and prosecution where necessary.
10. In order to minimize tenant relocation, successful owners to be
provided an extended period of time within which to complete
renovations. When necessary, the City would continue to assist
with tenant relocation, bearing in mind that the goal is to avoid
tenant relocation.
11. On-going maintenance to be ensured through licensing, including
regular inspections. The inspection process should be
streamlined to include a co-ordinated single inspection of each
property.
12. Where a high standard of maintenance has been consistently met,
a property to qualify for less frequent inspections unless special
circumstances require otherwise.
13. In order to simplify on-going maintenance, each licensed building
to be required to display visibly in the lobby telephone numbers for
a superintendent or staff contact, Fire Certificates and other
required licenses as well as how to contact Police, Fire etc.
14. Where buildings are not legalized through this process, and where
they continue to operate in contravention of Building, Fire or
Health Code regulations, the City to seek to bring the units into
compliance, including prosecution if necessary.
15. All of the buildings that meet the established standards and are
licensed to be classified as rooming houses.
16. The conflict resolution process supports the Citys efforts to have
rooming house units qualify for a reduced tax rate. The City will
vigorously advocate this position with the Province to resolve this
issue. When the tax rate is adjusted, a portion of the savings will
be passed on to tenants.
17. Current zoning by-law standards, including the prohibition on
rooming houses and the 65 m2 (695 sq. ft.) average unit size and
gross floor area standards to remain in place for future
conversions and new units in South Parkdale. The City will
vigorously defend its policy at any related Committee of
Adjustment or Ontario Municipal Board hearings. An exception to
this position could be made in the case of applications for other
forms of affordable housing which have the support of the
Housing Committee.
18. The criteria developed to evaluate existing units to also provide
input to the development of standards for single-person housing
units in other parts of the city.
19. Confirmation of the development standards that apply to additional
units in pre-78 buildings respecting unit size, parking standards,
and amenity space to remain pending.
5. Specific Issues:
5.1 Parkdale Housing Committee
Throughout the negotiations, the community has proven to be a valuable
source of knowledge about housing issues. During the conflict
resolution process, the BIA proposed a Parkdale Housing Committee.
Its membership would include 4 tenants of whom 2 are from local tenant
groups, 2 owners (bachelorette and rooming house buildings), 1 BIA
representative, 2 social service providers, and 2 representatives from
residents associations.
The Parkdale Housing Committee was promoted as a means for the
community to participate in the review of the status and condition of
bachelorette buildings. The Committee could also serve as a "sounding
board" and assist Council with other housing issues in Parkdale. Under
existing legislation, Council cannot authorize members of the
community to make decisions on its behalf. However, it is appropriate
to seek the community's input on housing issues on a consistent basis.
Another goal of the Housing Committee is to preserve the stock of
quality affordable housing in Parkdale. Monitoring housing trends and
the sale of specific buildings could allow the City and agencies to
intervene if there was a loss of quality affordable housing. The
committee should work with the Pilot Group to find effective
mechanisms for monitoring the sale or change of use of buildings in
Parkdale.
We recommend that a Housing Committee be established with a
mandate to consider a broad range of housing issues within the South
Parkdale area. The Committee should meet regularly (perhaps once
every four months). Additional meetings could be scheduled to respond
to more urgent issues. The mandate of the Committee should include:
- input to the Pilot Project Groups' consideration of the existing
units for rezoning;
- input on property maintenance and licensing issues;
- considering opportunities for the creation of additional affordable
housing within the community;
- acting as a "clearing house" for other housing issues as they
arise;
- when providing input, the Committee should try to reach a
consensus position that represents the community view.
However, it is acknowledged that this will not always be possible.
Committee members may present alternative views when
appropriate; and
- the Parkdale Housing Committee should be added to the agenda
mailing list for the Committee of Adjustment to enable the
Committee to comment where they believe it is appropriate.
The Shelter Housing and Support Division of the Community Services
Department should be the lead Department to assist in setting up the
Committee and establishing its initial Terms of Reference including the
type of decision-making process, methods for assuring stability, and
methods of accountability to the organizations and the City. These
issues should be resolved prior to beginning to process applications.
Over a relatively short period of time, the Committee should begin to
operate independently. Meeting space should be arranged in the
community, perhaps at one of the existing community centres.
5.2 Pilot Project Group
The illegal housing issue has a long history in Parkdale. Solving the
problem will require the City to commit staff and financial resources
to manage and implement the regularization process.
We recommend the establishment of a Pilot Project Group that is staffed
by employees who are seconded to the team, and whose only function
is to complete this project. Staff should not have other duties that create
conflicts that detract from the timely completion of this significant
project. The Group should develop and test new protocols for inter-departmental co-operation so that they can act in a swift, integrated
fashion to gain access and achieve compliance. Core staff should
include people who are familiar with current issues in Parkdale and the
outcome of the conflict resolution process, including:
- One full time Director who will have overall responsibility for
managing and co-ordinating the successful completion of the
project including regular reports to Council. This person will also
have significant responsibility for communicating with and co-ordinating all the community partners in this endeavour.
- One research clerk to search archives and collect information from
various sources concerning the applications received.
- One clerical staff for documentation, correspondence and record
keeping.
- One full time Tenant Landlord Liaison staff (could be later in the
process if the need for tenant relocation is identified).
