City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules


		City of Toronto Council and Committees
		All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
		TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES AND OTHER COMMITTEES As Considered by The Council of the City of Toronto on May 11, and 12, 1999 YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPORT No. 5 1 Litigation - City of Toronto v. Wellington Insurance Co. and London Guarantee Insurance Co., Ontario Court (General Division) Ward 27, York Humber 2 1400 Weston Road, Amendment to Subdivision Agreement Riverboat Landing Subdivision Applicant: B.G. Schickendanz Homes Ltd. Ward 27, York Humber 3 52 Hyde Avenue Zoning By-law Amendment Application Temporary Use Ward 27, York Humber 4 Tree Removal By-law Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton 5 134 Belgravia Avenue Possible Damage to House by City-Owned Tree Ward 28, York Eglinton 6 Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions 34 Claxton Boulevard - Ward 28, York Eglinton; and 88 John Street - Ward 27, York Humber 7 McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road - Proposed Installation of Speed Humps Ward 28, York Eglinton 8 2007 Lawrence Avenue W. Unit 14, Robinson Crusoe Restaurant, Application for a Liquor Licence Ward 27, York Humber 9 2446-2448 Bloor Street West, "The Fan", "Billy Bob's" and the "Wedgewood Restaurant" Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 19, High Park 10 100th Anniversary of Kodak Canada Inc. Request to Display Banners on City Property Ward 27, York Humber 11 Request for Improved TTC Service in York Humber Ward 27, York Humber 12 Other Items Considered by the Community Council City of Toronto REPORT No. 5 OF THE YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL (from its meeting on April 28, 1999, submitted by Councillor Bill Saundercook, Chair) As Considered by The Council of the City of Toronto on May 11 and 12, 1999 1 Litigation - City of Toronto v. Wellington Insurance Co. and London Guarantee Insurance Co., Ontario Court (General Division) Ward 27, York Humber (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the confidential report dated April 21, 1999, from the City Solicitor, respecting a litigation matter relating to the development known as Charlton Settlement at 1400 Weston Road in Ward 27, York Humber, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act. 2 1400 Weston Road, Amendment to Subdivision Agreement Riverboat Landing Subdivision Applicant: B.G. Schickendanz Homes Ltd. Ward 27, York Humber (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 26, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District: Purpose: This report is submitted to recommend changes to the Subdivision Agreement and Master Development Concept Plan for an approved residential development of up to 2,150 units at 1400 Weston Road. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: City funding is not required. There is no impact on capital or operating budgets. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the revised Master Development Concept Plan (Appendix 4) be approved as it relates to the development and improvement of public spaces and blocks where residential development is permitted, (2) the Owner enter into an agreement, prepared in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, which incorporates provisions to amend the existing Subdivision Agreement with respect to revised plans, financial security amounts as noted in this report, and any other matters deemed necessary, (3) Site Plan Approval not be granted for any further residential development on the subdivision lands until the amending agreement noted in the preceding recommendation is entered into, and (4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Background: The Riverboat Landing site at 1400 Weston Road is located on the west side of Weston Road, northwest of the intersection of Jane Street and Weston Road, and abuts the Humber River (See Appendix 1- Location Map). The land has an area of 14.7 hectares (36.2 acres) and was subdivided to create five development blocks, a public park block, and three public roads by Plan 66M-2265 in June 1990. (See Appendix 2 - Plan of Subdivision 66M-2265) 125-unit non-profit senior citizens' building, constructed in 1992 is located at 200 Dora Spencer Road on the southwestern part of Block 2. The easterly part of Block 5 recently has been developed with 94 condominium townhouses. In addition, construction of 208 condominium apartments in 13 multiple unit buildings is now in progress on Block 1. Official Plan and Zoning By-Law amendments were approved in the late 1980's for the then developer, Bramalea Limited, to permit the redevelopment of the lands for a maximum of 2,150 dwelling units in primarily medium to high rise building form within the subdivision lands. In addition, the development of commercial uses or a school is permitted on the Weston Road frontage and land for a public park located on Block 6 has been dedicated to the City. The development scheme that was approved for the build-out of the subdivision is shown on the Master Development Concept Plan dated February 27, 1990, and referenced in Section III of the Subdivision Agreement. (See Appendix 3) As a condition of the Plan of Subdivision approval, a Subdivision Agreement was executed by Bramalea Limited to provide for the installation of municipal services, roads, boulevard landscaping, grading and development of the public park, and other public use features in the development. Bramalea Limited subsequently declared bankruptcy and development of the lands did not proceed. In June 1997, B.G. Schickedanz Central Inc. acquired the lands. The development that has occurred on the lands to date has been in keeping with the intent of the approved development scheme introduced by the previous developer, with a few minor changes. B.G. Schickedanz Homes Inc. has now submitted a Revised Master Development Concept Plan (see Appendix 4) which modifies the original approved Master Development Concept Plan for the lands. This report discusses the remaining road improvements and proposed changes relating to the development concept, along with the landscape treatment of public boulevards, the park and other public use spaces reflected in the Revised Master Development Concept Plan. Comments: (1) Revised Master Development Concept Plan Section III, paragraph 1 of the Subdivision Agreement contains the following: "It is acknowledged that the Owner has filed with the City a Master Development Concept Plan for the Lands dated February 27^th, 1990, and prepared by Young & Wright Architects and Strybos Associates Ltd., showing the intended uses, buildings, and accesses on the Lands. It is agreed that this plan will serve as a general guide to further development applications made under s.40 of the Planning Act, 1993 (now s.41) and that such applications shall reasonably conform to the said Master Development Concept Plan approved by the City of York. Approval for modifications that are within the spirit of the Master Development Concept Plan and comply with the Official Plan Amendment and approved zoning by-laws shall not be unreasonably withheld by the City. Concurrently with any application made under s.40 (s. 41) of the Planning Act to develop a portion of any Block shown on the Plan, the Owner shall also file a Development Concept Plan for the entire block in the same amount detail as the Master Development Concept Plan showing those items enumerated on Schedule "M". The revised Master Development Concept Plan differs from the original in relation to the intended uses, buildings and access points on the western portion of Block 5, all of Block 3, and the western part of Block 2. Whereas mid to high rise apartment buildings were originally proposed for these development parcels, the revised Master Development Concept Plan now proposes low rise development in the form of condominium townhouses and multiple unit condominium buildings with different vehicular access points and new condominium roads. These new uses and building forms comply with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law provisions applicable to the subdivision lands. The eastern portion of Block 2 remains designated for commercial or school development at this time. However, the developer may soon be further revising the Master Development Concept Plan and making applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit residential development in combination with the permitted commercial development on this block portion. The Revised Master Development Concept Plan also differs from the original in regard to the landscape treatment of the public park, boulevards and the public spaces on the southwest corner of Block 2. The details of the changes follow. (2) Public Square The public square, as originally shown on the Master Development Concept Plan, has two parts: one located at the north east corner of Dora Spencer Road and Charlton Settlement Avenue and the other immediately to the west across Charlton Settlement Avenue at the terminus of Dora Spencer Road. The northeast corner shows an area containing decorative concrete, a clock tower, a reflecting pool and pathway from the square northeasterly to a gazebo and the commercial or school block beyond. The other component of the public square located at the terminus of Dora Spencer Road contains a fountain encircled by tree planting and decorative paving. A pedestrian crossing area surfaced with interlock pavers connects the two components across Dora Spencer Road. The area of the public square was intended to remain on private lands with right of access and use of the lands and features by the public. The