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 February 2, 3 and 4, 1999

NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 1

1By-law Violations - 8 Creston Road - North York Spadina

2Request to Build Fence - 532 Glengarry Avenue - North York Centre South

3Fence By-law Variance Request - 411 Glencairn Avenue - North York Centre South

4Construction Noise By-law Violations

5Street Vending Permit Application No. 111 - Marisabel Gedina Ravelo - 15 Wallingford Road - Appeal of Refused Application - Don Parkway

6Parking Prohibitions - Goodwill Avenue - North York Spadina

7Stopping/Parking Prohibitions - Dudley Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue, Kenneth Avenue - North York Centre

8All Way Stop Control - Pewter Road at Poyntz Avenue - North York Centre

9All Way Stop Control - Glenmount Avenue at Glen Park Avenue - North York Spadina

10Parking Prohibitions Tempo Avenue - Seneca Heights

11Stopping Prohibitions -Woodward Avenue - North York Humber

12UDZ-94-30 - Pearl Godfrey - 123 and 125 Steeles Avenue East - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Retention of Outside Planning Consultant - North York Centre

13Official Plan Amendment 467 - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Referral No. 1 of Official Plan Amendment 381 - 88-102 Ellerslie Avenue - Retention of Outside Planning Consultant - North York Centre

14Application for Part Lot Control Exemption UD54-98-12-REL - 1165709 Ontario Limited - 150 Bartley Drive - Don Parkway

15Sign By-law Variance Request - First Floor Wall Signage and Roof Level Signage - Trimark Trust and Steel Art Signs - 5140 Yonge Street - North York Centre

16Tree Removal Request - 45 Langholm Drive - Black Creek

17Proposed Zoning By-law - 130 Industry Street - UD03-ISS - North York Humber

18Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-38 - 1104894 Ontario Limited - 1031 Wilson Avenue - North York Spadina

19Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-06 - Liberty Walk Developments Inc. - 760 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Spadina

20Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-17 - Centre Core Holdings Inc. - 1 and 11 Granlea Road,21 Calvin Avenue and 4 Vonda Avenue - North York Centre

21Deeming By-law No. 728-1998 - Bedford Park Avenue and Woburn Avenue, (Ledbury Neighbourhood) - North York Centre South

22Committee of Adjustment - CA-98-426 - Gulu Thadani - 157 York Mills Road - Request for Staff Attendance at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - North York Centre South

23City of Toronto 1999-2003 - Capital Works Program

24Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 1

OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on January 25, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999

By-law Violations - 8 Creston Road - North York Spadina

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the request of the North York Community Council for a report to be completed for a permanent solution to By-Law Violations at the subject location.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)that Urban Planning and Development Services, Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, North district, continue to use its current authority under Debris By-Law No. 30921, Sections 6 and 7 which provide:

"(6)Subject to the provisions of Section 7 hereof, wherever this by-law directs or requires anything to be done, in default of it being done by the person directed or required to do it, such thing may be done under the direction of a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer at the expense of such person and the Corporation may recover the expenses incurred in doing it by action or the same may be recovered in like manner as municipal taxes; and

(7)at least 7 days before proceeding under Section 6 hereof, the Municipal Law Enforcement Officer shall give written notice to the owner of the property informing the owner of his intention to proceed, which notice may be either delivered to the owner in person or sent by prepaid ordinary mail to the owner at the address shown for him on the last revised assessment roll and such mailing of the notice shall be deemed to be good and sufficient delivery of the same to the owner.";

(2)in this chronic situation, a competent contractor be engaged to remove the debris immediately upon expiry of any 7-day Notice; and

(3)in conjunction with the action taken under Section 6, Urban Planning and Development Services continue to lay charges through the Ontario Court (Provincial Division), requesting appropriate relief which may include fines, Probation Orders, etc. and follow-up with the collection of any fines.

Background:

At its meeting held on May 6, 1998, clause 27 (h) was adopted by the North York Community Council addressing the Notice of Motion by Councillor Moscoe re the numerous by-law violations including the ongoing problems experienced with garbage on the property.

Current Status:

The owners were fined on November 13, 1998, $4000.00 and $2000.00 respectively x 3 charges for a total of $18,000.00. Collection proceedings will be commenced on the due date of the fines.

The inspector attended the site recently with the assistance of the Toronto Police Services to determine the condition of the property in order to proceed with debris removal, if required. The premises were written up for violations of the Property Standards By-Law at that time. The debris situation had improved dramatically.

Comments:

Chronic situations such as 8 Creston Road exist throughout the whole City of Toronto. All current By-Laws as well as the proposed harmonized By-Law cite the necessity of notifying the owner (as defined) to resolve the problem by removing the accumulation of refuse.

The requirement of a Notice is written into the North York By-Law based on Section 326 of the Municipal Act where a council has authority to direct or require by by-law or otherwise that any matter or thing be done, the council may by the same or by another by-law direct that, in default of its being done by the person directed or required to do it, such matter or thing shall be done at the person's expense, etc. The 7-day time limit is provided as being a reasonable period for the owner to clean and clear the premises.

Given the authority of the Municipal Act, it is not necessary to obtain convictions in Court prior to the City cleaning up the premises.

A Court Order would provide for the same relief as the City currently has under the Municipal Act. The Courts generally refer to the legislation under which an application is made to determine the remedial measures available to the City and would not be receptive to ordering a more stringent measure or a Amore permanent solution@ especially in a debris situation.

Conclusion:

There is no real permanent solution to stopping the actions of chronic offenders such as these owners. The City's solution is to enforce its By-Law in cases such as this in anticipation that the cost of clean-ups and fines will eventually impress upon the owners the impact they are having upon their own lives as well as others in the community.

This matter has been discussed with Corporate Services, Legal Division, who concur with the recommendations.

Contact Name:Donna Perrin, North District Manager

Municipal Standards and Court Services

395-7020

Reviewed by:James Ridge, Executive Director

Municipal Licensing and Standards, 397-4634

Diana Dimmer, Corporate Services, Litigation

392-7229

George Bartlett, Corporate Services, Prosecutions

Request to Build Fence - 532 Glengarry Avenue -

North York Centre South

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from Mr. Ben Gotlib to build a fence along the western boundary of his property from the front of the house to the sidewalk.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendation:

That the request to erect a fence on the west side of the property (abutting the parking lot at 3083-3097 Bathurst Street) be granted on the following conditions:

(a)the height of the screening be limited to 6 feet plus 1 foot of latticework (total height = 7 feet) and situated back 1 foot from the sidewalk to prevent damage to the screening by sidewalk plows used in the Winter months;

(b)as there is a parking area to the rear of the premises that the same screening be erected and/or replace existing deteriorated fencing along the rear north property line to protect the residential premises to the north from headlight glare as required by Section 3.16.1 of Property Standards By-Law No. 31148; and

(c)that the existing deteriorated fencing along the west property line be replaced with new screening meeting the same specifications.

History:

Inspection reveals a small brick bungalow on the north side of Glengarry Avenue east of Bathurst Street. The rear yard of the premises is asphalted with a catch basin installed to provide drainage. There are two trees protected by cement curbs. The rear parking area is provided with cement curbing on the north and west sides approximately 4 feet from the fence lines.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

By-Law No. 30901, as amended, states:

Section 3.1.10 no fence greater than 0.76 m (30 inches) in height shall be constructed in the front yard within 2.40m (8 feet) of the front lot line

Section 3.1.13 Subsections 3.1.10, 3.1.11 and 3.1.12 do not prohibit the existence of fences lawfully constructed prior to these sections being enacted and do not prohibit the construction of a transparent fence that otherwise complies with the provision of this By-Law

Inasmuch as a "transparent fence" of wire mesh or plexiglass construction would not serve the purpose of screening from view the parking lot at 3083-3097 Bathurst Street, it is recommended that the applicant be permitted to construct the cedar fencing with latticework as requested. The construction of the fence between the parking lot and the residential property has no negative impact upon the parking lot nor on other residential properties in the area and does not interfere with the operation of the lot or traffic sight lines.

The commercial buildings at 3083-3089 Bathurst Street and the associated parking predate the current requirements of the Zoning By-Law. The light from vehicle head lamps does not shine directly into the dwelling unit given the location of the windows on the west side of the subject location. Therefore, we would not request the owner of the Bathurst Street location to erect screening.

Section 64.13(1) of Zoning By-Law No. 7625, as amended, permits business and professional offices as exceptions in an R4 zone subject to specific parking requirements; such parking must be located in the rear yard of the property. The parking area is also subject to Section 3.16 of the Property Standards By-Law No. 31148 governing residential, non-residential and vacant properties. "On property which, because of its condition or because of its use or occupancy or for other reason, creates a nuisance to occupants of adjacent property or to persons in the neighbourhood or to the users of streets or parks, every reasonable precaution shall be taken to prevent such nuisance, including but not limited to (1) providing and maintaining an effective barrier to prevent the light from lamp standards, signs, vehicle head lamps and other sources from shining directly into a dwelling unit. Section 3.6.1 of the Property Standards By-Law No. 31148 requires that existing fencing be maintained in good repair.

On this basis, the same non-transparent type fencing is recommended for the rear north property line to replace existing deteriorated fencing. As existing fencing on the west side is deteriorated and requires repair or replacement, it would seem appropriate to replace with the same standard of fencing for consistency.

Conclusion:

A 6 foot cedar fence with 1 foot of latticework be permitted on the road allowance on the west side within 1 foot of the sidewalk and the same 6 foot cedar fence with 1 foot of latticework be constructed to replace existing deteriorated fencing on the west and north property lines.

Contact Name:Donna Perrin, North District Manager

Municipal Standards and Court Services

395-7020

Reviewed by:James Ridge, Executive Director

Municipal Licensing and Standards

397-4634

Fence By-law Variance Request -

411 Glencairn Avenue - North York Centre South

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from Bonnie Lindros for an exemption to the Fence By-law - addition of lattice screen to existing fence.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendation:

Notwithstanding there is clearly a violation of Fence By-Law No. 30901, as amended, it is recommended that the exemption be granted with a condition for the following reasons:

(i)the 19 foot high fence for which an exemption is requested backs onto a large structure (pool house) of a comparable height; therefore, there is no impact on the premises to the rear of the subject property; and

(ii)the fence will deflect some of the intense lighting installed on the property to the rear.

Condition of approval:

(i)the existing 16 feet of 2 feet latticework be removed from the fence at the north-east corner of the rear yard.

Background:

Inspection reveals that there is a large indoor pool house (approximately 50 feet x 30 feet x 17 feet, 6 inches) within a few inches of the proposed fence and situated on the property at 214 Strathallan Wood. The east side of this structure has two quartz halogen flood lights directed onto the property at 409 Glencairn Avenue; three large lights mounted on trees (similar to street lights), one at each end of the pool house and one in the yard south of the pool house.

The applicant has constructed a masonry retaining wall across the entire rear of her property (approximately 50 feet in length and 30 inches in height. There is also erected a 6 foot, 2 inch, solid board fence with 6 inch x 6 inch posts extending approximately 10 feet above the fence. The wall, fence and posts are at an approximate height of 19 feet above grade. Each post is laterally supported by a heavy � inch galvanized bracket and each end of the fence is supported by an open section 6 feet x 6 feet, 6 inches, consisting of a top and bottom rail and a 6 inch x 6 inch post.

The applicant's proposal is to partially fill in the gaps between the posts above the fence with a pattern of lattice to screen the view of the pool house and the yard lighting from the second storey of their residence.

The applicant currently has two sections of 8 foot, 2 inch x 8 feet of fencing consisting of 6 feet, 2 inches, of solid board fence with 2 feet of latticework and three sections of 6 foot, 2 inch x 8 feet of solid board fence at the north-east corner of the rear yard.

Section 3.1.7 of By-Law No. 30901, as amended, states:

"Except as provided in subsection 3.1.2, any portion of a fence erected between residential properties may be increased to a height not exceeding 2.5m (8.2 feet) provided that the aggregate length of such portion or portions does not exceed 7.2m (24 feet) per lot".

