1 Request for Exemption to By-law No. 81- 89 Regulating the Heights of Fences at 1028 Greenwood Avenue
2 Request for Direction on Minor Variance Appeals
3 Parking Concerns on Marlow Avenue
4 Traffic Poll Results: Poll Conducted on Westview Boulevard between Dohme Avenue and St. Clair Avenue
5 Traffic Poll Results: Poll Conducted on Fairside Avenue between Mortimer Avenue and Barker Avenue
6 Renaming of Treasure Island Parkette to "Joshua Cronkwright Parkette"
7 Application to Amend Zoning By-law No. 6752 Regarding 153 Torrens Avenue
8 Application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments Regarding 41 - 63 Halsey Avenue
9 Application to Amend Zoning By-law No. 1916 Regarding 206 Laird Drive and 186 Parkhurst Boulevard
10 Amendment to Zoning By-law No. 6752 to Update Uses Permitted in Commercial Areas in the Former Township of East York
11 Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that the following report (July 21, 1999) from the East District Manager, Municipal Standards, be adopted:
Purpose:
To report to the September 14, 1999 meeting of the East York Community Council in order to provide a report on a request for an exemption from the height of a fence at 1028 Greenwood Avenue as submitted by Mr. Roger Hart.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The applicant has submitted the required, non-refundable fee of $200.00 as part of his exemption request.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the requested exemption be approved.
Background:
As a result of a complaint from an area resident who, apparently, has since moved, staff were called to investigate the construction of fencing on top of a deck at 1028 Greenwood Avenue.
Comments:
The Municipal Standards Division inspected and subsequently determined that fencing had been installed on the north and south elevation of a newly constructed deck at the rear of 1028 Greenwood Avenue. It was determined that, although the height of the actual fencing/screening on the deck, at approximately 1.9 metres, complied with part of the applicable section 2.3.2(a) of By-law No. 81-89, the deck itself was somewhat more elevated from grade than normal and thus the fencing failed the second test of that section which restricts the total height of fencing on decks to a maximum of 2.4 metres in height from grade. Due to the extra height of the deck, the height of the fences from grade ranges from 2.74 to 2.84 metres in height, a variance of 0.34 to 0.44metres (13-17 inches) from the By-law requirements.
The fences/screens on each side of the deck have a total length of 3.71 metres (12 feet, 2 inches).
All the new fencing around the rest of the yard complies with all other requirements of the By-law.
Conclusion:
The variance requested is minor and the fence/screens are deficient in only one of two requirements for fences/screens on decks and there is no obvious impact on neighbouring property.
Contact Name:
Michael Vince
Manager of By-law Enforcement
397-4481
Mr. Roger Hart, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that the following report (July 20, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, be adopted:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council regarding appeals of the Committee of Adjustment decisions described below. This report is for the consideration of the East York Community Council at its meeting on September 14, 1999.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Council authorize staff from the Planning Division and Legal Division to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding the appeal of the East York Committee of Adjustment's decision regarding the application for minor variances for 264 Monarch Park Avenue (File A28/99EY).
Comments:
(1) Variance Application A65/99EY
Mr. Aheleas Mitoulas
Re: 34 Cadorna Avenue
The applicant is proposing to construct a one-storey addition at the rear of the existing detached house at 34 Cadorna Avenue. He applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a variance from the maximum lot coverage requirement. On June 8, 1999, the Committee approved the variance, subject to a condition ensuring that the addition does not impede access to a rear yard garage. A neighbour appealed the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Staff did not take a position on this application, and do not recommend that Council direct staff to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
(2) Variance Application A28/99EY
Mr. Gerry Paul
Re: 264 Monarch Park Avenue
The applicant, on behalf of the owner, Mr. Van Eenooghe, is proposing a variance to legalize the use of the property at 264 Monarch Park Avenue for six apartment units, whereas the zoning by-law allows only two semi-detached dwelling units. The property is currently being used for six dwelling units. The applicant also requested a variance to allow only two parking spaces to be provided on the property, whereas the zoning by-law would require one space per unit, or six spaces in this case. On June 8, 1999, the Committee of Adjustment refused the application.
Planning staff provided the Committee of Adjustment with a report recommending refusal of the application for the following reasons:
(a) the density of the property is not appropriate in the neighbourhood, and the existing illegal use has created adverse impacts on the neighbouring properties;
(b) two parking spaces is insufficient for six dwelling units;
(c) there is a lack of amenity space for residents on the property; and
(d) the proposal violates the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.
There is a long history of zoning by-law infractions on the property. The City's permit records show that the dwelling was built in 1974 as a single-family dwelling. The current owner indicated he purchased the property in 1984 as a multiple unit dwelling containing six apartment units.
In 1993, the East York By-law Enforcement Division began by-law enforcement action against the owner for the zoning infraction. The Borough took the owner to court, where he was convicted and fined $2,000.00.
In 1995, the owner applied for a site-specific rezoning to allow him to maintain 4 to 6 separate residential units in the dwelling. Planning Division staff could not support the proposal, so the owner revised the application to request two dwelling units in the form of a semi-detached dwelling. On July 10, 1995, East York Council passed By-law No. 76-95 to permit a pair of semi-detached dwellings.
The owner did not remove any dwelling units from the building, and continued to violate the Zoning By-law. On July 10, 1998, the City took the owner to court again for the zoning infraction, and he was again found guilty. At his sentencing hearing on May 14, 1999, the owner was fined $10,000.00. He was given six months to pay the fine. The Court also issued a Prohibitory Order, which prohibits him from continuing the zoning violation.
The property was also the subject of a previous minor variance application. On December 19, 1997, the Committee of Adjustment refused an application to permit two parking spaces in front of the building. The owner appealed the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. The Board allowed the appeal, and granted the variances, subject to the owner providing landscaping in the front yard in accordance with a Site Plan approved by the Board. The owner has not complied with the condition.
In the opinion of staff, the planning issues are significant and should be addressed by the City at the Ontario Municipal Board. Staff are recommending that planning and legal staff be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing to oppose the application.
Contact Name:
Paul Galvin, Planner
(416) 397-4648
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that the following report (August 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, be adopted:
Purpose:
To report to the East York Community Council on the proposed implementation of a disabled parking space adjacent to 87 Marlow Avenue.
Financial Implications:
Funds to undertake the installation of the disabled parking space in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Schedule 'E' of By-law No. 34-93, entitled "To provide for disabled person parking permit holders", as amended, be further amended to implement a disabled parking space on the east side of Marlow Avenue during the months of January, February, March, April, June, August, October, and December, from a point 90.3 metres south of Mortimer Avenue to a point 95.8 metres south of Mortimer Avenue, and on the west side of Marlow Avenue during the months of May, July, September, and November from a point 90.3 metres south of Mortimer Avenue to a point 95.8 metres south of Mortimer Avenue;
(2) this disabled parking space be removed when Mr. William Smyth no longer resides at 87 Marlow Avenue; and
(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council.
Comments:
The Works and Emergency Services Department received a letter from Mr. William Smyth, 87 Marlow Avenue, dated June 23, 1999, requesting a disabled parking space adjacent to his residence. A copy of Mr. Smyth's disabled parking permit was provided.
Marlow Avenue, between Mortimer Avenue and Sammon Avenue, is currently regulated by alternate side parking on a monthly basis and overnight permit parking between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. During the months of January, February, March, April, June, August, October, and December, parking is allowed on the east side, and during the months of May, July, September, and November, parking is allowed on the west side.
Overnight permit parking records show that parking permits on Marlow Avenue have sold out for the last three permit periods. The implementation of a disabled parking space would effectively eliminate one overnight permit parking space, however, it should be noted that the property at 87 Marlow Avenue has obtained a permit for the last three periods. Therefore, the implementation of a disabled parking space will not necessarily reduce the number of available permit parking spaces on Marlow Avenue, since the applicant has obtained a parking permit in the past.
The Disabled Parking By-law provides for specific times and days that a disabled parking space can be in effect. Thus, a disabled parking space can be accommodated on a street that is designated as alternate side parking, being in effect during the same months as the existing street parking regulations on Marlow Avenue. During the months of January, February, March, April, June, August, October, and December, the parking space would be adjacent to 87 Marlow Avenue, and during May, July, September, and November, the parking space would be adjacent to 88 Marlow Avenue, across from the applicant's residence. A plan indicating the location of the proposed disable parking spaces is attached.
A site investigation conducted by Transportation Services staff confirmed that the mutual right-of-way to 87 Marlow Avenue is 2.0 metres (6.6 feet) wide which makes it extremely difficult to access parking at the rear of the property. Disabled parking spaces are installed on the street for disabled residents who do not have any access to available parking on their property, in order that they can have nearby access to their vehicle. Since the property at 87 Marlow Avenue has no reasonable access to parking, Mr. William Smyth is eligible for a disabled parking space on the street.
In accordance with the policy of the former Council of the Borough of East York regarding notification of proposed disable parking spaces, the neighbouring residents will be notified by the City Clerk's East York Office, that this report is being presented to the East York Community Council.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator
397-4592
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends:
(1) the installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Gardens Crescent and Westview Boulevard; and
(2) that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council.
