Concerns & Solutions

Current Issues with Patio and Bar Licenses

The Beaconsfield

We are happy to report that the QBRA and the owners of the Beaconsfield worked together to come up with a compromise that everyone is happy with, and their patio will be opening shortly licensed for 35 people, closing at 10 pm. Part of the agreement was that the owners of the Beac would set up quarterly meetings to address residents' concerns.

Beaconsfield Patio: Conditions and Compliance
26 November 2005

These attached notes outline, as best as possible, the terms of the agreement, and the Beaconsfield’s compliance (in italics). Please get in touch with any corrections, addenda, clarifications, etc.

1. The license shall be subject to a review of the proprietors’ compliance with these conditions and all municipal and provincial regulations six months from the date of its issuance
We all need to establish a clearer understanding of this process, and related dates. Since other matters have fallen behind schedule (see below), it may be desirable for everyone to defer the “six month” guideline.
2. The proprietors shall advertise and hold quarterly meetings with local residents to address emerging concerns with the operation of the boulevard café, submitting the minutes to the local ward Councillor for review
Meetings are a bit behind schedule. (While the licence was issued in July, the first meeting was not held until December.)
3. The boulevard shall be closed and cleared by 10:30 p.m. nightly
The bar staff seem to do a pretty good job of clearing tables and drinks by around 10:30. When the weather is warm, the patio is crowded, sometimes packed, late at night with people smoking. This is likely inevitable. When the weather is cold, an outdoor patio heater appears to be kept on until the bar closes around 2:30 a.m.
4. The boulevard café shall adhere to all conditions of zoning bylaw 313-36-F-2 [listed on back,] with an exception provided for item (f), which requires that no part of a boulevard café may operate less than 25 metres from a residential zone
This by-law includes the condition that the bar not play music with the doors open. Throughout the summer, compliance with this condition was very inconsistent, often with music played with the doors open several days a week, despite ongoing requests from neighbours that this stop. Toward early fall, compliance improved considerably.
5. The boulevard café shall only operate within the area from 2 metres north of the southern property line to the north edge of the northernmost public entrance, and shall be provided on the south edge with a 36-inch high fence, north-facing bench, greenery and trees to act as visual and sound barriers in a 2-metre setback area
At the south side, the 2m setback area has not been fully established, nor has the north-facing bench been installed. The bar points out they can’t currently afford to install the bench.
6. The proprietors shall provide a noise baffle at the north end of the patio
This appears to have been done.
7. Customers shall refrain from screaming, shouting, singing, using offensive language, or otherwise disturbing neighbours of the establishment
When the weather is warm, customers are at times somewhat rowdy and noisy. Not clear how much of an issue this was during the summer (Does anyone have specific comments on this?)
8. Customers shall refrain from bringing or drinking alcoholic beverages outside licenced areas
There have been a few instances where small numbers of people have been seen drinking outside after hours, but not very many.
9. No more than 35 persons shall be present in the boulevard café are at any time
It is not clear how strictly this is being enforced. When the patio is open, it seems like the number is generally around 35 (or possibly a bit higher? Does anyone know?). Late at night, when the weather is warm, it seems there are frequently more people than that, smoking but not drinking. In such cases, it appears that the indoor bar is also over capacity, but it’s hard to tell. This happens w. some frequency when the weather is warm.
10. No music or amplified sound from any part of the establishment shall cause audible noise in any part of any residential building after 11:00 p.m. The definition of audible noise shall be understood to include, but not be limited to, bass or other frequencies loud enough to allow an unaided listener to keep time with the rhythm of the music being played
The levels of music are quieter than they were in the spring. Still, the level of music has been audible in adjoining apartments several nights a week, consistently, for several months. The bar has been approached about this matter many times, and has been very slow in responding. Better solutions are currently being investigated, with only limited success.
11. There shall be no loading, unloading, delivering, packing, unpacking, or otherwise handling any containers, products or materials between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 am (9:00 am on Sundays and statutory holidays.)
It appears this condition is being met.
12. There shall be clearly visible signs posted, at least 11" x 17" in dimension, near each exit of the establishment, and any entrance to the patio, reminding customers that people live nearby, and asking them to be respectful of neighbours by keeping outdoor noise to a minimum, and further signage of the same nature shall be provided within the boulevard café
A single sign has been posted, a little over knee level, on one of the doors. It is not visible when the door is open. It appears no other signs have been posted. Neighbours have asked about this several times.
13. a member of staff of the establishment shall be assigned specifically to enforce the preceding conditions 3-12;
It is not clear whether this has been done. When the patio is crowded with noise customers a, for instance, there does not appear to be a security person to oversee them.
14. The owner shall not operate, construct, or apply for any outdoor service area at the establishment other than the boulevard café here described.
n/a
15. None of these conditions shall be removed or modified without public consultation with neighbours
n/a