Conclusion:

That the variance requested be permitted provided the existing 16 feet of 2 foot latticework be removed from the fence at the north-east corner of the rear yard so that the fencing around the perimeter of the lot is more reasonably in keeping with the intent of the by-law pursuant to Section 3.1.7.

Contact Name:Donna Perrin, North District Manager

Municipal Standards and Court Services

395-7020

Reviewed by:James Ridge, Executive Director

Municipal Licensing and Standards

397-4634

Construction Noise By-law Violations

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 11, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

Community Council at its meeting of September 16, 1998 had before it a report dated August 13, 1998 from the City Solicitor regarding Noise By-law violations in construction sites.

Community Council in considering the report of August 13, 1998 recommended:

(1)on the issuance of every building permit, the builder/applicant/agent be issued an information sheet notifying the builder of the requirements of the Construction Noise By-law; and

(2)the builder/applicant/agent be required to sign a release form indicating that they have received, read and understand the requirements of the Construction Noise By-law.

This report will inform Community Council of the actions taken by the Building Division with respect to the above noted recommendations.

Actions:

Single Family Dwellings

In order to implement council's recommendations existing procedures with respect to building permits for single family dwellings and information sheets given to applicants for building permits have been modified to include references to the Noise By-Law.

The existing standard "Warning" information sheet has been modified to include a section on construction noise. The section under the heading of Noise contains a brief explanation as to when construction work that creates noise is permitted. The "Warning" sheet is attached to all sets of drawings for permits for additions or new single family dwellings.

The owner/applicant/agent is required to sign an acknowledgement that indicates they have received and reviewed the attached "Warning" sheet prior to the issuance of the building permit.

Commercial/Industrial/Multi-Unit Residential Buildings

For commercial/industrial/multi-unit residential building permits the existing "Responsibilities of the Owner" sheet has been modified to include a statement with respect to construction noise and an explanation of the times when construction work that creates noise is permitted.

The "Responsibilities of the Owner" sheet is attached to all sets of permit drawings for new construction or major renovations. The owner/applicant//agent is required to sign an acknowledgement, placed on the permit drawings, that they have received and reviewed the "Responsibilities of the Owner" information sheet prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Conclusion and Additional Action:

The procedures outlined above have been created and implemented to meet the recommendations and intent set forth in Clause 2 contained in report 10 of the North York Community Council .

In addition to the actions already taken, it is intended to explore the possibility of developing a pamphlet on the requirements of the Noise By-Law. This information pamphlet would be developed in conjunction with the Municipal Standards Division and available to our customers through front counter operations.

________

(A copy of the information sheets referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

Street Vending Permit Application No. 111 -

Marisabel Gedina Ravelo - 15 Wallingford Road -

Appeal of Refused Application - Don Parkway

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To consider an appeal of the Transportation Division's refusal of an application by Ms. Marisabel Gedina Ravelo for a street vending permit to sell hot dogs and sausages on the east side of Wallingford Road, adjacent to the Victoria Park Secondary School.

Source of funds:

There are no costs associated with this application.

Recommendation:

That Council receive this report, from the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, and that the appeal of the decision to refuse the application not be supported.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1994, an application was received by the former City of North York Transportation Department to permit vending on the east side of Wallingford Road, adjacent to the Victoria Park Secondary School. As a result of objections from the local Councillor and Principal of the Victoria Park Secondary School, the application was refused. At that time the applicant chose not to appeal the decision.

A second vending application, made by Ms. Marisabel Gedina Ravelo, was received by the staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The current application was submitted on September 14, 1998. Staff met on site with the applicant's representative where it was determined that there sufficient space within the municipal boulevard to accommodate the request and that the proposed vending operation would not create a pedestrian impediment or sight obstruction. The proposed location is located on the east side of Wallingford Road, opposite No. 2/4 Wallingford Road.

In accordance with By-law No. 32100, of the former City of North York, Public Health, Road Operations, the local Councillors and the Victoria Park Secondary School were solicited for comments regarding this application.

Public Health and Roads Operation indicated that they had no objection to the issuance of a permit.

Councillor Minnan-Wong and Councillor Chong both received an objection by Mr. Doug Scott, Principal, Victoria Park Secondary School. Mr. Scott's concerns were for the safety of students, garbage in the neighbourhood, traffic congestion and support for the school cafeteria. Accordingly, both Councillors have indicated that they cannot support the issuance of a vending permit for this location.

Conclusions:

In accordance with By-Law No. 32100, of the former City of North York, staff processed the application for comments. In light of the Councillors' and the adjacent school Principal's objections, the Transportation Division refused the application.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Investigations

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)

________

Mr. Michael Doyle appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter. He also filed a petition from students in support of the vending permit application, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.

Parking Prohibitions -

Goodwill Avenue - North York Spadina

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To prohibit parking on the south side of Goodwill Avenue, between Wilson Heights Boulevard and Faywood Boulevard.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday, on the south side of Goodwill Avenue, from a point 33.5 metres east of Wilson Heights Boulevard to the westerly limit of Faywood Boulevard.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, on the south side of Goodwill Avenue, parking is prohibited at any time from Wilson Heights Boulevard to a point 33.5 metres east and between the hours of 7:00 a.m and 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, from a point 33.5 metres east of Wilson Heights Boulevard to Faywood Boulevard. Parking is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of Goodwill Avenue, along it's entire length.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has been advised by local residents that after 10:00 a.m. vehicles are parked for extended periods of time on the south side of Goodwill Avenue. This parking activity obstructs access/egress to Goodwill Avenue from residential driveways. Despite numerous requests to the Toronto Police Services for enforcement of the three hour parking limit, the individual parking behaviours have not changed. As identified in a survey of the local residents, conducted by Councillor Howard Moscoe's office, the majority of residents support the proposed parking restrictions.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this division supports amending the current parking regulations, as required.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

Stopping/Parking Prohibitions -

Dudley Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue, Kenneth Avenue -

North York Centre

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To amend the current daytime stopping and parking restrictions on Dudley Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue and Kenneth Avenue, adjacent to Earl Haig Secondary School.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendations:

(1)Schedule IX, of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", restriction on the west side of Dudley Avenue from Hillcrest Avenue to Empress Avenue to the east side of the roadway;

(2)Schedule VIII, of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to delete the "No Parking, 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", restriction on the east side of Dudley Avenue from Hillcrest Avenue to Empress Avenue;

(3)Schedule IX, of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", restriction on the north side of Hillcrest Avenue from Kenneth Avenue to Dudley Avenue to the south side of the roadway; and

(4)Schedule IX, of By-law No. 31001 of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the "No Stopping 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday", restriction on the east side of Kenneth Avenue from Hillcrest Avenue to Empress Avenue to the west side of the roadway.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the request of Councillor John Filion and Councillor Norm Gardner, staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department reviewed traffic operations on Dudley Avenue, Hillcrest Avenue and Kenneth Avenue arrival, adjacent to the Earl Haig Secondary School. Local residents had advised the Councillors' offices that when vehicles parked on both sides of the roadway, two way traffic could not be maintained.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Currently, "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", restrictions exist on the west side of Dudley Avenue, north side of Hillcrest Avenue, and the east side of Kenneth Avenue , adjacent to Earl Haig Secondary School. Parking is prohibited on the east side of Dudley Avenue between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and at any time on the south side of Hillcrest Avenue, and west side of Kenneth Avenue, opposite the school.

During our observations, it was noted that motorists were stopping on both sides of Dudley, Hillcrest, and Kenneth Avenues. With vehicles stopped on both sides of the roadway, two way traffic cannot be maintained. This creates both confusion and difficulties for motorists on Hillcrest and Dudley Avenues as well as the local residents when attempting to access the roadways. Furthermore, this stopping/parking practice results in pedestrians/students being required to cross the roadways from between parked vehicles.

To improve traffic operations on Dudley, Hillcrest and Kenneth Avenues, it is recommended that the stopping prohibitions adjacent to the school be relocated to the opposite side of the respective roadways. This would permit the stopping of vehicles on the side of the road adjacent to the school.

With the appropriate level of police enforcement, this would reduce the inconvenience to local residents, eliminate the need for pedestrians to cross the road from between parked cars and would eliminate vehicles being parked on both sides of the road, thereby improving traffic flow around the school.

Conclusions:

The stopping and parking amendments recommended in this report, should improve the traffic situation on the roadways surrounding the Earl Haig Secondary School.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

All Way Stop Control -

Pewter Road at Poyntz Avenue - North York Centre

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 23, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To install an all way stop control to improve pedestrian and motorists safety, at the intersection of Pewter Road at Poyntz Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the all way stop control are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersection of Pewter Road and Poyntz Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, eastbound and westbound motorists on Poyntz Avenue are required to stop at Pewter Road.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has reviewed a request from Councillor Norman Gardner to install an all way stop control at the intersection of Pewter Road and Poyntz Avenue.

The results of our most recent all way stop study has concluded that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control have been satisfied.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Pewter Road and Poyntz Avenue.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

All Way Stop Control -

Glenmount Avenue at Glen Park Avenue -

North York Spadina

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To install an all way stop control to improve pedestrian and motorists safety, at the intersection of Glenmount Avenue and Glen Park Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the all way stop control are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York , be amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersection of Glenmount Avenue and Glen Park Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, northbound and southbound motorists on Glenmount Avenue are required to stop at Glen Park Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Transportation Division has reviewed a request from Councillor Howard Moscoe to install an all way stop control at the intersection of Glenmount Avenue and Glen Park Avenue.

The results of the most recent all way stop study has concluded that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control have been satisfied.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Glenmount Avenue and Glen Park Avenue.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager of Traffic Operations

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-Mail)

Parking Prohibitions -

Tempo Avenue - Seneca Heights

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To permit parking on the north side of Tempo Avenue, west of Victoria Park Avenue, for periods of up to a maximum of three hours.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at any time, Monday to Friday, on the north side of Tempo Avenue, from a point 65 metres west of Victoria Park Avenue to a point 112 metres westerly thereof.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, parking is prohibited at any time on both sides of Tempo Avenue, from Harold Evans Crescent to Victoria Park Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On behalf of the property owner at 3600-3640 Victoria Park Avenue, Councillor Joan King requested staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department to consider permitting weekend parking on the north side of Tempo Avenue.

As a result of the investigation, it was determined that should parking be permitted on the north side of Tempo Avenue, adjacent to the properties, two way traffic could be maintained. It was concluded, however, that to maintain the safe flow of traffic through the Victoria Park Avenue/Tempo Avenue intersection, any parking restrictions within 65 metres of Victoria Park Avenue must be maintained.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this division supports amending the parking regulations on the north side of Tempo Avenue, west of Victoria Park Avenue.

Contact Name:

Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Manager of Traffic Operations

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)

Stopping Prohibitions - Woodward Avenue -

North York Humber

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by deleting from the recommendation embodied in the report dated January 4, 1999, from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, Works and Emergency Services, the words "Schedule IX" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Schedules VIII and IX", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"That Schedules VIII and IX of By-law No. 31001 of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit stopping at any time on the north side of Woodward Avenue, from Uphill Avenue to the easterly limit of Woodward Avenue.")

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To install stopping prohibitions on the north side of Woodward Avenue, from Uphill Avenue to the easterly limit of Woodward Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedule IX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of the North York, be amended to prohibit stopping at any time on the north side of Woodward Avenue, from Uphill Avenue to the easterly limit of Woodward Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, parking is prohibited at any time on the north side of Woodward Avenue. On the south side of the roadway, which was previously within the City of York, metered parking spaces have been installed.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Councillors Judy Sgro and Francis Nunziata have contacted staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department advising that numerous vehicles are parked on the north side of Woodward Avenue.

When vehicles are parked on both sides of the roadway, access to the residential properties on the south side of Woodward Avenue is restricted and two way traffic cannot be maintained.

Our investigation concluded that although parking is prohibited on the north side of Woodward Avenue, numerous vehicles were parked. Of those on the north side of the roadway, several displayed disabled parking permits, which exempted them from enforcement of the parking restrictions. Given the proximity to the Humber River Regional Hospital, this type of parking is not unexpected, particularly those with the disabled parking permits.

