TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999
NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 3
1 Community Festival Event - Canadian Council of South Africans -
South African Freedom Day and Beer Garden - April 25, 1999 -
Mel Lastman Square - North York Centre
2 Community Festival Event - Armenian Community Centre -
Summer Fest 1999 - 45 Hallcrown Place -
Seneca Heights
3 Variance from Swimming Pool Enclosure Requirement -
16 Wellesbourne Crescent - Seneca Heights
4 Request for Exemption to Noise By-law - SNC Lavalin -
Highway 401 Westbound Core Lanes Rehabilitation -
Hoggs Hollow to Allen Road -
North York Centre South and North York Spadina
5 Request for Exemption to Noise By-law - Construction Noise -
Toronto Transit Commission - Sheppard Subway -
North York Centre and Seneca Heights
6 School Bus Loading Zone - Muirhead Road - Seneca Heights
7 Parking Prohibitions - Weetwood Street - North York Centre South
8 Parking Prohibitions - Caldy Court - North York Centre South
9 Parking Prohibitions - Glazebrook Avenue - North York Centre South
10 Parking Prohibitions - Holmes Avenue - North York Centre
11 Parking Prohibitions - Church Avenue - North York Centre
12 All Way Stop Control - Empress Avenue at Dudley Avenue -
North York Centre
13 Traffic Operations - Torresdale Avenue (North Section) -
North York Spadina
14 All Way Stop Control - Wimpole Drive at Gerald Street -
North York Centre South
15 Boulevard Leasing Café - The Friendly Greek Restaurant -
4695 Yonge Street - North York Centre
16 Temporary Road Closure - Baycrest Avenue -
North York Centre South
17 Parking Prohibitions - Beecroft Road, Bogert Avenue,
Elmhurst Avenue, Doris Avenue and Greenfield Avenue -
North York Centre
18 Intersection Improvements - Caldy Court and Fifeshire Road -
North York Centre South
19 Parking Prohibitions - Kenneth Avenue - North York Centre
20 Special Occasion Beer Garden Permits for Community Events -
North York Humber, Black Creek and North York Centre
21 Application for Part Lot Control Exemption UD54-99-01-REL -
1116199 Ontario Limited - 20-22 Hearne Avenue -
North York Humber
22 Principles of Development Report - Official Plan and
Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-95-19 and Plan of
Subdivision UDSB-1224 - Greatwise Developments Corporation -
305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue -
North York Centre
23 Sign By-law Variance Request - Billboard Roof Sign -
Raffaella Russo - 373 Wilson Avenue - North York Centre South
24 Appeal of Street Vending Permit Application No. 109 -
Fatemeh Sorghans -
South Side of Godstone Road, East of Don Mills Road -
Seneca Heights
25 Fence By-law Variance Request - 219 Ruth Avenue -
North York Centre
26 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-16 -
Rocco Grossi - 1 Upwood Avenue - North York Humber
27 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-26 -
Esfandiar Aghaei - 162 Finch Avenue East -
North York Centre
28 Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-27 -
Esfandiar Aghaei - 204 Finch Avenue East -
North York Centre
29 Encroachment - 22 Alexandra Wood - North York Centre South
30 Adult Entertainment Parlours
31 Other Items Considered by the Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 3
OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on March 30, 1999,
submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999
1
Community Festival Event - Canadian Council of South Africans -
South African Freedom Day and Beer Garden - April 25, 1999 -
Mel Lastman Square - North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the South African Freedom Day and Beer Garden being
held by the Canadian Council of South Africans, be declared a community festival event.
The North York Community Council submits the following memorandum (March 4, 1999) from the Director of
Special Events, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
On April 25, 1999, there will be a festival celebrating South African Freedom Day highlighting cultural activities on Mel
Lastman Square. The Special Events Office has approved the event and is aware of the organization's intentions of
obtaining a Special Occasions Permit to sell beer on Mel Lastman Square.
The Special Events Office has met with the organizing committee and is satisfied that the event will be produced in a
professional manner and will be very successful. I respectfully submit this memorandum requesting your approval.
2
Community Festival Event - Armenian Community Centre -
Summer Fest 1999 - 45 Hallcrown Place -
Seneca Heights
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the Summer Fest 1999 being held by the Armenian
Community Centre, be declared a community festival event.
The North York Community Council submits the following communication (February 16, 1999) from Mr. Ani
Tuysusian, Manager, Armenian Community Centre:
This letter is to advise you of our intention to apply for a liquor license to be utilized at our outdoor function.
1. Dates
Friday, July 09, 1999 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Saturday, July 10, 1999 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Sunday, July 11, 1999 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Saturday, July 17, 1999 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
2. Location
Armenian Community Centre 45 Hallcrown Place, North York, Ontario. The function will be held in our parking lot
located on the west side of our building. The parking lot will be covered with two large tents approximate measurements
are as follows 30 x 80 feet and 80 x 180 feet. The tent to be installed by a professional company appropriate permits to be
obtained by the contractor.
3. Nature of event
3rd annual summer festival. We will be serving food and liquor. The event will be open to the public. Expected attendance
over the four days 4500 people.
4. Parking
We will have ample parking space at two parking lots located on Hallcrown Place.
Trust this meets with your requirements. If you have any questions regarding the above please do not hesitate to call Mr.
Jack Tchakmak at 416-292-2020 or 416-565-8021.
3
Variance from Swimming Pool Enclosure Requirement -
16 Wellesbourne Crescent - Seneca Heights
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 5, 1999) from the
District Manager, North, Municipal Licensing and Standards and Court Services, Urban Planning and
Development Services:
Purpose:
To address request for variance (January 7, 1998) in connection with the location of a swimming pool enclosure.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable
Recommendation:
This report be received and adopted, subject to compliance with all other provisions of By-Law No. 30901, as amended.
Council Reference:
To date, the swimming pool enclosure has not been moved. However, we do have a commitment on the part of the owner
to proceed with the relocation of the fence, to eliminate an encroachment problem, to the location which would require a
variance, and rectify some minor deficiencies in the Spring.
The relocation of the fence onto the rear property line will result in the fence being 3.30 feet (1.005m) from the edge of the
water in the pool , whereas the by-law requires 4 feet (1.2m).
Accordingly, if this variance is granted, this Division will re-inspect the premises in the Spring to ensure compliance.
Reviewed by: James Ridge, Executive Director
Municipal Licensing and Standards - UPDS
Tel: 397-4634
The North York Community Council also submits the following report (January 22, 1999) from the Commissioner,
Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To address request for variance (January 7, 1998) in connection with the location of an existing swimming pool enclosure
used to enclose a swimming pool on the subject property.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
This report be received for information.
Council Reference:
Municipal Standards staff have attended the property on several occasions to resolve varying deficiencies.
An inspection December 15, 1998 revealed that the enclosure on which the variance was requested is now in compliance.
Accordingly, the variance is no longer required.
Contact name: Donna Perrin, North District Manager
Municipal Standards and Court Services
395-7020
4
Request for Exemption to Noise By-law - SNC Lavalin -
Highway 401 Westbound Core Lanes Rehabilitation -
Hoggs Hollow to Allen Road -
North York Centre South and North York Spadina
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 1, 1999) from the
District Manager, North, Municipal Standards and Court Services, provided that in the event the City receives
construction noise complaints, the complaints be referred to the District Manager, North, Municipal Standards and
Court Services, who after consultation with Councillor Berger, Councillor Flint, Councillor Feldman and
Councillor Moscoe, will be authorized to negotiate noise mitigation with the M.T.O. or rescind the exemption from
the Noise By-law as may be required:
Purpose:
To report on an application received from SNC Lavalin Engineers and Contractors Inc., Mr. Ronald J. Williams, Manager,
Highway Engineering and Transportation Structures requesting an exemption to North York Noise By-law No. 31317, as
amended.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications to the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request for an exemption to the North York Noise By-law No. 31317, be approved.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Noise By-law No. 31317 on October 17, 1990, being a by-law to ensure an
environment free from unusual, unnecessary, or excessive sound or vibration which may degrade the quality and
tranquillity of life or cause nuisance.
Discussion:
The rehabilitation work is being conducted by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario and will affect the operation of
Bathurst Street within the former City of North York. The prestressed box beams in the northern extension of the structure
carrying the highway (401) over Bathurst Street must be replaced. The work will involve removal of the existing box
beams and the installation of new box beams. To complete this component of the contract, full closure of Bathurst Street is
required in the vicinity of the bridge.
The contractor has advised that approval has been obtained for the full closure of Bathurst Street. The permitted hours of
full closure for the section of Bathurst Street in question are 12 midnight to 6:00 a.m., on weekends only.
The applicant submits that the exemption is required to ensure the safety of traffic on Bathurst Street and to complete the
work in the most efficient and cost effective manner possible, while maintaining adequate traffic flow.
Section 3 of North York Noise By-law No. 31317 states:
"Prohibition by Time and Place
No person shall emit or cause or permit the emission of sound resulting from any act listed in Schedule "B" hereto if
clearly audible at a point of reception located in an area of the municipality within a prohibited time shown for such an
area."
The operation of any construction equipment is prohibited as follows:
A. All day Sundays and Statutory Holidays
B. 7:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. next day.
Conclusions:
It is recommended that the request for an exemption from the North York Noise By-law No. 31317, to permit construction
equipment to operate as requested be approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the request for an exemption from the North York Noise By-Law be approved for the time period required to
complete the specified work, between May and July 1999, and in the time period 12:00 midnight to 6:00 a.m. on weekends
only; and
(2) that in the event the City receives construction noise complaints, they are to be referred to the Ministry of
Transportation of Ontario for investigation and the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario investigate the complaint and
consider potential construction noise mitigation for the activity conducted by their contractor(s).
Reviewed by: James Ridge, Executive Director
Municipal Licensing and Standards - UPDS
Tel: 397-4634
5
Request for Exemption to Noise By-law - Construction Noise -
Toronto Transit Commission - Sheppard Subway -
North York Centre and Seneca Heights
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 5, 1999) from the
District Manager, North, Municipal Licensing and Standards and Court Services, Urban Planning and
Development Services, with the provision that the Local Councillors be notified by the Toronto Transit
Commission, a minimum of one month prior to commencement of any proposed night work:
Purpose:
To report on an application (February 8, 1999) received from the Toronto Transit Commission requesting an exemption to
North York Noise By-Law No. 31317, as amended.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request for an exemption to the North York Noise By-Law No. 31317, be approved.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Noise By-Law No. 31317 on October 17, 1990, being a by-law to ensure an
environment free from unusual, unnecessary, or excessive sound or vibration which may degrade the quality and tranquility
of life or cause nuisance. On October 1 and 2, 1998, Council granted a further six-month extension to the original
six-month noise exemption to the TTC for the purpose of subway construction. The original noise exemption was granted
on February 21, 1996.
During 1999, overnight work will be required at several sites, including the tunneling operation between Leslie Street and
Don Mills Road. Night work is typically required for major utility relocations or decking installation. These often require
major road lane reductions which are not acceptable during the day due to the severe traffic impact. Some night work may
also be required to achieve project milestones to ensure construction is completed on time to open the subway in 2002
(particularly at Yonge Station).
Typically, work conducted after 10 p.m. are those activities which are not expected to disturb local residents. They will
also continue to be pro-active in contacting Police, Municipal Licensing and Standards and the relevant City Councillors in
advance of any night work, and in providing a justification for such work.
In view of their responsible management of construction to date, and project schedule constraints, they respectfully request
a six-month extension of the noise by-law exemption.
Discussion:
As part of the Rapid Transit Expansion Program, the TTC is proceeding with the construction of the Sheppard Subway. By
way of a letter dated February 8, 1999, the TTC is requesting a further exemption from the North York Construction
By-Law. Previously, tunneling for the subway was conducted during the week from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. The TTC
advises that upcoming work will also be required during the evening, nights and on weekends for the construction of the
Yonge Station and other locations. Work conducted after 10:00 p.m. is not expected to disturb local residents.
Section 3 of North York Noise By-Law No. 31317, states:
"Prohibition by Time and Place
No person shall emit or cause or permit the emission of sound resulting from any act listed in Schedule "B" hereto if
clearly audible at a point of reception located in an area of the municipality within a prohibited time shown for such an
area."
The operation of any construction equipment is prohibited as follows:
A. All day Sundays and Statutory Holidays
B. 7:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. next day.
Conclusions:
It is recommended that the request for an exemption from North York Noise By-Law #31317, to permit construction
equipment to operate as requested be approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the request for an exemption from the North York Noise By-Law be approved for a time period not to exceed six
(6) months; and
(2) that in the event the City receives construction noise complaints, they are to be referred to the Toronto Transit
Commission for investigation and the Toronto Transit Commission investigate the complaint and consider potential
construction noise mitigation for the activity conducted by their contractor(s).
Reviewed by: James Ridge, Executive Director
Municipal Licensing and Standards - UPDS
Tel: 397-4634
6
School Bus Loading Zone - Muirhead Road - Seneca Heights
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 2, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To relocate the existing school bus loading zone on Muirhead Road, adjacent to Muirhead Public School.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the relocation of the school bus loading zone are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That By-law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the school bus loading zone from its
existing location to the east side of Muirhead Road, between a point 107 metres north of Old Sheppard Avenue and a point
27 metres northerly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The North York Community Council on January 20, 1999, had before it a report, dated January 6, 1999, from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3, recommending that By-law No. 32759 of the former City of North York, be amended to
relocate the existing school bus loading zone on the east side of Muirhead Road.
The report was deferred and the Director was requested to further report on what impact the relocated loading zone would
have on the driveway access to the Muirhead Public School.
Staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department were requested by Mr.
Bill Nicholson, Principal, Muirhead Public School, to consider the relocation of the school bus loading zone adjacent to the
school, north of its existing location. Mr. Nicholson had advised that, due to the location of the loading zone and the
walkway from the school to Muirhead Road, students were crossing the roadway from between parked buses.
Transportation Services Division staff confirmed the concerns of Mr. Nicholson and supported the relocation of the
loading zone.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The relocated school bus loading zone would be located 16 metres south of the driveway to the Muirhead Public school.
This distance is appropriate to ensure that while exiting from the school driveway drivers would have sufficient lines to
observe northbound and southbound vehicles approaching the driveway.
Conclusions:
This division would support the relocation of the school bus loading zone on the east side of Muirhead Road. As it would
not create an impediment to motorists exiting from the driveway to the Muirhead Public School and it would increase the
visibility of students crossing Muirhead Road.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
The North York Community Council also submits the following report (January 6, 1999) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To relocate the existing school bus loading zone on Muirhead Road, adjacent to the Muirhead Public School.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the relocation of the school bus loading zone are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That By-Law No. 32759, of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the school bus loading zone from its
existing location to the east side of Muirhead Road, between a point 107 metres north of Old Sheppard Avenue and a point
27 metres northerly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, the school bus loading zone on the east side of Muirhead Road, adjacent to Muirhead Public School, extends
between a point 47.5 metres north of Old Sheppard Avenue to a point 61 metres northerly thereof.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department were contacted by Mr. Bill
Nicholson, Principal, Muirhead Public School, regarding the safety of the students when crossing Muirhead Road. Mr.
Nicholson advised that due to the present location of the school bus loading zone and the walkway from the school to
Muirhead Road, students are crossing the roadway from between parked buses. It is Mr. Nicholson's opinion that should
the school bus loading zone be relocated that the safety of students would be increased.
Observations by staff have confirmed that the established student crossing area is within the existing limits of the school
bus loading zone.
