Transcript - Contentious Developments and Fence Dispute - North York Community Council

Contentious Developments and Fence Dispute - North York Community Council - March 31, 2026

Okay, good morning everybody. We're ready to start. Counselors could take their seats. Just so I don't forget, at the end of the meeting, I just wanted to wish everybody a uh a happy Passover and a happy Easter. Hope everybody has a nice restful time with family. No one online. No counselors. Ah, here we go. Although uh good morning. My name is councelor James Passang. I'm chair of North York Community Council. We have quorum. I'm calling meeting 31 to order. Although we may be meeting in different locations today, North York Community Council would like to acknowledge that the land we are meeting on is a traditional territory of many nations including the Missaga of the Credit Aneswabi, Chippoa, Hodenoshi, and Wenda peoples is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit Mate people. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by treaty13 with the Missaga for the credit. Today's meeting is being uh held by video conference. It's being livereamed online at youtube.com backronto city councsil live. If you're registered to speak at today's meeting, please listen for me to call your name. I will call speakers in the order that they appear on the list. The list of speakers can be viewed online by visiting North Community Council page at toronto.ca/counsel ca/counsel and clicking the speakers box for today's meeting. Members of city clerk has provided all agenda materials on toronto.ca and on CMP, the clerk's meeting portal. Clerk's IT staff are available to members if you need help with your devices. I also want to remind you that please submit and approve your motions by email. Staff are available at nycc toronto.ca to help with motions. Are there any declarations of interest under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act? If you have an interest, please raise your hand, unmute your mic, and indicate the item number and the nature of the interest. I see none. May I have a motion to confirm the minutes from our meeting of February the 18th, 2026? Councelor Carol. So move. All those in favor? Yep. opposed. That is carried. Okay. So, let's run through the agenda for items that are not timed and not held for speakers. That means we're starting actually at item number six, uh, 41 to 47 Talara Drive. Official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment decision report refusal. Councelor Carol. Yes. I'll move the staff recommendations. Staff recommendations. Uh, moved on item six. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Item number seven, 52 Finch Avenue West. Zoning bylaw amendment decision report approval. Uh, Councelor Chang, move staff recommendations. Staff recommendations moved. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Number eight, we are going to hold Marchman Marchwood Drive. We're going to hold for speakers. Uh, Paper Birch Drive, we're going to hold for speakers. Lord Seat and Road, application for fence exemption. We're going to hold for speakers. That item looks like bun. Um, number 11, 4580 Duffren Street Turn Prohibition. Uh, that is in lovely ward 6. I will move staff recommendations. All those in favor? opposed. That is carried. Number 12, uh, Doncliffe Drive parking amendment. Uh, councelor Chernos Lynn, are there no speakers on this? I was expecting someone, but if they haven't registered, then I'm happy to move staff recommendations. I do not see any speakers listed on this item. Okay, I'm happy to move recommendations. So, this is uh number 12 Don Cliff Drive. Um, councelor Chernos Lynn is moving the staff recommendations. All those in favor? Yeah. Opposed? That is carried. Number 13 is being held for speakers. Number 14, uh, 1648 1682 Victoria Park Avenue, designation of fire roots, amendment to chapter 880, fire roots. Uh, councelor Burnside, staff recommendations moved. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Item number 15, 6575 Kuru Drive, designation of fire roots, an amendment to chapter 880 fire roots. Councelor Burnside. Staff recommendations moved. All those in favor? Opposed? Uh that is carried. Uh number 16, appointment of public members to the Leid Memorial Community Gardens Arena Board. Uh Councelor Chernos Lynn. I'd like to adopt staff recommendations. Okay. Councelor Chernos Lynn is moving staff recommendations. All those in favor opposed. That is carried. Number 17, Spadina Road, New Haven Road, and Chaplain Crescent parking regulation. It's a letter from Councelor Cole. And what would councelor Cole like to do? Uh do I move uh to You're gonna Yeah. agenda first. No, no, it's it's on the agenda. Uh you can move these recommendations or if you want to hold it for debate. I'll move recommendations. They're your own recommendations. All those in favor? [snorts] Opposed? No. No. No. All those in favor? Yeah. Yeah. In favor? Opposed? Carried. Number 18. Um, Chacudami Avenue and Front Knock Avenue always stop control. Um, this is this is also a letter from councelor Cole. I Okay. Um, all those in favor posed. All those in favor? opposed. That's carried. Thank you. Okay. Number 19, Roll Rollinsson Avenue between Egun Avenue and Broadway Avenue. Implement implementation of permit parking. Um, okay. Councelor Chernos Land, there's no deputents. I don't see any listed. No. Um, we'll uh move staff recommendations, please. No, they're not staff recommendations. It looks like they're yours. Sorry, my recommendations. This was this is part two from last week. Last week. Uh, just one quick question for the mover. Has have staff perused this? Uh, yes. Staff's here. If if you wish. No, I don't want to hold it for debate. I just Yes, we worked on this with staff. Uh, it got interrupted by the postal strike and uh Uhhuh. permanent parking is very rare in North York. Okay, let's put to Huh. I thought I was the only one that could get permit bargaining. Okay, so uh all those in favor opposed. That is carried. And number 20, um Damore Circle request for a Dawn Valley Parkway South sound barrier. Um councelor Burnside My request. All right. You're a request. Sorry. It's a request of the min ministry given that this is being uploaded to the province. I see. Okay. Uh so this will go to council. Okay. All those in favor posed. That is carried. Okay. Let's go back up to the top of the agenda now. Um, councelor Carol, when it comes to Burbank Drive, I have a note here that you're referring this back to staff number one. Yes. Yes. But there may be there may be a speaker. Yes. No, we do have speakers. Um, there may be it's it doesn't say who the speaker is that is listed, but I'm wondering if they want to uh uh wait to speak until the item comes back. We're gonna refer this back to staff for a little more work. Is the speaker here or virtual? Yeah, I don't know where the speaker is, but it's Joshua Mystery. We're planning on referring it back to staff because we want to do a little more work following the the the uh in-person visit on the street with the community group. Did you want to wait and speak at the when it returns to to community council? Yeah. Yeah, probably best. If you speak today, when it comes back, you can't speak again. Okay. Okay. So, I'm going to go ahead and and move the motion. Okay. So, uh councelor Curry, you're moving deferral a referral referral back to back to staff. Okay. So, um item number one, uh Burbank Drive is being referred back to staff. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Item number two, um 93 York Road zoning bylaw amendment application decision report. Uh I have uh Adam Leighton of the Goldberg Group. Now I assume you're the applicant. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Yes. Uh thank you for joining us. Um you have five minutes. Uh thank you. Um I I have provided a brief presentation. Uh however um given you know I'm sure it's a very busy meeting if there are no questions this is straightforward. So all right so you're available for questions. All right. Are there any questions for the deputants? I don't I don't see any um questions for staff. Okay. Speakers. Uh, councelor Chernos Lin, I just want to move to adopt staff recommendations, please. Okay. Staff recommendations moved on item number two, 93 York Road, zoning bylaw, amendment application. All those in favor? Opposed? Uh, that is carried. Item number three, 609 Row Hampton Avenue. I do have um speakers. I have um William Swift from the Broadway Area Rapers Association. Mr. Swift, William Swift. Oh, you just have to unmute. I'm here. Oh, there you go. Okay. Okay. Thanks [clears throat] for joining us. You have five minutes. Okay. My name is Bill Swift and I speak as a member of Barah and and and as a resident of Glenn Avenue just up the street from this building. I also speak for those unsuspecting new residents who will moving into the community currently unaware of how their basic needs will be satisfied. This building is quite difference in appearance. It consumes an elongated narrow lot with an above ground laneway arch connecting two 15story towers. The laneway allows for human traffic traffic vehicle access and parking. In appearance, it will be a stark and imposing wall which will cast a shadow towards residents immediately to the north. We predict coming and going uh it will house approximately 400 to 500 residents living in over 200 units. This building contributes to what we what constitutes a rapid and ever shrinking retail services in our corner. It has no retail space for its occupants. Indeed, this building will be replacing 6,000 square feet of available retail space now to be destroyed. For this building, setbacks are to the minimum and height is to the maximum. We submit given minimal setbacks, available space for sidewalks is too narrow for the expected growth in pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Sidewalks are insufficient in width for 400 plus humans and 231 bikes and will result in soft and shaded landscaping being trampled and muddied. There are currently no bike lanes on this two-lane residential street, nor do we suspect there's space to accommodate them. We predict coming and going bikes will compete with with sidewalks for space. We believe the lane way to the building will be inadequate for the onslaught of delivery trucks and service vehicles required to provide services to building occupants. And this narrow entrance to the building will lead to backups and congestion backing out onto Roampton. Uh there is no dedicated resident parking for the in the building. There are only 11 spots split between five visitor spaces and six for delivery