Conclusions:

With the installation of the stopping restrictions, parking enforcement would be much more effective as vehicles with displayed disabled parking permits are not exempt from the stopping prohibitions. In the interest of traffic safety, this division supports the proposed stopping prohibitions.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations

395-7463 (telephone) 395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)

UDZ-94-30 - Pearl Godfrey - 123 and 125 Steeles Avenue East -

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Retention of Outside

Planning Consultant - North York Centre

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (December 15, 1998) from the City Solicitor.

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1)the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to bring forward a joint report to the appropriate Committee regarding a policy on the hiring of outside planning consultants to testify at Ontario Municipal Hearings; that such report include the account in the Legal Department which should be used for this purpose other than the Corporate Contingency Account; and

(2)that a copy of this joint report be also submitted to the February 19, 1999 meeting of the Budget Committee for its consideration during deliberations of the 1999 Operating Budget.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (December 15, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The Legal Division is requesting Council authority to retain an outside planning consultant for the pending Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A maximum of $15,000.00 to be allocated from a Corporate Contingency Account for the retention of an outside planning witness.

Recommendation:

That a maximum of $15,000.00 be allocated to the Legal Division from a Corporate Contingency Account to retain a planning consultant to testify at an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing yet to be scheduled to hear the Appeal of the landowner.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The landowner has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board from the refusal of the Council of the former City of North York to enact a Zoning By-law to permit the lands at 123 and 125 Steeles Avenue East to be developed with two semi-detached dwellings having a total of 4 units. North York planning staff recommended approval of the application; the Planning Committee and Council of the former City refused the application and did not adopt the Planning Department's recommendation.

Since planning staff cannot provide evidence under oath, we require a planning consultant to support the Decision of the Council of the former City of North York.

Conclusions:

We estimate that an upset limit of $15,000.00 be set aside in a Corporate Contingency Account for this purpose.

Contact Name:

Larry J. Darkes, Solicitor

Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Tel. No. (416) 392-7247Fax No. (416) 392-0005

________

A recorded vote on the motion, moved by Councillor Feldman to defer consideration of this matter until a policy has been established regarding the allocation of funds to retain outside planning consultants for pending Ontario Municipal Board hearings, was as follows:

FOR:Councillor Feldman

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Gardner, Minnan-Wong

Lost

A recorded vote on the recommendation to adopt the report, moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Feldman, Shiner

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Minnan-Wong, King

Carried

A recorded vote on the motion moved by Councillor Shiner for the requested joint report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Gardner

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Minnan-Wong

Carried

Official Plan Amendment 467 - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -

Referral No. 1 of Official Plan Amendment 381 -

88-102 Ellerslie Avenue - Retention of Outside

Planning Consultant - North York Centre

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 4, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The Legal Division is requesting Council instruction and authority to retain an outside planning consultant for the pending Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A number of appeals and referrals are expected to be consolidated and scheduled for a Pre-Hearing and then a full Hearing during 1999.

The funding implications for retaining an outside planning consultant, should the hearing take up to five days along with the anticipated Pre-Hearing and production requirements associated with that hearing, are that $25,000.00 plus GST and disbursements will be required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)funds be made available to the Legal Division from a Corporate Contingency Account to pay for the retention of outside planning advice for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing yet to be scheduled, respecting Referral No. 1 to Official Plan Amendment No. 381 (88-102 Ellerslie Avenue), appeals of Official Plan Amendment No. 467 (88-102 Ellerslie Avenue) and the appeal of the Zoning Amendment Application (UDZ98-08) by 1205373 Ontario Limited (70-102 Ellerslie Avenue); and

(2)the City Solicitor be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing, yet to be scheduled, in support of the proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 467, in opposition to the private zoning appeal as presently submitted and in support, as necessary, of the municipality's interests, together with such other staff as may be appropriate.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Three appeal/referral matters are expected to be consolidated by the Board and heard together, namely:

(i)Referral No. 1 to Official Plan Amendment No. 381, made on July 11, 1996 by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in response to concerns expressed by the Yonge Street Ratepayers Association and others. Official Plan Amendment No. 381 established a site-specific provision, Policy C.9.140, dealing with lands located at 88-102 Ellerslie Avenue, immediately west of the North York City Centre boundary. The policy establishes redevelopment parameters for these lands, providing for a maximum density of 1.0 FSI, a maximum height limit of 11 metres (or 3 storeys) and requiring that vehicular access is to be taken from the Uptown Service Road and not from Ellerslie Avenue;

(ii)numerous appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board in respect of Official Plan Amendment No. 467, as recently adopted by North York Community Council in September 1998, which repeals Official Plan Amendment No. 391; and

(iii)an appeal of a Zoning Amendment Application (UDZ98-08) by 1205373 Ontario Limited for lands including 70-102 Ellerslie Avenue. This application, filed in March 1998, was appealed on the basis of Council's neglect or refusal to enact the requisite zoning by-law. While a revision to the application had been suggested at one stage by the applicant, the Board has recently been advised by the appellant's solicitor that the application as originally filed, will be the subject of appeal. As originally filed, the application involved lands within the City Centre, namely 70-84 Ellerslie Avenue as well as those lands located outside of the City Centre from 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue, involving the OPA 381 and the OPA 467 matters.

The Ontario Municipal Board has recently written to the City canvassing input on these matters, particularly respecting the consolidation of all of these files and respecting appropriate Pre-Hearing and production requirements. No specific Hearing date or production arrangements have yet been determined.

Accordingly, the City will shortly need to respond to all three of these files, likely in a consolidated Hearing.

In respect of the Official Plan Amendment No. 381, the City has available a Planning Department position which was adopted by Council in May 1993.

In respect of the Official Plan Amendment No. 467, the City has available a North York Community Council direction and reconsideration of Official Plan Amendment No. 381, resulting in the September 1998 adoption of Official Plan Amendment No. 467 and the corresponding repeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 381.

In respect of the private zoning amendment appeal, no final Planning Department Staff Report nor any Community Council consideration is presently available. A Preliminary Staff Report is available, addressing various Background details as well as identifying various issues. The matter was appealed in advance of the resolution of any of these issues and in advance of a final recommendation report.

In anticipation of these matters being considered by the Board at a forthcoming Pre-Hearing, likely to be scheduled early in 1999, and in anticipation of a Hearing being scheduled later during 1999, it would be appropriate to confirm instructions for attendance, in support of the proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 467, in opposition to the private zoning appeal as presently submitted and in support, as necessary, of the municipality's interest.

The nature of the hearing requirements are yet to be confirmed however are expected to likely involve five days, multiple parties and multiple issues as associated with these lands. It would be beneficial to have the municipality's interests comprehensively represented by one professional planning witness in all of these matters, in advance of the first Ontario Municipal Board Pre-Hearing.

Conclusions:

We estimate that $25,000.00 plus GST and disbursements will be required and should be set aside in a Corporate Contingency Account for this purpose.

Contact Name:

Larry J. Darkes, Solicitor

Legal Division, Corporate Services Department

Tel. No. (416) 392-7247Fax No. (416) 392-0005

________

FOR:Councillor Feldman

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Gardner, Minnan-Wong

Lost

A recorded vote on the recommendation to adopt the report, moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillor Feldman

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Minnan-Wong

Carried.

Application for Part Lot Control Exemption

UD54-98-12-REL - 1165709 Ontario Limited -

150 Bartley Drive - Don Parkway

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this application is to request exemption from part lot control in order that 31 townhouse units may be conveyed into separate ownership.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)this application be approved; and

(2)that the draft by-laws attached as schedules "H, I, J, K, L" be approved.

Official Plan:(TMUA) Transitional Mixed Use Area

Zoning:RM5 (10) Exceptions to RM5 Zone

Comments:

The lands were the subject of zoning amendment application UDOZ-96-25 which was approved by Council on May 14, 1997. Implementing By-law No. 33034, which was approved on July 9, 1997, permits the re-development of the lands subject to specific zoning regulations. The development is a mixed use subdivision consisting of townhouses, apartment condominiums with ground floor employment uses and a park. This phase of the development consists of 5 townhouse buildings containing a total of 31 units. As future phases of this subdivision are constructed, exemption from part lot control will be used for other Blocks within the development. The site plan was approved on June 3, 1998 under application number UDSP-97-228.

The release of part lot control would permit the conveyance of each townhouse unit. As required, by a policy adopted by North York Council on October 18, 1995, the applicant has provided a letter of undertaking that the City will be advised upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land in order that the exempting by-law may be revoked.

Conclusions:

This application is consistent with the City's part lot control exemption policy and the required documents have been filed with the City's Legal Department. The issues regarding this development have been reviewed and all matters of concern to the City, for the development of the subject lands, are covered by the conditions of site plan approval and the requirements of Zoning By-law 7625.The necessary agreements associated with the development have been executed, building permits issued and construction commenced. The required letter of undertaking is in place.

Contact Name:

Chris Foster, Technician, Phone: 395-7135

________

(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

Sign By-law Variance Request -

First Floor Wall Signage and Roof Level Signage -

Trimark Trust and Steel Art Signs -

5140 Yonge Street - North York Centre

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the sign on the south side of 5140 Yonge Street which faces onto Mel Lastman Square, be approved.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (October 2, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, relating to the signs on the above property, which signs were approved by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, with the exception of the sign on the south side of 5140 Yonge Street which faces onto Mel Lastman Square:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Ms. Filo Costa, Project Manager for Trimark Trust, for a variance from the Sign By-law to permit the erection of four wall signs, one on the south and three on the east elevation of the first floor of 5140 Yonge St. (See attached drawings). The sign facing south will be an illuminated sign 90 feet long by 4 feet in height, for an area of 360 square feet. The signs facing east will consist of one illuminated 30 foot by 4 foot sign with an area of 120 square feet, and two non illuminated signs over the entrance doors each 10 feet by 2 feet 4 inches in width with an area of approximately 23 square feet. The total area of signage on the east side is proposed to be 160 square feet.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)the request for a minor variance from the sign by-law be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The building is located in an O3 zone and the sign by-law limits the area of wall signage in such zones to an aggregate area of 161.5 square feet. A site specific by-law number 28421 permits commercial uses in that zone and it would follow that the provisions of Section 5.2.3.1 of the Sign By-law for wall signage in a commercial zone should be applied. Section 5.2.3.1 of the Sign By-law would permit a cumulative sign area 20 percent of the wall area visible from any direction for the first storey, for a sign area of 530 square feet. The proposed signage of 360 square feet on the south elevation, and 160 square on the east elevation would comply if the requirements of the sign by-law in a commercial zone are applied, and a variance would not have been required.

The Ward Councillors have been notified of this request and have been provided with a copy of the report and attached plans.

Conclusions:

It is the opinion of this department that the proposed signs would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area and that the intent of the sign by-law would not be compromised by the erection of these signs. As a condition of the issuance of a sign permit, however, we would request the approval of the Director of Civic Projects to assure that any specific limitations put forth in the Development Agreement have been complied with.

The North York Community Council also submits the following report (October 2, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Gene Mordaunt of Steel Art Signs, for a variance from the sign by-law to permit the erection of two wall signs, of identical size, to be placed at the 24^th storey level on the south and north elevations of the "Petro Canada Building" located at the south west corner of Yonge Street and Park Home Avenue.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)the request for a minor variance from the sign by-law be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Gene Mordaunt of Steel Art Signs is requesting permission to erect two wall signs on the north and south wall faces of the top storey of the building. One sign will be placed flush to the top of the parapet at the 24^th floor on the south elevation and the other flush to the top of the parapet on the north elevation. Both signs have an area of 544.5 square feet.

The building is located in an O3 zone and the sign by-law limits the area of wall signage in such zones to an aggregate area of 161.5 square feet. A site specific by-law number 28421 permits commercial uses in that zone and it would follow that the provisions of Section 5.2.3.1 of the Sign By-law for wall signage in a commercial zone should be applied. Section 5.2.3.1. of the sign by-law would permit a cumulative sign area per storey of 15 percent of the wall area visible from any direction, for signage on storeys other than the first storey, with a sign area of 653.25 square feet. The proposed signage on both elevation would comply if the requirements of the sign by-law in a commercial zone are applied, and a variance would not have been required.

