A Proposals Report, including draft Garden Suite regulations, is going to the June 28, 2021 Planning and Housing Committee meeting. The draft regulations contained in the Proposals Report will form the basis for ongoing consultation. A Final Report with recommended rules and regulations is expected to be brought to the Planning and Housing Committee in the fall of 2021.

The Proposals Report is available HERE.  It is 52 pages long so here are some of the highlights:

• Short-term rentals will only be permitted in Garden Suites if the Garden Suite is exclusively and separately occupied as a principal residence. (Toronto By-law)
• Garden Suites will only be single units. Multi-unit Garden Suites are not contemplated at this time.
• The location of a Garden Suite will be limited to the rear yard, behind the rear main wall of the principal residential building, to avoid the appearance of two dwellings located side-by-side on a single lot.
• Maximum coverage is 40% of the rear yard for the Garden Suite, up to a maximum of 60 square meters.
• The total area of all ancillary buildings and structures on the lot, including the Garden Suite, is proposed to not exceed 25% of the lot.
• A maximum height of 4 meters where the Garden Suite is at least 5 meters from the main house, and up to 6 meters height, where the Garden Suite is at least 7.5 meters from the main house
• The regulations recognize that not all lots may be able to support a Garden Suite and acknowledge that where larger lots may accommodate a larger suite, setbacks and step backs should increase proportionately to adequately limit impacts on adjacent properties.
• On lots with a depth greater than 45 meters the minimum rear yard setback is the greater of half the height of the Garden Suite and 1.5 meters.
• The minimum required side yard setback is the greater of either 0.6 meters or 10% of the lot frontage, up to a maximum of 3.0 meters. Where openings such as windows or doors are proposed, the minimum side yard setback is 1.5 meters. On a side lot line that abuts a street, the minimum setback is the same as the minimum required side yard setback for the existing house.
• A minimum of 50% of a rear yard area, including the area covered by a Garden Suite, must be soft landscaping. Lots with a frontage of less than 6.0 meters will require a minimum of 25% soft landscaping.
• Regulations require no vehicle parking space for a Garden Suite and maintain the required parking rates for the main house on the lot.

The M5R postal code which includes Casa Loma, the Annex and west of Yonge below the railway tracks to Bloor had one of the highest participation rates for the City’s Survey in March. Contact us if you would like to bring anything to the attention of the CLRA .  If you would like to communicate directly with the City, please contact:

David Driedger, Senior Planner, Community Planning
Tel. No. 416-392-7613

_____________________________

UPDATE- COMMITTEE DECISION JUNE 28, 2021

Committee Decision

The Planning and Housing Committee:

1. Requested the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning use the draft Garden Suite regulations presented within this report as the basis for further community and stakeholder consultation and technical review.

2. Requested the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning bring forward a final report detailing Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit detached accessory dwelling units for residential properties not on a public lane (Garden Suites) to the Planning and Housing Committee Meeting in the fourth quarter of 2021.

GYPSY MOTHS

The Gypsy Moth is evident again this year in our neighbourhood.  The CLRA brought this to the attention of the City and learned there are no plans for spraying our neighbourhood this year.  The last spraying took place in June 2019.  Private arrangements with arborists are the only way to go this year.

Joel Harrison, a Forest Health Care Inspector with the City went through the Casa Loma area this week and saw some remnants of the Gypsy Moth population from 2019, but  he considered it still relatively low when compared to what is going on in some other parts of the city and the province.

We can’t ever eliminate Gypsy Moth, we can only hope to try to keep numbers low enough to reduce the damage that can happen to sensitive trees like oak.  There is no aerial spraying planned for this year but it isn’t too late to hire private tree companies to spray private trees if you feel it necessary.  For that you’d have until about mid-June.

Attached is a PDF guide with some other techniques that residents can do yearly to help reduce gypsy moth.

If you go to the City’s website:  www.toronto.ca/gypsymoth  then you can also drop points as to where you are seeing caterpillars and/or potential problems through this online reporting tool.  The City will use this data to delineate its surveys for Gypsy Moth eggs in the fall. This helps the City determine if populations are rising and if intervention is required.

BOXWOOD TREE MOTHS

The Box Tree Moth was detected in Toronto in August 2018.  In November 2018, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) confirmed the presence of box tree moth in an urban neighbourhood in Toronto. This is the first confirmed report of this pest in North America.  Damage to boxwood plants is caused by the larvae (caterpillars) feeding primarily on leaves and sometimes on the bark.  Infested plants are disfigured by the loss of leaves and by the webbing spun by the larvae.  Younger larvae feed by eating the lower surfaces of the leaves only, leaving the upper epidermis intact.  Older larvae feed inside the webbing and skeletonize the leaves, leaving only the midribs, and occasionally the outer margin intact.  Neighbours have had success treating these caterpillars with BTK.  Larvae are most susceptible to BTK when they are in the early developmental stages.  BTK has no known toxic effects on humans, other mammals, plants, birds, fish, or honeybees or other beneficial insects.  It is available at places like Home Hardware and Sheridan Nurseries.

The development at St. Clair & Bathurst (1467 Bathurst St. to be known going forward as 490 St. Clair Ave. West) has changed ownership to Canderel , a large condominium developer, and will be converted from rental units to condominium units.  KingSett Capital who previously had an ownership interest will now fulfill a lending role.  The project is about to move into the Planning Stage and the new owner is hoping to begin selling early in 2022.

