Minutes Confirmed on April 11, 2025

The Planning and Housing Committee:

1. Deferred consideration of the item until the September 25, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Housing Committee.

Adopted in 2010, Toronto's Sign By-law is a harmonized, City-wide set of regulations governing signs. Any member of the public may apply to City Council to amend the Sign By-law requesting permanent changes to regulations for specific properties or areas. Upon receiving an application, the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building (the "CBO") assesses the proposal to determine if the proposed changes to the Sign By-law align with the objectives and purposes of the City's regulations, including the Sign By-law itself.

The Bader Group Inc. (the “Applicant”), authorized by the property owner, Gemstone Property Ltd., has applied for a Sign By-law Area-Specific Amendment (the “Proposed Amendment”) for the property located at 2 College Street (the “Premises”). The Proposed Amendment, if approved, would not only permit an expressly prohibited sign type, but it would also institute regulations that significantly diverge from the current standards governing permissible third party signs in the area. Specifically, the Proposed Amendment would allow for and regulate:

- A third party electronic roof sign (the “Proposed Sign”), which is a sign type expressly prohibited, except if within the Dundas Square Special Sign District.

- A sign that would be 18 times larger and nearly 10 times taller than the existing regulations generally permit.

- Positioning a third party sign less than 100 metres of an existing third party sign and less than 30 metres of a controlled intersection, contrary to the minimum separation requirements.

- A third party electronic roof sign with two sign faces facing the same direction, rather than the generally permitted “back-to-back” configuration.

- A third party sign to be erected on a listed heritage building, which would not be permitted under the existing regulations.

Given that third party electronic roof signs are expressly prohibited by the Sign By-law, in order to obtain a permission for the erection of the Proposed Sign at 2 College Street, the Applicant must apply for a Sign By-law amendment. In 2024, City Council amended the Sign By-law, allowing the CBO to refuse applications that conflict with city policies or other by-laws. This change was intended to ensure consistency and prevent applications conflicting with other city policies or by-laws from advancing to Council. In addition to being expressly prohibited by the Sign By-law, the Proposed Sign is inconsistent with heritage policies for 2 College Street, and if made today, this application would be rejected until these conflicts had been resolved. However, since the application was submitted before the 2024 amendment, it may still proceed to Council.

Toronto Building, in consultation with City Planning and Transportation Services Divisions, conducted a thorough review of the Application and supporting materials. It is the opinion of the CBO that the requested area-specific regulations for 2 College Street are not consistent with the broader goals of the City, the objectives of the Sign By-law, or the regulations enacted for the Premises and surrounding area. Therefore, CBO does not recommend approval of the Proposed Amendment.

The Planning and Housing Committee:

1. Deferred consideration of the item until the September 25, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Housing Committee.

Adopted in 2010, Toronto's Sign By-law is a harmonized, City-wide set of regulations governing signs. Any member of the public may apply to City Council to amend the Sign By-law requesting permanent changes to regulations for specific properties or areas. Upon receiving an application, the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building ("CBO") assesses the proposal to determine if the proposed changes to the Sign By-law align with the objectives and purposes of the City's regulations, including the Sign By-law itself.

The Bader Group Incorporated (the “Applicant”), authorized by the property owner, Fisnik Pristine (the “Owner”), has applied for an Area-Specific Amendment to Toronto's Sign By-law (the “Proposed Amendment”), to replace the current sign regulations applicable to the property at 3 Bestobell Road (the “Premises”). If granted, the Proposed Amendment would not only permit a third party sign in an area where City Council has specifically determined that no third party signs should be displayed, but would also establish regulations that deviate significantly from the regulations for third party electronic signs found in the Sign By-law. Specifically, the Proposed Amendment would allow for, and regulate:

- A third party sign in a location regulated by two site-specific area restrictions which prohibit the construction of third party signs.

- A sign that would be three times larger and more than 50 percent taller than the existing regulations generally permit.

- A sign with a "v-shaped" configuration, rather than the permitted “back-to-back” configuration.

- Reducing the required separation between third party signs and to sign districts considered sensitive.

- Placing a sign within minimum setbacks where no signs are permissible.

- An initial ten-year permit term, double of the standard five-year term.

