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
SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 1
1Overnight Parking Prohibition North Bonnington Avenue Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs
2Short Duration Parking on Freeman Street in front of the Scarborough Day Nursery Ward 13 - Scarborough
Bluffs
3Proposed Stop Control on Chestermere Boulevard at Farmbrook Crescent Ward 15 - Scarborough City
Centre
4Request for Fence By-law Exemptiom Nick and Andrea Loschiavo, 20 Pickford Road Ward 16 -
Scarborough Highland Creek
5Request for Fence By-law Exemption Hans J. Clemens, 45 Ivy Green Crescent Ward 16 - Scarborough
Highland Creek
6Vending in Albert Campbell Square Scarborough City Centre
7Rouge Park - Draft Partnership Memorandum Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek Ward 18 -
Scarborough Malvern
8Part Lot Control Exemption Application SL98011Blueblood Developments Inc., Bridlegrove Drive Cliffcrest
Community Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre
9Acceptance of ServicesRegistered Plan 66M-2282 - Carma Developers Ltd.South-East Limit of
Holmcrest TrailWard 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
10Classical Chinese Garden Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern
111999 Annual Recreation Recognition Night
12Upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing Ontario Hydro and Norstar Development Corporation Corridor
Lands South of Highway 401Scarborough Wexford and Scarborough City Centre
13Winter Maintenance Scarborough Area
14Upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing Yellow Moon Homes Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
15Other Items Considered by The Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 1
OF THE SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on January 20, 1999,
submitted by Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999
1
Overnight Parking Prohibition
North Bonnington Avenue
Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the
Director of Transportation Services, District 4:
Purpose:
To investigate the need to impose a parking prohibition on North Bonnington Avenue, south of St. Clair Avenue, between
the hours of 2:00 a.m and 6:00 a.m.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The $500.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the parking prohibition signs is available in the
Transportation Services 1999 budget estimates, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the parking regulation identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and
(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Transportation Services is in receipt of a petition from residents of North Bonnington Avenue, between St. Clair Avenue
and Dunlop Avenue. Twenty-two (79 percent) of the twenty-eight residents of properties fronting onto this section of North
Bonnington Avenue have signed the petition in favour of an overnight parking prohibition. Two residents object to the
prohibition while four could not be reached.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
At present, parking is allowed on both sides of North Bonnington Avenue up to a maximum permitted time period of three
hours. The petitioners have requested a parking prohibition on both sides of the roadway between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to
7:00 a.m. on the section between St. Clair Avenue and Dunlop Avenue. The standard time period for an overnight parking
prohibition is from 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m.
All properties with frontage on North Bonnington Avenue are serviced with driveways with off-street parking.
Although overnight parking is currently restricted with the three hour limit, installation of an overnight parking prohibition
simplifies parking enforcement because verification that the vehicle was parked for three hours is not required. Therefore,
the street only has to be visited by parking enforcement officers once per night. Also, the police can provided enforcement
of a posted 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. prohibition without a specific request.
Conclusions:
A parking prohibition is recommended on both sides of North Bonnington Avenue, between St. Clair Avenue and Dunlop
Avenue, between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Contact Name:
Bruce Clayton
Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services
Telephone: 396-7844
Fax: 396-5681
E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca
________
Appendix 1
"No Parking"
Prohibition to be Enacted
Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4
HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days
North BonningtonBothSt. ClairDunlop2:00 a.m. to
AvenueAvenueAvenue6:00 a.m.
2
Short Duration Parking on Freeman Street
in front of the Scarborough Day Nursery
Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the
Director of Transportation Services, District 4:
Purpose:
To investigate the need to amend the parking restrictions on Freeman Street in front of the Scarborough Day Nursery.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The $200.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the parking restriction signs is available in the
Transportation Services 1999 budget estimates, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;
(2)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted; and
(3)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In response to a request from the President of the Scarborough Day Nursery, Transportation Services examined the
possibility of allowing parking for four vehicles in front of the nursery for parents picking-up and dropping-off their
children.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Currently on Freeman Street, both sides of the road have a "No Stopping, 7:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m., Monday - Friday"
prohibition posted. This prohibition was installed in 1971 because cars parked on both sides of the road were obstructing
traffic flow during the morning peak period. Immediately in front of the nursery, on Freeman Street, a "No Parking
Anytime" prohibition exists. This prohibition was installed to allow vehicles to stand for loading and unloading passengers.
The nursery has expressed concern that parents sometimes need to discuss issues with staff while dropping-off or
picking-up their children, and have been receiving parking tickets in this area.
On-Street Parking Observations:
On-street parking was observed at the Scarborough Day Nursery by Transportation Services staff. The maximum demand
was three vehicles, and this parking had minimal impact on traffic flow on Freeman Street.
Collision History:
Two collisions have been reported in proximity to the nursery during the last three years for which we have current
collision data (from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997); neither was associated with parking at the nursery.
Conclusions:
The Scarborough Day Nursery has similar operational characteristics to most schools. Although at a much smaller scale,
parents have the same desire to drop-off and pick-up their children along the frontage of the facility to avoid crossing the
road. As with schools, staff feel it is appropriate to provide short duration parking to accommodate these parents.
Therefore, staff recommend installing "30 Minute Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" signs along the south
side of Freeman Street, immediately in front of the nursery. This recommendation will provide sufficient room for
approximately four private vehicles to park temporarily. A representative of the nursery has confirmed that this should be
adequate for their needs.
Staff recommend that the existing prohibitions posted in the other areas surrounding the school, on both Eastwood Avenue
and Freeman Street, remain unchanged.
Contact Name:
Bruce Clayton
Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services
Telephone: 396-7844
Fax: 396-5681
E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca
________
Appendix 1
"No Parking"
Prohibition to be Rescinded
Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4
HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days
FreemanSouthEastwood25 Metres EastAnytime
AvenueAvenueof Eastwood Avenue
Appendix 2
"Parking for Restricted Periods"
Prohibition to be Enacted
Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4Column 5
Maximum
Period
HighwaySideFromToTimes or DaysPermitted
FreemanSouthEastwood25 Metres east8:00 a.m. to30 minutes
AvenueAvenue Eastwood4:00 p.m.
AvenueMonday to
Friday
3
Proposed Stop Control on
Chestermere Boulevard at Farmbrook Crescent
Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 5, 1999) from the
Director of Transportation Services, District 4:
Purpose:
To investigate the need for a stop control to clearly establish the right-of-way at the intersection of Chestermere Boulevard
and Farmbrook Crescent.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The $150.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of a stop sign is available in the Transportation Services
1999 budget estimates, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and
(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At the request of Councillor Brad Duguid's office, on behalf of a constituent, staff investigated the need for a stop control
on Chestermere Boulevard at Farmbrook Crescent.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Chestermere Boulevard and Farmbrook Crescent are local roadways located in a residential subdivision, east of Bellamy
Road North, between Eglinton Avenue and Lawrence Avenue. Chestermere Boulevard forms a "T" type intersection at
Farmbrook Crescent.
Staff investigated this matter and recommend a stop sign westbound on Chestermere Boulevard. Stopping motorists in
advance of the sidewalk will assist children crossing at this intersection going to and from Cedarbook Junior Public School
and more clearly define the right-of-way. The school is located on the west side of Farmbrook Crescent, immediately south
of this intersection.
Conclusions:
Based on the need to more clearly define the right-of-way, a stop sign is recommended on Chestermere Boulevard at
Farmbrook Crescent.
Contact Name:
Bruce Clayton
Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services
Telephone: 396-7844
Fax: 396-5681
E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca
________
Appendix 1
"Compulsory Stops"
Regulation to be Enacted
ColumnColumn 2
IntersectionStop Street
Chestermere Boulevard andChestermere Boulevard
Farmbrook Crescent
4
Request for Fence By-law Exemption
Nick and Andrea Loschiavo, 20 Pickford Road
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 22, 1998) from
the Director, Municipal Standards:
Purpose:
The applicants are seeking an exemption to the by-law to allow an existing 1.8 metre (6 foot) board on board fence to
remain along the side and front property lines in the street yard.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Nil.
Recommendations:
That the Scarborough Community Council direct that the applicants' fence running parallel to the sidewalk be reduced to
the maximum height of 1.2 metres (4 feet) and further that the fence along the side lot lines be reduced to 1.2 metres (4
feet) within 2.4 metres (8 feet) of the sidewalk.
Background/History:
Acting upon a complaint, the property known municipally as 20 Pickford Road was inspected on October 20, 1998. The
inspection revealed a 1.8 metre (6 foot) high fence constructed along the side and front lot lines in the street yard. As a
result of the findings, a notice under By-law 24945, as amended, was issued to the registered owners, Nick and Andrea
Loschiavo. Subsequent to this notice, a letter seeking exemption to the requirement of the by-law was received by the
Division.
In their letter, the applicants indicate that there are a number of large dogs in the neighbourhood which have posed some
problems to their enjoyment of their property. They also indicate that the fence was constructed so as to ensure that dogs at
large are kept off the property.
As the site plan indicates, Pickford Road is comprised of abutting single family dwellings and terminates in a cul de sac.
Measurement of the distance between the curb and the fence has been taken and the inspector advises that the fence
appears to be located on private property. The driveways at 18 and 22 Pickford abut the fence and while there is sufficient
space to permit observance of on coming vehicular traffic, visibility is obscured with respect to pedestrian traffic. This
problem could be eliminated with the creation of sight triangles at the corners of the fence; however, visibility of
pedestrians by the applicants from their driveway would still be a concern.
If the fence was reduced to the maximum height of 1.2 metres (4 feet) abutting the sidewalk and the last 2.4 metres (8 feet)
of fence located along the side lot line were reduced to the maximum height, issues of sight visibility should be eliminated.
The applicants indicated their belief that a 1.2 metre fence would be too low to prevent large dogs from jumping over.
Other fence applications such as the use of chain link or wrought iron which are permitted at a higher height could address
the problem.
Justification:
Section 14 of By-law 24945, as amended, provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the
by-law.
Contact Name:
Bryan Byng, District Manager
(416) 396-7071
(416) 396-4266 Fax Number
byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca
________
The following persons appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Nick Loschiavo, the applicant;
-Mrs. Andrea Loschiavo;
-Ms. Ninnie Elliston, neighbour, objecting to the application; and
-Mr. Thomas Gaspard, neighbour, objecting to the application.