The East York Community Council reports having requested the Manager, Traffic Operations, East District, to continue to liaise with residents of the area and consider any other ways to slow traffic on Westview Boulevard.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (August 25, 1999) from the City Clerk:
Purpose:
To report on the results of a traffic poll conducted on Westview Boulevard between Dohme Avenue and St. Clair Avenue in connection with the installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Gardens Crescent and Westview Boulevard.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The proposed changes can be accommodated from within the existing Operating Budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The East York Community Council, at its meeting held on May 26 and 27, 1999, requested the City Clerk to poll the residents on Westview Boulevard between Dohme Avenue and St. Clair Avenue as to their support with respect to the installation of an all-way stop control at the intersection of Gardens Crescent and Westview Boulevard.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The results of the poll are as follows:
Number of residents polled 67
Number of responses 43
Spoiled 0
Number in favour 31
Number opposed 11
No opinion 1
Comments returned with the poll have been provided to the Councillors representing East York, Ward One.
Conclusion:
The East York Community Council is requested to consider the poll results in determination of the aforementioned proposals.
Contact Name:
Janette McCusker
East York Office
Clerk's Division
397-4888
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. James Duffy, East York; and
- Mr. George Hopcraft, Topham Park Homeowners' Association, East York.
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends:
(1) implementation of alternate-side parking on Fairside Avenue to provide for a "No Parking Anytime" restriction on the west side of Fairside Avenue from November to April and alternate-side parking from May to October on a month by month basis; and
(2) that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (August 25, 1999) from the City Clerk:
Purpose:
To report on the results of a traffic poll conducted on Fairside Avenue between Mortimer Avenue and Barker Avenue regarding:
(a) implementation of extending the hours of the existing "No Parking" restrictions on Fairside Avenue between Mortimer Avenue and Barker Avenue to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and
(b) implementation of alternate-side parking on Fairside Avenue to provide for a "No Parking Anytime" restriction on the west side of Fairside Avenue from November to April and alternate-side parking from May to October on a month by month basis.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The proposed changes can be accommodated from within the existing Operating Budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The East York Community Council at its meeting held on May 26 and 27, 1999, requested the City Clerk to poll the residents of Fairside Avenue between Mortimer Avenue and Barker Avenue as to their support in connection with the following:
(a) implementation of extending the hours of the existing "No Parking" restrictions on Fairside Avenue between Mortimer Avenue and Barker Avenue to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and
(b) implementation of alternate-side parking on Fairside Avenue to provide for a "No Parking Anytime" restriction on the west side of Fairside Avenue from November to April and alternate-side parking from May to October on a month by month basis.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Implementation of extending the hours of the existing "No Parking" restrictions on Fairside Avenue between Mortimer Avenue and Barker Avenue to 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The results of the poll are as follows:
Number of residents polled 29
Number of responses 22
Spoiled 0
Number in favour 8
Number opposed 12
No opinion 2
Implementation of alternate-side parking on Fairside Avenue to provide for a "No Parking Anytime" restriction on the west side of Fairside Avenue from November to April and alternate-side parking from May to October on a month by month basis.
The results of the poll are as follows:
Number of residents polled 29
Number of responses 22
Spoiled 0
Number in favour 12
Number opposed 8
No opinion 2
Comments returned with the poll have been provided to the Councillors representing East York, Ward One.
Conclusion:
The East York Community Council is requested to consider the poll results in determination of the aforementioned proposals.
Contact Name:
Janette McCusker
East York Office
Clerk's Division
397-4888
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council unannimously recommends that:
(1) Treasure Island Parkette, located at 502 Dawes Road, be renamed "Joshua Cronkwright Parkette" in honour of Joshua Cronkwright who, at such a young age, contributed a great deal to the community of East York;
(2) a dedication ceremony take place, at a convenient time and date to Joshua's family, in the spring of 2000;
(3) an appropriate plaque be placed on the site to commemmorate Joshua's life and contribution to the community of East York; and
(4) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council, if required.
The East York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that the foregoing Recommendation No. (1) meets the criteria for renaming parks outlined in Clause No. 1 of Report No. 6 of The Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, headed "Proposed Policy for Renaming of Parks", which was adopted, as amended by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.
The East York Community Council submits the following communication (August 4, 1999) from Councillor Case Ootes:
I have asked that this item be placed on the East York Community Council agenda for September 14, 1999 at 2:00 p.m. so that people who live in this community will have the opportunity to comment on this proposal.
Joshua Cronkwright succumbed to cancer in January at the age of seven. Earlier this year a family friend of Joshua Cronkwright and his mother contacted me with a request to rename the local parkette, across from 500 Dawes Road, after him. Joshua Cronkwright was very active with his mother in the adopt-a-park program and in getting Treasure Island Parkette cleaned up and safe for the neighbourhood again. Joshua assisted his mother and sister with the park clean up while he battled with cancer.
Joshua Cronkwright is well thought of and remembered and this is evident by the letters of support I have included from community members and Joshua's classmates. The East York Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee has also included a letter in support of the renaming of the Parkette as its current name has no historical connection to the community of East York.
A public meeting is the next step in the policy and procedure of 'Parkland Naming Policy'. I have taken the liberty of notifying Annette Frigault, Joshua's mother, and I am distributing a flyer in the area to notify residents of the meeting and its purpose.
Thank you for your attention therein.
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 23, 1999) from Mr. John Carter, Chair, East York Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee:
This is to confirm in writing my previous phone message to you that the East York LACAC has no objection to naming the current Treasure Island Playground in memory of Joshua Cronkwright. We support this initiative and trust that both East York Community Council and Toronto City Council will approve this measure.
(A copy of the eleven letters of support referred to in the foregoing communication from Councillor Ootes, was included in the Agenda material for the meeting of the East York Community Council and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Ms. Annette Frigault, East York;
- Mr. David Cronkwright; East York and
- Ms. Dale Burden, East York.
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, recommends the adoption of the report (July 21, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District.
The East York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on September 14, 1999, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act, and the regulations thereunder.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (July 21, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:
Purpose:
This is a report and staff recommendations regarding an application to amend Zoning By-law No. 6752 to permit a pair of semi-detached dwellings at 153 Torrens Avenue.
Financial Implications:
The developer will assume the costs associated with this development.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that City Council:
(1) approve the application by M.J. Design Consultants to permit one pair of semi-detached dwellings at 153 Torrens Avenue, with site-specific zoning exceptions to allow side yard setbacks of 0.6 metres on the exterior sides of the dwellings, and a 0 metre setback between the dwellings; and
(2) enact a zoning by-law amendment in the form attached.
Background:
M.J. Design Consultants, on behalf of the owners, 578898 Ontario Limited, submitted this application. The applicant is proposing an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 6752 to permit a pair of semi-detached dwellings on the property at 153 Torrens Avenue.
Discussion:
(1) Site Description:
The site is located on the south side of Torrens Avenue, east of Pape Avenue, opposite William Burgess Public School, as illustrated on the location map above. The property has a lot frontage of 10.9 metres (35.7 feet), and a lot area of 498 square metres (5,360 square feet). The property is described as Part of Lot 219, Registered Plan M-40.
The site is developed with a one-storey detached dwelling. The properties in the neighbourhood are residential. The surrounding properties are used for detached dwellings. Other properties on Torrens Avenue are developed with semi-detached dwellings.
(2) Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Each new dwelling would be two-storeys, with a gross floor area of 161.45 square metres (1,738 square feet). Each dwelling would have a parking space in a basement level garage.
Drawings showing the site plan and building elevations are attached.
(3) Official Plan:
The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan for the Borough of East York. The policies for this designation are in Section 3.3 of the Official Plan. The Low Density Residential policies permit the land to be zoned for ground-oriented housing forms, such as detached, semi-detached and row house dwellings. The proposal complies with the Low Density Residential policies.
(4) Zoning By-law:
The site is zoned R1C in Zoning By-law No. 6752. The R1C zone permits one-family detached dwellings, but not semi-detached dwellings.
The appropriate zoning category for a semi-detached dwelling is R2A. The following chart sets out the zoning requirements for a semi-detached single-family dwelling in the R2A zone, and the corresponding statistics for this site.
Zoning Requirement: 153 TorrensAvenue:
Lot Frontage 10.5 m (34.5 feet)
per semi pair 10.9 metres (35.7 feet)
Lot Area 325 m2 (3,498 square
feet) per semi pair 498 m2 (5,360 square feet)
Front Yard 6.0 metres (19.7 feet) 6.1 metres (20 feet)
Side Yard 0.9 metres (2.95 feet) east exterior 0.6 metres
(1.97 feet) west exterior 0.6
metres (1.97) interior 0 metres
Rear Yard 9.0 metres (29.5 feet) 22.5 metres (74 feet)
Lot Coverage 35 percent 32.8 percent
Floor Space Index 0.75 0.65
Height 8.5 metres (27.8 feet) 8.5 metres (27.8 feet)
Building Length 16.75 metres (54.9 feet) 16.75 metres (54.9 feet)
Parking 1 space per unit 1 parking space per unit
(5) Circulation:
The application was circulated to the usual commenting departments and agencies. No comments or objections were received.