The Applicant could have sought approvals from the Sign Variance Committee for the Proposed Sign, including proximity to sensitive land uses and location within the area-specific prohibitions for third-party signs. However, this application is proceeding as an amendment due to the request to modify the initial sign permit term from five to ten years, without justification for such a policy change exclusively for the Premises. To address Sign By-law Amendment applications of this nature, City Council granted the CBO the authority in April 2024 to refer area-specific amendment applications to the Sign Variance Committee when appropriate. Since the Proposed Amendment application was submitted prior to the changes to the Sign By-law, it is not subject to the April 2024 amendments and cannot be referred to the Sign Variance Committee. The Applicant was notified of the early 2024 review of the Sign By-law and offered the opportunity to have portions of their application referred to the Sign Variance Committee, however they requested that the whole application proceed to City Council as an area-specific amendment to the Sign By-law.

The CBO, in consultation with City Planning and Transportation Services, conducted a review of the application and is of the opinion that the Proposed Amendment is not consistent with broader City’s policies, the objectives of the Sign By-law, or the specific Sign By-law regulations enacted for 3 Bestobell Road and the surrounding area. Therefore, CBO does not support approval of the Proposed Amendment.

The Planning and Housing Committee:

1. Deferred consideration of the item until the September 25, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Housing Committee.

Adopted in 2010, Toronto's Sign By-law is a harmonized, City-wide set of regulations governing signs. Any member of the public may apply to City Council to amend the Sign By-law requesting permanent changes to regulations for specific properties or areas. Upon receiving an application, the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building ("CBO") assesses the proposal to determine if the proposed changes to the Sign By-law align with the objectives and purposes of the City's regulations, including the Sign By-law itself.

The Bader Group Inc. (the “Applicant”), authorized by the property owner, Mersen Canada DN Ltd (the “Owner”), has applied for an Area-Specific Amendment to Toronto's Sign By-law (the “Proposed Amendment”), seeking to replace the current sign regulations applicable to the property at 496 Evans Avenue (the “Premises”). If granted, the Proposed Amendment would not only permit a third party sign in an area where City Council has specifically determined that no third party signs should be displayed but would establish unique regulations that deviate significantly from the general regulations for third party electronic signs. Specifically, the Proposed Amendment would allow for, and regulate:

- A third party sign in a location regulated by a site-specific area restriction, prohibiting the erection of any third party sign.

- A sign that would be three times larger and more than 50 percent taller than the existing regulations generally permit.

- A sign with a "v-shaped" configuration, rather than the generally permitted “back-to-back” configuration.

- Reducing the required separation between third party signs and sign districts considered sensitive.

- Placing a sign within minimum setbacks where no signs are permissible.

- An initial ten-year permit term, double of the standard five-year term.

The Applicant could have sought approvals from the Sign Variance Committee for the Proposed Sign, including proximity to sensitive land uses and location within the area-specific prohibitions for third-party signs. However, this application is proceeding as an amendment due to the request to modify the initial sign permit term from five to ten years, without justification for such a policy change exclusively for the Premises. To address Sign By-law Amendment applications of this nature, City Council granted the CBO the authority in April 2024 to refer area-specific amendment applications to the Sign Variance Committee when appropriate. Since the Proposed Amendment application was submitted prior to the changes to the Sign By-law, it is not subject to the April 2024 amendments and cannot be referred to the Sign Variance Committee. The Applicant was notified of the early 2024 review of the Sign By-law and offered the opportunity to have portions of their application referred to the Sign Variance Committee, however they requested that the whole application proceed to City Council as an area-specific amendment to the Sign By-law.

The CBO, in consultation with City Planning and Transportation Services, conducted a review of the application and is of the opinion that the Proposed Amendment is not consistent with broader City’s policies, the objectives of the Sign By-law, or the specific Sign By-law regulations enacted for the Premises and surrounding area. Therefore, CBO does not support approval of the Proposed Amendment.

The Planning and Housing Committee:

1. Requested the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building to:

a. Review the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's Ontario-specific permit-ready design packages for row houses, fourplexes, sixplexes, and accessory dwelling units for certification under Toronto Building’s Certified Plans Program to enable these designs to be used as part of a building permit application; and

b. Publicize any streamlined approval processes available for these designs under the Certified Plans program, including through the City of Toronto website and through industry communications.