The CLRA will continue to monitor the development to ensure none of the original concessions are lost and all environmental and traffic congestion issues will be addressed in the Planning Stage.

______________________________________________

Reported by Renx.ca – The Real Estate News Exchange

Canderel buys $102M stake in 3-tower St. Clair condo project

Canderel is in, BentallGreenOak is out, and KingSett Capital has transitioned to a lending partner for a three-building condominium project in midtown Toronto.

KingSett and BentallGreenOak had plans for a three-tower development on a 1.91-acre site at the northeast corner of St. Clair Avenue West and Bathurst Street, beside St. Michael’s College School, but Canderel recently paid $102.43 million for a 50 per cent stake in the property.  The deal took BentallGreenOak out of the picture and left KingSett remaining involved as a lender for the project, Canderel vice-president and chief operating officer Ben Rogowski told RENX in an exclusive interview.

“Our experience with KingSett and our reputation of following through on the commitments we make gave them comfort in trusting us, that we would get to the finish line,” said Rogowski.  “It certainly was a complicated process because of the nature of the property and the opportunity. It took some good teamwork on everyone’s behalf to get here.”

Montreal-headquartered Canderel acquires, develops and manages office, retail, industrial, residential and mixed-use real estate.  It was attracted to the St. Clair and Bathurst site because of its close proximity to three modes of public transit, a large grocery store, parks, restaurants and other amenities.

Plans for the St. Clair and Bathurst site

Canderel also likes what the site itself has to offer, with its 361 feet of frontage on St. Clair and 212 feet of frontage on Bathurst.

Zoning is already in place and there were plans for a 35-storey tower, two more of approximately 30 storeys and approximately 10,000 square feet of retail at grade spread across the three buildings.  There will be one-bedroom, two-bedroom and three-bedroom units in the BDP Quadrangle-designed buildings, with an opportunity for some much larger suites in one of them.

“There will be a range of units that will cater to the full spectrum of buyers out there,” said Rogowski.  “The beauty of a project like this is that you’ve got the opportunity to cater to everyone.”

There will also be a daycare centre and a seniors centre on the site as part of a Section 37 agreement with the City of Toronto, bringing the buildings’ total square footage to around 900,000, Rogowski added.

A park will be located on the southwest corner of the property and a privately owned, publicly accessible space will extend north from the park to the driveway between the property and St. Michael’s, which was the original owner of the site and had leased a portion of it to a gas station before selling in the previous decade.

“There will be some modest changes that you typically see in moving from a zoning approval to a site plan approval,” said Rogowski.  “But, we’re not proposing to change any of the material items.”

A site plan application will be submitted within a month and it’s anticipated sales will start in the first quarter of 2022.  Canderel would prefer to start construction as soon as possible after that, but it will depend on the project’s sales success.

“Ideally it’s one build-out, but we’ve got the ability to build it out in two phases if that’s what the market tells us,” said Rogowski.

Report from the CLRA

The demolition and new build at 136 Lyndhurst Ave is an example of manipulating the City of Toronto’s heritage and planning process where an owner deceives to get exactly what they want, thus helping to destroy a unique heritage neighbourhood.

This is a continuation of the problematic development process that has occurred with this property.  The first chapter has been detailed on the CLRA web site.  In a nutshell, the owner of 136 Lyndhurst purchased a home that had been identified as a heritage home of interest within the Casa Loma Heritage Conservation District study along with a number of adjoining homes including a remarkable home at 134 Lyndhurst designed by Eden Smith, the famous Arts & Crafts architect active in Toronto at the turn of the last century.  This grouping of heritage homes formed the entrance to Lyndhurst Avenue adjacent to Lyndhurst Lodge on the way to Casa Loma itself.   However because the HCD study was not completed it left this home vulnerable to demolition.   The owner was aware of the significance of this home when he purchased the home and during meetings hosted by Councillor Matlow that included the owner, his architect and the President of the CLRA, they made it very clear they were aware of the inclusion within the HCD study but had absolutely no interest in preserving the home or even the front façade even though we shared with them an assessment by heritage architect Joan Burt  identifying the unique heritage aspects of the home including its special brick design over the windows.   136 Lyndhurst had an appropriate connection to the neighbouring properties to the south and north and all maintained similar setbacks and also protected privacy with respect to each other.

During the meetings with Councillor Matlow the owner asserted that they had come up with a planned modest contemporary home that would fit into the context of the street and neighbourhood and that further absolutely NO variances were being sought for the planned new home.   Accordingly upon presentation of their building permit plans seeking no variances they were granted a demolition permit on March 16, 2020.   The home was subsequently demolished and then the owner quickly submitted new building plans to modify the original plans that had been submitted in order to get the demolition permit.

On July 14, 2020 Jamie Atkinson, Zoning examiner for the City of Toronto issued a letter outlining 3 major deficiencies from the new plans that would require variance permission under the Committee of Adjustment.

The owner’s architect submitted plans in October 2020 to support the request for these three variances while building of the new home continued during this time without ANY notices to the community that variances were being requested so that the owner could obtain what he wanted and planned all along

For some reason, ONLY on April 30^th was notice of the Committee of Adjustment meeting sent out to the neighbours for a COA hearing on May 11 – a full 10 months after the initial deficiency notice issued by the City’s zoning examiner!   The CLRA felt that the variances that were being sought would set a terrible precedent not only for the neighbours but the whole neighbourhood and also felt that this non transparent building process needed to be exposed – especially as the owner continued to build his building where he did not have the proper permissions.