Conclusions:
As student crossing patterns have been well established, to improve the level of safety this division would support the
relocation of the school bus loading zone on the east side of Muirhead Road.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager of Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
7
Parking Prohibitions - Weetwood Street - North York Centre South
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and recommended that no action
be taken at this time:
Purpose:
To install parking prohibitions on Weetwood Street, north of Old Orchard Grove.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendation:
To amend Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit parking between 8:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on both sides of Weetwood Street, for it's entire length.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Councillor Milton Berger has advised that residents of Weetwood Street have requested the installation of parking
prohibitions on both sides of the roadway. The local residents have advised that motorists associated with commercial
properties on Avenue Road park their vehicles daily on Weetwood Street.
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on Weetwood Street.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
As a result of an investigation by staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services
Department, the residents' concerns have been confirmed as several vehicles were parked on Weetwood Street. A review of
the location files has revealed that there have been several previous requests for enforcement of the three hour parking
limit. Based on the continued complaints, it would appear that enforcement alone has been ineffective in reducing the level
of on street parking.
Conclusions:
The Transportation Services Division supports amending the parking restrictions, as per the residents' request.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
8
Parking Prohibitions - Caldy Court - North York Centre South
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To amend the parking restrictions on the west side of Caldy Court.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1) that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at anytime
on the west side of Caldy Court, from the southerly limit of Fifeshire Road to a point 60 metres southerly thereof; and
(2) that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking between
2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. on the west side of Caldy Court, from a point 60 metres south of the southerly limit of Fifeshire
Road to the southerly limit of Caldy Court.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited at anytime on the entire east side of Caldy Court and on the west side from the southerly
limit of Fifeshire Road to a point 30 metres south.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The residents of Caldy Court have requested that the current parking restrictions on the west side of the roadway be
amended to prohibit parking at anytime from the southerly limit of Fifeshire Road to a point 60 metres southerly thereof
and prohibit parking between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. from a point 60 south of Fifeshire Road to the southerly
limit of Caldy Court, to discourage the overnight parking by tenants from the nearby apartment buildings.
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department can support the residents' concerns
as numerous requests for enforcement have been made to the Toronto Police Services.
The installation of the parking restrictions will not adversely impact other local roadways.
Conclusions:
This Division supports amending the parking restrictions, as requested by the residents of Caldy Court.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
9
Parking Prohibitions - Glazebrook Avenue - North York Centre South
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To amend the parking restrictions on both sides of Glazebrook Avenue.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1) that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking from 10:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south side of Glazebrook Avenue, from a point 45.75 metres east of the
easterly limit of Glenavy Avenue to the westerly limit of Bayview Avenue; and
(2) that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking from 10:00
a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Glazebrook Avenue, from a point 30.5 metres east of the easterly
limit of Glenavy Avenue to the westerly limit of Bayview Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the south and north sides of Glazebrook Avenue
from a point approximately 30.5 metres east of Glenavy Avenue to the westerly limit of Bayview Avenue. To the west of a
point approximately 30.5 metres east of Glenavy Avenue, parking is prohibited at anytime on the south and north sides of
Glazebrook Avenue.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The residents residing on the north side of Glazebrook Avenue, have submitted a petition to Councillor Joanne Flint
requesting that parking be prohibited on both sides of the roadway, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.
Local residents have advised that commuters and employees of the area businesses are parking their vehicles on both sides
of the roadway, for extended periods of time, thereby reducing access to their driveways and restricting two way traffic.
Enforcement of the three hour parking limit has been requested on several occasions, with little to no effect in reducing the
abusive parking practices.
Councillor Joanne Flint has reviewed the residents' concerns and, as such, has requested that the Transportation Services
Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department implement the parking amendments.
Conclusions:
The Transportation Services Division supports amending the parking restrictions, as per the residents' request.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
10
Parking Prohibitions - Holmes Avenue - North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To amend the parking restrictions on both sides of Holmes Avenue, from Dudley to Willowdale Avenues.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1) that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at anytime
on the south side of Holmes Avenue, from the easterly limit of Dudley Avenue to the westerly limit of Willowdale
Avenue; and
(2) that Schedule X of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to restrict parking for periods of
up to a maximum of 60 minutes, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m, Monday to Friday, on the north side of Holmes Avenue,
from the easterly limit of Dudley Avenue to the westerly limit of Willowdale Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Parking is currently permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Holmes Avenue between Dudley
Avenue and Willowdale Avenue.
Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of Holmes Avenue, from Yonge Street to Dudley Avenue. Parking is
also prohibited on the north side between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from Yonge Street to Kenneth
Avenue and permitted for up to a maximum of 60 minutes between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from
Kenneth Avenue to Dudley Avenue.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has been requested by the
residents of Holmes Avenue to amend the parking restrictions on both sides of the roadway, east of Dudley Avenue, to
discourage long term on street parking.
Staff of the Transportation Services Division have observed several vehicles parked on Holmes Avenue, east of Dudley
Avenue, and as such, enforcement of the three hour parking limit was requested. Despite ongoing enforcement, current
parking behaviors have not changed.
Councillor Filion has surveyed the residents and has obtained their concurrence to implement the above parking
amendments as recommended by this division. Furthermore, Councillor Gardner has provided his concurrence with the
above recommendation.
Conclusions:
This division supports amending the parking restrictions as per the residents' request.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
11
Parking Prohibitions - Church Avenue - North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 2, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To restrict parking on the south side of Church Avenue, from Kenneth Avenue to a point 45 metres easterly thereof.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at anytime on
the south side of Church Avenue, from the easterly limit of Kenneth Avenue to a point 45 metres easterly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Councillor Filion's office has been advised by a resident of Church Avenue that for convenience purposes, individuals
destined to Mitchell Field are consistently parking on the south side of Church Avenue, as an alternative to utilizing the
existing parking facility provided at the community centre.
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the south side of Church Avenue and prohibited at
anytime on the north side.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
As a result of an investigation by staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services
Department, the residents' concerns have been confirmed as several vehicles were parked on Church Avenue. Furthermore,
should vehicles continue to park on the south side of the roadway, west of the driveway access to the Mitchell Field
parking lot, motorists sightlines when exiting the driveway would be obstructed.
Based on the continued complaints, it would appear that enforcement alone has been ineffective in reducing the level of on
street parking. Both Councillor Gardner and Councillor Filion support the parking prohibitions.
Conclusions:
The Transportation Services Division supports amending the parking restrictions, as per the residents' request.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
12
All Way Stop Control - Empress Avenue at Dudley Avenue -
North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 22, 1999) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control at the intersection of Empress Avenue at Dudley Avenue.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendations:
That Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to
stop on all approaches to the intersection of Empress Avenue and Dudley Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Empress Avenue Traffic Calming Work Group requested that staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and
Emergency Services Department investigate the feasibility of installing an all way stop control at the intersection of
Empress Avenue and Dudley Avenue.
Currently, southbound and northbound traffic on Dudley Avenue is required to stop at Empress Avenue. Traffic on
Empress Avenue is required to stop one block to the west at Kenneth Avenue and one block to the east at Willowdale
Avenue. Earl Haig Secondary School is located on the south side of Empress Avenue between Kenneth and Dudley
Avenues.
A historical review of the intersection has indicated that previous all way stop studies have been conducted, during which
the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control were not satisfied.
Discussion:
The results of the most recent all way stop study identified an increase in the overall intersection pedestrian and vehicle
traffic volumes, from those recorded during previous studies. This increase resulted in the technical warrants for the
installation of an all way stop control being satisfied. This increase in traffic can be attributed to the reorientation of the
school. The principal accesses to the school are now located on Dudley Avenue and Kenneth Avenue.
Conclusions:
Staff of this division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Empress Avenue and Dudley
Avenue as it would provide additional protection for motorists and pedestrians.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager of Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482(facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)
13
Traffic Operations - Torresdale Avenue (North Section) -
North York Spadina
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended the recommendation of the North York Community Council by
deleting the words "Torresdale Road" and "Rusfax Road" and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Torresdale Avenue" and
"Russfax Drive", respectively, so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 23, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3, subject to Recommendation No. (6) being amended to read as follows:
'(6) an all way stop control be installed at the intersection of Torresdale Avenue and Russfax Drive.' ")
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 23, 1999) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, subject to recommendation (6) being amended to read as follows:
"(6) an all way stop control be installed at the intersection of Torresdale Road and Rusfax Road."
The North York Community Council submits the following report (February 23, 1999) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To provide recommendations for improvements to traffic operational concerns within the Torresdale Avenue (North
Section) residential community.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of improvements are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) westbound right turn, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and southbound left turn, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.,
Monday to Friday, turn restrictions be implemented at the Fisherville Road/Hidden Trail intersection, subject to the support
of the majority of the affected residents, for a six month trail period. At the end of the trial period, staff of the
Transportation Services Division should report on the impacts;
(2) the existing "No Entry" restriction on Fisherville Road, west of Carpenter Road, be replaced with northbound left,
westbound through and southbound right turn, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, restrictions;
(3) northbound and southbound through restrictions, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, be implemented at the
Steeles Avenue West/Torresdale Avenue intersection, for a six month trial period. At the completion of the trial period,
staff of the Transportation Services Division, report on the impacts of the restrictions;
(4) dual northbound left turns not be considered at the Bathurst Street/Steeles Avenue west intersection, due to right of way
constraints;
(5) westbound right turn restrictions from Antibes Drive (north leg), Rockford Road and Cedarcroft Boulevard to
Torresdale Avenue, not be installed; and
(6) an all way stop control, which was warranted to the extent of 7 percent, not be installed at the intersection of Torresdale
Road and Rusfax Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, as well as the Transportation
Department for the former City of North York, undertook numerous investigations to address the residents concerns for the
heavy volume of traffic and excessive rate of speed on the north section of Torresdale Avenue.
The results of previous origin/destination studies have confirmed that approximately 20 percent of the traffic traveling
northbound or southbound on Torresdale Avenue, during the a.m. or p.m. peak hours, can be considered as transient to the
greater community. This does, however, indicate that the majority of the traffic is local in nature.
Historical vehicle speed studies concluded that motorists were traveling at excessive rates of speed. In this regard, the
Toronto Police Services were requested to provide radar enforcement.
In 1997, in an attempt to alleviate the residents concerns, the Council of the former City of North York approved the
installation of temporary traffic calming measures on Torresdale Avenue, between Fisherville Road and Rockford Road.
The temporary measures involved the installation of concrete curb stones and pavement markings (pinch points and
chicanes) to reduce the overall pavement width from 8.5 metres to 6.0 metres.
Although a preliminary review of vehicle speeds, subsequent to the installation of the temporary measures, indicated a
slight reduction in the rate of speed of motor vehicles, the local residents were not satisfied with the level of improvement
that the traffic calming measures provided. As a result of the complaints, which included restricted access to driveways and
the unsightly nature of the temporary traffic calming measures, minor modifications were implemented. Further vehicle
speed studies continued to identify an overall reduction in operating speeds, however, residents remained in opposition to
the temporary measures. As a result of the continued complaints, local residents submitted a petition to the local
Councillor's office requesting their removal. The temporary measures were removed in September of 1997.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Notwithstanding the above, the local residents continue to voice their concern for the existing traffic operations on the
north section of Torresdale Avenue. Accordingly, staff of the Transportation Services Division was once again requested
by the Torresdale Avenue Traffic Calming Committee to further review several traffic related issues. The following is a list
of the initiatives that were proposed by the Torresdale Avenue Traffic Calming Committee:
- the Toronto Police Services be requested to enforce the regulatory speed limit on Torresdale Avenue and the motorists
lack of compliance to the stop controls at various intersections along Torresdale Avenue;
- the feasibility of installing an all way stop control at the intersection of Torresdale Avenue and Russfax Drive;
- the implementation of a series of internal turn restrictions along Torresdale Avenue and at the intersection of
Fisherville Road and Hidden Trail;
- the replacement of the existing entry restriction on Fisherville Road, west of Carpenter Road, with a westbound
through, southbound right and a northbound left turn restriction;
- that traffic restrictions/movements at the intersection of Steeles Avenue West and Torresdale Avenue be amended by
installing a northbound through restriction, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., and extend the existing eastbound right turn
restriction and southbound through restriction, presently from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., to 6:00 p.m.;
- that the signal timing on Bathurst Street, from Finch Avenue West to Steeles Avenue West, be modified to improve
southbound traffic progression in the a.m. peak traffic period and northbound in the p.m. period;
- investigate the installation of dual northbound left turn lanes on Bathurst Street at Steeles Avenue West; and
- consider the installation of the SCOOT traffic control signal system on both Bathurst Street and Steeles Avenue West.
Vehicle Speeds:
Twenty four hour vehicle speed studies were conducted on several roadways throughout the community in an effort to
determine which locations would require the attention of limited police resources.
The results of the speed studies, which were conducted on Fisherville Road, Rockford Road, Torresdale Avenue,
Cedarcroft Boulevard, Robingrove Road and Antibes Drive, concluded that the area of concern was Torresdale Avenue,
between Rockford Road and Fisherville Road, where 85th percentile speeds of up to 58 km/h were achieved within the
posted 40 km/h zone. To address this situation, the Toronto Police Services have been requested to provided the necessary
enforcement.
Vehicle Volumes:
The following table details existing and historical traffic volumes on Fisherville Road, Rockford Road and Torresdale
Avenue. Considering the total number of residential properties within the community bounded by Steeles Avenue West to
the north, Bathurst Street to the east and Antibes Drive to the south, the traffic volumes are not considered excessive.
Further, a comparison of existing and historical traffic volumes would indicate that overall traffic within the community
has increased only marginally since 1995.
Vehicle Volume Data
| LOCATION |
DIR |
HISTORICAL VOLUMES
( 1995) |
CURRENT VOLUMES
(1998) |
|
A.M.
PK HR |
P.M.
PK HR |
24 HOUR |
A.M.
PK HR |
P.M.
PK HR |
24 HOUR |
| Fisherville Road, west
of Rockford Road |
WB
EB |
213
210 |
166
160 |
1724
1423 |
156
142 |
191
192 |
2014
1839 |
| Fisherville Avenue,
west of Russfax Drive |
WB
EB |
108
73 |
180
128 |
1675
1119 |
116
84 |
174
140 |
1924
1512 |
| Rockford Road, south
of Fisherville Avenue |
SB
NB |
81
106 |
61
68 |
490
534 |
37
65 |
51
52 |
512
647 |
| Rockford Road, east of
Stonedene Boulevard |
WB
EB |
138
131 |
117
98 |
1219
1085 |
88
96 |
142
132 |
1421
1460 |
| Torresdale Avenue,
south of Russfax Drive |
SB
NB |
165
240 |
287
267 |
2300
2695 |
171
244 |
348
387 |
2972
3188 |
| Torresdale Avenue,
south of Robingrove
Road |
SB
NB |
186
206 |
250
262 |
2299
2394 |
180
221 |
293
346 |
2724
3058 |
| Torresdale Avenue,
north of Antibes Drive
(south leg) |
SB
NB |
63
78 |
81
54 |
840
725 |
69
86 |
126
79 |
1209
1068 |
Stop Sign Compliance:
Transportation Services staff observations have disclosed that motorists are failing to come to a complete stop, particularly
at the intersections which are controlled by an all way stop control. The Toronto Police Services have been requested to
monitor those locations.
To improve the visibility of intersections within the community, in an effort to increase stopping compliance, stop bars,
centre lines and pedestrian crossing lines have been installed at the following intersections:
- Fisherville Avenue at Hidden Trail;
- Fisherville Avenue at Torresdale Avenue;
- Fisherville Avenue at Millersgrove Drive; and
- Torresdale Avenue at Robingrove Boulevard.
All Way Stop Control - Torresdale Avenue at Russfax Drive:
Currently, westbound motorists on Russfax Drive are required to stop at Torresdale Avenue. Torresdale Avenue traffic is
required to stop at Fisherville Road, which is 100 metres to the north, and Rockford Road, which is 300 metres to the
south. The intersection of Torresdale Avenue and Russfax Drive forms a "T" intersection.