The purpose of this report is to respond to City Council direction that the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, review and strengthen processes to facilitate approvals and support permit applicants who are proposing modular and factory-built buildings, and to review and streamline Toronto Building’s Certified Plans Program.

Toronto Building's Certified Plans Program allows applicants to have a proposed building design reviewed by Toronto Building against the Ontario Building Code (the Code) for the purpose of repeated use in the city. If it is determined that the design meets the Code requirements and is "certified" by Toronto Building it can be used repeatedly by the applicant in the city with subsequent permit applications without having to undergo full code review; site-specific reviews, such as zoning bylaw confirmation, are still required.

The Certified Plans Program has largely been used to date by applicants seeking approvals for tents and portable classrooms. Toronto Building has now expanded the program to include plans for solar domestic hot water systems, garden suites, laneway suites, houses, multiplexes, and other residential building types including modular modes of construction. By taking advantage of the Certified Plans Program, builders can avoid delays in the building permit review process and reduce unnecessary design fees and engineering costs.

Toronto Building has also taken actions to support permit applicants and manufacturers of modular and factory-built construction. Where factories are certified to a Canadian Standards Association (CSA) industry standard "CSA A277, Procedures for Factory Certification of Buildings", the City will no longer conduct inspections of buildings at the manufacturers' facilities. Building inspectors will rely on the Canadian Standards Association Standard, resulting in time and cost saving opportunities for both the manufacturer, permit applicants and Toronto Building Inspectors.

The actions taken by Toronto Building in response to industry feedback to reduce design costs and timelines will make it easier for builders, designers, and homeowners to build more housing units in the city faster. 

To support successful implementation of these service changes, Toronto Building has also reviewed and revised applicable forms, developed client-facing materials, and is in the process of training staff. The Division will continue to engage with the industry, as requested by City Council, to address Building Code-related challenges that may be impeding the design and construction of “missing middle” housing and report to the Planning and Housing Committee in the third quarter of 2025.

The Planning and Housing Committee recommends that:

1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 667 King Street West (including the active entrance at 92 Bathurst Street) under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 667 King Street West (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (March 3, 2025) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the property at 667 King Street West (including an active entrance at 92 Bathurst Street) under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value according to the Statement of Significance and description of heritage attributes found in Attachment 1.

The subject property at 667 King Street West is located at the southwest corner of King Street West and Bathurst Street, in the West Queen West neighbourhood. A location map and current photograph of the heritage property are found in Attachment 2.

The building on the property at 667 King Street West is known as the Wheatsheaf Tavern and contains a 2½-storey former inn and tavern on a rectangular plan that is fashioned in Second Empire style details. A Pre-Confederation building that was constructed in 1849, the property is a rare surviving example of an early-19th century hotel and bar that has been in operation at the same location for over 150 years. The Wheatsheaf Tavern continues to be the oldest bar in Toronto and serves as a neighbourhood landmark.

Staff have determined that the property at 667 King Street West has cultural heritage value and meets 6 of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

The property was listed on the City's Heritage Register on June 20, 1973.

The Wheatsheaf Tavern has been identified as a candidate for designation through the City's implementation of Bill 23 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and the strategy for Listed Properties that must be removed from the Register by January 1, 2027.

At its meeting on January 31, 2025 the Toronto Preservation Board considered Item PB27.2 and made recommendations to City Council.

Summary from the report (January 20, 2025) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning:

This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the property at 667 King Street West (including an active entrance at 92 Bathurst Street) under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value according to the Statement of Significance and description of heritage attributes found in Attachment 1.

The subject property at 667 King Street West is located at the southwest corner of King Street West and Bathurst Street, in the West Queen West neighbourhood. A location map and current photograph of the heritage property are found in Attachment 2.

The building on the property at 667 King Street West is known as the Wheatsheaf Tavern and contains a 2½-storey former inn and tavern on a rectangular plan that is fashioned in Second Empire style details. A Pre-Confederation building that was constructed in 1849, the property is a rare surviving example of an early-19th century hotel and bar that has been in operation at the same location for over 150-years. The Wheatsheaf Tavern continues to be the oldest bar in Toronto and serves as a neighbourhood landmark.

Staff have determined that the property at 667 King Street West has cultural heritage value and meets 6 of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

The property was listed on the City's Heritage Register on June 20, 1973.

