The Toronto Community Council recommends that the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street be denied.

Purpose:

To report on the business owner=s request to appeal staff=s decision to refuse an application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street be denied, as the conditions of the premises licence from the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario stipulates that the applicant agrees not to seek permission for additional facilities Aby way of a patio licence@.

Background:

The City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting on September 3, 1997, had before it a communication (August 8, 1997) from Mr. Sheldon N. Silverman, solicitor for Mr. Bernie Dunford of Idefix Bistro, requesting an appeal of staff=s decision to refuse an application for a boulevard cafe on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street. The Committee requested me to report on the matter as a communication item.

Comments:

Mr. Bernie Dunford, owner of Idefix Bistro, 119 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1G7, submitted an application on April 29, 1997, requesting a licence for boulevard cafe privileges on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street. The proposed cafe area is approximately 37.0 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix >A=). It can accommodate 8 tables with a potential seating capacity of 32 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes as set out in '313-36 of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.

As the proposed cafe is within 25 m of a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated June 5 to July 7, 1997 was conducted on the east side of Major Street between Nos. 133 and 177 and on the west side of Major Street between Nos. 98 and 162, including 121 Harbord Street to determine neighbourhood support, as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Dunford was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued.

Mr. Silverman, solicitor for Mr. Dunford, then wrote to complain that the polling process was flawed because his client did not learn of the poll until after the ballots were issued, and because he believed the polling list was out-of-date.

However, when members of the community became aware of the cafe request, by way of the poll, they brought it to their Councillor=s attention (then Dan Leckie) that the liquor licence for 119 Harbord Street prohibited an application for an outdoor patio or cafe. The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario confirmed that the previous owner had been granted a licence, subject to a number of conditions which were to be binding on any subsequent license holders. In a signed AConsent and Undertaking@ he agreed, among other things:

These requirements are included in the licence issued to the new operator, Mr. Dunford, in May 1997.

In effect, Mr. Dunford should not have applied for cafe privileges, because of his agreement not to do so with the LLBO. If staff had been aware of this separate agreement, we would not have processed the application or conducted the poll.

Mr. Silverman=s comments on the inadequacy of the polling process are therefore somewhat moot, although I will address them in order to clarify the process. Mr. Dunford was sent a letter advising of the poll on June 5, 1997, the same day the ballots were issued.

Only 7 ballots of a total of 163 (i.e. 4%) were returned Aundeliverable@ by the post office. This indicates that the polling list was, although not 100% up-to-date, relatively accurate by Toronto standards (given that we experienced a 25% turnover in property owners on the tax assessment records in 1997). If a ballot is delivered but the property ownership or occupancy has changed, the current resident may return the ballot and have it tabulated in the poll results if they can prove their current residency with proper identification.

Conclusions:

This application for a boulevard cafe is in conflict with the Mr. Dunford=s undertaking not to apply for a cafe licence, as a condition of his liquor licence. Further, the result of the public poll was negative. Although the poll would not have been conducted had we known of this condition, the negative result reflects the community=s wishes with respect to a cafe.

If Mr. Dunford is able to get the terms of his LLBO licence changed to exclude the reference to the patio licence, we could reconsider the matter two years from the date the poll closed, or in July 1999. In the meantime, the application for a cafe licence should be denied.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (February 12, 1998) from Ms. Susan J. Potts; and

- (April 10, 1995) from Mr. Paul Robert Chambers and Mr. Robert John Hinton, addressed to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.