The results of the all way stop study indicated that the technical warrants for the installation of an all way stop control were
met to the extent of 7 percent, whereas 100 percent is required.
A review of our collision statistics has indicated that for the preceding three years, there have been no incidents reported at
this intersection. It was further observed that the stop sign on Russfax Drive is unobstructed and there are no motorist or
pedestrian sight obstructions on any approach to the intersection.
Turn Restrictions:
Steeles Avenue West at Torresdale Avenue
The Torresdale Avenue Traffic Calming Committee requested, as a measure of reducing the volume of transient traffic
generated by the community to the north of Steeles Avenue West, to prohibit eastbound right turns and northbound and
southbound through traffic movements, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.
Currently, eastbound right turns and southbound through movements are prohibited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and
9:00 a.m..
Any further extension of the eastbound right turn restriction would significantly impact access to the local community, for
eastbound traffic on Steeles Avenue West. Considering the residential densities in the vicinity of the Torresdale
Avenue/Fisherville Road intersection, traffic may simply access the community at Hidden Trail, thereby increasing traffic
volumes on Fisherville Road west of Torresdale Avenue.
The impacts the introduction of the northbound and southbound through traffic restrictions would have cannot be clearly
determined, as it is possible that it may increase northbound left turns or eastbound right turns at the intersection as
motorists attempt to by-pass the restrictions. Therefore, this division could support the installation of the northbound and
southbound through restrictions on a six (6) month trial basis. This would allow the community and staff to assess what
impact the restrictions would have on access to the local community and the integrity of the arterial road system.
Torresdale Avenue at Antibes Drive (north leg), Cedarcroft Boulevard and Rockford Road
During previous investigations, staff were requested to review the feasibility of installing northbound left turn restrictions
at the intersection of Bathurst Street and Antibes Drive. This restriction could not be supported as motorists, both local and
transient, would simply travel one or two blocks to the north on Bathurst Street and continue to access the community at
Cedarcroft Boulevard and/or Rockford Road. The only alternative to addressing the redistribution of traffic to the adjacent
routes would be to impose the same restriction at the intersections of Bathurst Street with Rockford Road and Cedarcroft
Boulevard. With access restricted to Antibes Drive, Cedarcroft Boulevard and Rockford Road, access from Bathurst Street
would effectively be eliminated at certain times of the day.
Subsequently, the Torresdale Avenue Traffic Calming Committee asked for comments on the installation of westbound
right turn restrictions, between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, at the intersections of Torresdale
Avenue with Antibes Drive (north leg), Cedarcroft Boulevard and Rockford Road.
The installation of traffic restrictions internal to the community generally results in motorists completing odd maneuvers in
an attempt to by-pass the restrictions, once inside the community.
The implementation of internal restrictions may in this instance result in the reassignment of traffic to the south leg of
Antibes Drive, where restrictions would not be in place, or to Robingrove and Rockford Roads, where traffic could
continue westerly across Torresdale Avenue to connect to Fisherville Road. This is of particular concern as traffic volumes
could increase significantly adjacent to the Rockford Public School. The installation of such internal restrictions would not
address the concern for transient traffic and could in fact create an increase in traffic volumes on roadways where they are
presently not being experienced.
Fisherville Road at Hidden Trail
Given that the principal access to Connaught Laboratories is from Hidden Trail, south of Steeles Avenue West, turn
restrictions at the Steeles Avenue West/Hidden Trail intersection cannot be considered. As an alternative, the Torresdale
Avenue Traffic Calming Committee has suggested that southbound left turns be prohibited at the Hidden Trail/Fisherville
Road intersection, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, and westbound right turns be
prohibited between the hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.
Although the installation of the turn restrictions may significantly reduce transient traffic volumes, in association with
other existing turn restrictions, local residents' access would also be restricted. In this scenario, residents of Fisherville
Road traveling eastbound on Steeles Avenue West, would have to travel east to Bathurst Street in order to access the
community legally during certain times of the day.
As with the proposed turn restrictions on Torresdale Avenue, described in the earlier section of this report, these
restrictions are internal to the community. Motorists, both local and transient, may simply choose to ignore the restrictions
or travel south on Hidden Trail south of Fisherville Road, complete a U-Turn to travel northbound, continue to access
Steeles Avenue West or Fisherville Road, as the northbound right turns would not be prohibited at the Hidden
Trail/Fisherville Road intersection. Therefore, these restrictions could be installed and monitored for a six (6) month
period.
Fisherville Road at Carpenter Road
It was identified by the members of the Torresdale Avenue Traffic Calming Committee that the signs prohibiting access to
Fisherville Road during the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., west of Carpenter Road, are not visible to motorists traveling
northbound or southbound on Carpenter Road, until such time as they have completed their turn. This defeats the intended
purpose of the restrictions as motorists are generally unaware that they are not permitted on Fisherville Road, until they
have made their turn.
As at other similar locations throughout the city, to address this concern it is appropriate to prohibit southbound right,
westbound through and northbound left turns at the intersection of Fisherville Road and Carpenter Road. To maintain
uniformity with restrictions at other entry points to the community, the time of the restrictions should be amended to 7:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m, Monday to Friday.
Dual Left Turn Lane:
With limited available right of way at the intersection of Steeles Avenue West and Bathurst Street, dual northbound left
turns cannot be accommodated.
Traffic Signal Timing and Progression:
The opinion of the members of the Torresdale Avenue Traffic Calming Committee is that as there is no traffic signal
progression along Bathurst Street, northbound in the p.m. peak hour and southbound in the a.m. peak hour, motorists
continue to utilize the residential community to reduce travel delays on Bathurst Street. This matter is currently being
reviewed by staff of this division and the Traffic Signal Control Centre. Any appropriate modifications will be
implemented.
In addition to traffic signal modifications, a review for the feasibility of the installation of the SCOOT traffic system is
being completed for both Bathurst Street and Steeles Avenue West. The results of that investigation, which are expected
later this year, will be forwarded to the North York Community Council for consideration.
Conclusions:
While previous attempts to address traffic operational concerns through the installation of traffic calming measures resulted
in some speed reductions on Torresdale Avenue, the temporary traffic calming measures were met with opposition from
the residents and were generally identified as being a restriction to access to their properties or unsightly.
A review of current and historical traffic volumes indicate that the majority of the traffic is local in nature and given the
total number of residential properties within the greater community, the traffic volumes on the roadways are not excessive.
The Toronto Police Services have been requested to provide enforcement of vehicle speeds and motorist stopping
compliance, at various locations within the community.
Existing traffic conditions do not support the installation of an all way stop control at the Torresdale Avenue/Russfax Drive
intersection.
The installation of the internal turn restrictions, as requested, would generally not resolve the residents' concerns as it
would likely divert traffic onto other internal roadways which would create other concerns, such as increased traffic
adjacent to the Rockford Public School. Any consideration for the said restrictions should be done with the support of the
majority of residents within the community.
The requested modifications to the existing entry restriction at Fisherville Road and Carpenter Road would provide greater
awareness to motorists and should be implemented.
With regard to geometric improvements to the Bathurst Street/Steeles Avenue West intersection, in particular the
installation of a dual northbound left turn lanes, improvements cannot be accommodated given the existing right-of-way
constraints.
The extension or implementation of turn restrictions at the Steeles Avenue West/Torresdale Avenue intersection should be
implemented for a six month trial period, with the exception of the extension of the eastbound right turn restriction. Any
increase to the period of time would prove to be extremely onerous to the local residents and would likely increase traffic
volumes on Fisherville Road, west of Torresdale Avenue.
Traffic signal timing/progression along Bathurst Street is currently being review and any appropriate improvements will be
implemented.
The results of an investigation for the implementation of the SCOOT traffic control signal system which will be available
later this year , will be presented for consideration at a regular meeting of the North York Community Council.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
14
All Way Stop Control - Wimpole Drive at Gerald Street -
North York Centre South
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 22, 1999) from
the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control at the intersection of Wimpole Drive and Gerald Street.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to
stop at all approaches to the intersection of Wimpole Drive and Gerald Street.
Council Reference/Background/History:
As a result of requests from local residents, staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services
Department investigated the feasibility of installing an all way stop control at the Wimpole Drive/Gerald Street
intersection.
Currently, eastbound and westbound traffic on Wimpole Drive is required to stop at Gerald Street. Traffic on Gerald Street
travels unrestricted from Old Colony Road to the south and Truman Road to the north.
Discussion:
The results of the all way stop study concluded that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control
have been satisfied at the intersection of Wimpole Drive at Gerald Street.
The installation of the stop controls will not adversely impact traffic operations on Wimpole Drive or Gerald Street and
would not result in the displacement of traffic to other adjacent roadways.
Conclusions:
Staff of this division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Wimpole Drive and Gerald
Street as it would provide additional motorist and pedestrian protection as well as not divert traffic to other adjacent local
roadways.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager of Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482(facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)
15
Boulevard Leasing Café - The Friendly Greek Restaurant -
4695 Yonge Street - North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To approve an application from "The Friendly Greek" Restaurant, to lease a portion of the municipal boulevard for the
purpose of operating an outdoor café.
Source of funds:
No departmental funds are required as all associated costs for the boulevard café are the responsibility of the applicant.
Recommendations:
That the application to lease a portion of the boulevard located on the east side of Yonge Street fronting 4695 be approved,
subject to the following conditions:
(1) that the boulevard café be accessible to the disabled;
(2) that the applicant enter into an agreement to indemnify and save harmless the City of Toronto from any action, claim,
damage or loss whatsoever arising from the issuance of the licence or the use to be provided or anything done or neglected
to be done in connection with the said use; and
(3) the provision of $2,000,000.00 (two million dollars) of liability insurance, naming the City of Toronto as co-insured.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In accordance with the Boulevard Leasing Policy for the former City of North York, staff have reviewed the application to
lease a portion of the municipal boulevard on the east side of Yonge Street fronting 4695.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, Transportation Department entered into an agreement with the applicant
to permit an existing structure to encroach on the municipal road allowance. This agreement would ensure that the structure
does not create either a of pedestrian impediment or sight obstructions. The boulevard café occupies an area of
approximately 5.8 metres and is setback 2 metres from the municipal roadway and .5 metres from the municipal sidewalk.
Councillor's John Filion and Norm Gardner have indicated their support of the application.
The leasing fee, which is based upon the 1999 road allowance leasing rates as established by the City of Toronto, North
York District, Finance Department, will be obtained from the applicant prior to the enactment of the lease agreement.
Conclusions:
I would recommend that the above application to lease a portion of the municipal boulevard be approved.
Contact Name:
Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca. (e-mail)
16
Temporary Road Closure - Baycrest Avenue -
North York Centre South
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 12, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To temporarily close a portion of Baycrest Avenue, to accommodate the 19th Annual Baycrest Challenge Fun Run.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the temporary closure of a portion of Baycrest Avenue, excluding the $50.00 application fee, are
included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1) by enactment of a confirmatory By-law adopting this report, Baycrest Avenue, be closed temporarily on Sunday, May 9,
from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., subject to the applicant's compliance with procedural By-Law No. 27433 of the former City
of North York; and
(2) during the temporary closure, there shall be no use of the closed road for vehicular traffic except under the authority of
a permit issued by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, the Toronto Police Service, the Toronto Fire
Department and the Toronto Ambulance Services.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Similar events have been conducted at this location for the preceding 18 years, without incident.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has received no objections from
any affected Departments and agencies, subject to the following condition from the Fire Department:
- The applicant shall insure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and obstacles that would
interfere with the movement of fire department vehicles, in the event of an emergency, and that personnel be readily
available to remove the barricades in order not to impede the movement of the fire department vehicles should an
emergency occur. Further, the organizers of the event be made aware that should an emergency arise within the involved
area, it could well interrupt the program as planned.
Conclusions:
In view of the foregoing, the Transportation Services Division supports the temporary closure of a portion of Baycrest
Avenue, as requested by the applicant.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
17
Parking Prohibitions - Beecroft Road, Bogert Avenue,
Elmhurst Avenue, Doris Avenue and Greenfield Avenue -
North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 12, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To amend the current parking restrictions on Beecroft Road, Bogert Avenue, Elmhurst Avenue, Doris Avenue and
Greenfield Avenue, to accommodate for an increase in traffic volumes due to detours associated with construction of the
Yonge Street Sheppard Subway Station.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the restrictions is the responsibility of the Toronto Transit Commission, as part
of the Sheppard Subway construction.
Recommendations:
That Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to:
(1) prohibit parking at anytime on the west side of Beecroft Road, from the southerly limit of Elmhurst Avenue to the
northerly limit of Sheppard Avenue West;
(2) prohibit parking at anytime on the east side of Beecroft Road, from the southerly limit of Sheppard Avenue West to the
northerly limit of Poyntz Avenue;
(3) prohibit parking at anytime on both sides of Bogert Avenue, from the westerly limit of Yonge Street to the easterly
limit of Beecroft Road;
(4) prohibit parking at anytime on both sides of Doris Avenue, from the northerly limit of Sheppard Avenue West to the
southerly limit of Greenfield Avenue;
(5) prohibit parking at anytime on the north side of Elmhurst Avenue, from a point 34 metres west of the westerly limit of
Yonge Street to the easterly limit of Beecroft Road;
(6) prohibit parking at anytime on the south side of Elmhurst Avenue, from a point 59 metres west of the westerly limit of
Yonge Street to the easterly limit of Beecroft Road; and
(7) prohibit parking at anytime on the south side of Greenfield Avenue, from the easterly limit of Yonge Street to the
westerly limit of Doris Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has reviewed a request from the
Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) to amend the parking restrictions on various roadway surrounding the Yonge
Street/Sheppard Avenue intersection.
In order to accommodate construction of various components of the Sheppard Subway, which include the Yonge/Sheppard
Subway Station, the TTC will be instituting various detours for traffic on Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
With the implementation of the roadway detours, traffic will be reassigned to the roadways surrounding the Yonge
Street/Sheppard Avenue intersection. To accommodate this increase in traffic, the maximum roadway capacities must be
maintained. To sustain the needed capacity, parking must be prohibited.
The proposed parking restrictions were arrived at through extensive discussion with the local Councillors, the TTC, the
Toronto Parking Authority and staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department.
Conclusions:
The parking prohibitions recommended in this report would improve traffic flow on Yonge Street, Sheppard Avenue,
Beecroft Road, Bogert Avenue, Elmhurst Avenue, Doris Avenue and Greenfield Avenue, during the duration of the various
roadway detours.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
18
Intersection Improvements - Caldy Court and Fifeshire Road -
North York Centre South
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 12, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To implement minor improvements at the Caldy Court/Fifeshire Road intersection to reduce motorists confusion
Source of funds:
Currently, no money was allocated within the 1999 Capital Budget to complete this project. However, should funding be
available as part of the 1999 Capital Budget item for "Safety and Operational Improvement", this project could be
completed this year, otherwise, it should be included as part of the 2000 Capital Budget.
Recommendations:
(1) that the intersection of Caldy Court and Fifeshire Road be reconstructed as per the Technical Services Division, Works
and Emergency Services Department design;
(2) this project be undertaken in 1999, if funding from the "Safety and Operational Improvement" item of the 1999 Capital
Budget is available; and
(3) should the funding specified in Recommendation (2) above not be available, this project be included in the 2000
Capital Budget.
Background:
In January of 1998, residents of Caldy Court submitted a petition to the Transportation Services Division to review the
current road geometry of the Caldy Court/Fifeshire Road intersection, and to recommend and improvements that would
increase the safety of the intersection and possible re-alignment of Caldy Court with Fifeshire Road.