The Wheatsheaf tavern has been identified as a candidate for designation through the City's implementation of Bill 23 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and the strategy for Listed Properties that must be removed from the Register by January 1, 2027.

The Planning and Housing Committee recommends that:

1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 877 Lawrence Avenue East under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 877 Lawrence Avenue East - Bank of Montreal - Don Mills Branch (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1 to the report (March 3, 2025) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

2. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 885 Lawrence Avenue East under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 885 Lawrence Avenue East - Bank of Nova Scotia - Don Mills Branch (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 2 to the report (March 3, 2025) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

3. If there are no objections to the designations, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating each of the properties under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 877 and 885 Lawrence Avenue East under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for their cultural heritage value according to the Statements of Significance which includes a description of heritage attributes found in Attachments 1 and 2.

The subject properties at 877 and 885 Lawrence Avenue East are located on the south side of Lawrence Avenue East and north/west of The Donway West. The subject properties are purpose-built bank branches constructed to serve the post-war Don Mills community and both have continuously operated for nearly seventy years. The design and development of the properties were co-ordinated together. The property at 877 Lawrence Avenue East, known as the Bank of Montreal Don Mills Branch, contains a one-storey International-Style pavilion bank building constructed for the Bank of Montreal in 1956 and expanded in 1967. The property at 885 Lawrence Avenue East, known as the Bank of Nova Scotia Don Mills Branch, also contains a one-storey International-Style pavilion bank building constructed for the Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) in 1956 and expanded between 1966 and 1967. A location map and current photograph of the heritage property is found in Attachment 2.

The properties were both designed by John C. Parkin. Described as one of Canada’s most important Modernist architects, he was a founding partner and Chief Designer at the architectural firm of John B. Parkin Associates, one of Canada's leading Modernist and most prolific firms of the 1950s and 1960s that contributed many significant buildings to Toronto during this period. The properties are a unique example of two separate banking institutions in Toronto having their buildings designed to appear as a cohesive architectural ensemble, with near identical designs and landscaping tying the two properties together in the main commercial area of Don Mills. The properties are rare surviving examples of the International Style structures that once defined the main commercial area of Don Mills.

Staff have determined that the property at 877 Lawrence Avenue (Bank of Montreal Don Mills Branch) has cultural heritage value and meets 5 of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

Staff have determined that the property at 885 Lawrence Avenue (Bank of Nova Scotia Don Mills Branch) has cultural heritage value and meets 5 of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

The properties were listed by North York Council on October 6, 1997, and were included in the consolidated City's Heritage Register in June 2006.

The properties at 877 and 885 Lawrence Avenue East have been identified as candidates for designation through the City's implementation of Bill 23 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and the strategy for Listed Properties that must be removed from the Register by January 1, 2027.

At its meeting on February 12, 2025 the Toronto Preservation Board considered Item PB28.1 and made recommendations to City Council.

Summary from the report (January 29, 2025) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning:

This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 877 and 885 Lawrence Avenue East under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for their cultural heritage value according to the Statements of Significance which includes a description of heritage attributes found in Attachments 1 and 2.

The subject properties at 877 and 885 Lawrence Avenue East are located on the south side of Lawrence Avenue East and north/west of The Donway West. The subject properties are purpose-built bank branches constructed to serve the post-war Don Mills community and both have continuously operated for nearly seventy years. The design and development of the properties were co-ordinated together. The property at 877 Lawrence Avenue East, known as the Bank of Montreal Don Mills Branch, contains a one-storey International-Style pavilion bank building constructed for the Bank of Montreal in 1956 and expanded in 1967. The property at 885 Lawrence Avenue East, known as the Bank of Nova Scotia Don Mills Branch, also contains a one-storey International-Style pavilion bank building constructed for the Bank of Nova Scotia (Scotiabank) in 1956 and expanded between 1966 and 1967. A location map and current photograph of the heritage property is found in Attachment 2.

The properties were both designed by John C. Parkin. Described as one of Canada’s most important Modernist architects, he was a founding partner and Chief Designer at the architectural firm of John B. Parkin Associates, one of Canada's leading Modernist and most prolific firms of the 1950s and 1960s that contributed many significant buildings to Toronto during this period. The properties are a unique example of two separate banking institutions in Toronto having their buildings designed to appear as a cohesive architectural ensemble, with near identical designs and landscaping tying the two properties together in the main commercial area of Don Mills. The properties are rare surviving examples of the International Style structures that once defined the main commercial area of Don Mills.