- One full-time Buildings inspector, and
- One full time Housing Standards inspector.
In addition to the foregoing full time staff, the team should have priority
access to the following staff who are familiar with housing issues in
Parkdale. Staff should be assigned on a consistent basis in order to
remain familiar with the specific issues in Parkdale.
- Housing and tenant relocation,
- Licensing staff,
- Legal enforcement,
- Buildings and Legal for zoning interpretation, and
- Fire inspections.
The mandate of the Pilot Project Group would include:
Making recommendations to Council about detailed strategies and costs
for dealing with illegal rooming houses in Parkdale based on the
approaches in this report and the Rooming House Review.
- Developing an implementation program for regularization of
bachelorette units in accordance with Council's direction.
- Advertising the program in the Community.
- Approaching all the known owners of illegal buildings and
informing them of the opportunity for regularization and the
consequences if they do not come into compliance.
- Receiving and conducting an assessment of applications for
regularization using information and documents available from the
City records and other sources including the Housing Committee.
- Inspecting properties to determine compliance with the
regularization guidelines and with Building Code, Fire Code,
Housing Standards, Health and any other applicable standards.
- Determining what steps must be taken by an owner in order for the
property to be regularized.
- Establishing a time frame for compliance.
- Clearing properties that have met regularization requirements for
licensing.
- Ensuring that a housing and relocation service will be available for
any tenants who may be displaced.
- Co-ordinating legal enforcement of standards where necessary.
The Pilot Project Group should operate out of the current West
Inspections Office of the South District in order to ensure easy access
for the community. The cost of the team is estimated at $360,000 per
annum for dedicated staff, and $50,000 for initial operating expenses for
such items as advertising, dedicated telephone lines, and computers.
Annual operational requirements may dictate additional costs that
should be determined by the Director.
We propose evaluations of the implementation of the recommendations
after 6 months and 1 year. This is to ensure accountability and credibility
after this lengthy, time consuming conflict resolution process.
The evaluation(s) would include consultation with the community
(tenants, bachelorette owners, residents' associations, business
association, and community agencies), appropriate City departments,
and the Ward Councillors. The evaluation(s) will need to be done by an
independent, objective third party. The evaluation(s) will serve as a
report card on how well various stakeholders have implemented the
agreement. We recommend that the evaluation results be
communicated to the Housing Committee and the community at a public
meeting.
Among the issues which should be addressed are the following:
- Has there been "dehousing"? If so, how much, and why?
- Where did the "dehoused" tenants go?
- Have all the parties and departments fulfilled their commitments?
If not, why not?
- Has the safety/quality of the housing improved?
- If so, has the safety of the neighbourhood improved?
This evaluation should complement on-going monitoring by the Housing
Committee, who may also "fine tune" the issues to be considered as the
evaluation proceeds.
5.3 Development Standards for Pre-1978 Buildings
After considerable discussion, there was a general consensus around
an approach to regularization of the existing bachelorette units. The
overall objective is to raise and maintain the quality of housing across
Parkdale through the introduction of appropriate standards, licensing,
and continued inspections. This approach must preserve the existing
range of units and make them safe, while ensuring that future building
operation and maintenance are subject to community input.
It is anticipated that this project could take 24 months to complete
including 6 months for the initial applications, and approximately 18
months for the subsequent verification process. It should be noted that
current court cases related to health and safety issues would continue
during this period. After the 24-month period, enforcement proceedings
should commence against all "outstanding" buildings.
It is assumed that the pre-1978 units were based upon previously
approved rooming house units, which did meet City standards of the
time. Since rooming houses were eliminated as a permitted use in
South Parkdale in 1978, the group believes that the post-1978 units
should not be approved using the same criteria. This distinction led to
discussion of a two-tier (pre- or post-1978) approach to evaluating the
existing units not in compliance.
The first stage requires an owner to demonstrate that the units legally
existed in 1978, and that there are City authorized plans and permits.
This could take the form of an affidavit including reference to City
records such as assessment files, voters lists or Building Permit
documentation; statements from residents, tenants and neighbours;
records for work done on the building, or similar evidence. This could
be supplemented or confirmed by relevant information submitted by the
Parkdale Housing Committee, tenants and neighbours.
Once a building has been accepted as meeting the pre-1978 date, a
comparison can be made between the layout of the existing units and
those permitted in 1978, subject to the following principles:
- Any amenities (i.e. laundry room, tenant storage common space)
that appeared on the original plan must be replaced.
- Any units that were not on the original plan must be made safe or
be removed.
- Any units that were not on the original plans must conform with
the Building Code.
- There may be fewer units than on the original plans but there may
be no more than 4 additional units.
- Each building must have an on-site superintendent.
- The original parking requirements are met and additional spaces
are provided, if appropriate, for the new units.
- The building is Licensed.
There are two points that have not been tested and agreed to: standards
for amenity space and unit size. These will be tested and confirmed
over the next month, and staff will report further to the Toronto
Community Council meeting of December 2, 1999.
To this end, staff of Urban Planning and Development Services and
Legal have formed a review team which will review approved and
current plans for pre-1978 units and consider the impact of applying the
above principles to any units that did not appear on the approved plans
to test the impact of the draft guidelines and unit size. This review is not
intended to indicate approval of particular plans, or dictate changes.
