1 Sign By-law Variance Request - Urban Outdoor Trans Ad - Hydro Corridor - North-West Corner of Keele Street and Fourwinds Drive - Black Creek

2 Sign By-law Variance Request - Urban Outdoor Trans Ad - Ontario Hydro Corridor - East and West Side of Bayview Avenue and North of Ruddington Drive - Seneca Heights

3 Amendments to North York Sign By-law No. 30788 Respecting Signs on Land Development Sites

4 Tree Removal Request - 7 Norlington Drive - North York Centre South

5 Sale of Surplus Vacant Lands on the South West Corner of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Searle Avenue - North York Spadina

6 Sale of Surplus Vacant Lands on the North East Corner of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Reiner Road - North York Spadina

7 Restrictive Covenant Agreement - Patricia Sheila Goudie - 24 Hedgewood Road - North York Centre South

8 Sign By-law Variance Request - Leon Lubelski - 700 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Spadina

9 Sign By-law Variance Request - Steel Art Signs - 3560 Bathurst Street - North York Centre South

10 Parking Prohibitions - Botham Road - North York Centre

11 All Way Stop Control - Bales Avenue at Glendora Avenue - North York Centre

12 Parking/Stopping Prohibitions - Sharpecroft Boulevard - Black Creek840

13 Traffic Management Plan - Moccasin Trail and North Hills Terrace - Don Parkway

14 Stopping Prohibitions - Glencairn Avenue - North York Centre South

15 Downsview Area Secondary Plan - Deferral of Consideration of 'Sports and Entertainment' Designation - North York Spadina

16 Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-41 - Costco Canada Limited - South Side of Wilson Avenue, West of Allen Road - North York Spadina

17 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-95-19 and Plan of Subdivision Application UDSB-1224 - Greatwise Developments Corporation - 305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue - North York Centre

18 Request for Exemption from Noise By-law - Toronto Transit Commission - Sheppard Subway Construction Noise - North York Centre and Seneca Heights

19 Parking Prohibitions - Hanover Road - North York Spadina

20 Official Plan Amendment Application UDOP-99-21 - Ontario Municipal Board Appeals - Glenarda Properties Ltd. - 20 Bond Avenue - Retention of Outside Consultant with Financial Expertise - Don Parkway

21 Indoor Bocce Program User Fees for Older Adults

22 Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application UDOZ-99-02 - Quadrant Dental Technologies Inc. - 181 Finch Avenue West - North York Centre

23 Committee of Adjustment Decision - Symphony Square - 15-27 Lorraine Drive - North York Centre

24 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Mr. Roy Dzeko, for a variance from the Sign By-Law to permit the erection of a single sided third party ground sign at North-West corner of Keele Street and Fourwinds Drive.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for a variance from the sign by-law be refused.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The area in which the proposed sign is to be located is zoned open space 03 (see attached site plan) and is used as a hydro corridor for overhead power lines. The proposed sign would face southeast and be visible from the south on Keele Street.

The proposed sign is twenty-three feet wide and ten feet high with a total area of 230 square feet. The total height of the sign is twenty-three feet from the grade to the top of the sign.

The sign by-law permits signs within hydro corridors subject to the following conditions:

(a) the area of the sign does not exceed 270 square feet;

(b) the sign is not located closer than 150 feet from another off premise sign; and

(c) the sign is located 500 feet from any lands zoned residential.

These requirements can be found in Section 4.10 of the sign by-law. The variance being sought is for the distance from the proposed sign to the existing residential land to the south, which is zoned RM6.

The proposed sign is to be located approximately 180 feet from the lands zoned residential, and would face towards the residential zone. A sign in this location would be visible from the residential zones on Fourwinds Drive, and could have a negative impact on the area. The sign by-law requires the 500 feet separation between off premise signs in, hydro corridors, and residential lands so that the residential zones would not be severely impacted by third party advertising signs, particularly illuminated signs.

Conclusion:

It is the opinion of this department that the proposed sign by-law variance request is not warranted. The request for a variance from the requirements in the by-law is not minor in nature, and is not in keeping with the intent of the sign by-law, to protect residential lands from signage.

Contact Person:

Mario Angelucci P. Eng., Manager Plan Review (North District); (416) 395-7535

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a memorandum (September 13, 1999) from Ms. Marg Bukta, on behalf of York Condominium Corporation No. 128, requesting that this matter be deferred for a period of one month.

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

- Ms. Shelley Muzylo and Mr. Ross Muzylo, Outdoor Opportunities Inc., on behalf of Ontario Hydro; and

- Mr. Roy Dzeko, Urban Outdoor Trans Ad.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 31, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations regarding a request by Roy Dzeko, Market Development, Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, for a variance from the Sign By-law to permit the erection of two off-premise, double-sided, illuminated, billboard ground signs in the Ontario Hydro Corridor. It should be noted that the applicant has obtained approval from Ontario Hydro to erect these signs on their properties. Refer to attachments for details.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for a minor variance from the Sign By-law be refused.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The proposed illuminated ground signs are 10ftx23ft in size and 23 ft in height. The signs will be located in the Ontario Hydro Transmission Corridor on both sides of Bayview Avenue.

Approximately 164ft (50m) to the south of the proposed sign location on the east side of Bayview Ave., there is a residential apartment building located in a RM6 zone. The proposed ground sign would be in the view of the tenants living in the apartments situated in the north side of that building.

Approximately 196ft (60m) to the northwest of the proposed sign location on the west side of Bayview Ave., there are single family dwellings on Gustav Cres. which are located in a R3 zone. The proposed sign would be in the view of several of these homes.

In addition, there is an existing off-premise roof sign on the commercial building located approximately 200ft (61m) to the north of the proposed signs.

In summary, the proposed ground signs are located approximately 164 ft (50m) and 196ft (60m) respectively from lands zoned residential whereas Section 4.10.1 of the Sign by-Law requires these signs to be setback a minimum of 500 ft (153m) from residential lands.

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

Conclusions:

It is the opinion of this Department that the proposed ground signs would have a negative impact on the neighbouring residential areas mainly due to the sign size and the fact that the signs will be illuminated. Furthermore, the City has no jurisdiction over the content of advertising displayed on off-premise signage.