Discussion:
Our investigation has indicated that the current alignment of Caldy Court with Fifeshire Road, due to the large radius and
expansive pavement width, both encourages high speed westbound left turns and requires motorists completing a
northbound right turn to look well over their shoulder to observe eastbound through traffic. Both these actions are not
considered to be conducive to safe driving behaviour.
Accordingly, the Transportation Services Division requested that staff of the Technical Services Division determine the
feasibility of re-designing the intersection of Caldy Court and Fifeshire Road, so that Caldy Court intersects with Fisfeshire
Road at a 90 degree.
The Technical Services Division has reviewed the existing intersection and have concluded that the intersection can be
redesigned in such a manner that Caldy Court intersects with Fifeshire Road as close as possible to 90 degrees.
Councillor Joanne Flint and the residents of Caldy Court requested that the approach to Caldy Court be interlocking brick,
which has been incorporated with the design and cost estimates.
Conclusions:
As the proposed intersection changes will improve traffic conditions at the intersection, the Transportation Services
Division supports the intersection improvements.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
19
Parking Prohibitions - Kenneth Avenue - North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To amend the parking restrictions on the west side of Kenneth Avenue, south of Spring Garden Avenue.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1999 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1) to amend Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit parking from 8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the west side of Kenneth Avenue, from the southerly limit of Spring Garden Avenue to a
point 49 metres southerly thereof; and
(2) to amend Schedule IX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit stopping at any time on the
east side of Kenneth Avenue, from the northerly limit of Sheppard Avenue East to a point 30.5 metres northerly thereof.
Background:
Currently, parking is prohibited at anytime on both sides of Kenneth Avenue, from Sheppard Avenue East to Spring
Garden Avenue. There are four parking meters on the east side of Kenneth Avenue, immediately north of Sheppard
Avenue East, serving the commercial property on the northwest corner of Sheppard Avenue East/ Kenneth Avenue
intersection.
In August of 1998, Council approved a recommendation from the Transportation Services Division of the Works and
Emergency Services Department to prohibit parking at any time on the east side of Kenneth Avenue, from the north limit
of the parking meters to the Spring Garden Avenue. Prior to the amendments, parking was prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from the northerly limit of the parking metres to Hollywood Avenue.
Discussion:
This division has now been requested by Councillor Gardner to review the concerns of Mr. Bob Weinert, President of The
Pavilion Condominium at 10 Kenneth Avenue, to consider the feasibility of amending the parking restrictions on Kenneth
Avenue, between Sheppard Avenue East and Spring Garden Avenue.
Although the previous amendments to the parking restrictions improved safety for motorists exiting from the adjacent
driveway access locations, it has removed any on street parking, with the exception of the four metered parking spaces on
the east side of Kenneth Avenue, immediately north of Sheppard Avenue East. Evening and weekend parking is only
available on the east side of Kenneth Avenue, north of Spring Garden Avenue, and on the north side of Spring Garden
Avenue, east and west of Kenneth Avenue.
Despite increasing the overall safety for motorists and pedestrians, staff of this division have also received complaints from
Reverend McLaverty of Spring Garden Baptist Church that the installation of the parking restrictions have resulted in the
issuance of a number of parking infractions to members of his congregation.
To address the continued complaints, while maintaining safety on Kenneth Avenue, south of Spring Garden, two options
were considered as follows:
Option 1
Amend the "No Parking" restriction on the east side of Kenneth Avenue to prohibit parking from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday, thereby permitting three hour parking during the evenings and weekends, from the southerly limit of
Spring Garden Avenue to a point 43 metres south.
Option 2
Amend the "No Parking" restriction on the west side of Kenneth Avenue to prohibit parking from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday, thereby permitting three hour parking during the evenings and weekends, from the southerly limit of
Spring Garden Avenue to a point 49 metres south.
Either of the above noted amendments to the parking prohibitions would provide both evening and weekend parking, while
maintaining unobstructed sight lines for motorists exiting from the driveways at 5 and 10 Kenneth Avenue.
In light of the above options Councillor Gardner has held a public meeting were the Directors of both Condominium
Boards, an agent of the Spring Garden Church and local residents were in attendance. Upon discussing the two options
previously outlined, a consensus was obtained to adopt Option 2, which will permit evening and weekend parking on the
west side of the roadway, south of Spring Garden Avenue and north of the northerly driveway to 10 Kenneth Avenue.
In addition to the above parking amendments it was also agreed to amend the "30 metre to corner" parking restriction on
the east side of Kenneth Avenue, south of the parking metered spaces, to
"No Stopping at Any Time".
This amendment has been determined to be required to ensure that the northeast corner of Kenneth Avenue and Spring
Garden Avenue is kept clear of parked /stopped vehicles. Enforcement of the
"No Parking at Any Time" restriction has proven to be inadequate, as a majority of the motorist were stopping in this area.
Councillor John Filion has provided this office his concurrence with the above parking amendments.
Conclusions:
This Division supports amending the parking restrictions, to resolve the concerns of the residents of Kenneth Avenue and
those of the Spring Garden Baptist Church
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
20
Special Occasion Beer Garden Permits for Community Events -
North York Humber, Black Creek and North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 15, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, subject to recommendation (4) being amended to
read as follows:
"(4) the groups provide proof of liability insurance coverage in the amount of $1M naming the City as additional
insured."
The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having directed the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to undertake a review of the Liability Insurance and report back to the North
York Community Council at a future meeting.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to grant Special Occasion Beer Garden Permits to the groups listed
in Appendix I. All normal conditions and requirements would apply as per previous City of North York policy and the
Municipal Alcohol Policy.
Funding Sources Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The organizations planning to hold a Beer Garden will be required to pay the Department $50.00 as part of their facility
permit fee. If groups have requirements for goods and services which are not readily available at the site, the Department
will attempt to accommodate, but will bill cost for expenses incurred.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) permission be granted to the groups listed in Appendix I to hold Special Occasion (Beer Garden) Permit events;
(2) the groups obtain a Special Occasion Permit from the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario;
(3) the groups be charged the approved $50.00 facility permit fee and additional costs incurred by the Parks and Recreation
Division for goods and services not readily available at the site;
(4) the groups provide proof of liability insurance coverage in the amount of $2M naming the City as additional insured;
(5) all bartenders and servers be required to attend a Server Intervention Training Program at the group's expense; and
(6) appropriate City officials be directed to carry out all things necessary thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Each year the Department, North District (formerly North York) receives requests from various groups for Special
Occasion (Beer Garden) Permits to complement their community events. These events are oftentimes held in support of
charity fundraisers and community oriented initiatives.
The Liquor License Board of Ontario requires that for events of this nature, approval be granted by City Council, ideally
ninety days prior of the event. In addition, special inspections and approvals from other Departments such as Building,
Health, and Fire may be required.
Discussion:
Historically, these events have proven to be very positive, both in terms of community benefit and enjoyment of same.
Financially, these events have minimal impact on the Department's budget and operationally, the Department anticipates no
difficulties in meeting the requirements of these requests.
As directed by City of North York Council on May 24, 1995 by Resolution No. 95-09, all groups regardless of the occasion
are to be treated in a like manner and be charged a facility permit fee of $50.00. As previously indicated, if a group
however has requirements for goods and services which are not readily available at the site, the Department will attempt to
accommodate but will bill at cost for expenses incurred.
Conclusions:
Acknowledging the minimal financial and operational ramifications, the Department's past experience with these groups,
the community benefit from these events and the enjoyment of same, Council is encouraged to support the
recommendations contained in this report.
Contact Name:
Jim Bradley
Director of Parks and Recreation -North District
395-6054
--------
Appendix I
Special Occasion (Beer Garden) Permit Requests
| Group Making Request |
Purpose/Event |
Location/Date/Time |
| Plunkett Park Sports Association (Ward 6) |
Canada Day/Bocce Tournament |
Plunkett Park:
Fri., July 2, 1999, 8:00 a.m - 1:00 a.m.
Sat., July 3, 1999, 8:00 a.m.- 1:00 a.m.
Sun.,July 4, 1999, 8:00 a.m.- 1:00 a.m. |
| Ecuadorian Canadian Foundation
(Ward 7) |
Festival |
Elm Park & John Booth Arena:
Sat., July 24, 1999, 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 a.m.
Sun., July 25, 1999, 10:00 a.m. - 12:00 a.m. |
| Councillor George Mammoliti
(Ward 6) |
Annual Softball Tournament |
Stanley Community Centre and Park:
Sat., August 21, 1999, 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Sun, August 22, 1998, 8:00 a.m. - 9:00 p.m |
| St. Gaspar/Humber Summit Seniors
(Ward 6) |
Community BBQ & Bocce Tournament |
Gracedale Park:
Sat., July 24, 1999, 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 a.m.
Sun., July 25, 1999, 8:00 a.m. - 12:00 a.m. |
| Metropolitan Toronto Police
32 Division
(Ward 10) |
Charity Baseball Tournament |
Goulding Community Centre:
Mon., June 21, 1999, 8:00 a.m. -12:00 a.m. |
| Amesbury Canada Day Committee
(Ward 6) |
Canada Day Celebration |
Amesbury Park:
Thurs., July 1, 1999, 8:00 a.m. -12:00 a.m. |
| Club Deportivo Colombia
(Ward 6) |
Presentation of Folkoric Groups, Musical and
Cultural Events |
Caledonia Park:
Fri., July 16, 1999, 4:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.
Sat., July 17, 1999, 12:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Sun., July 18, 1999, 12:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. |
| Giosa Ionica
(Ward 7) |
St. Rocco Festival |
Elm Park & John Booth Arena:
Sun., Aug. 8, 1999, 10:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. |
| Primula Neighbourhood Watch
(Ward 6) |
Summer Festival |
Apted Park:
Sat., June 26, 1999, 10:00 a.m.- 12:00 p.m.
Sun., June 27, 1999, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. |
21
Application for Part Lot Control Exemption UD54-99-01-REL -
1116199 Ontario Limited - 20-22 Hearne Avenue -
North York Humber
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 24, 1999) from
the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this application is to request exemption from part lot control in order that 4 semi detached dwelling units
and the existing commercial building with associated parking lot may be conveyed into separate ownership.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) this application be approved; and
(2) the draft by-law attached as schedule "C" be approved.
Official Plan: (ACA) Arterial Corridor Area
(COM) Commercial
Zoning: C1(92) Exceptions to Commercial Zone
RM2 (23) Exceptions to RM2 Zone
Comments:
The lands were the subject of zoning amendment application UDZ-97-37 which was approved by Council on July 22,
1998. Implementing By-law No. 495-1998, which was enacted by Council on July 29, 1998, permits the lands to be
developed with 4 semi detached dwelling units and for the existing commercial building and parking lot to be maintained
as constructed. As required by a condition of zoning approval a grading and drainage plan, to the satisfaction of the Chief
Building Official, has been registered on title.
The release of part lot control would permit the conveyance of each townhouse unit and the existing commercial building.
As required by policy, the applicant has submitted the required letter of undertaking that the City will be advised upon the
sale or transfer of the last parcel of land in order that the exempting by-law may be revoked. The existing commercial
property at 1721 Jane Street remains subject to universal subdivision control and is not affected by this exempting by-law.
Conclusions:
This application is consistent with the City's part lot control exemption policy, the required letter of undertaking is on file
with the City's Legal Department and the grading and drainage plan has been registered on title. The issues regarding this
development have been reviewed and all matters of concern to the City, for the development of the subject lands, are
covered by the requirements of Zoning By-law No. 7625.
Contact Name:
Chris Foster, Technician
Phone: 395-7135
--------
(A copy of the schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
22
Principles of Development Report - Official Plan and
Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-95-19 and Plan of
Subdivision UDSB-1224 - Greatwise Developments Corporation -
305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue -
North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause,by adding the following:
"It is further recommended that the confidential joint report dated April 12, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor, be adopted, such report to remain confidential in accordance
with the provisions of the Municipal Act.")
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Acting
Director, Community Planning, North District, be adopted with the provision that the Chief Planner, in
co-ordination with the City Solicitor, report in conference, directly to the next meeting of City Council scheduled
for April 13, 1999, on the required funding to support specialized resources and technical expertise in the context of
the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearings dealing with the potential demolition of existing rental housing:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to establish principles of development for the applications filed by Greatwise Developments
Corporation for the redevelopment of lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue West, west of Easton Road. These
applications are the subject of a pre-Hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board on April 16, 1999.
The applicant's lands currently are occupied by 416 rental apartment units which would be demolished under the
applicant's proposal. This report outlines the North York and Metro Official Plan policies regarding the retention of rental
housing and residential intensification and also establishes a framework to apply the new Official Plan policies recently
approved by Council. Council has the authority to use its Official Plan policies to restrict the loss of its rental housing
stock. This report establishes land use, built form, site organization and transportation principles which will form the basis
of a complete evaluation of the proposal when the applicant has perfected their application and submitted the required
studies.
Recommendation(s):
It is recommended that:
(1) development of the lands at 305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue be evaluated further on the
basis of the Principles of Development described in the attached Appendix "1";
(2) city officials be authorized to work with the applicant within the parameters established through the Principles of
Development and report further to Council prior to any scheduled hearing of the Ontario Municipal Board on these private
appeals;
(3) a final report on these applications be prepared when the applicant has perfected their applications and submitted all of
the required background studies identified in this report and that staff give Notice of a statutory Public Meeting at the
appropriate time; and
(4) the Ontario Municipal Board be advised that the scheduling of a Hearing on the private appeals of this applicant is
premature at this time.
Background:
The development applications were first filed in 1995 accompanied by a concurrent application for Demolition under the
Rental Housing Protection Act 1989. A community information meeting on the original application was held on January
15, 1996, at the North York Civic Centre, attended by approximately 280 area residents and tenants. At that meeting,
community concerns were raised with respect to the increased density, the overall height of the building, the potential for
increased traffic infiltration through the local neighbourhood, the adequacy of parking, the potential impact on local
community services such as schools and park space, and the tenant concerns with loss of their homes.
Subsequently, the various applications were held in abeyance at the request of the applicant. The development applications
were not perfected and much of the required documentation in support of the original proposal was not submitted,
including a traffic impact study. The application under the Rental Housing Protection Act (UD53DE-95-001) was
withdrawn by the applicant on December 15, 1997 because of the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act under the
Tenant Protection Act, 1997. It is the submission of the applicant that their proposals are not captured under the Transition
clause 223(10) of the TPA and consideration of their development proposals no longer is dependent upon a first disposition
of the demolition application under the RHPA.
Revised plans were submitted by the applicant in July 1998 and have been circulated. However, the application still has not
been perfected to the point where a planning recommendation can be finalized and the required supporting studies
including a transportation study, and preliminary engineering report are outstanding.
In October 1998, the applicant filed appeals of official plan and zoning amendment application UDOZ-95-19 and
subdivision application UDSB-1224 on the grounds that the City of Toronto had refused or failed to approve the requested
amendments. At its meeting of December 9, 1998, Community Council received an information report on these appeals.
The Ontario Municipal Board has scheduled a pre-hearing conference on the appeals for April 16, 1999. It is necessary for
the City take a position on the applications which can be presented at the pre-hearing.
On March 11, 1999, the applicant circulated a revised Official Plan and Zoning Amendment and proposed plan of
subdivision with their notice of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. (see Schedule "P") The notice indicates a proposed
residential gross floor area of 121,910 mē with 1,387 dwelling units of which 292 units are rental with a proposed floor
space index of 2.96 excluding the valley portion of the site. This revision has not officially been submitted to the City for
review and the applicant has not provided a new site plan or supporting studies. This revision has therefore not been
circulated to the commenting departments and agencies. This report is structured around the applicant's proposal currently
on file with the City.