The Community Council also received written submissions respecting this matter from:
-Nick and Andrea Loschiavo;
-Craig and Caroline Rendall, area residents, objecting to the application;
-Steve DeCarmo, area resident, objecting to the application;
-Ben Kramer, objecting to the application; and
-Hoa Than, and fourteen other signatories to a petition, objecting to the application.
A copy of the foregoing communications was provided to all Members of the Scarborough Community Council and the
originals thereof are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Scarborough Civic Centre.
5
Request for Fence By-law Exemption
Hans J. Clemens, 45 Ivy Green Crescent
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 22, 1998) from
the Director, Municipal Standards:
Purpose:
The applicant is seeking an exemption to the fence by-law to allow an existing board on board fence on the east side of the
front yard to remain at a height varying from 1.33 metres (4.375 feet) to 1.79 metres (5.875 feet) and on the west side at a
height of 1.5 metres (5 feet).
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Nil.
Recommendations:
That the Scarborough Community Council not approve the request for fence exemption made by Mr. H. Clemens of 45 Ivy
Green Crescent.
Background/History:
Acting upon a complaint, Municipal Standards staff visited the property known municipally as 45 Ivy Green Crescent on
September 21, 1998. The inspection revealed post holes dug in the front yard in preparation of the construction of a fence.
On September 22, 1998, a site meeting between the owner, the owner's fence contractor and an inspector took place.
During this meeting, the requirements of the fence by-law were explained.
Subsequent to the meeting, a complaint was received on October 23, 1998, indicating the fence as constructed exceeded the
maximum height of 1.2 metres (4 feet). A notice under By-law 24945 as amended was issued to the owner on November 2,
1998 and the Division received a request for exemption on December 2, 1998.
In his letter, the applicant cites security as the main reason for the fence construction. He indicates that he has been the
victim of vandalism and petty theft in the past. As such, the fence is intended to provide a measure of safety and security.
A review of the location map and photographs of the property indicate that neighbouring driveways abut the fence on both
sides; however, since the fence is constructed on private property, visibility of vehicular traffic is not an issue for vehicles
leaving the abutting and subject properties. Of greater concern is the ability of drivers exiting the driveways to see
pedestrians. This is particularly true for the applicant and his neighbour at 47 Ivy Green Crescent. The applicant has
attempted to address this concern by louvering the boards in the fence which abuts the sidewalk. The record indicates that
the provisions of the by-law respecting height were made available to the owner and the contractor prior to the construction
of the fence and yet, the fence as constructed exceeds the maximum height requirements.
Justification:
Section 14 of By-law 24945, as amended, provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the
by-law.
Contact Name:
Bryan Byng, District Manager
(416) 396-7071
(416) 396-4266 Fax Number
byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca
(City Council on February 2, 3, and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication
(February 1, 1999) from Mr. Russell Skasko, in support of the decision by the Scarborough Community Council to refuse
an exemption to the fence by-law with respect to 45 Ivy Green Crescent.)
6
Vending in Albert Campbell Square
Scarborough City Centre
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 21, 1998) from
the Director, Municipal Standards:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Community Council for the continuation of vending in Albert
Campbell Square.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
No expenditures are expected as a result of this report and recommendations. The issuance of licences to vend in Albert
Campbell Square generates a licencing fee of $1,500.00
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the Director, Community Planning, East District, be directed to make application to the
Scarborough Committee of Adjustment, under Section 45(2)b of the Planning Act, for a minor variance to permit retail
vending in Albert Campbell Square, and, upon approval of same by the Committee of Adjustment, the Manager, Municipal
Standards, East District, be directed to renew the current vending licences for the calendar year 1999.
Background/History:
On July 27, 1993, the Committee of Adjustment for the former City of Scarborough approved a minor variance application
to permit retail vending in Albert Campbell Square. In rendering its decision, the Committee stated the following reasons
for approval:
"1.Retail vending is considered to be a use which is appropriate to and would form a vital part of a public town square.
Therefore, retail vending in Albert Campbell Square would make it a more active and lively place to be in. It was clearly
the intent of the original design of Albert Campbell Square to make it a focal point for the citizens of the City of
Scarborough which includes an active public town square with opportunities for retail vending.
In addition, in an effort to control street vending, the City of Scarborough is currently reviewing a licensing by-law for
retail street vendors. The licensing by-law would control numerous aspects of street vending including location, and size of
vehicles including canopy size.
Therefore, the inclusion of retail vending in a public town square is considered appropriate development of the land.
2.Retail vending in Albert Campbell Square would maintain the intent of the Official Plan and its policies as commercial
activities are permitted in the City Centre."
The variance was approved for a period of five years and has now expired.
Subsequent to the granting of the variance request, By-law 24415 as amended, being a by-law to regulate vending in and
conduct of persons using the Albert Campbell Square, was enacted on April 25, 1995. Under Schedule 'B" of the by-law, a
procedure was established for the granting and regulation of vending permits in Albert Campbell Square. Specifically of
the regulations include:
(1)Food vending is limited to six permits comprising two permits for Hot Dogs/ Sausages and Cold Drinks, two permits
for Ice Cream, and two permits for Confections.
(2)Annual fee for permit - $1,500.00
(3)Two million dollars liability insurance required.
(4)Requirement that a vending licence issued by the Licencing Commission be obtained.
(5)Requirement of compliance with Health Protection and Promotion Act.
With respect to food vending, a lottery was initially held on August 23, 1995. In response to the City's advertisement,
thirteen individuals took part. Two permits for Hot Dogs/Sausages and Cold Drinks were awarded and the requisite fees
paid. The Confections and Ice Cream permits were never issued. Of the two individuals who were awarded permits for Hot
Dogs, one utilized the Square regularly while the other attended periodically.
Another component of vending in Albert Campbell Square was the weekly Farmer's Markets. Based on to the nature of the
product sold as well as the number of venders and the once a week frequency, all farmers vending were accommodated
without need for a lottery. The farm vendors were referred from the Ontario Farm Fresh Marketing Association.
At this time, in addition to the current Hot Dog vendor, the Municipal Standards Division, East District is aware of one
other individual who has expressed interest in obtaining a licence and it's likely others might come forward upon
advertisement. The integration of Licensing with Municipal Standards however is likely to have an impact upon the
process and regulation of vending in the Square. Until this impact is known, additional lotteries are not recommended. For
this reason, it is recommended that the current licence holder be granted a renewal for 1999. Authority to renew without a
lottery is permitted in accordance with Schedule 'B', Section 4 (3) of the by-law.
Justification:
By-law 24414, as amended, regulates vending in the conduct of persons using the Albert Campbell Square.
Contact Name:
Bryan Byng, District Manager
(416) 396-7071
(416) 396-4266 Fax Number
byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca
7
Rouge Park - Draft Partnership Memorandum
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 3, 1998) from
the Director of Community Planning, East District:
Purpose:
This report responds to a request by City Council, at its March 4, 1998 meeting, to the Commissioner, Urban Planning and
Development Services, for comments on the Rouge Park draft partnership memorandum.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
None. The Partnership Memorandum does not call for an increase in City staff support beyond that which is presently
being provided.
Recommendations:
That City Council:
(1)endorse the draft Rouge Park Partnership memorandum with the suggestion that the words 'local and regional
municipalities' be replaced with the word 'municipalities'; and
(2)that the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services and Economic
Development, Culture and Tourism appoint staff to serve on the proposed Rouge Park Technical Committee for Land Use
and Development.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In April of 1995, the Province of Ontario launched the Rouge Park and created the Rouge Park Alliance to implement the
Rouge Park Management Plan. As a partnership arrangement, the Rouge Park Alliance partners agreed that the role of
implementing the Rouge Park Management Plan, through the land development process, would be carried out by the
Municipal and TRCA partners.
The organizational structure of the Rouge Park was announced by the Province in late March 1998. Staff had deferred
preparing a response on the matter until it was approved by Cabinet, but this appears unlikely to take place in the near
future. It therefore is appropriate for the City to respond now to the Rouge Park Alliance on whether this City agrees with
the land use and infrastructure planning as it relates to the Rouge Park.
Discussion:
The partnership memorandum was drafted to clarify the roles of the partners in implementing the
Land Use component of the Rouge Park Management Plan.
The memorandum states that municipalities are responsible for implementing the Rouge Park Management Plan as it
relates to matters within their respective jurisdictions, including:
(1)public policy;
(2)land use;
(3)development standards;
(4)development approvals;
(5)urban design;
(6)infrastructure;
(7)parks planning;
(8)public use; and
(9)all other matters of municipal interest.
Municipalities are also asked to review development applications to ensure there is proper regard for the goals and
objectives of the Park Plan. Where the park boundary has not been clearly delineated in the Park Plan, it is the
responsibility of the respective municipalities to interpret and secure the boundary through the development process.
The memorandum assigns the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) as the responsibility of a park
implementing the Park Plan as it relates to water management, natural heritage and natural hazards.
The role of the Rouge Park Alliance with respect to land use planning and development approvals is not to actively
participate in the process but rather to assist the Rouge Park Alliance partners in resolving specific park planning matters at
the request of the partners.
The Rouge Alliance recommends terminating the current Planning and Land Use Subcommittee and requests that Rouge
Park Alliance partners appoint staff to serve on a new Technical Committee on Planning and Development.
Conclusions:
The memorandum sets out a reasonable framework for municipalities and TRCA to assist, as partners, in the
implementation of the Rouge Park and the processing of development applications affecting the Park.
Rouge Park does not now have staff, nor was it intended to have staff, to comment on development applications. The
memorandum resolves the question of who should be commenting on matters related to Rouge Park. The assignment of a
clear role to TRCA and the municipalities to support the partnership in planning infrastructure improvements, water
management, natural heritage and natural hazards is welcome.
Staff support the creation of a Technical Committee on Land Use Planning and Development. City staff representatives to
sit on this committee should be appointed by the Commissioners whose respective areas of responsibility are affected.
Contact Name:
David Beasley, Principal Planner
Telephone:(416) 396-7026
Facsimile:(416) 396-4265
E-mail:beasley@scarborough.on.ca
________
Insert Table/Map No. 1
From: Gord Weeden, General Manager, Rouge Park
Insert Table/Map No. 2
From: Gord Weeden, General Manager, Rouge Park (Cont'd)
The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having received the following
communication (December 9, 1998) from the Town Clerk, Town of Pickering:
Please be advised that the Council of the Town of Pickering passed the following resolution at its regular meeting of
December 7, 1998:
1.That Town Council endorse the "Partnership Memorandum for the Coordination of Land Use Planning and
Development Activities" between The Rouge Park Alliance and the Rouge Park Planning and Land Use Partners, dated
April, 1998, and contained in Appendix No. I to Planning Report 17-98; and
2.That the Town Clerk forward a copy of Planning Report No. 17-98 together with Council's resolution on this matter to
the Rouge Park Alliance and other Partners.