The CLRA retained Alex Lusty from Davies Howe to act on our behalf and evaluate what principles should be presented to the COA and what processes were apparently being circumvented.   The CLRA submitted a letter to the Committee of Adjustment on May 4^th, 2021 and together with our counsel tried to fully understand why it had taken 10 months for this to get to the Committee of Adjustment and exactly what were the nature of the variances being sought.

Only upon exhaustive investigations with numerous building officials were we told that a modified building permit had been recently granted on March 15^th to permit the increase in the wall heights to the south and north thus permitting the high flat roof and floor to ceiling windows peering down on the adjoining property to the south and dramatically changing the character of this home in contrast to the neighbourhood.   After a full year and half of this project even the neighbours weren’t aware of what the owner was planning!

Eventually we found out just before the COA hearing that there was an obscure election zoning by law exemption available to the owner – either get the height of the side walls increased or the rear walls – but NOT both – it’s an election. The owner elected to have the exemption apply to the side walls and then went to the COA to get the exemption for the rear walls – thus asking for both when this was clearly not the intention of the bylaw.

During the COA hearing the architect for the owner only talked to the rear variance and the additional variance to build an underground storage room for which the CLRA had no issues.   He did not even address the third variance that was officially part of the COA notice and stemmed from the July 14^th 2020 zoning deficiency notice and simply said that both of these variances identified on the notice applied to the rear walls – which was completely false and inaccurate.   Our counsel tried to point out that the process was unfair and should require rejection of the application since there was a clear inconsistency between what the applicant was asking for and submitting and what the official notice described.   Unfortunately the COA simply ignored any of the points submitted by our counsel and also by Kerry Wood, a resident across the street who pointed out that this home was being constructed against the zoning processes and policies established that others have diligently followed.

This whole file is problematic on so many levels and sets a terrible precedent that heritage and zoning by laws don’t matter if you have enough money and can hire professionals who will simply figure out how to circumvent the process.

Accordingly it’s really important that the CLRA step in to supervise these kinds of applications that threaten to destroy the unique character of our neighbourhood and also allow neighbours to seriously infringe on the property rights and enjoyment of their properties.

Everyone should know and be aware that the CLRA will vigorously protect the heritage of the Casa Loma area, one of the City’s very few acknowledged heritage districts as well as the spirit and letter of the zoning by laws designed to create a level playing field that balance owners’ rights with the rights of neighbours and the whole community.

The CLRA has filed an appeal of the COA decision to TLAB.

References

July 14^th 2020 letter from City of Toronto zoning examiner

May 4, 2021 – CLRA letter submission to the Committee of Adjustment

The City of Toronto has initiated a process to develop policies and zoning rules to permit “Garden Suites” to be built city wide in the backyards of homes on lots that are not next to a public lane, subject to a range of criteria to be decided.

A “Garden Suite” is a second, generally smaller, house built in the backyard of a detached, semi-detached, or townhouse property.

The City hopes these new homes will provide affordable rentals and homes for grown children and aging parents. Note that this project is distinct from Laneway Suites of up to two storeys that have been allowed, subject to permit, since 2019 in the backyards of homes on lots that are next to a public lane.

The City has just released a survey to explore your opinions and concerns about new backyard houses in the Casa Loma neighbourhood and other neighbourhoods in the city. The srvey should be submitted by April 30th.

A link to the survey is below.

BEFORE YOU RESPOND TO THE SURVEY, the City has asked us to consider:

• Would you like to build a small home in your back yard for family or to rent out?
• Would you like your neighbours to build a small home in their backyard?
• How high and how large will Garden Suites be?
• How would a one or two storey building on, or adjacent to, your backyard affect: your garden, your sunshine, your privacy, light intrusion at night or noise from AC and residents?
• Should short term rentals (such as Airbnb) be allowed?
• What obligation should there be for a person building a Garden Suite to consult with adjacent neighbours before they build?
• Where would the residents in Garden Suites park their cars?
• How will the construction of these new homes affect the tree cover, green space, and water drainage in your neighbourhood?
• Will emergency access to these new Garden Suites and existing homes be adequate?
• Will Garden Suites trigger re-evaluations and property tax changes impacting affordability in the long term for property owners who are not interested in constructing a Garden Suite?
• How many additional units are possible across the City and what effects might these have on the City’s infrastructure such as police and fire services, sewer, water, parks, schools, etc.?

The Garden Suites Survey is the first step in the City collecting information from the public about the opportunities and limitations of Garden Suites in neighbourhoods across the City. By responding to the Survey you can help define the rules and regulations for Garden Suites. We ask all our residents to complete the survey.

CLICK HERE FOR GARDEN SUITES SURVEY

Please do so when you can allocate about 20 minutes to complete the survey.

If you would like to be send comments and/or be kept informed by David Driedger, the City’s Lead Planner for the Garden Suites Project, you can be placed on the City’s email distribution list HERE     

UPDATE April 22, 2021

The City is hosting a series of virtual community consultation meetings where you can learn more, ask questions, and share your comments about Garden Suites.

Date: Tuesday May 11, 2021 – Time: 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm

Date: Wednesday May 12, 2021 – Time: 1 pm – 3 pm

Date: Thursday May 13, 2021 – Time: 6:30 pm – 8:30 pm

You can register for the meetings HERE

The CLRA has prepared a critique of the proposed 9 storey self-storage building proposed for the lands centered where the coin wash is located on Bathurst St. just north of Dupont (1109 Bathurst St.). We are concerned that it will discourage, if not sterilize, the whole front part of Dupont in that area and the streets surrounding it from future residential intensification. This will be Canada’s tallest self-storage building upon completion. Raising 9 storeys and encompassing 160,000 sq. ft.