Contact Name:

Magda Ishak P.Eng. Tel: (416) 395-7555

Manager, Plan Review Fax: (416) 395-7589

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (September 13, 1999) from Roy Dzeko, Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, requesting a deferral of this matter.

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

- Ms. Shelley Muzylo and Mr. Ross Muzylo, Outdoor Opportunities Inc., on behalf of Ontario Hydro; and

- Mr. Roy Dzeko, Urban Outdoor Trans Ad

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council reports that, pursuant to Clause 2 of North York Community Council Report No. 4, adopted by City Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999, notice of the public hearing held by the North York Community Council on September 14, 1999, with respect to a proposed by-law to amend the former City of North York Sign By-law No. 30788, was published in the Toronto Sun on August 30, 1999, and that no one appeared at the public hearing on September 14, 1999, to address the North York Community Council.

The North York Community Council recommends that, as the requirements of the Municipal Act have been fulfilled and no evidence has been presented to the North York Community Council that the proposed by-law should not be enacted, the by-law to amend the former City of North York Sign By-law No. 30788, be enacted by Council:

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. The former City of North York By-law No. 30788, "A By-law to prohibit or regulate signs and other advertising devices.", as amended ("By-law No.30788"), is amended by adding the following:

1.1.13.1 "Construction Sign" means a temporary sign without a foundation that is used to advertise the work or the name of the person performing work on a property or structure.

2. By-law No. 30788 is amended by adding the following:

2.4.6 Despite Section 2.4.3, a permit for a sign related to a land development shall be renewed only once and shall not be renewed unless an application for a building permit for the land development has been submitted.

2.4.7 Where a sign related to a land development has expired, a permit for a subsequent sign related to the land development shall not be issued unless an application for a building permit for the land development has been submitted.

3. Section 2.8 of By-law No. 30788 is amended as follows:

(a) by amending Section 2.8.1 by inserting a semicolon after "signs";

(b) by amending Section 2.8.5 by deleting "and";

(c) by deleting Section 2.8.7 and substituting the following:

2.8.7 Except in zones R-R, R-A, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7, non-illuminated construction signs which are less than 4.7 m² (50.6 ft²) in sign area, provided that they are removed from the land development site immediately after the substantial completion of the work advertised directly or indirectly, by the name of the person performing the work, on the construction sign;

(d) by amending Sections 2.8.11 and 2.8.12, in both cases, by deleting the period substituting a semicolon;

(e) by amending Sections 2.8.13, by deleting the period and substituting "; and"; and

(f) by adding the following:

2.8.14 In zones R-R, R-A, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7, non-illuminated construction signs which are less than 1.1 m² (12 ft²) in sign area, provided that they are removed from the land development site immediately after the substantial completion of the work advertised directly or indirectly, by the name of the person performing the work, on the construction sign.

4. Section 2.9 of By-law 30788 is amended as follows:

(a) by amending Section 2.9.15 by deleting the period and substituting "; and"; and

(b) by adding the following:

2.9.16 A sign that is erected upon or supported by hoarding used in the construction, renovation, maintenance, restoration or repair of property, except where specifically permitted in a minor variance to this By-law.

5. By-law 30788 is amended by deleting Sections 4.6.1 and 4.6.2 and substituting the following:

4.6.1 In any zone, except for zones R-R, R-A, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7, ground signs, wall signs or roof signs having an aggregated sign area not in excess of 23.3 m² (250 .8 ft²) related to a land development shall be permitted for each .809 hectares (2 acres) of land or portion thereof to a maximum of four signs, provided that any sign is removed immediately after the earlier of the following dates:

(i) the date thirty days after the substantial completion of the land development; and

(ii) the date six months after the issuance of the sign permit.

4.6.2 In zones R-R, R-A, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7, one ground sign not exceeding 1.86 m² (20 ft² ) in sign area related to a land development shall be permitted for each lot, provided the sign is removed immediately after the earlier of the following dates:

(i) the date thirty days after the substantial completion of the land development; and

(ii) the date six months after the issuance of the sign permit.

Where two or more lots are contiguous, in lieu of individual signs, one sign having an aggregate area equal to that permitted for each individual lot, to a maximum of 7.43 m² (80 ft²) is permitted, provided the sign is located at least 15 m (49.2 ft) from any adjacent occupied premises.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 20, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the Draft By-law for the required public meeting on the proposed by-law amending the former City of North York's Sign By-law No. 30788.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-law has no financial implications or impact for the City of Toronto. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. the North York Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-law in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the North York Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-law, it could recommend that:

2. the Draft By-law attached to the report (August 20, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect to it.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999 adopted Clause 2 of North York Community Council Report No. 4 respecting "Advertising Signs - Removal from Residential Properties" and adopted the following recommendations respecting amendments to the former City of North York's Sign By-law No. 30788:

(2) that the City Solicitor be requested to prepare amendments to the Sign By-law as it pertains to land development signs as follows:

(i) define construction signs to avoid any confusion with Land Development signs as follows: "a Construction Sign is a temporary sign without a foundation, which is used to advertise the work or company performing work on a property or structure, which may only be displayed while the specific work related to that sign is in progress and has a maximum area of 1.1 sq. metres (12 sq. ft.), in a single family residential zone." Further require the removal of construction signs once the work the sign was advertising is substantially complete;

(ii) limit the time frame that land development signs are permitted to remain to a maximum of six months after the issuance of a sign permit or 30 days after a construction is substantial[sic] complete;

(iii) limit the number of renewals of a permit for a Land Development sign to one, so that, the maximum length of time any land development sign could remain is one year. Further, do not allow for the renewal or subsequent permits for a land development sign, if an application for a building permit has not been submitted for the subject property; and

(iv) reduce the permitted sign area of land development signs in residential zones to 20 square feet for each lot, and where two or more lots are contiguous permit an individual sign to have a sign area equal to that permitted for each lot to a maximum of 80 square feet; and

(3) that the City Solicitor be requested to prepare amendments to the Sign By-law as it pertains to posters on construction hoarding:

(i) specifically prohibit posters on hoarding unless approved by the Community Council in the form of a variance to the By-law.

The Director and Deputy Chief Building Official (North District) has confirmed that the references in these recommendations to "a single family residential zone" and to "residential zones" was intended to refer to zones R-R, R-A, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 as set out in the North York zoning by-law.