Proposal:
The revised application, received in July 1998, proposes amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning in order to permit a
total of 1,260 new residential units and a community centre, at a net site density, excluding the valley land portion of the
site, of 2.68 FSI. The existing 416 unit rental apartment building which is currently developed at a density of 1.05 FSI,
excluding the valley lands, and 8 single detached dwellings would be demolished. The subdivision application proposes the
division of the site into seven blocks and the laying out of new public roads.
The proposal includes six apartment buildings with a total of 1,194 units, ranging in height from 2 to 19 storeys, including
924 condominium apartments, 140 rental apartments and 130 seniors rental apartments. The southern and eastern edges of
the site would be ringed with 3-storey townhouse units. No information is available at this time as to the affordability level
of the proposed rental units.
A 2-3 storey community centre is proposed to be located abutting Easton Road, immediately south of an existing medical
office building at 307 Sheppard Avenue East. The applicant is proposing new public roads to serve the development, with
a direct access to Sheppard Avenue, and additional accesses to Easton Road by means of extensions to the existing ends of
Poyntz Avenue and Bogert Avenue.
Pertinent site statistics are set out in Appendix "2A" - Comparison of Original Proposal and Revised Proposal, and
Appendix "2B" - Comparison of the Existing Uses and the Revised Proposal.
Location and Existing Site:
The site is located south of Sheppard Avenue West, west of Easton Road. It is currently developed with a 1 to 6 storey
rental apartment building with 416 units at 325 Bogert Avenue, and 8 detached dwellings at 305-308 Poyntz Avenue and
314-317 Bogert Avenue.
The existing apartment building at 325 Bogert Avenue, constructed in 1965, has a gross floor area of 43,329 mē (466,413
ftē) and a density of approximately 1.0 FSI (tableland portion) and 100 uph (40 upa). Zoning compliance of the existing use
requires the inclusion of lands below the top of bank as part of the calculable site area.
There are existing single detached dwellings to the north, south and east. The surrounding residential area south of
Sheppard Avenue is centred on Cameron Public School. The commercially designated lands fronting on Sheppard Avenue
to the east are occupied by a variety of small scale office uses. The site directly abuts a two-storey medical office building
at 307 Sheppard Avenue West, at the southwest corner of Sheppard Avenue and Easton Road.
Earl Bales Park abuts the site to the west, and there are also valley lands opposite the site to the north of Sheppard Avenue.
Planning Controls:
Official Plan:
The site has four land use designations in the Official Plan. The lands at 325 Bogert Avenue are designated Residential
Density Three (RD3),Valley Open Space (VOS), and Commercial (COM). The RD3 designation permits all forms of
residential development including low-rise apartment buildings, and certain institutional type uses such as retirement
homes, homes for the aged, nursing homes and crisis care facilities, at a maximum density of 100 units per hectare (40
units per acre).
The VOS designation applying to the valley land portion of the lands permits outdoor recreational uses and essential public
works only. The Valley Land Impact Zone (V.I.Z.) bisects the property east of the VOS designation. Council has
established policies for developments within the V.I.Z. to help maintain the natural features of the valley edges.
The COM designation applies to a small portion of the site which abuts the property at 307 Sheppard Avenue East. These
commercial lands are governed by Part D.4, the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area Secondary Plan, which permits office
uses, detached dwellings, institutional uses and financial institutions, at a maximum density of 1.0 FSI.
The lands at 305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 Bogert Avenue are designated Residential Density One (RD1). This
designation permits single detached dwellings at a density of 20 uph (8 upa) and semi-detached dwellings at a density of 30
uph (12 upa).
The Residential portions of the site are subject to the existing policies in Part C.4 (Housing) of the North York Official
Plan, which contain approved policies related to the retention of rental housing, and criteria to guide the redesignation of
residential lands to higher densities. In addition, Council has approved a new City-wide policy on condominium conversion
and demolition of rental housing. The existing and emerging policies and their relationship to the application are discussed
below and in Appendix "4" to this report.
Zoning:
The site currently has four zoning categories: the lands at 325 Bogert Avenue are zoned RM3 (Multiple-Family Residential
Third Density Zone), which permits townhouses and apartments at a density of 0.75 times the lot area and a height of 9.2
metres; 01 (Open Space Zone) which permits recreational uses, schools and day nurseries: and C6 (Special Commercial
Zone) which permits primarily office uses and single detached dwellings at 1.0 times the lot area. The lands at 305-308
Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 Bogert Avenue are zoned R4 (One Family Detached Dwellings Fourth Density Zone) which
permits single detached dwellings on lots with a minium lot frontage of 15 metres (49 feet).
Community Consultation:
While no formal public consultation meeting has been arranged to discuss the revised proposal, the ward Councillors
convened a community meeting on February 24, 1999, to discuss the revised application which was attended by
approximately 30 area residents. The area resident concerns expressed at this meeting were with respect to density of the
project, with a desire that the project be reduced in size. The neighbourhood residents were also concerned with visitor
parking overflow on local streets, traffic infiltration through the neighbourhood, the stability of the valley slope, impacts on
the neighbourhood, and the plight of the existing tenants, even if some rental units were replaced.
A community meeting with the tenants of the building has also been scheduled and notes from that meeting will be
available at the time of the Community Council consideration of this report.
A statutory public meeting can be scheduled when the applications have been perfected and a final report is prepared.
Discussion:
Principles of Development:
Appendix "1" to this report summarizes the Principles of Development which should be used by the applicant and the City
to perfect these applications. In particular the following key considerations should be paramount:
- redevelopment of this site should be dependent upon a 100% replacement of 416 rental units which are of a similar type,
size and level of affordability as currently provided at this location; this will ensure that the residents of the community
have access to a range of housing opportunities in their local neighbourhood; any final report should identify the range
of options which will be made available to the existing tenants to be relocated or accommodated in new rental units with
minimal disruption;
- in considering the distribution of density and appropriate built form on the site, the perimeter treatment along Sheppard
Avenue West should take into account the low rise Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area; the perimeter treatment along
Easton Road should take into account the single family neighbourhood on the opposite side of the street; a landmark
building should address the larger valley land horizon with appropriate transition to Sheppard Avenue;
- transportation impacts and the provision of adequate hard and soft services will dictate the feasibility of development;
and
- urban design and built form considerations will dictate the appropriateness of the design for development.
Retention of Rental Housing Policies:
The prime city objective is to preserve and maintain the supply of residential buildings, particularly the existing rental
housing stock, and encourage new rental production. Rental housing is a significant part of the City's housing market
constituting half of all housing units. Rental demand is currently very strong as reflected in the 0.9 percent vacancy rate.
This demand will likely remain strong as there is little new supply of rental apartment units. More importantly, the need for
rental housing is strongest for those households with low to moderate incomes and tenants at the lowest incomes are least
able to cope in a constrained housing market.
North York Official Plan policies intend to preserve rental housing. These policies, reproduced in Appendix "4", recognize
the importance of maintaining a balanced mix between the rental and freehold forms of tenure. Final recommendations on
these applications should take into account the intent of these policies to preserve our rental housing stock and the need to
accommodate existing residents of the rental buildings who are characterized by a number of families with children who
depend upon the provision of affordable rental housing.
The applicant has also indicated a seniors housing component of the rental housing. The need for this type of housing over
housing for families has not been demonstrated by the applicant. In addition, the form of this housing type in terms of unit
size and facilities has not been specified as to how it is geared towards seniors as opposed to other types of tenants.
Residential Intensification Policies:
At present, this property is not identified as an area of potential reurbanization on Map A-2 of the Official Plan. Policies to
guide the identification of additional reurbanization areas are set out in Part A of the Official Plan and have been
reproduced in Appendix 3 of this report.
The Housing policies of the North York Official Plan seek to achieve a balance between the need to ensure that new
residential development is compatible with existing neighbourhoods, and the need to foster adequate, affordable and
appropriate new housing to meet population and housing projections. In addition, the Housing policies call for the retention
of rental housing in order to maintain the balanced mix of both types of tenure. Part C.4 (Housing), Section 5 of the
Official Plan recognizes that Council may be asked to consider applications to increase the permitted density on
residentially designated lands. Council may consider redevelopment proposals which will assist in revitalizing or
enhancing neighbourhoods, when the location represents an opportunity to create additional housing or a mix of housing to
take advantage of physical infrastructure, community services and facilities, transportation facilities and to meet housing
needs without undue expense to the City as per the criteria in Appendix 3.
When an increase in density is proposed, as is the case with the subject applications, Council is to have regard to the
general development criteria in the Housing policies, as well as ten further policies dealing with community facilities and
services, transportation facilities, public infrastructure and transit, the mix of housing types, concentrations of high density
development, net benefits to residents, and maintaining adjacent stable residential areas (refer to Appendix "3"). With the
addition of new units, consideration must also be given to the provision of affordable housing as per the criteria in
Appendix 3. The applications will be evaluated within the context of all of the intensification and general development
policies. However, this evaluation cannot be completed until the submissions are perfected by the applicant and the
required additional reports and studies are prepared to the satisfaction of the City. Until this information is submitted by the
applicant, it is premature to make a final recommendation on their disposition. Feasibility of development will determine in
the first instance the density considerations.
If the rental housing component at this location can be preserved and it can still be demonstrated that intensification can be
accommodated, it should be demonstrable that the quality of life for the tenants and the new residents and the
neighbourhood residents has been improved through identifiable community benefits and a better urban environment. Key
elements which achieve these municipal objectives should be secured through a Section 37 agreement and/or through the
subdivision agreement.
Transportation Considerations:
The current applications recognize that any intensification of this site should be supported by the laying out of new public
roads.
The site is adjacent to a major arterial road, served by a transit route linked to the Yonge Subway and the future Sheppard
Subway. A full review of transportation and parking demands of the development, supported by appropriate studies
supplied by the applicant, is required to determine whether an intensification of the site can be accommodated.
The applicant has not submitted a traffic impact study which is needed to determine the width of the roads, the layout of
the road pattern and the design of the intersections. Without this study, it is premature for the City to thoroughly evaluate
the impact of the proposal on existing traffic conditions on Sheppard Avenue West and on the neighbouring local
residential streets.
The application for plan of subdivision will provide the City with the mechanism to acquire public roads within the site. In
this regard, the Transportation Services Division has identified that the internal road system must be designed in
accordance with City standards and conform with City policy. The proposed on-street parking and lay-by will not be
permitted, and the proposed turning circle is located outside the designated road allowance on the plan of subdivision.
Further, the operation and design of the access to Sheppard Avenue must be reviewed as part of any final evaluation of the
proposal.
With respect to parking, the applicant has not provided sufficient information to determine the appropriate parking supply,
which in essence should conform to the By-law requirements. A parking layout of the underground structure is required to
assess issues relating to ramp grades, circulation and parking standards.
The TTC requires more precise drawings with respect to the buildings at the northwest corner of the site relative to the
property line and the centre line of Sheppard Avenue so it can assess whether the proposed development would still allow
for a southerly alignment of a future western extension of the Sheppard Subway. The applicant has not yet submitted these
drawings.
There is the potential for Sheppard Avenue to be widened to a 36 metre right-of-way in accordance with the Metropolitan
Toronto Official Plan. Although only the widening of Sheppard Avenue between Beecroft Road and Leslie Street is
planned to be implemented at this time, the widening of this section of Sheppard Avenue should be protected through site
plan and zoning regulations in accordance with the Metro plan. Any final design for development should take this
consideration into account.
Preliminary Subdivision Engineering:
The applicant has not submitted its preliminary engineering reports. The Works and Emergency Services Department,
Technical Services Division have advised that they will provide comments on the draft plan of subdivision application
when these reports are submitted and reviewed.
Slope Stability:
Portions of the property are subject to the Ontario Regulations of the Conservation Authority. Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority staff received and reviewed a preliminary soils investigation (dated June 1989) and a geo-technical
report (August 1989) prepared by B. P. Walker and Associates Limited. Authority staff are generally satisfied with the
overall recommendations and conclusions presented in the consultants studies but they would impose appropriate
conditions of draft plan approval in the event that a plan of subdivision is approved for this property and in particular
appropriate conditions with respect to storm water management on the site and remediation of gully erosion at the
upstream end of the property. Among other matters, the Authority seeks conveyance of the Valley land block as a condition
of draft plan approval. Their comments are attached as Schedule "I".
Municipal Standards:
Municipal Standards staff have indicated that there are active property standards issues with respect to 325 Bogert Avenue.
There also is a need to clean debris from the valley slope. Any program proposed to accommodate the relocation and
accommodation of the existing rental tenants needs to remedy these concerns before and during the construction period.
Parkland and Recreation Facilities:
The applicant has proposed a 470 mē (5,059 ftē) community centre adjacent to Easton Road, but no on-site parkland
dedication. The Lansing Community, which includes the residential area north of Sheppard Avenue to the York Cemetery,
is deficient in parkland (1.93 ha or 4.7 acres).
The application has not specified whether the proposed community centre is intended to be a private or a public facility.
The Parks and Recreation Planning Branch indicates that if this is to be a public facility, it should have a minimum gross
floor area of 929 mē (10,000 ftē), constructed by the applicant at their cost on a turn key ready basis. Parking for the
community centre would have to be provided on site.
If the community centre is operated on a private basis, the application will be subject to a 5% land dedication requirement,
with final configuration and location of the parkland to be conveyed subject to the approval of the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism. The preferred location of the land conveyance is abutting Easton Road.
Further discussions are required with the applicant to resolve the issues of appropriate parkland and recreational facilities
for this development. A review of recreation and community facilities needs assessment may be required by the Economic
Development Culture and Tourism Department to determine whether the proposed facilities are necessary. In addition, if
developed, the operation cost of the proposed facilities will need to be recommended by the Economic Development
Culture and Tourism Committee and approved by Council.
The lands below the top of the bank should be conveyed to the appropriate public agency and given an appropriate
designation and zoning. These lands cannot be considered to fulfill the parkland dedication requirement.
Indoor as well as outdoor amenity space should be provided for the residents of the proposed apartment buildings, and a
pre-school play area and multi-purpose sports pad should be considered.
Schools:
The Toronto Catholic District School Board has raised an issue with respect to the capacity at both its elementary and
secondary schools. Further discussions should take place with the TCDSB prior to any OMB hearing.
Pedestrian Comfort:
The applicant has been requested to submit a preliminary review of the development by a qualified microclimate specialist,
addressing the issues set out in Section 8.1.0 of the Pedestrian Comfort Guidelines in the Appendix to the Official Plan.
This study has not been submitted by the applicant.
Conclusions:
The principles for development for any intensification of this site should be approved by Council to define the City's
position at the OMB pre-hearing conference in April. Further, it is the submission of this report that the scheduling of a
hearing is premature until the applicant has perfected their various applications and the City has been afforded an
appropriate period of time to carry out adequate community consultation and inter-departmental review prior to a statutory
public meeting.
In the interim, since pre-Hearing proceedings have been commenced at the Ontario Municipal Board, it is appropriate that
staff be authorized to seek a mediated settlement with the applicant working within the parameters of development
described in the Principles of Development summarized in Appendix "1" and report back to Council with any settlement
position which can be achieved through negotiation.
Community consultation on the applications should be continued, leading to a statutory public meeting when staff are in a
position to prepare a final report.
Contact Name:
Karen Whitney, Planner
North York Civic Centre
Telephone: (416) 395-7109
Fax: (416) 395-7155
(A copy of the Appendices and Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North
York Civic Centre.)
--------
Mr. Hank Mulder, President, Bogert Tenants Association Inc., appeared before the North York Community Council in
connection with the foregoing matter and he outlined his objections to the proposed demolition of the existing rental
apartment units on the subject property.