Background on the Beaconsfield Patio Agreement

When the Beaconsfield’s patio application was being considered this past spring, a lot of neighbours were concerned.
Many neighbours had complaints about large and sometimes very noisy crowds, about allowing customers to drinking outside in unlicenced areas, and about problems with very loud music coming from the bar, often with the doors propped open till 2:30 in the morning several nights a week. Many neighbours felt the bar had been consistently unresponsive in dealing with complaints about these and other matters. A number of neighbours also felt that the Beaconsfield had misrepresented their intentions when they first solicited the necessary local support for their patio application.
After a very drawn-out and at times contentious process, an agreement was reached, brokered by councillor Adam Giambrone, and approved by a neighbourhood vote.
Neighbours approved the Beaconsfield patio (with a substantially smaller size and slightly shorter hours than originally proposed), based on the Beaconfield’s promise to meet a number of conditions regarding minimizing noise, responsibility for their customers, and a number of other issues of concerns to residents.
Results since the agreement
Relations between neighbours and the bar have been much more amicable since the agreement was reached this summer. And the general sense seems to be that the bar has become a better neighbour. At the same time, a number of the promises that the Beaconsfield made have remained unfulfilled, which is a source of some concern.

Patio Licence Renewal and meetings with Neighbours
The Beaconsfield’s patio licence is subject to renewal in a few months (The exact timing isn’t clear). The renewal of the licence is contingent on the bar keeping the promises they made to their neighbours.
A good goal for this meeting might be to see how to move toward a situation where the Beaconsfield is keeping all these promises, so the licence can be renewed in good faith by all concerned.

The following is the text of a flyer distributed by the QBRA in the spring of 2005 to the residents of the neighbourhood outlining some of the concerns about the Beaconsfield patio, and the city Polling process.

120 more people drinking outside on Beaconsfield? Let the city know your opinion

A letter from the Queen Beaconsfield Residents Association to residents of the neighbourhood

Hello,

As you may know, the Beaconsfield has submitted an application to the city for permission to operate a sidewalk patio with a capacity of around 120 people.

We’ve left the enclosed information to keep you informed about this application.

We are circulating a petition requesting a fair neighbourhood poll on this matter.

If you would like to sign this petition, to express your concerns about the proposed patio, or just to get more information, we’d love to hear from you.

The best way to get in touch is to email us at info@QueenBeaconsfield.com

Thanks,

The Queen Beaconsfield Residents Association
www.QueenBeaconsfield.com

Why a new poll on the Beaconsfield patio?

The law requires that residents be polled on the matter of the patio. A neighbourhood poll was conducted in Feb/March of this year. 147 ballots were issued, and the patio passed by 15 votes to 11.

We believe this poll was poorly conducted and may not reflect the interests of the neighbourhood. City Councillor Adam Giambrone supports this belief, and has expressed interest in conducting a second poll or survey. We are circulating a petition to support a fair and well-conducted poll on the Beaconsfield patio. Here are some of the problems with the original poll:

Many residents were never informed about the poll: There was no public posting about the poll. The ballot was sent only to residents on the current assessment roll, which is a very incomplete and inaccurate list of residents. There are more effective ways to reach tenants.

Many residents were not allowed to vote: The polling boundaries were strangely designed. People who lived directly next door to the bar on Queen Street fell outside the polling boundaries and were not allowed to vote, while residents as far as 120m away from the bar on Beaconsfield were allowed to vote.

Residents did not know what they were voting on: The ballot omitted nearly all the information which would be necessary to anyone's ability to make an informed decision about the proposed patio. Residents simply did not know what they were voting on:

• The ballot did not mention how many customers the patio will hold. (120 people).
• The ballot only used the term “Boulevard Café” to describe the patio, never mentioning whether the patio would be licenced. To many people, the term “Boulevard café” suggests a small, quiet coffee shop, not 120 people drinking late at night outside a loud bar.
• The ballot did not mention what the hours of the patio would be. (The owners of the bar have permission from the AGCO to be open as late as 12:45 on weekends, 11:00 during the week, though municipal regulations may be slightly stricter.)
• The ballot did not provide any contact information for recipients who were curious about the above, or other, information, or who would like to voice specific concerns.
• Much important information was entirely unavailable from any source at City Hall. Residents who tried to get in touch with the city during the poll had a very hard time getting answers, and were sometimes misinformed.