Revised Master Development Concept Plan replaces the clock tower with a gazebo containing a clock and seating area, decorative paved areas, landscaping and seat walls for further seating capacity. The area at the terminus of Dora Spencer Road that contained a fountain has been eliminated. The area has been incorporated as part of the site for the proposed 44 unit condominium townhouse development on Block 3. The demarcated walkway across Charlton Settlement Avenue connecting to the public sidewalk is still proposed as it is the part of the system of pedestrian walkways through the site required by the Official Plan. Section III of the Subdivision Agreement requires amendment to refer to the Revised Master Development Concept Plan. In addition, Schedule "N" which describes the Extra Public Amenities must be amended to revise the public square description to provide for a gazebo structure with a clock feature and decorative paving in place of the (originally proposed) clock tower feature. (3) Streetscape Modifications The original streetscape plan included trees, interlock paver bands and substantial interlock paving throughout the development. The applicant is proposing to modify the public boulevard treatment by replacing the interlock pavers originally proposed with "soft" landscaping and by revising the tree planting specifications to provide more trees of a slightly smaller size. It is noted that similar revisions were previously approved by the City's landscape architect several years ago at the time Bramalea Limited was experiencing financial difficulty and the condominium market activity was in decline. In addition to the changes required by the applicant, the Urban Planning and Development Services Department has requested improvements to boulevard landscaping along the south side of Sidney Belsey Crescent from the public square to the west park entrance. These improvements include a double row of trees, increased lockstone paving and other decorative features. Additional trees on the northern portion of Sidney Belsey Crescent from Weston Road to the new Clouston School site, also have been requested, as a large volume of pedestrian traffic is expected for this street. These requests are to be incorporated in the Revised Master Development Concept Plan. Schedule "H-2" of the Subdivision Agreement gives an estimated cost of the streetscaping works and parkland development costs to be carried out under the original plan. The total estimated cost of $805,000 covers the provision of trees and associated appurtenances, unit paving, curbing, buffer planting, sod and street furniture. This amount has been revised to reflect the revised plan with the requested changes at a total cost of $374,400. The revised plan with the required changes and the new estimate is acceptable to Urban Design Division staff. Schedule "I" of the Subdivision Agreement lists the detailed streetscape development plan, tree preservation plan, and parks master plan. Since these will be being modified to reflect the revisions noted in this report, the list of drawings in Schedule "I" also requires replacement. (4) Parkland Modifications The applicant is proposing some changes to the original park development. The size and slope stability of the park will remain the same; however the entrance to the play area and the routing of the walkway further west would be modified, the amphitheatre area would be replaced with a passive seating area, and the dry stream/swale and a portion of the walkway eliminated. The walkway has been modified at the request of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department to remove it from its location behind the development proposed on Block 3, as this was considered a potentially unsafe area in which to walk. The pedestrian connection to the park will continue from the public square along the street until it meets the west entrance to the park. The pedestrian walkway will join the trail to the seating area located further west and then the walkway will continue into the Humber River Valley. In order to identify and emphasize the street as part of the pedestrian connection to the park, as noted previously the Urban Planning and Development Services Department has requested a double row of trees, increased lockstone paving treatment, and other decorative elements leading up to the park entrance. The estimated cost of the original parkland development works which included grading, sod and plant material; a theatre, gazebo and associated sitting areas; a play area; entry features, a walkway and a dry stream/swale; and lighting and retaining walls, all totaling $769,000, also are contained in Schedule "H-2". As with the revised streetscaping works, the applicant has submitted a revised parkland development cost estimate as part of Schedule "H-2" reflecting the changes noted above. The new estimate for the improvement totals $409,500. The revised plan and associated new estimate is acceptable to Urban Design Division staff. (5) Impact on Residential Unit Bonus The public square and clock tower, along with enhanced decorative streetscaping and parkland development features which are discussed in the above sections of this report were listed as part of the Extra Public Amenities described in Section XXVIII (Financial Contributions) and Section XLI (Bonusing) of the Subdivision Agreement. These features were provided in order to allow construction of an extra 135 dwelling units pursuant to the bonusing provisions and formula contained site specific Zoning By-law 1472-88 which prescribes the maximum number of residential units that can be developed on the lands. In light of the requested reduction in the value of public amenities represented in the Revised Master Development Concept Plan, the 135 unit bonus entitlement was reviewed by staff using the bonusing formula set out in the Zoning By-law and appraisal information provided by B. G. Schickedanz to determine if there should be a corresponding reduction in the number of bonus units. Planning staff in consultation with Urban Design Division staff and Legal Services staff have concluded that the revisions will not result in a reduction to the 135 unit bonus entitlement. (6) Road Improvements A number of road improvements were identified in the Subdivision Agreement. The creation of the Buttonwood cul-de-sac at a cost of $98,400 has been reduced to $98,000; surfacing Verona Avenue at a cost of $12,904 has been increased to $13,155; and the surfacing of the internal streets in the development has been estimated at $196,050. These figures have been confirmed and accepted by the Works and Emergency Services Department. The estimates outlined in Schedules "H-1", "K-3" and "K-5" of the Subdivision Agreement should be replaced by the current figures outlined in this report. (7) Public Process The approval process for this site included an extensive public participation process. The revisions to the Master Development Concept Plan and Site Plan Approval applications, however, are not technically subject to a public process. As a courtesy, the developer had met with members of a local ratepayers group, the previous Westpointe Foresight Group ( citizens working committee), the local Councillor, and Planning staff approximately two years ago to discuss the proposed changes to streetscape improvements and parkland development. The revised plans for improvement of the public boulevard, park and public use areas were acceptable to the members of the group. While the public at large has not viewed the revised building proposal as reflect in the Revised Master Development Concept Plan, the developer at community information meeting on March 11, 1999, did present the revised building plans to the Ward Councillors and residents form the community abutting the development to the north and other interested persons in attendance. No opposition to the elements of the Revised Master Development Concept Plan for development blocks where residential development is currently permitted by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Community Council also endorsed the formation of a new group to meet with the developer on a regular basis to discuss the construction of the project and any related neighbourhood concerns arising from the construction or new development proposals on the remaining blocks. A report will be submitted to York Community Council in May, 1999, that outlines the Terms of Reference for the group. Interested residents and local businesses will be invited to join the group. Conclusion: The overall development concept as represented in the original Master Development Concept Plan has been revised to reflect a lower, less dense and grade related residential building form throughout most of the development blocks. The revised development form is in keeping with Official Plan and Zoning provisions for development on the lands. Higher density residential buildings continue to be proposed at the western edge of the subdivision abutting the Humber River valley. The changes proposed for the public boulevards, the park, and other public use areas reflect a more conventional and economical, but acceptable, development approach with less costly future maintenance and replacement requirements for the City. An agreement which incorporates provisions to amend the existing Subdivision Agreement with respect to revised plans, financial securities, and any other matters deemed necessary is required. The amending agreement will ensure that development proceeds following the Revised Master Development Concept Plan and should be executed prior to granting further residential development Site Plan Approvals within the subdivision. Contact Name: Wendy Johncox, Senior Planner Tel: 394-2868 Fax: 394-2782 The following persons appeared before the York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter: - Ms. Ella Jackson, Chair, Westpointe Foresight Group; and - Ms. Marjorie Sutton, Mt. Dennis Community Association. 