Staff have determined that the property at 877 Lawrence Avenue (Bank of Montreal Don Mills Branch) has cultural heritage value and meets 5 of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

Staff have determined that the property at 885 Lawrence Avenue (Bank of Nova Scotia Don Mills Branch) has cultural heritage value and meets 5 of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

The properties were listed by North York Council on October 6, 1997, and were included in the consolidated City's Heritage Register in June 2006.

The properties at 877 and 885 Lawrence Avenue East have been identified as candidates for designation through the City's implementation of Bill 23 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and the strategy for Listed Properties that must be removed from the Register by January 1, 2027.

The Planning and Housing Committee recommends that:

1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 1660 Kingston Road under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 1660 Kingston Road (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1to the report (March 3, 2025) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the property at 1660 Kingston Road under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value according to the Statement of Significance and description of heritage attributes found in Attachment 1.

The subject property at 1660 Kingston Road is located on the north side of Kingston Road between Birchcliff Avenue and Birchmount Road in the Birch Cliff - Cliffside neighbourhood of Scarborough. A location map and current photograph of the heritage property is found in Attachment 2.

The property at 1660 Kingston Road, built 1921- 1922, comprises a two-storey, brick-clad and stone-detailed building designed in the Neoclassical style that was constructed for the Bank of Commerce and operated as a local branch to the Birch Cliff community for eighty years until 2003. The building has significant historical value for its institutional role of municipal governance for the Township of Scarborough. For over a quarter century, from 1922 - 1949, the second floor of the former Bank of Commerce  served as the seat of the Scarborough township council and offices of municipal departments, including Assessment and Building Inspector from the 1930s to the mid 1940s. Adjacent to the Birch Cliff Public School (1916) and with its corner location, the property is a prominent component of the Birch Cliff community that anchors an intact early-20th century streetscape of a historic main street on Kingston Road.

Staff have determined that the property at 1660 Kingston Road has cultural heritage value and meets five of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

The subject property was listed on the City's Heritage Register on September 27, 2006, and has been identified as a candidate for designation through the City's implementation of Bill 23 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, and the strategy for Listed Properties that must be removed from the Register by January 1, 2027.

At its meeting on January 31, 2025 the Toronto Preservation Board considered Item PB27.3 and made recommendations to City Council.

Summary from the report (January 20, 2025) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning:

This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the property at 1660 Kingston Road under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value according to the Statement of Significance and description of heritage attributes found in Attachment 1.

The subject property at 1660 Kingston Road is located on the north side of Kingston Road between Birchcliff Avenue and Birchmount Road in the Birch Cliff - Cliffside neighbourhood of Scarborough. A location map and current photograph of the heritage property is found in Attachment 2.

The property at 1660 Kingston Road, built 1921- 1922, comprises a two-storey, brick-clad and stone-detailed building designed in the Neoclassical style that was constructed for the Bank of Commerce and operated as a local branch to the Birch Cliff community for eighty years until 2003. The building has significant historical value for its institutional role of municipal governance for the Township of Scarborough. For over a quarter century, from 1922-1949, the second floor of the former Bank of Commerce  served as the seat of the Scarborough township council and offices of municipal departments, including Assessment and Building Inspector from the 1930s to the mid 1940s. Adjacent to the Birch Cliff Public School (1916) and with its corner location, the property is a prominent component of the Birch Cliff community that anchors an intact early-20th century streetscape of a historic main street on Kingston Road.

Staff have determined that the property at 1660 Kingston Road has cultural heritage value and meets five of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

The subject property was listed on the City's Heritage Register on September 27, 2006, and has been identified as a candidate for designation through the City's implementation of Bill 23 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act, and the strategy for Listed Properties that must be removed from the Register by January 1, 2027.

The Planning and Housing Committee recommends that:

1. City Council state its intention to designate the property at 2930 Lake Shore Boulevard West under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance for 2930 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 1to the report (March 3, 2025) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

2. If there are no objections to the designation, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the property at 2930 Lake Shore Boulevard West under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value according to the Statement of Significance which includes a description of heritage attributes found in Attachment 1.