The review team will be mindful of the following: the safety of the unit
must not be compromised; loss of units and tenant disruption should be
avoided; the quality of living space inside and outside the building
should be maintained or improved; and unnecessary costs should be
avoided. The outcome of the review may be used to refine the principles
and the standards for amenity space minimum unit size.
5.4 Development Standards for Post-78 Buildings
Where the approach for pre-1978 buildings is permissive, the approach
for post-1978 buildings is more prescriptive. In principle, the group
believes that these units are generally comparable to the Single Room
Occupancy units (SRO) proposed in the Mayor's Task Force on
Homelessness report. However, bachelorettes are generally smaller than
SRO units, and it is important to note that SROs also typically provide
on-site supervision, additional amenity areas and tenant security.
The issue of unit size consumed considerable time during the
discussions. In general, the owners and tenants supported retaining the
existing unit size, while the residents sought a larger minimum unit size
and a mix of large and small units capable of housing a range of tenants
including families.
The emerging consensus is that the following standards should be
applied to any illegal construction that happened between 1978 and the
adoption of the Interim Control Bylaw in 1996. However, this consensus
must be confirmed. The standards are consistent with the principles
that have been applied to the Single Room Occupancy (SRO) pilot
projects. Adequate indoor and outdoor amenity space is required to
offset the reduced unit sizes.
Buildings would be eligible for rezoning provided that it could be proven
that they were converted between 1978 and the adoption of the Interim
Control Bylaw in 1996 and they meet the following standards:
- Average unit size of 20 m2 (220 sq. ft.)
- To ensure a mix of unit sizes within a building, when calculating
the average unit size, a maximum of 20% of the units could be less
than 20 m2 (220 sq. ft.) or more than 46 m2 (500 sq. ft.)
- Minimum unit size 19 m2 (200 sq. ft.)
- If there are more than 6 units in the building, a minimum of 1 m2
(10 sq. ft.) of indoor amenity space, and 1 m2 (10 sq. ft.) of outdoor
amenity space for each unit, with a minimum of 10 m2 interior and
20 m2 exterior amenity space
- The building must meet all appropriate Building and Fire Codes
- The building would be considered a Rooming House and would
require an operating license
- Relaxed parking standards would have to be met
- Street parking permits for the building would be limited to the
number of complete spaces that span the width of the property.
We recommend that the continued economic viability of implementing
these standards be monitored over time in order to identify the need for
other mechanisms to ensure affordability in the long term.
The licensing tribunal should also consider community comments about
the exterior appearance and maintenance of the building, landscaping
and garbage storage area as conditions to issuing a license.
5.5 Site Specific By-law
Once each building has qualified as a pre-or post-1978 building, and
demonstrated an ability to meet the appropriate standards, staff would
prepare a report recommending the adoption of a by-law. The by-law
would identify the approved buildings on a site by site basis. Given the
wide range of buildings under review, and the varying length of time that
may be necessary to demonstrate conformity with the new standards,
it is likely that there will be a number of by-laws coming forward. As
required by law these will be subject to the notification and approval
processes currently followed by Council including a Public Meeting. If
there is an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, the City would
support the rezoning.
5.6 Licensing
The BOA did not support licensing of bachelorette units. It was their
view that the City's objectives could be secured and implemented
without licensing. The bachelorette tenant groups believed strongly that
the inspection process was an invasion of privacy, since inspectors
could request access to the individual units.
However, the remaining parties, including Parkdale Tenants, believed
that licensing and regular inspection makes it easier to monitor the state
of repair and safety of the approved buildings. It would give tenants, the
Housing Committee and the community an impartial and accountable
body to call if a building is not properly maintained. It also provides the
City with an additional tool to ensure that tenants are provided with safe,
quality housing through regular inspections and enforcement of
appropriate standards.
The current legislation permits licensing rooming houses within the
former City of Toronto. It is our view that bachelorettes can be licensed
under the provisions of the Rooming House By-law which was passed
pursuant to the City of Toronto Act. However, minor technical
amendments to the Rooming House By-law may be required to allow
this to occur.
- Licensing for an initial period of 3 years.
- The initial fee should be modest so that it is not passed on to
tenants. It should cover the administrative and inspection costs.
Subsequent fees for inspections related to infractions should be
on a cost-recovery basis (e.g. $150 per visit).
- To minimize disturbance to tenants, make the most efficient use of
staff and ensure the owner is given an integrated compliance
schedule, inspections should be co-ordinated so that all relevant
departments attend at one time.
- The first annual inspection should cover the entire building.
Subsequent yearly inspections should cover the common spaces
and a sample of the rooms. Inspections should focus on health
and safety issues rather than cosmetic appearances. Additional
inspections can be requested by the tenants, the Housing
Committee, or when the property ownership changes.
- Re-inspection every 3 years for license renewal. If the first 3-year
license is completed without major deficiencies, yearly inspections
are no longer required.
- If there is a change of ownership, the initial inspection process
repeats.
- To facilitate complaints, the license must be posted within the
building along with telephone numbers for appropriate staff of the
Rooming House Licensing agency and the Building Division.
- The Parkdale Housing Committee should be notified of any license
or renewal application.