3 52 Hyde Avenue Zoning By-law Amendment Application Temporary Use Ward 27, York Humber (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report dated March 3, 1999 from the Director, Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is for a temporary use of the lands not exceeding three years, recommends that the Zoning By-law Amendment Application submitted by Mr. Danny Nardelli be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report. The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having: (i) considered the above application on February 17, 1999; not approved the recommendation contained in the report dated December 22, 1998 from the Director, Community Planning, West District to refuse the application; and directed the Manager, Community Planning, West District, to schedule a Planning Act public meeting regarding this application; and (ii) held a statutory Public Meeting on March 30, 1999, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder; deferred consideration to its April 28, 1999 meeting and directed that no further public notice be given with respect to this rezoning by-law amendment application. The York Community Council submits the following report (March 3, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District: Purpose: To present a draft Zoning By-law to permit the continued use of the existing building on the subject lands for mixed industrial - residential purposes on a temporary basis not exceeding three years, for consideration at the Public Meeting to be held respecting this application. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the York Community Council receive this report as information to be considered at the Public Meeting respecting the attached Temporary Use Zoning By-law; (2) should Community Council give favourable consideration to the application, that Zoning By-law No.1-83 be amended in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law, worded to the satisfaction of the Legal Division, attached as Schedule 1 to this report; and (3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Background: At it's meeting on February 17, 1999, Community Council considered an Urban Planning and Development Services Department report which recommended refusal of a Zoning By-law Amendment (Temporary Use) application respecting 52 Hyde Avenue. The application seeks to permit the continued use, on a temporary basis not exceeding three years, of the existing building on the property for mixed industrial - residential purposes. The location of the property is shown on the location map attached as Appendix 1. The property currently contains a two-storey block building housing two industrial workshops on the ground floor, a use permitted by the Basic Employment zoning, and four illegal residential apartments on the second floor, which previously were converted from commercial space without a building permit. Site data relating to the application is as follows: Site Area 0.05 ha 0.12 ac Gross Floor Area total 446m² 4800 sq. ft. industrial 223m² 2400 sq. ft. residential 223m² 2400 sq. ft. Residential Units number and type 4 one bedroom size range between 36.2 m² (390 sq. ft.) to 52 m² (560 sq. ft.) Parking total 6 residential 4 industrial 2 The property owner and applicant, Mr. Danny Nardelli, made a deputation before Community Council in support of the application. Upon considering the staff report and Mr. Nardelli's deputation, Community Council directed that a Planning Act Public Meeting be scheduled to solicit comments respecting the application from the surrounding community. On March 2, 1999, City Council adopted Community Council's recommendation. A Planning Act Public Meeting, to be held by Community Council, has been scheduled for March 30, 1999. Comment: Fire Department staff conducted an inspection of the subject property on February 23, 1999, and have confirmed that the building, including the four occupied residential apartments, is in compliance with the Fire Code retrofit requirements. Attached as Schedule 1 to this report is a draft Temporary Use By-law which is provided for Community Council's consideration at the Public Meeting. The draft By-law permits the continuance of the existing four residential apartments for a period of time not exceeding three years from the By-law's date of passing. The By-law limits the number of apartments to four and restricts their location to the existing second floor of the building. No enlargement of the building will be permitted for industrial or residential purposes during the three year term of the Temporary Use By-law. The By-law also requires that a minimum of 6 parking spaces be provided and maintained on the subject property. Conclusion: The draft Temporary Use By-law attached as Schedule 1 to this report is presented for Community Council's consideration. Contact Name: Henry Byres, Senior Planner, York Civic Centre Tel: 394-2618; Fax: 394-2782 The York Community Council reports having had before it the following communications, during consideration of the aforementioned matter: (i) (April 28, 1999) from Mr. Danny Nardelli, 52 Hyde Avenue, advising that letters of support have been received from the neighbours and business owners on Hyde Avenue; (ii) (April 9, 1999) from Messrs. Franco Fernandez and Franco Martelli, F & F Auto Collision, 44 Hyde Avenue, advising that they are aware of the apartment units at 52 Hyde Avenue and have no objection; and that as a result of the presence of the tenants they have not experienced a break-in for some time; (iii) (April 18, 1999) from Mr. John Louisetto, owner of 46 Hyde Avenue, stating that he has no problems with the apartments and neither do his tenants; (iv) (April 12, 1999) from FBM Building Materials, 6 Hyde Avenue, advising that they were not aware of the apartments until receiving notice of the Public Meeting, that they have not been bothered by the use and do not expect to be in the future; (v) (April 12, 1999) from Mr. Danny Zoletta, P.P. Waxmen Scrap Metal, 36 Hyde Avenue, advising that the existence of the apartments does not interfere with the operation of their business, that the tenants ensure that children are not on the property at night, providing easier access for their trucks; (vi) (April 15, 1999) from Mr. Richard Aziz and Ms. Laura Aziz, owners of 48 and 50 Hyde Avenue, stating that they have no objection to the apartments on the second floor of this property; there have been no problems with the tenants; the property is better maintained since it is partially residential; and that there has been a reduction in security problems; (vii) (April 13, 1999) from Mr. Randy Voss, tenant at 52 Hyde Avenue; advising that he moved to Toronto to accept employment in the Lawrence Avenue/Keele Street area; that difficulties were experienced in locating affordable housing; that the units at 52 Hyde Avenue are comfortable, well lit, with laundry and parking facilities; easy access to transportation; and that he enjoys the accommodation. (viii) (April 19, 1999) from Mr. Steve Martin, tenant at 52 Hyde Avenue, stating that the apartment is well maintained; the area is very quiet after business hours; the fact that it is a truck route is very convenient since he drives a tractor-trailer and sometimes has to park the vehicle on the premises; (ix) (April 14, 1999) from B. McDonald, tenant at 52 Hyde Avenue, advising that no problems have been experienced with the neighbors, noise and parking; that it is easily accessible to the TAC; is very pleased with the apartment unit; there is no vehicular traffic and the street is quiet; (x) (April 14, 1999) from Ms. Tracy D'Acunto and Mr. Aurelio D'Acunto, tenants at 52 Hyde Avenue, stating that they are pleased with the living accommodation, the building is well maintained and the rent is reasonable. -------- - Mr. Danny Nardelli, owner of 52 Hyde Avenue, appeared before the Community Council in support of his application. SCHEDULE 1 - DRAFT ZONING BY-LAW CITY OF TORONTO BY-LAW NO._________ To amend former City of York By-law No. 1-83 (Re: 52 Hyde Avenue) WHEREAS authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act; The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows: SECTION 16 - AMENDED 1. That Section 16 of By-law No. 1-83, as amended, of the former City of York, be further amended by adding a new Subsection (384 ) as follows: "(384) 52 Hyde Avenue Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this By-law, the lands municipally known as 52 Hyde Avenue, which are more particularly shown on 'Schedule A' hereto, may be used for a mixed-use industrial-residential building, for a period of time not to exceed three years from the day of the passing of this by-law, subject to the following conditions: (i) the whole of the building existing on the lands at the time of the passage of the By-law introducing this Subsection as shown on Schedule 'A' hereto may be used for a mixed-use building containing up to four residential dwelling units; (ii) the residential dwelling units may only be located on the second floor of the building; (iii) the gross floor area of the building shall not be increased while this Subsection remains in effect; (iv) a total of 6 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on-site; (v) a 2.0 metre driveway shall be provided and maintained along the east side of the building to provide access to parking spaces located in the rear yard; (vi) all other provisions of this By-law shall continue to apply except in the case where provisions of this Subsection are in conflict, in which case the provisions of this Subsection shall prevail." 