Under clause (e) of paragraph 146 of section 210 of the Municipal Act, before the former City of North York's Sign By-law can be amended, notice of the proposed by-law and notice of the Council meeting [here delegated to the North York Community Council] at which the proposed by-law is to be discussed, must be published once at least fourteen (14) days prior to the meeting indicated in the notice.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Attached is the Draft By-law which implements the recommendations in Clause 2 of North York Community Council Report No. 4 as adopted by City Council at its meeting held May 11 and 12, 1999, as reviewed with the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official (North District). The amendments include restrictions that apply to all signs advertising land development matters, restrictions on the sign area of signs advertising land development matters in residential zones R-R, R-A, R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7, and a prohibition on signs being erected upon or supported by construction hoarding.

Contact Name:

Christina M. Cameron, Lawyer

Telephone: (416) 392-7235

Fax: (416) 392-1017

E-Mail: ccameron@toronto.ca

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1) the following report (September 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, not be adopted and the request to remove the City tree be approved; and

(2) the property owner reimburse the City for its costs to remove the tree at $475.00 and for the tree value of $876.00.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report provides information regarding an appeal to the Community Council from the owner of the above address to permit the removal of a City owned 31 cm diameter Colorado Blue Spruce. The removal of the tree has been disallowed by City Forestry staff.

Source of Funds:

Staff and equipment to remove this tree and its stump is $475.00. The City would lose an asset worth $876.00. The total amenity value plus removal costs are $1,351.00.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this request to remove a City tree be refused.

Background:

A written removal request was received from Mrs. Esther Schwartz regarding the 31 cm diameter Spruce. The tree has minor symptoms of Cytospora Canker, a common disease affecting maturing Spruce trees. The tree is currently in fair condition and coping well.

There is also a privately owned Spruce tree adjacent to the City Spruce tree and a City owned Crimson King Norway Maple tree on the site.

Conclusion:

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

If City Council permits this tree to be removed, such permission should be on the condition that the resident reimburse the City for its costs to remove the tree at $475.00 and for the tree value of $876.00. These funds will be used to purchase a large replacement tree on city property at this address or in the immediate neighbourhood.

Contact Name:

Tony Fleischmann

Tel: 395-6134

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the vacant parcel on the south west corner of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Searle Avenue.

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $232,232.00, plus GST, less closing costs and the usual adjustments.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $232,232.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No.14, Report No. 36 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28,1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA600CA6534;

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and

(5) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

By its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 25 of Corporate Administration Committee December 4, 1996 the former Metropolitan Corporation declared the property surplus. Further, by its adoption of Clause No. 19 of Report No. 13 of the Corporate Services Committee on October 1 and 2, 1998, City Council released the surplus property from a list of properties considered for affordable housing, pursuant to By-law No. 551-1998 authorized its disposal, subject to easement protection for utilities, by offering the property for sale at market value on the open market by direct sale or by use of the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. The procedures with respect to the by-law have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

The subject lands, located on the north east corner of Wilson Heights Blvd. and Searle Avenue, were acquired for and in connection with the proposed Spadina Road Extension along Wilson Heights Boulevard. The remnant lands were declared surplus to the City and listed for sale on July 6, 1999 with Sutton Group-Admiral Realty Inc. on the Toronto Real Estate Board MLS Service.

Comments:

Pursuant to the October 1 and 2, 1998 authority, the following offer was received:

Subject Property: Part of Lots 60 and 65, Plan 1899, designated as Parts 2 and 3 on Plan RS-1062, City of Toronto (formerly City of North York)

Easements: none

Location: South west corner of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Searle Avenue

Approximate Dimensions: Irregular parcel with 18.67 metres (61.26 feet) of frontage on Searle Avenue with an average depth of 55.25 metres (171.43 feet)

Approximate Site Area: 1,219 square metres (13,113 square feet).

Property Type: Vacant Land

Zoning: R4 - Single Family Detached

Official Plan: Residential, Density one

Recommended Sale Price: $232,232.00

Deposit: $11,150.00 (Certified Cheque)

$461.60 (Money Order)

Purchaser: Guiseppe Raimondo in Trust

Closing Date: 45 days after Council acceptance

Terms: Certified cheque, plus GST, on closing, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker: Sutton Group - Admiral Realty Inc.

Selling Broker: Royal LePage - Your Community

Commission: Four (4) per cent, plus GST, payable on closing of the transaction.

Accounting (Costing Units) have been put in place to charge costs directly related to the maintenance and sale of City-owned properties, and include such items as sale commissions, surveying and registration of the sale. A recommendation is included in this report to direct a portion of the sale proceeds to close out the account for this property.

Conclusion:

Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Melanie Hale-Carter, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services; Tel: (416) 397-0585

Fax: (416) 392-1880, E-Mail: melanie_halecarter@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca (nyc99119.doc)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 16, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the disposal of the vacant parcel on the north east corner of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Reiner Road.

Financial Implications:

Revenue of $140,000.00 plus GST, less closing costs and the usual adjustments.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services or the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate be authorized to accept this offer in the amount of $140,000.00 as detailed herein;

(2) Council, pursuant to Clause No.14, Report No. 36 of the former Metropolitan Management Committee adopted on September 28,1994, waive the minimum required deposit of 10 per cent. of the purchase price;

(3) authority be granted to direct a portion of the sale proceeds on closing to fund the outstanding balance of Costing Unit No. CA600CA6532;

(4) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to complete the transaction on behalf of the Corporation and he be further authorized to amend the closing date to such earlier or later date as he considers reasonable; and

(5) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

By its adoption of Clause No. 2 of Report No. 25 of Corporate Administration Committee December 4, 1996 the former Metropolitan Corporation declared the property surplus. Further, by its adoption of Clause No. 19 of Report No. 13 of the Corporate Services Committee on October 1 and 2, 1998, City Council released the surplus property from a list of properties considered for affordable housing, pursuant to By-law No. 551-1998 authorized its disposal, subject to easement protection for utilities, by offering the property for sale at market value on the open market by direct sale or by use of the Multiple Listing Service of the Toronto Real Estate Board. The procedures with respect to the by-law have been complied with, a utility canvass has been completed and no requirements have been identified.