(6) Public Participation:
Staff from the Community Planning Division held a Community Meeting on July 19, 1999 at the East York Civic Centre. Staff mailed notice of the meeting to all properties within a 120 metre (295 feet) radius of the property. Two neighbourhood residents came to the meeting, but did not express any concerns about the proposal.
Notice of the September 14, 1999 Public Meeting was also mailed to all to all properties within a 120 metre (295 feet) radius of the property.
Comments:
The applicant proposes to construct the dwellings generally in accordance with the zoning standards for semi-detached dwellings, however, he is seeking exceptions to the side yard setback requirement. The Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard of 0.9 metres (2.95 feet), whereas the applicant is proposing side yard setbacks of 0.6 metres (1.97 feet) on the exterior sides of the dwellings, and a zero setback between the dwellings. These setbacks would not be out of character on Torrens Avenue, and staff support the exceptions.
In the Preliminary Evaluation report dated June 10, 1999, staff noted that the applicant was requesting an exception to the building height restriction. This matter has been resolved. The applicant intends to comply with the maximum building height restriction of 8.5 metres (27.8 feet).
In the opinion of staff, the proposal does not adversely affect the physical character of the neighbourhood. There is a mix of detached dwellings and legal non-conforming semi-detached dwellings on the street. Staff support the proposal, and recommend that Council enact a zoning by-law amendment to change the zoning to an R2A site specific zone, with exceptions to permit the proposed side yard setbacks.
Conclusion:
The proposal is supported by the policies of the Official Plan. It will not result in any adverse changes to the character of the neighbourhood. Staff are recommending that the application be approved, and that Council enact a zoning by-law amendment to change the zoning to an R2A site specific zone, with exceptions to permit the proposed side yard setbacks.
Contact
Paul Galvin, Planner
(416) 397-4648
Authority: East York Community Council, Report No. , Clause No.
as adopted by Council on
Enacted by Council:
City Of Toronto
Bill No.
By-law No.
To amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, of the former Township of East York
Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;
The Council of the City of Toronto Hereby Enacts as follows:
(1) the lands subject to this By-law are those lands outlined in a heavy black line and identified as "Area Subject to Amendment" as shown on Schedule "1" attached hereto.
(2) Schedule "A" to By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning category for the lands identified as "Area Subject to Amendment" on Schedule "1" of this By-law from "Residential R1C Zone" to "Residential R2A - Site Specific (R2A.37) Zone".
(3) Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new Section 7.5.4.37 immediately after Section 7.5.4.36 of the By-law as follows:
"7.5.4.37 153 Torrens Avenue R2A.37 Zone
7.5.4.37.1 Area Restricted
The provisions of this Section shall only apply to those lands being Part of Lot 219 on Registered Plan M-40, City of Toronto (formerly Borough of East York) designated R2A.37 on Schedule "A".
7.5.4.37.2 General Provisions
On those lands referred to in Section 7.5.4.37.1 of this By-law, no person shall use, occupy, erect, alter, cause to be used, occupied, erected or altered any Building, Structure or part thereof except in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) Permitted Uses:
All of the uses permitted in Section 7.5 of this By-law (Residential R2A Density Zone).
(2) Development Requirements:
The R2A Zone Requirements under Section 7.8 and Section 5.6 regarding encroachments into required yards shall apply, except the following requirements shall apply to a pair of semi-detached dwellings:
(a) Minimum side yard setback 0.6 metres
(b) Minimum side yard setback
between semi-detached dwellings Nil
(3) Other Provisions of the By-law:
None of the other provisions of this By-law shall apply to prevent the use, occupation, erection or alteration of any Building, Structure, land or part thereof on the lands referred to in Section 7.5.4.37.1 in accordance with the provisions of Section 7.5.4.37.2. In all other respects, all of the other provisions of this By-law shall apply to the lands described in Section 7.5.4.37.1.
Enacted And Passed this day of , A.D. 1999.
__________________________
Mayor Clerk
Application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, recommends the adoption of the report (August 9, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District.
The East York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on September 14, 1999, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act, and the regulations thereunder.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (August 9, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:
Purpose:
To review an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit the development of 41-63Halsey Avenue for seven pairs of semi-detached houses.
Financial Implications:
Costs associated with this development will be assumed by the developer.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that City Council approve the application by 655924 Ontario Limited, to amend East York's Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 6752 for 41-63 Halsey Avenue by:
(a) adopting the attached Official Plan amendment which redesignates the above lands "Low Density Residential";
(b) enacting the attached Zoning By-law amendment, which rezones these lands from Residential Site Specific R3A.1 to Residential Site Specific R2A.38 zoning and which sets out specific development standards intended to facilitate the development of 7 pairs of semi-detached dwellings, substantially in the form attached; and
(c) authorizing the City Solicitor to make such minor changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as may be required to implement Council's direction.
Background:
Proposal:
The application was submitted by Rasch Architects Limited on behalf of 655924 Ontario Limited. The client currently owns two apartment buildings at the south-west corner of Halsey Avenue and Dawes Road and wishes to sever the westerly portion of the lands comprised of a vacant and grassed 3,436.3 square metre property for the purpose of creating 14 building lots to be occupied by 7 pairs of 2 storey semi-detached houses (see attached Figures 1 and 2).
Surrounding uses include one a and half storey and two storey semi-detached houses immediately west of the site on the south side of Halsey Avenue and across the street on the north side of Halsey Avenue. The Park Vista apartment complex is located at a much lower elevation immediately south of the site.
Official Plan and Zoning:
The current site is designated High Density Residential in the East York Official Plan. This designation specifies that the use of the lands shall be for multiple unit housing in the form of apartment housing. East York By-law No. 6752 restricts the use of 41-63 Halsey to apartment buildings with a maximum coverage of 2.0 times the area of the lot. There are no height limits for apartment buildings in R3A zones.
Approval of this development application requires the adoption by Council of Official Plan and site specific Zoning By-law amendments to allow low density housing on this site.
Staff are satisfied that this development advances the housing policies of the Official Plan pertaining to infill development at suitable locations that does not adversely affect the physical character of stable low density residential areas.
Agency Circulation:
The application was circulated to all appropriate agencies and City departments. Responses received have been used to evaluate the application and to formulate appropriate by-law standards.
Public Input:
Notice of the application was sent to all residents within 120 metres (400 feet) of the site and a community information meeting to obtain public input was held on June 7, 1999. The notice and the meeting produced a request for a study of soil conditions given that the site was used for industrial purposes in the 1960's and a request for an evaluation of the existing trees to determine what trees might be saved. The applicant agreed to undertake bore holes to test the soils of the site and to submit a proper tree inventory to the City.
Other comments consisted of complaints respecting the existing perceived parking problem on Halsey Avenue and inquiries about the timing and length of construction of the proposed development.
Building Height and Site Design:
The proposed development shown on Figures (1) and (2) show 7 pairs of semi-detached houses with attached garages directly accessible from the street by private driveways. The proposal mirrors the built form of surrounding low density housing on Halsey Avenue and provides a suitable transition between the apartment buildings at the south-west corner of Halsey Avenue and Dawes Road and the semi-detached houses directly west of the site on Halsey Avenue.
The proposed construction meets all the Zoning by-law requirements for semi-detached houses in R2A zones for coverage, setbacks, floor space index, parking and building length, with two very minor exceptions. One exception is for a projection of 0.67 metres from the front wall of buildings on lots 45, 47, 53, 55, 61 and 63 for a second storey bay window which has been provided to add diversity and variety in the front elevations. The Zoning By-law allows a 0.61 metre bay window projection. The other minor variance from the By-law is for maximum coverage for lots 41 to 59, which vary from 35.2 percent to 36.6 percent. The Zoning By-law requires 35 percent coverage.
The attached site-specific by-law which sets out specific development standards for this development has been formulated to allow for these very minor and appropriate variances.
Parkland Dedication:
The City's Parks and Recreation Planning Division has advised that as per East York By-law No. 85-92, the applicant will be required to make a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment. A 5 percent on site parkland dedication is considered impractical because of the small size of the site. The surrounding area is also well serviced by existing parkland.
The amalgamation of the new City of Toronto will bring a new parkland dedication by-law which may be in effect at the time the applicant applies for a building permit.
Tree Inventory:
The applicant submitted a tree inventory for the site showing the location of the existing 15 Austrian pine and Norway maple trees. Three of these trees along the eastern side of the development will be retained. In addition, the builder proposes to plant one new tree in the front yard of each house. The exact location and species of the new trees will be determined in consultation with the Urban Forestry Section of Parks and Recreation and Urban Design of Urban Planning and Development Services.
Soil Conditions:
The applicant submitted a soils report for the site prepared by Construction Control Inc. The boreholes revealed that the site does not contain soil contamination. The site was previously filled with clean soil up to its present grade and underneath the topsoil is uncontaminated natural soil.
Conclusion:
The proposed development is suitable for this location because it advances the infill housing policies of the Official Plan and maintains the general physical character of the surrounding area including standards for height, density, setbacks, and parking for semi-detached houses.
Contact Name:
Ed Mihalcin
Senior Planner, East York District Office
397-4498
Amendment No. 21 to the Official Plan for the Former Borough of East York
Part One - Preamble, does not constitute part of this Amendment.