5.7 Taxation
The City should advocate to the Province a reassessment to reduce the
level of taxation. A lower tax rate would provide a further incentive for
property owners to come forward and retain these buildings as a form
of affordable housing. Currently, rooming houses and bachelorettes are
taxed differently as they are in different property classes. Rooming
houses have historically been assessed and valued as being similar to
other residential houses, are included in the residential class, and are
taxed at the lower residential tax rate. They are assessed based on the
market or sale value and not on the income generated.
Bachelorettes are considered to be fully self-contained apartment units
from an assessment policy point of view. As a result, provincial
assessors value them as income producing properties. If there are more
than 6 units in the building, they are included in the multi-residential
class. Any property with 6 units or less is included in the residential
class.
When the phasing provisions related to Market Value Assessment are
removed, the tax rate will escalate further. The BOA stated that the
increase in taxes will probably be passed on to their tenants, reducing
their ability to provide affordable housing. They believe they should
qualify for the residential rate that applies to rooming houses. Others
argue that the bachelorette buildings should not qualify for a reduced
tax rate since they are essentially multiple unit buildings that operate as
a business.
The issue of whether bachelorettes should have a separate tax class
requires further discussion with the Province. The creation of a new
property class for rooming houses and bachelorettes is possible under
current legislation, but does require the Minister to specify the new
class in a Provincial regulation. Even if a separate class is supported,
the tax rate applied is not within the City's jurisdiction to determine, but
must fall within provincially defined "ranges of fairness" that were
introduced when CVA was implemented in 1998. Further review is
required not only with respect to the applicable tax rates, but also to the
financial impact that the creation of a new class would have on the City.
We therefore recommend that Council pursue the lower tax rate.
5.8 Enforcement
Unless property owners understand that the City is serious about
enforcing its by-laws, there is little motivation to comply. This is
particularly true where buildings have been operating in contravention
of current standards for a number of years with few consequences.
Staff have been requested to report to Council on the staffing in
Municipal Licensing and Standards. We will be advising that, within East
York, North York, and Scarborough there is a pro-active programme for
common areas of multi unit buildings. Under this programme there is
a schedule of inspections for all rental buildings, after an initial audit to
determine the current condition, and the maintenance history. The
frequency of inspection can vary from once per six months for a
building in poor condition and with an unsatisfactory history to once per
four years for buildings in good condition where management has a
history of prompt and adequate response to concerns.
This programme is consistent with what is being recommended for the
Licensing regime for rooming houses and could be cost effectively
managed if a full pro-active programme is established.
Such a programme has the potential to create a more manageable work
load, but there is an initial cost to carry out the audit. We will be
advising Council of the initial costs to carry out a full audit within the
former municipalities of Etobicoke, York, and Toronto. The benefits
arise from building owners knowing that inspections will take place.
There is no reliance on tenant complaints which, in some cases, are not
frequent because either the tenants are unaware of the process or they
may have concerns about future relationships with their landlord should
they complain.
5.9 Minimizing the Impact of Tenant Disruption and Resettlement
During the mediation process a number of groups expressed concern
that the normalization and enforcement processes not lead to "de-housing" of existing tenants. The review and assessment process
outlined above is intended to provide enough latitude that work
necessary to achieve compliance can be completed during the normal
turnover of units.
Ideally, units would be vacated through natural turnover, and any
displaced tenants would be resettled within the same building. This
assumption must be carefully monitored. Overall there must be a
balance between improving the housing quality of these units, and
minimizing the impact on tenants in terms of loss of affordable housing.
If a balance cannot be maintained, there may be a need to provide
financial assistance for capital rehabilitation costs and/or operational
expenses in order to maintain the affordability of the housing. Such
assistance is best provided by senior levels of government, however,
the City needs to advocate for this assistance.
Every effort should be made to avoid the de-housing of tenants and the
need to resettle them. The approach recommended here would provide
a long time period for reviewing and normalizing the existing units, in
order to make it easier to free up units through regular turnover of
tenants. In addition, the City should take steps to ensure that disruption
to tenants is minimized as a result of renovation activity.
If the legalization of a bachelorette building results in the need to
resettle tenants, the landlord has certain obligations as set out in the
Tenant Protection Act (1999). While the City can and should take certain
steps to assist tenants and landlords, it cannot remove or replace such
obligations. Such obligations relate to disruptions resulting from
renovation activity as well as relocation that may be required as a result
of units being removed through the legalization process.
The City should take steps to ensure that tenants and landlords are
aware of their rights and obligations. For example, the Tenant
Protection Act (1999) requires that the landlord provide 120 days notice
if vacant occupancy of a unit is required as a result of a planned
renovation. The tenant also has the first right of refusal to return to the
renovated unit. However, if the tenant does not wish to return to the
unit, or the unit is being demolished, they are entitled to compensation
or to the offer of an alternative, acceptable unit by the landlord.
The review process may discover buildings that do not meet current
health and safety or fire standards. In these cases, the City has an
obligation to ensure that these buildings are brought into compliance.
As in the past, the City will always take incremental steps to seek
compliance. Before acting to shut down an illegal building, staff will
consult with the Housing Committee. When it becomes essential for the
City to act to close a building, Buildings Division and Shelter Housing
and Support Division staff will act to provide support for the existing
tenants.
