July 28, 2007

To Whom It May Concern: 

As the owner of the Village Healing Centre and a member of the Emmanuel Howard Park United Church, as well as being a taxpayer in the City of Toronto, I am outraged by our current situation with the City of Toronto.  We (the Centre and the church) are being taken to court over a zoning/ licensing issue, which has already been resolved.  As the owner of the Village Healing Centre I have spent almost $5,000 and well over 1,000 hours over the past three years trying to get a $250 license form the city.   After three years of effort, I now hold a Holistic Centre License and the church has been granted a minor variance, which allows non-worship activities, including the existence of the Centre on their premises.  I am told that the charges against the church and myself are from previous offences, meaning we did not have the necessary variance and license before. 

Why is the City spending taxpayers’ money to take a united church and a healing centre to court over something very minor, which has already been resolved? It is in the news every day that the city is in serious fiscal trouble; why are city bureaucrats insisting on spending valuable funds on an unnecessary court case?  

This process is wasting not only taxpayers’ dollars but also the extremely limited resources of a financially struggling church.  Out of these resources they find money to host a weekly free supper, run outreach programs and provide community support in their parish.  Now they also need to find money to pay a lawyer to represent them in court. 

Attached please find a brief timeline that will provide you with more details. 

Thank you for your time,
Sara Robinson
416-894-7703
The Village Healing Centre
240 Roncesvalles Avenue
Toronto, On. M6R 1L3
416-588-8400
villagehealing@sympatico.ca
www.villagehealing.ca

Timeline June 2004 to July 2007

June 2004 

While preparing to open my business, the Village Healing Centre, I went to the Municipal Licensing and Standards office and inquired as to whether I would need a "holistic centre license" and the exact definition of a “holistic centre and holistic practitioner.” No one seemed to know the answer to either question. I applied anyway. I was told I couldn’t get the license due to a zoning problem; the church, which the Centre is located in, is zoned residential. They told me you could only have a "holistic centre” in a residential building if you lived in it.  

I went to the Zoning Department; we discussed the prospect of applying to change the zoning or for a minor variance but determined that separate from the licensing issue everything I proposed to do at the Centre was allowable both in a residential building and in a church. So based on what was determined regarding zoning, and the fact that the Licensing office could not tell me if I needed a license, I determined that in fact I didn’t. 

March 2005 

A city-licensing inspector contacted me after visiting the Village Healing Centre. He told me that the Centre required a "holistic centre license" and that there was question as to whether I could run my business in a residential building. 

After many phone calls and emails to both Licensing and Zoning departments as well as Councilor Sylvia Watson’s office, Licensing decided that I didn’t need a license. I asked for something in writing but was denied. 

December 2005 

5 municipal licensing inspectors came together to the Centre and said that I needed a license.  I informed them that I had been through the process twice already, and that I had been told I did not need one.  I asked for a written request.  I did not receive one, but got instead a copy of the by-laws, which are unclear as to my situation.
After another series of communications with the City and the Councilor’s office, I was told that I did need a license, although I still did not receive this in writing.
The by-law states that you can’t have a holistic centre license for a residential building in which you do not live.  I was told I needed a minor variance from the Committee of Adjustments to resolve this issue. 

February 2006  

I went to City Hall and submitted everything for the preliminary review from zoning, in order to make the application for the minor variance.
The zoning inspector involved with this process said that it was the smallest “minor variance” he had ever had to write and that he had to consult a superior to find a way to word it.   

March 2006 

I received the preliminary review in the mail. It made mention of “accessory use” in a place of worship which related to our situation, as the Centre is located in a church, although it didn’t appear to relate to the issue at hand.
Because there had been discrepancies between Licensing and Zoning already, I wanted to be sure that the zoning review covered the necessary information for the appropriate variance and that all parties agreed, as it is an expensive process. 
A series of emails and phone calls ensued, with no answer forthcoming. 

May 2006

I received a phone call from the Building and Planning department saying that a minor variance would not cover my situation, that I needed a zoning change, a much longer and more expensive process. Because this was contrary to what I had been told before, I asked for clarification and confirmation in writing.  I was told that my preliminary review from zoning should state that I needed the zoning change.  It does not.  The Councilor’s office advised me that if I had not received a registered letter specifying the need for a zoning change that I should not proceed.

At about the same time, I was contacted by a Policy officer from Licensing who said that she would do her best to help resolve my situation, and apologized for the unclear process of the last two years.  These two conversations were not connected, and neither City representative was aware of the other’s actions.
 

August 2006 

I received a call asking me to attend a meeting at City Hall on September 12, bringing a representative from the church. 

Representatives from Licensing Policy and Investigations came to my office at the Centre.  I was told my preliminary review was correct; that I needed a minor variance, and that if it was granted I would be able get the holistic centre license.  As they left, they assured me that we would achieve a positive resolution.
 

September 2006

At the meeting on September 12, the director of Investigations for Municipal Licensing and Standards told me I had three options:

• Vacate the premises voluntarily.

•  Apply to the Committee for Adjustments for a minor variance, which I would not be granted as the Community Planner would be advising the committee that she would not support it, and I would then have to close.

•  Apply for a Zoning change, which could take more than a year and that I would not be able to stay open during that time. The centre could not survive that, and I would have to close.

Despite the two years of communications, I was told that the only record that the city has of the Centre is that I applied for a license in June of 2004 and that they sent me a letter rejecting the application.  I said that I had never received that letter, and in fact that I had called to cancel that application.

The director of Investigations said that the city had no choice but to lay charges against me immediately.

He also informed the representative from the church that regardless of what happens with the Centre, the church needed to be re-zoned, and that all non-worship activities currently operating are not allowed. 

After I hired a lawyer, there was a second meeting at City Hall on September 28, including a representative from the church, my lawyer and myself.  We were told that the church was to apply for the zoning change.  The minor variance was removed as an option; only the zoning change would suffice.  As long as we proceeded quickly, we were told things would be resolved.  We were given a deadline of the end of December to submit the application.   

December 2006

We had a meeting with the church, their lawyer, the Centre, the city planner and the councillor’s office.  It was decided that a zoning change was not necessary.  The original variance would be sufficient

We were told by Licensing that charges were being filed against the church and the Centre; despite the fact that we had been told we could avoid charges if we made our application for a zoning change before the end of December.

We applied for the variance on December 22.  We were given a hearing date of February 14, 2007.

January 2007

During January and February, it became clear that one set of neighbours had concerns. The hearing was delayed until March to allow the church time to negotiate and make concessions.  The neighbours were satisfied and the hearing proceeded.

March 2007

We received our variance with no complications.

April 2007

On April 18 we received the notice of decision regarding the variance and on April 19 I applied for the holistic license.

July 2007

On July 12, the church and I both received summons to appear in court.  My summons was handed to a practitioner in the waiting room and was not signed for by anyone.

I was granted a holistic centre license on July 19.