The subject property at 2930 Lake Shore Boulevard West is located on the northeast corner of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Islington Avenue in the downtown area of  what has been historically known as New Toronto. It contains the former New Toronto Post Office, a 2-storey institutional form building. A location map and current photograph of the heritage property is found in Attachment 2.

The New Toronto Post Office was completed in 1935 as part of the Public Works Construction Act of 1934, which saw the construction of 185 public buildings by the Government of Canada between 1934 and 1939. Designed by Catto and Catto Architects in the Stripped Classical Style with Art Deco elements, the limestone clad structure with polished granite accents has stood as a community landmark at the centre of downtown New Toronto since 1935.

Staff have determined that the property at 2930 Lake Shore Boulevard West has cultural heritage value and meets six of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

The property was listed on the City's Heritage Register on September 27, 2006. The subject property has been identified as a candidate for designation through the City's implementation of Bill 23 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and the strategy for Listed Properties that must be removed from the Register by January 1, 2027.

At its meeting on January 31, 2025 the Toronto Preservation Board considered Item PB27.1 and made recommendations to City Council.

Summary from the report (January 17, 2025) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning:

This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the property at 2930 Lake Shore Boulevard West under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act for its cultural heritage value according to the Statement of Significance which includes a description of heritage attributes found in Attachment 1.

The subject property at 2930 Lake Shore Boulevard West is located on the northeast corner of Lake Shore Boulevard West and Islington Avenue in the downtown area of  what has been historically known as New Toronto. It contains the former New Toronto Post Office, a 2-storey institutional form building. A location map and current photograph of the heritage property is found in Attachment 2.

The New Toronto Post Office was completed in 1935 as part of the Public Works Construction Act of 1934, which saw the construction of 185 public buildings by the Government of Canada between 1934 and 1939. Designed by Catto and Catto Architects in the Stripped Classical Style with Art Deco elements, the limestone clad structure with polished granite accents has stood as a community landmark at the centre of downtown New Toronto since 1935.

Staff have determined that the property at 2930 Lake Shore Boulevard West has cultural heritage value and meets six of the Ontario Regulation 9/06 criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. A property may be designated under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, if it meets two or more of the nine criteria.

The property was listed on the City's Heritage Register on September 27, 2006.

The subject property has been identified as a candidate for designation through the City's implementation of Bill 23 amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and the strategy for Listed Properties that must be removed from the Register by January 1, 2027.

The Planning and Housing Committee received the item for information.

Section 103-8.7 D. of the City of Toronto Municipal Code requires the Chief Planner to prepare a report for information to City Council on the properties included in the Heritage Register in 2024 as listed properties through the delegated authority of the Chief Planner.

In 2024, five properties on one development site were listed in the Heritage Register using the Chief Planner's delegated authority:

5 Huntley Street

2-4 Earl Street

6-8 Earl Street

The delegated authority to list properties in the Heritage Register has contributed to the City's timely response to development applications and has ensured that Council is not precluded from considering whether a property merits designation under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Planning and Housing Committee recommends that:

1. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Executive Director, Housing Secretariat and other appropriate divisions, to report back to Planning and Housing Committee by the first quarter of 2026 on whether Official Plan policy 3.2.1.11. should be amended to require those demolishing six or more dwelling rooms to provide replacement units for all their demovicted tenants of Tier 1 or Tier 2 dwelling rooms.
 

2. City Council direct the Chief Planner, and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Executive Director, Housing Secretariat and other appropriate divisions, to report back to Planning and Housing Committee by the first quarter of 2026 on whether the Official Plan policy should be amended to require replacement housing where the combined number of dwelling units and dwelling rooms is 10 or more.

Dwelling room tenants are among Toronto’s most vulnerable residents, and their supply of housing is under severe development pressure. In 2019, after the loss of several such buildings and 4 years of consultations, Council adopted Official Plan Amendment 453, Policies to Address the Loss of Dwelling Rooms. This added a new Policy 11:

New development that would … result in the loss of six or more dwelling rooms will not be approved unless:…

i.  at least the same amount of residential gross floor area is replaced and maintained as dwelling rooms or rental bachelor units.