Part Two - the Amendment, consisting of the text contained therein and the map attached thereto as Schedule "A" constitute Amendment No. 21 to the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York.
Part One
Preamble
Title
This is Amendment No. 21 to the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York.
Purpose
The purpose of this amendment is to redesignate a 3436.3 parcel of land located at 41-63 Halsey Avenue from "High Density Residential" to "Low Density Residential" to permit the erection of 7 pairs of semi-detached houses.
Location
The lands affected by this Amendment are outlined in a heavy black line identified as "Area Subject to Amendment" on Schedule "A" attached hereto, and are located at 41-63 Halsey Avenue.
Basis
The lands affected by this amendment are designated "High Density Residential" which limits the use of these lands to multiple unit housing in the form of apartment housing. A "Low Density Designation" provides for ground oriented units and the proposed semi-detached units meets this requirement. Low density housing at 41-63 Halsey Avenue is in keeping with the character of housing on Halsey Avenue and helps achieve the housing intensification goals of the Official Plan.
Part Two
The Amendment
All of this part of the document entitled "Part Two- The Amendment" consisting of the following text and the attached Schedule "A" constitute Amendment No. 21 to the Official Plan of the former Borough of East York.
The lands affected by this Amendment are shown on Schedule "A" to this Amendment as "Area Subject to Amendment".
Map 7 - Special Policy Areas of the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York is hereby amended by identifying the lands known as 41-63 Halsey Avenue indicated as "Area Subject to Amendment" on Schedule "A" to this Amendment as: Special Policy Area 30, as shown on Schedule "A" to this Amendment.
The text of the Official Plan of the former Borough of East York is hereby amended by adding a new Section 3.15.30, immediately following Section 3.15.29, as follows:
3.15.30 Special Policy Area 30
3.15.30.1 The lands shown as Special Policy Area 30 on Map 7 of this Plan known municipally as 41-63 Halsey Avenue, which are currently designated "High Density Residential" are redesignated "Low Density Residential" and are hereby subject to the policies of Section 3.3 of the Official Plan.
Authority: East York Community Council Report No. as adopted by Council on 1999
Enacted by Council:
City of Toronto
Bill No:
By-law No. -1999
To amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, of the former Township of East York
Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, RSO, c.P.13, as amended, to pass this by-law, and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;
The Council of the City of Toronto Hereby Enacts as follows:
(1) the lands subject to this by-law are those lands outlined by a heavy black line and identified as "Area Subject to Amendment" as shown on Schedule "1" attached hereto;
(2) Schedule "A" to By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning category for the lands identified as "Area Subject to Amendment" on Schedule "1" of this By-law from "Residential - Site Specific (R3A.1)" Zone to "Residential R2A - Site Specific (R2A.38)" Zone; and
(3) Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new Section 7.5.4.38 immediately after Section 7.5.4.37 of the By-law as follows:
7.5.4.38 41-63 Halsey Avenue R2A.38 Zone
7.5.4.38.1 Area Restricted
The provisions of this Section shall only apply to those lands being Part of Lot 2, Concession 2, From the Bay; Part of Block H and Part of Halsey Avenue, Registered Plan M - 780; and Part of Lots 6, 7, and 8, Registered Plan M-714; City of Toronto (formerly Borough of East York) designated R2A.38 on Schedule "A".
7.5.4.38.2 General Provisions
On those lands referred to in Section 7.5.4.38.1 of this By-law, no person shall use, occupy, erect, alter, cause to be used, occupied, erected or altered, any Building, Structure or land or part thereof except in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) Permitted Uses
Residential - Semi-detached Dwellings; and
Buildings and Structures Accessory to the foregoing.
Development Requirements:
maximum number of semi-detached
dwellings 14 dwellings
maximum number of dwellings per lot 1 dwelling
the siting of any Dwelling or Structure or portion thereof shall be wholly within the Building envelope shown on Schedule "1" to By-law No. 99, except that the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 6752 shall apply to any projections or encroachments into the yard notwithstanding Section 5.6 of By-law 6752, a projection of 0.67 metres for a second storey bay window is permitted beyond the front wall of the buildings
maximum lot coverage 37 percent
Other Provisions of the By-law:
Except as amended in this By-law all the other provisions of By-law No. 6752 shall apply to the lands referred to in Section 7.5.4.38.1.
The following additional uses shall be permitted on the lands:
temporary sales trailer which shall:
only be used to sell the Buildings located within the limits of the area identified on Schedule "1" to Section 7.5.4.38;
provide at least 1 temporary parking stall; and
be removed within 60 days after the completion of the last Building.
Enacted and Passed this day of , A.D.
___________ ____________
Mel Lastman Novina Wong
Mayor City Clerk
The East York Community Council also had before it a communication (August 24, 1999) from Ms. Mary E. Plese, East York, opposing the application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments regarding 41 - 63 Halsey Avenue.
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. William Keeble, East York, and expressed concerns with respect to parking, traffic, water and sewage capacities, and advised he has no objections to the proposed development;
- Mr. Mike Rezakis, East York, and suggested that parking be prohbited on one side of Halsey Avenue; and
- Mr. Ed Koschuk, East York, and expressed concerns with respect to parking on Halsey Avenue.
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause:
(1) by deleting from Recommendation No. (1) of the East York Community Council the words and punctuation "three-storey,", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"(1) approve the application by LZA Architect, as amended, to amend Zoning By-law No. 1916 to permit a mixed use residential and commercial building with an appropriate number of residential apartment units and 478 square metres of commercial gross floor area at 206 Laird Drive and 186 Parkhurst Boulevard;"; and
(2) to provide that:
(a) the density be reduced from 44 units to 33 units; and
(b) no further notice be given to give effect thereto.)
The East York Community Council, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, recommends that Council:
(1) approve the application by LZA Architect, as amended, to amend Zoning By-law No. 1916 to permit a three-storey, mixed use residential and commercial building with an appropriate number of residential apartment units and 478 square metres of commercial gross floor area at 206 Laird Drive and 186 Parkhurst Boulevard;
(2) enact a Zoning By-law Amendment in accordance with Recommendation No. (1) and otherwise substantially in the form attached to the report of the Director of Community Planning, East District, dated July 21, 1999; and
(3) not give any further notice respecting the Zoning By-law Amendment.
The East York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on September 14, 1999, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act, and the regulations thereunder.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (July 21, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:
Purpose:
This is a review report and makes recommendations regarding an application to amend Zoning By-law No. 1916 to permit a four storey, mixed-use residential and commercial building 206 Laird Drive and 186 Parkhurst Boulevard.
Financial Implications:
The developer will assume the costs associated with this development.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that City Council:
(1) approve the application by LZA Architect to permit a four-storey, mixed use residential and commercial building with 44 residential apartment units and 478 square metres of commercial gross floor area at 206 Laird Drive and 186 Parkhurst Boulevard; and
(2) enact a zoning by-law amendment in the form attached.
Background:
This application was submitted by LZA Architect on behalf of the owners, 1282534 Ontario Limited. The applicant is proposing an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 1916 to permit a four-storey mixed use residential and commercial building at 206 Laird Drive and 186 Parkhurst Boulevard.
Discussion:
(1) Site Description:
The site is located at the northwest corner of Laird Drive and Parkhurst Boulevard, as illustrated on the location map above. The site is comprised of two properties. The property at 206 Laird Drive has a frontage of 39.6 metres (130 feet) on Laird Drive and a frontage of 45.7 metres (150 feet) on Parkhurst Boulevard. There is a two-storey building on the property that was previously used as a multi-tenanted commercial building. The other property, at 186 Parkhurst Boulevard, has a frontage of 9.1 metres (30 feet) on Parkhurst Boulevard, and a lot depth of 39.6 metres (130 feet). There is a one-storey detached dwelling on the lot. The combined area of the site is 2,173 square metres (23,400 square feet).
The site is on the edge of a low-density residential neighbourhood. The properties west of the site are used for detached dwellings. To the south there is an automobile repair shop and a vacant restaurant at the southwest corner of Parkhurst Boulevard and Laird Drive, across the street from the site. A medical and health services building abuts the site to the north. The properties east of the site, on the east side of Laird Drive, are used for industrial purposes.
(2) Proposal:
The applicants are proposing to construct a four-storey residential and commercial building with 44 residential apartment units and 478 square metres (5,145 square feet) of commercial floor area on the ground floor to be used for business offices. The applicants are proposing 67 parking spaces, of which 57 spaces will be located in an underground garage with an entrance from Parkhurst Boulevard, and an exit onto Laird Drive. The remaining 10 spaces will be surface parking located on the west side of the building.