trucks and building service vehicles. When one looks at 609 rehampton in the context of the larger northwest corner of Bayiew and Egun uh immediate to immediately to its south, the current layout of this building is limiting and obstructive. Previously, a schematic shared by the city revealed a proposed development map for this remaining sector that indicated Glenn Avenue uh would extend through to Egun plus a park where the Shell station currently resides. The drawings for these buildings for this building 609 suggest the existence of at this corner, the existence of this passageway is no longer possible. Does this plan still exist? Uh how do we how do we get to Metro to the corner? Uh a fullervice food outlet such as Metro will be critical provided uh ex given the exploding population. Current residents keep asking what will happen at the corner? Will metro be gone? Uh will there still be parking, you know, for residents that currently drive to the to Metro? The consensus of our residents is that metros leaving our community would be a very very bad news. Metro. Uh, the only answer we can offer to this to these questions is we don't know. Most importantly, a full-ervice grocery is the solution to satisfying what this pedestrian population will decidedly need. That's basic staples within walking distance. From the community's perspective, approval of this building dictates limitations and restrictions for the development of this last corner. If integrated plans for this corner are now available, it is those plans that we should now be decisioning, of which 609 would be a part for reasons cited, the community that presently exists and will be created needs better understanding of how they will function going forward. Barah representing the residents concludes that the approval of 609 Roampton should be postponed held in obeyance or not allowed until such time as there's greater clarity regarding the development of the remainder entire northwest corner of Bay View and Egllandon say same could allow for a more holistic planning process such uh and such a dramatic increase in population and mark change in residents needs uh a conversation needs to be held with residents, city develop city with residents, the city developers uh to try to come to a positive and mutually beneficial outcome. Thanks. Great. Thank you for your comments. Any questions for the deputants? Uh councelor Chernos Lynn. Good morning. Thank you for your deputation. I just wanted to uh ask, are you aware that the recommendation is for the city to um the city solicitor to attend the OOLT in opposition to the current application? Yes, I am. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I just wanted to make that clear. I think you're you're in alignment with the city and uh I think there's agreement there. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, uh, Council Chernos Lynn. Any other questions for the deputent? Okay, William, thank you very much. Uh Jeff Catel. Oh, he's online. Uh Jeff. Yes. Yes. Hi. Uh welcome. You have five minutes. I'm gonna sound a little bit like Bill who just spoke. We've um we we the two res associations uh do work collaboratively closely together and um so the um the L is uh is is strongly in support of the staff recommendation as the as Rachel raised that point. We have reviewed the application and have the uh several comments and concerns. Our fundamental and overall concern is that the proposed development would appear to be premature until plans are formulated in coordination with or in conjunction with or further to the redevelopment of the large metro site majorly to the south. such matters as wind and shadow studies, the possible southern extension of Glen Navy Avenue, the availability of supermarket facilities in an intensifying area, and pedestrian access to the LRT station are closely linked to the plans for the metro property. The high lock coverage and access for the proposed buildings would negatively impact on the metro grocery store operations as it as it currently is. the east west alignment of the buildings which is necessitated by the by the um you know the property property uh coverage the um would negatively would result in maximum negative shadow impacts on the properties on the north side of Roampton Avenue. We think it would make sense for developers in this sort of situation where you have adjacent properties for them to join forces and develop the assembled land as a single block block. It would appear um there are a lot of sight specific issues around about parking for example parking um part of the site is currently being used for parking by metro. The secondary leside LRT station on the northwest corner um has already reduced the parking available to Metro. As such, there is a concern the proposed development will put further parking pressure on neighboring streets. Arrangements for drop off and the and pickup appear to be inadequate. The complete lack of a north side setback is unacceptable and reflects the fact that too much lock coverage is being proposed. This is an emerging highdensity residential area and a pleasant walking environment is essential. The cycling routes do not exist um particularly on Bay View to accommodate the high rate of bicycle usage and visits support that. But these we we need to be working on the on the mobility plans as well in setting its parking standards. The city is obviously assuming that the future transportation needs of people in buildings such as these will be met by the LRT and by cycling. With an aging population and finite capacity on the LRT, there's growing concern that there's no contingency plan. If the city's assumptions prove incorrect, no retail space is proposed given that the site is designated mixed use. Retail space should at least be provided on the on the ground floor. And we talk about people and jobs. Well, there's people, but where are the jobs? The uh subject side is under lane by the warmsley brook which formerly ran on the surface through the area. There is concern that each proposed development in the area has been looked at in isolation when a comprehensive study of the groundwater issues should should be undertaken to properly address the issues which um have already been experienced and which when we were working on the rear can site across the road was very evident that the water was going to pile up. You've got the uh the LRT tunnel, you've got the buildings on the rear can site potentially. It's the water's going to pile up on that northwest uh corner and and go up beyond up to realampton and beyond. Uh finally, the community services and facilities report which accompanied the proposal fails to address the cumulative needs of the area with its emerging concentration of density. It identifies lack of capacity in the education area but makes no effort to propose how this shortfall will be addressed. We ask that all these various concerns be given full consideration as this application is further considered um at the um Ontario land tribun. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much Jeff. U any questions for the deputent? No. Uh Jeff, I did uh incorporate your suggestions at council uh on my multiplex motion. So, thank you very much for that uh that input. Uh I don't have any other speakers on this item. Uh we'll bring it into committee. Questions for staff? Any questions for staff? And go to speakers. I just just a reminder this is going to appeal. I don't know why we're spending so much time on it's out of our hands now. Why are we voting? Okay. So, anyway, uh councelor councelor Chernos Lind, I I see you want to speak, so you can you can uh speak on the item. I I would really just say uh chair staff has outlined in the report a number of different reasons where they don't feel this is uh at a place where they can approve it uh because of a number of aspects with the site as proposed uh by the applicant. And so this is a direction to actually uh ideally continue discussions, but if that doesn't go well, end up at OOLT uh because they want to make sure that uh they have a site that that will work in future. So um I I think there's alignment here and I would just move that we adopt staff recommendations. Thank you. Okay. Any other speakers on the item? Councelor Cole? Yeah, it's quite surprising uh that the two deputants spoke uh detail on the application and I don't think they understood that this has been denied by city planning department and uh they should be addressing the Ontario land tribunal but again I but I just think there's a lack of understanding of the incredible power the Ontario Land Tribunal has and fact that there's been so many changes in planning. So maybe that's why the the deputants didn't understand that because it's hard to keep up with all the changes. That's all I want to say. Thank you. Yeah, I would agree. Okay, so we've we're done with speakers. Um Councelor Chernos Lynn has moved the recommendations uh directional report. All those in favor? All those in favor? Opposed? Uh that is carried. Item number four, 45 Grenobyl Drive. I have I have a speaker on the item. Um Tony Valesta Vatesta Aboose Fields. I assume you're the applicant. Okay. So, you're available for questions. You do? Yes, I do. Okay, please say something. Every once in a while you have to slow down. Um, good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, community council. Uh, as you said, my name is Tony Bulpentest. I'm a partner planning consultant at Bosefields. The reason, and I didn't have to speak today, I want to speak today. Okay. So, uh, here's the reason why, Mr. Pastor Knack, Mr. Chair, uh, leading into a year before my retirement, I thought I'd appear before you in person. And uh because the reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated uh I'm here to uh celebrate something uh a long my long career but you know I've been at this so long John Andreski had some hair guy Matthew was a teenager there's a chance for some levity and some celebration sir that's why I'm asking to speak in all seriousness first off I'd like to thank councelor Burnside and his office for their collaboration throughout the application process. We have the opportunity to host numerous tenant and and neighborhood information sessions in addition to the community consultation meeting. Secondly, I wish to extend my thanks to city staff to uh in particular David Sit, Dan Tovi, and Derek Wong for all their assistance with this application. I've reviewed the positive staff report with my client and we agree with the recommendations. We worked very hard with staff and existing residents to to design an infill uh purpose purpose-built rental building that maintains an appropriate relationship with the existing building on the subject site and its surroundings. Uh the development will deliver additional rental housing in Flemington Park in an approved major transit station area in close proximity to the future Flemington Park Ontario line. And we greatly appreciate staff's time and effort. We don't get a chance to say this enough. I want to emphasize that on my own behalf. I'm happy to answer any questions and I thought I'd take the opportunity to appear before you in person. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much and congratulations on your uh retirement and uh it's still a year away, sir. Just giving you notice. This is my chance to say congratulations. So, I will I will take it. Congratulations of your good work years of work in city building and working with local counselors and of course city staff. Any questions for the uh deputent? Any words of congratulations? Come back in a year. No, we're going to string it out for the whole year. No. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for appearing. Okay. Um, questions for staff? No, I'd like to move staff recommendations. Okay. Uh, Councelor Burnside, we're on speakers now. Councelor Burnside is moving staff recommendations. Would anyone else like to speak? No. Okay. Staff recommendations moved. All those in favor? Opposed? Uh, that is carried. Number five, 1800 Shepard Avenue East. I have one speaker. I have um Kamsa Baker. Are you online? Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes. Uh good morning, chair and uh city councilors. Uh my name is Kumam and I'm part of a group called the build build a better Fairview which is a group of residents community and service organizations uh dedicated to the responsible equitable and sustainable development of the Fairview area. Uh we've been very involved in uh over the years on the consultations and engagement regarding this uh development site. Uh we have submitted a letter with further details about some of the issues and concerns that we continue to have with this uh development proposal. Um specifically related to provision of community space uh affordable housing and uh community engagement. Uh regarding community space, uh we are disappointed to see that the provision of a community agency space and a nonprofit license licensed child care space is not included in this first phase. Um according to the Toronto nonprofit network, organizations across Toronto are already facing a lack of affordable spaces amidst increased demand for services. And uh specifically with this location, uh this would have been a great opportunity as part of the first phase to have uh space that could be available to local agencies or uh in addition to including a nonprofit licensed childcare space as well. Um regarding affordable housing, our goal was that we wanted to see 20% of affordable housing as part of this site. Um, currently we do see that uh what's being included falls short of that which is uh 3%. And so uh as as the uh development continues, we want to see the city and and the developer uh work hard to increase the amount of affordable housing units uh as part of this uh development site. Uh regarding community engagement, we are concerned that the removal of the requirement for a draft plan of sub subdivision effectively allows the for the project to be expedited to the site plan controls phase without further opportunity for the local community to express their views on this president setting first phase of redevelopment. Given the notes above regarding the need for community agency space, childcare spaces, affordable housing in the first phase of this development, we believe that a revised community services and facility study with a plan would be beneficial as part of the draft plan of subdivision uh for this phase and will also benefit the wider community especially as there's a lot of growth and development that is slated and uh we want to make sure that we have the proper facilities to accommodate the growth in this community. Uh lastly, we've heard from a lot of uh local residents in the community regarding the impact to traffic uh from all phases of this redevelopment which have uh not been adequately addressed so far. Uh we have heard that public transit is not a practical option for many residents in the area to access many parts of the city. A lot of people still do drive. Uh and given that Dawn Mills is the furthest uh station on line 4 as well, reducing rates of parking provision without significant improvements to existing active and public transit systems is insufficient to meet the needs of local drivers, transit users and pedestrians. Uh given this uh we would like to see further um uh research and and um a study of transportation impact uh from this development. Uh and so yeah, thank you for uh providing me the opportunity to share these comments on behalf of uh Build a Better Fair. Okay, thank you very much. Any questions for the deputent? Okay. Uh thank you very much, uh Kamsa. Um [clears throat] questions for staff? No questions, just to speak. Okay. Uh, councelor Carol. Yes. Thank you. Um, there there is a little more discussion to have on this. We're I'm going to adopt the item today. I'm going to move the staff recommendations, but I want to thank uh Kamsa speaking on behalf of I hope people took note of the name of this group. It's called Build a Better Fair View. Uh, Fairview Mall is a uh um it's an unprecedented application amongst that sort of citywide move of of uh um intensifying on shopping mall properties. This is going to be the uh the mother of them all by the time it's completely done. But what uh build a better fair view is speaking to is is where the infrastructure fits in what part of the phasing and there is some work to do on that. I'm particularly concerned about make getting that right. Um given the announcements of yesterday that we're not going to collect development charges to the degree that we need for for the foreseeable uh on on any housing, let alone the the affordable. Very concerned about that. But um there are some precision precision moves that that may need to be changed in this that we can do at council. But I don't want to leave the whole thing wide open. um infrastructure does have to happen. But what was really important to me was to to put all the cash towards getting the affordable housing in this first phase because it's it's my experience, my long experience is that if you don't get it in phase one, you may never see the affordable units. And so that was a priority and I and I believe it is a priority for the the the Build a Better Fair View uh friends of the community as well. But uh uh I don't disagree with the community that we need to keep engaging because we need to make sure that all the other infrastructure that needs to go with such a massive buildout here. We is going to have to happen in the very next phases to get the parkland to get the uh um all of the community infrastructure right. Um we're going to have to keep our eye on this ball for for a number of years. But uh for today um I'm asking that we adopt the staff recommendations. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Carol. Any other speakers on the item? I don't see any. Okay. Councelor Carol has uh moved staff recommendations. Um all those in favor opposed. That is carried. Next item is um number eight, Marchwood Drive, 50 Marchwood Drive, application to remove a private tree. It is in my area. I've uh read the report. It is a tough call. Um I just wanted to uh defer the item. I'd like to let speakers know that I'd like to visit the site um and see for myself. um because it seems like there's two households. If you speak, you you're welcome to speak today. Uh but my understanding is you you would not be able to speak when the item comes back. So I' I'd like to take a closer look at this application and I'd like to understand uh how it's impeding the enjoyment of your property and what the relationship is between the two households. Okay. The motion is on the screen. Uh I'm deferring it to the next. Oh, you'd like to speak today? Yeah. Oh, no. Circulation of materials is is always in order. That's fine. It goes through the clerk. Okay. Uh we're voting on deferral to the next regularly scheduled community council meeting. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. And uh for the for the people for the deputants and I'm not sure who's with the each household, if you can contact my office, I'd be happy to come come by. and to the site and and see it for myself if that's of interest. Okay, we're on to item nine 71 paper birch drive application remove private tree. Uh we do have uh speakers Brian Shin Brian Shin, are you in the room? No. Next speaker is Nicole Curado. She is online. Hello. Okay, Nicole, I was gonna Yes, I was just going to say that this tree is perfectly healthy and just because the tree is bleeding does not mean the tree is not healthy. There's a tree that I grew up with who the same kind of tree and uh the tree is really sturdy. I looked at the photographs. The tree looks very sturdy, the Colorado blue spruce. And there's absolutely no reason to cut the tree, especially not during nesting season when there's going to be all kinds of birds nesting in that tree right now and they'll be homeless and you'll end up harming the birds. So, this tree needs to be preserved. The tree absolutely can be preserved. There's no reason to cut the tree. Hey, thank you for your comments. Any questions for the deputent? Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Uh questions for staff. Councelor Burnside. Yeah. Thank you. Through you. Um, last bullet point I think says a tree with minor trunk lean is generally unlikely. What does that mean? Unlikely. It's a very opaque term through the chair. Um, unlikely is a term that actually aligns with the industry standards for tree inspections. they refer to failure likelihood being um improbable, likely unlikely. So, so that that we we try to align with those industry standards. Um to put it into layman's terms or for the purposes of this um hearing today, unlikely means we don't see anything that is predisposing the tree to failure. Yes, we see the lean, but there is nothing that makes it more than that. We're not seeing any sign of roots coming out of the ground. We're not seeing any sign of splits in the stem. Um things like that. This was a um an inspection that occurred before the the snow came in the wintertime originally. So, we do have that on on site sort of assessment. Okay. Thank you. So, um with this type of tree, was it like a blue spruce? they within they do catch the wind more than uh let's say an oak tree. Is that fair? Like would that would and given that they're more a softer wood, are they not more likely to use um industry terms to um to actually break through the chair? I'm I'm unfortunately I'm going to answer that circularly, but I hope help helpfully. Trees are well adapted to their environments. each tree reaches the size that it is at today by surviving the climate and the environment and the stresses that it occurs that that it grows in. If spruces as a species were more prone to failure than deciduous trees, we would see far less of them or we would see them on the ground more often and that's simply not the case. Okay. So, if you had a this is kind of a like this is my probably my last question. So, if it's unlikely. What is that in percentage terms? 