The Ward Councillors have been notified of this request and have been provided with a copy of the report and attached plans.

Conclusions:

________

Ms. Filo Costa, Project Manager, Trimark Trust, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, that the sign on the south side of 5140 Yonge Street which faces onto Mel Lastman Square, not be approved, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Flint, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Chong, Minnan-Wong

Lost

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, that the sign on the south side of 5140 Yonge Street which faces onto Mel Lastman Square, be approved, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Flint, Filion

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Chong, Minnan-Wong

Carried

(A copy of the plans and drawings referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

Tree Removal Request - 45 Langholm Drive - Black Creek

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the City tree not be removed.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to instruct forestry staff to prune the tree upward to address the concerns of the resident regarding security and safety and that this be done on a priority basis at no cost to the homeowner.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (January 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report provides information regarding an appeal to the Community Council from the resident at 45 Langholm Drive to permit the removal of a City-owned street tree from the lawn in front of her house which has been disallowed by City forestry staff.

Source of Funds:

Staff and equipment costs to remove this tree and its stump would total $85.00 if carried out on regular time and $105.00 if carried out on overtime. The City would lose an asset worth approximately $400.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)this request to remove a City tree be refused, and

(2)if City Council permits this tree to be removed, that it be on condition that

(i)the resident reimburse the City for its costs to remove the tree on overtime at $105.00, in order that this work does not bump other tree work for residents who have been waiting for their requests to make it to the top of the waiting list; and

(ii)the resident reimburse the City for the value of the removed tree at $400.00 and that these funds be used to purchase a large tree of the resident's choice of species as a replacement for the tree on the road allowance in front of her property or elsewhere in her neighbourhood.

Background:

On June 9, 1998 a request was forwarded from Councillor Li Preti's office on behalf of the resident at 45 Langholm Drive, Mrs. Spirito, to remove a clump white birch tree from the City road allowance in front of her property. Mrs. Spirito is elderly and has difficulty raking its leaves each fall and washing the dirt and dust off her car which she says is blown onto it from the tree. Mrs. Spirito also advised the Councillor that she could not afford to hire anyone to help her manage these tasks.

Staff inspected the tree on June 12, 1998 and found it to be an attractive, healthy specimen. There is a hole in one of the trunks but the tree does not pose a hazard. The Department advised the Councillor's office (Appendix 'A') that it could not agree with the tree's removal as it was an asset to the street and neighbourhood. The Department also informed the Councillor's office about the LINK service provided in North York, which puts elderly and disabled homeowners in North York in touch with able-bodied students and adults willing to perform maintenance work for low rates of pay. Mrs. Spirito was not pleased with the Department refusal to remove the tree but asked for it to be pruned instead. Staff inspected the tree again on September 30, 1998 and advised Mrs. Spirito that the tree did not require pruning and that doing so would be detrimental to its health. Mrs Spirito was given a card with the Forestry section's number and invited to call at the end of July for a follow-up inspection to see how the tree was doing and whether any pruning would be advisable at that time.

Mrs. Spirito is unhappy with the Department response. Councillor Li Preti has asked for the issue to be referred to the Community Council for resolution.

Conclusion:

Healthy, attractive trees are valuable assets to the quality of life in a community, and all neighbourhood residents have a stake in their preservation. For this reason, the Department can not recommend their removal to accommodate the wishes of individual homeowners, except in situations where no reasonable alternative can be found. We do not consider this situation to be such a case.

Contact Name:

Eric Benoit

395-6155

ebenoit@city.north-york.on.ca

________

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism,submit a report outlining a Tree Removal Policy for seniors, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri, Berger

AGAINST:Councillors Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Feldman, Chong

Lost

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, that the existing tree be removed and replaced with a smaller tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, at no charge to the homeowner, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri

AGAINST:Councillors Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Chong

Lost

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Li Preti, Black Creek, that Recommendation 2(ii) of the report (January 7, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, be amended to require the applicant to purchase and plant a large tree, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, as a replacement for the existing tree, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri, Berger

AGAINST:Councillors Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Feldman, Chong

Lost

A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Chong

Carried

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

Proposed Zoning By-law -

130 Industry Street - UD03-ISS - North York Humber

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

(1)the Office Space Limits provisions, section 30(5)(b) in by-law 7625, shall not apply; and

(2)(a)for the purposes of this exception, business and professional offices shall not be included in the definition of "identified commercial uses" in the parking requirements for Industrial Mall in section 6A(2); and

(b)parking requirements for business and professional offices shall be 1 space per 48 m� of gross floor area.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on January 20, 1999, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 16, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

To zone 130 Industry Street Industrial Zone One - M1 with an exemption for business and professional offices and associated parking.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the lands at 130 Industry Street be rezoned to Industrial Zone One - M1 subject to the following:

(1)the Office Space Limits provisions, section 30(5)(b) in by-law 7625, shall not apply; and

(b)parking requirements for business and professional offices shall be 1 space per 48 m� of gross floor area.

Background:

In May, the North York Community Council requested staff to review in conjunction with the Black Creek Task Force (now known as the Black Creek Business Area Association), the appropriateness of the industrial zoning adjacent to the R. DiBattista subdivision lands at 665 Trethewey Drive.

This report deals with one of the adjacent properties at 130 Industry Street. The lands are already developed with a two building industrial complex operating as the Black Creek Business Centre under condominium ownership. The executive of the condominium have agreed to the rezoning of their lands.

The rezoning of 130 Industry Street is the first stage in this review. The city will be continuing its community consultation in the Black Creek Business Area and will review the appropriateness of the existing zoning on other properties near the DiBattista subdivision lands over time. In a preliminary meeting with the owner of 121 and 123 Industry Street, there has been little interest in the rezoning of these lands.

Discussion:

City staff have consulted with the condominium executive and the management of the Black Creek Business Centre. It was mutually agreed that the city's strategy to rezone their property was a good one providing some provision could be made for additional office space within the complex.

1.Zoning Strategy

The city's zoning strategy for industrial lands adjacent to residential areas is to have industrial zoning which is the most compatible with adjacent residential uses. The intent is to have employment uses with minimal noise, fumes, light and other emissions impacting on adjacent residential lands. The Industrial Zone One - M1 zone has been applied to industrial lands abutting residential areas across the city in order to implement this strategy.

The Black Creek Business Centre contains predominantly warehouse, service shop and office uses. The M1 zone accommodates all of these uses with a limitation on office space. The rezoning of the subject lands to M1 is a compatible zoning fit.

2.Office Space Limits

The M1 zone limits office uses to the lesser of a 1.0 fsi and a combined maximum gross floor area of 5,000 m�.

The gross floor area of the Black Creek Business Centre is 9,588 m� (103,208 ft�). About two-thirds of the complex is occupied and about twenty percent of these occupied units are being utilized for office use - 1,277 m� (13,748 ft�). Notwithstanding the current situation, the executive of the condominium want to ensure that offices are not prohibited from any of the remaining vacant units, and that more space of the existing occupied units could be used for offices if needed. This request is complementary to the city's industrial zoning strategy. Office uses are a compatible fit with the proposed semi-detached lots and townhouse blocks in the adjacent residential subdivision.

To implement this office strategy in the built complex, staff are recommending that the parking provision for offices in the business centre be the parking requirement for business and professional offices in the city's zoning by-law. This requires one parking space per 48 m� of office gross floor area instead of the Industrial Mall parking requirement which varies depending on the percentage of office space in the building complex.

3.Black Creek Business Area Association

City staff have consulted with the Black Creek Business Area Association executive. They are aware of the city's zoning strategy for this neighbourhood; and will support the proposed rezoning for the subject property.

Conclusion:

The rezoning of 130 Industry Street to M1 with a special provision for business and professional offices and associated parking is appropriate. The M1 zone will provide for more compatible industrial uses adjacent to the DiBattista residential subdivision.

Contact Name:

Michael Saunders

Telephone: (416) 395-7104

________

Mr. Zachary DeVuono appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and he spoke in support of the recommendations contained in the staff report.

Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-38 -

1104894 Ontario Limited - 1031 Wilson Avenue -

North York Spadina

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (November 16, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by 1104894 Ontario Limited regarding Zoning Amendment Application for 1031 Wilson Avenue, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on January 20, 1999, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (November 16, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend a zoning by-law amendment for 1031 Wilson Avenue to permit a broader range of commercial uses. There is no new construction associated with this application.

Recommendation(s):

It is recommended that this application be approved subject to the following conditions:

(1)Site Specific By-laws Nos. 20855, 28388 and the C1(6) zoning of the property be repealed and replaced with a General Commercial Exception Zone, with the following provisions:

(a)Permitted Uses:

all of the uses permitted in a C1 zone are permitted, except:

Undertaking Establishments, Synthetic Dry-Cleaning Establishments, Theatres, Banquet Halls, Clubs, Billiard Parlours, Bowling Alleys, Commercial Bath Houses and Institutional Uses; and

(b)Exception Regulations:

(i)retail stores shall not include an adult entertainment parlour;

(ii)a restaurant shall not include pubs, bars and nightclubs;

(iii)a Service Station and a Gasoline Station are permitted provided a minimum east side yard setback of 7.5 metres is provided, subject also to Section 6(21); and

(iv)a Motor Vehicle Dealership, a Motor Vehicle Body Repair Shop only as an accessory to a motor vehicle dealership and a Vehicle Dealership shall be permitted. The frontage of the lot used for a motor vehicle dealership shall be a minimum of 22 metres.

Background:

Proposal:

The intent of this application is to amend the existing zoning of the property and provide for a broader range of commercial uses that will allow the applicant future opportunities to enhance the site. At present, no new construction is proposed.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan:

The property is designated as a Sub Centre with a Commercial (COM) designation by the Official Plan. Sub Centres are characterized by a concentration of residential, retail and service commercial and office uses which provide focal points for activity of surrounding residential areas. The proposed land use is in accordance with this objective. No Official Plan amendment is required.

Zoning By-law:

The property is zoned General Commercial Exception Zone (C1(6)) and is also governed by Site Specific By-laws Nos. 20855 and 28388. The site specific by-laws limit the range of uses to a car washing establishment with gasoline pumps only. The C1(6) zoning permits a motor vehicle dealership and a motor vehicle body repair shop as an accessory use to the dealership in addition to the uses permitted by the site specific by-laws. An amendment to the By-law is required to permit additional commercial uses at this location.

The Official Plan designation and zoning of the subject property and surrounding area are shown on schedules "A" and "B".

History:

Site Specific By-laws Nos. 20855 and 28388 were enacted in 1966 and 1982 respectively, to allow the car washing establishment and gasoline pump facility at this location.

Council considered a City wide study in 1993, which addressed the location of motor vehicle dealerships on both commercial and industrial lands outside of residential communities, motor vehicle body repair shops as ancillary uses and, the outside display of motor vehicles. The study did not include a review of repealing the site specific by-laws which governed these properties. The C1(6) zoning was subsequently enacted, permitting a motor vehicle dealership and a motor vehicle body repair shop as an accessory use at 1031 Wilson Avenue, among other locations City wide.

Comments:

No objections were received from any of the departments and agencies circulated. Their comments are attached as schedules "D", "E" and "F".

Community Consultation:

The applicant's proposal was presented to the community at a meeting held on April 6, 1997, with approximately 20 persons attending. In general, the matters raised by the community included limiting the range of intensive commercial activity adjacent to the single family homes, landscaping, parking and environmental considerations. Notes on the meeting are provided in appendix "A" of this report.

Following the community meeting, the applicant revised their proposal to exclude certain commercial activities which the residents believed to be inappropriate adjacent to their homes. Staff subsequently circulated a letter to those who attended the community meeting describing the changes made by the applicant. Attached as appendix "B" is a copy of staff's letter and the applicant's request to revise their proposal. The issues raised by the community have been specifically addressed in the following discussion.