The following are the proposed site development statistics for the project:
Lot Area: 2,173 square metres (23,400 square feet)
Gross Floor Area
Residential: 3,949 square metres (42,508 square feet)
Commercial: 478 square metres (5,145 square feet)
Other: 1,312 square metres (14,122 square feet)
Total: 5,739 square metres (61,775 square feet)
Floor Space Index: 2.6
Lot Coverage: 60.0 percent
Building Height: 4 storeys (13.0 metres)
Parking Spaces
Residents: 44 spaces (1.0 space per unit)
Visitors: 11 spaces (0.25 spaces per unit)
Commercial: 12 spaces
Total: 67 spaces
Setbacks
North: 0.1 metres (0.3 feet)
South: 0.045 metres (0.14 feet)
East: 0.596 metres (1.95 feet)
West: 12.0 metres (39.3 feet)
(3) Official Plan:
The site is designated Main Streets Commercial/Residential in the Official Plan for the Borough of East York. The Main Streets Commercial/Residential policies in Section 3.9 of the Official Plan permit the land to be zoned for pedestrian related commercial uses together with multiple unit housing in the form of medium rise structures. The permitted uses may include, retail and service commercial uses, including business and professional offices; residential units designed as an integral part of a mixed-use commercial-residential development; institutional uses; and private recreational and entertainment facilities.
The Official Plan limits the permitted building height to four storeys, and requires that the density of development be regulated through the Zoning By-law.
(4) Zoning By-law:
The portion of the site at 206 Laird Drive is zoned C1 in Zoning By-law No. 1916. The C1 zone permits a range of commercial uses, and dwelling units over commercial uses. Residential uses are permitted at a density of one dwelling unit per 92 square metres (990 square feet) of lot area. A zoning amendment is required for this part of the site because the proposal exceeds the residential density permitted by the By-law.
The portion of the site at 186 Parkhurst Boulevard is zoned "Residential R1A". The zoning permits detached dwelling units, schools, libraries and churches, but does not permit the proposed use.
(5) Site Plan Approval:
The applicant submitted an application for Site Plan Approval, which is being processed concurrently with this rezoning application. The applicant will be required to enter into a Site Plan Development Agreement, which will address site development details such as building design, landscaping, and the location of other facilities on the site.
(6) Circulation:
The application was circulated for technical comments to the usual departments and agencies. There were no objections, however, some comments regarding site plan issues were received. These comments are being addressed through the site plan approval process.
The Leaside Property Owners Association was circulated and responded with the following comments:
(a) they expressed a strong opinion that the building should not exceed four storeys;
(b) they were concerned about the possibility of shadows encroaching onto neighbouring properties;
(c) they want the project to adhere to current parking standards;
(d) there was a concern about the amount of lot coverage;
(e) garbage storage and pick-up should not be unsightly and disruptive; and
(f) the underground parking exit onto Laird Drive may be a problem.
The Leaside Industrial Park Association was also circulated, but did not respond.
(7) Public Participation:
A Community Meeting regarding the proposed development was held on April 14, 1999 at the East York Civic Centre. Notice of the meeting was mailed to all properties within a 120 metre (295 feet) radius of the property. Several neighbours attended the meeting and expressed a variety of concerns, which are addressed below.
Notice of the September 14, 1999 Public Meeting was also mailed to all properties within a 120 metre (295 feet) radius of the property.
Comments:
When the Community Meeting was held in April, the applicants were proposing a five-storey building on the property at 206 Laird Drive only. They had not yet acquired the property at 186 Parkhurst Boulevard. The following is a summary of concerns expressed by those in attendance:
(a) there was a concern about the impact of the proposed parking garage entrance on the neighbour at 186 Parkhurst Boulevard;
(b) several people expressed concerns about the impact of the fifth storey on the neighbouring detached dwellings;
(c) some people were concerned that a five-storey building on this site would set a precedent for other developers to build five-storey buildings in the neighbourhood, particularly on the properties at the southwest corner of Laird Drive and Parkhurst Boulevard;
(d) there was a concern that noise from the rooftop mechanical unit would disturb the neighbours' peaceful enjoyment of their properties;
(e) some people did not want to see vehicular access from Parkhurst Boulevard;
(f) there were concerns about the building setbacks from the neighbouring properties to the west and north.
Staff had several discussions with the applicants about the impact of the building on neighbouring properties, and particularly about the proposed fifth storey. The Official Plan permits a maximum building height of four storeys. Further, staff do not support a fifth storey on this site because of the impact it would have on the surrounding area; and
In response to these concerns, the applicants revised their proposal by reducing the building height to four storeys; by reducing the building envelope on the west side; by moving the entrance to the parking garage eastward; and by acquiring the property at 186 Parkhurst Boulevard. The applicants propose to remove the bungalow to create a greater separation distance between their building and the nearest property to the west. In the opinion of staff, these modifications enhance the proposal considerably, and address many of the concerns expressed by the Leaside Property Owners Association and the neighbours at the Community Meeting.
With respect to concerns about vehicular access, the Transportation Services Division indicated that the anticipated number of trips would be low, and the building would not generate an unacceptable level of traffic for either Parkhurst Boulevard or Laird Drive.
The issue regarding the rooftop mechanical unit will be addressed through the site plan approval process. The concern about garbage pick-up will also be addressed through site plan approval. The City will provide curbside pick-up, and garbage will be required to be stored in an indoor storage room until the designated pick-up day.
The reduction of the building height to four storeys should mitigate concerns about shadowing on neighbouring properties. Staff have requested the applicants to have a shadow study available at the public meeting.
Staff also considered the following factors:
The proposal implements the Official Plan policies for the Main Streets Commercial/Residential designation.
The site has convenient access to public facilities and amenities, including access to public transit, local shopping facilities, and parks and public recreation facilities at Trace Manes Park and Talbot Park.
The proposal meets the minimum parking standard of 1¼ parking space per dwelling unit required by the zoning by-law for apartment housing.
(4) The proposal will improve the profile of this section of Laird Drive, and make use of a vacant site.
Conclusion:
The proposal is supported by the policies of the Official Plan. In the opinion of staff, the applicants have satisfactorily addressed many of the issues expressed by staff and the neighbours. Staff are recommending that the application be approved, and that Council enact a zoning by-law amendment to change the zoning to a C1 site-specific zone.
Contact
Paul Galvin, Planner
(416) 397-4648
Authority: East York Community Council, Report No. , Clause No.
as adopted by Council on
Enacted by Council:
City Of Toronto
Bill No.
By-law No.
To amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, of the former Town of Leaside
Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;
The Council of the City of Toronto Hereby Enacts as follows:
(1) the lands subject to this By-law are those lands outlined in a heavy black line and identified as "Area Subject to Amendment" as shown on Schedule "1" attached hereto;
(2) Schedule "A" to By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning category for the lands identified as "Area Subject to Amendment" on Schedule "1" of this By-law from "Commercial - General C1 Zone" to "Residential R3A - Site Specific (R3A.6) Zone"; and
(3) Zoning By-law No. 1916, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new Section 6.7.5.6 immediately after Section 6.7.5.5 of the By-law as follows:
"6.7.5.6 206 Laird Drive and 186 Parkhurst Boulevard
6.7.5.6.1 Area Restricted
The provisions of this Section shall only apply to those lands being Lots 527 to 532 inclusive, and Part of Lane, Registered Plan 1925, City of Toronto (formerly Borough of East York) designated R3A.6 on Schedule"A".
6.7.5.6.2 General Provisions
On those lands referred to in Section 6.7.5.6.1 of this By-law, no person shall use, occupy, erect, alter, cause to be used, occupied, erected or altered any Building, Structure or part thereof except in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) Permitted Uses, Buildings and Structures
(a) Residential
(i) Dwelling Apartment
(b) Commercial
Business Office
(2) Prohibition
(a) Nothing herein shall permit any of the following uses:
(i) the keeping or having of any billiard, pool or bagatelle table by persons for hire or gain;
(ii) the keeping or having of any games of skill or chance, or part skill and part chance, which are operated or activated in whole or in part by or with mechanical or electrical means.
(iii) adult Entertainment Parlour;
(b) permitted commercial uses shall be located within a wholly enclosed Building;
(c) outside open storage of goods, materials and equipment and the outdoor display of merchandise, whether accessory to a permitted use or not, are prohibited; and
(d) permitted commercial uses shall not be located above the first storey above Finished Grade.
(3) Development Requirements:
(a) Minimum Lot Area 2,170 m2
(b) Maximum no. of Dwelling Units 44
(c) Maximum Gross Floor Area 5,740 m2
(d) Maximum Gross Floor Area - Commercial 500 m2
Minimum Side Yard setbacks
0. 1 metres
South 0.04 metres
East 0. 5 metres
West 12.0 metres
(e) Maximum Building Height (exclusive of
mechanical enclosures) 13.7 metres
(f) Maximum number of Storeys Four (4)
(g) Minimum number of
on-site Parking Spaces
Residential 1.25 Parking Spaces per Dwelling Unit
Commercial In accordance with
Section 5.17 and 5.18
(4) Other Provisions of the By-law
None of the provisions of this By-law shall apply to prevent the use, occupation, Erection or alteration of any Building, land or part thereof, on any lands referred to in Subsection 6.7.5.6.1 in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6.7.5.6.2(1), (2) and (3). In all other respects, all of the other provisions of this By-law shall apply to the lands referred to in Section 6.7.5.6.1."
Enacted And Passed this day of , A.D. 1999.
_________________________ ___________________________
Mayor Clerk
The East York Community Council also had before it a communication (August 23, 1999) from Mr. Sal Crimi, Invar Building Corporation, North York, expressing concern with the resulting traffic implications of this application and requesting that sufficient parking be provided to accommodate this proposal.