A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, was as follows:
FOR: Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Moscoe, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, King
AGAINST: NIL
ABSENT: Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri, Feldman, Shiner
Carried
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential
joint report (April 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and City Solicitor, such
report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)
23
Sign By-law Variance Request - Billboard Roof Sign -
Raffaella Russo - 373 Wilson Avenue - North York Centre South
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (October 27, 1999) from the Director
and Deputy Chief Building Official, not be adopted; and that the request for a minor variance from the sign by-law
be approved:
Purpose:
Evaluate and make a recommendation concerning a request by Ms. Raffaella Russo, for a variance from the Sign By-law to
permit the erection of illuminated 10 foot by 20 foot third party billboard sign on the roof of an existing 2-storey
commercial building at 373 Wilson Ave.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request for a minor variance from the sign by-law be refused.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The building on which the sign is proposed is located in a commercial zone (C1). The building fronts on to Wilson Ave.
and the proposed sign would face east and west on the south side of Wilson Ave. The building on which the sign is
proposed contains various retail and restaurant uses on the first floor with residential and office suites on the second floor;
this type of building is very common in this area and is mirrored in use along the north and south sides of Wilson Ave. On
the roof of the subject building there are three (3) existing illuminated roof signs approximately ten feet by twenty feet
each. The proposed sign would be located approximately 100 feet west of the existing roof signs.
Section 5.2.1.1 of the Sign By-law for roof signs in a commercial zone requires that roof signs be located no closer than
500 feet from another roof sign, on the same side of the street.
Considering the various uses of the subject building and the various surrounding building, the concentration of existing
roof signs, the approval of this sign would result in a very high concentration of roof signs within a small corridor and
contribute to visual pollution of the area. The Ward Councillors have been notified of this request and have been provided
with a copy of the report and attached plans.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of this department that the proposed sign would:
(1) have negative impact on the area;
(2) not be a minor variance from the Sign By-law requirement; and
(3) not be in keeping with the intent of the Sign By-law requirements.
--------
Ms. Raffaella Russo appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(A copy of the plans referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
24
Appeal of Street Vending Permit Application No. 109 -
Fatemeh Sorghans -
South Side of Godstone Road, East of Don Mills Road -
Seneca Heights
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 25, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 3, and that the vending permit not be issued:
Purpose:
To consider an appeal of a decision to refuse an application by Fatemeh Sorghans for a street vending permit to sell hot
dogs, sausages and cold drinks on the south side of Godstone Road, east of Don Mills Road.
Source of funds:
There are no costs associated with the appeal of the refusal of the vending application.
Recommendation:
That Council adopt the staff report and that the vending permit not be issued.
Council Reference/Background/History:
This division received an application Mr. Sorghans to sell hot dogs, sausages and cold drinks on the south side of Godstone
Road, east of Don Mills Road.
In accordance with By-Law No. 32100 of the former City of North York, staff of the Transportation Services Division of
the Works and Emergency Services Department canvassed the local Councillors' offices and Public Health Department for
comments.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
As a result of investigations and comments, it was determined that:
- there was sufficient space within the municipal boulevard to accommodate the request and that the vending operations
would not create a pedestrian impediment or sight obstruction;
- the Public Health Department had no objection with regards to the application provided that the applicant complied
with Ontario Regulation 562/9 (Food Premises); and
- Councillor David Shiner, due to concerns from local residents, could not support the issuance of a permit, unless it
could be issued temporarily.
The solution, Mr. Michael Doyle requests the opportunity to represent Mr. Sorghans at the North York Community
Council.
Conclusions:
Based upon the objection received, the vending permit should be refused.
Contact Name:
Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations
395-7463 (telephone)
395-7482 (facsimile)
ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (e-mail)
25
Fence By-law Variance Request - 219 Ruth Avenue -
North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 9, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and that the request for a variance to the Fence
By-law, be approved:
Purpose:
To address request for variance on height of fence on east side of the subject property.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the application for a variance on the fence height be refused as the fence encroaches upon the neighbouring premises
and the owner advised to remove the fence; or
(2) as the Committee of Adjustment has approved the east side yard setback to the deck of 0 metres whereas 1.8 metre is
required which does not include the width of the posts for the fence, that the owner of No. 219 Ruth Avenue be requested
to pursue the matter with the neighbours in order to obtain their approval for the fence to remain as an encroachment over
their premises and, if approval is obtained from the neighbours to maintain the encroaching fence, that the fence be reduced
in height to 2.13 metres (7 feet) measured from grade.
Council Reference/Background/History:
David Ho on behalf of Mr. Tony Chan of 219 Ruth Avenue has requested the variance on the fence on the basis that the
fence is required to be 8 feet high measured from the deck and 11 feet high measured from grade to block the view of the
roof of the neighbour's garage.
The problems at this site commenced in 1996 with (1) a deck structure constructed in the east side yard which encroaches
into the side yard setback in contravention of Zoning By-law No. 7625, Section 6(9) and (2) the attachment to the deck of a
fence greater than 2.13m (7 feet) in height *(actual measurement 10' to 12' measured from grade and approximately 38' in
length) in contravention of By-law No. 30901, Section 3.1.3. A permit on record with the Building Division reveals a 3' x
3' platform and steps in lieu of the deck structure.
Subsequently, charges on both contraventions were brought before the Ontario Court (Provincial Division). Mr. Chan was
convicted and fined $200.00 on each violation on October 19, 1998.
There was a hearing with the Committee of Adjustment on October 22, 1998 with respect to the variance required for the
reconstructed unexcavated deck on the east side. The variance requested was to allow a setback of 0 m in lieu of the
required 1.8 m. That application was approved.
Comments:
A photograph of the deck structure and fence is attached. As there is 0 m setback for the deck structure, it is clear that the
fence is encroaching which is substantiated by a survey as well as being in contravention of By-law No. 30901.
Further, Mr. Ho's depiction in the sketch attached to the variance request does not show that the length of the fence extends
another approximately 8.5 feet beyond the deck structure nor does it reflect the height at 10' - 12' above grade.
Mr. Ho has stated in his variance request that the height of the fence is intended to block the view of the roof of the
neighbour's garage. This statement requires clarification given that the roof of the garage is peaked and would not be an
area used for the purposes of a roof deck.
Mr. Chan would face the problem of cutting into the deck structure in order to remove the fence.
Conclusions:
1) The committee of Adjustment has approved the 0 m setback which does not include the fence; therefore, the fence is
encroaching the neighbour's property and should be removed.
Option:
1) If Mr. Chan can come to an agreement with the neighbour to allow the fence to remain, the City will have no objection
to maintenance of the fence provided it does not exceed 2.13 m in height, measured from grade.
Contact Name:
Donna Perrin, North District Manager
Municipal Standards and Court Services
395-7020
--------
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (February 16, 1999) from Mr.
Robert Yu, owner of 221 Ruth Avenue, advising that he has no objections to the encroachment or the lattice work above
the deck of 219 Ruth Avenue since the lattice work serves its purpose of maintaining privacy between the parties involved.
(A copy of the photograph of the deck structure and fence referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the
City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
26
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-16 -
Rocco Grossi - 1 Upwood Avenue - North York Humber
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (March 8, 1999) from the Acting Director,
Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands,
recommends that the application submitted by Rocco Grossi regarding Zoning Amendment Application for 1
Upwood Avenue, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report:
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on March 30, 1999, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (March 8, 1999) from the Acting Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of the application to permit the construction of one semi-detached dwelling at the south
east corner of Upwood Avenue and Queen's Drive.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the zoning for the site be amended from R4 to an RM2 zone with the following exceptions:
Exception Regulations
(a) the minimum lot frontage for a semi-detached dwelling shall be 16.7m;
(b) the minimum lot frontage for a semi-detached dwelling unit shall be 8.2m; and
(c) the minimum side yard setback from the southerly property line shall be 1.5m.
(2) staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any zoning by-law the
following conditions have been satisfied:
(a) the conditions of the Technical Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services attached as Schedule "G"; and
(3) prior to enactment of the zoning by-law, the Acting Director of Community Planning, North District, shall have granted
site plan approval which addresses siting of the building envelope, tree preservation, landscape plan and building
elevations.
Background:
Proposal:
The applicant proposes to construct a new semi-detached dwelling on the vacant site shown on Schedule "C". This
property was severed from the abutting south side property in 1997 under Committee of Adjustment application
UDLD-97-94. The pertinent statistics are as follows:
| |
RM2 Provisions |
Proposed |
| Lot Area |
Min. 665mē |
720mē |
| Lot Frontage |
Min. 18m |
16.74m |
| Gross Floor Area |
No maximum requirement |
216mē |
| Lot Coverage |
Max. 30 percent |
30 percent |
| Density |
30uph |
28 uph |
| Yard Setbacks
Front
Side
Rear |
Min. 7.5m
Min. 1.8m
Min. 9.5m |
7.5m
1.5m and 1.8m
9.5m |
| Building Height |
Max. 9.2m and two storeys |
9.2m and two storeys |
Official Plan and Zoning:
The site is designated Residential Density One (RD1) and zoned R4 (Refer to Schedules "A" and "B"). The site is located
within the Valley Land Impact Zone (VIZ). The site meets the Official Plan's maximum density requirements of 30 units
per hectare with a density of 28 units per hectare.
Comments:
Other Department Comments:
The following section summarizes the comments received from the departments and agencies circulated.
The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority advises that the proposed development does not appear to affect the
policy and program interests of the Authority (Refer Schedule "E").
The Transportation Services of the Works and Emergency Services Department advises that the applicant requires two
parking spaces for each semi-detached dwelling unit and that access to the site is to be gained off Upwood Avenue (refer to
Schedule "F").
Technical Services of the Works and Emergency Services Department advises that there is a storm water easement that
runs across the site. The owner will be required to relocate the storm water easement at his own expense prior to the
construction of the semi-detached dwelling (refer to Schedule "G").
Community Consultation:
A letter was sent to each resident that resides within 120m of the site. The letter provided information about the proposed
development and gave each resident an opportunity to provide their comments about the proposal to the City.
One issue was raised by a resident living on the north side of Queens Drive directly opposite the site. The resident does not
want to look across the street at a brick wall. This issue will be addressed through the site plan approval process.
Discussion:
Land Use:
The proposed semi-detached dwelling is a permitted use under the site's RD1 designation.
Official Plan Housing Policies:
The proposal has been evaluated against the relevant policies and criteria contained within the Official Plan's Housing
policies. A summary of this evaluation is outlined below.
The Official Plan's Housing policy requires new residential development within low density residential neighbourhoods be
generally compatible and sensitive to, the surrounding physical development and that a lot proposed for a semi-detached
use be located on a street where other semi-detached dwellings exist.
The Official Plan also sets out development criteria that states that "limited intensification in stable residential
neighbourhoods may be permitted, when, in the opinion of Council, such
- intensification is desirable and appropriate in order to rejuvenate or enhance the viability of a residential neighbourhood;
and
- intensification within stable residential neighbourhoods shall include new housing and new lots (compatible in scale and
physical character with the existing residential neighbourhood) on under used parcels of land."
The proposed semi-detached dwelling is desirable and an appropriate use for this site as it meets the above objective and
development criteria for limited intensification in neighbourhoods. The proposed semi-detached dwelling will continue to
enhance the viability of the neighbourhood by helping to buffer the existing residential uses along Upwood Avenue from
Black Creek Drive to the east. There are a number of existing semi-detached dwellings on Upwood Avenue and to the
south on Katrina Court which are compatible in scale and physical character with the proposed semi-detached dwelling.
The semi-detached dwellings on Katrina Court are two storeys in height with reduced lot frontages and in some cases,
reduced side yard setbacks (refer to Schedule "I").
Valley Land Impact Zone:
As the site is located with the Valley Land Impact Zone the applicant will be required to be granted site plan approval by
the Director of Community Planning, North District prior to the enactment of a zoning by-law. As part of the site plan
approval process, the applicant would be required to provide a tree preservation plan for the exiting mature trees on the
site. Under the site plan approval process the proposed semi-detached dwelling will be subject to the replacement housing
guidelines.
Zoning:
The performance standards for the proposed semi-detached dwelling are comparable with other infill projects within the
north district of the City in particular the recently approved semi-detached dwelling development to the south on Katrina
Court. The proposed reductions to the minimum lot frontages for the semi-detached dwelling and semi-detached dwelling
units of and the minimum side yard setback from the southerly side property line are considered to be minor.
Conclusions:
The proposed semi-detached dwelling is an appropriate use of the lands. The proposed development is similar to the
recently approved semi-detached dwellings south of the site on Katrina Court. The recommended zoning standards ensure
development remains consistent with existing land uses in the area and recent Council approvals for similar development.
Contact Name:
Randy Jones, Planner
Telephone: (416) 395-7137
(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
--------
No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
27
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-26 -
Esfandiar Aghaei - 162 Finch Avenue East -
North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (February 23, 1999) from the Acting Director,
Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands,
recommends that the application submitted by Esfandiar Aghaei regarding Zoning Amendment Application for
162 Finch Avenue East, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report, and subject to the following
additional conditions:
(1) prior to enactment of a zoning by-law, site plan approval be obtained; and
(2) the installation of a catch basin to prevent any negative surface drainage impact on adjoining properties, in
particular, the rear properties, if it is deemed necessary as a result of the site plan review process.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on March 30, 1999, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (February 23, 1999) from the Acting Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of an application to permit a redevelopment of the site with a
3-storey semi-detached dwelling.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this application be approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1) the R4 zoning of the property be amended to RM2 (19);
(2) the RM2 (19) zoning exception be amended to permit, for the property at 162 Finch Avenue East:
(a) a maximum gross floor area of 582 square metres; and
(b) a minimum lot area of 517 square metres (after conveyance of road widening);
(3) prior to the enactment of any zoning by-law, the applicant shall convey all required road widenings along Finch Avenue
East;
(4) prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan satisfactory to the Acting Director
of Community Planning, North District, specifically addressing site plan and streetscape improvements in accordance with
the Secondary Plan guidelines, the required Finch Avenue widening and ensuring the technical requirements of the
circulated Departments and Agencies are satisfied;
(5) the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division as set out in
Schedule "E";
(6) the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Technical Services Division as set out in Schedule
"F"; and
(7) at the appropriate time, Council approve a by-law for exemption from part lot control in accordance with the conditions
and policies adopted for part lot control exemption. Prior to releasing part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have
submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land, the City will be advised in
order that the part lot control exempting by-law may be revoked.
Background:
Proposal:
The application proposes an amendment to the zoning by-law to permit development of the site with a 3-storey
semi-detached dwelling. The proposal represents a density of 0.98 FSI based on the gross site area. The secondary plan
permits the density calculation to include the land area dedicated and transferred to the City for road widening purposes.
The proposed site plan is shown on Schedule "C".
Pertinent site statistics are shown below:
| NET SITE STATISTICS
(after road widening) |
PROPOSAL |
| Lot Area (gross site 592mē prior to conveyance) |
517mē for the dwelling*
258 mē each unit* |
| Lot Coverage |
37 percent (based on the net site) |
| Gross Floor Area |
582mē |
| Yard Setbacks
- Front
- Rear
- Side |
5.97m*
9.68m
1.2 m each side |
| Building Height |
9.33m |
* based on a Finch Avenue road widening of 4.9 metres.
Location and existing Site:
The property is located on the north side of Finch Avenue East between Longmore Street and Maxome Avenue. This
portion of Finch Avenue is developed primarily with single detached dwellings, including the immediately abutting
properties. There is another application (UDZ-98-27) for a semi-detached dwelling at 204 Finch Avenue East, submitted by
the same applicant.