The subject lands, located on the north east corner of Wilson Heights Blvd. and Reiner Road, were acquired for and in connection with the proposed Spadina Road Extension along Wilson Heights Boulevard. The remnant lands were declared surplus to the City and listed for sale on July 6, 1999 with Sutton Group-Admiral Realty Inc. on the Toronto Real Estate Board MLS Service.

Comments:

Pursuant to the October 1 and 2, 1998 authority, the following offers were received:

The highest offer is recommended for acceptance:

Subject Property: Part of Lots 34, 35 and 36, Plan 3457, designated as Part 1 on Plan RS-1059, City of Toronto (formerly City of North York).

Easements: none

Location: North east corner of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Reiner Road

Approximate Dimensions: 47.87 metres (157.06 feet) of frontage on Wilson Heights Boulevard with an average depth of 17.04 metres (55.89 feet)

Approximate Site Area: 816.15 square metres (8,785 square feet).

Property Type: Vacant Land

Zoning: R4 - Single Family Detached

Official Plan: Residential, Density one

Recommended Sale Price: $140,000.00

Deposit: $7,000.00

Purchaser: Irving Babb

Closing Date: January 14, 2000

Terms: Certified cheque on closing plus GST, subject to the usual adjustments.

Listing Broker: Sutton Group - Admiral Realty Inc.

Selling Broker: Sutton Group - Admiral Realty Inc.

Commission: Four (4) per cent, plus GST, payable on closing of the transaction.

Accounting (Costing Units) have been put in place to charge costs directly related to the maintenance and sale of City-owned properties, and include such items as sale commissions, surveying and registration of the sale. A recommendation is included in this report to direct a portion of the sale proceeds to close out the account for this property.

Conclusion:

Completion of this transaction detailed above is considered fair and reasonable and reflective of market value.

Contact Name:

Melanie Hale-Carter, Valuator-Negotiator, Real Estate Services, (416) 397-0585, Fax No.: (416)392-1880, E-Mail Address: melanie_halecarter@metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca (nyc99120.doc)

Councillor Li Preti, declared his interest in the foregoing matter as it relates to the city-owned lands at the northeast corner of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Reiner Road, in that he owns property in the vicinity of such lands.

(Councillor Li Preti, at the meeting of Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the City-owned lands at the northeast corner of Wilson Heights Boulevard and Reiner Road, in that he owns property in the vicinity of such lands.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request authority to enter into a restrictive covenant agreement in respect of the above property.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

That the City enter into a restrictive covenant agreement in respect of the above property.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A portion of closed road allowance within the former City of North York was sold to Patricia Sheila Goudie which Transfer was registered on title, in the Land Registry office October 23, 1992 as Instrument Number TB863945.

The land was sold subject to a restrictive covenant contained in the Transfer which restricted the land from being used as a separate building lot. Patricia Sheila Goudie applied to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever the land and transfer a portion (approximately, the southerly 1.22 metres) to the adjacent landowner.

On October 22, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment approved the application for consent to sever upon certain conditions, one of which was that the adjacent landowner enter into an agreement with the City in order to ensure that the intent and terms of the restrictive covenant currently on title to the land is maintained.

A form of restrictive covenant agreement has been drafted by the Legal Division for execution upon receipt of Council authority.

Conclusions:

It is appropriate that the City enter into the agreement and maintain the restrictive covenant on title to the severed lands.

Contact Name:

Irvin M. Shachter, Solicitor

Legal Division

Tel: (416) 392-1219

Fax No. (416) 397-4420

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, subject to:

(1) the applicant negotiating an agreement with the Ward Councillor(s) to:

(a) put into effect a regular maintenance program for the plaza lot; and

(b) establish a snow storage and plowing program to minimize neighbourhood disruption; and

(2) the applicant ensuring the discharge of all outstanding property standards violations on file, to the satisfaction of the Municipal Standards and Licensing Division.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Mr. Leon Lubelski, for a variance from the Sign By-Law to permit the erection of a first party wall signs on the east elevation of the existing commercial building.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for a variance from the sign by-law be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The area in which the proposed signs are to be located is zoned Industrial C3(4) (see attached site plan). The proposed signs would be on the second and third floor of the east wall of the existing three storey commercial building. The proposed signs would face W.R. Allen Road, and the existing residential zone (RM4) which is located on the east side of the Allen expressway. The proposed signs would be approximately 185 metres (610 ft.) from the residential zone in the east, and the impact from these signs should be minimal to residences in this area.

For this building and in this zone C3(4) the By-law would permit wall signs to cover twenty percent of the first floor wall elevation and fifteen percent of the remaining wall elevation per storey. The by-law does not allow the amount of signage permitted; and not used in a storey to be accumulated, and assigned to another storey.

The applicant wish to erect wall signs in the following amounts :

(a) zero percent for the first storey, where 20 percent (1345 sq. ft.) is permitted;

(b) ten percent (710 sq ft) for the second storey, where 15 percent (1009 sq. ft.) is permitted; and

(c) 30 percent (1363 sq ft) for the third storey, where 15 percent (640 sq. ft.) is permitted.

The variance being requested is for the amount of signage proposed on the third storey only, the remaining sign areas are below what is permitted by the sign by-law.

The reason for the variance request stems from the physical conditions and nature at the site. The first floor elevation is not visible to motorists from the Allen Expressway, as such, the applicant wishes to install signage on the third floor elevation which is visible to accommodate the first floor as well as the third. In essence accumulate a portion of the area not used on the first and second storey and assign it to the third storey wall elevation.

If the areas of the proposed signs were considered as a whole over the entire wall elevation and compared to what the by-law would permit over the entire elevation, the proposed signage is less than what the by-law would permit to be constructed.

Conclusion:

It is the opinion of this department that the proposed sign area requested are reasonable, and request for a variance from the requirements in the by-law are minor in nature.

Contact Person:

Mario Angelucci P. Eng.

Manager Plan Review (North District)

(416) 395-7535

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

Mr. Leon Lulbelski appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and indicated that he had no objections to the imposition of the conditions suggested by the Ward Councillor.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Mr. Ryan Gaul, for a variance from the Sign By-Law to permit the erection of a ground sign at 3560 Bathurst Street, Baycrest Centre.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for a variance from the sign by-law be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The area in which the proposed sign is to be located is zoned hospital zone HOS(2) (see attached site plan). The proposed sign would front onto the west side of Bathurst Street and would be visible from the north and south. The hospital has approximately 140 metres of frontage onto Bathurst Street where the sign is proposed.