Discussion:

Land Use:

The current proposal to allow a broader range of commercial activities at 1031 Wilson Avenue represents an extension of the City wide motor vehicle dealership review already conducted by planning staff. The site is located within a Sub-Centre, which supports the uses permitted in a General Commercial Zone. Additional commercial activity at this location provides future redevelopment opportunities that can contribute to the animation of this particular Sub-Centre.

Planning Controls:

There are uses permitted in a General Commercial Zone which generate traffic levels, parking requirements, hours of operation and environmental impacts that are unsuitable adjacent to residential properties. The range of commercial uses should be limited in the amending by-law to ensure new activity at this location remains sensitive to and compatible with adjacent land uses. The commercial uses to be excluded are listed in the recommendation section of this report. As well, performance standards from previous rezoning applications will be maintained in the amending by-law, including a service station or a gasoline station providing a minimum east side yard setback of 7.5 metres.

At present, the owner intends that the lands continue to be used as a car washing establishment and gas pump facility. Any new construction at this location will be subject to the current commercial zoning standards which include increased setback requirements for commercial buildings adjacent to a residential zone. In addition, Site Plan Approval is required for new construction. This process includes a review of the design and location of a building, landscaping and the overall parking layout to ensure a compatible relationship to abutting properties, a pedestrian scale and a pleasing streetscape environment are achieved.

Residents at the community meeting wanted assurances as to the type of activities which would be allowed should the property be given a General Commercial Zone. The amending by-law will allow the applicant development potential while providing certainty for the surrounding community by excluding intensive commercial activities at this location. Further, the site plan process required for new construction provides the opportunity to ensure a compatible relationship to abutting properties is maintained.

Conclusions:

By expanding the uses in the existing C1(6) zone and the site specific By-laws, the commercial and retail uses permitted at this location will contribute to a multi-use sub-centre which serves as a focal point of activity for the surrounding residential area as envisaged by the Official Plan.

Contact Name:

Anthony Rossi

Telephone: (416) 395-7114Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-06 -

Liberty Walk Developments Inc. -

760 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Spadina

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by Liberty Walk Developments Inc. regarding Zoning Amendment Application for 760 Lawrence Avenue West, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report:

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on January 20, 1999, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend a zoning by-law amendment for 760 Lawrence Avenue West to permit a condominium development consisting of 245 four storey townhouse units at 760 Lawrence Avenue West. The subject property is vacant and is currently being used for parking by employees of the adjacent office building to the east (Bank of Commerce).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this application be approved subject to the following conditions:

(1)the M1 zoning of the property be amended to RM1 (28), with the following provisions:

Permitted Uses:

(a)the permitted uses shall be multiple attached dwellings and live\work uses;

Definitions:

(b)for the purpose of this exception, "Live\Work Uses" are defined as personal service shops, studios, custom workshops making articles or products to be sold at retail on the premises and business and professional offices that:

(i)are located within the multiple attached dwelling units that front onto Lawrence Avenue West and the use is directly accessible from the front exterior;

(ii)occupy not more than 50 percent of the total gross floor area of the dwelling unit;

(iii)are conducted only by a member or members of the household who reside in the dwelling unit which is their principle residence; and

(iv)for the purpose of this exception, "Lower Floor" is defined as being the floor below the first floor which measured at the front yard setback is less than 25 per cent below established grade;

Exception Regulations:

(c)the maximum number of dwelling units shall be 245;

(d)the maximum permitted gross floor area shall be 21,900 square metres for all uses.

(e)the minimum yard setbacks shall generally be as set out in Schedule "C".

(f)building height:

(i)the maximum building height shall be 4 storeys and 12 metres, provided that the height of any part of the building or structure including mechanical structures shall not exceed the horizontal distance between that part of the building and the rear property line; and

(ii)the maximum building height may be increased an additional 2.85 metres for stair enclosures to the roof top terraces only;

(g)parking:

(i)There shall be a minimum of 1.5 parking spaces provided for each dwelling unit, of which 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit shall be for the use of visitors.

(ii)There shall be no additional parking requirement for the home business use.

(h)the provisions of Section 15 and 16 relating to Landscaping, Lot Area, Street Frontage, Lot Coverage and Floor Area shall not apply; and

(i)the provisions of this exception shall apply collectively to the lands zoned RM1(28) notwithstanding their future severance, partition or division for any purpose;

(2)prior to enactment of the zoning by-law, the Director, Community Planning, North District shall have granted site plan approval generally as described in the site plan considerations attached as Appendix "A" to this report;

(3)the applicant shall submit a Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment prior, to the issuance of any building permits;

(4)the western portion of the private road shall be 7.5 metres and no parking shall be permitted. The remaining portion of the private road shall comply with the North District's Public Roads Policy which requires a minimum pavement width of 8.5 metres, 6 metres for municipal vehicles and 2.5 metres for visitor parking spaces; and

(5)the applicant shall enter into an undertaking to ensure that the project is owned or intended to be operated by a single entity, such as a condominium corporation, in accordance with City policy.

Background:

History:

In 1994 North York Council approved a similar residential rezoning application (UDZ-93-01) to permit a townhouse development with ground floor commercial uses in the building fronting onto Lawrence Avenue West. The application was not finalized (760 Lawrence Avenue West Limited) and the zoning by-law was not enacted. The current application represents a similar built form and density as the previous application.

Proposal:

The applicant proposes the construction of 245 four storey condominium townhouse units as shown on Schedule "C". The building along the Lawrence Avenue West frontage is proposed to contain live\work uses within the residential units which have separate entrances onto Lawrence Avenue. The pertinent statistics of the current proposal are as follows:

Lot Area	1.66 hectares (4.1 acres)
Proposed Gross Floor Area - residential - live\work uses Total Gross Floor Area	21,000m� 876m� 21,879m�
Proposed Floor Space Index (F.S.I.)	1.3
Proposed Parking - at grade visitor spaces - underground visitor spaces - underground resident spaces Total Number of Parking Spaces	31 spaces 30 spaces 306 spaces 367 spaces
Total Number of Dwelling Units	245

Official Plan:

The site is designated as an Arterial Corridor Area (ACA) which permits a mixture of residential and commercial uses generally up to a Floor Space Index of 2.0. The lands are also subject to Specific Development Policy C.9.8 which permits residential uses to a maximum of 148 units per hectare. The proposal is for residential uses having a maximum of 147 units per hectare. No Official Plan amendment is required.

The industrial study (OPA 443) amends the Official Plan to include the subject property in the Yorkdale Residential Community and the new industrial by-laws amend Schedule "Q" of the By-law No. 7625 to include the area in the Mulholland Neighbourhood.

Zoning By-law:

The property is zoned Industrial Zone One (M1) permitting primarily employment uses. A zoning by-law amendment is required to permit the proposed townhouses. The Official Plan designation and zoning of this site and surrounding land uses are shown on Schedules "A" and "B".

Comments:

Other Department Comments:

The following section summarizes the comments received from the departments and agencies circulated.

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department advise they concur with the findings of the traffic impact study submitted by Entra Consultant's Inc., which concludes the traffic generated by the proposed development will have minimal impact on the adjacent intersections and can be satisfactorily accommodated by the surrounding road network. They also advise that a parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, of which 0.25 spaces would be for use by visitors, is acceptable for this development. The Departments comments are attached as Schedule "G".

Technical Services of the Works and Emergency Services Department have no objections to the proposal subject to the conditions outlined in their comments attached to this report as Schedule "H". They advise that the equivalent population increase generated by this development will result in an equal decrease in the interim trunk capacity available to other developments on the Don Trunk Sanitary Sewer Area. Issues relating to Solid Waste and Recycling Collection, Service Connections and the condition of the soil will be finalized prior to the applicant receiving Site Plan Approval. Garbage storage areas, mechanical and electrical rooms will be accommodated within the underground parking structure.

They also advise that the applicant must comply with the North District's Public Works Policy which requires a minimum pavement width of 8.5 metres on private roads.

The Parks and Recreation Division comments are attached as Schedule "I". They advise the applicant will be subject to a 2 percent commercial and 5 percent residential cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment payable at the time of building permit application. Given this proposal is for a multi unit residential development, they encourage the applicant to provide a pre-school play area and a multi-purpose sports pad in the outdoor amenity areas. The applicant supports this initiative and will be submitting detailed plans at the site plan stage for the proposed outdoor amenity areas.

The subject lands fall within the South Bathurst Park Planning Area which has a surplus of 1.36 hectares of parkland and are within the Yorkdale Residential Community which has a parkland surplus of 1.58 hectares.

The Toronto District School Board has advised that the schools designated to accommodate students emanating from the proposed development are Flemington Public School, Lawrence Heights Middle School and Bathurst Heights Secondary School. The anticipated number of students emanating from the proposed development can be accommodated at Flemington Public School and Bathurst Heights Secondary School. The Toronto District School Board may be required to make alternative accommodation arrangements for some or all of the students once the schools reach their maximum capacity. They also advise that the anticipated student yield from the proposed development can not be accommodated at Lawrence Heights Middle School and alternative accommodation arrangements will be required for these students. Their comments are attached as Schedule "J".

The Toronto Catholic School Board has indicated that children emanating from the proposed development can be accommodated in permanent facilities at St. Charles Catholic School and Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School. Their comments are attached as Schedule "K".

Community Consultation:

A community meeting was held on January 28, 1998, with the local councillors and a number of land owners from the area in attendance. Issues such as traffic, parking, garbage collection and storage, setbacks, building height and landscaping were discussed at the meeting. Attached as Schedule "F" is a summary of the comments made at the community meeting. The issues raised by the community have been specifically addressed in the following discussion.

Discussion:

Arterial Corridor Areas:

Lands which fall within the Arterial Corridor Areas (ACA) of the Official Plan are intended as potential areas of reurbanization. For lots with a frontage of greater than 30 metres, the ACA designation permits redevelopment generally to a Floor Space Index of 2.0. In addition, the ACA policies encourage a mix of residential and commercial uses along the major arterial road to establish a vibrant and interesting frontage which contributes to the animation of the street.

The residential proposal, at a density of 1.3 F.S.I. meets the ACA policies. The live\work uses proposed along the Lawrence Avenue frontage are consistent with the intent of providing a mix of uses along the major arterial road to promote a vibrant, interesting and active street-front. The applicant has brought the building fronting onto Lawrence Avenue as far forward as possible and the home business uses are directly accessible from the front exterior to further promote a pedestrian friendly environment and enhance the street relationship.

Redevelopment on lands designated ACA shall also have regard to the housing objectives established in Part C.4 of the Official Plan. The proposed development generally meets the criteria for new housing. Therefore, issues relating to built form and zoning, parking and traffic and urban design considerations become key in our evaluation of this proposal.

Built Form and Zoning:

Building Height

The height of new buildings in ACA areas shall generally be from three to six storeys. In any event, the height of no part of a building shall exceed the horizontal distance separating that part of the building from the nearest residential property line that coincides with the boundary of the Arterial Corridor Area. The proposed 4 storey buildings have a maximum height of 12 metres. There are terraces proposed for the upper units of this development which are accessed by stairs to the roof. The stair enclosures add an additional 2.85 metres to the height of the building. The proposal conforms with the building height and angular plan policies of the Official Plan. Elevation drawings for this proposal are shown on Schedules "D1" and "D2".

Some of the live\work units have stairs leading to the lower floor level with separate street entrances directly from Lawrence Avenue. In order to ensure the entrances remain visible from the Lawrence Avenue frontage, it is recommended that the lower floor be no more than 25 per cent below established grade.

The height of the proposed buildings, especially along the northern portion of the site, adjacent to the single family dwellings was an issue raised by the residents. At the north end of the subject property there is a substantial increase in the grade elevation between the subject lands and the houses on Dane Street. The grade difference between the two properties results in the townhouses having a comparable height with the existing homes to the north which minimizes the impacts of overview and shadowing from the new development.