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Tom Donaghy, East York, on behalf of residents of Vanderhoof Avenue, opposing the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to: the proportion of the proposed development relative to neighbouring properties, shadowing on neighbouring properties; the increase in the size of the development since the community meeting in April, 1999; noise from the roof-top mechanical room; traffic; lack of information prior to this meeting;
- Ms. Sharon Manchee, East York, opposing the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to: setbacks on Parkhurst; possibility of having access to parking from Laird Drive; lack of information prior to this meeting; traffic; difficulty in making left hand turns from Parkhurst Boulevard onto Laird Drive;
- Ms. Kathleen Slater, East York, opposing the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to potential loss of privacy and light; inappropriateness of this development; traffic on Laird Drive; parking on Vanderhoof Avenue; and noise from the roof-top mechanical room;
- Mr. Chris Kelly, East York, opposing the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to: shadowing on neighbouring properties; lack of privacy due to balconies from the development looking over the backyards of homes on Vanderhoof Avenue; noise from roof-top mechanical room; parking; proposed development is too dense for the footprint;
- Mr. Richard Phillips, East York, opposing the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to parking issues and advising he supports the comments of the former deputants;
- Ms. Leasa Knechtel, East York, opposing the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to parking and traffic;
- Ms. Agnes Vermes, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association, East York, concurring with views expressed by previous deputants and expressing concerns with respect to: massing; overview of building onto neighbouring properties; proposed green space is unusable; set-backs; there should be trees around the building for privacy; lack of green space; the proposed development with jut-out; roof-top garden should be redesigned utilizing new landscaping technologies and privacy screens; mechanical room should be sound-proofed; there should be an additional elevator;
- Ms. Cheryl Bannier, East York, in opposition to the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to traffic; children's safety; insufficient set-backs of building; noise from mechanical room;
- Mr. Patrick Rocca, Leaside Property Owners' Association, East York, in opposition to the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to: set-backs; noise from the mechanical room; and traffic;
- Ms. Wendy LeBlanc, Caldwell Bankers, East York, in support of the proposed development; and
- Ms. Sue Strohbeck, East York, opposing the proposed development and expressing concerns with respect to traffic; noise; loss of light.
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council, based on the findings of fact and conclusions, recommends the adoption of the report (August 23, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District.
The East York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on September 14, 1999, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act, and the regulations thereunder.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:
Purpose:
This report responds to a request from the East York Community Council to standardize and update the uses permitted in commercial areas. This report fulfills that objective for Zoning By-law No. 6752. A latter report will address the same issue for Zoning By-law No. 1916.
This report is for consideration by the East York Community Council at the public meeting of September 14, 1999.
Financial Implications:
None
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council:
(a) approve amendments to Zoning By-law No. 6752 to standardize and update uses in "C" and "CA" Zones in accordance with the By-law attached to this report; and
(b) authorize the City Solicitor to make such minor changes to the Zoning By-law amendment as may be required to implement Council's direction.
Background:
The East York Community Council at its meeting on January 20, 1999, had before it a communication from Councillor Michael Prue, East York, recommending that appropriate City staff be requested to submit a report to the East York Community Council on policies to standardize and update the uses permitted in commercial areas. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services was requested to report on this matter
The original communication noted that many neighbourhood stores were restricted to a very limited range of uses and that more liberal policies were required to reflect 1990's commercial markets and to ensure the economic vitality of retail strips.
Comments:
(a) Introduction
Among North American cities Toronto is unusual in the continuing importance of traditional retail strips within the overall commercial structure. Despite the proliferation of shopping centres and the huge growth of big box retail, traditional retail strips have remained and in a few cases have grown, within all parts of the City. They are particularly evident within the Inner City which includes East York, where they continue to account for the majority of retail floor area.
Maps 1 and 2 show retail strips in East York that are designated as "Main Streets Commercial/Residential" in the Official Plan and are subject to the regulatory framework of Zoning By-law 6752. The Pape Avenue retail strip extending from Danforth Avenue to north of Cosburn Avenue is the healthiest and most diverse retail strip. The Donlands Avenue and Coxwell Avenue neighbourhood commercial nodes, both located just south of O'Connor, are also reasonably successful and offer an array of shops, stores, restaurants and business services. The remaining retail areas along Broadview Avenue, O'Connor Avenue, Woodbine Avenue and Dawes Road are discontinuous in nature and are often interspersed with residential uses at grade.
In addition to the above areas which are zoned "C", Maps 1 and 2 identify site-specific exceptions to the general provisions of "C" Zones. These exceptions which are zoned "CA" are also reviewed in this report with respect to allowable uses.
(b) Planning Principles
The review of uses has been initiated by the need for more liberalized provisions respecting allowable uses in commercial areas in order to maintain the vitality of East York's main streets. When uses are too restrictive, reinvestment in these areas suffers because reuse of buildings is discouraged by a regulatory context requiring rezoning for even the most innocuous change of use. At the same time, it is important to recognize that retail strips in East York thrive within close proximity to existing residential neighbourhoods. Inappropriate uses in commercial areas can be detrimental to these neighbourhoods as well as adjacent business owners.
A balance is therefore needed between more liberalized provisions respecting permitted uses for main streets and regulatory provisions which prohibit inappropriate uses. This report carefully reviews uses in commercial areas and proposes changes with this balance in mind.
(c) Review of Uses in "C" Zones
The uses permitted in commercial zones have not been updated for many years. The major purpose of this report is to update the use list for commercial areas to accommodate new uses such as graphic studios and computer repair shops. In addition, under strict interpretation, the current definition for commercial use does not permit renting of goods and services (i.e. video rental stores, Rent-All stores). This report recommends that renting of goods and services be a permitted commercial use.
Appendix A summarizes the primary use permissions pertaining to "C" Zones in Zoning By-law 6752. Section 8.2 specifies that commercial uses are permitted in "C" Zones and Section 4.6 defines the meaning of commercial use. Generally, East York By-law No. 6752 permits a wide range of commercial uses that are very similar to the range of commercial uses permitted on retail strips in the surrounding areas of the City. East York's By-law, however, tends to have more restrictive definitions for some permitted commercial uses. For example, East York's By-law permits service uses in shops in commercial zones and then goes on to list uses permitted in personal service shops and service and repair shops.
Most By-laws in the new City of Toronto tend to use a more generic approach to permitting and prohibiting uses because it allows more flexibility in interpretation and avoids the problem of constantly updating the by-law to reflect new economic uses which may not have existed 10 years ago. For example, North York's By-law permits commercial uses in personal service shops and service shops but defines these terms in a generic fashion instead of listing all permitted uses allowed in shops. This report recommends generic definitions where possible in keeping with similar definitions in other municipalities.
Liberalization of uses in "C" Zones entails revision of Section 4.6 as well as amendments to various defined uses mentioned in this provision. The following is a systematic explanation of proposed amendments to Section 4.6 and related use definitions.
(d) Commercial Use Definition
(i) Primary Definition and Activities
Commercial use is currently generally defined as "the transaction of business, the buying and selling of goods and services in shops stores, offices, banks or similar establishments, Restaurants, Restaurants Take-Out and Restaurants Drive-In (including catering establishments selling food not on premises), and includes" (see Appendix A for list of permitted and excluded uses). It is recommended that this general definition be amended as follows:
4.6 Means the buying, renting, repairing and selling of goods and the supplying of services as distinguished from such uses as manufacturing or assembling of goods, warehousing and construction; in shops, stores, offices, banks or similar establishments, and includes:
animal hospitals,
automobile service stations,
custom workshops,
motor vehicle repair shops (exclusive of painting and repairing of bodies and fenders)
restaurants,
restaurants take-out, and
restaurants drive-in (including catering establishments selling food not on premises).
but does not include obnoxious uses or permanent outside open storage and:
adult entertainment parlours,
automatic, coin-operated or ride-through car washing establishments or facilities except where the facility is for private use,
hotels,
the keeping of any billiard pool or bagatelle table by persons for hire or gain,
the keeping or having of any games of skill or chance, or part skill or part chance, excepting bowling alleys which are operated or activated in whole or in part by or with mechanical or electrical means.
The addition of the term renting accommodates such uses as video stores, computer and Rent All stores. The new definition also allows the repairing of goods but makes it very clear that industrial type uses such as manufacturing are not appropriate on Main streets. In addition, restaurant uses have been added to the long list of permitted uses instead of being included in the body of the definition.
(ii) Permitted Uses
Currently, permitted commercial uses includes restaurants, restaurants take-out and restaurants drive-in (including catering establishments selling food not on premises), automobile service stations, motor vehicle repair shops operated wholly within enclosed structures (exclusive of painting and repairing of bodies and fenders), custom workshops, veterinary consulting rooms (not including animal hospitals), and bowling alleys. It is recommended that permitted uses include all of the above except that the limitation on animal hospitals should be repealed. Animal hospitals which allow for the treatment of animals is a common permitted use on retail strips throughout the City and East York residents should also have local veterinary services for their pets.