________
The Planning report from the Town of Pickering, referred to in the foregoing communication is attached hereto.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Report to Council from Neil Carroll
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Report to Council from Neil Carroll (Cont'd)
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Report to Council from Neil Carroll (Cont'd)
Insert Table/Map No. 4 (Cont'd)
Report to Council from Neil Carroll
8
Part Lot Control Exemption Application SL98011
Blueblood Developments Inc., Bridlegrove Drive
Cliffcrest Community, Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 6, 1999) from the
Director of Community Planning, East District:
Purpose:
Blueblood Developments Inc. is constructing a residential subdivision consisting of single-family and street townhouse
dwellings totalling 152 units situated on 17 Blocks on a Registered Plan. The applicant has applied to lift Part Lot Control
on two of the Blocks to divide them into 19 separate lots. One street townhouse dwelling unit is currently under
construction on each of the proposed lots. This application represents the last Blocks to be constructed and divided into
separate lots on the subdivision plan.
Recommendation:
It is recommended:
(1)that City Council enact a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law with respect to Blocks 5 and 11 on Registered Plan
M-2317;
(2)that the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law be repealed one (1) year from the date of the passing of the By-law;
(3)that all conveyances which occur after the exemption from Part Lot Control be in accordance with Reference Plan(s)
to be approved by the Director of Community Planning, East District prior to the plan(s) being deposited in the Land
Registry Office; and
(4)that Council authorize any unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the exemption by-law as may be
required to give effect to this resolution.
Background:
The proposed street townhouse lots will have minimum frontages of 7 metres (23 feet) and minimum lot areas of 200
square metres (2,150 square feet), consistent with the Zoning By-law requirements. Maintenance and encroachment
easements are proposed between the street townhouse lots to enable owners to gain access to the neighbouring lot for
maintaining the exterior of their dwelling.
Comments:
Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, 1990, authorizes the lifting of Part Lot Control on lots or blocks within a registered plan.
This method of land division allows lot lines to be finalized during or after construction and is advantageous, especially for
street townhouses, because it avoids the potential problem of party walls of dwelling units being built not coinciding
exactly with lot lines.
The preparation of reference plans for the proposed lot divisions, reviewed by the Director of Community Planning prior to
registration on title, will ensure municipal monitoring and control and will ensure that the deposited plans reflect Council's
approval. There are no Official Plan or Zoning concerns raised by this application.
Conclusions:
The lifting of Part Lot Control on the subject lands will facilitate the finalization of a successful residential development
already endorsed by the former Scarborough Council.
Contact Name:
Joe Nanos,
Acting Senior Planner
Scarborough Civic Centre
Telephone: (416) 396-7037
Fax: (416) 396-4265
E-mail: nanos@city.scarborough.on.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Figure 2 - File No. S1 98011
9
Acceptance of Services
Registered Plan 66M-2282 - Carma Developers Ltd.
South-East Limit of Holmcrest Trail
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 22, 1998) from
the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
Carma Developers Limited entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the Corporation of the City of Scarborough, to
develop the lands located at the Southeast limit of Holmcrest Trail. All departments have now completed the Development
Acceptance Form for the above Plan of Subdivision. It is therefore recommended that the services can now be accepted by
the City.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(l)the services installed for Registered Plan 66M-2282 be accepted and that the City formally assume that part of
Holmcrest Trail within this Plan of Subdivision;
(2)Legal Services be authorized to release the performance guarantee with the exception of a cash deposit in the amount
of $3,000.00 as set out in the attached report; and
(3)the City Clerk and Treasurer be authorized to sign any release or other documentation necessary to give effect to this
acceptance.
Council Reference/Background/History:
All departments have completed the Development Acceptance Form for the Plan of Subdivision located at the Southeast
Limit of Holmcrest Trail (formerly Part of Lot 2, Concession D and Part of The Road Allowance Between Lots 2 and 3,
Concession D), now Plan 66M-2282, with the following proviso:
$3,000.00 be retained as cash deposit to guarantee the paving of the driveway aprons.
The services installed for this development could now be accepted.
Contact Name:
Anna Kinastowski, Director
Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law
Telephone No.: (416) 392-0080Fax No: (416) 392-0005
10
Classical Chinese Garden
Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends:
(1)that Councillors Berardinetti, Cho, Faubert and Shaw be appointed to serve on the Classical Chinese Garden
Fundraising Committee to work with representatives of the Chinese Cultural Centre, with powers to appoint any
additional members with specific expertise, as required; and
(2)that City Council appoint any other Members of Council who wish to serve on this Fundraising Committee.
The Scarborough Community Council reports having directed that a progress report on the fundraising efforts be submitted
to Community Council every six months.
The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
To obtain nominations from Scarborough Community Council for a fundraising committee for the Classical Chinese
Garden.
Funding:
None.
Recommendations:
That Community Council:
(a)nominate up to three members of Community Council to serve on a Garden Fundraising Committee to work with
appointed representatives of the Chinese Cultural Centre, with powers to appoint any additional members with specific
expertise, as required;
(b)forward this report to City Council seeking interest from other Councillors in membership on the Fundraising
Committee; and
(c)receive a progress report from the Fundraising Committee every six months.
Background:
The first buildings of the Scarborough Community Complex were opened this year. They are the Chinese Cultural Centre
of Greater Toronto and the Burrows Hall Community Centre and Library. Since its inception in 1992, the project has
included a classical Chinese Garden as an integral part of the complex (Appendix 1.) As conceived, the garden would be a
completely authentic 0.61 hectare (1.5 acre) facility. This would make it the largest classical garden, built to date, outside
China.
A feasibility study completed and approved by the former Scarborough Council in 1997 points to the enormous cultural,
tourism and economic significance of this exciting project. Attendance at the garden could reach 270,000 per year, before
stabilizing at around 150,000 annually. The garden will be of regional, as well as local significance. Built into the design
will be the potential for its use for movie and advertising shoots as well as for receptions an other corporate events. There
exists a potential for the Garden to generate up to $300,000 per annum (Appendix 2.) A key recommendation of the
Feasibility Study is the formation of a Garden Society to assist in the running of the Garden.
Since January of this year, the conceptual design for the Garden has been developed by City staff, the City's consultants
and their sub-consultants, the Suzhou Landscape Institute (Appendix 3.)
Funding for the Garden is identified in the City's capital budget as "to be paid for by private fundraising, at '0' net cost to
the City". The development of the Scarborough Community Complex is governed by the terms of a Tri-Party Agreement,
signed in May 1993. The three signatories were the City of Scarborough, the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto
and CMS Investments Inc.
The agreement sets out the responsibilities of the City and the Chinese Cultural Centre in the matter of fundraising
(Appendix 4.) A start up fund of approximately $200,000 was obtained from the land developer and this has been used for
the conceptual design phase. The conceptual design is now complete and there is a necessity to begin major fundraising, to
further the design development of the garden and lead to its implementation. The former City of Scarborough directed that
up to $20,000 of the start-up money be used for promotional material for fundraising. This money is still available.
The Suzhou Landscape Institute has recommended a Two Phase construction for the garden. The first phase would produce
a complete garden with three "scenes" and cost approximately $5.6 million. At build-out, it is estimated the total project
value would be around $13 million. Upon raising the $5.6 million, the first phase of the Garden would take approximately
eighteen months to complete.
It is recommended that a fundraising committee for the Garden be formed jointly, by the City and the Chinese Cultural
Centre. The composition would include City Councillors, appropriate City staff and representatives of the Chinese Cultural
Centre.
Contact Name:
Robert Stephens
Scarborough Civic Centre
Telephone: (416) 396-7027
Fax: (416) 396-4265
E-mail: stephens@city.scarborough.on.ca
________
The following persons appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Dr. Ming-Tat Cheung, Chinese Cultural Centre; and
-Mr. Brian Chu, Chinese Cultural Centre.
--------
The appendices referred to in the foregoing report were provided to all Members of Community Council and the originals
thereof are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Scarborough Civic Centre.
11
1999 Annual Recreation Recognition Night
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 4, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to adding a recommendation (3), as
follows:
"(3)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, be directed not to pursue the
proposal to combine the events for the former East York and Scarborough in the year 2000.":
Purpose:
Each year, the members of the Scarborough Community Council and the Parks and Recreation Division acknowledge the
significant contributions of our many volunteers by hosting the Annual Recreation Recognition Night.
Funding:
Funding for the 43rd Annual Recognition Night has been included as part of the 1999 Current Budget in the amount of
$17,000.
Recommendations:
It is recommended:
(1)that the 43rd Annual Recognition Night be held on Friday May 28, 1999, at Malvern Community Recreation Centre;
and
(2)that staff be authorized to proceed with the necessary arrangements to facilitate this annual event.
Background:
The Malvern Community Recreation Centre has been reserved for Friday May 28, 1999. In the past, approximately 24
Citations were presented, selected from nominations received from affiliated groups, staff and Members of Council. The
number of Citations awarded in each of the three categories listed below, would be dependent on the quality of
nominations received:
(1)Individual and Group of the Year
honouring an individual and a group who have provided outstanding volunteer service in Recreation, Parks and Culture in
the Scarborough Community Council area.
(2)Special Awards (2)
recognizing individuals or groups who have reached a milestone anniversary (30 years or more) or who have performed an
exemplary voluntary service (special event/project).
(3)Recreation Citations (20-24)
honouring individuals who, as volunteers, are giving or have given outstanding service to Recreation and/or Parks or
Culture in the Scarborough Community Council area.
It is proposed that volunteer recognition in the year 2000 be a combined event in the East District, for both the former East
York and Scarborough.