The proposed sign is eighteen feet high and eight feet wide with a total area of 144 square feet. The portion of the sign which will contain a message is approximately 11 feet by 8 feet for an area of 88 square feet (see attached). The sign is intended to be used to advertise the fund raising activities at the hospital for the upcoming expansion.

For this building and in this zone the by-law would permit the hospital to have two ground signs with an area of 43.1 square feet each, fronting onto Bathurst Street, this requirement can be found in 5.1.3 of the sign by-law. Currently there exists two ground signs fronting onto Bathurst Street, the existing signs are each twenty square feet in area.

The variance being requested for this site are as follows:

(a) for the erection of a third ground sign where the by-law permits two; and

(b) for the third sign to be 144 square feet in area where the by-law permits 43 square feet.

The impact of the new sign should be minimal to the surrounding area. It should be noted that the two existing land development signs which were on this site have been removed.

Conclusion:

It is the opinion of this department that the proposed additional sign requested is reasonable, and request for a variance from the requirements in the by-law are minor in nature.

Contact Person:

Mario Angelucci P. Eng.

Manager Plan Review (North District)

(416) 395-7535

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

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To restrict parking at anytime on the west side of Botham Road, from Poyntz Avenue to a point 40 metres south.

Source of funds:

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

Recommendation:

That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at anytime on the west side of Botham Road, from the southerly limit of Poyntz Avenue to a point 40 metres southerly thereof.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department received a complaint from Dr. Marie Roy, 89 Poyntz Avenue, that after 4:00 p.m. numerous vehicles are parked on the west side of Botham Road, immediately south of Poyntz Avenue. These vehicles create a sight obstruction for motorists exiting her driveway.

Currently, parking is prohibited from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Botham Road, and is at anytime on the east side, between Poyntz Avenue and Franklin Avenue.

Discussion:

An investigation by staff of the Transportation Services Division confirmed Dr. Roy's concern as vehicles were parked on the west side of Botham Road, immediately south of Poyntz Avenue. It was also confirmed that sightlines for motorists exiting from Dr. Roy's driveway are reduced.

Councillor John Filion and Councillor Norman Gardner have indicated their support to prohibit parking at anytime on the west side of Botham Road, along the flankage of Dr. Roy's property.

Conclusions:

The installation of the parking restrictions will improve the overall level of safety and will not negatively impact the availability of on street parking.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager

Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

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

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 27, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To install an all way stop control at the intersection of Bales Avenue and Glendora Avenue.

Source of funds:

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

Recommendation:

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

Background:

As a result of concerns from local residents, Councillor Norm Gardner requested that staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department investigate the feasibility of installing an all way stop control at the intersection of Bales Avenue and Glendora Avenue.

Currently, northbound and southbound traffic on Bales Avenue is required to stop at Glendora Avenue. Bales Avenue terminates one block to the north and two blocks to the south, however, located to the north of Bales Avenue is the newly constructed driveway access to the Willowdale Shopping Plaza, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Sheppard Avenue East and Yonge Street, and the Proctor and Gamble Tower at Yonge Street and Bales Avenue. This access was constructed to provide alternative access to the properties during construction of the Sheppard Subway, Yonge Street Station. Construction is anticipated for several more years.

Discussion:

The results of the all way stop study confirm that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control have been satisfied at the intersection of Bales Avenue and Glendora Avenue. The satisfying of the technical warrants for the installation of an all way stop control can be directly attributed to the increased traffic volumes associated with the opening of the driveway access to the shopping plaza and the Proctor and Gamble Building.

Conclusions:

The installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Bales Avenue and Glendora Avenue, would provide additional motorist and pedestrian protection and would not adversely impact traffic operations within the community.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482(facsimile)

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

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 29, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To amend the current parking/stopping regulations on Sharpecroft Boulevard, adjacent to St. Jerome Separate School.

Source of funds:

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

Recommendations:

that Schedules VIII and IX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended as follows:

(1) that stopping be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Sharpecroft Boulevard, from Dovehouse Avenue to a point 130 metres south; and

(2) that parking be prohibited between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of Sharpecroft Boulevard, from Dovehouse Avenue to a point 130 metres south.

Background:

Currently, stopping is prohibited on the east side of Sharpecroft Boulevard and parking on the west side of the roadway, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from Dovehouse Avenue to a point 228 metres south. Parking is also prohibited at anytime on the west side of Sharpecroft Boulevard from a point 228 metres south of the southerly limit of Dovehouse Avenue to Sentinel Road. Parking is permitted for periods of up to a maximum of three hours on the east side of the roadway, from Sentinel Road to the southerly limit of St. Jerome Separate School.

Discussion:

As a result of the current parking/stopping habits of the parents of children attending the St. Jerome Separate School, staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department were requested by Mrs. Sheila Ryan, Principal, to amend the existing parking/stopping prohibitions on Sharpecroft Boulevard, adjacent to St. Jerome Separate School.

Justification:

As with other school reviews, consideration is often given to prohibiting parking on the side of the roadway adjacent to the school while stopping is prohibited on the side opposite the school. This parking/stopping orientation generally reduces the need for students to cross the roadway from between parked cars and maintains the flow of two way traffic.

Conclusions:

Although there may be some inconvenience experienced by residents immediately opposite the school, the amendments to the parking/stopping restrictions will maintain two way traffic flow and increase the level of pedestrian/motorist safety during pick-up and drop-off activities associated with the school.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

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

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To permanently install traffic calming measures, consisting of six speed humps on Moccasin Trail and North Hills Terrace.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the traffic calming measures (speed humps) are included within the 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) that the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan, as described in this report, be approved for installation; and

(2) that funding for the permanent installation be considered from the 1999 Capital Budget item for Roadway Alterations and Traffic Calming.

Council Reference:

Council, for the former City of North York, at its meeting of April 2, 1997, recommended a six month test of the neighbourhood traffic management plan proposed by the appointed Moccasin Trail Traffic Work Group and supported by staff. In accordance with the Traffic Calming Policy, staff was also directed to report back to Council on the effectiveness of the calming measures in improving traffic safety.