The term shops includes the defined terms "Personal Service Shop" and "Service and Repair Shop". As described previously, both definitions list a number of allowable uses which can create interpretation problems for a wide variety of similar service and repair uses which are not specifically named. For example, a shop providing graphic services is currently prohibited because it is not specifically named in the current definitions. Another example is a shop that repairs computers and faxes. Such a shop is currently prohibited because it is not specifically listed. It is therefore recommended that these definitions be amended in a more generic fashion as follows to permit such uses as graphic services and computer and fax repair shops.
4.23.C Personal Service Shop
Shall mean a building or part of a building in which services involving the care of persons or their apparel are performed but does not include a body rub or massage parlour.
4.24.A.2 Service and Repair Shop
Shall mean a building or part of a building and whether conducted in conjunction with a retail store or not, for the repair, sale or servicing of articles or products or the provision of services but does not include the manufacturing of goods.
(iii) Excluded Uses
The existing definition of "Commercial Use" specifically excludes a long list of uses (see Appendix I) some of which are listed because they are inappropriate on retail strips due to their obnoxious/nuisance nature (i.e. mushroom raising, poultry hatcheries, etc.) or because they involve open storage (used car sales lots). It is recommended that instead of listing some uses that are obnoxious or involve open storage, which invariably means that other uses that might be obnoxious (i.e. waste recycling) or involve open storage ( i.e. lumber yard) are missed; all obnoxious uses and uses involving open storage should be prohibited on retail strips. It is therefore recommended that the terms obnoxious and open storage which are defined in the by-law in a generic fashion be added to the list of excluded uses on retail strips. This means that other excluded uses such as mushroom raising can be deleted from the list of excluded uses because it would fall under the definition of obnoxious. East York By-law 6752 defines obnoxious as follows:
"4.23.A.1 Obnoxious
Shall mean a use which from its nature or operation, creates a nuisance or is liable to become a nuisance or offensive by the creation of noise or vibration, or by reason of the emission of gas, fumes, dust or objectionable odour, or by reason or unsightly storage of goods, wares, merchandise, salvage, refuse matter, waste or other material, and includes any use which constitutes a noxious or offensive trade business or manufacture under the Public Health Act, as amended from time to time."
The few remaining excluded uses which do not fall into the above categories including hotels; automatic coin-operated or ride-through car washing establishments or facilities except where the facility is for private use; the keeping or having of any billiard pool or bagatelle table by persons for hire or gain; the keeping or having of any games of skill or chance, or part skill and part chance, excepting bowling alleys; and adult entertainment parlours; should continue to be listed as excluded uses.
(e) Review of Uses in "CA" Zones
There are approximately 20 site-specific amendments to the general "C" zone provisions. All of these amendments are allowed the full gamut of commercial uses as defined by Section 4.6 except for the lands at the south-west corner of Lumsden and Barrington Avenues (Section 8.A.6) and No. 1 Eastdale Avenue (Section 8.A.9). These lands have their commercial permission restricted by the following Zoning By-law definition:
"Neighbourhood Store
When referred to in Sections 8.A.6 and 8.A.9 means a store that serves the needs of the adjacent neighbourhood only and shall include the following: general store, clothing stores, food stores, eating establishments, banks, barber shops, beauty salons, hardware stores, sporting goods stores, dry-cleaning and laundry distributingdepots, provided that, where applicable, all such stores are retail establishments,selling new merchandise exclusively, and that all such businesses are conducted wholly within enclosed buildings: but does not include the keeping or having of any billiard, pool, or bagatelle table by persons, for hire or gain, or the keeping or having of any games of skill or chance, or part skill or part chance, which are operated oractivated in whole or in part by or with mechanical or electrical means."
A careful inspection of these two properties has not provided any planning rationale for their site-specific commercial use restrictions. It is therefore recommended that Sections 8.A.6 and 8.A.9 should be amended by substituting the term commercial for neighbourhood store. This will allow the repealing of the neighbourhood store definition which creates confusion when interpreting the term store in Section 4.6.
Conclusion:
In the opinion of staff, a slight liberalization of uses on retail strips is warranted in order to promote the continued economic health of these areas by facilitating reuse of existing stores, shops and offices. When uses are too restrictive, inherent delays associated with the approvals process is a disincentive to revitalization. At the same time, opening up uses without conditions can have negative impacts on nearby businesses and residential neighbourhoods.
The recommended amendments to Zoning By-law No. 6752 have been crafted with this delicate balance in mind. A similar review of uses in commercial areas regulated by Zoning By-law No. 1916 is currently underway.
Contact Name:
Ed Mihalcin
Senior Planner East York Office
Tel. No. - 397-4498
Authority: Community Council Report No. , Clause No.
as adopted by Council on
Enacted by Council:
City of Toronto
Bill No.
By-law No.
To amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law No. 6752, as amended, of the former Township of East York.
Whereas authority is given to Council by Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended, to pass this By-law; and whereas Council of the City of Toronto has provided adequate information to the public and has held at least one public meeting in accordance with the Planning Act;
The Council of the City of Toronto Hereby Enacts as follows:
(1) Zoning By-law No. 6752 is hereby further amended by deleting Section 4.6 in its entirety, and replacing it with a new Section 4.6 as follows:
"Commercial Use:
Means the buying, renting, repairing and selling of goods and the supplying of services as distinguished from such uses as manufacturing or assembling of goods, warehousing and construction; in shops, stores, offices, banks or similar establishments, and includes:
animal hospitals,
automobile service stations,
custom workshops,
motor vehicle repair shops (exclusive of painting and repairing of bodies and fenders)
operated wholly within enclosed structures),
restaurants,
restaurants take-out, and
restaurants drive-in ( including catering establishments selling food not on premises).
but does not include obnoxious uses or permanent outside open storage and:
adult entertainment parlours,
automatic, coin-operated or ride- through car washing establishments or facilities except
where the facility is for private use,
hotels,
the keeping or having of any billiard pool or bagatelle table by persons for hire or gain,
the keeping or having or any games of skill or chance, or part skill or part chance, excepting bowling alleys which are operated or activated in whole or in part by or with mechanical or electrical means."
(2) Zoning By-law No. 6752 is hereby further amended by repealing Section 4.23.A entitled "Neighbourhood Store".
(3) Zoning By-law No. 6752 is hereby further amended by deleting Section 4.23.C in its entirety, and replacing it with a new Section 4.23.C as follows:
"Personal Service Shop:
Shall mean a building or part of a building in which services involving the care of persons or their apparel are performed but does not include a body rub or massage parlour."
(4) Zoning By-law No. 6752 is hereby further amended by deleting Section 4.24.A.2 in its entirety, and replacing it with a new Section 4.24.A.2 as follows:
"Service and Repair Shop:
Shall mean a building or part of a building in whether conducted in conjunction with a retail store or not, for the repair, sale or servicing or articles or products or the provision of services but does not include the manufacturing of goods."
(5) Zoning By-law No. 6752 is hereby further amended by deleting "for neighbourhood stores" in Section 8.A.6 and substituting "for commercial uses" and by deleting "for one neighbourhood store" in Section 8.A.9 and substituting "for commercial uses".
Enacted and Passed this day of , A.D. 1998.
__________________ ___________________________
Mayor City Clerk
Key East York Zoning By-law No. 6752 Use Provisions
Applying to "C" Zones
Section 8.2 Permitted Uses:
Commercial, Institutional, Accessory, Residential, Day Nursery; Notwithstanding Section 4.6 of this By-law, a maximum of 2 pool or billiard tables for hire or gain, which tables may be activated by or with mechanical or electrical means, shall be permitted in conjunction with a premises licensed under the Liquor License Act, as amended from time to time.
4.6 Commercial Use:
Means the transaction of business, the buying and selling of goods and services in shops, stores, offices, banks or similar establishments, Restaurants, Restaurants Take-Out and Restaurants Drive-In (including catering establishments selling food not on premises), and includes:
automobile service stations,
motor vehicle repair shops ( exclusive of painting and repairing of bodies and fenders) operated wholly within enclosed structures,
custom workshops,
veterinary consulting rooms (not including animal hospitals),
bowling alleys;
but does not include:
hotels,
automatic, coin-operated or ride-through car washing establishments or facilities except where the facility is for private use,
used car sales lots,
dry-cleaning or laundry plants, which are not solely intended for neighbourhood retail service,
greenhouses,
kennels,
plumbing shops,
carpentry or wood-working shops,
metal-working shops,
the selling of builder's supplies except in stores,
tire repair shops,
warehousing or storage of any kind, except as an accessory to a retail commercial business,
transportation terminals,
poultry hatcheries, raising of poultry, poultry processing
mushroom raising,
the buying and selling of solid liquid, or gaseous fuels in bulk other than in automobile service stations,
the making or processing of any product which is not solely intended for retail sale on the premises,
the keeping or having of any billiard pool or bagatelle table by persons for hire or gain,
the keeping or having of any games of skill or chance, or part skill and part chance,
excepting bowling alleys, which are operated or activated in whole or in part by or with mechanical or electrical means,
the outside display of motor vehicles for sale,
adult entertainment parlours.
4.22.8.B Open Outside Storage
Means the open air placement and accumulation of goods or materials which are the inputs to or outputs of the industrial, commercial or service and repair activity located on the same lot.