Contact Name:
Paul McNabney, Supervisor of Recreation & Facilities
Parks & Recreation - East District.Tel: 396-7810
12
Upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing
Ontario Hydro and Norstar Development Corporation
Corridor Lands South of Highway 401
Scarborough Wexford and Scarborough City Centre
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by:
(1)striking out and referring Recommendation No. (10) of the Scarborough Community Council to the Corporate
Services Committee for consideration and report thereon to the Budget Committee, for subsequent submission to Council,
viz.:
"(10)authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of priority 2 and 3 lands, identified in the report from XCG Consultants
Ltd., between west of Warden Avenue and south of Highway 401."; and
(2)adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that:
(a)the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to submit a report to the Corporate Services Committee, for
subsequent submission to the Budget Committee, on the potential cost of the acquisition of priority 1, 2 and 3 lands; and
(b)the following motion be referred to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration:
Moved by Councillor Shiner:
'That the Clause be amended by adding to Recommendation No. (10) of the Scarborough Community Council, the words
"provided that the purchase be subject to funds being available from the former Scarborough Parks Reserve and approval
from City Council", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"(10)authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of priority 2 and 3 lands, identified in the report from XCG Consultants
Ltd., between west of Warden Avenue and south of Highway 401, provided that the purchase be subject to funds being
available from the former Scarborough Parks Reserve and approval from City Council." ' ")
The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 14, 1999) from
the Director of Community Planning, East District, subject to the following amendments:
(1)that Recommendation No. (3) be struck out and the balance of the recommendations renumbered accordingly;
(2)that Recommendation No. (4) be amended to read, as follows:
"(4)instruct the City Solicitor to support single family homes and an increase in the lot depths to 38 metres (125
feet);";
(3)that Recommendation No. (6) be amended to read, as follows:
"(6)instruct the City Solicitor and staff to seek a Low Density Residential designation of the Norstar lands
permitting single family detached homes only;";
(4)that the following recommendations be added:
"(9)in the event that the acquisition of priority 1 lands, identified in the report from XCG Consultants Ltd., as
approved by City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, is not finalized, that staff be
directed to commence expropriation proceedings to acquire these lands for municipal purposes; and
(10)authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of priority 2 and 3 lands, identified in the report from XCG
Consultants Ltd., between west of Warden Avenue and south of Highway No. 401;";
so that the recommendations shall now read, as follows:
"It is recommended that City Council:
(1)instruct the City Solicitor, in the absence of an agreement for the City's acquisition of the former Ontario
Hydro corridor prior to the upcoming hearing, to submit the City's case as set out in the following
recommendations and as detailed in the report of the Director of Community Planning, East District, dated
January 14, 1999;
(2)instruct the City Solicitor and staff to seek Ontario Municipal Board approval for the alternate plans of
subdivision as described in the report of the Director of Community Planning, East District dated January 14, 1999,
and illustrated as Figures 1A, 2A and 3A;
(3)instruct the City Solicitor to support single family homes and an increase in the lot depths to 38 metres (125
feet);
(4)instruct the City Solicitor to request that the Ontario Municipal Board defer any final approval for
development on Blocks 1 to 5 inclusive shown on Figure 2, and Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, 10 and 11 shown on Figure 3 in
the report of the Director of Community Planning, East District dated January 14, 1999, until the applicant has
adequately addressed the flood line issues to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;
(5)instruct the City Solicitor and staff to seek a Low Density Residential designation of the Norstar lands
permitting single family detached homes only;
(6)authorize the City Solicitor and appropriate staff to negotiate a cost sharing arrangement with Norstar to
oversize the new sanitary sewer in Dorset Park, subject to approval of the development by the Ontario Municipal
Board, and to report further to the Works and Utilities Committee in this regard;
(7)support the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommendation that cash-in-lieu of on-site
stormwater quality enhancement measures be taken for use at the Terraview Willowfield Concept Site;
(8)instruct the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to initiate an Official Plan amendment
to extend the Environmental Impact Zone to the floodplain of the Dorset Park Tributary in all affected
communities and employment districts;
(9)in the event that the acquisition of priority 1 lands, identified in the report from XCG Consultants Ltd., as
approved by City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, is not finalized, that staff be
directed to commence expropriation proceedings to acquire these lands for municipal purposes; and
(10)authorize staff to negotiate the purchase of priority 2 and 3 lands, identified in the report from XCG
Consultants Ltd., between west of Warden Avenue and south of Highway No. 401."
Recorded Votes:
Upon the question of the adoption of staff Recommendation No. (3):
Yeas:Nil
Nays:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Faubert, Mahood, Moeser, Shaw, Tzekas -
11
Recommendation No. (3) was therefore struck out.
Upon the question of the adoption of the Recommendations, as amended:
Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Faubert, Mahood, Moeser, Shaw, Tzekas -
11
Nays:Nil
The Scarborough Community Council reports having directed:
(1)that the City Solicitor be requested to report directly to City Council on February 2, 1999, as to the status of the
negotiations currently underway, including the steps required for expropriation; and
(2)that the City Solicitor and staff of the Real Estate Division brief the Scarborough Community Council, in camera, at
its meeting scheduled to be held on February 17, 1999, as to the status of the Ontario Hydro, Graywood and Norstar
applications.
The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (January 14, 1999) from the Director of
Community Planning, East District:
Purpose:
The report recommends a City planning position to be taken for the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing respecting
the former Ontario Hydro corridor lands south of Highway 401 in Maryvale and Dorset Park Communities, which are
being purchased by Norstar Development Corporation.
Financial Implications:
Unknown at this time.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council:
(1)instruct the City Solicitor, in the absence of an agreement for the City's acquisition of the former Ontario Hydro
corridor prior to the upcoming hearing, to submit the City's case as set out in the following recommendations and as
detailed in the report of the Director of Community Planning, East District, dated January 14, 1999;
(2)instruct the City Solicitor and staff to seek Ontario Municipal Board approval for the alternate plans of subdivision as
described in the report of the Director of Community Planning, East District dated January 14, 1999 and illustrated as
Figures 1A, 2A and 3A;
(3)instruct the City Solicitor to support the alternative development proposal illustrated on Figure 1B should the Ontario
Municipal Board be prepared to consider the proposed Crocus Drive to Warden Avenue road link favourably;
(4)instruct the City Solicitor not to oppose semi-detached units on Street A in Maryvale Community, subject to a single
loading of the units on one side of Street A only, and an increase in the lot depths to 38 metres (125 feet);
(5)instruct the City Solicitor to request that the Ontario Municipal Board defer any final approval for development on
Blocks 1 to 5 inclusive shown on Figure 2, and Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, 10 and 11 shown on Figure 3 in the report of the
Director of Community Planning, East District dated January 14, 1999, until the applicant has adequately addressed the
flood line issues to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority;
(6)instruct the City Solicitor and staff to seek a Low Density Residential designation of the Norstar lands as opposed to
the Medium Density Residential designation proposed by Ontario Hydro;
(7)authorize the City Solicitor and appropriate staff to negotiate a cost sharing arrangement with Norstar to oversize the
new sanitary sewer in Dorset Park, subject to approval of the development by the Ontario Municipal Board, and to report
further to the Works and Utilities Committee in this regard;
(8)support the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority recommendation that cash-in-lieu of on-site stormwater
quality enhancement measures be taken for use at the Terraview Willowfield Concept Site; and
(9)instruct the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to initiate an Official Plan amendment to
extend the Environmental Impact Zone to the floodplain of the Dorset Park Tributary in all affected communities and
employment districts.
Background:
This report is further to Council's direction of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, that Planning staff prepare alternative plans of
subdivision for the corridor based on "comparable and compatible in-fill residential development, having regard to the unit
types, lot dimensions and area, road widths and streetscapes of the abutting quality neighbourhoods." Council on October 1
and 2, 1998 considered a similar staff report for the Graywood Investments Ltd. lands north of Highway 401, in preparation
for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on Graywood's appeals which commenced on October 5, 1998. That hearing
concluded on October 23, 1998, and a Board decision largely approving the Graywood proposals has now been issued. City
Council on December 16 and 17, 1998 authorized the City Solicitor to seek both a review of the decision by the Ontario
Municipal Board, and leave to appeal the decision to Divisional Court.
City Council on December 16 and 17, 19988 also considered a report from the Works and Emergency Services Department
and the associated recommendations of the Works and Utilities, Corporate Services and Strategic Policies and Priorities
Committees recommending that the City proceed to negotiate acquisition of certain of the former Ontario Hydro corridor
lands in L'Amoreaux and Dorset Park Communities. Council directed that the lands identified as Priority 1 for the
implementation of stormwater quantity and quality enhancements by the City's XCG Consultants Ltd. report on
opportunities for Highland Creek, which has been previously reported, be acquired. In the event that an agreement to
purchase is not in hand prior to commencement of the Ontario Hydro/Norstar hearing, this report presents alternative
development plans as directed by Council in July for presentation at the Board.
Norstar conducted Open Houses on October 26, 1998 for the Dorset Park Community and on October 27, 1998 for
residents of Maryvale, to present their plans.
Comments:
The proposed Official Plan Amendment application was submitted by Ontario Hydro, while the proposed Zoning By-law
Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications were subsequently submitted by Norstar. The Hydro application includes
lands on the west side of Kennedy Road, extending beyond the lands being purchased by Norstar. The application requests
that a Medium Density Residential designation be applied to all of the former corridor lands in Maryvale and Dorset Park,
with the exception of lands fronting the west side of Kennedy Road which are proposed for Residential/Commercial Mixed
Use.
The Official Plan for the former City of Scarborough provides for a variety of dwelling unit types under the Medium
Density Residential designation including townhouses, low-rise apartments and other such projects to a maximum height
of 4 storeys and net density of 100 units per hectare (40 units per acre), unless otherwise specified in the Secondary Plan
for the area. Single and semi-detached housing forms may also be permitted. The Hydro application does not seek greater
height or density limits, and is not specific as to the housing forms being sought.
The Official Plan states that this designation will generally be applied in areas where the slightly higher population
densities will have good accessibility to community facilities and direct accessibility to major roads and transportation
facilities. Where the designation is applied, "it is the policy of Council to promote stable residential neighbourhoods with
safe and convenient access to schools, parks and other neighbourhood facilities".
Under the Dorset Park Secondary Plan, the proposed Residential/Commercial Mixed Use designation permits
Neighbourhood Commercial, Highway Commercial and Medium Density Residential Uses, Places of Worship and
Institutional Uses which are compatible with a residential neighbourhood. This designation predominates the west side of
Kennedy Road north and south of the subject lands.
The former Hydro corridor through this area is substantially narrower than north of the 401, at 61 metres (200 feet), which
poses different design constraints than the Graywood proposals. For example, Norstar's streets are proposed largely
proposed on 16.5 metre (54 foot) road allowances. Overall, 14 single detached, 56 semi-detached and 145 townhouses are
proposed, as detailed further below. Under the Scarborough Official Plan, these uses may be provided for through either a
Low Density or Medium Density Residential designation. Since a Medium Density Residential Official Plan designation
could enable future rezonings to provide for other built forms and unit densities than are currently proposed, staff
recommend that a Low Density Residential designation only be requested from the Ontario Municipal Board if any
development of the corridor is to be approved.