2. Subject to the provisions of Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, this By-law shall come into force and effect on the day of its passing. ENACTED and PASSED this day of A.D. 1999. The York Community Council also had before it the following report (December 22, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District: Purpose: To consider a Zoning By-law Amendment application to permit the continued use of the existing building on the subject property for mixed industrial - residential purposes on a temporary basis not exceeding three years. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets. Recommendation: It is recommended that Council refuse this application. Background: Subject Property: The 0.05 hectare subject property is located on north side of Hyde Avenue, in the centre of the Valley Crescent-Hyde Avenue industrial area (see Appendix 1). The area, located within the flood plain of Black Creek, is characterized by several industrial uses such as salvage/recycling yards, auto body shops and contractors establishments which utilize considerable portions of their properties for outdoor storage. The area is isolated from the surrounding industrial and residential neighbourhoods by virtue of its valley location, with access provided only by Hyde Avenue. Both Hyde Avenue and Valley Crescent are dead end roads. Therefore, the area gets little local and no "through" vehicular or pedestrian traffic. The nearest TAC bus route is on Rogers Road. The lands contain a two-storey block building housing two industrial workshops on the ground floor and four residential apartments on the second floor, which previously were converted from commercial space without a building permit The rear yard contains metal-clad storage sheds extending the full width of the property. Previous Application: In 1989, a Zoning By-law Amendment application, proposing to permit the continuance of the existing four residential apartments on a temporary basis, was submitted by the property owner. At their meeting on September 18, 1989, the former City of York Council agreed with the recommendation of the Planning and Economic Development Department and refused the application, based upon the site's inappropriate location and environment for residential uses. Proposal: The current application also seeks approval of a Temporary Use Zoning By-law to permit the continuance of the existing four illegal apartments for a period not exceeding three years. The apartments are all one bedroom and range in size between 36.2 m² (390 ft²) and 52.0 m² (560 ft²). The applicant proposes to demolish the existing sheds in the rear yard of the property and provide in their place five parking spaces. A sixth parking space is proposed in the front yard. The parking spaces in the rear yard would be accessed by a narrow, two metre (6.6 ft.) driveway. A site plan is attached to this report as Appendix 2. Official Plan: The property is located within the York City Centre area and is designated "City Centre Residential Use" by the Official Plan. Zoning: The property is zoned "Basic Employment (BE)," which permits a broad range of industrial and business service uses, as well as outdoor storage of materials. Residential uses are not permitted. Comment: The environment created by the physical isolation of the Valley Crescent - Hyde Avenue area, and the existing uses of both the subject property and surrounding lands, makes the introduction of sporadic residential uses into this area, even on a temporary basis, inappropriate. With respect to the Official Plan, the York City Centre policies encourage the comprehensive redevelopment of this industrial area for medium and high density residential development. Furthermore, the policies state that " the offensive and noxious nature of existing salvage/metal recycling activities indicates that land use compatibility and environment considerations would be serious concerns if residential development occurred while offensive industrial uses continued on these lands." Clearly, the Official Plan contemplates land assembly and redevelopment for residential uses in this area only when the current incompatible industrial uses cease. This application is, therefore, not in conformity with the Official Plan. Agency Comments: The Municipal Standards Division of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department has commented that they have an active zoning violation file in relation to the existing residential apartments on the subject property. Toronto Hydro requires that they be contacted by the project architect with respect to the servicing of the property. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (T.R.C.A.) does not object to the temporary by-law amendment since the proposed residential uses can be accommodated within the existing building on the property. However, the T.R.C.A. advises that the property is located within the Regional Storm Floodplain and Fill Regulation Line, and is designated as part of the Special Policy Area respecting flood plain management. There are no other substantive comments or objections to the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment. Conclusion: The Official Plan requires that any residential development of the Valley Crescent - Hyde Avenue industrial area involve comprehensive assembly. The existing industrial area is not an appropriate location for individual residential uses. Existing industrial uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject property will create adverse noise and dust impacts on any proposed residential use. The area is isolated from surrounding neighbourhoods and would likely be unsafe at night, especially for pedestrians. Approval of this application, even on a temporary basis, would establish and undesirable precedent. Therefore, staff recommend that the application be refused. Contact Name: Henry Byres, Senior Planner York Civic Service Centre Tel: 394-2618 Fax: 394-2782 4 Tree Removal By-law Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District: Purpose: The purpose of this report is to request Community Council to direct the Legal Services Division to prepare a by-law to approve the removal of City-owned trees. The properties and reasons for removal are described in this report. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status: Removal and planting costs are approved in the 1999 Operating Budget. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) the Legal Services Division be requested to prepare a by-law for the removal of City-owned trees; (2) forestry staff begin removal and planting; and (3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Comments: In accordance with former City of York policy, attached is a list of locations where trees located on City property have either been removed or are in need of removal and the reason for the request. It should be noted that in each case, where a tree has been removed, the resident has agreed to permit the City to plant a replacement tree. Conclusion: Upon approval by Council, City forces will begin removal and planting of replacement trees. Contact Name: W. N. Kevin Bowser Manager of Parks & Recreation Tel: 394-2486; Fax: 394-2485 LIST OF TREES FOR REMOVAL Address Description Reason for Tree Removal Cedric Avenue (160) One (1) Manitoba Maple tree Tree was damaged in storm Church Street (153) One (1) Norway Maple tree Tree is in poor condition Durie Street (599) One (1) Norway Maple tree Tree is dead Glenholme Avenue (150) One (1) Silver Maple tree Tree is dead Strathearn Road (19) One (1) Sugar Maple tree Tree is dead 5 134 Belgravia Avenue Possible Damage to House by City-Owned Tree Ward 28, York Eglinton (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report(April 7, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism: Purpose: A communication was received by Councillor Joe Mihevc from the property owner at 134 Belgravia Avenue. The property owner wishes to remove a healthy City owned tree. The owner claims its roots have damaged the building's foundation. Councillor Mihevc has requested staff to report on this matter. Source of Funds: Not applicable as the claim has not been substantiated. Recommendations: It is recommended that no trees on City property be removed. Comments: In August 1998, Mayor Lastman's office was advised regarding this issue (Appendix A). On March 3, 1999, the site was re-inspected by the Forestry staff. There are 4 trees at this address. Fronting the property is a privately owned 35 cm diameter Spruce in fair to poor condition and a 66 cm diameter City owned Norway Maple in fair condition. Flanking the property is a 66 cm diameter City owned Norway Maple and a 99 cm City owned Silver Maple, both in good condition. All trees at this address are maintainable and do not require any work at this time and do not qualify for removal. Forestry staff did not note any structural damage to the house from the exterior or interior. As suggested by the previous inspection, interior water damage may be caused by poor surface run off, drainage and/or a blockage in the subsurface (weeping tile) drainage. Staff recommended to the property owner that: (1) they investigate the probability of failing weeping tiles, proper surface run off and proper directing of the eaves trough downspout and sealing of the wall and walkway junction: and (2) they excavate one metre out from the house foundation where the alleged damage is, exposing tree roots that are allegedly causing damage, for possible root pruning by City Forestry staff. Conclusion: City Urban Forestry staff have been unable to substantiate the property owner's claims of property damage caused by roots from City trees. The City trees fronting this property remain viable and do not qualify for removal. Removal of trees for claims such as this would set an undesirable precedent and could lead to many thousands of trees being removed within the City. Contact Name: Wilf deHaan Supervisor of Urban Forestry 394-2703 6 Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions 34 Claxton Boulevard - Ward 28, York Eglinton; and 88 John Street - Ward 27, York Humber (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 9, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, West District: Purpose: To provide information on appeals of Committee of Adjustment decisions which have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board; and to recommend whether or not legal and staff representation is warranted. Financial Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: There will be no financial costs associated with the appeal. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) Legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding Application No. A-16/99YK for 34 Claxton Boulevard and Application No. A-17/99YK for 88 John Street. Comment: The applications and appeals are summarized as follows: (i) Address: 34 Claxton Boulevard (Ward 28: York Eglinton) Applicant: Anthony Gagliano Appellant: Veronica Jacobs 36 Claxton Boulevard Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB Application: A-16/99YK. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing dwelling and to construct a new two storey detached dwelling with below-grade parking. (See Appendix A and B attached) Variances were requested to the minimum front yard setback, maximum floor space index, minimum side yard setback and minimum front yard green landscaped open space provisions of Zoning By-law Nos. 1-83 and 3623-97. The Committee of Adjustment on March 16, 1999, granted variances subject to conditions that require the applicant to obtain necessary permits for curb ramps, to obtain a building permit prior to starting any structural alterations to the building and to comply with the Ontario Building Code. The Committee also required that roof water be directed onto the property and away from abutting properties. The Planning Department had no objections to the application. (ii) Address: 88 John Street (Ward 27: York Humber) Applicant: Carol Ann and James D. Coon Appellant: John Gribben 125 Rosemount Avenue Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB Application: A-17/99YK. The applicant proposes to maintain and to legalize the side/rear open deck, which was constructed in 1975 without proper authorization. (See Appendix C and D attached) Variances were requested to the minimum side yard setback provisions of Zoning By-law Nos. 1-83 and 3623-97. The Committee of Adjustment on March 16, 1999, granted the variances subject to conditions that require the portions of the deck that encroach into the required east side yard to be removed to satisfaction of the Building Division; and the applicant to obtain a building permit prior to constructing the side entrance platform, if required, and to comply with Ontario Building Code. The Planning Department had no objections to the application. Conclusions: The subject appeals were reviewed by staff who did not object to the applications. Legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is therefore not warranted for these appeals. Contact Name: Lou Moretto Manager, Community Planning - West District Tel: 394-2607 Fax: 394-2782 7 McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road - Proposed Installation of Speed Humps Ward 28, York Eglinton (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 22, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1: Purpose: To reduce the speed of traffic on McRoberts Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and Rogers Road by the introduction of speed humps. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: Funds to cover the cost of this work and associated signage in the estimated amount of $18,000. are available in Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Fund Code No. 296702. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1) approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on McRoberts Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road, for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as described in the text of this report: "The construction of speed humps on McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5354, dated March, 1999"; (2) Works staff be authorized to conduct the required poll on both portions of McRoberts Avenue, that being the portion in the Toronto Community Council area and the portion in the York Community Council area; (3) the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and (4) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required. Comments: At the request of Councillor Betty Disero and residents of McRoberts Avenue, Works staff investigated the feasibility of installing speed humps on McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to the north limit of Davenport Ward. Upon investigating this request Works staff determined that the remaining portion of McRoberts Avenue between the north limit of Davenport Ward and Rogers Road (approximately 80 metres), which is part of the York Community Council area (York-Eglinton Ward), should be included in the speed hump evaluation. Mc Roberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road, operates two-way with a pavement width which varies from 7.3 to 7.9 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. The following parking regulations are in effect on Mc Roberts Avenue. East side Parking is prohibited at anytime. West side Parking is prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, from Innes Avenue to a point 106.7 metres south. Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours except during the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily between St. Clair Avenue West and the north limit of Davenport Ward. Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours except during the hours of permit parking operation from 12:00 midnight to 6:00 a.m., daily between the north limit of Davenport Ward and Rogers Road. Works staff conducted 24-hour speed and volume counts on Mc Roberts Avenue and found that on average the street carried 1800 vehicles per day. On a daily basis, approximately 26% of vehicular traffic travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour. Mc Roberts Avenue has been evaluated against the primary criteria for speed hump installation contained in the Speed Hump Policy adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting on August 21, 1997 (Clause 28 in City Services Committee Report No. 10) and it has been determined that the installation of speed humps is warranted. Under the Policy there are five primary criteria that must be met when a street is being evaluated for speed hump installation. PRIMARY CRITERIA: 1. The posted speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour or less. 2. The number of travel lanes (excluding bicycle lanes) is less than or equal to two. 3. There are no public transit routes operating on the street or that the street is not a primary emergency response route, unless a design acceptable to the respective emergency service is developed. 4. The number of vehicles per day on the street is between 1,000 and 8,000; and 5. The gradient on a particular section of a street being considered for speed hump installation does not exceed 5 percent. In accordance with the Policy, once the primary criteria has been satisfied, a formal poll must be conducted of residents, 18 years of age and older, of households directly abutting McRoberts Avenue and also residents on side streets whose sole access is from Mc Roberts Avenue. Further, at least 60 percent of returned ballots must be in favour of the installation of speed humps in order to proceed with the proposal. Works staff will conduct this poll and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project. It should be noted that the City Clerk for the York Community Council area has been requested, subject to support from York Community Council, to permit Works staff to conduct the required poll for all of McRoberts Avenue to maintain consistency in polling procedures. The speed hump proposal, as illustrated on the attached copy of Drawing No. 421F-5354 dated March, 1999, consists of 12 speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres apart. A speed limit reduction from the present 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Mc Roberts Avenue concurrent with the installation of the speed humps would be appropriate. No alterations to the parking regulations are required nor will the number of on-street parking spaces be affected. One of these speed humps will be located in the York Community Council area and until a uniform speed hump policy is developed for the City of Toronto it is recommended that the speed hump design and height recommended in the above noted Speed Hump Policy be utilized on the entire section of McRoberts Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rogers Road. The recommended speed hump design is 7.5 to 10 centimetres in height and approximately four metres in length in the direction of travel. This design encourages vehicular crossing speeds of 20 to 30 kilometres per hour and there are no negative impacts to the number of parking spaces. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to install speed humps on Mc Roberts Avenue constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Consequently, the proposed changes to the roadway must be advertised and be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with emergency service agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the design and layout of speed humps does not adversely affect their operations. This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects. Contact Name: Erin Holl Co-ordinator, Traffic Operations Tel: 392-7771 8 2007 Lawrence Avenue W. Unit 14, Robinson Crusoe Restaurant, Application for a Liquor Licence Ward 27, York Humber (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends that City Council: (1) deem the issuance of this Liquor Licence to be contrary to the public interest; and (2) authorize the City Clerk or her designate, to complete and sign the "Municipal Information" form and forward the form with Council's decision to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. The York Community Council submits the following report (April 14, 1999) from the City Clerk: Purpose: To provide departmental comments following circulation of Municipal Information form from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and the Licence Clearance form completed by the applicant. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: None. Recommendations: That authorization be provided to forward the departmental comments to the Alcohol and Gaming Commissioner of Ontario. Council Reference/Background/History: On March 18, 1999, copies of the Municipal Information form and Licence Clearance form were circulated. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification: The following is a breakdown of departmental comments received: Fire Prevention Division (April 7, 1999): "In regard to the March 18, 1999, application, please be advised that we have no objection to the issuance of a liquor licence for this premise. The maximum occupant load of this premise with non-fixed tables and chairs should not exceed 230 persons." Heath Department (March 24, 1999): "This establishment is under regular routine inspection by inspectors of this Health Department and no Health Department orders under Food Premises Regulation 562/90 are currently outstanding against it. We have no objection to the issuance of a liquor licence." Urban Planning Development Services, Municipal Standards Division: "The Municipal Standards Department has no active file in relation to the above-mentioned premises and therefore have no comments." Works and Emergency Services Department (March 22, 1999): "In regards to attached application for Liquor Licence for above property: - no objections, no comments." Urban Planning and Development Services Department (March 7, 1999): "Application is approved at the above location." Conclusions: That the above comments now be forwarded to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario as departmental clearances have been provided. Contact Name: Molin Bunsee Clerk's Division Tel: 394-2523 Fax: 394-2803 9 2446-2448 Bloor Street West, "The Fan", "Billy Bob's" and the "Wedgewood Restaurant" Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 19, High Park (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motions: Motion by Councillor Saundercook: WHEREAS the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario has granted a cafe liquor licence to "The Fan" and "Billy Bob's" at 2446-2448 Bloor Street West, to serve 26 additional customers; and WHEREAS this establishment currently has a capacity of approximately 750 customers, well above the approximate maximum of 100 customers for other licensed establishments in the neighbourhood; and WHEREAS the local residents do not support any further expansions to this establishment; and WHEREAS a licensed rooftop patio would cause significant further disturbances to the neighbourhood and would not be in the public interest; and WHEREAS subsection 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act ("the Act") provides that an applicant is entitled to be issued a licence to sell liquor, except if the licence is not in the public interest, having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located; and WHEREAS section 7.1 of Regulation 719 under the Act states that, in the absence of receiving submissions to the contrary, the Board shall consider a resolution of the Council of the municipality, in which are located the premises for which a person makes an application to sell liquor or holds a licence to sell liquor, as proof of the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality for the purposes of clause 6(2)(h) of the Act; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council request the Alcohol and Gaming Commission not to grant any additional liquor licences, or expansion of existing liquor licences, for the establishment of 2446-2448 Bloor Street West; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Toronto Community Council for their records. Motion by Councillor Nunziata: WHEREAS notwithstanding the objections of local residents, the Alcohol and Gaming Commission has ruled in favour of the Wedgewood Restaurant receiving a liquor licence for their sidewalk patio; and WHEREAS the local residents, as a result of this decision, expect to experience an increase in the disruptive patrons to the Wedgewood Restaurant; and WHEREAS the Wedgewood Restaurant has now also applied for a building permit to construct a third floor patio, which will further increase the number of patrons to the restaurant; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council express its opposition to the construction of the third floor patio at 2446-2448 Bloor Street West, and to the issuance of any liquor licence for this patio; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution be also forwarded to the Toronto Community Council with a request that the Community Council express its objection to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the third floor patio. The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received a communication (April 24, 1999) from Mr. Ian Anderson, Toronto, to Councillor Bill Saundercook, forwarding a copy of the decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, approving an application by the Wedgewood Restaurant for an additional licensed area for a sidewalk patio; and advising that the Commission felt that without evidence of disciplinary action by the police or the Commission, that the Wedgewood Restaurant was operating satisfactorily; that any problems regarding noise, disturbances, etc. were to be dealt with by by-law inspectors or the police; that the restaurant has a building permit for a third floor rooftop patio and construction has started; and requesting that the York Community Council pass a motion objecting to the additional number of patrons who will be virtually in the backyards of many local residents. 10 100th Anniversary of Kodak Canada Inc. Request to Display Banners on City Property Ward 27, York Humber (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion: WHEREAS Kodak Canada Inc. is celebrating its 100th Anniversary in Canada this year; and WHEREAS Kodak Canada Inc. has been a valued member of the business community in York Humber and York Eglinton; and WHEREAS Kodak Canada Inc. has made significant contributions to the community; and WHEREAS Kodak Canada Inc. is requesting the display of two (2) banners, measuring 4 ft. by 17 ft. on the following City locations adjacent to their property: (1) on the east side of the Photography Drive bridge, over Eglinton Avenue West; and (2) on the west side of the railway bridge, over Eglinton Avenue West; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Council approve the request of Kodak Canada Inc. for the installation of two (2) banners at the above locations. The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to meet with representatives of Kodak Canada Inc. with a view to accommodating Kodak's request, in accordance with procedure. 11 Request for Improved TTC Service in York Humber Ward 27, York Humber (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The York Community Council recommends that: (1) City Council support the request of West Park Hospital for the Toronto Transit Commission to maintain the 168 Symington bus route to the hospital; and (2) the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to: (a) extend the Scarlett Road bus route to provide service on St. Clair Avenue West between Runnymede Road and Scarlett Road; and (b) expand the service in the area of Industry Street/Black Creek Drive/Weston Road, in view of the increase in employment opportunities and the training facilities at the Learning Enrichment Foundation on Industry Street. The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a public consultation meeting to discuss the impact on the communities of York Humber and York Eglinton if transit service were reduced or eliminated. The York Community Council submits the following communication (April 26, 1999) from Mr. Barry Monaghan, President and CEO of West Park Hospital, 82 Buttonwood Avenue: In April, 1998 when I last spoke to you, the York Community Council acknowledged the community's need for equitable access to health care services at West Park Hospital and that access was dependent upon public transportation. Council supported West Park Hospital's request for a bus stop at the hospital. Since then, the Toronto Transit Commission's Service Planning Department agreed that extension of the Symington 168 bus service to West Park Hospital during peak rush hours Monday to Friday met the TTC's financial standards, would add new customers to the TTC base. With the endorsement of the Toronto Transit Commission in November, 1998, a six-month trail service period was inaugurated, which began on February 15, 1999. We were the last hospital in Toronto to receive TTC service. The hospital