The City needs to develop a relocation protocol to address the needs of
tenants who are de-housed due to the closure of unlicensed properties,
properties where urgent hazards exist, or similar situations. Developing
this response requires the participation of a number of groups or
agencies including tenant advocates, legal clinics, community based
agencies, City staff (Urban Development Services, Fire, Public Health,
Shelter, Housing and Support, and Social Services), housing providers
(for-profit and non-profit groups), and Ward Councillors.
It is proposed that staff for the Pilot Project Office include a
Tenant/Landlord Liaison who would co-ordinate the City's assistance.
The first objective should be to work with the building owner to
minimize disruption to tenants and to avoid relocation. However, where
relocation is deemed necessary, City assistance would help ensure that
the bachelorette owners will meet their obligations to tenants.
Suitable alternative housing or shelter options can come from a number
of sources including temporary shelter, available rooming house
accommodation (e.g. Open Door Centre and Rooms Registry), Toronto
Housing Company, the housing worker's personal contacts with
landlords, non-profit providers with vacancies (e.g. Habitat Services,
Supportive Housing Coalition, Ecuhome, Keith Whitney Homes, etc.).
The resettlement protocol should also provide assistance with:
- conducting an initial assessment of tenant needs in buildings
being considered for legalization;
- working with the landlord to determine the impact of proposed
changes on tenants in each building;
- advising the landlord in the development of a
communication/action plan for his/her tenants related to
renovation, temporary displacement and relocation (where
necessary);
- having income supports transferred, or placed on hold;
- assistance with obtaining or replacing identification;
- storage of belongings and furnishings if need be (Chill Out, drop-in
centres);
- where necessary, searching out available housing options in for-profit and not-for-profit housing;
- assistance with the physical move to new accommodations;
- assistance with pets where needed through the Humane Society;
- assistance with transportation to evaluate housing/shelter options
(TTC tokens, accompaniment by housing worker);
- follow-up as required with tenants who have been relocated; and
- reporting on relocation issues as they arise and recommending
strategies to support vulnerable tenants.
In the past, Rupert Community Residential Services of Toronto Inc. has
received money through the Homeless Initiatives fund to assist with
emergency relocation of vulnerable roomers. Funds have been used,
where necessary, to cover first and/or last month's rent, moving
expenses, storage costs and limited furnishings. Buildings and
Inspections, have also allocated resources where closure was the result
of a Court Order, and where the Court Order authorized that relocation,
expenses be placed on a property owner's tax bill.
5.10 Zoning Standards
During the mediation process it became clear that many of the
stakeholders believe that Parkdale is treated differently than other areas
of the city. This is due in part to the history of housing problems in the
area and the fact that some different residential zoning standards
currently apply. The group felt that any solution to the current housing
problems should not be a "Parkdale only" solution, it should be applied
consistently across the city.
At the same time, some stakeholders were concerned that any solution
which relaxed the current prohibition on rooming houses in Parkdale
would "open the floodgates" to this type of building. Many people felt
that Parkdale already has a significant share of this type of housing, and
that other parts of the city should be required to contribute as well.
Since Council has not yet dealt with the Mayor's Homelessness Action
Task Force recommendations related to rooming houses, we believe it
would be premature to make recommendations that may affect other
parts of the city. Until this issue is dealt with comprehensively, we
recommend that the current zoning restriction on new rooming houses
in Parkdale remain in place. We also recommend that the current
requirement of an average unit size of 65 m2 (695 sq. ft.), which is in
effect city wide, remain in effect.
5.11 Affordability
The mediation process only began to consider the issue of affordability.
All of the participants were concerned with the protection of affordable
housing within Parkdale. With the loss of rent control, the City does not
have the ability to impose affordability. However, a number of ideas
were discussed which merit further consideration.
As each unit is considered for legalization, the current rents, the costs
required to bring the units to standard, and the potential impacts on rent
should be considered. Ways of ensuring that improvements are made
without affecting rents should be investigated. These may include
loans, grants, etc.
For example, any building that becomes legal and licensed could be
eligible for RRAP loans to upgrade the building. RRAP loans contain
affordability conditions that apply for the duration of the loans. The
licensed units could also be candidates for any new incentive
programmes including loans, operating grants or rent supplements
which the City or Province may introduce for this type of building in the
future.
We have recommended approaching the Province to secure a reduced
tax rate for bachelorette buildings which will further assist affordability.
Conclusions:
The Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process has been under way since
October 1998. There is general agreement on the outlines of a process
that would allow the legalization of existing units. Licensing is
recommended, along with a process of annual inspections to ensure
continued compliance with health, fire safety and Building codes.
To oversee this process, we recommend the establishment of a
dedicated staff Pilot Project Group, and a Citizens' Parkdale Housing
Committee. Initial staffing and costs are identified, however these will
require further review once the process is underway.
Housing issues have been a long-standing concern within South
Parkdale. The process we recommend was developed with extensive
input from residents, tenants, property owners, agencies and the
business community. It contains all the elements of a durable solution.
It recommends: standards to guide decisions; a process for dealing
with the existing buildings; a structure and process for continuing
community involvement around housing issues; and, the resources
required to improve housing for residents and tenants.
The process will preserve a substantial number of affordable housing
units within the community by resolving the current legal status of the
existing bachelorette units. Housing conditions will be improved by
ensuring that these units meet current Building and Fire Code
requirements.
A public meeting is recommended in order to secure public input on the
approach recommended in Section 4 of this report.
The City Solicitor has reviewed this report and supports its
recommendations.