Some points raised in our critique:

• The 20 meter north portion of the property (Part 2) is zoned IC industrial and allows for a self-storage building but only to a maximum height of 14 meters (45.9 feet). This would be similar in size to the self-storage building at 1120 Dupont St. which is within the industrial section of Dupont St.
• This property is not included within the Dupont Street Regeneration study and does not merit receiving any of the accommodations that were provided to the sites along Dupont.
• Any building that is built along the rail line can be expected to have significant impact on reflected rail noise to the long-established residential communities to the north.
• The extra height and controls that were negotiated for properties fronting on Dupont were intended to create mixed use including residential and new types of employment critical to Toronto

The CLRA has been engaged with residents on Austin Crescent and Lyndhurst Court as well as the Tarragon Residents Association and the Annex Residents Association to take our concerns to Councillors Matlow and Layton before the Application is submitted to the Toronto & East York Council. The CLRA critique can be obtained HERE. Documents filed with the City related to the application can be accessed HERE.

ADDENDUM

Excerpted from the Draft Position Statement of The Annex Residents Association (‘ARA’)

April 19, 2021

This first Project Position Statement – prepared after the Project Review Meeting on 9 March, 2021, will be updated as the City processes the development application. This Statement, and the views expressed in it, are presented by ARA ‘without prejudice’ to any legal actions arising in the course of the City’s review and possible appeals.

Brief Description of Project

The development application by Talus is for a nine-storey self storage facility on the northern part of the block between Dupont and the CPR line, and Bathurst and Albany. The application is for a Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Site Plan Approval. An Official Plan Amendment (OPA) is not necessary as it conforms to the OPA arising from the Dupont Visioning Study in which ARA was heavily involved.

Since the Dupont study and resulting OPA and Zoning Bylaws did not anticipate any free-standing facilities in the General Employment Area stretching 20 m south of the railway corridor, the applicant is asking to amend the zoning to: 1) extend the General Employment Area designation 10.5 m south into the Mixed Use zone abutting Dupont (their site stretches ~30 m south from the corridor boundary); and 2) extend the height limit of the southern Mixed Use zone to the rail corridor boundary to allow for a 9-storey (~35 m) building. The proposed building will have an entrance off Bathurst Street and an exit onto Albany Street.

Planning Context:

The project site is immediately to the west of the nine-storey Bianca condominium under construction and immediately south of the CP Rail Corridor.

The site is subject to the 2016 mediated Ontario Municipal Board settlement on Official Plan Amendment (OPA) through a Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) for the north side of Dupont between Kendall and Ossington, resulting from the Dupont Visioning Study that ARA spearheaded in 2011. This Planning Context has a major bearing on ARA’s positions on projects along Dupont as it supported the mediated settlement.

1109 Bathurst St.

Architect’s Rendering Looking North East

ARA’s Issues, including Possible Impacts:

• Massing + Form: Community members and nearby residents have expressed concern with the height and size of the building.
  • height(s): Nine-storeys (32.3 meters).
  • form: There are multiple concerns re: form, including height, massiveness, lack of step backs, lack of floor level expression, arbitrary alignment of exterior decorative panels, location of interior staircase, lack of staircase glazing, and lack of a pleasing proportional relationship between the top two stories and the rest of the building.
  • views: There is a negative impact on views from the north, including the planned Green Line.
  • materiality: Material choices need further consideration. All four sides need to be treated consistently.
• Streetscape + Public Realm
  • Setbacks: The lack of a setback on the south is a major issue.
  • Facades: All four facades need to be reconsidered in terms of their articulation. See comments under Massing + Form.
• Environment + Resilience
• shadows and shade: There is concern about shadow to the north and south.
• noise avoidance and mitigation: The impact of noise/ vibration from trains (CP Rail) is being investigated.
• tree cover/shade: There is a concern about loss of trees and/ or tree cover.
• Movement
• vehicular circulation: There is concern about the exit of vehicles onto Albany Street.
• Community Benefits:
  • these have not yet been discussed publicly and likely will not be until the re-submission in response to written comments from Planning that have already been provided. ARA will then raise the following possible benefits with the Councillor and community members:
• affordable housing
• facilities for
  • children
  • teenagers
  • seniors
  • families
  • vulnerable persons
  • newcomers
    • parks and open spaces
    • environmental and resilience improvements

Comments:

The proposed building will curtail the future development of the southern part of the block since the developer is allowed to build up to the southern lot line with no setback requirement.

The proposed building will have a negative impact on views from residential areas to the north as it will present as a massive form with minimal surface articulation. The proposed building will also have a negative impact on those using the planned Green Line as it will cast shadows on the linear park and could be experienced as a menacing blank wall.

Also, there is concern about reflected noise to the north.

As part of our environmental commitment, the ARA would like to support alternative modes of transportation, particularly for short trips. We would like the new Self Storage facility to prioritize bike, e-bikes, and bike trailers as preferred transportation vehicles for customers and act as an anchor to provide the community with e-bikes for community renting or borrowing.

ARA recommends that (1) the building be reduced to six storeys (including mechanical) and (2) the south elevation step back above the first floor.