Planning Controls:
Official Plan:
The site is designated Central Finch Residential One (CFR-1) within the Central Finch Secondary Plan, which permits
single and multiple-unit residential uses, in addition to parks uses and places of worship. The secondary plan encourages
redevelopment and intensification of permitted uses in order to achieve a mixed use area between Bathurst Street and
Bayview Avenue. Along Finch Avenue East, the Plan particularly encourages small multiple-unit residential buildings
fronting onto Finch Avenue, east of Willowdale Avenue. The maximum density permitted by the CFR-1 designation for
sites with a frontage of less than 30 metres is 1.0 FSI.
Zoning:
The site is zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone (R4). A rezoning is required to accommodate a
semi-detached dwelling.
There have been similar applications for semi-detached dwellings in the Central Finch Area from Willowdale Avenue to
Bayview Avenue (refer to Appendix "1"). In October 1997, zoning exception RM2 (19) was created in the context of the
application for a semi-detached dwelling at 142 Finch Avenue. This exception (refer to Appendix "2") is intended to apply
to semi-detached and duplex dwelling redevelopment within the Central Finch Area, with provisions set out for maximum
gross floor area, building height, and lot coverage; and minimums for lot frontage, yard setbacks and parking. The current
application has been evaluated against the standards of the RM2 (19) exception zone.
The Official Plan and zoning of this property and the surrounding area are shown on Schedules "A" and "B".
Other Department Comments:
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department have no objection to the proposal
provided there is a 4.9 metre road widening conveyance to the City and the applicant complying with the technical
requirements outlined in their comments attached as Schedule "E".
The Technical Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has no objections and their comments
are attached as Schedule "F".
The Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board comments are attached as Schedules
"G" and "H".
The Parks and Recreation Planning Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has indicated
that they have no parkland dedication requirements under Section 42 of the Planning Act. Their comments are attached as
Schedule "I".
Community Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was not required for this application. Community issues will be addressed through the
statutory public meeting of the Community Council.
Discussion:
Planning Issues:
Land Use and Density:
The proposed development conforms with the land use and density objectives of the Central Finch Secondary Plan.
Gross Floor Area:
The RM2 (19) exception zone limits the maximum gross floor area to 521 square metres. The current proposal is for a
semi-detached dwelling having a gross floor area of 582 square metres which represents a density of 0.98 FSI (prior to the
road conveyance). The secondary plan permits a maximum density of 1.0 FSI for lots having a frontage of less than 30
metres. Amending the RM2 (19) zone for this property by permitting a larger gross floor area for the proposed
semi-detached dwelling is in keeping with the density objectives of the secondary plan.
Lot Area:
The RM2 (19) exception zone requires a minimum lot area of 557 square metres. The subject property has a lot area of 517
square metres after the required 4.9 metre conveyance along the frontage of the property. With the exceptions to gross floor
area and lot area, the applicant is proposing zoning standards which are consistent with those proposed for recent
semi-detached dwelling developments in the Central Finch Area (see Appendix "1").
Building Height:
The Central Finch Plan and the RM2 (19) zoning exception require an overall building height of the lessor of three storeys
or 10 metres, and requires that the height of any building shall not exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance separating
the new building from the nearest stable residential property line. With a proposed height of three storeys and 9.33 metres,
the proposal complies with the maximum building height and angular plane policies of the Plan and the provisions
established in the RM2 (19) exception zone (see Schedules "D1"and "D2").
Urban Design:
In order to ensure that the site plan and landscape treatment along Finch Avenue is implemented in accordance with the
provisions of the Central Finch Secondary Plan, it is appropriate to have the applicant submit a landscape plan to the
satisfaction of the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
plan will also reflect the Finch Avenue conveyance and proposed perimeter landscaping and/or fencing.
Conclusions:
The application to permit a semi-detached dwelling on this site is recommended for approval. It is consistent with the
intent of the Central Finch Secondary Plan and is in keeping with recent Council approvals for similar type developments
in this area.
Contact Name:
Anthony Rossi
Telephone: (416) 395-7114 Fax: (416) 395-7155.
(A copy of the Appendices and Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North
York Civic Centre.)
--------
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (March 16, 1999) from Ms.
Shirley Forde, advising of her objection to the application.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Bob Hill, who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary objections were with respect to the size, height,
and incompatibility of the proposed semi-detached dwellings. In his opinion the proposed development would not blend in
with existing development in the area, which consists primarily of single family dwellings of bungalow design.
- Mr. Basil Bedevinos, who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary objections were with respect to size and
height of the proposed semi-detached dwellings. He was also concerned about overshadowing and loss of sunlight.
- Mr. Esfandiar Aghaei, the applicant, who commented on the merits of the application. In his opinion the proposal is
consistent with the intent of the Central Finch Secondary Plan and is in keeping with recent Council approvals for similar
type developments in this area.
28
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-27 -
Esfandiar Aghaei - 204 Finch Avenue East -
North York Centre
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (February 23, 1999) from the Acting Director,
Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands,
recommends that the application submitted by Esfandiar Aghaei regarding Zoning Amendment Application for
204 Finch Avenue East, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report, and subject to the following
additional conditions:
(1) prior to enactment of a zoning by-law, site plan approval be obtained;
(2) the installation of a catch basin to prevent any negative surface drainage impact on adjoining properties, in
particular, the rear properties, if it is deemed necessary as a result of the site plan review process;
(3) the applicant being required to submit a letter of credit or a cash deposit, with the City, in order to ensure that
the tree on the neighbouring property at 206 Finch Avenue East is protected before and after the construction
period;
(4) the applicant being required to submit a letter of credit or a cash deposit with the City, to ensure that the
landscaping being proposed is completed.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on March 30, 1999, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (February 23, 1999) from the Acting Director,
Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of an application to permit a redevelopment of the site with a
3-storey semi-detached dwelling.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this application be approved, subject to the following conditions:
(1) the R4 zoning of the property be amended to RM2 (19);
(2) the RM2 (19) zoning exception be amended to permit, for the property at 204 Finch Avenue East:
(a) a maximum gross floor area of 582 square metres; and
(b) a minimum lot area of 517 square metres (after conveyance of road widening);
(3) prior to the enactment of any zoning by-law, the applicant shall convey all required road widenings along Finch Avenue
East;
(4) prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan satisfactory to the Acting Director
of Community Planning, North District, specifically addressing site plan and streetscape improvements in accordance with
the Secondary Plan guidelines, the required Finch Avenue widening and ensuring the technical requirements of the
circulated Departments and Agencies are satisfied;
(5) the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division as set out in
Schedule "E";
(6) the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Technical Services Division as set out in Schedule
"F"; and
(7) at the appropriate time, Council approve a by-law for exemption from part lot control in accordance with the conditions
and policies adopted for part lot control exemption. Prior to releasing part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have
submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land, the City will be advised in
order that the part lot control exempting by-law may be revoked.
Background:
Proposal:
The application proposes an amendment to the zoning by-law to permit development of the site with a 3-storey
semi-detached dwelling. The proposal represents a density of 0.98 FSI based on the gross site area. The secondary plan
permits the density calculation to include the land area dedicated and transferred to the City for road widening purposes.
The proposed site plan is shown on Schedule "C".
Pertinent site statistics are shown below:
| NET SITE STATISTICS
(after road widening) |
PROPOSAL |
| Lot Area (gross site 592mē prior to conveyance) |
517mē for the dwelling*
258 mē each unit* |
| Lot Coverage |
37 percent (based on the net site) |
| Gross Floor Area |
582mē |
| Yard Setbacks
- Front
- Rear
- Side |
5.97m*
9.68m
1.2 m each side |
| Building Height |
9.33m |
* based on a Finch Avenue road widening of 4.9 metres.
Location and existing Site:
The property is located on the north side of Finch Avenue East between Longmore Street and Maxome Avenue. This
portion of Finch Avenue is developed primarily with single detached dwellings, including the immediately abutting
properties. There is another application (UDZ-98-26) for a semi-detached dwelling at 162 Finch Avenue East, submitted by
the same applicant.
Planning Controls:
Official Plan:
The site is designated Central Finch Residential One (CFR-1) within the Central Finch Secondary Plan, which permits
single and multiple-unit residential uses, in addition to parks uses and places of worship. The secondary plan encourages
redevelopment and intensification of permitted uses in order to achieve a mixed use area between Bathurst Street and
Bayview Avenue. Along Finch Avenue East, the Plan particularly encourages small multiple-unit residential buildings
fronting onto Finch Avenue, east of Willowdale Avenue. The maximum density permitted by the CFR-1 designation for
sites with a frontage of less than 30 metres is 1.0 FSI.
Zoning:
The site is zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone (R4). A rezoning is required to accommodate a
semi-detached dwelling.
There have been similar applications for semi-detached dwellings in the Central Finch Area from Willowdale Avenue to
Bayview Avenue (refer to Appendix "1"). In October 1997, zoning exception RM2 (19) was created in the context of the
application for a semi-detached dwelling at 142 Finch Avenue. This exception (refer to Appendix "2") is intended to apply
to semi-detached and duplex dwelling redevelopment within the Central Finch Area, with provisions set out for maximum
gross floor area, building height, and lot coverage; and minimums for lot frontage, yard setbacks and parking. The current
application has been evaluated against the standards of the RM2 (19) exception zone.
The Official Plan and zoning of this property and the surrounding area are shown on Schedules "A" and "B".
Other Department Comments:
The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department have no objection to the proposal
provided there is a 4.9 metre road widening conveyance to the City and the applicant complying with the technical
requirements outlined in their comments attached as Schedule "E".
The Technical Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has no objections and their comments
are attached as Schedule "F ".
The Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board comments are attached as Schedules
"G" and "H".
The Parks and Recreation Planning Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has indicated
that they have no parkland dedication requirements under Section 42 of the Planning Act. Their comments are attached as
Schedule "I".
Community Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was not required for this application. Community issues will be addressed through the
statutory public meeting of the Community Council.
Discussion:
Planning Issues:
Land Use and Density:
The proposed development conforms with the land use and density objectives of the Central Finch Secondary Plan.
Gross Floor Area:
The RM2 (19) exception zone limits the maximum gross floor area to 521 square metres. The current proposal is for a
semi-detached dwelling having a gross floor area of 582 square metres which represents a density of 0.98 FSI (prior to the
road conveyance). The secondary plan permits a maximum density of 1.0 FSI for lots having a frontage of less than 30
metres. Amending the RM2 (19) zone for this property by permitting a larger gross floor area for the proposed
semi-detached dwelling is in keeping with the density objectives of the secondary plan.
Lot Area:
The RM2 (19) exception zone requires a minimum lot area of 557 square metres. The subject property has a lot area of 517
square metres after the required 4.9 metre conveyance along the frontage of the property. With the exceptions to gross floor
area and lot area, the applicant is proposing zoning standards which are consistent with those proposed for recent
semi-detached dwelling developments in the Central Finch Area (see Appendix "1").
Building Height:
The Central Finch Plan and the RM2 (19) zoning exception require an overall building height of the lessor of three storeys
or 10 metres, and requires that the height of any building shall not exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance separating
the new building from the nearest stable residential property line. With a proposed height of three storeys and 9.33 metres,
the proposal complies with the maximum building height and angular plane policies of the Plan and the provisions
established in the RM2 (19) exception zone (see Schedule "D").
Urban Design:
In order to ensure that the site plan and landscape treatment along Finch Avenue is implemented in accordance with the
provisions of the Central Finch Secondary Plan, it is appropriate to have the applicant submit a landscape plan to the
satisfaction of the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The
plan will also reflect the Finch Avenue conveyance and proposed perimeter landscaping and/or fencing.
Conclusions:
The application to permit a semi-detached dwelling on this site is recommended for approval. It is consistent with the
intent of the Central Finch Secondary Plan and is in keeping with recent Council approvals for similar type developments
in this area.
Contact Name:
Anthony Rossi
Telephone: (416) 395-7114 Fax: (416) 395-7155.
Appendices:
1 Proposed and Approved Semi-Detached Dwelling Developments in the Central Finch Area
2 Existing RM2 (19) zoning exception revised to reflect recent approvals along Finch Avenue East.
Schedules:
A Official Plan
B Zoning By-law
C Site Plan
D Elevation Drawing
E Transportation Services Comments
F Works and Emergency Services Comments
G Toronto District School Board Comments
H Toronto Catholic District School Board Comments
I Parks and Recreation Comments
Appendix "1"
Proposed and Approved Semi-Detached Dwelling Developments in Central Finch Area
|
145 Finch Avenue
East
RM2 (14) |
142 Finch Avenue
East
RM2 (19) |
221 Finch Avenue
East
UDZ-98-12 * |
129 Finch Avenue
East
UDZ-98-21* |
135 Finch Avenue
East UDZ-98-22* |
204 Finch Avenue
East UDZ-98-27 |
| Minimum Lot
Frontage |
15 m/dwelling
7 m/unit |
15.24 m/dwelling
7.6 m/unit |
14.5 m/dwelling
7 m/unit |
13.7 m/dwelling
6.8 m/unit |
13.8 m/dwelling
6.9 m/unit |
15.2 m/dwelling
7.6 m/unit |
| Maximum Lot
Coverage |
35 percent |
37 percent |
37 percent |
35 percent |
35 percent |
37 percent |
| Minimum Lot Area |
665 mē |
557 mē |
570 mē |
600 mē |
604 mē |
517 mē |
| Minimum Front
Yard Setback |
18 m from
centre line of Finch
Avenue
(O m setback) |
24 m from
centre line of
Finch Avenue
(6 m setback) |
24 m from
centre line of
Finch Avenue
(6 m setback) |
24 m from
centre line of Finch
Avenue
(6 m setback) |
24 m from
centre line of Finch
Avenue
(6 m setback) |
24 m from centre
line of Finch
Avenue
(6 m setback) |
| Minimum Side Yard
Setback |
1.2 m |
1.2 m |
1.2 m |
1.2 m |
1.2 m |
1.2 m |
| Minimum Rear
Yard Setback |
14.5 m |
9.5 m |
18.7 m |
22.9 m |
22.9 m |
9.6 m |
| Maximum Gross
Floor Area |
620 mē |
521 mē |
421 mē |
620 mē |
626 mē |
582 mē ** |
| Maximum Building
Height |
10 m + 3 stys. |
10 m + 3 stys. |
10 m + 3 stys. |
10 m + 3 stys. |
10 m + 3 stys. |
10 m + 3 stys. |
| Maximum Hard
Surface Area |
70 percent |
70 percent
no relief
required |
no relief
required |
no relief required |
no relief required |
65 percent
no relief required |
* As recommended (By-laws not yet enacted).
** The land designated and transferred to a public authority for road widening purposes may be included in the lot area calculation when determining
permitted gross floor area (Part D.12 Section 3 of the Official Plan).
Appendix "2"
RM2 (19) ZONING EXCEPTION *
64.17 (19) RM2 (19)
EXCEPTION REGULATIONS FOR SEMI-DETACHED
DWELLINGS AND DUPLEX DWELLINGS
(a) (i) The maximum gross floor area shall be 521 mē.
(ii) For the property zoned RM2 (19) at 129 Finch Avenue East, the maximum gross floor area shall be 620 mē.
(iii) For the property zoned RM2 (19) at 135 Finch Avenue East, the maximum gross floor area shall be 626 mē.
(b) (i ) The minimum lot frontage shall be 7 metres for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 15 metres for each
semi-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling.
(ii) For property zoned RM2 (19) at 221 Finch Avenue East, the minimum lot frontage shall be 7 metres for each
semi-detached dwelling unit and 14.5 metres for each semi-detached dwelling.
(iii) For the property zoned RM2 (19) at 129 Finch Avenue East, the minimum lot frontage shall be 6.8 metres for each
semi- detached dwelling unit and 13.7 metres for each semi-detached dwelling.
