NI’? 221. North York Community Council From: Manulak, Christina <[email protected]> Sent January 14, 2019 1:08 PM To: North York Community Council Cc: Tang, Isaac Subject: Letter of Objection - NYCC Agenda Item NY2.27 - Application to Remove a City Tree - 82 Cameron Avenue (North York Community Council - January 15. 2019) Attachments: Letter of Objection - NYCC Agenda Item NY2.27 - 82 Cameron Avenue.pdf Good afternoon Ms. Adamo, Further to Mr. Isaac Tang’s request to make a deputation at tomorrow’s North York Community Council Meeting, please find attached our submission to be circulated to the Members of North York Community Council. May we ask you to kindly acknowledge receipt of this submission and to please confirm that the attached submission will be circulated by you to the Members of North York Community Council. We trust you find the attached in order and look forward to hearing from you in this regard. Thanks kindly, Christina Manulak Practice Assistant to Stephen F. waque and Isaac Tang T416,367.6546 P416.367.67491 [email protected] I Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower, 22 Adelaide St W, Toronto, ON, Canada M5H 4E3 Borden Ladner Gervais LLP lit begins with service Calgary Montréal Ottawa Toronto Vancouver I ( blQcom To manage your communication preferences or unsubscribe, please click on bln,corn!mvoreference& Please consIder the environmelt belore ar;ntErg Ire erna:L n,:-saric flat ,s —,tc9:led on y cr Lie nurrcd ‘riD rita TF-.s “wsr:çe may ct-:ttr :rAccra; a It at a ;x,v:,cucd, wr rlart ci crc ‘ait ‘a1, c:zctcnJ:o I;nc: nDp; a,:::, aw ky dssc—i,a:.nc 0’ cyty ta ol ,r€scaqc r a;y’t. ad-pr than n ,i,Tr,d tCrflVC -. a a-c p,arb-:oc l:u.’p’a no’ a’ ,,,nac rcc;rcnt ,“ a; c—’rrr;ec 0’ rca’ VeIn!] I’;” ‘rn-ta,”, Iaa cameo ‘e:’;;ec’-: p’ca:-e ttc1:v L.a “ar-cit5atey a’tr”tay ‘ir:t’ay Ce a’, I;te:;’ ha ac’iaiqr iial zoac aD a ma/ I .‘:c: Wa r:r,-.aa may-a’. ho aectre ,:ensc PiJ r,nc0;t,’;, 1 Isaac Tang Borden Ladner Gervais LLP T 416.367.6143 Bay Adelaide Centre, East Tower 22 Adelaide Street West F 416.367.6749 Toronto, ON,Canada M5H 4E3 [email protected] 3LG T 416.367.6000 F 416.367.6749 Borden Ladner Gervais blg.com January 14,2019 Delivered by Email([email protected]) North York Community Council City Clerk's Office, Ground Floor North York Civic Centre 5100 Yonge Street Toronto, ON M2N 5V7 Attention: Francine Adamo,Committee Administrator Dear Ms.Adamo: Re: Letter of Objection - NYCC Agenda Item NY2.27 Application to Remove a City Tree - 82 Cameron Avenue Report for Action(Ward 18) City File No.16 216777 STE 28 OZ North York Community Council meeting on January 15,2019 We are the solicitors for Mohamad Mazaheri, Hoori Mansouri-Gilani and Reza Mazaheri. Messrs. Mohamad Mazaheri and Reza Mazaheri are the builders and owner, respectively, ofthe property municipally known as 82 Cameron Avenue in the City of Toronto ("Subject Property"). Ms. Mansouri-Gilani is Mr. Mohamad Mazaheri's wife and Mr. Reza Mazaheri's mother. For over two years, she has suffered from a severe physical disability that prevents her from using stairs. On behalfofour clients, we respectfully request that the members ofthe North York Community Council reconsider urban forestry staff's recommendations and grant the application to remove the City-owned tree located immediately adjacent to the Subject Property. The sole reason for the removal of the tree is to facilitate access to the newly-constructed house that exists on the Subject Property; specifically,to allow Ms. Mansouri-Gilani to access her son's home. If the tree removal permit is not granted, the provision of access to the Subject Property will create a hazard to not only our clients, but to the greater public and is not in the public interest. Further, in our opinion, the City's decision to permit the tree removal permit is not only required to facilitate access to the Subject Property, but to comply with the provisions ofthe Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act,2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11("AODA")and is consistent with the City's duty to accommodate persons with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code ("HRC"). Lawyers i Patent & Trademark Agents 3LG Borden Ladner Gervais Tree Removal Permit Must Be Granted to Facilitate Access to the Subject Property and Avoid Creating a Hazardous Condition Residents are legally entitled to access to their home from the public right-of-way. The Subject Property was created through a severance granted by the City in 2013. Our clients received minor variance approvals in summer of 2015 with the original building permits issued in December 2015. The location ofthe walkway is identical to what was originally approved. Currently, the walkway that provides access to the home is constructed with an approximate 19.5% slope. In order to