In written comments, Planning (Jason Tsang) has suggested that the building height be reduced to eight storeys – or more – and that there be step backs on the north and south elevations. Although these are positive suggestions, height remains an issue and the need for a step back above the first floor on the south elevation remains to be addressed.

Site Plan Control has not yet been formally addressed, although some suggestions have been made. SPC will proceed after the rezoning is decided at TEYCC; P+D has asked that the community be consulted in the Site Plan review process.

To comment on this interim Project Position Statement, please email David Sisam, Member of ARA’s Planning and Development Committee, at: .

The City’s Road Operations Department began clearing our streets of leaves on Saturday as arranged with the CLRA. They removed leaves from Lyndhurst Ave., Lyndhurst Court, Austin Terrace, Austin Crescent and part of Wells Hill. On Monday they will finish Wells Hill and remove leaves from Hilton, Melgund, Nina, Walmer and Castleview.

Bagged leaves will be picked up separately on Tuesday November 17^th under the 2020 waste collection schedule.

Where possible, please do not park on streets to be cleared on Monday so that the removal will be as complete as possible.

We do not know if there will be another removal of leaves from the streets this year. Please use yard waste bags from this point on. There is one additional scheduled pickup of bagged leaves on Tuesday December 1^st.

LEAVES

The CLRA has asked the City to clear our streets of leaves which have now been accumulating for some time. The City therefore will be sending in a crew to remove leaves from our streets early morning this SATUDAY NOVEMBER 14^th. To facilitate the leaf removal, and where possible, residents are asked to remove their vehicles from the streets.

Please pass this information along to your neighbours.

SNOW

One of our residents on Walmer Rd. brought to our attention the petition organized by Councillor Josh Matlow to assist him in getting City Council approval to improve the snow clearing of sidewalks in downtown neighbourhoods like ours where the sidewalks are not being cleared to the same standards as other neighbourhoods in Toronto. You can assist him in getting this addressed by signing his petition at https://joshmatlow.ca/snow-clearing/

CITY SERVICES

Councillor Matlow will also be hosting an online community safety forum to provide an opportunity for residents to ask important questions to the Toronto Police Service and City of Toronto staff from Fire Services, Social, Development, Finance and Administration, Shelter Support and Housing Administration, the Community Crisis Response Team, Municipal Licensing and Standards and Transportation Services.

DATE: Tuesday, November 24th 2020

TIME: 6:30pm-8:30pm

The link to this forum will be posted on https://joshmatlow.ca/communitysafety/ at 6pm on November 24^th, i.e. 30 minutes before the start time.

The format will not show any of the attendees, only your voice will be recorded if you wish to ask a question or make a comment.

CASA LOMA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

Please pass on to us () any matters you would like us to address or any ideas we can bring to our neighbours. We can help each other and accomplish more together.

We have been informed by Josh Matlow’s office that a RED LIGHT CAMERA will be installed at Bathurst and Nina before the end of November.

A red light camera is a type of traffic enforcement camera that captures an image of a vehicle which has entered an intersection in spite of the traffic signal indicating red (during the red phase).

Generally, the camera is triggered when a vehicle enters the intersection (passes the stop-bar) after the traffic signal has turned red.

The set fine for running a red light detected by a camera system is $260, plus a $60 victim surcharge and a $5 court cost. The total payable is $325.

The RED LIGHT CAMERA at Bathurst and Nina has been a project of the CLRA for a few years. It will be the third camera in our area. The others are located at St. Clair and Spadina and Bathurst and Davenport.

We have also been informed that the traffic signals at Bathurst and Melgund will become active this Friday, November 6^th.

Liberty Entertainment Group (LEG) recently re-opened Don Alfonso 1890 as a “POP-UP” restaurant in the Conservatory of Casa Loma.  The high-end restaurant, which opened in the Financial District in 2018, closed following government pandemic mandates on March 19.   In mid-August, LEG announced they would close for good as its location in the Consumers Gas Building on Toronto St. was bought by a foreign company that plans on turning it into a condo.

The new temporary home inside Casa Loma seats 60 guests, arranged to meet the government’s social distance requirements.   The Conservatory has traditionally been used as a wedding venue, accommodating 90 guests for a seated dinner or 150 for a standing reception.

Activity at the castle is down considerably because of Covid.  The POP-UP restaurant will bring back some employment and shouldn’t make a noticeable difference to the traffic, noise  and congestion that has  been the case at Casa Loma in the past.

The CLRA is concerned about the possibility of this POP-UP restaurant becoming a permanent fixture in the Stables building at some point in the future when life after Covid returns to normal.  We have brought this concern to our Councillor Josh Matlow.  At this point, LEG has raised with the city (Economic Development and Culture) the notion of a restaurant on the “north campus” but discussions have not yet begun as the City has indicated several initial research steps need to be taken first such as compliance with zoning, building envelope capacity and heritage.  The City has assured us that we will be fully consulted before any decisions are made or even any significant action is taken, and then if the idea is advanced any further than a general idea, there would be further consultations on specific matters such as design, traffic, etc.

Our Councillor’s office is following up on the lease review process for the Stables that has been stalled due to the pandemic. Once they have any news on that (and/or the restaurant), a meeting will be held with the CLRA.

The CLRA strongly feels that no restaurant or other type of permanent establishment should be installed on this property given that the Stables and other structures north of Austin Terrace are wholly within an established residential area and that this area is already disrupted by traffic exiting onto Walmer Rd. from the stables.   We have asked our Councillor to have the City incorporate our position into any discussions they will have with  LEG or other party related to the lease and use of the Stables and other properties north of Austin Terrace.