was told by the TTC that ridership surveys taken twice during the six-month period would be used to determine the viability of the route. West Park Hospital spent $43,000. to renovate the entranceway to our hospital to permit the TTC bus to navigate our property, in consultation with TTC staff. The hospital has also spent $20,000. on promotion of the new route to clients, staff volunteers and the community, once again in consultation with the TTC, and has another $20,000. committed for a Fall promotional campaign. At a time when every dollar of our budget is accounted for an $83,000. expenditure is indicative of West Park Hospital's belief in the importance of public transit access to client care. We have undertaken these expenses in partnership with the TTC to serve health care needs of the citizens of Toronto. The hospital made this commitment because we believed that we would have a fair chance to develop ridership on this route. We believe that the Toronto Transit Commission supported the principle of public access to health care. We knew that we would need to make the business case for the route. We did not know that the Symington 168 was a subsidized route, nor that the commission would consider eliminating service prior to the end of our pilot without consultation. I would like to urge York Community Council to strongly recommend to the TTC that is not eliminate service to West Park Hospital, and that it give us the opportunity to develop the ridership on the 168 route as previously agreed. Let me tell you why. West Park Hospital is one of the three regional adult rehabilitation hospitals in the Greater Toronto area. In addition to rehabilitation services, West Park has a significant commitment to complex continuing care. The hospital currently has 316 in-patient beds and community living spaces and offers a broad range of out-patient services. The hospital provides care to individuals from across Toronto and the province, who are recovering from strokes, acquired brain injuries, respiratory disorders, tuberculosis, amputations, the late effects of polio, multiple sclerosis and many more debilitating conditions. Many of our clients and visitors are over the age of 60 and few are able to walk the 722 meters from the previous TTC stop at Jane Street to West Park Hospital. It is a walk that exceeds the TTC's Service Standards policy, which sets an acceptable walking distance for areas with a higher than average proportion of seniors, such West Park Hospital, at a standard 200 metres. Yet most are not eligible for WheelTrans service. West Park Hospital clients without car transportation have three options: 1. Walk, if they are able, the 3/4 of a kilometre to and from the hospital for treatment. 2. Pay of taxi service. For some this can amount to as much as $50.00 a day. 3. Not receive treatment. West Park employs over 800 people. In a June 1998 staff survey (response rate of 48%), 50% of staff said they use the TTC to commute to work and a further 25% indicated they would use the TTC if a bus stop were located on site. The hospital also currently attracts more than 200 non-staff visitors per day and this number will increase in the future, due to changes announced by the Health Services Restructuring Commission. As a result of these changes more people will be travelling to and from the Hospital for care on a daily basis. In addition, the hospital has received a licence from the Ministry of Health to build a 200-bed long-term care centre. This new facility is scheduled to be open June 30, 2001, and will bring additional staff, volunteer, and visitor traffic to West Park Hospital campus. And, as councillors are well aware, there is a new housing development under construction on the riverbank lands to the west of Weston Road that will also be serviced by the 168 route. When this new population is added to the numbers of seniors in the apartment complex on Dora Spenser Road there is another market for the 168 service. With all of this new growth, we believe that we have the base upon which the TTC can, with our assistance, build a profitable route. West Park Hospital asks that theYork Community Council support the maintenance of the 168 Symington bus route to West Park Hospital. The York Community Council, reports having had before it the following communications, during consideration of the foregoing matter: (i) (March 4, 1999) from Councillor F. Nunziata, referring to the communication (March 3, 1999) from the Chair, Toronto Transit Commission, advising of the proposed elimination of poor performing routes due to subsidy reduction; expressing concern regarding the impact on the quality of service in the community; that the residents should be afforded an opportunity to voice their concerns prior to Council dealing with this matter; and requesting that this communication be placed on the agenda for discussion; (ii) (March 3, 1999) from Councillor Moscoe, Chair, TTC to Toronto City Councillors submitting a list of poor performing routes that would be recommended for elimination if subsidies are reduced; including the following routes affecting Wards 27 and 28 which are identified with poor financial performance: 4 Annette (City Wards 19, 21, 23 and 27) Saturday service after 10:00 p.m. has already been reduced to once every 30 minutes, starting in November 1998. The financial performance of the revised service will determine whether further reductions or elimination are required. 126 Christie (City Wards 21, 23 and 28) All service would be eliminated, seven days a week. 33 Forest Hill (City Wards 22, 23 and 28) All service would be eliminated. 30 Lambton (City Wards 3, 19 and 27) Monday to Friday service from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. would be reduced to once every 60 minutes or else would be eliminated. Saturday service from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. would be reduced to once every 60 minutes or else eliminated. Sunday and holiday service from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. would be reduced to once every 60 minutes or else would be eliminated. Sunday and holiday service after 10:00 p.m. would be eliminated. Monday to Saturday service after 10:00 p.m. and Sunday and holiday service after 7:00 p.m. has already been reduced to once every 60 minutes, starting in November 1998. The financial performance of the revised service will determine whether further reductions or elimination are required. 109 Ranee (City Wards 8, 22 and 28) Monday to Friday service from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and after 10:00 p.m. on Marlee Avenue would be eliminated. Saturday, Sunday, and holiday service on Marlee Avenue would be eliminated. 168 Symington (City Wards 21 and 27) Service after 10:00 p.m. north of St. Clair Avenue West to Bicknell Loop, has already been eliminated; it last ran in February 1999. -------- The following persons appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter: - Ms. Sandra Melville, President, Warren Park Ratepayers Association, advised that the 71 Runnymede northbound bus to St. Clair Avenue West (Gunns Loop), Eglinton Avenue West and Industry Street should not be eliminated, as it provides service to small businesses and the St. Clair Market, that are not serviced by other routes. - Mr. Barry Monaghan, President and CEO, West Park Hospital, and submitted a communication in regard thereto; - Mr. Steve Price, Danier Leather, advised that the company has purchased 2650 St. Clair Avenue West for its head office, factory and main production facilities; that this location was selected as 25 percent of their customers and 55 percent of their employees use public transit; that St. Clair Avenue West continues to grow with development; that there is no service on the stretch between Runnymede Road and Scarlett Road to meet the needs of the business community; and requested that the TTC consider expanding service along this route. - Mr. Lorne Berg, Executive Director, Black Creek Business Area Association, on behalf of the Learning Enrichment Foundation, advised that with the increase in employment in the area and the training facilities at the Learning Enrichment Foundation, that the TTC should give consideration to increasing service in this area. 12 Other Items Considered by the Community Council (City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, received this Clause, for information.) (a) Recognition of Firefighters and Residents. The York Community Council reports having presented Firefighters Joe Palmieri and Kim Oromond, and resident Fred Mahood, with awards in recognition of their rescue efforts regarding a fire at an apartment building at 555 Oakwood Avenue on February 16, 1999. The following persons were in attendance at the York Community Council meeting in connection with the foregoing matter: - Fire Chief Al Speed - Platoon Chief Costiac - Firefighter Joe Palmieri - Firefighter Kim Oromond Firefighter Harry McIntyre and Mr. Michael Hotta sent their regrets for being unable to attend the aforementioned presentation. (b) Harmonization of Water and Water Pollution Control Rates. The York Community Council reports having: (1) requested the Chief Financial Officer and Officer to meet with representatives of Proctor and Gamble and Kodak Canada Inc. to advise them on the Option that was approved by Council, and on the impact this decision would have on industries; and (2) received the following report: (March 22, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to the Budget Committee advising that this report, in conjunction with the Background Study attached as Appendix "A", presents a review of the current practices and rate structure respecting the water and wastewater program, and recommends a