Contact Name:
David McKillop
Manager, Community Planning, South
Telephone: (416) 392-1317
Fax: (416) 392-1330
E-Mail: dmckillo@toronto.ca
_________
(Copies of communications (October 26, 1999) from Roncesvalles-Macdonel Residents'
Association; (October 28, 1999) from Parkdale Village Residents Association; and (October
25, 1999) from the Bachelorette Tenants Association, referred to in the foregoing report, was
forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting
on January 18, 2000, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).
_________
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (December 22, 1999)
from the Acting Commissioner or Urban Development Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide additional information respecting proposed unit size, parking
and amenity area requirements related to bachelorette units in Parkdale.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.
It is recommended that Council endorse the standards contained in this report as the basis for the
review of bachelorette units outlined in the report of October 22, 1999 (Clause 32 of Toronto
Community Council Report No. 12).
Background:
At its meeting of November 9, 1999, Toronto Community Council considered a report regarding the
Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process. As part of that report, staff advised that further work was
needed to resolve issues related to standards for pre-1978 units regarding a proposed minimum unit
size for bachelorette units, the provision of parking and standards for indoor and outdoor amenity
space for bachelorette buildings. These matters were to be the subject of a further report.
Comments:
To test the proposed minimum sizes for bachelorette units, staff of Urban Development Services and
Legal Services reviewed the approved and current plans for pre-1978 bachelorette buildings. The
intent was to evaluate the buildings to determine whether units added since 1978 could meet the
proposed unit size of 19m2 (200 sq ft). It is important to note that the review was not intended to
provide an "approval" of the building relative to the proposed standards. Staff did not undertake an
analysis of the ability of the buildings to meet Building or Fire Code requirements, or the proposed
landscaping and parking requirements.
Based on the testing, the units could be acceptable if:
- it could be reasonably proven that all units existed prior to 1978 and were consistent with the
approved plans except for the addition of culinary or sanitary facilities;
- no more than 4 additional units had been constructed;
- the building meets the original parking standards (NOTE: For pre-1978 rooming houses the
parking standard was zero.); and
- the building provides a minimum of 1 m2 (10 sq ft) of landscaped open space for each unit,
with a minimum of 20 m2 of landscaped open space required in either the front or the rear
yard, and dedicated for tenant use. Porches or decks, which are accessible to residents of the
building, should be considered as part of the landscaped open space requirement.
If the building has more than four additional units above the approved plans, or if it can not be
reasonably demonstrated that the units were constructed prior to 1978, the following standards
should apply:
- the landscaped open space requirements noted above;
- any amenities (i.e. laundry room, common space, tenant storage space) that appeared on the
original plans must be restored;
- any units that were not on the original plans must be made safe or removed; and
- a minimum unit size of 19m2 (200 sq ft) must be maintained.
In addition, it was concluded that all buildings should be licensed, meet the applicable Fire and
Building Code standards, and provide an on-site superintendent.
Principles for Minimizing Disruption to Tenants and Owners
The mediation group acknowledged that strict implementation of the minimum size
requirement might be problematic for a number of reasons. The size requirement does not
account for other amenities in the building or the "quality" of the unit. It does not
acknowledge the fact that tenants may have occupied the unit for an extended period of time,
and may be quite satisfied with the space available. Creating a larger unit to meet a specific
standard (by combining smaller units) may require a landlord to retain a vacant unit for an
extended period of time, while waiting for the other required unit to be vacated. This would
increase carrying costs, and the creation of a larger unit at the expense of two smaller units is
unlikely to improve affordability. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, strict application
of the standard could lead to eviction of the current tenant(s).
While the group agreed that 19 m2 (200 sq ft) appeared to be an appropriate minimum unit size,
it concluded that the Pilot Group should have sufficient latitude to consider other factors when
making a decision about the possible legalization of units which may not meet this standard.
When making this decision, the Pilot Project Group may seek input from the Parkdale Housing
Committee.
In the case of a tenant occupying a small unit for an extended period of time, the group agreed
that it was counter-productive to require the unit to be vacated in order to bring it into conformity
with the minimum standard. In these cases, the group agreed that it was appropriate to allow the
existing tenant to remain in the unit for as long as desired. The necessary work would, in effect,
be "grandfathered" while the tenant remained in the unit. Continued occupancy could be verified
through such means as a registered letter to the tenant at regular intervals.
In order to minimize the loss of units, it was agreed that owners should have the flexibility to
subdivide or reduce the size of larger units to provide new units which meet the standard and
offset the loss of smaller units elsewhere in the building. In order to assist tenants who must be
relocated it was also agreed that tenants should have right of first refusal for any new or vacant
units within buildings operated by Bachelorette Owners Association members.
It should be noted that there will be no discretionary latitude if buildings do not meet the
applicable Fire and/or Building Code standards.
Parking/Amenity Space
The issues of outdoor amenity area and parking are inter-related. The current parking
standard applicable to South Parkdale requires 1 parking space for 2 units, or 1 space for 3
dwelling rooms. Efforts to achieve this standard have often resulted in large areas of paved
parking and the loss of landscaped space. In some cases, parking has been provided in the
front yard. This has further reduced available amenity space and the attractiveness of the
street. However, the group feels that few tenants have cars, and the parking is often not used.