We will be following developments closely and keep you informed.

The following was received from Councillor Matlow’s Office.

Liberty Entertainment Group (LEG) has made the responsible decision to put public health first by cancelling this year’s Legends of Horror event at Casa Loma. Councillor Matlow’s office was in communication with Mayor Tory and LEG directly over the course of this week further to community concerns.

Although the event could have gone ahead under provincial guidelines, the Councillor shared skepticism about the ability to control crowds gathering before/after the event on sidewalks and in parks. The LEG decision is consistent with the recommendation of Dr. Eileen de Villa, Chief Medical Officer, City of Toronto, to restrict socializing with individuals outside one’s household due to the rising number of COVID cases.

The CLRA supported Councillor Matlow in his discussions with all parties involved.

The CLRA considers the application for variance and permission before the Committee of Adjustment re: 66 Wells Hill Ave.  is deeply problematic.  The application appears to contain erroneous and or misleading information as set out below.

1. The applicants built six ancillary buildings on the property without permits or permission from the City of Toronto.  The applicants now seek to obtain the City of Toronto permission after-the-fact.  This type of build-first ask for permission later should not be encouraged by the City of Toronto.  To grant after-the-fact permission would encourage this applicant and all Toronto residents to engage in this unacceptable behaviour.
2. The actual buildings on the property as built, offend the existing zoning by-law.  The applicants appear to suggest the main ancillary building (Building C) is a garage.  That ancillary building is a second house with a full operating washroom and other living amenities.  Had the applicant followed the proper City of Toronto process to obtain permits for building beforehand, the permits would likely have been denied on several bases.
   • The main ancillary building is a second house on the property, which is not permitted for a variety of reasons.  To call a second house a garage is an obvious attempt to circumvent zoning and building laws.
   • The property is massively overbuilt, having less soft landscaping than required by the by-law.  This is problematic not only due to the by-law infringement but given the ancient at-risk Oak forest in which this property is located.
   • We have concerns about servicing this ancillary building with necessary city services including Toronto fire services.
   • The total floor area of all buildings on the lot is 2.6 times what is permitted by the by-law.  This poses obvious precedent issues with such massive overbuild.
3. The applicant is attempting to circumvent the required application process.  This behaviour cannot be encouraged by the City of Toronto.  The onsite buildings were not properly inspected during construction, were not authorized by the City to begin with, and do not abide by past or current zoning laws.  These applicants have come to the committee of adjustment asking for relief from their own misconduct.  The committee need not find a remedy for their problem.  These applicants are the authors of their misfortune.  The committee ought to send a strong message that such conduct is unacceptable by denying the application.

The CLRA Submission to the COA is available HERE.

The Application will be heard online (COVID requirement) on October 8, at 9:00 AM. Application material can be accessed HERE.

The public Webex meeting on Thursday October 8th can be accessed HERE.

To participate in the public Webex virtual meeting you must register in advance no later than 4:30 pm Tuesday October 6th by phoning 416-392-7565 (leave voice mail)  or emailing The File Reference is A0213/20TEY

The Environmental Group (“EG”), led by resident Barbara Chernin, has persisted in its dialogue with Councillor Matlow’s office, Suncor (parent of Petro-Canada) and the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) through the summer following the approval by City Council on June 18^th of the zoning amendment for the three tower development at Bathurst and St. Clair with an Addendum that requires a review of the remediation plan for the former gas station and inspection of its lands and surrounding areas (which include Wells Hill Park and Nordheimer Ravine). See Approval.

On August 24^th Suncor informed the EG that they will provide an update on the remediation of their lands once they hear from the City, City Councillor or the MEPC.  With regard to the surrounding area, the EG’s concern is whether the tree deterioration in the Nordheimer Ravine is due to pest, traffic congestion or groundwater and soil contamination emanating from the Development site.

The EG will maintain its dialogue with the MEPC, the City and Councillor Matlow to ensure environmental concerns are addressed before a building permit is issued for the project.

They will keep us informed as updates and reports are issued.

On July 14th, The CLRA was notified by some residents that there appeared to be an encampment growing at Wells Hill Park.

We brought this to the attention of Councillor Josh Matlow who reported back to us on July 15th.

From Councillor Matlow’s Office

The City’s approach to encampments is a multidisciplinary effort with staff from Parks, Forestry & Recreation, Transportation Services, Solid Waste Management Services, and Shelter, Support and Housing Administration with support from Municipal Licensing and Standards and Toronto Police Service to ensure the safety of all. This unfortunately is an issue that has been happening and continues to happen in parks throughout our City, including Rosedale and parts of the Harbourfront.

The City’s Streets to Homes outreach staff and external agencies work with individuals daily to conduct wellness checks and offer all people sleeping outside access to inside space in advance of any move of an encampment site.  During the COVID-19 pandemic, if an encampment is vacated by individuals choosing to access shelter, respite sites, hotels or housing, then the site is cleaned by City staff.  Outreach teams approach people at encampments days in advance of any moves.  If an offer to access these supports is refused, a notification of encampment clearing is issued, and the site is cleared by City staff and contracted services.