Norstar's rezoning application seeks relaxation to a variety of building setback standards currently applicable to
development in the abutting neighbourhoods. Front yard setbacks are proposed to be 4.5 metres (14.8 feet), with garages
set back 5.5 metres (18 feet), compared to the standard 6 metres (20 feet) for low density residential development in
Scarborough. Front porches are proposed to be permitted up to 3 metres (10 feet) from the front lot line, whereas the usual
standard applied in Scarborough permits porches only to within 4.45 metres (14.6 feet) of the streetline. No rear yard
setback for main walls is specified, however the application proposes that rear decks may be set back 6 metres (20 feet)
from the rear lot line. The usual minimum main wall rear yard setback in Scarborough is 7.5 metres (25 feet). Planning
staff do not support reduced streetyard setbacks on Norstar's double loaded streets having reduced road allowances, given
the distinctly different streetscape that would result in comparison to neighbouring streets. Such standards are, however,
acceptable on single loaded streets with housing on one side only.
Side yard setbacks are generally proposed at 1.2 metres (4 feet) on one side and 0.6 metre (2 feet) on the other side, with
adjacent dwellings to be not less than 1.8 metres (6 feet) apart. A variety of different side yard setback standards apply to
the neighbourhoods abutting the corridor in Maryvale and Dorset Park, however these generally also achieve a 1.8 metre (6
foot) separation between dwellings. On this basis, the applicant's side yard setback proposals are therefore acceptable to
Planning staff. Flankage yard setback requirements are proposed to be 3 metres (10 feet) instead of the usual 3.6 metres
(11.8 feet) for the area. This would also be acceptable to Planning staff if no further encroachments by porches, etc. into the
flankage yard were permitted.
The following discussion reviews the Norstar proposals and alternatives proposed by Planning staff in greater detail:
Figure 1
The subject lands in the Maryvale Community comprise 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres). Norstar is proposing 10 street townhouse
units on the north side of Crocus Drive adjacent to Highway 401.
On the new Street A, as illustrated, 44 semi-detached units and 9 single detached units are proposed. The typical single
family parcel in the vicinity is 12.2 by 38 metres (40 by 125 feet), while a typical single family lot on Street A would be 11
by 22 metres (36 by 73 feet). The proposed semi-detached dwellings on Street A would be on 9.2 by 22 metre (30 by 73
foot) lots. Norstar's proposal would result in a net unit density approximately twice that of the abutting neighbourhoods.
Neighbourhood 1 of the Maryvale Community, comprising those lands north of Ellesmere to the 401, consists of 76.2
percent single family dwellings and 23.8 percent multiple and apartment units. The City's Housing Inventory indicates
there are no semi-detached or street townhouse units in the neighbourhood.
The block between Crocus Drive and Warden Avenue is proposed for 15 townhouse units. It is not clear at this time
whether the units are proposed to be developed as street townhouses with a shared or public lane, or as a block
development (i.e., condominium). The proposed parkette/walkway block configuration is not acceptable to the City. At the
open house held by Norstar, a revision to this proposal was unveiled that provides for a new road link between Crocus and
the Warden/Metropolitan intersection serving 11 street townhouse units, as shown on Figure 1B. The street would
accommodate two-way traffic for the townhouses, but would be limited at the Warden intersection to permit one-way
signalized outbound movements onto Warden only. The road allowance for this link is indicated at 15.5 metres (50.9 feet)
with a pavement width of 6 metres (19.7 feet), both of which are well below the City's usual standards.
Figures 2 and 3
Norstar is proposing 120 townhouses, 12 semi-detached units and 5 single family units on the 4.8 hectares (11.8 acres)
from Birchmount Road to east of Wye Valley Road. Street A would consist entirely of 84 townhouses. The units closest to
Birchmount Road would typically be on 175.8 square metre (1,893 square foot) "wide-shallow" parcels to enable a double
loading of lots on the new 16.5 metre (54 foot) road allowance. Further to the south-east beyond where the Dorset Park
tributary emerges into an open channel, the width of the proposed townhouse parcels, now on a single loaded street, is
reduced to 5.5 metres (18 feet) and depth increased to 33 metres (108 feet), resulting in parcels of similar area.
Street B would consist of 5 single family, 12 semi-detached and 28 townhouse units, all on 33 metre (108 foot) deep
parcels having reduced frontages. Eight street townhouses are proposed fronting onto Wye Valley Road, adjacent to the
City's stormwater management pond.
Where the proposed streets are single-loaded with development on one side only, the applicant is proposing to provide
linear park blocks adjacent to the watercourse.
Proposed elevations for the Norstar development, indicating 3 storeys for townhouse units and 2 storeys for the remainder,
are illustrated at the end of this report.
Agency Comments
Norstar has submitted 5 technical reports in support of its proposal, covering noise, geotechnical, traffic impact, functional
servicing and stormwater management. Technical and agency review is largely complete, however certain matters are
on-going as discussed further below.
With respect to roads and traffic, as indicated above there is generally technical support for the new road link to Warden
Avenue. A northbound left turn lane on Warden Avenue serving the Figure 1 proposal can be provided by modifying
existing pavement markings. Conveyance of an 8 metre (26 foot) road widening to the City across the Warden frontage
will be required to achieve a 36 metre (118 foot) road allowance in accordance with the Metropolitan and Scarborough
Official Plans. Detailed functional plans should be required from the applicant addressing access to Warden Avenue,
whether by private driveway or public road, and for the Birchmount intersection.
The City has undertaken a number of traffic counts in Maryvale Community to verify the assumptions of Norstar's traffic
consultant, BA Group. The City's traffic counts were higher than those of the consultant, and accordingly, further counts
were retaken in December 1998. Works staff confirm the volumes used in Norstar's Traffic Impact Assessment from
September, 1998 were indeed underestimated. The consultant is completing an update to the assessment based on agreed
upon volume information, however the revised results have not been received to date.
The proposed Street A in Dorset Park connects to Birchmount opposite Canadian Road, and would satisfy the distance
separation requirements from Ellesmere Road for a signal to be installed if traffic warrants are met. The applicant can be
required to determine if the warrants are met and to fund appropriate additional signal equipment and intersection
improvements as a condition of Draft Plan Approval.
Technical Services staff in Works and Emergency Services indicate that all new road allowances in this subdivision must
be a minimum of 18.5 metres (60.7 feet) in width. The proposed 16.5 metre (54 foot) width will only be acceptable if the
applicant is able to make satisfactory arrangements with the utility companies for the installation of their services. The
reduced road allowances are also acceptable from an urban design standpoint if there is "single-loading" of development on
one side of the street only. The reduced road allowance and pavement width for the proposed Crocus to Warden link
(Figure 1B) is not acceptable.
Site servicing for storm and sanitary sewage is of particular concern. Many residents abutting the corridor in Dorset Park
have complained of frequent basement dampness and flooding. There are also concerns associated with developability of
the subject lands given the potential for flooding of the Dorset Park tributary within the 1 in 100 year storm flood line
recently identified by the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and overland drainage impacts
onto abutting properties. The flood line in Dorset Park is indicated on Figure 4.
In this regard, Council on October 1 and 2, 1998 directed the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to monitor
groundwater, test water quality, monitor storm sewers to clarify storm drainage issues and perform closed circuit television
inspection of storm sewers, for further reporting in January 1999. The information reported to us by that Department is
discussed below. It should be noted that monitoring is continuing as there were no significant rain events during the
monitoring period and the findings to date reflect "dry weather" conditions only.
In response to Council's direction, six monitoring boreholes were installed in early October 1998 to evaluate surficial soils,
perched water table conditions and groundwater quality. Two each were installed in the corridor north of Wye Valley
Road, on the boulevard of Ellendale Drive north of Wye Valley, and in Maryvale on City easements adjacent to Highway
401. Water depth readings have been taken seven times weekly.
The analysis of groundwater quality revealed no detectable faecal coliform bacteria. The water chemistry analysis meets
Provincial drinking water quality objectives except for colour, dissolved solids and manganese, which do not affect water
safety. The area is serviced by municipal water service and groundwater is not being used domestically.
Closed circuit television inspection of storm sewers under Shropshire and Ellendale Drives has been completed, and only
routine maintenance issues have been found.
With regard to concerns of area residents over damp and flooded basements, the boreholes indicate there are thin
subsurface sandy lenses that may transfer locally percolated water toward the building foundation, and the soil structure
may create a "well" around the foundation. Current Building Code requirements and proper construction techniques,
combined with proper site grading and functioning foundation drains, should resolve this issue for any new development.
Monitoring is continuing in expectation of a significant rain event so that the perched water table response can be further
evaluated, however these results are not now likely until spring.
Residents have also complained of low water pressures that may be exacerbated by any new development. Works staff
advise that 11 requests to investigate low pressures have been received since 1997 from residents in Dorset Park, and 120
requests in Maryvale during the same period. Pressures were determined to range from 53 to 68 PSI in Dorset Park and 52
to 63 PSI in Maryvale, depending on location, each of which exceed design levels. The problem appears, similar to the
situation in the Wishing Well area north of Highway 401, to be one of substandard and frequently shared service between
the main and the house, with pressures reducing through age. City service is available to these residents to blow back the
service connection to restore higher flow capability.
The local sanitary sewers in Maryvale were not designed to service the subject lands, however they have adequate capacity
to accommodate the additional flows from the development. There are concerns, however, with the Massey Creek Trunk
sewer capacity, and Works staff are monitoring the sewer to identify flows and remedial actions. The applicant indicates
that additional detention capacity could be built on the Massey Creek Trunk at Lupin Drive should development of the
subject lands impact the system. If demonstrated to be necessary, the developer can be required to bear the cost of such
off-site servicing improvements as a condition of Draft Plan Approval.
The sanitary sewers in Dorset Park are theoretically surcharged. Works staff are monitoring the sewers at key locations to
suitable points for connection to the new development. Sewers may have to be constructed through lands adjacent to the
storm water pond to a location on Forbes Road to service the proposal. It is recommended that the City cost share to
oversize the sanitary sewer through the development from Forbes Road to Birchmount Road to provide additional capacity
and possible relief to the surcharged system.
With respect to storm drainage, there is some capacity in the Maryvale system. Works staff advise that all major storm
flows must be contained within the site. Predevelopment flows may continue to be discharged if it is demonstrated such
flows occur with no detrimental impact. Standard conditions of Draft Plan Approval can address these matters.