The replacement units are rent-controlled for 15 years, and demovicted tenants receive some tenant assistance.

Policy 11 provides valuable protection for tenants of dwelling rooms. However, it has a critical flaw: unlike those demovicted from dwelling units, those demovicted from dwelling rooms do not have a guaranteed right to return to the replacement building. Why? Because the owner’s replacement obligation is to preserve “the same amount of residential gross floor area”, not the same number of units.

This flaw causes real hardship. For example, consider the 39 dwelling room tenants at 262 – 266 St. George. The property owner is proposing to replace the 39 occupied dwelling rooms with 12 rental bachelor units and 1 one-bedroom rental unit spread over an allegedly equivalent gross floor area in a new 86 unit building. The new building is to contain 30 bachelor units, but only 12 of them are proposed to be available at comparable rents to the existing dwelling rooms; the remainder are likely to be out of the financial reach of the existing dwelling room tenants.

Even if this proposal were to comply with Official Plan Amendment 453, it would still evict 26 of the existing dwelling-room tenants with limited compensation and no right of return.

Council was aware of this risk in 2019. Official Plan Amendment 453 states that

the City will seek opportunities to secure the provision of additional replacement rental dwelling rooms or replacement rental units to achieve at least the same number of existing dwelling rooms lost and to secure rents for replacement housing for a period of at least 49 years

In 2022, Council adopted the new Multi-Tenant Housing bylaw, which may add compliance costs to existing rooming houses. It is therefore foreseeable that even more owners may wish to convert dwelling room properties to dwelling units. Since the Multi-Tenant Housing owner is not obliged to replace the lost dwelling rooms with enough replacement dwelling rooms or rental units to accommodate all existing tenants, this risks significant displacement of existing dwelling room tenants, potentially pushing them into homelessness.

Council should therefore ask staff to review whether to require developers to provide replacement units for all their existing dwelling room tenants.

A similar hardship exists for tenants of the 14 bedrooms in the existing four dwelling units. The 5 and 6 bedroom dwelling units likely function much as dwelling rooms do, by allowing lower income tenants to keep costs down by sharing bathroom and kitchen facilities. However, because the 14 bedrooms are divided among four dwelling units, not six, none of these tenants will be offered replacement rent-controlled units, and all are likely to be displaced.

Council should therefore ask staff to review whether to require developers to provide replacement units for existing dwelling unit tenants where 10 or more bedrooms are to be demolished, even if they are distributed among fewer than 6 dwelling units.

The Planning and Housing Committee:

1. Requested the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the City Solicitor to report to the Planning and Housing Committee in the fourth quarter of 2025 on the feasibility of posting signage on City property to denote adjacent Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces (POPS) secured prior to the 2014 POPS design guidelines.

I am writing to request your support to have Staff investigate the feasibility of creating signage on City property that highlights Privately Owned Publicly-Accessible Spaces (POPS) that were secured prior to the 2014 POPS design guidelines coming into force. These sites were unfortunately not considered in the initial guidelines requested by myself and former Councillor Adam Vaughan in 2012. Unlike the sites secured after 2014, the City does not have the ability to require property owners to post signage advertising that POPS sites are available for public use.

The inability to post signage has created the conditions for exclusionary private uses of some POPS site in Toronto. In recent years, a coffee shop in Midtown posted a “customers only” sign on patio furniture on a POPS site and a downtown ice cream store fenced off a site that was supposed to be publicly accessible for a private patio.

Signage could also increase residents’ awareness of legacy sites that, because of design and location, are not obviously for public use. For example, a sign could let Midtown residents know that a condo courtyard recessed from the street is a POPS that was secured in the early 2000s.

This motion asks Planning and Transportation Services Staff to assess the feasibility of placing signage on City-owned sidewalks, street furniture, or utility infrastructure adjacent to POPS sites to let residents know they are welcome to enjoy the space.

Announcements

The Chair acknowledged that the Planning and Housing Committee was meeting on the traditional territory of many nations including the Mississaugas of the Credit, the Anishnabeg, the Chippewa, the Haudenosaunee and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The Chair also acknowledged that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with the Mississaugas of the Credit.

Where the Members of the Planning and Housing Committee listed in the attendance for this meeting participated remotely, they were counted for quorum as permitted by Section 189(4.2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and City Council's Procedures.