10% 5%. Through the chair again, I have to go around that. Um, it's going to depend on the severity of stresses that act on it. So, if this tree, what would cause this tree to fall down? A a heavy wind in the wrong direction with snow and ice or something like that. Um, I I I think that the kind of event that would cause this tree to fail would cause a lot of other trees to fail to put put that in a different perspective. So, it's no more likely than a a perfectly like erect tree that's slightly more likely. The lean does predispose it slightly, 10% more, but not it's just it's hard to pick a number decision when the the terms are so nebulous, but Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councelor Burnside. Any other questions for staff? No. Okay. Speakers. Councelor Burnside. Paper Birch, what do you want to do? Yeah. I mean, had someone come and spoken and actually shown a little bit of passion, I might have moved something else, but I'll move recommendations to deny the request. The recommendation to deny staff recommendations. Yes. Okay. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Okay. Uh item number 10, 237 Lord Seat and Road application for offense exemption. I have a number of deputents. Uh Stephen Perros Stephen Steven Perose. No. Uh, Sergit Marwaha. Oh. Uh, no, it's fine. Uh, Garav. Garov. Oh, you want to speak first? Okay, that's fine. Good morning members of council. My name is Gora Marwaha and my wife Serjit Marwa and I reside at 235 Lord Seatan Road since 2006 directly adjacent to 237 Lord Seatan Road. I will be discussing the chronology of the unfortunate situation that we have endured and my wife will be the next speaker who will explain what was actually built and the impact on us. We strongly we strongly object to this fence exemption. This application cannot be considered in isolation. It stems directly from an illegal elevated deck that was constructed without permits and has significantly impacted our property and us. The current request is an attempt to retroactively address a problem that should have not been allowed to occur in the first place. The homeowner has had over five years to make things right and has not done so. In July 2021, Mr. demolished and knowingly rebuilt a deck without permits in clear violation of zoning bylaws. The new structure expanded from the permitted 2.5 m to approximately 6.2 m and was relocated entirely closer to our property, creating direct overlook into our backyard and living spaces, significantly compromised our privacy and security. In October 2021, the homeowner delayed the investigation by not responding to city notices or calls, resulting in an order to comply in August 2022. During that process, Mr. Meha advised the city inspectors that the deck structure was unchanged and that only the boards were replaced. This was not accurate and was contradicted by photographic evidence that we had to provide because the deck was already built and we were denied the opportunity to object beforehand. Despite being non-compliant, the structure remained in use for years with no penalties or meaningful enforcement. It was only through persistent follow-up, including involvement of councelor Jay Robinson's office, that the homeowner was finally compelled to apply for a minor variance. A change from 2.5 to 6.2 m is not minor, and even a committee member questioned how such a structure was allowed. At the first committee of adjustments hearing in November 2023, the committee acknowledged the privacy concerns and deferred the application, specifically directing the applicant to return with revised drawings showing a permanent privacy screen attached to and integrated into the deck. At the July 4th, 2024 hearings, the applicant failed to follow the COA's previous direction and the variance was approved with a clear condition. 2 meters opaque screening from the base of the deck across the full length. This decision was undertaken after the committee asked Mr. Mera what would prevent him from the privacy screen being on the deck. This wording that I said from the base of the deck across the full length is the wording that is that has been taken directly from the hearing record. We were shocked when the decision was revised three months later with the same date and signatures but different wording and no appeal process. How could this be lawfully done and what was the point of the hearings? The word measured from the floor of the deck was added and yet it does not appear in the hearing video a hearing video record. We never imagined that this revision could be used to justify moving the privacy screening off the deck and we were only made aware of this change after the fence had already been constructed. What matters is not the revised wording. What matters it was clearly directed at the hearing. The committee was clear the privacy solution must be permanent, effective and part of the deck. The hearing record confirms this. It was meant to be on the deck, not beside it. The committee felt strongly that it needed to be part of the deck. This direction was not followed. Now my wife Sujit Marwa will share the details of the illegal fence and its impact on our family. Okay. Uh thank you very much. Questions for the deputants? I have questions. Thanks. Um July 4th, 2024, there was a uh committee of adjustment decision that the owners to provide 2 meters of opaque screening across the length of the deck measured from the floor of the deck on the south east side of the deck. Yeah, that was the revised decision. That was what revised. Okay, but okay. So the revised decision and the word measured was so sorry. Sorry. I'm actually asking the the not just just for um process. Thanks. So um I can ask you the same question you can answer later. Uh so in the revised decision because there was an updated decision they it says to provide this. So is the is the um owner at 237 not provided it or has provided it or you have a problem with what they provided? I'm trying to understand. It's very convoluted. When we were at the hearing, it was said it was to be from the floor of the deck. Okay, that was the initial decision. 3 months later, something came in the mail. There was no hearing. There was no followup. It was the wording was changed and the date wasn't changed. Nothing was changed. The signatures were not changed. Okay. So, respectfully, I get it. Um it's a very confusing process but the most up-to-date decision was this committee of adjustment one the update revised notice of decision for the minor variance has the applicant the the person that whoever that is at 237 Lord seat have they followed the revised that's for you you I I don't know they haven't I I would say they have so you're not sure if they have or haven't sorry sorry I'm asking respectfully counselor I'm asking this individual questions we can talk later but like he's making and I need to I'm trying to understand my understanding my understanding of the hearing was it was supposed to be on the deck all the videos say that right and from my perspective it's not on the deck that's what we agreed to I don't okay so it it so yeah this is very helpful so you're saying that it's it if it were on the deck It's okay. The fact that it's beside the deck is the issue. Yeah, it's not beside the Yeah, it's Yeah, it's right next to our Sure. Sure. Sure. That that is kind of the nub of the issue. You got it. Okay. Thank you very much. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Burnside. Um, councelor Chernos Lin, did you have any questions for the deputants? Thank you. Can you just explain where is it beside the deck or is it beside your fence? What's the distance in between? It's beside the pictures we submitted. Explain that on the It's next to our property line. It's next to your property line. So, it's not ne it's not even not only is it not on the deck, which was the intent of the committee of adjustment, right? it is several feet away or it is it's against your fence as opposed to against the It's against our fence. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we everybody understood that here. Thank you. Thank you, counselor. And my wife has sent uh exhibits the pictures that that are in uh to the team. Okay. Um any other questions for the deputent? Okay. Uh it's Sergeant. Yes. Uh okay. Uh you have five minutes. Thank you and good morning members of the council. We had to follow up with uh after my husband spoke and uh uh we had to follow up with Toronto building for almost a year to get them get the homeowner to uh apply the mandated privacy screening and wanted to ensure that it extended across the full length of the deck from the floor of the deck. We were told that the homeowner was in the process of getting approval from MLS for the privacy screen. We always assumed that it would be a part of the deck. Instead of complying to the committee's condition, the homeowner constructed a large fence approximately 3.5 m high directly beside our fence and uh beside the temporary fence that we had put in. This is this was never disclosed. This was never approved and we were never given the opportunity to review or object to this before it was built. When we objected to the built, we were told by Toronto Building it had been approved by municipal licensing and the file was going to close. This was incorrect and false. Municipal licensing confirmed to us that no such approval had ever been granted and issued this violation that we see today. How was the permit closed without MLS approval by Toronto Building? Despite our objections, we feel they issued an illegal permit. It is our understanding from MLS today that any fence constructed of this height other than on the deck in this case is a violation of the fencing bylaw. So really the only legal option would have been for it to be on the deck to meet the COA conditions despite the wording. And here we are. We have a structure that