Setbacks

The proposed setbacks are generally shown on Schedule "C". The building along Lawrence Avenue has a front yard setback of 4.5 metres to create a street oriented development at this site. The most northerly building is setback 18 metres from the rear property line. Under the previous application a rear yard setback of 7.5 metres was proposed. The additional rear yard setback proposed under the current application provides for a greater buffer between the townhomes and adjacent homes that front onto Dane Street, which further mitigates the impacts of new development on surrounding land uses. The side yard setbacks and the distance between buildings (16 metres for the most part) reflect the nature of redevelopment opportunities along this portion of Lawrence Avenue and are generally consistent with the RM1 provisions of the zoning by-law. The RM1 exception zone will specifically address the performance standards for this site.

Parking, Traffic and Private Roads:

Parking

The zoning by-law requires parking for townhouse developments to be provided at a rate of 1.75 spaces per dwelling unit, of which 0.25 spaces are to be for the use of visitors. Under the by-law, a total of 428 parking spaces are required for this development. A parking assessment was submitted by the applicant's consultant suggesting that this location is served by a high level of surface transit and is in close proximity to the Lawrence Avenue West subway station which will result in a higher transit modal split for the owners of the townhouse units. The study concludes that a lower parking rate should apply to this development.

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Department have reviewed the consultant's reports and determined that a reduced parking ratio of 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit would be appropriate for this development, of which 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit must be allocated for visitors. A total of 367 spaces are proposed, 61 visitor parking spaces (31 at grade and 30 below grade) and 306 below grade resident spaces which satisfies the requirements of the Transportation Division. A gate with card access will separate the below grade resident parking from the below grade visitor parking areas. Refer to Schedule "E" for the underground parking layout.

Additional parking will not be required for the home business uses fronting onto Lawrence Avenue given that the visitor parking demand associated with the home business uses will occur primarily during the day time when most of the visitor parking spaces for the townhouse units will be available.

Dufferin Street and Lawrence Avenue Intersection

The subject site is one of five properties located on the north side of Lawrence Avenue West, between Dufferin Street and Blossomfield Road, which have high density residential use permission in the Official Plan. It is anticipated that the Bank of Commerce office complex, located to the east of the subject property, will remain for some time. The remaining properties to the west of the subject site have potential for redevelopment. The previous planning report had suggested possible road improvements, if determined to be necessary, to accommodate the future redevelopment of these lands.

As part of the comprehensive transportation review of this application, a Traffic Impact study was submitted and reviewed by the Transportation Division. It concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed development will have minimal impact on the adjacent intersections and can be satisfactorily accommodated by the existing surrounding road network. The Transportation Division concurs with these findings.

Public Roads Policy

The Public Roads Policy for the north district requires a minimum pavement width of 8.5 metres on private roads to ensure sufficient traffic flow for emergency vehicles and municipal garbage pick-up trucks while allowing for tenant and visitor parking along the same road (6 metres for municipal vehicles and 2.5 metres for visitor parking). The applicant is proposing a private road of 8.5 metres around the east and north perimeter of the site and 7.5 metres along the west side of the property.

The applicant contends that given no parking will be provided along the western portion of the road, the intent of the policy to ensure adequate traffic flow for emergency vehicles and garbage collection/recycling vehicles will be maintained. The east and north portions of the road contain 31 parking spaces and there is no parking proposed on the west side. To ensure the pavement width remains sufficiently wide enough for service vehicles, the west side should be posted as a no parking area.

Urban Design:

The proposal generally conforms to the urban design policies of the Official Plan. The townhouses provide a positive streetscape and built form treatment while establishing a good transition to the stable residential areas to the north.

Soil Condition:

The environmental site assessment reports that have been submitted in support of the application have been evaluated by a peer review consultant retained by the City. The peer review report concurs that the site is suitable for the proposed mix of uses. The suitability of the soil conditions to accommodate the proposed residential and home business uses should be verified by a record of site condition, and acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment prior to the issuance of any building permits. Copies of the Consultants reports are available within the Planning Department.

Conclusions:

The proposal creates a street oriented development and enhances the pedestrian relationship along the Lawrence Avenue frontage while ensuring the adjacent stable residential areas to the north are protected. The development is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan and represents an opportunity to bring added reinvestment and affordable housing to the area through reuse of the vacant land. Staff recommend approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in this report.

Contact Name:

Anthony Rossi

Telephone: (416) 395-7114Fax: 395-7114

(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (January 4, 1999) from Mr. Joseph Pede, advising of his concerns with the application and requesting that an environmental study be conducted to ensure that there is no land contamination in the subject area.

No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Chong, Filion, King

AGAINST:Councillors Li Preti, Flint

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Augimeri, Gardner, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

Carried

Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-17 -

Centre Core Holdings Inc. - 1 and 11 Granlea Road,

21 Calvin Avenue and 4 Vonda Avenue - North York Centre

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by Centre Core Holdings Inc. regarding Zoning Amendment Application for 1 and 11 Granlea Road, 21 Calvin Avenue and 4 Vonda Avenue, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report on the feasibility of requiring the establishment of a reserve fund administered in trust by the City to secure the maintenance of the rear lane.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on January 20, 1999, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of an application to permit 10 new small lot single detached dwellings, with a rear lane and rear yard garages, fronting onto Granlea Road.

Recommendation(s):

It is recommended that:

(1)the application for rezoning be approved, and the zoning be amended to R7 (8) to permit 10 single detached dwellings with a rear lane and rear yard garages, with the following exceptions:

(a)minimum lot area - 227 m�;

(b)minimum lot frontage - 7.6 metres;

(c)minimum front yard setback - 3.0 metres;

(d)minimum side yard setbacks - 0.6 metres;

(e)lot coverage of 50 percent maximum for all buildings and structures including garage; and

(f)maximum building height of 8.8 metres and 3 storeys provided that, for the third storey, window openings and doorways be permitted only in the front and side yards;

Prior to Enactment of Any Zoning By-law

(2)staff do all things necessary to secure all necessary agreements, financial and otherwise to implement the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department as set out in Schedule "F";

General Conditions

(3)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division as set out in Schedule "E";

(4)the conditions of the Parks and Recreation Planning Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, as set out in Schedule "G";

(5)prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan satisfactory to the Director, Community Planning, North District, addressing appropriate front yard landscaping, streetscaping along Granlea Road, Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue, and rear yard landscaping and fencing; and

(6)at the appropriate time, Council approve a release from part lot control by-law, subject to the conditions and policies for release of part lot control as adopted by Council. Prior to releasing part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land, the City will be advised in order that the part lot control exempting by-law may be revoked.

Background:

Proposal:

The application proposes an amendment to the Zoning By-law in order to permit 10 new small lot single detached dwellings, three storeys in height, where 4 dwellings currently exist. Pertinent site statistics are set out below:

Site Area(total)	0.2 ha (2,314.6 m�)
Lot Area(lots 1 and 10) (lots 2-9)	227.8 m� 232.3 m�
Gross Floor Area(lots 1 and 10) (lots 2-9)	209.5 m� 209.9 m�
Lot Frontage(per lot)	7.6 metres (25 feet)
Lot Coverage	47 percent (32 percent house + 15 percent garage)
Yard Setbacks Front Side Rear	3.0 metres 0.6 metres 15.7 metres
Units	10
Building Height	8.8 metres and 3 storeys
Parking Proposed	20 spaces

Location and Existing Site:

The site is located on the south side of Granlea Road, between Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue, southwest of Sheppard and Bayview. Four single detached dwellings currently occupy the site, fronting on Granlea Road, Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue. There are single detached dwellings to the north, south and east. Further to the north, there are office uses on the commercial lands abutting the south side of Sheppard Avenue. The "Roseways" townhouse complex is located to the west of the site.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Residential Density One (RD1) which permits single detached dwellings at a general density of 20 units per hectare (8 units per acre), and semi-detached dwellings at a general density of 30 units per hectare (12 units per acre).

The area southwest of Bayview/Sheppard which includes this site is also subject to Part D.15 of the Official Plan, the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan, introduced through OPA 392. The secondary plan maintains the existing RD1 designation. The approval of OPA 392 has been appealed to the OMB by the Bay Cal Group Inc, one of the homeowner groups in the area.

The RD1 designation allows the proposed detached dwellings. At approximately 43 units per net hectare (17 units per net acre), this proposal is above the general density normally permitted by the Official Plan. This density is appropriate however, for a location in the Sheppard Corridor and represents limited intensification, as discussed in this report.

Zoning By-law:

The site is currently zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling Zone (R4) which permits single detached homes and accessory buildings, as well as certain recreational and institutional uses. The proposal would require an exception amendment to the regulations for the R4 zone.

Other Department Comments:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that they are satisfied with the proposed rear lane of 6.0 metres as shown on the revised site plan. Their comments are attached as Schedule "E".

The Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that the reconstruction of Granlea Road from Calvin Avenue to Vonda Avenue will be required, along with a sanitary sewer and a sidewalk along Granlea Road. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City, registered on title, requiring the future owners to jointly maintain the common elements (i.e. the rear lane), and granting mutual easements. Their comments are attached as Schedule "F".

The Parks and Recreation Planning Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has indicated that 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland will be required at the time of building permit application, and that the applicant will be required to enter into a Tree Preservation Agreement with the City. Their comments are attached as Schedule "G".

The Public Health Division has indicated that there are no outstanding Public Health requirements pertaining to the soils on the site. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".

Community Consultation:

A community consultation meeting was held on July 28, 1998. A number of issues were raised by the residents:

- this proposal may set a precedent for other applications in the area;

- the zoning for the whole neighbourhood should be changed to allow a higher density;

- a comprehensive assembly of the area is unlikely;

- there is a limited market for homes larger and more expensive than the proposal;

- the existing trees on the properties should be protected;

- there should be landscaping and fencing to buffer the adjacent properties; and

- traffic and parking issues should be addressed.

A number of submissions have been received from area residents raising similar issues (refer to Schedule "O"). Each of the issues is addressed in this report in the appropriate section.

Discussion:

Planning Issues:

Land Use and Density:

Sheppard Corridor Plan and Limited Intensification:

OPA 392 encourages transit supportive development in the Sheppard Corridor, with a high quality of urban design. New development is to be supportive of the existing goals and objectives of the Official Plan, which include the housing policies limiting intensification in stable residential neighbourhoods.

Stable residential areas within the Sheppard Corridor which have Residential designations are to be protected and enhanced in accordance with the housing policies and the Sheppard East Subway Corridor secondary plan, which has established the Bayview node as a residential development node with opportunities for a variety of housing types within walking distance of the subway station.

The Housing policies call for limited intensification which will enhance the viability of residential areas. This proposal will reinforce the stability of this neighbourhood as a low density residential area, and will set a precedent for other forms of low density limited intensification in the future. The development also provides the opportunity to provide new single detached dwellings within walking distance of the future Bayview subway station.

The policies governing RD1 areas recognize that in some cases this designation applies to lands developed with smaller lots at a higher density than normally permitted. Notwithstanding the designated density and the provisions of the Zoning By-law, for development in or near RD1 areas, regard is to be given to the character of existing or approved development, and maintaining appropriate land use performance standards and compatible built form.

This application proposes single detached dwellings on smaller lots, which are to be compatible with the other single detached dwellings in the area, and at a modest level of intensification which is appropriate given the site's proximity to the future subway station.

Built Form:

The General Development Criteria of the Housing policies, which are designed to ensure the continued stability of neighbourhoods and their regeneration, promote maintaining or creating compatible built form relationships between new and existing development in stable residential areas when limited intensification is considered. The scale, built form and massing of new housing should be sensitive to the physical character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

The application proposes replacement housing which includes elements of limited intensification which have been used successfully in other parts of the "new" City such as rear lanes, maximizing amenity space, and detached garages in the rear yard. These attributes of this proposal are appropriate for this location given the proximity to the future subway station at Bayview/Sheppard, and further met the requirements of the Housing policy.

The rear lane and rear yard garages provide for an attractive streetscape, in that vehicular parking is located to the rear of the houses, and there is a minimum of hard surfaces in the front yard. With well articulated front facades and generous front yard landscaping, this development will enhance the street, which can be difficult to achieve with small lot dwellings, which are often developed with below grade garages. The side walls of the units which abut Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue should have elevation treatments which reflect their public street frontage.