Technical Services staff advise that minor flows from Streets A and B in Dorset Park can be directed to the City's
stormwater pond, for which the applicant is proposing water quality improvements. The greater issue for residents in this
area remains the potential impact from development of the corridor on the pre-existing basement flooding problems, and
the risk of flooding associated with the Dorset Park Tributary as discussed further below.
The "Investigation of Stormwater Management, Naturalization and Open Space Opportunities" study of the West Highland
Creek by XCG Consultants Ltd. in August, 1998, concluded that all of the corridor lands in Dorset Park represent the best
opportunity to address local and downstream stormwater quantity and quality issues. Works staff advise that the corridor
should therefore be protected from any development through acquisition by the City, negotiations for which are continuing,
to provide approximately 35,000 cubic metres of additional storage. The loss of the corridor to development would
preclude such an opportunity. In the absence of further design for such improvements, however, Planning staff cannot
confirm at this time the amount of land actually required or which may otherwise ultimately be determined to be suitable
for development. Planning staff continue to feel it essential that the City present more compatible development alternatives
responding to the Norstar proposals to the Ontario Municipal Board for consideration, as directed by Council in July 1998.
Works staff also propose that the developer, at the time of registration of the plan of subdivision, provide the City with
$300.00 per fire hydrant for maintenance, $40.00 per lot for geodetic surveys and aerial mapping, and $300.00 per lot for
planting and maintenance of street trees. These are standard City conditions of Draft Plan Approval.
The TRCA supports an open space/pathway system through the Maryvale portion of the lands to provide a link to the
Terraview Willowfield (renaturalization) Concept Site. If the City supports underground superpipes for enhanced
stormwater quantity control, the Authority is satisfied. With regard to stormwater quality control, however, the Authority
recommendation is not to accept the oil and grit separators proposed by Norstar, which are of limited benefit for the type of
development proposed, but rather to implement a cash-in-lieu settlement for water quality and erosion control; the funds
from which could be used for the Terraview Willowfield site representing a greater environmental benefit to the Don
River.
The Authority also confirms that portions of the corridor in Dorset Park are within the regulatory flood plain as shown on
Figure 4 and, in accordance with Ontario Regulation 158 and TRCA policies, should not be developed upon. This includes
all of Hydro's lands west of Kennedy Road which are not included in the Norstar applications. The Authority is also
recommending an additional 10 metre (33 foot) buffer from the stable top of bank of the Dorset Park Tributary to promote
naturalization and regeneration opportunities, and a 10 metre (33 foot) structural setback from the regional flood line.
(With completion of the flood line mapping for the Dorset Park Tributary, Council may wish to direct a City-initiated
Official Plan Amendment to apply the Environmental Impact Zone, or E.I.Z., to this floodplain.)
In this regard, Works staff concur that, if Norstar's plans are considered favourably by the OMB, certain lands should be
deferred from development until the developer has adequately addressed the
flood line issues. These include Blocks 1 to 5 inclusive shown on Figure 2, and Lots 1 to 4 inclusive, 10 and 11 shown on
Figure 3. It would be appropriate to support this position at the OMB hearing.
The TRCA and the City have initiated a study into existing conditions and problems in the Highland Creek Watershed to
identify opportunities and benefits that can be achieved for the larger system. The Authority requests that development
decisions for the corridor not be made in isolation of consideration for the larger watershed. The Authority suggests that
cash-in-lieu also be taken here to help implement the results of the West Highland Creek Stormwater Management Study,
however if the developer wishes to proceed with development prior to completion of the study, retrofitting of the City's
stormwater pond is acceptable.
With respect to other agency comments, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation requires that any buildings be set back 13.7
metres (45 feet) from, and that Ministry permits are to be obtained for any buildings within 46 metres (150 feet) of, the
Highway 401 property line. They request a condition of any Draft Plan Approval that the owner submit a stormwater
management plan to the Ministry for approval, indicating the intended treatment for calculated run-off and any impact on
the highway lands. Both Norstar's and the alternative City proposals can satisfy this requirement.
The Toronto Transit Commission advises that existing bus bays on Warden Avenue and Birchmount Road may be
impacted by the development proposals. Any required relocations of bus stops can be identified prior to Final Plan
Approval and would be at the expense of the developer.
Staff of the Toronto Catholic District School Board advise that the separate schools serving the proposed development are
enrolled over capacity and could not accommodate additional students in permanent or temporary facilities. No further
detail is provided and an official response will follow the next meeting of the Board. (The Toronto District School Board
has not responded.)
Recreation and Parks staff advise, having regard to Policy 2.5.2.9 of the Official Plan with respect to Scarborough's
parkland objectives and the 1996 Census, that the 7.41 hectares (18.3 acres) of neighbourhood and community parkland in
Maryvale represents a 1.24 hectare (3 acre) surplus. In Dorset Park, the current inventory of 8.95 hectares (22.1 acres)
represents a 3.17 hectare (7.8 acre) deficit. The Department does not accept the Norstar parkland proposals as their location
and configuration do not support the City's objectives for programmable park spaces.
Given the proximity of Dorset Park north of the Norstar proposal between Birchmount Road and Kennedy Road, the
Department's preference, for ease of convenience to area residents, is to locate any new parkland in Maryvale Community,
since there is no parkland today between Highway 401, Ellesmere Road, Warden Avenue and the Warden South hydro
corridor west of the subject lands. The Department's preference is that Norstar's full parkland dedication be located at the
northern end of Street A in Maryvale, adjacent to the north leg of Crocus Drive, which is consistent with community and
Planning staff preferences set out in the June 1997 Corridor Land Use Review report. A park at this location would also
accommodate the significant grade difference between the corridor and Crocus Drive which would impact residential
development, and could be integrated with a stormwater management facility as proposed in the City's XCG report.
Norstar's 5 percent parkland dedication obligation overall is for 0.36 hectares (0.9 acres). That amount of land is best
provided in one location to facilitate recreational programming, and again, a location in Maryvale is recommended. It
should be noted, however, that if the City is successful in acquiring the Dorset Park portion of the corridor and Norstar
proceeds only develop in Maryvale, its parkland obligation would be reduced to only 0.12 hectares (0.3 acres). That small
amount of land is not suitable or efficient for park development. The City could opt for a cash-in-lieu payment, or the
parkland could be integrated with a stormwater management facility should the City negotiate acquisition of additional
lands for that purpose.
Other agencies circulated have either not responded, or have expressed no concerns except as to their usual technical
requirements.
Alternative Subdivision Proposals
As directed by Council, Planning staff have prepared alternative subdivision plans to respond to the Norstar applications.
These are set out in Figures 1A, 2A and 3A, and are discussed further below. Initially, it should be stated that the following
commentary reflects consistent professional planning opinion already submitted to, and largely rejected by, the Ontario
Municipal Board in its decision on the Graywood applications north of Highway 401. That decision remains under appeal
by the City.
The Low Density Residential land use proposed by Norstar is consistent with the staff recommendations set out in the June
1997 Hydro Corridor Land Use Review report. As with the Graywood lands, however, Planning staff are primarily
concerned with the random introduction of new unit types and relaxed development standards into the subject
communities. Staff continue to feel the Norstar proposals represent incompatible and unacceptable development given the
sensitive infill context of the lands through the interior of established and mature residential neighbourhoods. Staff also
remain cognizant of the principle frequently reiterated by the Board during the Graywood hearing that "compatible" does
not mean new development must be "identical" or even "similar" to existing development. Staff continue to firmly believe,
however, that the determination of compatibility does include some assessment of the degree of similarity and difference
between existing and new development, to ensure the best characteristics of the existing neighbourhoods are reflected and
maintained.
As was previously reported with respect to the Graywood subdivision plans, the following discussion on a block by block
basis responds to the Norstar proposals with alternatives which Planning staff feel represent more appropriate development
and better land use planning. It is essential that Council take a position on these alternative proposals for submission to the
Ontario Municipal Board, should the Board be inclined to approve development within the corridor.
Figure 1A
Part 1 of Norstar's proposal adjacent to Highway 401 proposes 10 street townhouse units. There is already a sound barrier
along the 401 so the proposed solid townhouse building massing for sound attenuation, particularly in this infill context, is
not supportable. Staff continue to feel the introduction of townhouses at this location, in a neighbourhood without any
townhouse dwelling forms, would create an unacceptable, undesirable and disruptive anomaly. A sudden change in
dwelling height would result, with the existing neighbourhood streetscape impacted by reduced building setbacks,
increased driveway frequency and building height, reduced street yard landscaping and limited on-street parking
opportunities. This block is sufficient in size to accommodate five single family dwellings on parcels comparable to the
typical lot in the area.
As discussed above, a 0.36 hectare (0.9 acre) neighbourhood park should be located on the south side of Crocus Drive,
opposite Block 1. The grade difference at this location could limit home and road construction but would not unduly affect
park design and provision of playground equipment.
For the block adjacent to the park down to the south leg of Crocus Drive, staff have the same concerns as with the
Graywood applications. The substantially reduced lot depths and area, road allowance width and building setbacks
proposed by Norstar will result in an overall built form and character of the new street that is quite dissimilar to and
incompatible with the established character of the adjoining neighbourhood. Outdoor amenity spaces will be minimized.
Street yard landscaping and on-street parking opportunities will also be diminished by the greater frequency of driveways.
Staff feel the only option would be for a single loaded cul-de-sac street pattern which would accommodate larger and
deeper lots.
This design could serve approximately 15 or 16 single family dwellings as illustrated. There is sufficient space for a 20 to
23 metre road allowance and accommodation of a pedestrian/cycling trail. This configuration would provide for a lot fabric
and built form more comparable and compatible with the abutting neighbourhood. Again, there are no semi-detached units
in this neighbourhood. While single family units may be preferable, from a planning standpoint a semi-detached building
form backing onto single units can also be argued to be compatible subject to more comparable lot sizes and frontages
being established. If that were done, the City may not wish to oppose semi-detached units on this street.
The block between Crocus Drive and Warden Avenue has sufficient frontage on Crocus to accommodate five single family
lots of similar size to the neighbourhood and to retain the existing walkway providing access to the Warden bus stop at the
Metropolitan Road intersection which the community strongly wishes retained. An approximately 0.4 hectare (1 acre)
block would remain fronting Warden that, given the staff recommendations from June 1997 and the context of this block at
the Warden/Metropolitan intersection, can accommodate a higher density, transit supportive form of development such as
townhousing or low rise multiple family development.