(iv) For the property zoned RM2 (19) at 135 Finch Avenue East, the minimum lot frontage shall be 6.9 metres for each
semi- detached dwelling unit and 13.8 metres for each semi-detached dwelling.
(c) The minimum lot area shall be 557 mē.
(d) Yard Setbacks
(i) The minimum front yard setback shall be 24 metres from the centre line of Finch Avenue East.
(ii) The minimum side yard setbacks shall be 1.2 metres.
(iii) The minimum rear yard setback shall be 9.5 metres.
(e) The maximum building height shall be the lesser of 10 metres or three storeys. Notwithstanding the above, in no case
shall the height of a building (except accessory buildings and structures) exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance
separating the building from the rear lot line.
(f) The maximum lot coverage shall be 37 percent.
(g) A minimum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided.
(h) Landscaping and front yard hard surfacing requirements shall not apply.
* Revisions in italics reflect Amendment Application UDZ-98-12 (221 Finch Avenue East), UDZ-98-21 (129 Finch Avenue East) and UDZ-98-22 (135
Finch Avenue East) as recommended for approval by the North York Community Council on October 14, 1998 and December 9, 1998 respectively.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (March 10, 1999) from Ms. Joan
Stone and Mr. Rodney Stone, expressing their objection to the application.
Mr. Jerry J. Deroo appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and spoke
in opposition to the application. His primary concerns were with respect to the incompatibility of the proposed
semi-detached dwelling with existing development in the area and possible damage to the existing mature tree located
adjacent to the subject lands. In concluding he requested that every precaution be taken in order to ensure the preservation
of the tree.
29
Encroachment - 22 Alexandra Wood - North York Centre South
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor Flint,
North York Centre South, subject to the following amendments:
(1) a driveway width of 5 m be permitted to encroach onto the City boulevard to a maximum of 1.52 m;
(2) that the encroachment agreement be drawn up to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services; and
(3) that the owner of 22 Alexandra Wood assume all liabilities.
The North York Community Council submits the following Resolution from Councillor Flint, North York Centre
South:
WHEREAS the owner of 22 Alexandra Wood has requested an encroachment of 2.74 metres onto City boulevard to
facilitate a back sloping driveway; and
WHEREAS all necessary approvals from utilities have been obtained; and
WHEREAS there is precedent in Ward 9 for this type of encroachment;
WHEREAS there is support for this encroachment from abutting neighbours;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City enter into an encroachment agreement with the owner of 22 Alexandra
Wood to allow a 5.18 m wide driveway to encroach onto City boulevard to a maximum of 2.7 m;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the encroachment be registered on title and that the applicant assume the one time
administration and registration cost.
30
Adult Entertainment Parlours
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council reports having:
(1) received the confidential report (February 18, 1999) from the City Solicitor, respecting the matter of Adult
Entertainment Parlours, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover;
(2) recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to review the
existing zoning provisions of the former municipalities that regulate adult oriented use with a view to harmonizing
the provisions and to report within six months to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on
implementing them by appropriate zoning provisions and/or licensing provisions under Section 225 of the
Municipal Act; and
(3) recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to take all necessary steps to resolve the outstanding court
applications and Ontario Municipal Board Appeals in furtherance of the recommendations in this report as soon as
the substitute provisions are in place.
The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services to provide a further report within six months to the Urban Environment and
Development Committee on legal and illegal massage parlours opening in the City of Toronto.
Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, advised that he has been seized as a panel member in an ongoing Toronto
Licensing Tribunal hearing with respect to a case involving an adult entertainment parlour. He withdrew from the meeting
without participating in the deliberations.
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential
report (February 18, 1999) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of
the Municipal Act.)
(Councillor Moscoe, at the meeting of City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, advised that he has been seized as a
panel member in an ongoing Toronto Licensing Tribunal hearing with respect to a case involving an adult entertainment
parlour. He withdrew from the meeting without participating in the deliberations pertaining to the foregoing Clause.)
31
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
(a) City of Toronto 1999 Operating Budget Review.
The North York Community Council on March 29, 1999 and March 30, 1999, reports having recommended to the
Budget Committee that:
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
(1) the flat-lining of the 1998 Grants Budget be supported and the resulting $1.378 million be re-allocated within
the 1999 Grants Budget;
(2) the film permit fee be $100.00 the first day and $50.00 each additional day to a maximum of $300.00 and in
addition, $75,000.00 for the film centre and the remainder be used to subsidize arts related programs for children
in high needs areas;
(3) the current $11 million expenditure being proposed for the former City of Toronto for its commercial garbage
pick-up be re-allocated;
(4) (a) the City of Toronto re-affirm the policy of dedicating revenue generated by film permit fees to a reserve
account, in order to fund on a 50 percent cost share basis with the Canadian Centre for Advanced Film Studies
mutually agreed capital maintenance of the historical building on Bayview Avenue; and
(b) a maximum of $75,000.00 per year be set aside in this reserve fund.
Community and Neighbourhood Services
(1) the endorsement of the harmonized level recommended by the Board of Health, in the areas of tuberculosis,
food safety, needle exchange and dental programs.
Works and Emergency Services:
(1) the compost funds for Environment Days remain at the same level as in 1998;
(2) the reinstatement of a $5.00 charge for blue boxes at Environment Day events;
(3) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services re-evaluate the current City of Toronto WES SWM 1998
Operational Summer Garbage Collection map with a view to incorporating other areas of the City through input
with Councillors and communities;
(4) (a) the proposed elimination of twice-a-week garbage collection in the former City of North York be replaced by
a program to provide twice-a-week garbage collection throughout the new City of Toronto during the summer
months for a net savings of $0.2 million; and
(b) the resulting $1.4 million cost be offset by reducing the expenditure for the free commercial garbage collection
offered to some businesses from $14 million to $12.6 million;
(5) the universal sidewalk clearing program be extended to the entire City and the additional costs be offset by
reductions in other programs;
(6) (a) the boulevard parking fee be increased to $120.00 per year from $60.00 per year for an additional revenue
of $1,069,400.00;
(b) the permit parking fee be increased to $120.00 per year from $60.00 per year for an additional revenue of
$3,600,000.00;
(c) the commercial boulevard parking fee be increased to $290.00 per year from $220.00 per year for an additional
revenue of $299,915.00;
(d) parking meter rates be increased approximately 5 percent and the additional funds collected be allocated to
public transit; and
(e) a 25 cent surcharge be placed on all parking lot fees and the funds generated be allocated to public transit; and
(7) (a) the one staff person per truck policy for multi-residential garbage collection be reviewed and that the review
include, but not be limited to: speed of pick-up; type and suitability of vehicles; employee morale; customer
satisfaction; and
(b) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report back to the Community Councils by September of
1999.
Toronto Hydro
(1) the hydro rate be set at the weighted average of the five previous area municipalities except for the former City
of Toronto;
(2) the costs of operation be reduced to the average of the five former area municipalities other than the former
City of Toronto; and
(3) the former City of Toronto Hydro debt be restructured so as to allow for the rate reduction.
Toronto Police Service
(1) the acquisition of police helicopters be supported only if none of the operating costs accrue to the police budget.
The North York Community Council also recommended the adoption of the following motion:
"WHEREAS the 1999 Operating Budget does not benefit the former City of North York; and
WHEREAS the former Cities of Toronto, York and East York are the only areas that benefit from this Budget;
and
WHEREAS garbage, snow removal and social programmes are very important to the citizens of the former City of
North York,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the North York Community Council Chair meet with the Mayor of the
City of Toronto to get his intervention on achieving a better deal for the North York Taxpayer with respect to
garbage pick up, snow removal and social programmes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT if the meeting with the Mayor of the City of Toronto does not satisfy the
North York Community Council, that an emergency meeting be called by the Chair prior to the next Council
meeting; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the North York Community Councillors discuss the options being
considered to legally stop the proposed budget from passing at the next scheduled City of Toronto Council meeting.
The North York Community Council also reports having recommended that the Chair of the North York
Community Council approach the Chairs and Members of the Scarborough and Etobicoke Community Councils in
order to create a united front against unfair increases.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following:
(i) communication (March 5, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Committee has completed its preliminary
review of the 1999 Operating Budget and forwarding, in accordance with the Budget Committee direction:
(a) the 1999 Operating Budget, together with a communication (March 5, 1999) from Councillor Tom Jakobek, Chair,
Budget Committee; and
(b) the preliminary recommendations of the Budget Committee for the information of Community Council; and
requesting that Community Council forward its recommendations pertaining to the 1999 Operating Budget to the Budget
Committee prior to the commencement of the "wrap-up" meetings on April 6, 1999.
(ii) report (March 18, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:
(a) providing a summary of the financial impact, by former municipality, of the various service harmonization proposals
outlined in the Chief Administrative Officer's report of February 19, 1999, to the Budget Committee, as well as other
options described in various reports that have been presented to Standing Committees; and
(b) presenting the financial impacts, by former municipality, arising from the proposed water and approved hydro rate
harmonization initiatives, tax rate harmonization, Current Value Assessment (CVA) and the net financial and fixed assets
brought into the amalgamated City by each former municipality, as requested by the Budget Committee, Works and
Utilities Committee and Urban Environment and Development Committee, and recommending that the report be received
for information;
(iii) communication (March 22, 1999) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, presenting a review of the current
practices and rate structure respecting the water and wastewater program, and recommending a strategy towards a
harmonized rate structure across the new city;
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:
(i) (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Helen Hansen, Feet on the Street, submitting comments and suggestions on the operating
budget and harmonization of services;
(ii) (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Margarita Mendez, Executive Co-ordinator, Jane/Finch Community and Family Centre,
expressing recognition for the contribution of the Toronto Public Health Department to all activities of the Caring Village
Project;
(iii) (March 25, 1999) from Ms. Linda Silver, Project Manager, Better Beginnings-Now CAP.C, in support of the Public
Health budget;
(iv) (March 24, 1999) from Ms. Lorna Weigand, Executive Director, Doorsteps Neighbourhood Services, expressing
support for the services of Public Health in their community;
(v) (March 24, 1999) from Ms. Jacquie Lewis, Program Director, Doorsteps Neighbourhood Services, requesting that the
Public Health current budget be maintained;
(vi) (March 22, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, Local Union 79, advising of the Union's concerns with respect to
the 1999 Operating Budget; and
(vii) (March 1999) from Ms. Diane Weinwurm, Co-Chair, The Lung Association Tuberculosis Committee, advising of the
importance of providing adequate resources for the prevention and treatment of tuberculosis;
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the 1999 Toronto
Operating Budget:
- J. Bamford, Sexual Health Network, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;
- Carolyn Egan, Sexual Health Network;
- Ms. Maria de Wit, Chair, Child Care Advisory Committee, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;
- Ms. Anne Bird, Chair, Home Child Care Association of Toronto, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;
- Mr. Barry Rieder, Jane Finch Community Ministry, and submitted a proposed motion on Community Grants Budget for
North York Community Council;
- Ms. Wanda MacNevin, Northwood Neighbourhood Services;
- Mr. Gabor Krasznai, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Willowtree Tenants' Organization; and submitted a brief in
regard thereto;
- Ms. Mary-Lynn Trotter, Black Creek Community Centre and North York Basic Action Needs Network, and submitted a
brief in regard thereto;
- Ms. Joanne Banfield, Manager, Trauma Injury Prevention, Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Science Centre; and
Chair, Injury Prevention Coalition, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;
- Ms. Helen Kennedy, Community Budget Watch Coalition, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;
- Ms. Rhonda Payne;
- Mr. Ron Hart, Toronto Cycling Committee, and submitted a brief in regard thereto;
- Ms. Helen Hansen, on behalf of "Feet on the Street";
- Ms. Floydeen Charles-Fridal, on behalf of Youth Clinical Services Inc. and Black Coalition of Aids Prevention, and
submitted a brief in regard thereto; and
- Mr. Jack Hamilton on behalf of CUPE Local Union 79.
(b) Sheppard Subway - Status of Permits and Approvals.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(March 30, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, providing an update on the status and
development of the Sheppard Subway, and recommending that the report be received as information
(c) All Way Stop Control - King High Avenue (East Leg) at Invermay Avenue - North York Spadina.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of following report to its next meeting
scheduled for April 28, 1998:
The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3, to circulate a survey to area residents to ascertain whether there is public acceptance of
the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of King High Avenue (east) leg and Invermay Avenue.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a petition (March 29, 1999) signed by 16 residents
of Invermay Avenue, in opposition to the proposed installation of the three way stop sign.
(March 1, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, recommending that Schedules XVIII and XIX of
By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the
intersection of King High Avenue (east leg) and Invermay Avenue.
(d) Appeal of By-law No. 34-1999 - Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-94-31 - Frederick Eisen - 1100 Eglinton
Avenue East - Don Parkway.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(March 16, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on appeals of By-law No.
34-1999 dealing with 1100 Eglinton Avenue East filed by Mr. Rob Maxwell on behalf of the Hotel Employees, Restaurant
Employees Union, Local 75 and Ms. Mary L. Flynn-Guglietti of Goodman and Carr on behalf of 1144020 Ontario Limited
(Inn on the Park); and recommending that the report be received for information and that the Ontario Municipal Board be
advised accordingly.
(e) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-99-04 - Loblaws
Properties Limited - 1827 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
The North York Community Council also reports having requested the Acting Director, Community Planning, North
District, to convene the community consultation meeting with the Ward Councillors as soon as possible.
(March 5, 1999) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an
application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to expand the commercial C1 (91) zoning of the adjacent
commercial uses to the west at 1675 Jane Street, Mr. Transmission and the Loblaws No Frills Store, to include an
additional lot at 1827 Lawrence Avenue West; and recommending that staff continue processing the application in the
manner outlined in the report.
(f) Crime Concern and North York's Neighbourhood Watch.
The North York Community Council reports having received a presentation by Ms. Carol Johnson, Executive
Director, Crime Concern, on behalf of Crime Concern and North York's Neighbourhood Watch.
The presentation included a progress report of the work performed by the Crime Concern and North York's
Neighbourhood Watch and an update on their annual "Neighbours' Night Out" event scheduled for June 15, 1999.
(g) Canadian Ski Patrol System - Presentation of Awards.
Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, welcomed Ms. Natalia Berry, Matthew Solarski, Joseph Grant and their coach,
Eginhart Ehlers, who are volunteers with the Canadian Ski Patrol System having headquarters at the North York Ski
Centre.
Councillor Berger, on behalf of the Members of the North York Community Council, congratulated the winners and
presented Ms. Natalia Berry, Matthew Solarski and Joseph Grant with scrolls in recognition of their outstanding athletic
achievements in the following competitions:
- First Aid Competition (Winners of the "President's Cup")
- The Ontario Provincial Competition (First Place Overall Winners)
- National Canadian Competition (Second Place Trophy Winners)
(h) Allocation of Parking Spaces - North York Civic Centre - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having referred the following Resolution by Councillor Moscoe,
North York Spadina, to the President of the Toronto Parking Authority and Councillor Berger, Chair, North York
Community Council for a report to the next meeting of the North York Community Council scheduled for April 28,
1999, on a policy for the allocation of parking spaces at the North York Civic Centre:
The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested a list from the Toronto
Parking Authority identifying the number of parking spaces on each parking level at the North York Civic Centre,
including the "flex" area, and to whom these spaces have been assigned to, by employee name and department.
The North York Community Council submits the following Resolution by Councillor Moscoe, North York
Spadina:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the primary responsibility for parking spaces within this building be regulated
by building services with the assistance of the Director of Transportation Services; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT all parking passes at the North York Civic Centre be re-issued; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT empty spaces be allocated at a charge of $50.00 per month to interested employees
by lottery.
Respectfully submitted,
MILTON BERGER
Chair
Toronto, March 30, 1999
(Report No. 3 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted as amended, by City
Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.)