blocks natural sunlight stunting the growth of a large garden creating sand sanitation issues. The raccoons are soiling it every day posing a health risk to our dog Ginger and it negatively impacts the look and the feel of our property. If this exemption is approved, it sets the precedence that approvals and bylaws can be ignored. During the COA process of attending the two hearings, we did give in during mediation in and agreed in good faith to allow the deck to remain provided the privacy screen was bu built into it. For example, in the future, somebody could take it down, somebody else can move in. We wanted to ensure it was part of the deck design. The agreement was not honored by our neighbor to resolve this matter and our concerns were dismissed. Again, we are asking the simple question, why was the normal permit and enforcement process not applied here that every other homeowner here has to follow? Mr. Mara does not want to look at a 2meter wall on the on his deck as ordered, but expects us to tolerate a 3.5 high structure right next to our property line. Over four years, there has been consistent patter pattern of building without permits, providing inaccurate information of avoiding enforcement, delaying compi compliance while the structure remains in use. All intentional. This has costed us already over $10,000 to install the temporary privacy screen and then taking it down, planting 16 evergreen bushes, taking time off work to attend all these hearings and not to mention the cost of legal legal consultation just to protect our rights. We did nothing wrong. We did not build anything illegal. At this point, the homeowner should be required to remove the deck and start in full compliance of the bylaws. Just like everybody else, the homeown homeowner was given the opportunity after the last hearing to correct the issue, but instead proceeded with further non-compliant construction. No one should have to endure the stress, loss of privacy, financial costs, and caused by these actions. If this matter is returned to city building and inspections, we are concerned of the lack of enforcement and transparency we faced in the past. The home owner even delayed putting up the public notice for this hearing until he was told to do so and we and will find many other loopholes in the system not to do what is right. This may go on for many years. Council members, it's up to you to hold this homeowner accountable and not waste taxpayer dollars on his him evading the process. We are the ones that are affected. We are asking the committee to stand up for us, ensure and ensure a final enforcable solution with set timelines, possible penalties so we can resolve this matter once and for all. Many of our neighbors have wrap up please. Yes. That's you're done. Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for the deputent? Questions? Councelor Burnside and then councelor Chen. Okay. Yeah. Um through you. Um you said it was assumed that we this privacy screening would be built on the deck. Yeah. Because that was the direction u the first hearing. uh they deferred the decision so that he could go back because they were concerned it was because of the non-compliance that it was it was not going to be done that it should be a part of the deck. No, no, but you said it was so sorry. Who assumed that it was going to be built on the deck? You or No, no. When I was talking when when they were talking to MLS, we assumed it was always on the deck. Okay. You assumed? Okay. Yeah, I assume. Sorry. So, I know it's just um and did MLS grant this? Did they? No. What? Stav is here. I'm sure they have an answer to that. Okay. Okay. I'll ask them. Okay. Um and then in terms of so to confirm, I think it was your husband, what he said was that the it's the location. If it's on the deck, this thing is fine, but it's being placed beside the deck, which is an issue. Yeah. So, the deck is about 1.6 m away from our property line. Yeah. And at one point it was only 2 m wide. Now, we have 6.2 meters along our fence line all the way down. 1.5 meter away from our property. And now the it was supposed to be on the deck. It's right on our fencing. On whose property? Yours or theirs? It's right on their property. Right at the fence line. Okay. And so how much closer? So it's right it's on their side of the property and it's 1.6 m closer to our property than it should be because the deck itself is 1.6 mp. It should have been on the deck. And from So you want this thing moved? Uh well, from what I understand, the bylaw is that anything that is a certain uh any in this case, any any uh as I mentioned in my speech, anything that is off the deck is a fence bylaw violation. If it's on the deck, it So, I don't understand why how it ever got to be there. It was always a bylaw violation from what I Okay. No, that's Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Burnside. Councelor Chernos Lynn. Thank you. So, um I like I understand that uh the process, you know, whereby we ended up here has been long, lengthy, drawn out. Um, but does the the fence despite it not being in compliance both with our fence laws and with the committee of adjustment uh decision because it's not on the deck. It's not attached to the deck. That seems to be the intent. Uh regardless when I read it, uh it certainly seems like whether you take the first or the adjusted wording, the intent seems to be that it's on the deck. But does it provide privacy for you? Not enough. Because if it was on the deck, you wouldn't hear all the noise coming off the deck. Now you see it's because it's 1.6 meters away. The noise level of having 20 people on that deck is greater. Otherwise, it would bounce off the other way. So you do hear a lot more noise if as opposed to being on the deck itself. And the full length of the deck is 6.2 m. So, and this fence is only 5.8 meters uh along the depth. So, somebody standing on that last half half a meter can see that there's no privacy for us on that part. So, it actually doesn't go all the way alongside that deck. Even if it was flush up against it, it's actually not as long as the deck. Is that that what you're saying? And is is there a reason why it doesn't? Because they have a staircase and they don't want to It's not my problem. They don't like the aesthetics of it. Okay. I I assume I'm assuming that. I don't know that, but Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, councelor Chernos Lynn, any other questions for the deputent? No. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm looking for Nikki Law. Nikki Law. Hi. Oh, there you are. Okay. Thank you very much. So, my name is Nikki Law. I am a resident of this neighborhood and a close friend of Serg and her family. I am here today to speak to the severe ongoing impact this illegal structure has had on their home and the breakdown of accountability of this process. Am I disturbing you? Did you want to finish your conversation before I continue? Having spent onair. Uh you're using my ability to speak. So if if you need time or I'm happy that's a that's a meeting over there with city staff. could be one thing if it was uh you know a tea party along here. So I I think you have the attention of counselors. Okay, I would proceed. So having spent a significant amount of time in their backyard over the years, I have personally experienced the total loss of privacy caused by this new elevated deck. An area that was once a private family sanctuary now feels exposed, uncomfortable, and unusable. Out of desperation, I helped Serge install a temporary privacy structure along the fence line at significant personal time, effort, and expense just to regain a basic level of privacy. They even planted 16 evergreen trees as a goodfaith attempt to restore the space. Instead of respecting that, the neighbor the neighboring homeowner constructed a new unapproved and visually unappealing fence right beside the property line, forcing the removal of our temporary structure and threatening the health of the new trees. The committee's original directive requiring a proper privacy wall built directly on the deck was an incredibly generous compromise for a deck that was built illegally from day one. A privacy wall is not a punishment. It is a bare minimum requirement to protect a neighbor's privacy. A wall can be beautifully integrated into a deck design. It could you can place a fireplace, a television, a cooking station in front of it. This brings me to my deepest concern today. The message this entire process is sending. When a homeowner is allowed to build without permits, proper inaccurate information, provide pro inaccurate information, and evade compliance for years. It advertently rewards the person who broke the rules and victimizes the neighbor who followed them. It feels as though bad behavior has been given a free pass. While my friends have been left to deal with a permanent disruption of their home, we are looking to you today to restore accountability to this process. Because this homeowner has actively rejected the generous compromise of a proper privacy wall, any trust in their compliance is gone. We ask for the immediate removal of the unapproved fence. And because they refuse to implement the required privacy measures, we ask that the illegal deck itself be mandated for removal. Thank you for your time and your leadership on this matter. Thank you very much. Any questions for the deputent? No. Okay. Thank you very much. I'm looking for Jill Corey. Mr. Corey, thank you for joining us. You have five minutes. Okay. Thank you. Uh, good morning, chairman and members of council. My name is Jill Curry and I live in Ward 8, Michael Cole's district. I would like to briefly share a relevant comparison based on my own experience in my ward. A neighbor near me began began construction that was not in line with their approved permit plans. When Toronto Building was contacted, the matter was taken very seriously and the homeowner was quickly required to remove the non-compliant work at, I should add, quite a bit of expense because they weren't following the the plans. What I've observed in this situation is very different. Here, a structure was built without permits, inaccurate information was provided, inspections were delayed, and the deck has remained in use for years. Despite clear direction from the committee, the required condition was not followed and a different solution was built instead. It is difficult to understand why the standard process which was enforced quickly in my case has not been applied here. This does not feel fair and raises concerns about consistency and enforcement and the protection of neighboring residents. I object to this fence exemption and believe the homeowner's permit should be voided, requiring them to go through the proper process as all taxpaying citizens are expected to do. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you for your comments. Uh any questions for the deputants? No. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Uh, Andrew Generi Bennett Jones. Andrew, Andrew, I think Andrew is gonna speak after me. Is this uh Rohit? Yes. Okay. Um, that's fine. Uh, Roit, would you like to speak? Thank you. Dear members of North York Community Council, I'm the homeowner of the property in question. Um, I'd intended just to provide some background and context to uh the application, but in addition to doing that, I will try and address some of the misinformation that you've been provided today. Um although much of this information I'm going to provide was included in our application, for some reason MLNS has chosen not to provide it to the members in the background information. Um as part of getting a permit for a repurposed walkout deck, I should add that there already existed a deck at the same height as the deck that is now there. Um I had to apply for a minor variance. In granting the minor variance, the committee attached a condition to provide a privacy screen. This was addressed to done to address the privacy complaints that you have heard today. Prior prior to building the privacy privacy screen, I work with Toronto Building Division to determine the location dimensions required to meet the condition. In doing so, the manager of the building division reached out to CFA committee to ensure what they understood to be the condition. I got from them exact guidelines as to where the deck the privacy screen had to be built and the dimensions of the of such privacy screen. So having those facts we then building division suggested that I actually check with MLS regarding it prior to building it. That took many months to get a response from MLS including asking the manager building division to assist in getting such a response. Building Divi MLS was provided with the copy of the committee of adjustments ruling as well as a description of exactly where the privacy screen would be built and the dimensions of such privacy screen. After many months of chasing LS for a response um and having to get the manager billing division to urge them to respond, I received a direction in writing and I quote, "The decision from the committee of adjustment below will stand as an exemption to the fence bylaw as long as all the conditions of the minor variance decision are maintained." That decision was confirmed via email first to me and then a second time with an email to Adam Stina at Toronto Building Division. In each case, multiple parties at MLS were CCD with that information. Building division made it clear to me that they viewed this as a clear basis to proceed with the privacy screen. Based on this, building division requested that I get the privacy screen completed as quickly as possible to complete the condition as they were receiving many complaints that the condition to the minor variance had not been completed. This was done at a considerable cost due to the urgency that they requested. building division subsequently came out and reviewed everything and subsequently closed the permit. At that time, I thought this matter was closed. Four months later, MLNS showed up at my door to demand access to my backyard to review the privacy screen. When I asked why they needed to review it, given the priary ruling, I was told that they didn't have to answer. They just needed access. So, I granted them access. They came, took pictures, measurements, and left with no communication. I received no further communication from MLS until two months later when I received a violation notice. There was no consultation, just the issue of violation notice. When I questioned why I received a violation notice, I was told by MLS that my only option was to apply for a French exemption to address the violation notice and move forward with no answer as again to why this was different than the previous advice and ruling that they provided. At that point I reached out to legal council for advice um because this seemed contrary. Um legal council while thought that we could should pursue a legal action I did really not want to do that I wanted to follow the city guidelines. So as such I immediately applied for the fence exemption. Once again I had no communication from NLS other than to receive notice of this hearing late last week that that I that they were going to deny sorry that I just got notice of the hearing. Only in reviewing the agenda online did I learn that staff have recommended denying the fence exemption. And once again, I've had no communication from the as to the reason for such. To summarize, the privacy screen was built to meet the condition of a minor variance as was required because of complaints from to meet to complaints provided. It was done in consultation with both building division and receiving written notification from LMS to proceed. Not having notwithstanding having received received that written direction to proceed. I've been issued a violation for set privacy. I'm not sure where else to proceed other than to follow the guidelines that the city has provided provide the rulings that the city has provided. I've worked handinand with both building division and MLS to try and follow the guidelines. I'd like to address a couple of matters for clarification. The CFA was very very clear as to what it was. The reason for the quote amended CFA ruling it was it was not an amended building division asked for clarification so that they could make a judgment as to where the privacy screen needed to be built and what the dimensions of it were. That was done by them not by me. It was done so that I could then follow whatever they said I had to do to meet the condition. The length of the privacy screen was the length of the deck not including the stairs because that is the length of the deck. That is what is defined in the committee of adjustment ruling. The stairs are not included in that. They made that clear. We asked for clarification. I'd have been happy to extend it through there, but they said no. I did not want to do anything that was contrary to what was in the committee of adjustment ruling because MLS had made it clear that I had to follow the ruling in whatever I was building. I'm happy happy to ask answer any questions. Okay. Thank you very much, Council Chosen. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayer, can I can I just ask like why not put the the screen flesh up against the deck? When I read that ruling, that seems to be how that's how I read it. That that's what was requested in both versions of it. So, why not put it flesh up against the deck or on the deck? I asked for clarification from CFA and from building division as to what I had to do to meet their condition. This is what they recommended. And did building come out to your site and look at it many times. Okay. And did you consult with your next door neighbor about where you were putting this? My neighbor has um although they had been a very close friend for many years, they've had a very um clear intent through this process, which is to try and have me have the deck ripped down. There's never been any discussion as trying to find a useful solution. Even at the committee of adjustment hearing, uh, one of the council members asked them, "What do you want out of this?" And they basically said they want the deck torn down. So, it wasn't about privacy. And just to be clear on the privacy matter, this is a walk out from a kitchen. There must be a deck there. There was a deck there at the exact same height that this deck is. So whether I have a private screen, whether I had the minor variance, I would have a deck which I had previously. In fact, the pictures that this neighbor submitted at the committee of hearing, they were taken from my deck while they were having tea on my deck. So all that information, nothing has changed in terms of the view into their backyard at that time. This condition was granted to meet the concern, a very vocal concern at that time. And like I said, I have followed what committee of adjustment both at the committee level as well as at the staff level. building division. The manager of building division reached out directly to CFA to get clarification before I sent this information to MLS. ML building division was CCD on the emails to MLS asking for um permission to do this or asking for guidance on this and all of that information was provided in advance. Okay. Thank you. I'll have questions for staff. Uh thank you uh councelor Chernos Lynn. Um, I have questions. Oh, councelor Burnside. Okay. Okay. So, there's this email from MLS. I believe it was April 29th, 2025. Yeah, correct. Okay. Okay. Um, which it says as long as you uh as long as all conditions of the minor variance decisions are maintained. Yeah. Correct. So, did they come out or did you have conversation with them about the location? Were they basically the ultimately were they aware? You can't say that, but you can came out and that you told I can actually say quite clearly because in the run-up to that email, they were provided with an exact description of where it was going to be built and the length of it and the dimensions of it. Okay. So, they knew the location. Correct. in this email to you. They didn't I don't see anywhere where they said, "Hey, there's a problem. You have to move it." No. And in fact, it was then confirmed in a separate email to building division as well. Right. Um you know, one one of the things about this condition, it's it's what one infers from it. Um um we've had some discussion here uh that this 2 meters is measured from the floor of the deck. I see that when the as a reference point of how high it has to be. Correct. I don't see where does it say anywhere that it has to be attached to the deck. No. In fact, the reason that CFA and building division um made it clear that it cannot be attached to the deck because there is a second condition in the CFA. The second condition of the CAA is that I cannot change the deck in any form from as it's built and as the application was made. So adding anything any structure to the deck would be changing that um what was permitted. So therefore I could not add it to the deck. And and that's that was kind of my next question. It says here um the decision of the committee of adjustment below will stand as an exemption to the fence as an exemption to the fence bylaw. I think that's important. I don't know you probably agree as long as all conditions of the minor variance