As discussed earlier, Norstar has proposed an alternative plan for this block which includes a new road link to Warden
Avenue serving 11 street townhouses (Figure 1B). Works and Planning staff support creation of this link, subject to
confirming design details at the intersection, a widening of the proposed road allowance and retention of the existing
walkway along the north side of the block. Such a new road link has been discussed a number of times in recent years.
There has been a long standing concern by the community that residents have experienced increasing difficulty exiting the
community via Lupin Drive and Sylla Avenue onto Warden Avenue, particularly when making northbound turns. The City,
in May 1992, received a petition from area residents requesting the City to investigate a road link over the former Hydro
lands as now proposed by Norstar.
Public reaction at Norstar's open house to the new road, however, was mixed. Staff received a number of comments that
the link should be one-way in-bound to the neighbourhood only, allow two-way movements, or be eliminated altogether. In
particular, concerns were expressed that the one-way out-bound link would only invite infiltration by Ellesmere traffic into
the neighbourhood in order to avoid the Warden/Ellesmere intersection. As there appears to be local disagreement about
the new road link, staff understand it is Norstar's intention to present both proposals as shown on Figures 1 and 1B to the
Board as options for consideration.
Planning staff have looked at the possibility of shifting the new road northerly and reducing Norstar's proposed "park"
block, resulting in a larger development block south of the new road that could perhaps accommodate a more intensive and
efficient multiple family townhouse or low rise apartment, transit supportive, development. The proposed one-way
restriction for the new road would, however, cause additional traffic loading on Crocus and other local streets. The
alternative proposal indicated on Figure 1B is therefore preferable to Planning staff.
Figures 2A and 3A
Planning staff have the same general built form and compatibility concerns with the Norstar proposals in Dorset Park as
discussed above for Maryvale. Staff are particularly concerned about the rather random mixing of unit types on Street B
behind the single family units on Ellendale Drive, and the small townhouse lot sizes east of Birchmount Road which
together would introduce a quite anomalous character to this long established neighbourhood.
In redesigning the subdivision, staff have, similar to Maryvale, provided for single loaded street with 38 metre (125 foot)
deep lots consistent with adjacent subdivisions. The road would run down the north side of the corridor to protect for
possible stormwater and renaturalization opportunities within or abutting the road allowance, should the City not acquire
the whole corridor. The proposed 16.5 metre (54 foot) wide road allowance here is acceptable subject to confirmation that
servicing can be adequately provided by the various utilities. Staff also feel the proposed plans adequately address TRCA
and Works and Emergency Services concerns respecting development in proximity to the newly delineated regional flood
line.
Single-family lots predominate the staff plan. West of Canlish Road, some abutting lots contain semi-detached units and, to
provide for some gradation in density, 6 semi-detached units could be provided. Beyond this out to Birchmount Road,
townhouses or semi-detached units may be feasible as they would abut a number of existing 4 storey apartment buildings to
the south, are separated by the City's watercourse lands from the homes on Shropshire Drive, and would provide for more
efficient and transit supportive development in accordance with Official Plan objectives.
The proposals illustrated on Figures 2A and 3A total 83 units and represent a 39.4 percent unit reduction from Norstar's
application in Dorset Park.
Conclusions:
The City is in an unusual position. Council has previously directed the acquisition of the Dorset Park portion of the
corridor for stormwater and renaturalization enhancements. Staff have not been successful in the acquisition attempt to
date. As well, the OMB decision on the Graywood lands, which may be relied on by parties at the Norstar hearing,
provides for a very narrow interpretation of "compatibility" as "the presence or absence of undue adverse impact". That
decision, again, is under appeal by the City, the outcome of which may not be available prior to commencement of the
Norstar phase of the hearing in February. The implications of any modification to the decision are therefore unknown at
this time. Lastly, as with Graywood, the City finds itself in the position of having to respond to the Norstar proposals with
alternative proposals representing better land use planning.
This will be Scarborough Community Council's last opportunity to discuss the Norstar proposals prior to the scheduled
commencement of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing February 22, 1999.
Council should, as was the case with Graywood, direct staff as to its preferred development alternatives should the Board
proceed to consider the Norstar proposals. Staff recommend the proposals set out in this report for that purpose, together
with the various conditions of any approval by the Board as detailed herein.
Contact Name:
Rod Hines, MCIP, RPP
Scarborough Civic Centre
Telephone: (416) 396-7020
Fax: (416) 396-4265
E-mail: hines@city.scarborough.on.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Insert Table/Map No. 4
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Insert Table/Map No. 5
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Insert Table/Map No. 6
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Insert Table/Map No. 7
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Insert Table/Map No. 8
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
Insert Table/Map No. 9
Proposed Plan of Subdivision
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
report (January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
This report updates Council on the status of negotiations with Norstar Development Corporation to acquire the former
Ontario Hydro Corridor lands south of Highway 401 and lying between Birchmount Road and Kennedy Road.
Financial Implications:
None.
Recommendations:
It is recommended City Council receive this report for information.
Background:
At the meeting held on January 20, 1999, Scarborough Community Council directed as follows: "that the City Solicitor be
requested to report directly to City Council on February 2, 1999, as to the status of negotiations currently underway,
including the steps required for expropriation; . . ."
Negotiations to acquire the Hydro Corridor lands identified as Priority 1 in the XCG Consultants Ltd. Report are being
conducted by staff of the Facilities and Real Estate Division of the Corporate Services Department.
Comments:
Norstar Development Corporation has contracted with Ontario Hydro to purchase the corridor lands south of Ellesmere
Road between Birchmount Road and Kennedy Roads. The entire area has been designated as Priority 1 lands in the XCG
report.
Negotiations with Norstar have for the most part have centred on a possible exchange of City-owned lands for the
corridor. Six properties were identified as being potential sites for exchange. Norstar investigated the development
potential of each and systematically discarded all but one of them for reasons ranging from location to their lack of
interest in high density residential development sites. More recently discussions have turned to a combination of money
and land, however no agreement appears imminent.
Norstar has already expended considerable time and effort to move the corridor lands towards development, whereas any
of the parcels suggested for possible exchange are essentially "raw land". The time lag in proceeding with development on
any of these properties is a major impediment in effecting a land exchange.
Without a clear indication as to which, if any, of the several sites suggested are preferred it is difficult to know whether an
equitable exchange can be achieved. The time remaining before the Ontario Municipal Board hearing, scheduled for
February, makes a land exchange prior to the hearing date almost impossible, given the procedural requirements of the
real estate disposal by-law.
Steps for Expropriation
The City of Toronto does not have the authority to expropriate from Ontario Hydro. However, the City Solicitor advises it
may be possible to expropriate Norstar's interest in the land which results from Norstar's Agreement with Ontario Hydro.
With respect to the steps required:
1.Council as an Approving Authority under the Expropriations Act, must apply to itself for "Approval to Expropriate".
2.The notice of the approval application is served on every registered owner (which includes mortgagees, lienholder,
and tenants) of the land to be expropriated and is published in a local newspaper once a week for three consecutive weeks.
3.Within 30 days of the service or publication of the notice of intent to expropriate, an owner may notify the Approving
Authority (in this case, Council) that he/she desires a hearing to determine whether the proposed expropriation is "fair,
sound, and reasonably necessary."
4.Where a request is made for a hearing, the Approving Authority refers the matter to the Chief Inquiry Officer who will
appoint an inquiry officer to conduct a hearing to determine whether the proposed taking is "fair, sound, and reasonably
necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the Expropriating Authority".
5.The Inquiry Officer's report must be considered by the Expropriating Authority (Council) which may either approve,
not approve, or approve with modifications, the proposed expropriation.
6.The Approving Authority must give written reasons for its decision and will notify all parties within 90 days after the
Inquiry Officer's report has been received. Council may then certify its approval of the proposed expropriation.
7.Within three months of approving an expropriation the Expropriating Authority must register a plan of the lands
expropriated in the Registry Office. Upon registration of the plan the land vests with the Expropriating Authority. Within
three months of the registration of the plan, the Expropriating must make an offer of immediate payment of 100% of the
value of the property as estimated by the Expropriating Authority.
Conclusion:
Not applicable.
Contact Name:
Warren Poole, Telephone No. (416) 396-7700, Fax No. (416) 396-4241,
poole@city.scarborough.on.ca)
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Corridor Lands South of Highway 401 (cont'd)
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Corridor Lands South of Highway 401
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (January 27, 1999)
from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
Scarborough Community Council at its meeting held on January 20, 1999, requested that the City Solicitor report direct to
City Council on February 2, 1999, as to the status of the negotiations currently underway, including the steps required for
expropriation.
To clarify information provided to Scarborough Community Council at its meeting with respect to expropriation of the
priority 1 lands identified in the report from XCG Consultants Ltd., in connection with Clause 12 of Report No. 1 of the
Scarborough Community Council.
Recommendations:
For information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
With respect to the status of the negotiation currently underway with Norstar Development Corporation, the City Solicitor
is not involved in the negotiations and a report will be presented to Council from the Commissioner of Corporate Services
with respect to this matter.
In deliberating the above-noted matter, Scarborough Community Council at its meeting held on January 20, 1999, was
advised that if staff were unsuccessful in acquiring the priority No. 1 lands, these lands could be expropriated.
It should be clarified that the City can expropriate lands if they are owned by a private individual or corporation. There
are legal complications arising out of the ownership of the property by Ontario Hydro and Norstar's interest therein
pursuant to an agreement of purchase and sale. As a result, the exact legal status of the lands must be ascertained at the
time of the proposed expropriation to determine the appropriate course of action.
Contact Name:
Anna Kinastowski, Director
Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law
(416) 392-0080
(416) 392-0005 (fax)
akinasto@toronto.ca)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:
(i)a flyer, entitled 'Hydro Corridor, the OMB Decision', reviewing the 45-page decision by the OMB Chair as it affects
Graywood's proposed development in Bridlewood, submitted by Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford; and.
(ii)(February 4, 1999) from Ms. Lynda Wheeler, President, Terraview-Willowfield Residents' Association.)
13
Winter Maintenance Scarborough Area
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends that City Council direct the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services to ensure that schools on interior roads in the Scarborough community be given higher
priority for snow removal.
The Scarborough Community Council reports having established a Task Force, co-chaired by Councillors Balkissoon and
Moeser, and any other members of Scarborough Community Council who wish to participate, to meet with Works and
Emergency Department staff to review the snow clearing operations in the Scarborough area, and having forwarded for
consideration of the Task Force, the following motions:
Councillor Balkissoon:
That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested:
(1)to investigate a positive reporting system and report every two months to the Scarborough Community Council on the
progress of the implementation of such a system; and
(2)to revisit the policy whereby subdivision collector roads were given snow clearing priority over internal residential
streets and report thereon to the Scarborough Community Council meeting scheduled to be held on February 17, 1999.