Camping outdoors in parks and rights-of-way is prohibited in the city of Toronto.  Open flames, generators, propane tanks, and lack of access to water and sanitation increases health and safety risks for individuals, as well as to the community in general.  The City has implemented rigorous Infection Prevention and Control (IPAC) measures at all City-run and funded sites in the shelter system to minimize the spread of COVID and protect clients.

The City of Toronto remains focused on the safety of those in encampments and on moving people sleeping outdoors to safe indoor space. The City continues to secure spaces to offer to people who are staying at encampments throughout the city.

Councillor Matlow’s Office also notified the City’s Parks Ambassador- Troy Ford  to bring this to his team’s immediate attention.

UPDATE JULY 25

The number of tents did not grow beyond the two first reported.  By July 25th both tents had vacated the park.

The Zoning By-law Application for 1467 Bathurst St. (the St. Mikes former Petro Canada station) was approved by Toronto & East York Community Council on June 18, 2020 with an Addendum to address the concerns raised by the CLRA related to (i) traffic congestion and related by-pass through our neighbourhood and (ii) assurances that there has been full remediation of the contaminants emanating from the former Petro Canada gas station on the site.

On June 25^th Councillor Matlow organized a Conference Call with the CLRA that involved representatives from City Planning and Transportation.  We were informed in that call that the next major milestone is the approval of the site plan.  The site plan process will take some time and as part of that process there will be community consultation to review the construction management plan and the impact on traffic and what amelioration can be achieved.  We emphasized that all construction staging should be managed on site so that no traffic lane or sidewalk will be closed on Bathurst or St. Clair.  Further traffic and pedestrian needs should be addressed in the context not only of this development but also in anticipation of the development of several new towers along St. Clair (both residential and commercial) and Bathurst.  We discussed ideas already presented such as the addition of a right hand Turn lane along St. Clair for the length of the development or an advanced green arrow from St. Clair to Bathurst Street North.  We also spoke to the issue of pedestrian safety crossing Bathurst and the inevitability of a collision between a frustrated driver and pedestrians who, as we practice ourselves, have a predilection to enter an intersection against the flashing amber hand signal.

We will not likely see any massive change in the development proposal at this time as the developer now has his zoning approval.  Nevertheless there is still the opportunity to deal with the traffic and congestion issues of concern to our community.  Councillor Matlow has requested that the CLRA be incorporated into a working group involving the developer and the City during the whole process.

Regarding the remediation of the lands at 1467 Bathurst St. and the surrounding areas, including Wells Hill Park and the Nordheimer Ravine, City Council, in the Addendum, also requested Engineering and Construction Services, in consultation with City Legal, to undertake a review of the 2001 Council-approved remediation and the status of its implementation.  City Council also requested Urban Forestry to undertake an inspection of the Nordheimer ravine to determine whether there is indication of excessive deterioration of trees or atypical forest health concerns and whether there are related fire hazard concerns.

We are pleased that Councillor Matlow is on our side with respect to these important community issues.  The site plan discussions will likely take place this fall and at that time we also expect an updated report on the status of the land remediation.  We will keep you informed.

As you know from our last update, in April 2020 the owner of the property obtained approval from the Committee of Adjustment to convert his house in to a 37-child daycare, which approval was conditional upon obtaining a permit from Transportation Services for commercial boulevard parking on the city-owned lands immediately north of the building.  The owner has not obtained commercial boulevard parking and understands that Councillor Matlow would trigger a poll of residents to determine the issue.

The CLRA has since learned that the owner had filed in September 2019 a concurrent application for a building permit to convert his house into a smaller daycare ‘as of right’ without the need to obtain a variance from the Committee, nor commercial boulevard parking.   It is not known how many fewer children would attend the smaller daycare.

As it happens, the building permit was granted in January, as it complied with all zoning laws.  This was prior to the February 2020 hearing in which the owner obtained conditional approval for the larger daycare.  You may have noticed that the building permit has been posted in one of the windows on the property and that work may be imminent.   It may be that the owner is content to proceed with the smaller daycare because it does not require further approvals nor a poll of neighbours.

The manner in which the owner of 105 Wells Hill received this separate approval ‘as of right’ is that the plans he submitted concurrently with his application to the Committee without the CLRA’s knowledge feature a reduced footprint for the daycare and an additional parking space inside the existing basement.  Parents would be expected to use the basement garage as the drop-off area.   Under the ‘as of right’ proposal, the parking variance and the application for commercial boulevard parking become unnecessary.

Notwithstanding that the plans were approved as of right and that the start of work appears imminent, we continue to explore options to challenge this dangerous proposal and will update you about any developments.

Should you have any questions, please direct them to Nicholas Saint-Martin at .

The Casa Loma Residents Association (“CLRA”) is a volunteer organization of residents living in the Casa Loma area of Toronto committed to strengthening and preserving the distinctive character, heritage and quality of life in the Toronto neighbourhood bounded by Bathurst to Spadina and St. Clair to Davenport.  Our goal is to represent our shared ideals of protecting our heritage neighbourhood and fully participating within our dynamic city of Toronto.

The development proposed for 1467 Bathurst St. consisting of three towers, a public daycare, indoor community space and retail shops is the first of several high rise projects planned for St. Clair Ave. West between Bathurst St. and Spadina Ave along the northern border of our residential neighbourhood. The development at 1467 Bathurst St. will add 824 apartment units of 1 – 3 bedrooms and will be the continuation of major intensification of our area already preceded by 4 hi rise towers at the intersection of Bathurst & St. Clair.