decisions are maintained. The desk the deck here's the key point and I don't know if that's what you inferred or maybe it's just me. The deck must not be altered. Correct. Would you infer that to be you can't attach something to the deck? If you do so, you're actually altering the deck. Is that I actually asked Ca and building division and they both told me if I did, I would be altering the deck. Okay. Uh thanks. I think that was very helpful. Thank you, Councelor Bern said. I just have a couple of quick questions. I'm I'm looking at photographs. I think it's attachment three. And I'm looking at two fences. One built I guess I guess one of them was built first and then a second fence was was also constructed. Was was that part of the committee of adjustment uh ruling? Was Yeah. So what you what you're calling the second fence I guess is the privacy screen. Um that is the ruling is that they asked for this opaque screening that had to be six uh 2 meters starting at the floor of the deck. So the height of that privacy screen is an exact measurement based on what CFA asked for. Well this the which is the first fence and which is the second fence? So the fence on the property line which has been there for from prior to my owning this pro house um I guess is the original fence. It's been there for many many years. Um, the higher one is the one that is was required as a privacy screen. Sorry about that. Okay. So, I'm looking at a large fence here with lattising on the top. That was the original fence. Uh, I sir, I'm sorry. I can't see which picture you're looking at. I can tell you the one on the It's attachment three uh on my application or No, it's a staff report. And there's lattice on the top. Now, that was the original fence. And then a second fence. Maybe I should ask staff of this. Actually, you could. Yes, the one with the lattice is the is the original fence. The one with the horizontal um boards is the privacy screen that has been that is under question. That's the privacy screen, correct? Okay. Okay. All right. No, that I'm done. Okay. Thank you very much. Any other questions for the deputent? Okay. Um I think is it Andrew Genry? Okay. Uh Mr. Gry. Yes. Good. Okay. You have five minutes. Good afternoon. It's good morning. Um for some reason my video is not working. I'm not sure why that is. Let's see. uh thank you. I I mean my client so um he just gave actually an excellent overview of all this. I'm happy to address any additional questions if there are any additional ones though I I see the counselors had touched on this quite well. Um so I don't need to unnecessarily take up time. The the only thing I wanted to emphasize which actually came out as well was the the email. So you can see the efforts that my client went to with buildings with MLS to try to ensure that the actual screen that was built was built in compliance with the requirements of the city and then unfortunately has ended up in this situation where after having done so after having completed not just the screen but then coming off gotten a sign off on the screen from buildings then was told that it did not comply. And that is essentially the matter that's before council today. But again, I don't you've heard all this already, so I don't need to take up unnecessary time. Happy to address any questions. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh questions for the deputants. Uh I do have a question for the deputent since he uh would be representing the homeowner in any next steps. And I I this is an awkward question because I I I know I'm asking you uh uh to to divulge legal strategy. So, let me just put it this way. Um so, we have a a a permit signed off on by our building official, but we have an issue being taken by by our municipal licensing and standards. Um, if we don't decide in favor of the homeowner, uh, would you would you take that to mean you have next steps you can take? Uh, that Yeah. Yes. Without saying too much, I guess that would be an accurate assessment of Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Carol. Any other questions for the deputants? Okay. Uh, questions for staff? questions for staff. Uh, councelor Carol. Yeah, this is a tricky one. Uh, I thought I'd seen everything, but uh um I've seen the the the the there are better pictures of this um submitted by residents in the clerk's portal, but I'm wondering if staff I understand we have Toronto building here. Um, I'm wondering if they can just confirm for us. They inspected on site and they signed off on the structure we're seeing here now through the chair. Uh, that's correct, counselor. Uh, the permit has been signed off and closed. And to your in your opinion, um, the resident has met the intent of the, uh, the minor variance committee of adjustment decision. That's correct. We clarified the intent with committee of adjustment uh as to where the placement or what the the object of the 2 meters in height were and uh they confirmed that it was 2 mters in height for privacy screening. The location wasn't um I guess as of important to them as the intention to have privacy screening in place. Okay. And so um what happens here when you sign off on a permit? Is that is that registered on the property? How is it that MLS uh responding to just a fence exemption um complaint um arrived on site and from the looks of the grid have just filled out they they've just sort of measured it against policy. Is there nothing registered on the property that says that the screen was signed off on by Toronto Buildings? It is within our our shared database that the record of the permit is there including all inspection records. Um, I can't speak on MLS's behalf, but um, yeah, if it's not attached to the if it's not attached to the deck, it's not an object of the building permit. Oh, I see. I see. Okay. And so, uh, Mr. ask municipal licensing and standards. Uh, similar question. Do do we look in the shared database to see what has come before when we when we're when we're called to look at offense? Do we do we look at all notes on on the uh shared property uh web the the shared uh materials website? Uh afternoon through or this morning uh through you chair. Yes, we do. Um however again the minor variance is specific to the zonings for the property. Uh it does not speak to the chapter 447 for the fences. So these are two completely separate situations. So the screening associated to the requirement for the minor variance and from the committee of adjustment is specific to zoning. It has nothing to do with chapter 447. So 447 is enforced separately to the matter. So this is this is where people get frustrated with us and I share their frustration because okay but to to they made a compromise at at it looks like they made a compromise of committee of adjustment. Okay, we'll let you have this deck but you have to do this. Um, but it's so it's it's in the shared database that that that this came up as a point of conversation, but it's not it's not properly attached to the it's not properly attached to the to the decision. Um, but they they would have to review the fence bylaw before before suggesting that we do something that contravenes the bylaw, would they not? or is that not advice that committee of adjustment members get uh through your chair? I can't speak to the specific um uh occurrence that happened on July uh 20204. Um but specifically again the decision read by MLS is that the fence or this this opaque screening requires to be on or attached to the deck. So that was our position. there's if that is attached to the deck in any capacity, it is it has no relevance to chapter 447. So in the scenario that this item screening is picked up from its current location and moved parallel to the deck itself, Uhhuh. it no longer becomes a violation of municipal licensing standards for chapter 447 because it's meeting the requirements of the minor variance. Okay. So, it's all about the placement of where this is is where it comes into contention with chapter 447. I hear you. I just don't know that the wording in the decision um uh is is is clear enough that that that was the expectation. But I hear you. That's your interpretation of the of the recommendation. And so, you have to measure based on that. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Councelor Burnside. Okay. So, you have an interpretation and at what point did you let the homeowner know of that interpretation? Uh, so through management uh within municipal licensing standards, there was communication with the property owner in the fall of 2025, which then initiated our inspection of the property. Um, which then resulted in the notice of violation and and now this exemption in front of it. Fair. But I think the point I'm trying to get to and you you wouldn't necessarily know this is that the homeowner would appear to have made new had numerous communications in April of 2025. So what 6 months before that when MLS presumably knew the location. They don't say anything about moving it that it's in violation. Quite the contrary. And they say if you alter the deck, which I would have assumed is when you attach something to it, you're altering it. They say you can't like there was opportunity throughout the process for MLS and I know this isn't you necessarily you're just the poor soul that's here but there's plenty of I'm plenty of opportunity for would you agree for MLS to have said hey this is a problem it was only was I presume it was only as a result of a further complaint that you rein it was reinvestigated uh MLS did receive a complaint through 301 to to uh follow up with this however to to speak to the April 29th Um MLS's uh statement again is that as long as it is in compliance with the minor variance, there is no there's no application and there's an exemption to chapter 447. We are not involved in the matter if it was adhered to by the minor variance. Right? But these are homeowners who may or may not have access to lawyers. They wouldn't know the bylaws like you know the bylaws. Um they they sorry I guess I that's okay. No no no worries. It's all good. Um they wouldn't necessar So that's why they were I presume they were communicating and MLS when when this email came to the homeowner April 29th or whatever it was. They said as long as it's in compliance but you have someone at MLS whoever that investigator was I can get the name. It's in the email. um would have known the location. Would that not have been the opportunity to say, "Hey, this is what we understand compliance to be. You're out of compliance." Like, isn't that the purpose for reaching out to government to try and understand what the rules are and obey the rules? Was that not the opportunity for MLS to say as opposed to what looks almost like a form email? uh through your chair. Yes, I I I can understand um the the point being made uh in the matter. Um again, MLS doesn't have the opportunity and doesn't have the jurisdiction to speak to the minor variance itself other than the fact that we can say if it's adhered to it meets the compliance, but I understand the point being made. Sure. They but they could have said um that um we can't speak to the committee of adjustment decision but we can tell you the plans you've sent us are one point you know your your privacy screening is 1.6 meters from where it should be. You need a minor variance. That email did not state that. So effectively, um, if we rule against or vote against the the homeowner here, we're now saying you have to spend thousands of dollars, um, to reduce something that we actually didn't comment on, at the very least didn't comment on April 29th. Uh, through your chair, I can understand the the communication um concern with that specifically. Uh, okay, that's cool. Thanks. Appreciate your Thank you. Um, thank you, Councelor Burnside. Um, I just have uh one brief question. It's my understanding that uh building signed off on on the work done to remediate and municipal licensing founded in violation. Am I understanding that correctly? Yes, chair. I am understanding that correctly. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. I I think we're done. Gosh, I have questions for build Toronto building though. Okay. Um Okay. So, councilor Chernos then this is municipal MLS. So, building. Okay. I I just want to make clear. I don't know if any of my colleagues have questions for I mean, you know what you're seeing here? You're seeing approval by building and violation by municipal licensing. I I understand. It is confusing indeed. Okay. So, uh just to Toronto building, did you go out to the site and look at this? Yes, this was part of our inspection process. Okay. And so, in your view, is this in compliance? We did question it at first, right? And uh that led to um correspondence with MLS to visit the site as well as us coordinating with CFA to clarify the intent. And after that, so after that, what was your conclusion? Once we got the clarification from CVA that it met the intent of the decision, which the intent was a privacy screen 2 m higher than the floor level of the deck, then we deemed it compliant with the conditions of the variance, which then allowed it to proceed with closing the permit. I think we're flogging a dead horse here. Are we done or I think we're done. Okay. So, uh that was a interesting discussion. Uh speakers, um councelor Chernoslin, what are we going to do on this? Can we lay this on the table for a few minutes and just move on? We'll come back to it. Is it this is our last item? Yes, we we could hold it down. We have one more item. Can we hold it down? Okay, we'll we'll hold the item down uh while uh counselors confer. But we do have another item here. Um, it's item 13. Uh, Old Mills Road traffic calming speed humps. Rick Golbra. Okay, great. Thank you for joining us. You have five minutes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of council. I'm Rick Galbreth. I live on 10 Old York Mills Road, the street that uh has the application and all the endorsements of uh local council, the traffic uh uh transport committee as well as an overwhelming majority of the building. Let me explain. Um 10 Old York Mills particularly is an interesting street. I live in a condo on Old York Mills Road, 10 Old York Mills Road. It's the only residential building on that street. So, the concern is it's used heavily as an alternative to as an alternative route by uh drivers that aren't local that are either going to pick up uh people from the uh kissing ride that it's the end of the street or it's being used as a detour around the very busy intersection of Young and York Mills. So on a personal note um and with the support of all the residents that live in the building we really address it want to address a safety issue and we have the support to do that. Um my request is that if it can be uh put up uh higher on the priority list because it is a through street for other than local business that would be great. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any questions for the deputants? No, I don't have any other speakers on the item. Um, questions for questions for staff. Yeah. Uh, councelor Carol. Uh, yes. I'm I'm just wondering, we have a lot of you have the, you know, the authorization and and budget in general for speed humps. We have a lot of requests. I I just referred one today where where they're they're coming through easily because of vision zero but then needing more community uh needing more community consultation. Is it possible to prioritize this one? Thanks for the question counselor. Um so based on the uh criteria rate ranking um they are they are uh prioritized based on that score uh if we are uh at a budget uh issue, right? So yeah, as long as we have enough budget, then they are installed, you know, basically in the order they're received. Um if it's looking like we are uh not going to have enough budget uh within a calendar year, um then they would look at the prioritization score and this one would be high priority. Um, this one is it's actually needed these for a long time. A long long time. Sorry, I'm just trying to pull up. Where did it go? All right. Any other questions for St? Just waiting for the answer. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. That was a long pause. I we're just checking how high up it is in the the the list of priorities. I I suspected I think we should play music during pauses. [laughter] So it has a or Sean could just hum while he's looking things up. That's right. Sorry. Go ahead. Yes. [laughter] Um so it has a a a score of 32 out of a possible 100. Um so I would say that is it's on the lower side. Oh. Um uh but there are lots of them with a lower score. Um so I would say it is not in jeopardy of of being deferred to the following construction. Okay. And it's early enough in the year hopefully. Uh I fully expect the front end of the budget. This would be installed this year. Yes. Okay. Excellent. Um but it because it there the authority to do them is now sort of delegated. you can you can all just uh uh do these uh um designs and proposals uh without direction from council. Do you need a direction from council to give it high priority within the North York district? Um so again, these these would be installed based on the the ranking score um that they're given. Okay. Um and uh and installed in that order. Okay. Okay. Thanks. Just checking. Thanks, Mr. chair for that indulgence. Okay. Thank you, councelor Carol. Any other questions for staff? No, we're good. Okay. Um speakers, councelor Chernos Lynn. Thank you. I just want to uh adopt the recommendations and I want to thank the speaker Rick Galres for uh joining us today and speaking on this matter and his advocacy. Okay. Thank you uh council chosin. Um staff, the recommendations are before us. Staff recommendations. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Uh now we're going to go back to the item that was held down. Uh that was item number um number 10, Lord Satan Road. More like the battle of Lord Seatin Road. Um, councelor Chernos, you wanted to speak. So, no, the the chair can explain. There's there's no opportunity. No, we're done. We're done debating. We're going to counselors get a chance to speak and then we're going to vote. So, I I just want to say off the bat, this is a very this is probably the most confusing fence discussion we've had since I've been on council. Uh it's been pretty convoluted and I appreciate uh everybody taking the time to really think this one through. And I also just want to say everyone has to live beside each other. And I hope that people can move beyond whatever happens here today. Um because at the end of the day, and I've seen a lot of these fence disputes, um this is it's not uncommon to have them. And I always worry with the end result. I hope that people can move past those things. For me, I have to say that I I I understand both sides of this. I understand the investment of time, emotional capacity, stress, financial stress that this has brought on both parties. And I I have to say I think the city's made it um unfortunately more challenging for everybody and that's not a good thing. Um, I would at the end of the day for me I feel like it's it's a real problem when people build and then want to ask forgiveness after and unfortunately we see that um on a number of occasions and that that is that that does not help. Uh so I think with that in mind I would just like to move that we reject the exemption. Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Chernos Lynn um has moved the uh rejection of the appeal. Uh councelor Burnside. Yeah. Um I'm not really going to speak other than about 20 seconds other than to say I think that the uh the homeowner at 237 did everything within his power. And yes, I think staff um the work that certain departments did was uh less than desirable. I'm going to move an alternate recommendation which is to grant the exemption. Okay. So, uh we have we have two motions on the floor. We're going to vote on councelor Burns sites first to grant the uh application for the fence exemption and if that fails then uh we'll vote on uh councelor chernos lens uh moving of staff recommendations. All those in favor uh to grant the application opposed. Uh that carries. And the item is amended. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. Okay, that uh concludes the business. We're going to do the bills. We still need corn for that. Uh, councelor Chang, you've been quiet, so why don't we give you this opportunity to read the bills? That bills 280 to 289 prepared for the March 31st, 2026 meeting 31 of the North York Community Council be declared as bylaws and passed subject to section 226.9 of the City of Toronto Act 2006. All those in favor? Opposed? That is carried. And the confirmatory bill. Councelor Carol. The confirmatory bills to confirm the legislative proceedings of the North York Community Council acting under delegated authority at meeting 31 on March 31st, 2026 be declared as bylaws and passed subject to section 226.9 of the city of Toronto Act 2006. Thank you very much. All those in favor? opposed. That is carried. That concludes our business for today. Once again, a happy Easter to those who celebrate. A happy Passover to those who celebrate. Thank you very much, counselors, city staff, members of the public, clerk's office for their work today. Enjoy the rest of the day.

Full Transcript