comply with the provisions of the Ontario Building Code to meet accessibility standards, the slope must be reduced to 8%. This reduction in slope will require re­ grading and cutting major structural roots of the tree. This will not only negatively impact the health of the tree and undermine the very purpose of preservation, but lead to destabilization, creating a "massive and immediate hazard both to people and property including the surrounding buildings, driveway, public pedestrian sidewalk and public roadway" as the tree will likely fall down in the next large wind event(see arborist letter dated January 14, 2019 at Attachment 1). Stairs from the street leading to an elevated walkway are not an option for accessibility reasons. Our clients have made substantial efforts to try to preserve the tree and have incurred significant delays and costs in doing so. This includes spending upwards of$250,000 to construct the home using cranes and hand tools and retaining an on-site arborist to oversee the underground servicing of the home. Unfortunately, given the narrow frontage of the Subject Property, location of the tree and minimum Tree Preservation Zone (see Site Grading Plan and Appendix A to Attachment 1), the tree must be removed to allow the construction of the accessible walkway. Tree Removal Permit Must Be Granted to Comply with the AODA: In 2009, the City adopted a Statement of Commitment to Creating an Accessible City which states, among other things: The City of Toronto supports the goals of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and will establish policies, practices and procedures which are consistent with the accessibility standards established under the AODA, including accessible customer service, information and communication, employment,the built environment and transportation.[...] In working towards its goals under this Statement, the City of Toronto is committed to meeting the requirements of existing legislation and to its own policies and goals related to the identification, removal and prevention of barriers to people with disabilities and becoming a barrier free city. This commitment was re-affirmed in 2014 unanimously by City Council by motion of Councillor Nunziata, which directed staff to review the City's sidewalk cross-slope standards to assess whether it should go above and beyond the AODA standards to enhance accessibility to all (see Attachment 2). 2 BL.G Borden Ladner Gervais Most recently, the City adopted its Corporate Accessibility Policy in June 2018. This Policy defines "public spaces" as including "outdoor paths of travel" and recognizes that in order to comply with the AODA, the City must "accommodate the accessibility needs of people with disabilities to ensure they can obtain, use or benefit from City goods, services, and facilities, and that they can do so in a timely manner, at a cost no greater than the cost for people without disabilities." This commitment is reinforced in Section 10, "Built Environment and Public Spaces Requirements," which states that the City will "ensure accessibility at all its facilities and public spaces by designing with accessibility in mind."(see Attachment3) Clearly, City Council has treated sidewalks as public spaces that would be required to comply with the AODA and its regulations. Exterior paths oftravel, such as the potion ofthe walkway connecting the Subject Property to Cameron Avenue, are subject to regulations which require a reduction ofthe slope such that cutting the tree's roots would be required to facilitate access. Tree RemovalPermit Must Be Granted to Comply with the HRC The HRC is premised on ensuring that persons are not discriminated under protected grounds, including accommodation (i.e. housing) and goods, services and facilities. The HRC applies directly to the actions ofthe City ofToronto. In this case, the HRC requires that Ms. Mansouri-Gilani be reasonably accommodated as it relates to the City's regulation ofthe lands leading to her son's home,unless this accommodation would result in undue hardship. This "duty to accommodate" imposes a responsibility on the City to adapt or adjust facilities or services to meet her needs and requires "more than mere negligible effort" on the part ofthe City. If the City decides not the grant the tree removal permit, its actions may be construed as discrimination contrary to the principles ofthe HRC. Without removing the tree,the only way to access the home is to force our clients to construct stairs, thereby denying access for Ms. Mansouri-Gilani to visit her son and family. The City's refusal to grant a tree removal permit in this circumstance is all the more concerning as tree removal permits are regularly issued by the City and can "reasonably be accommodated" in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, as further described below.