We recognize that we are adjacent to a major transportation hub with the Spadina subway, St. Clair street car and Bathurst buses connecting or to be connected upon completion of 1467 Bathurst and that development near transportation is critical to servicing the growth of Toronto. Further, through the process of public consultation organized by the City’s planning department several of the concerns of the original proposal for this site have been addressed. The open spaces now incorporated into the plan, the width of the St. Clair sidewalk and other setbacks are more aesthetic and suited to a residential development. Although the density proposed is higher than we would like, we accept that it is hard to argue against density at this location.

We are concerned about the traffic and congestion that this development will bring into our residential neighbourhood if not addressed at the outset. That is why  on October 29, 2019 City Council passed a motion on the advice of the Toronto and East York Council and led by our Councillor Josh Matlow to request a comprehensive Traffic Management and Mitigation Plan for the St. Clair Avenue West and Bathurst Street Planning Framework Area.  We have not yet received notice of this transportation study nor has there been any community input to date.  We believe that no further approvals should be given to this development prior to the completion and dissemination to the neighbourhood and interested parties of the full traffic study.

Prior to the reduction in traffic attributed to the restrictions of Covid-19, we were living with intolerable traffic congestion westbound along St. Clair during rush hours. The only westbound access to our neighbourhood from St. Clair is from Wells Hill Ave. During rush hour, traffic would be stalled all the way from Bathurst St. to Tweedsmuir Ave, a distance of about 700 metres and would impede access to our neighbourhood. Further, and perhaps more importantly, instead of using the left hand turn from St. Clair at Bathurst, traffic would turn at Wells Hill Ave. into our residential neighbourhood to circumvent the congested intersection of Bathurst and St. Clair.

There are many reasons for this congestion but one of the major reasons is that traffic turning right at Bathurst and St. Clair would have to wait for pedestrians to cross Bathurst before making a turn. This would block all traffic on the curb lane from proceeding westbound. The situation is compounded by a bus stop on Bathurst just north of the intersection which further blocks traffic from making a right turn.

We understand that the revised plans call for a bus bay to be incorporated into the development plans on Bathurst north of St. Clair. Confirmation of that would be good news and will be critical to the improvement of traffic flow. A further step would the addition of a long right turn lane on St. Clair, likely stretching the full length of the development, coupled with a right turn arrow so that traffic will not be continuously blocked by pedestrian traffic. If a right turn lane is not feasible, prohibition of Right Turns at the north east corner during rush hour from St. Clair to Bathurst is another option. The planned development will bring 901 more vehicles into our area (the number of planned parking spots) and will thereby increase the traffic congestion along with the traffic attracted by the retail shops, day care and future development for the Bathurst St. Clair corridor.

Improvement of the traffic flow at Bathurst and St. Clair is an initial step before further evaluation of traffic flowing into our neighbourhood can be studied.

It is imperative that this congestion be addressed at the outset of the development.

We have no information relating to wind or shade studies. The high-rise developments on the northwest and southeast corners of St. Clair and Bathurst substantially increased the constant wind at that intersection. Often, the wind exceeds tolerable limits and even causes panes of glass to be ripped from the streetcar stop at that intersection. We urge the City of Toronto to review the wind study and to the extent possible, insist on incorporating elements on the proposed site that may correct the wind issues at that intersection

The CLRA also supports area residents who have formed an Environmental Group led by Barbara Chernin. This group has discovered that the soil and groundwater on the proposed site and adjacent properties are contaminated from leaks caused by the Petro Canada gas station previously located on the proposed site. We echo this group’s concerns that the site and adjacent lands, including Wells Hill Park and the Nordheimer ravine, may not have been properly remediated.  We urge the City of Toronto to obtain appropriate environmental reports to uncover the extent of contamination, and to insist upon a comprehensive remediation plan for both the proposed site and adjacent lands, before approving any application for development.

Robert Levy

President

Casa Loma Residents Association

PDF available HERE

The Developer of the Petro Canada property at St. Clair & Bathurst (known as 1467 Bathurst St.) has resubmitted plans for the property to the Toronto & East York Community Council to obtain the necessary zoning by-law amendments.  The re-submission is similar to that presented at a public meeting on December 4, 2019.

• 3 towers: 35-storeys, 30-storeys, 30 storeys;
• 824 units, reduced from 866 and now including 16 affordable housing units;
• 901 parking spaces in a 5 level below grade garage;
• newly proposed 464 sq. metre community space in tower 1;
• new bus lay-by on Bathurst St;
• 772 sq. metre public park;
• 510 sq. metre public daycare facility;
• 9 metre sidewalk on St Clair;
• public use of privately owned open spaces; and
• future interior TTC access.

The hearing is scheduled to be held on-line on Thursday June 18^th at 10:00 am. You can follow the meeting at www.youtube.com/TorontoCityCouncilLive.

The CLRA, led by Jonah Arnold, will be submitting a written presentation ahead of the meeting. If you would like your views to be considered by the CLRA, please email them to .

If you want to address the hearing or make your own written submission, please email your request and/or submission to or phone 416-392-7033 no later than 12:00 pm on Wednesday June 17^th. You will receive an email from the City with instructions on how to connect to the meeting.

The December 2019 CLRA report on the development which includes artist renderings can be accessed HERE.

Since the public meeting on December 4^th the following documents have been filed:

Draft Zoning By-law Amendment

Development Approval Re-submission Form

Project Data Sheet

Updated Architectural Plans

Updated Landscape and Lighting Plans