Residents only got to hear one side of the story. The owners of the Beaconsfield were able canvass neighbours and present their viewpoint. Because of poor information from the city, area residents who were concerned about the patio were not able to canvass. As a result, people voting in the poll only got to hear the Beaconsfield’s side of the story. Many people who were approached by the Beaconsfield ended up under the impression that the patio would be small and quiet and would function mostly as a place where food is served. Our group believes this impression is likely incorrect.

Facts about the patio at the Beaconsfield

The Beaconsfield is a very loud bar.

• The original city ballot used the term "Boulevard Café" to describe the patio. This suggests a small quiet place that serves coffee. The Beaconsfield, in their attempts to canvas the neighbourhood, describe themselves only using the word “restaurant”. The Beaconsfield is most accurately described as a bar. While they do serve food, they are open and very busy with drinkers long into the night, after their kitchen closes.
• The bar plays very loud music, most nights, until after closing time. A review on the martiniboys.com web site writes "the DJ's music volume was cranked beyond levels conducive to conversation". Eye Weekly writes "…serenity has been disrupted by the deep dub bass booming from the new kid across the block: The Beaconsfield". While they have made efforts recently, under neighbourhood pressure, to be somewhat quieter, they continue to have DJ’s every night and play loud music with all their doors open until 2:30 a.m.

They want a license for 120 more drinkers, outdoors, on Beaconsfield.

• The patio they have applied for would have a capacity of 120 people. This would nearly triple the bar's current capacity. It is also three times the size of the sidewalk patio at the Drake.
• It is not clear to us what time they need to close. Their provincial liquor licence allows them to serve until 11:00 during the week, 12:45 on weekend. The city bylaw seems to require them to close at 11. However, when service stops, our understanding is that customers are not required to leave the patio.
• Once license is granted, the bar can apply for longer hours and removal of other restrictions. In conversations with residents and the AGCO, the bar owners have suggested that they feel strongly that they should have the right to keep the patio open until 2:00 a.m. every night.
• No matter how effective the bar is at closing the patio on time (and it can be challenging), an extra 120 drinkers simultaneously leaving a loud bar and looking for a place to go at midnight will likely be very noisy and disruptive.
• Of course, the parking implications of 120 new customers will be dramatic. Make your voice heard.
• According to city by-laws, The Beaconsfield can't open their patio if residents don't want it.
• However, once a patio license is granted, it is much harder to revoke, even if there are problems with loud music, noisy customers, drug use, public drunkenness, etc.
• Usually, in cases like this, most residents don't respond. Then they have to deal with the consequences of not voting. Because so few people respond, every vote and letter counts.
• If you want to contact your councillor, send an email to: councillor_giambrone@toronto.ca

Responses to common concerns and questions

Isn’t it unfair to say the Beaconsfield can’t have a patio when the Drake has one?

1) The Beaconsfield patio will be much bigger and noisier than the Drake patio. The Drake’s sidewalk patio has a capacity of 40, and is outside a café that is generally fairly quiet. The proposed patio at the Beaconsfield would have a capacity of 120, and would be outside a very loud bar.

2) One patio is enough. There’s no law that says because one business is allowed to do something, that another business should be too. In fact many laws specifically place limits on the numbers of businesses of a certain type in one area. We feel that one patio on our block is enough. We feel that with two patios, the street will become more than twice as noisy.

But I thought they already won the poll.

1) The poll was very badly conducted. The patio passed by a margin of four votes out of 147 ballots sent. We have a full-page list of problems (see attached) with how the poll was conducted. Out city councillor, Adam Giambrone, has agreed that the poll was problematic in many ways.

2) People did not know what they were voting on. For a number of reasons, some to do with the city, some to do with the Beaconsfield, residents did not understand what they were voting on. We know a number of residents who were persuaded to support the patio in polls or petitions, and who later wished they had not, once the details were explained to them.

3) Winning the poll does not guarantee the bar the right to a patio The law says that a bar cannot have a patio if they lose the poll. But it does not say that they are automatically entitled to it if they win the poll. The poll is not a binding election or referendum, it is just a tool to help council understand what neighbours want, and we feel it may have served this purpose poorly. The poll is one of many conditions the bar must meet to get a patio.