The proposal seeks to maintain the existing trees. A landscape plan indicating appropriate front yard landscaping, appropriate streetscaping along the three abutting streets, and sensitive rear yard landscaping and fencing to buffer the properties to the south, should be required as a condition of approval.

The applicant has proposed that the dwellings share access via a rear lane width of 6.0 metres, which narrows near the centre to permit the preservation of a mature oak tree. This is acceptable to the Transportation Services Division. The proposal provides two parking spaces per unit which meets the Zoning By-law standard.

The applicant requests permission to include a half storey within the roof portion of the houses. Technically this represents a third storey although the maximum permitted 8.8 metre building height is to be maintained. The third storey is appropriate given that there is no change to the massing of the proposed houses, however, there should be no overview of the abutting properties to the south fronting onto Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue, which are developed with 1� storey houses. The amending by-law should permit window or door openings only facing the front and side yards, in order to minimize overview onto the neighbouring properties.

Neighbourhood Context and Appeal of OPA 392:

The residents groups in the area differ in their views as to whether this neighbourhood should be maintained as a low density residential area (SOS Preservation Group), or designated as a key development area (Bay Cal Group Inc). A submission from each of these groups is attached to this report. This is a stable residential area deserving protection in accordance with the principles of the Sheppard Corridor secondary plan, and one which is appropriate for limited intensification of the type proposed by this application. No larger assembly has occurred. Discussions will continue with the Bay Cal Group Inc to focus their appeal of OPA 392, and seek solutions, prior to the OMB pre-hearing conference which is expected to be held early in 1999.

Rear Lane Maintenance and Mutual Easements:

The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City requiring the future owners to jointly maintain the common elements (i.e. the rear lane) and requiring mutual easements to give effect to their mutual rights-of-way to gain access over other unit owners' lands. This agreement shall be registered on title, guaranteeing that the owners of the properties and their successors in title will be responsible for the provision, construction, maintenance and repair of the common elements and that the City will not be required to assume such services at any time in the future.

Part Lot Control:

At the appropriate time, Council should consider a by-law to release the site from part lot control because of the division of the existing four lots and the mutual easements which the applicant intends to seek. Council's tariff of fees for the processing of an application to release part lot control will be applied to any such proposal. A by-law to designate lands as not subject to part lot control, authorized by Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, would be enacted in accordance with the North York Council policy adopted in 1995. The applicant will be required to advise the City following the sale of all of the houses in order that the by-law can be repealed to prevent further subdivision of the lands.

Conclusions:

The application is consistent with the RD1 designation and the objectives of the Sheppard East Subway Corridor secondary plan in terms of land use and density. The location of the garages in the rear yard, combined with appropriate landscaping and streetscaping, will enhance the street and the neighbourhood. The proposal represents compatible and sensitive infill development which conforms to the Housing policies for limited intensification in stable residential areas.

Contact Name:

Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner

Telephone: (416) 395-7110Fax: (416) 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

A staff presentation was made by Ms. Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner, Urban Planning and Development Division, North District.

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications and submissions:

(i)(January 20, 1999) from Mr. Frank D. Reiss, representative on behalf of the applicant, outlining the merits of the application and requesting two amendment to the recommendations contained in the staff report;

(ii)(January 13, 1999) from Mr. H. I. Kershen, in support of the application;

(iii)(January 12, 1999) from Mr. Robert L. Burton, in support of the application;

(iv)(January 5, 1999) from Mr. Clifford G. Cooper and Ms. Evelyn M. Cooper, on behalf of the Bay-Cal Homeowners Group Inc., Sheppard Corridor Ratepayers' Association, outlining the Association's concerns with the application and forwarding a list of residents wishing to address the North York Community Council on this matter;

(v)(January 4, 1999) from Mr. Stan Santavy, in opposition to the application;

(vi)(undated) from Ms. Evelyn Dewar, advising of her concerns with the application;

(vii)(undated) from Mr. Dan Di Liddo, advising of his concerns with the application; and

(viii)(undated) from Mr. Clifford Cooper on behalf of the Bay-Cal Homeowners Group Inc., Sheppard Corridor Ratepayer's Association outlining the Association's concerns and objections with the proposal.

The following persons addressed the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Barry McMonagle, President, Bayview Willowdale Homeowners' Association, who spoke in support of the proposed development. In his opinion, the proposed development meets the objectives of the Sheppard East Subway Corridor secondary plan in terms of land use and density. It would also ensure that the residential character of the neighbourhood is maintained.

-Mr. Sandford Malach, who spoke in opposition to the application. In his opinion, a decision on this proposal should be deferred until such time as the Ontario Municipal Board has rendered a decision on Official Plan Amendment 392. He also believed that given the proximity of this site to the Sheppard Subway, the lands should be developed at a higher density.

-Ms. Barbara Garbens, President, S.O.S. Preservation Group, who spoke in support of the proposed development. During her submission she indicated that careful consideration should be given to the preservation of the residents' existing quality of life and the preservation of greenspace. She also suggested that fencing and screening be provided in to buffer the adjacent properties and that appropriate safety measures be undertaken during the construction phase.

In concluding Ms. Garbens indicated that the proposal represents compatible infill development which conforms to the Housing policies for limited intensification in stable residential areas.

-Mr. Clifford Cooper who spoke in opposition to the proposed development. His primary objections were with respect to the lot coverage and density proposed; the design of the proposed dwellings, which in his opinion, is incompatible with existing dwellings; lack of greenspace; the removal of existing trees and increased traffic.

Mr. Cooper further indicated that given the proximity of these lands to the subway node, a townhouse development is an inappropriate use of the lands. In his opinion, since the subject lands are close to public transportation, schools, churches and other services, the lands should be developed at a higher density in order to generate the much needed tax base for the City while providing more open greenspace, efficient parking and traffic conditions and increased subway ridership.

-Ms. Evelyn Dewar, President, Bal Cal Group Homeowners Association, Sheppard Corridor Ratepayers Association, who spoke in opposition to the application. In her opinion, the proposed development would undermine future development along the Sheppard subway line. She further indicated that lands in close proximity to the subway should be developed at a higher density.

-Mr. Robert Pastoor, who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary concerns were with respect to the laneway proposed for this development and the nature of the application. He believed that there should be a comprehensive land assembly rather that rezoning one particular site.

-Mr. Dan Di Liddo, who spoke in opposition to the application. During his submission he indicated that many of the owners in the area believe that consideration of this application should be deferred until such time as the Ontario Municipal Board has rendered a decision on Official Plan Amendment 392. Given the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board, the density proposed for this development may not be suitable. He was also concerned about the fact that this proposal may set a precedent for other applications in the area, In light of this area being in such close proximity to the subway line, he was concerned that taxpayers may eventually end up subsidizing the subway.

-Mr. Malcolm Sobie who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary concerns were with respect to the density proposed given the proximity of the subject lands to the subway. In his opinion, if intensification is not suitable to support the subway line, many of the homeowners in the area would eventually have to pay higher taxes. He believed that development in the area should be done on a comprehensive basis rather than spot rezoning.

-Mr. Frank D. Reiss, Terraventure Group, on behalf of the applicant, Centre Core Holdings Inc, who commented on the merits of the application. During his submission he indicated that developing these lands at a higher density, as requested by some of the deputants, would require a land assembly of many more existing properties. This process, in his opinion, would destablize the neighbourhood which consists primarily of single family dwellings.

Mr. Reiss also pointed out that the site is over 600 metres from the proposed subway station at the north-east corner of Sheppard and Bayview Avenues. This site could therefore not be considered part of the subway node development at that location. However, ample opportunity would still exist for Council to approve higher density development directly on Sheppard Avenue and on Bayview Avenue in this neighbourhood without the destabilizing effects of inserting high density in this stable single family neighbourhood.

Mr. Reiss further stated that the applicant has had several meetings with many of the adjacent and nearby residents and the proposal before the North York Community Council addresses many of their concerns with respect to the garages. The garages have been moved to the north and a more pleasing streetscape has been created by proposing a mutual rear lane instead of mutual driveways.

Mr. Reiss concluded by stating that the applicant concurred generally with the recommendations contained in the staff report with the exception of the provision for a sidewalk and the requirement for the five percent cash-in-lieu park dedication.

-Mr. Robert Bond, who agreed with many of the previous speakers that these lands should be developed at a higher density.

Motions and Recorded Votes:

A.Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, moved that consideration of this application be deferred until Official Plan Amendment No. 392 has been dealt with by the Ontario Municipal Board.

B.Councillor Filion, North York Centre, moved that:

(i)the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District; and

(ii)General Condition (3) dealing with the requirement for a sidewalk, as outlined in Schedule "E" of the report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, be deleted.

C.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that General Condition (4) dealing with the requirement for the five percent cash-in-lieu parkland dedication, as outlined in Schedule "G" of the report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, be amended to allow a payment of $2,000.00 per lot for a total payment of $20,000.00.

D.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report on the feasibility of requiring the establishment of a reserve fund administered in trust by the City to secure the maintenance of the rear lane.

F.Councillor Li Preti, Black Creek, moved that Councillor Moscoe's recommendation dealing with the amendment of the parkland dedication to allow a payment of $2,000.00 per lot for a total payment of $20,000.00 be referred to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in order to provide a report on the existing cash-in-lieu parkland dedication policy for the former City of North York in comparison to the other former Municipalities in the City of Toronto.

A recorded vote on motion A, moved by Councillor Gardner, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Gardner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro

Lost

A recorded vote on motion E, moved by Councillor Li Preti, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Chong

AGAINST:Councillors Berger, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro

Lost

A recorded vote on motion C, moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Berger, Flint Chong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillor Sgro

Lost.

A recorded vote on Part (ii) of motion B, moved by Councillor Filion, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Augimeri, Gardner, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillor Sgro

Lost.

A recorded vote on Part (i) of motion B, moved by Councillor Filion, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

AGAINST:Councillors Gardner, King

ABSENT:Councillor Sgro

Carried

A recorded vote on motion D, moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong

ABSENT:Councillor Sgro

Carried

Deeming By-law No. 728-1998 -

Bedford Park Avenue and Woburn Avenue,

(Ledbury Neighbourhood) - North York Centre South

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the appropriate by-law be enacted to exempt:

(1)the lands municipally known as 457 Woburn Avenue (Lots 484 and 485 on Registered Plan M-108); and

(2)the lands municipally known as 617 Woburn Avenue (Lots 404 and 405 on Registered Plan M-109).

The North York Community Council submits the following report (December 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

On October 2, 1998 City Council passed a Deeming By-law for a number of lots on Bedford Park Avenue, and Woburn Avenue in the Ledbury neighbourhood of the community of North York. Three requests for a hearing before Council were received as a result of this By-law. The Planning Act requires that a hearing be provided. After the hearings, North York Community Council should recommend that City Council confirm, amend or repeal By-law No. 728-1998.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Discussion:

The purpose of a Deeming By-law is to prevent the splitting up of land in a manner that Council determines is inappropriate. No report is provided and no notice is given prior to the passage of the by-law. A motion was passed by North York Community Council (attached as Schedule A) prior to the enactment of the Deeming By-law by Toronto City Council. All public involvement occurs after the Deeming By-law is passed.

Requests for a hearing were received from the following:

1) Wilhelmina Visser, and Roberto Roberti own 457 Woburn Avenue which is shown on the map attached as Schedule B1 as Request Site No. 1;

2) George Teichman owns 617 Woburn Avenue which is shown on Schedule B2 as Request Site No. 2; and

3) Toronto District Separate School Board for Blessed Sacrament Catholic School at 24 Bedford Park Avenue. The Separate School Board later withdrew their request for a hearing.

Contact Name:

David Douglas

Telephone: (416) 395-7136

(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. George J. Teichman, who outlined his reasons for objecting to Deeming By-law No. 728-1998.

-Ms. Wilhelmina Visser, who spoke in opposition to the Deeming By-law and who requested that her property be exempted from By-law No. 728-1998.