Background:

On April 25, 1997, the Transportation Department, for the former City of North York, completed the installation of a program to test the traffic calming measures recommended by the Moccasin Trail Traffic Work Group and supported by the community, as presented to them at a public meeting, and approved by the North York Council.

These measures consisted of pinch points, intersection dividers, speed humps and raised intersection dividers. Several other types of traffic control measures were suggested by the community and reviewed by the Work Group. For a variety of reasons, as reviewed by the community during the process, these were rejected as options for the management of traffic.

Upon installation of the approved plan, this division began receiving complaints from the residents with respect to the location of some of the measures. Steps were taken to modify the design in an attempt to accommodate the residents' concerns. Ultimately, however, at the direction of the Work Group, the two sets of intersection dividers were reduced to a point that they were ineffective in addressing driver behaviour.

Throughout the test period, this division continued to monitor traffic patterns, responded to residents' concerns and continued to make modifications to the traffic calming measures as was deemed appropriate. Numerous complaints were received regarding the aesthetics of the planters used to simulate the ultimate traffic calming measures. No functional or safety concerns were determined to exist and snow clearing, roadway maintenance, garbage collection and emergency services were carried out throughout the test with no impact on the delivery of service.

Not all measures were effective in affecting driver behaviour. Traffic speeds and volumes recorded throughout the test indicated that vehicle speeds were not reduced, through the two pinch points. Based on the results of the data collected, it was apparent that the implementation of these measures has not had a significant effect on controlling vehicle speeds.

Comments:

Throughout the implementation of the traffic management plans, the policy for evaluation and monitoring of traffic calming was followed. The plan was presented to the community and approved by the affected residents, by a direct mail questionnaire, where they were requested to vote on the permanent installation. The results of the questionnaire determined that 67% of the affected residents support the concept of traffic calming on Moccasin Trail and North Hills Terrace to address the problem of vehicle speed and traffic safety. Additionally, 62% supported the use of speed humps as the preferred method.

Notwithstanding the overwhelming support for permanent traffic calming measures, local residents requested the removal of the temporary traffic calming measures.

Discussion:

The working group, with the endorsement of Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong and the local residents has requested the installation of speed humps on Moccasin Trail and North Hills Terrace.

The history of action by both the former City of North York, Transportation Department and the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, indicate that traditional methods in controlling traffic have had only limited and short term effect. Legislated traffic controls or police enforcement have not been effective in addressing driver behaviour to date. The current traffic calming measures which are being proposed have shown some success in addressing the speeding problem on other local roadways. As such, the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, support the residents' request for the installation of speed humps on Moccasin Trail and North Hills Terrace.

Conclusions:

The installation of the speed humps on Moccasin Trail and North Hills Terrace will effectively address the concerns of the local residents for the speed of motor vehicles.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

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

North York Centre South

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999,amended this Clause, by deleting the recommendation embodied in the report dated August 23, 1999, from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, and inserting in lieu thereof the following new recommendation:

"That Schedules VIII and IX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit stopping at anytime on the south side of Glencairn Avenue, from the easterly limit of Bathurst Street to a point 67 metres easterly thereof.")

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To prohibit stopping at anytime on the south side of Glencairn Avenue, east of Bathurst Street.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the stopping restrictions are included within the 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedule IX of By-Law No.31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit stopping at anytime on the south side of Glencairn Avenue, from the easterly limit of Bathurst Street to a point 67 metres easterly thereof.

Background:

Staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, reviewed a concern from Mr. Irving Lefler, that, to the east of Bathurst Street, potential conflicts between eastbound and westbound motorists on Glencairn Avenue, exist as a result of parked vehicles on the south side of Glencairn Avenue. Mr. Lefler has advised that when vehicles are parked on the south side of the roadway, eastbound through and westbound left turning traffic may come in conflict.

To the east of Bathurst Street, there is one eastbound and two westbound traffic lanes. Despite requests to the Toronto Police, Parking Enforcement Unit, as these vehicles are generally parked for only short periods of time, enforcement is not effective.

Currently, parking is prohibited on the south side of Glencairn Avenue, east of Bathurst Street.

Discussion:

When travelling westbound on Glencairn Avenue, to the east of Bathurst Street, there is an exclusive left turn and shared through/right turn lane. One eastbound through lane is also provided.

Observations by staff confirmed that vehicles were stopped/parked on the south side of the roadway. These vehicles did create confusion and delays for eastbound motorists.

Conclusions:

As parking is currently prohibited at anytime, the installation of stopping prohibitions on the south side of Glencairn Avenue will not adversely impact the adjacent residential or commercial developments and should reduce potential eastbound and westbound vehicle conflicts at this location.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

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

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends:

(1) the adoption of the report (August 30, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District; and

(2) that in view of the approval of Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-41 - Costco Canada Limited by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on September 14, 1999 the requirement to couple this project with the approval of the extension of Transit Road northward is no longer necessary and this project can be considered separately from Official Plan Amendment No. 464 as previously determined by the Ontario Municipal Board.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 30), 1999 from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Recommendation:

The City Solicitor be authorized to seek a deferral of the Sports and Entertainment (SE) designation and approval of the remaining designations and policies in the Downsview Area Secondary Plan at the October 8, 1999 Ontario Municipal Board pre hearing conference.

Comments:

The Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464) is scheduled for a second pre hearing conference at the Ontario Municipal Board on October 8, 1999.

Recently initiated discussions by some of the objectors to the Downsview Secondary Plan and local ratepayer organizations with Canada Lands Company - Downsview, the property owner, have raised concerns with the Sports and Entertainment designation on the lands at the south-west corner of Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue West. (see Schedule "B") As the Destination Technodome project has been withdrawn, the ratepayers feel that the emphasis on sports and entertainment is no longer appropriate. The ratepayers are proposing that consideration of the Sports and Entertainment designation at the up coming Ontario Municipal Board pre hearing conference should be deferred until the City has had the opportunity to reassess the land use provisions in the SE designation.

The deferral of consideration of the Sports and Entertainment designation at the OMB hearing was supported by all the objectors to the Downsview Area Secondary Plan who attended a meeting held by City staff on August 26, 1999.