4.23.A.1 Obnoxious
Shall mean a use which from its nature or operation, creates a nuisance or is liable to become a nuisance or offensive by the creation of noise or vibration, or by reason of the emission of gas, fumes, dust or objectionable odour, or by reason or unsightly storage of goods, wares, merchandise, salvage, refuse matter, waste or other material, and includes any use which constitutes a noxious or offensive trade business or manufacture under the Public Health Act, as amended from time to time.
4.23.C Personal Service Shop:
Shall mean a building or part of a building in which services involving the care of persons or their apparel are performed including a barber shop, a hair dressing shop, a manicure shop, a shoe repair, a dry cleaning depot and similar service establishments, but does not include a body rub or massage.
4.24.a.2 Service and Repair Shop
Shall mean for the purposes of Section 9.A.1 and Section 8.C, a shop not otherwise
classified or defined in this By-law and whether conducted in conjunction with a retail store or not, for servicing or repairing radio and television receivers; vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, washing machines, sewing machines and other domestic appliances, musical instruments, sound and public address systems, hosiery, cameras, toys, jewellery, watches, clocks, safes, and locks, bicycles, wheelchairs, orthopaedic and prosthetic appliances; and any other household goods; and includes a key shop, dry-cleaners shop, a custom framing shop, the business of renting pianos, tents, canopies, chairs, coin machines, costumes, uniforms, bicycles, sound and public address systems and other like articles and equipment.
Insert Map No. 1
(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)
(a) Harmonized Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, reporting on a strategy to upgrade the private portions of residential water service connections at no cost to homeowners; advising that the cost to the City to upgrade the private portions of residential water service connections in conjunction with the Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program within the street allowance is estimated to be approximately $10.6 million annually; and recommending that this report be received for information.
(b) Garbage Stored in Laneway Behind Bayview Avenue.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(July 14, 1999) from the Program Manager, Healthy Environments - East Region, reporting on inspections conducted by a Public Health Inspector of the laneway behind Bayview Avenue between Millwood Road and Parkhurst Boulevard; and advising that officials will monitor the situation to ensure compliance with the Food Premises Regulation.
(c) Drain Grant Appeal regarding 71 Rivercourt Boulevard.
The East York Community Council reports having referred the following communications to the Administration Committee, with the recommendation that a drain grant be awarded to Mr. and Mrs. M. Champion, 71 Rivercourt Boulevard, in the amount of $1,500.00:
(August 10, 1999) from Councillor Michael Prue, forwarding a letter dated July 1, 1999, from Mr. Mark G. Champion, East York, with respect to his application for a drain grant and appealing the decision of staff of Works and Emergency Services.
(September 9, 1999) from the Manager, Operations and Maintenance, District 1, Water and Wastewater.
Mr. M. Champion, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(d) Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following communication:
(August 6, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding, for information, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 2 of the Planning and Transportation Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated From Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication" which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999.
(e) Naming of the Parkette at the Corner of Pape Avenue and Mortimer Avenue.
The East York Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with a request that he submit a report thereon to the East York Community Council, such report to include a list of appropriate names for consideration by the Community Council including the name Agnes Macphail:
(August 31, 1999) from Councillor Jane Pitfield, submitting a communication (August 25, 1999) from Mr. John Carter, Chair, East York Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, advising that the issue of naming the parkette located at the corner of Pape Avenue and Mortimer Avenue was discussed at the August 24, 1999 meeting of the East York Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee; and recommending that this new site be named the Agnes Macphail Parkette.
(f) Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee Membership.
The East York Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for his consideration:
(August 31, 1999) from Councillor Jane Pitfield, forwarding correspondence from Mr. John Carter, Chair, Local Architectural Advisory Committee, informing the East York Community Council of members of the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee who wish to remain as members of this panel.
(g) Street Names.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1) received the following communications;
(2) requested the East York Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, the East York Historical Society, and other stakeholder groups to:
(a) include the name of Mr. David Johnson in their list of candidates when considering names for streets and parks in the O'Connor/Northline development;
(b) submit a report to the East York Community Council, no later than the end of the year, such report to identify other possible locations which could be named after prominent citizens, including, but not limited to: parks, buildings, streets, and schools;
(3) requested the East York Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee to ensure that former Mayors of East York are considered first as names for streets, parks, buildings; and
(4) directed that the City Surveyor be notified of the Community Council's action in this regard:
(August 31, 1999) from Councillor Jane Pitfield, requesting that a process be established for the naming of streets in the East York community; and forwarding correspondence received from Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York; and
(September 9, 1999) from Mr. John Papadakis, East York.
The following persons appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York;
- Ms. Donna-Lynn McCallum, East York, and submitted a written brief in respect thereto;
- Mr. John Parker, East York; and
- Mr. Roy Fardell, East York.
(h) Site Plan Control Approvals.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(August 10, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising of site plan approvals granted by the Director of Community Planning, East District; and recommending that this report be received for information.
(i) New Applications Received.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(August 17, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising of new applications that have been received; and recommending that this report be received for information within the last 30 days.
(j) New Practices for the Review of Development Applications.
The East York Community Council reports having recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee that consideration of this matter be deferred until such time as the report from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with respect to the organizational structure of the Committees of Adjustment is considered.
(July 29, 1999) from the City Clerk, addressed to the Community Councils, advising that the Planning and Transportation Committee, at its meeting on July 12, 1999, referred the attached report, dated June 25, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, proposing new practices for the review of development applications and for the delivery of City Planning services across the City, to the Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on October 4, 1999;
(August 25, 1999) from the Administrator, Planning and Transportation Committee, forwarding a report dated July 30, 1999, from Councillor John Filion, Ward 10, suggesting amendments to the proposed Planning process; and
(September 1, 1999) from Mr. Jim Murphy, Director of Government Relations, Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, advising that the Association supports, in principle, the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; expressing specific concerns; and providing further suggestions for improvement.
Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, on behalf of the Leaside Property Owners' Association, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and submitted a written brief with respect thereto.
(k) Proposed Road Classification System.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1) received the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and
(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the East York Community Council with respect to:
(a) the issue of McRae Drive as it evovles from a minor road to a collector road; and
(b) the concerns raised by Ms. Swarbrick in her deputation.
(July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Works Committee on July 14, 1999, referred the attached report, dated June 29, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the consolidation of the various road classification systems inherited from the amalgamated municipalities into a single, consistent system, and the clarification of the respective roles and responsibilities of Community Councils and various Standing Committees with respect to traffic operations policies in the context of the new classification system, to the Community Councils for consideration and requested that their comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its meeting on November 3, 1999.
Ms. Rhona Swarbrick, Toronto, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and submitted a written brief with respect thereto.
(l) Request for Traffic Poll Leroy Avenue.
The East York Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the City Clerk, with a request that she conduct a formal poll with respect thereto:
(September 2, 1999) from Councillor Michael Prue, forwarding a petition from 11 residents of Leroy Avenue between Mortimer and Memorial Park Avenues respecting street permit parking and requesting that a traffic poll be conducted.
(m) Site Development Progress 4 Thorncliffe Park Drive.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 8, 1999) from the Manager, Plan Review and Inspections, East District Field Office, providing a progress report on the condition of landscaping and site condition of the property located at 4 Thorncliffe Park Drive; advising that the irrevocable standby Letter of Credit in the amount of $78,442.00 for parking lot and landscaping requirements required by the Site Plan Agreement has been returned to the owners of the property; further advising that the owners completed the required work prior to the default date of August 26, 1999; and recommending that the report be received for information.
(n) Canada Day.
The East York Community Council referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the Commission of Finance and Treasurer, with a request that he establish a petty cash fund, with appropriate controls, and within limits currently established, which will allow the Canada Day Committee Chairman, together with the appropriate Parks Division staff as a co-signatory, to authorize the expenditure of funds related to East York Canada Day:
(September 9, 1999) from Mr. Don Duvall, Chairman, East York Canada Day, requesting an opportunity to address the East York Community Council with respect to Canada Day 1999 and seeking guidance in regard to the East York Canada Day 2000 event.
Mr. Don Duvall, Chairman, East York Canada Day, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(o) Committee of Adjustment.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1) received the following communication from Mr. Brian R.C. Athey, Chair, East York Committee of Adjustment;
(2) directed the City Clerk to schedule the forthcoming report from the Planning and Transportation Committee with respect to the proposed organizational structure for Committees of Adjustment as a deputation item in the evening at the next East York Community Council meeting; and
(3) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a report to the East York Community Council with respect to the impact of basement garages on neighbourhood streets:
(September 8, 1999) from Mr. Brian R.C. Athey, Chair, East York Committee of Adjustment, requesting an opportunity to address the East York Community Council with respect to the East York Committee of Adjustment.
Mr. Brian R.C. Athey, Chair, East York Committee of Adjustment, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(p) Traffic Poll Results: Poll Conducted on Frater Avenue between Woodmount Avenue and Woodbine Avenue.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 8, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising of the results of a traffic poll that was conducted on Frater Avenue between Woodmount Avenue and Woodbine Avenue in connection with the extension of the hours of alternate side overnight permit parking from 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. to between 7:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.; advising that the proposed changes can be accommodated from within the existing Operating Budget; and recommending that the report be received for information.
Respectfully submitted,
JANE PITFIELD
Chair
Toronto, September 14, 1999
(Report No. 9 of The East York Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999.)