Committee of Adjustment - CA-98-426 -

Gulu Thadani - 157 York Mills Road -

Request for Staff Attendance at the Ontario

Municipal Board Hearing - North York Centre South

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that as requested by Councillor Flint, the attendance of staff of the North York Planning at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing of this application, be approved.

(January 20, 1999) from Councillor Flint, forwarding a memorandum from the City Solicitor and the Director, Community Planning, North District, advising that it would be appropriate for staff to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing of this application in order to defend the Committee of Adjustment's decision and uphold the by-law.

City of Toronto 1999-2003 - Capital Works Program

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Budget Committee for consideration with the 1999-2003 Capital Budget.)

The North York Community Council, in adopting its minutes from its meeting held on December 3, 1998, recommends that:

(1)North York Community Council re-affirm its previous decision that in 1999 at least two playgrounds per ward be refurbished and, if necessary, brought up to CSA standards; such playgrounds to be determined in consultation with the Ward Councillors; and

(2)that the budget for the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department be enhanced by the appropriate amount to accommodate these upgrades.

The North York Community also reports having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to provide a report to the February 2, 1999 meeting of City Council on the unfair distribution of funding to the former City of North York as set out in Appendix A of the 1999 - 2003 Parks and Recreation Capital Works Program and that such report include the gross and net expenditures on a per Community Council basis.

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Real Estate Transactions - Service Road - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

The North York Community Council also reports having requested the Budget Committee to allocate funds in the budget for the year 2000 to continue construction of the service road on the east side of Yonge Street.

(December 21, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, providing additional information on the activities undertaken by staff regarding the acquisition of properties for the North York Centre Service Road as requested by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on December 3, 1998, and recommending that the report be received for information.

(b)School Bus Loading Zone - Muirhead Road - Seneca Heights.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for February 18, 1999, and having requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, to provide a further report on the review of the impacts on the school driveway:

(January 6, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, recommending that By-Law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the school bus loading zone from its existing location to the east side of Muirhead Road, between a point 107 metres north of Old Sheppard Avenue and a point 27 metres northerly thereof.

(c)Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment UDZ-94-30 - 1092248 Ontario Limited - 123 and 125 Steeles Avenue East - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(December 2, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on a notice from the Ontario Municipal Board that 1092248 Ontario Limited has referred the zoning by-law amendment application for the lands municipally known as 123 and 125 Steeles Avenue East to the Board for a hearing and recommending that the report be received for information.

(d)Appeal of Rezoning Application UDZ-98-08 - 1205373 Ontario Limited (Peter Freed) - 70 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(January 5, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an appeal of Zoning By-law Amendment Application UDZ-98-08 filed by Jeffrey Goldenberg, Solicitor for the applicant, 1205373 Ontario Limited (Peter Freed) and recommending that the report be received for information.

(e)Application for Part Lot Control Exemption UD54-98-13-REL - 757 Sheppard Avenue West Limited - 757 Sheppard Avenue West - North York Spadina.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for February 18, 1999, in order to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with the Director, Community Planning, North District, and the Ward Councillors.

(January 5, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an application for exemption from part lot control in order that 14 townhouse units may be conveyed into separate ownership, and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(f)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-28 - Plantastics Group Limited - 64-68 Finch Avenue West - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(January 5, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the replacement of three existing single-family houses with 26 condominium townhouse units; and recommending that staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.

(g)Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-11 - Sanmal Investments Limited - 699 Sheppard Avenue East - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council received the following report and requested that the final report evaluating this proposal, to be submitted to the North York Community Council by the Director, Community Planning, North District, contain detailed comments regarding the Sheppard subway levy:

(January 6, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on the status of the application and that the report (July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, authorizing staff to continue processing the application in the manner outlined therein be adopted.

(h)Referral of Zoning By-law Amendment Application UDZ-98-13 and Referral of Application for Approval of Plan of Subdivision Application UDSB-1238 - Glenarda Properties Ltd. - 20 Bond Avenue - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(January 5, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on appeals of Zoning By-law Amendment Application UDZ-98-13 and Subdivision Application UDB-1238 filed by C. J. Tzekas, Solicitor for the applicant, Glenarda Properties Ltd., and recommending that the report be received for information.

(i)Advertising Signs - Removal from Residential Properties.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following Resolution (December 1, 1998) from Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, to its next meeting scheduled for February 18, 1999.

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director, and Deputy Chief Building Official, North District to consult with Councillor Flint, Councillor Shiner and other interested members of Council and to bring forward a report, including any necessary amendments to the Sign By-law, to the North York Community Council meeting of February 18, 1999.

WHEREAS contractors, architects and land developers frequently post large signs advertising their company on residential property where new homes are being constructed; and

WHEREAS these signs remain in place months and sometimes years after the building has been constructed; and

WHEREAS frequent complaints are received from local residents about these signs; and

WHEREAS the Building Department routinely allows such signs to remain in place for a year after construction; and

WHEREAS the City has no record of when signs are first erected; a fact that hinders effective compliance in having signs removed in a timely manner;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the builders, architects, contractors etc. be required to remove all signs from residential properties within thirty days of the sign-off of the building by the Building Department.

(j)New Garbage Receptacles - OMG Advertising.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report pending a decision by the Works and Utilities Committee following receipt of the requested reports.

(December 23, 1998) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, Works and Emergency Services, providing a report regarding advertising on litter containers as requested by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on December 9, 1998.

(k)Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy.

The North York Community Council reports having referred the following recommendations to the Works and Utilities Committee:

(1)that the proposed harmonized Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program and the proposed harmonized Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy, be adopted;

(2)that the authority for the appeals process be delegated to the Community Councils rather than the Works and Utilities Committee;

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services provide each Member of Council with a series of emergency night service and backup telephone numbers;

(i) that the emergency night service lines referred to in Recommendation (3) above be answered by a staff person and not by electronic means, such as voice mail; and

(ii) that a 24 hour protocol be developed for quick responses to Councillors' enquiries.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to prepare a report which is to be forwarded directly to City Council, on the feasibility of utilizing the pipe bursting technology developed through the University of Waterloo.

(December 11, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that, City Council, at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, directed that Clause 2 of Report No. 10 of the Works and Utilities Committee, headed "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy", be struck out and referred to all Community Councils for consideration with a request that the Community Councils forward their recommendations on this matter back to the Works and Utilities Committee.

(l)Sign By-law Variance Request - Skyview Outdoor - 2145 Avenue Road - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for February 18, 1999:

(December 15, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, recommending that the request for a variance from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit the erection of a billboard roof sign, be refused.

(m)Sign By-law Variance Request - Billboard Roof Sign - Raffaella Russo - 373 Wilson Avenue - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred sine die, the following report:

(October 27, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, recommending that the request for a minor variance from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit the erection of a billboard roof sign be refused.

Mr. J. Ditrani appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter on behalf of Mrs. Raffaella Russo.

(n)Fence By-law Variance Request - 219 Ruth Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for February 18, 1999, in order to allow the owner of 219 Ruth Avenue to provide an encroachment agreement and written verification that the adjacent property owner concurs with the height and encroachment of the existing fence.

(December 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that:

(1)the application for a variance on the fence height be refused as the fence encroaches upon the neighbouring premises and the owner advised to remove the fence; or

(2)as the Committee of Adjustment has approved the east side yard setback to the deck of 0 metres whereas 1.8 metre is required which does not include the width of the posts for the fence, that the owner of No. 219 Ruth Avenue be requested to pursue the matter with the neighbours in order to obtain their approval for the fence to remain as an encroachment over their premises; and, if approval is obtained from the neighbours to maintain the encroaching fence, that the fence be reduced in height to 2.13 metres (7') measured from grade.

Mr. David Ho appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter on behalf of Mr. Tony Chan, property owner of 219 Ruth Avenue.

(o)Bicycle Safety.

The North York Community Council reports having received a presentation by Ms. Barb Wentworth, Bicycle Safety Co-ordinator, Transportation Planning, Urban Planning and Development and a presentation by Mr. Sean Wheldrake, Coordinator of the 1998 Cycling Ambassadors Program, regarding current and proposed cycling and safety programs.

(p)Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-09 - Peter Roh - 85 Steeles Avenue East - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and having referred the matter back to the Director, Community Planning, North District:

(November 18, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, forwarding recommendations with respect to the subject application to permit an accounting business as a home occupation within an existing one-family detached dwelling;

The North York Community Council reports having held the statutory public meeting on January 20, 1999, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:

(i)(October 3, 1998) from M.P. Lau, expressing his objections to the application;

(ii)(November 1, 1998) from Alasdair A. Robertson, President, The Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association, stating the Association's position that the residential character in the neighbourhood should be retained, and confirming their objection to the proposed zoning by-law amendment application;

(iii)(December 7, 1998) from E. Poleur and B. Bomers, in opposition to the application;

(iv)(December 7, 1998) from K.B. Rowe, in opposition to the application;

(v)(December 7, 1998) from G. Ronan, in opposition to the application;

(vi)(December 7, 1998) from T. Garofalo, in opposition to the application;

(vii)(January 4, 1999) from W. K. Yan, in opposition to the application; and

(viii)(undated) from Mr. Hans Heusel, in support of the application.

________

The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. A. Robertson, President, Bayview Cummer Ratepayer Association, who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary objections were with respect to the large front lawn sign advertising the applicant's business, which in his opinion, would be precedent setting for their neighbourhood and would lead to similar applications which could negatively affect the existing residential character of the neighbourhood. He was also concerned about increased traffic and noise levels; overflow parking and the negative impact on the residents' quality of life. He believed that granting a rezoning was an inappropriate way in which to deal with the home occupation issue. Home Occupations in low density residential areas should be properly reviewed and studied by planning staff. He concluded by requesting that the application be refused.

-Mr. Ted Cymbaly, Planning Consultant on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Peter Roh, who commented on the merits of the application. During his submission he pointed out that the subject lands are designated Residential Density One (RD1) in the Official Plan. In this designation, the non-residential uses, such as public facilities and amenities, community institutions and minor commercial uses which are ancillary to the residential use or which serve the local residential population may be permitted as set out in the zoning by-law. In this particular case, the accounting business is ancillary to the residential use and in his opinion, is the least offensive of the home occupation uses allowed.

Mr. Cymbaly further indicated that to date, there have been no complaints from residents about the accounting business other than the design of the sign. In order to address these concerns, the applicant would be willing to remove the sign in question. In his opinion the application is not precedent setting and it would not change the character of the area. He concluded by stating that the applicant concurred with the recommendations contained in the staff report.

-Mr. Peter Roh, applicant, who spoke on the merits of his proposal and the operational aspects of his accounting business. He also indicated that prior to erecting the sign, no complaints had been received about his home occupation use. In response to a question from one of the Councillors, he indicated that he would be willing to remove the sign and to withdraw his application.

-Mr. Tarig Saeed, who indicated that he supported the comments made by the President of the Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association. He further indicated that his primary objections were with respect to the precedent setting nature of the application which could ultimately change the character of the neighbourhood and increased traffic congestion in the area.

-Mr. Saeed Quazi, who spoke in opposition to the application. He also questioned the support of the surrounding residents identified by the applicant, as most of the names listed were tenants and not the homeowners.

-Mr. Ken Rowe, who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary objections were with respect to the eventual expansion of this home occupation use and its negative impact on the surrounding community in terms of increased traffic and quality of life. .In concluding he requested that the application be refused.

-Mr. William West, President, Silverview Homeowners Association, who expressed the Association's concerns with respect to the precedent setting nature of the application. He also indicated that his association and the Bayview Cummer Ratepayer Association review matters of mutual interest and in this case, the concerns raised by Mr. A. Robertson were shared by the Silverview Homeowners Association.

(q)Deeming By-law 33158 - Lots in the East Willowdale Neighbourhood - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for February 18, 1999:

(December 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, providing information on Deeming By-law No. 33158.

Respectfully submitted,

MILTON BERGER

Chair

Toronto, January 25, 1999

(Report No. 1 of The North York Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 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