strategy towards a harmonized rate structure across the new city; that Option (1) considers the impacts of harmonizing to the average rate for all users; Option (1A) attempts to mitigate the annual impact to all customer profiles by phasing-in the harmonized rate over several years; Option (2) attempts to define a rate structure that mitigates the impacts to the high-volume customers, and in particular, the Scarborough high-volume customers; Option (3) presents an alternate approach that considers various rate structures for various customer classes; and recommending that: (1) the pricing strategy as outlined under Option (3) be adopted and implemented effective September 1, 1999; specifically, the combined water and sewer rate for accounts paid on or before the due date be based on volume of water consumed as set out in columns (1) Monthly Volume Consumed, (2) Water Charge ($/M3), (3) Sewer Charge ($/M3), (4) Combined Rate to be Charged if not paid on or before due date ($/M3), and (5) Discounted Rate if paid on or before due date ($/m3); (2) with respect to the harmonization of the early payment discount, the combined water and sewer rate for all accounts paid in full on or before the due date indicated on the bill be subject to a discount of 5.0 percent on the price per cubic metre of water, with the discounted price being shown under column (5) of Recommendation (1); (3) with respect to Sewer Surcharge Rebates and private Water Works Agreements: (a) Section (4) of Article 1 of Chapter 292 of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto, which provides for a rebate of the sewer surcharge to certain customers in the former municipality of Toronto, be repealed, and By-law No. 32-93 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be amended to provide for the rebate of the sewer surcharge to qualifying customers in any of the former municipalities, and that the rebate for 1999 be based on the cost of sewage treatment of $0.3858 per cubic metre; (b) By-law No. 32-93 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be further amended to provide for a rebate of 55.85 percent of the retail rate charged to those customers receiving water services from the City and with a private septic system that is not connected to the sewer system; and (c) Section (5) of Article 1 of Chapter 292 of the Municipal Act of the former City of Toronto, respecting a charge where sewage flow exceeds water usage, be repealed, and By-law No. 96-80 of the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be amended to reflect both the cost of local sewage collection and treatment, and that this cost be set at 55.85 percent of the retail rate; (4) with respect to flat rate accounts, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report back in July 1999, in regards to a harmonization strategy for flat-rate accounts; and (5) the necessary City officials be authorized and directed to give effect thereto. -------- The following persons appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter: - Mr. Gerard Lyons, Proctor and Gamble; and - Mr. Lorne Berg, Executive Director, Black Creek Business Area Association. (c) 501 Alliance Avenue, Unit 2, Ambiance Banquet Hall - Application for a Liquor Licence for an Outdoor Patio - Ward 27, York Humber. The York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting, pending receipt of additional information from staff after a site inspection: (April 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, providing departmental comments on this application; and requesting authorization to forward these comments to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. (d) Poll Results - Proposal to Implement On-Street Permit Parking on Humberhill Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber. The York Community Council reports having: (1) requested the City Clerk to re-poll the residents on Humberhill Avenue; and (2) received the following report: (March 23, 1999) from the City Clerk providing the results of a poll conducted of the residents on Humber Hill Avenue; advising that 9 residents were polled, 5 replies or 56 percent were received, 3 or 60 percent were in favour, 2 or 40 percent were opposed; and requesting direction of the Community Council. (e) Poll Results - Proposal to Implement On-Street Permit Parking on Romanway Crescent between Wright Avenue and Plainfield Road - Ward 27, York Humber. The York Community Council reports having received the following communication: (March 23, 1999) from the City Clerk, providing the results of a poll conducted of the residents on Romanway Crescent; advising that 40 residents were polled; 21 replies or 53 percent were received, 7 or 33 percent were in favour, 14 or 67 percent were opposed; and requesting direction of the Community Council. (f) Poll Results - Proposal to Implement On-Street Permit Parking on Sykes Avenue between Weston Road and Denison Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber. The York Community Council reports having received the following communication: (March 24, 1999) from the City Clerk, providing the results of a poll conducted of the residents on Sykes Avenue between Weston Road and Denison Avenue; advising that 31 residents were polled; 14 replies or 45 percent were received, 2 or 14 percent were in favour, 12 or 86 percent were opposed; and requesting direction of the Community Council. (g) Request for Traffic Calming Measures on Northcliffe Boulevard at St. Clare Elementary School - Ward 28, York Eglinton. The York Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the suggestions in the following communication: (March 17, 1999) Councillor J. Mihevc, advising that the Vice Principal of St. Clare School has expressed concerns for the safety of the children as the school bus drop off is on the east side of the street, requiring the children to cross to the west sidewalk for their entrance to the school; and requesting that staff report on the feasibility of (a) installing a crosswalk near 127 Northcliffe Boulevard; (b) constructing two speed humps in front of the school entrance and in front of 125 Northcliffe Boulevard; and (c) implementing 'No Parking' restrictions, should a crosswalk be installed. (h) Request for Two-Hour Parking Limit on Peveril Hill North - Ward 28, York Eglinton. The York Community Council reports having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, to report on the proposal in the following communication: (April 6, 1999) from Councillor J. Mihevc, advising that residents on Peveril Hill North are requesting parking on this street for two-hour limits, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; requesting that staff investigate and report on this proposal, and should it be feasible, that a poll be conducted of the residents on the street. (i) Litter Receptacles - Ward 28, York Eglinton. The York Community Council reports having requested the Manager, Parks and Recreation, West District, to report on a resolution to the situation as stated in the following communication: (March 29, 1999) from Councillor J. Mihevc, advising that complaints have been received regarding the infrequency with which litter receptacles are being emptied resulting in garbage strewn on the street; and forwarding a memorandum (March 19, 1999) from K. Boyd, Works and Emergency Services to R. Helary advising that the York Parks Department installed special litter receptacles at various locations in the former City of York which were anchored to a concrete base; that they are designed to have a removable container inside to facilitate the dumping of litter but that the liners at a few locations are missing and the interior of the receptacles are full of refuse, most of which is household waste and not litter; that staff have collected the garbage around the containers but for health and safety reasons the crews will not reach in to remove the refuse inside; that some locations are being used as a dumping location for household waste; that staff at York District are looking into replacing the liners and into ways of locking down the lids on the receptacles; and that staff will continue to collect the overflow of refuse until corrective measures are in place. (j) Grass Cutting and Planting of Flower Beds - Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton. The York Community Council reports having: (1) requested the Director, Parks and Recreation, West District, to: (a) submit a more detailed report with specific information with respect to the frequency of grass cutting, maintenace and scheduling; and (b) give consideration to locations other than the York Civic Centre, regarding improvements to the level of landscaping for flowerbeds located in the community, near parking lots and in Business Improvement Areas; and (2) received the following report: (April 6, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing information requested by the York Community Council on: (a) the frequency of grass cutting and maintenance of special odd areas in Wards 27 and 28, compared to other areas across the City; (b) improvements to flowerbeds in the community; and (c) responsibility for cutting grass on major arterial roads and boulevards; and recommending that the report be received for information. (k) Access to Councillors' Offices, York Civic Centre. The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to take appropriate action with respect to resolving the inaccessibility to the Councillors' Offices, due to an inoperative button at the switchboard. Respectfully submitted, BILL. SAUNDERCOOK Chair Toronto, April 28, 1999 (Report No. 5 of The York Community Council was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999.)
		Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links