Where amenity space is not provided within the building, residents are forced to find other
alternatives within the community. This has often lead to disruption for nearby tenants and
residents.
The group agreed in principle that the provision of parking should not be a barrier to providing
this form of housing and that outdoor amenity space is important to the community. Pre-1978
buildings will be subject to the parking standards which applied at that time. The following
parking standards should apply to all post- 1978 buildings.
The group has agreed that in buildings with 6 units or more, a minimum of 2 parking spaces
should be provided. Since the group believes that the front yard should be used for landscaped
open space, parking should be provided behind the front wall of the house wherever possible.
Where surplus parking areas are converted to landscaped space, the front yard should be the
priority. If the building meets the landscaped open space standard proposed above, an owner
may provide more than 2 parking spaces to meet demand generated by the building. Where
parking can not be provided on site, due to the lack of driveway or laneway access to the rear
yard, permit parking may be secured by the tenant. However, the group felt that the number of
spaces provided should be limited to the number of spaces which can be achieved within the
frontage of the lot.
The reduced parking standard will allow more of the outdoor space to be used for landscaped
open space. In addition, the group has agreed that shared indoor amenity space should be
required for post-78 buildings which are considered for legalization. The group agrees that
in buildings with 6 units or more, a minimum of 1 m2 (10 sq ft) of indoor amenity space should
be provided for each unit, with a minimum of 10 m2 (100 sq ft) interior amenity space
required. The building should also be required to provide 1 m2 (10 sq ft) of landscaped open
space for each unit, with a minimum of 20 m2 (200 sq ft) required. The landscaped open space
could be in either the front or rear yard and must be dedicated for tenant use. Porches or
decks, which are accessible to residents of the building, should be considered as part of the
landscaped open space requirement.
Housing Registry
The mediation exercise has initiated a process of change affecting housing issues. The group
believes that the outcome will result in the retention of a significant number of better quality,
affordable units in the community. As part of this on-going process, the group recommends the
establishment of a housing registry within South Parkdale. The registry would be a vehicle for
linking tenants with available rental units within the community. The implementation of a housing
registry requires further consideration including staffing and funding implications. Staff should be
requested to report further on these issues as part of the report on the detailled staffing and financial
implications of implementing the recommended strategy.
Public Meeting
At the conclusion of the review exercise, the mediation group convened a public information
meeting to present the results and receive feedback. The meeting was advertised in the community
through posters, direct mailing to more than 120 addresses, and distribution of Notices through the
Citizen's Assembly. The meeting was held on December 16, 1999 and was attended by
approximately 50 people, including the participants in the mediation exercise.
The results of the mediation were presented by staff and the stakeholders. Response was generally
positive. Participants were advised that they could also make a deputation at the January 18, 2000,
Community Council meeting.
Conclusion:
Staff have completed a preliminary review of 22 bachelorette buildings, and have discussed
the results with the Mediation group. This report outlines areas of further agreement related
to unit size, amenity areas, parking standards, and operation of the review process. With these
additional clarifications, it is appropriate for Community Council to endorse the proposals set
out in the report of October 22, 1999.
Contact:
Dave McKillop, West Section
Telephone: 392-1317
Fax: 392-1330
E-Mail: dmckillop@toronto.ca
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 13, 2000) from
the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services:
Purpose:
This report has been prepared to provide Council with further information on the staffing and
funding of the Parkdale Pilot Project Group.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Since this report proposed a revised (reduced) funding allocation for the Parkdale Pilot Project
Group, it should be referred to the Chief Financial Officer and the Budget Advisory Committee as
per the "Financial Control Protocols within the Revised Council-Committee Structure" which was
adopted by Council.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) The allocation of $250,000 annually (for 2 years) to fund the operations of the Parkdale Pilot
Project Group be approved in principle; and
(2) Recommendation No. 1 be referred to the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development
Services, the Chief Financial Officer and the Budget Advisory Committee for consideration
during preparation of the 2000 Operating Budget.
Background:
At its meeting of November 9, 1999 Toronto Community Council considered a report (October 22,
1999) regarding the Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process (High Park). The report noted that the
recommended approach would require the allocation of $410,000 per annum for two years to fund
the creation and operation of the Parkdale Pilot Project Group. In considering the report,
Community Council:
- directed staff to report further on the detailed staffing and financial implications of
implementing the recommended approach; and
- referred the report to the Commissioners of Urban Development Services, Community and
Neighbourhood Services, and the Chief Financial Officer for consideration during the 2000
Operating Budget process.
Comments:
As outlined in the October 22, 1999 report, the Parkdale Pilot Project Group will require the
following full-time resources: a Project Director, a research clerk, one clerical support staff, one
Buildings inspector, one Housing (Property) Standards inspector and one Tenant Landlord Liaison
staff (once the need for tenant relocation is identified).
It has now been determined that existing staff can be re-deployed to fill the Property Standards
inspector, the research clerk, and the general clerical position. It is anticipated that this will reduce
the overall budget allocation by approximately $160,000 per annum, so that now only $250,000 per
year (for 2 years) will be required.