Councillor Cho:
That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested:
(1)to provide an alternative emergency telephone number to seniors, disabled persons and schools;
(2)to request the Parking Authority to ticket vehicles left on the street for more than twelve hours, and such vehicles be
towed after twelve hours;
(3)to report to Scarborough Community Council prior to transferring snow removal equipment, providing reasons for
such deployment; and
(4)to report to Community Council providing a definition of what constitutes a "major arterial road" with regard to snow
removal.
Councillor Shaw:
That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to consider written policies on customer service
which can be provided to contractors.
The Scarborough Community Council further reports having directed that the Chair convey to the Vice President and staff
of Clearnet, Scarborough Community Council's appreciation for volunteering their equipment and expertise to assist in the
snow emergency.
The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of City Council, the following report (January
18, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 4:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to respond to the Community Council request for a brief report regarding the snow clearing
operations of the January 2/3, 1999 snow storm in the Scarborough area.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for the information of Scarborough Community Council.
Council Reference/background/History:
At a de-briefing session held on January 5, 1999, several members of Scarborough Community Council requested a brief
report be submitted to the January 20, 1999 Scarborough Community Council meeting regarding the snow clearing
operations of the January 2/3, 1999 snow storm.
The snow storm which started on January 2 dumped approximately 39 centimetres of snow on the ground. The storm was
officially classified as a blizzard and was reported to be one of five worst snow storms to occur in Toronto since 1840.
Initial ploughing of the roads was done within 36 hours after the storm stopped at approximately noon January 3, 1999.
Further clean-up of roads, sidewalks and driveways was done on the succeeding days.
The budgeted level of service for ploughing subdivisions after the moderate snow storm is 24 hours. City crews were not
able to complete all the ploughing within 24 hours for the following reasons:
(1)the amount of snow fallen was approximately 39 centimetres, far in excess of a normal storm of 10 to 20 centimetres
for which the former City of Scarborough has equipment;
(2)the contracted equipment hired by the City had numerous breakdowns and operator no-shows;
(3)the Department's communication system did not operate properly and consequently there was a lack of
communication between City staff and contractor operators.
As a result of this storm, and a review of our operations, the following changes have been made:
(1)A new cellular telephone communication was implemented on January 8, 1999. This system, supplied by Clearnet,
allows vastly improved communication capabilities between the City and contractors and also between contractors. The
system was used in the subsequent 4 snow storms and it has worked extremely well and met all our expectations.
(2)A meeting was held with the contractors to explain our expectations and their contract obligations. One sidewalk
clearing contractor was terminated and a new contractor hired.
(3)Additional staff have been temporarily re-assigned to answer telephones, coordinate operations, and review contractor
performance during a snow storm.
Contact Name:
Gary H. Welsh
Director, Transportation Services, District 4
Telephone:396-7842
Fax:396-5681
14
Upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing
Yellow Moon Homes
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to the next meeting of the
Corporate Services Committee on a method by which the City can acquire land in such a way that a third-party outside
agent can be used to contact the owners of land in which the City is interested."
City Council at its in-camera meeting held on February 2, 1999, also issued confidential instructions to staff, such
instructions to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)
The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council adopt the Recommendations of the Scarborough
Community Council contained in the confidential communication (January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk,
respecting the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on an Appeal by Yellow Moon Homes, which was
forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
confidential reports, such reports to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act:
(i)(January 21, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding a confidential report dated January 18, 1999, from the City
Solicitor; and
(ii)(January 27, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer.)
(Councillor Kelly, at the meeting of City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing
Clause in that he owns property in the area.)
15
Other Items Considered by The Community Council
(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)Proposal by The Toronto Police Service and Local Service Groups to Create a Scarborough Community Safety
Coalition
The Scarborough Community Council reports having :
(1)received the following communication;
(2)requested that the Chair meet with members of the various groups as indicated by Constable Dwyer, to
participate in an informal discussion on this issue; and
(3)directed that the Chair request Toronto Police Service, East Command, to provide a briefing to the
Community Council on its 1999 Operating budget:
(November 27, 1998) from Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, advising Community Council of local efforts by The Toronto
Police Service and numerous community and local service groups respecting community-based safety programs.
________
Deputy Chief Robert Kerr and Constable Gerry Dwyer, The Toronto Police Service, responding to Community Council's
invitation extended from its previous meeting, appeared before The Community Council in connection with the foregoing
matter, and briefed Community Council on the various initiatives being undertaken in the community respecting safety
issues.
The Community Council also received a communication (January 19, 1999) from Mr. Milt Pearson, Co-chair, the
Scarborough Community Safety Council, which was referred to the Chair for consideration in the informal discussions to
take place.
(b)Twelve Hour Parking Limit on Red River Crescent - Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern
The Scarborough Community Council reports having:
(1)deferred the following matter, at the request of Councillor Cho, to the next scheduled meeting of Community
Council to be held on Wednesday, February 17, 1999, to be considered at 5:00 p.m.; and
(2)directed that the Director, Transportation Services, District 4, provide the policy of the former City of
Scarborough respecting parking on residential streets:
(December 18, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it Clause
No. 5 embodied in Report No. 12 of The Scarborough Community Council, headed: "Twelve Hour Parking Limit on Red
River Crescent, Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern" and directed that this Clause be struck out and referred back to The
Scarborough Community Council for further consideration.
(c)Derelict Building - North-East Corner of Brimley Road and Sheppard Avenue East Ward 18 - Scarborough
Malvern
The Scarborough Community Council reports having:
(1)deferred the following report, at the request of Councillor Balkissoon, to the next scheduled meeting of
Community Council to be held on Wednesday, February 17, 1999;
(2)requested that the City Solicitor, the Director of Planning, East District, and the Director and Deputy Chief
Building Official and any other staff, as appropriate, report at that time with affirmative action that the
Community Council can take to facilitate the completion or demolition of this building;
(3)requested that the City Solicitor investigate the ownership of this building and report accordingly to
Community Council on February 17, 1999; and
(4)requested that the owners be invited to attend the Community Council meeting:
(December 23, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Officer, responding to Community Council's request
that staff report on the condition of the subject building with a view to issuing a demolition order, and recommending that
this report be received for information.
(d)Preliminary Evaluation Report, Official Plan Amendment Application SP1998018, Zoning By-law Amendment
Application SZ1998036, Site Plan Control Application SS1998095, George and Cindy Samonas, 3291 Kingston
Road, Scarborough Village Community, Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs
The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report, subject to the following
amendments:
(1)that the circulation be expanded to include both sides of Windy Ridge Drive and Whitecap Boulevard; and
(2)that the Commissioner, Community and Neighbourhood Services, be requested to report on the financial
viability and demand for day care services at this location:
(December 13, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council
convene a Public Meeting to consider these applications, targeted for the second quarter of 1999; Notice of the Public
Meeting to be provided to all assessed persons within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property, and any Community
Associations in the area.
________
Mr. George Samonas, the applicant, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter, and
indicated concurrence in the staff recommendation, including the proposed amendment.
The Community Council received a written submission respecting this matter from Mr. Ira T. Kagan, Solicitor, on behalf
of the applicant, expressing support for the staff recommendations, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk.
(e)Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ1998038, Rowbry Holdings
Limited, 925 Warden Avenue, Golden Mile Employment District, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford
The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:
(December 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council
convene a Public Meeting to consider this application, targeted for the second quarter of 1999; Notice of the Public
Meeting to be provided to all assessed persons within 120 metres (400 feet) of the property, subject to the applicant filing a
formal Site Plan Control application for the proposed development.
(f)Preliminary Evaluation Report, Official Plan Amendment Application SP1998020, Zoning By-law Amendment
Application SZ1998039, Consent Application SB1998092, Masaryk Memorial Institute Incorporated, 450
Scarborough Golf Club Road, Woburn Community, Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:
(January 7, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that these applications be
processed in the normal manner, and that the Community Council convene a Public Meeting, targeted for the second
quarter of 1999, subject to:
(1)the applicant submitting a Site Plan Control Application to be reviewed by the Director of Community Planning, East
District;
(2)the applicant submitting Geotechnical and Servicing/Stormwater Management Reports, addressing the
suitability/feasibility of the development adjacent to the top-of-bank; and
(3)notice of the Public Meeting being provided to all property owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject
property.
(g)New Applications - All Scarborough Wards
The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:
(January 6, 1999) advising Community Council of the new applications received during the six-week period ending
December 30, 1998, and recommending that this report be received for information.
(h)Site Plan Control Approvals - All Scarborough Wards
The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:
(December 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the Site
Plan Control Approvals granted by the Director, and recommending that this report be received for information.
(i)Ontario Municipal Board Hearings - All Scarborough Wards
The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:
(January 6, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the status of
current appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board, and recommending that this report be received for information.
(j)Consent Applications - All Scarborough Wards
The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:
(January 4, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the Consent
Decisions granted by the Director, and recommending that this report be received for information.
(k)Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy
The Scarborough Community Council reports having:
(a)received the following communication from the City Clerk; and
(b)directed that the Works and Utilities Committee be advised that the Scarborough Community Council concurs
in the Works and Utilities Committee recommendations to City Council embodied in Clause 2 of Report No. 10,
including the Motion by Councillor Walker, viz:
"That Recommendation No. 2(d) be amended by deleting the words "one time only" and inserting in lieu thereof
the words "one time per three-year period.":
(December 11, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that City Council, at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27,
1998, struck out and referred Clause No. 2, Report No. 10 of The Works and Utilities Committee to all Community
Councils with the request that recommendations on the Repair Program and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy be
forwarded to The Works and Utilities Committee.
(l)Property Acquisition request from L.A.C.A.C., W. J. Morrish Store, North-east Corner of Meadowvale Road
and Kingston Road, Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek
The Scarborough Community Council report having deferred the following communication to the next scheduled
meeting to be held on Wednesday, February 17, 1999, at the request of Councillor Moeser, and directed that Mr.
Richard Schofield be invited to attend:
(January 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, responding to the request by L.A.C.A.C. that the City
consider the acquisition and preservation of the W. J. Morrish Store, and recommending that this report be received for
information.
Respectfully submitted,
LORENZO BERARDINETTI
Chair
Toronto, January 20, 1999
(Report No. 1 of The Scarborough Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City
Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)