Therefore, in response to the proposal to defer consideration of the SE designation made by ratepayers, concurred to by Canada Lands Company - Downsview, (see Schedule "A") it is reasonable that the City Solicitor should be authorized to seek a deferral of consideration of the SE designation at the Ontario Municipal Board pre hearing conference on October 8, 1999.

The Director, Community Planning, North District will report on a process for assessing the land uses of the Sports and Entertainment lands and its relationship to the ongoing Allen Sheppard Study that City staff and outside consultants are currently undertaking. Any assessment would be in the context of the approved policies for the balance of the Secondary Plan.

Contact Name:

Paul Byrne, Senior Planner

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 395-7105

Fax: (416) 395-7155

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

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

(i) (August 31, 1999) from Mr. David Birnbaum, President, Friends of the Downsview Lands Inc., outlining this group's concerns with respect to the land designated Sports and Entertainment and with respect to potential traffic impacts on adjacent residential neighbourhoods resulting from the proposed "big box" buildings on Block H; and

(ii) (August 31, 1999) from Mr. Jeffrey D. Chelin, Vice President, Finance and Corporate Secretary, ARC International Corporation, withdrawing its appeal to Official Plan Amendment No. 464.

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause, by:

(1) amending the Operative Paragraph of the Resolution from Councillor Moscoe embodied in Recommendation No. (2) of the North York Community Council by:

(a) deleting subsection (d)(iv) of Recommendation II. and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsection (d)(iv):

"(iv) building permits for the remaining gross floor area shall be issued only after measures to contain traffic infiltration attributable to the development have been adopted by the City, in consultation with the Ward Councillor(s), at the expense of the applicant;"; and

(b) deleting subsection (l) of Recommendation IV. and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsection (l):

"(l) as part of the Noise Impact Statement, the sound system shall be evaluated and modified as required by the Director, Community Planning, North District, in consultation with the Ward Councillor(s);"; and

(2) deleting subsections (iii), (iv) and (v) in section (g), entitled "Gross Floor Area", under the section, entitled "Exception Regulations", of the Draft By-law attached to the report dated August 24, 1999, from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and inserting in lieu thereof the following new subsection (g)(iii):

"(iii) the minimum gross floor area of a retail store shall be 500 square metres.")

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following Final Report (August 24, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends:

(1) that the application submitted by Costco Canada Limited regarding Zoning Amendment Application UD0Z-97-41 for the south side of Wilson Avenue, west of Allen Road, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report;

(2) the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina:

WHEREAS the Downsview Area Secondary Plan encourages the provision of small retail stores with direct pedestrian access to Wilson Avenue;

WHEREAS the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan developed a road network that protected theses neighbourhoods from traffic infiltration;

WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission has requested a cash contribution of $500,000.00 for transit signal priority on Wilson Avenue;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

I. Recommendation 1 of the Final Report of the Director of Community Planning be amended to add the following new clause:

(vi) the minimum number of stores on the lot shall be eight;

II. Recommendation 2 of the Final Report be amended by deleting clause (d) and replacing it with the following neighbourhood protection plan:

(d)(i) the applicant shall in co-operation with the city transportation staff provide a detailed traffic infiltration study focusing on potential traffic infiltration generated by the developments in Block H through the neighbourhoods bounded by:

(a) Wilson Avenue, Sheppard Avenue, Wilson Heights Boulevard and Bathurst Street; and

(b) Wilson Avenue, Dufferin Street, Northgate Drive and Whitley Avenue;

(ii) this traffic infiltration study shall commence forthwith and in the event that the Director of Community Planning, North District and the Director of Transportation Services, District 3, deem traffic infiltration attributable to the development to be unacceptable, mitigation measures shall in consultation with the local councillor(s) be implemented by the city at the applicant's expense;

(iii) to accommodate neighbourhood protection, the development shall be phased so that 28,220 square metres are constructed as phase l; and the traffic monitoring shall continue for one year after the phase 1 stores have been in operation; and

(iv) building permits for the remaining gross floor area shall be issued only after the traffic infiltration studies have indicated that local traffic infiltration attributable to the development have been adopted by the city in consultation with the local councillor(s) at the expense of the applicant;

III. Recommendation 2(g) of the Final Report be amended by the addition of the following:

"shall be addressed in the following manner:

(i) the conditions required by the TTC in their letter dated August 20, 1999 shall be referred to an OMB mediator and if necessary, adjudicated by the panel of the OMB seized with OPA 464 and the Block H rezoning; and

(ii) outstanding issues related to public transit shall be secured through a section 37 agreement through a process involving the planning and TTC staff, the applicant and the local councillor(s);

IV. Recommendation 2 of the Final Report be amended by the addition of new clauses (h),(i), (j),(k)and (l) as following:

"(h) the southerly extension of Transit Road shall be constructed to municipal standards and assumed by the city when occupancy permits are issued for the Costco and Home Depot buildings or at such time as the Director, Community Planning, North District and Director Transportation Services, District 3, so determines in consultation with the parties and the local councillor(s);

(i) a cash contribution of $25,000.00 for the development of community arts facilities in association with the Downsview Collegiate community arts program;

(j) the applicant shall undertake to advertise jobs associated with businesses located on parcels A and E through a direct mail drop to all residences within the City of Toronto in an area within a radius of 5 km. of the site at least four months prior to advertising job opportunities through any other external media;

(k) the public safety program required by the applicant include electronic video surveillance;

(l) as part of the Noise Impact Statement the external sound system shall be evaluated.";

V. Recommendation 5 of the Final Report be amended to read as the following:

"5. that the applicant be advised of the requirement to provide a parkland dedication in accordance with the city policies or a cash payment in-lieu thereof to be applied to offset the parks deficiency within the vicinity of this development.";

VI. staff be further directed to amend the draft bylaw attached as Appendix "A" of the Final Report to accommodate those changes approved by council; and

VII. the report of the Director, Community Planning, North District, as amended, be adopted; and

(3) Recommendation 2(b) of the Final Report (August 24, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, be amended to read:

"a cash contribution of $150,000.00 for Wilson Avenue streetscape, at least one-third (1/3) of which shall be spent on Wilson Avenue East of the Allen Road."