I don’t like petitions.

We don’t either. Many people in our group think petitions give an unfair advantage to the people who are noisiest and aren’t always a fair reflection of what people want.

Because of this, what we would most like to see is for the city to conduct a well-run poll, to try and find out fairly what people in the neighbourhood really want. This is something that our City Counciller Adam Giambrone has supported.

We are just asking (yes…via a petition) that such a poll be held. Our second petition, opposing the patio, is a fall-back in case this poll is not held. We would much prefer that the city hold a fair and well-conducted poll than rely on petitions to determine public opinion.

But I thought the Beaconsfield patio was going to be small and quiet.

The owners of the Beaconsfield have canvassed and spoken to many residents about their proposed patio. Many of these residents seem to have somehow come away from these conversations with the impression that the patio would be small and quiet. We believe this impression is incorrect.

Not Small: The patio has a proposed capacity of 120. This figure has been confirmed w. the Beaconsfield owners, the City Councillor’s office, and the AGCO. That is not a small patio by any standard.

Not quiet: It’s doubtful whether 120 people drinking outside can ever be quiet. The Beaconsfield, especially, has a record of being a very loud bar, and has had ongoing problems with noise and neighbours.

What if I support a smaller patio, or a patio next summer?

There are many people in our group who feel this way.

If things just move along without resident input, the bar will get a 120 person patio, and neighbours will have little if any recourse to reduce that size. Our petition on the patio only says that you oppose the patio as proposed for this summer. If residents want to negotiate with the city for a smaller patio next summer, for instance, this petition might be a good first step.

I don’t want you bothering me if I give you my name/address/phone#

If you sign our petition, we won’t use your information for any other purpose.

I like bars, I like nightlife. I don’t want to interfere with anyone’s good time.

Many of the members of our group feel the same way. But we feel it’s important, too, that bars be responsible to their neighbours, and that the development of bars in an area be done with intelligence, care, and, especially, with input from residents.

This area is becoming a bar district. Isn’t this just the natural evolution of things?

It’s natural for businesses to want to expand, and it’s natural for people to want to drink and have fun.

It’s also natural for people to want to have input into what happens in the neighbourhood where they live.

We think the evolution of a neighbourhood should reflect the interests of businesses and the interests of residents. In the past couple of years, a small number of new businesses have had tremendous impact on our neighbourhood, both good and bad. But residents have had very little opportunity for effective input. We think a better balance is needed, and that the best neighbourhoods happen when businesses and residents, both owners and tenants, have a say in what happens.

If you don’t like noise, you shouldn’t live downtown.

Members of our group have lived in downtown areas of Toronto and other cities for decades. We are no strangers to noise, we are used to putting up with it, and in many cases we thrive on it.

But this does not mean we think there should be no limits on noise. We believe that downtown areas should be vibrant and livable, and should not be transformed into places exclusively for people to come and party. It is based on this principle that cities as diverse and lively as New York, Chicago, Berlin and San Francisco have measures like limits on bar density, good neighbour policies, noise-impact requirements for new bars, and other protections not found in Toronto. It is also why, for example, in an urban area like New York’s Greenwich Village, there are dozens and dozens of residents’ groups, vigilantly fighting to keep great neighbourhoods great. We are proud to live downtown, and are proud, too, to work hard to protect what we love about our neighbourhood.

Why are you trying to hurt the Beaconfield’s business by taking away their patio?

The rules about sidewalk patios are very clear. They say that you can’t open a patio in or near a residential area if the majority of people who live there don’t want you to. We think that’s a pretty reasonable rule. We assume the Beaconsfield owners knew this rule when they opened their business. A patio licence is a privilege that they haven’t yet received, not an entitlement we’re taking away from them. All we’re saying is that if they want to open a 120-person patio, and it turns out that most residents don’t want that, then they shouldn’t be granted that licence.

Tell me more about your group.

We are an informal association of people who live near the corner of Queen and Beaconsfield in Toronto. We love our neighbourhood and want to keep it exciting and livable. As our neighbourhood changes, we feel it’s very important to make sure that the interests of people who live here are considered. If you are interested in getting involved, or finding out more, you can contact us at info@QueenBeaconsfield.com, or visit our web site at www.QueenBeaconsfield.com (If you don’t have email, you may also try leaving us a voicemail message at 416-724-3379. But email is a much more reliable way to reach us.)

Patio and Bar Licenses

Development
New