Contact:
Dave McKillop, West Section
Telephone: 392-1317
Fax: 392-1330
E-Mail: dmckillo@toronto.ca
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication
(November 17, 1999) from the City Clerk:
The Toronto Community Council, on November 9, 1999, had before it a joint report (October 22,
1999) from the Executive Director/Chief Building Official, South District; Executive Director/Chief
Planner; Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards and the General Manager, Shelter,
Housing and Support Division respecting Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process (High Park), and
recommending:
"That Council:
(1) approve, in principle, recommendations 1 to 18 in Section 4 of this report;
(2) defer recommendation 19 in Section 4 of this report to the Toronto Community
Council meeting of December 2, 1999, pending the conclusion of on-going
discussions with stakeholders;
(3) authorize staff to convene a Public Meeting to present the recommended approach;
(4) direct staff to report further on the detailed staffing and financial implications of
implementing this approach; and,
(5) refer this report to the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services,
Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the Chief Financial Officer for
consideration during the 2000 Operating Budget process."
The Toronto Community Council also had before it the following communications:
- Clause 32 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, titled, "Parkdale Planning
Initiatives (High Park)", which was amended and adopted by City Council at its meeting held
on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998
- (November 8, 1999) from the Community Services Agencies Group
- (November 5, 1999) from Mr. Ray Van Eenooghe, Co-Chair and Mr. Murray Lowe,
Treasurer, Bachelorette Owners Association
- (November 9, 1999) from Mr. Philippe Campaie for Robert Keel, Chairman, Rupert
Community Residential Services Inc.
- (January 15, 1999) from Mr. Robert B. Levitt, Secretary, Parkdale Tenants' Association
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
- Mr. Oudit Raghubir, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Robert B. Levitt, Rupert Community Inc.;
- Mr. Walter Jarsky, Toronto, Ontario; and
- Mr. Mike Coward, O.C.A.P.
The Toronto Community Council:
(1) deferred consideration of Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2) of the foregoing report until its
meeting to be held on January 18, 2000;
(2) authorized staff to convene a Public Meeting to present the recommended approach set out
in the report;
(3) directed staff to report further on the detailed staffing and financial implications of
implementing this approach;
(4) referred the report to the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services,
Community and Neighbourhood Services, and the Chief Financial Officer for consideration
during the 2000 Operating Budget process; and
(5) directed that all communications received by the City Clerk with respect to this matter be
forwarded to staff for distribution at the community meeting.
_________
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had
before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a
copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:
- Clause 32 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, titled, "Parkdale Planning
Initiatives (High Park)", which was amended and adopted by City Council at its meeting held
on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998;
- (November 8, 1999) from the Community Services Agencies Group;
- (November 5, 1999) from Mr. Ray Van Eenooghe, and Mr. Murray Lowe, Bachelorette
Owners Association;
- (November 9, 1999) from Mr. Philippe Campaie, Rupert Community Residential Services
Inc.;
- (January 15, 1999) from Mr. Robert B. Levitt, Parkdale Tenants' Association;
- (January 18, 2000) from Mr. Walter Jarsky;
- (January 18, 2000) from Mr. Bart Poesiat, Parkdale Community Legal Services Inc.;
- (January 18, 2000) from Mr. Don Weitz;
- (January 18, 2000) from Mr. Robert B. Levitt, Parkdale Tenants' Association;
- (January 18, 2000) from Mr. Murray Lowe;
- (January 18, 2000) from Ms. Maureen Fair, Community Response and Advocacy;
- (January 18, 2000) from Mr. Bruce Voogd and Ms. Maggie Cresswell-Weber, Roncesvalles-Macdonell Residents' Association;
- (January 18, 2000) from Mr. Victor Willis, Parkdale Activity-Recreation Centre;
- (Undated) from Mr. Paul Rodgers; and
- (January 18, 2000) from Mr. Bing Tung.
_________
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
- Mr. Oudit Raghubir, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Robert B. Levitt, Parkdale Tenants' Association;
- Mr. John Stewart, Parkdale Tenants' Association;
- Ms. Margaret Moores, Habitat Services;
- Mr. John Davies, Bachelorette Tenants Association;
- Mr. Patrick Bosch, Parkdale Bachelorette Tenants' Association;
- Mr. Victor Willis, Parkdale Activity-Recreation Centre;
- Ms. Nora McCabe, Joint Neighbourhood Committee;
- Ms. Maureen Fair, Director of Community Response;
- Ms. B. Millar, Roncesvalles/Macdonell Residents' Association;
- Mr. Bart Poesiat, Parkdale Community Legal Services;
- Mr. Mike Coward, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty;
- Mr. Ray Van Eenooghe, Bachelorette Owners' Association;
- Mr. George Vuckovich, Bachelorette Owners' Association;
- Mr. Murray Lowe, Bachelorette Owners' Association;
- Mr. Paul Rodgers, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Kumar Kanagaratnam, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Mel Starkman, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty;
- Ms. Rhoda Landis, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Mark Crowe, Parkdale Village B.I.A.;
- Mr. Walter Jarsky, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. John Colautti, Parkdale Village Residents' Association;
- Ms. Annie Walsh, Houselink Community Homes and Agency for Parkdale Conflict
Resolution Process;
- Mr. Bing Tung, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Michael B. Vaughan, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Carlton Dailey, Toronto, Ontario;
- Ms. Anna C. Thaker, Parkdale Tenants' Association;
- Mr. Alain Naud, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Allan Griffith, Toronto, Ontario; and
- Mr. Leo Anter, Toronto, Ontario.