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on September 14, 1999, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to make final recommendations regarding zoning amendment application by Costco Canada Limited, the applicant, for permission to construct five buildings ranging in size from 1,997.4 m² to 12,737.7 m² for two retail warehouses (Costco and Home Depot) and three smaller retail buildings. A new public street, as required by the City, is being provided along the southern edge of the property, linking Wilson Avenue and Dufferin Street. This application has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, to allow it to be considered on October 8, 1999, as part of the prehearing conference on the Downsview Area Secondary Plan. This report also recommends the City Solicitor be authorized to bring forwarded at the Ontario Municipal Board, a City Council's position on this application.

Recommendations:

(1) the City Solicitor seek approval of the Zoning By-law Amendment for Block H of the former CFB-Toronto lands at the Ontario Municipal Board, substantially in accordance with the following:

(a) PERMITTED USES

None of the uses permitted in an MC zone apply, and only the following uses are

permitted:

General Retail Store

Gasoline Station accessory use to Retail Warehouse

Personal Service Shop

Retail Store

Retail Warehouse

Restaurant

Service Shop

Take-out Restaurant

Wholesale/retail Store

Gross Floor Area

The maximum total gross floor area shall be 33,048.7 m² provided that:

(i) the number of retail warehouse buildings in the area of this exemption shall be limited to two and each shall be a minimum gross floor area of 9,000 m² of gross floor area;

(ii) the maximum gross floor area for a food retail store shall be 6038.5 m²;

(iii) the maximum gross floor area of apparel retail store shall be 2787.0 m²;

(iv) the maximum gross floor area of general retail store shall be 6038.5 m²; and

(v) the number of wholesale/retail stores in the area of this exemption shall be no greater than four and each with a minimum gross floor area of 557.4 m² and a maximum gross floor area of 929 m²;

Parking

(i) a minimum of 1 parking space per 20 m² of gross floor area shall be provided in the area of this exception, of which 15 are disabled parking spaces;

Loading

(i) a minimum of 11 loading spaces shall be provided in the area of this exception;

Yard Setbacks

(i) a maximum setback from the property line abutting Wilson Avenue for all uses except a retail warehouse, shall be 1 metre;

(2) that prior to the issuance of the Ontario Municipal Board Order, the applicant /owner enter into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13 as amended, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Director, Community Planning, North District, to secure the facilities, services and matters noted below:

(a) the provision of 1 percent for public art;

(b) a cash contribution for Wilson Avenue Streetscape improvements;

(c) the provision of a construction staging plan;

(d) the provision of an agreement with the owner/applicant to ensure that the construction of Transit Road/Chesswood northerly extension is front ended and fully funded prior to the construction of any major development east of the Dufferin Street/Chesswood Drive axis, prior to the issuance on any building permits for these lands.

(e) the conditions of Transportation Services addressed in the memorandum dated August 20, 1999 (Schedule "F");

(f) the conditions of Technical Services addressed in the memorandum dated August 24, 1999 (schedule "G"); and

(g) the conditions of the Toronto Transit Commission in a letter dated August 20, 1999 (Schedule "O");

(3) that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Director, Community Planning, North District, shall have granted site plan approval which satisfactorily addresses the technical requirements of City Departments and commenting agencies and the site plan objectives outlined in Appendix "B";

(4) any requirements that Ministry of Transportation's may have for building setbacks from the Highway 401 right-of-way and storm water management; and

(5) that the applicant be advised of the comments of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism with respect to the requirement of a cash payment- in-lieu of parkland dedication.

Background:

In March 1997, North York City Council directed staff to commence preparation of a secondary plan for the former CFB Toronto (Downsview) military base and nearby affected lands.

In September 1997, Costco Canada Limited, submitted an application for an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment for permission to construct two large retail warehouses one as a Costco and the other as a Home Depot, and three smaller stores along the Wilson Avenue frontage. The total gross floor area of the five buildings was 34,838 m² (375,000 ft²).

This proposal was presented at a community information meeting held on April 27, 1998.

North York Community Council at its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, as part of the report "A Development Concept for Downsview", recommended that staff bring forward a report on this application. It also recommended that staff provide notice of the Statutory Public Meeting, in co-operation with Ward Councillors, but not before the Downsview Trust was formed. Since that time, a Board of Directors has been named to Canada Lands Company (Downsview), and are directing the redevelopment of the former base lands.

At its meeting of July 31, 1998, Council adopted the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464, which creates new land use and transportation policies for the former CFB Toronto (Downsview) lands and adjacent areas. The Secondary Plan designates the subject site as Commercial Retail, which permits a range of retail and service commercial uses.

On June 15, 1999, the applicant submitted a revised site plan, similar in use and size to the original plan, but with a new public street along the southern property edge linking Wilson Avenue and Dufferin Street.

Ontario Municipal Board Status

Prior to the June 7, 1999 OMB pre hearing conference on the appeals to the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464) Costco Canada Limited, appealed this rezoning application to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to Section 34(11) of the Planning Act, in order to ensure the implementing by-law for this site may be considered by the OMB at the same time as the Secondary Plan.

The Memorandum of Oral Decision and Order of the Board issued after the June 7, 1999, pre hearing conference consolidated the zoning appeal filed by Costco Canada Limited with the OPA 464 proceedings, and will hear the zoning appeal and Block H matters distinct from the balance of the hearing.

Council at its July 29, 1999 meeting adopted a resolution that requires the City Solicitor to advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, and in particular, the transportation plan are an integral component in consideration of Block H and that these matters must be considered in tandem.

The next OMB pre hearing conference on the appeals to the Secondary Plan is scheduled for October 8, 1999, with the Hearing starting on November 16, 1999. Given Council's meeting schedule, the appeal period for a by-law, which Council may pass for this site, cannot be completed prior to the October 8, 1999 pre hearing conference. Consequently, Council should give direction on this application prior to the next pre hearing. The OMB will be making the final decisions on the approval or refusal of this application. Planning staff is recommending approval of this application in accordance with the conditions set out in Appendix "A". Should Council want this position supported at the OMB, it must direct the City Solicitor and staff to attend the OMB hearing.

Council Directives

In its consideration of OPA 464 and earlier reports on this matter, Council adopted motions respecting the future development of this site. Council directed that the landowner and applicant to:

(a) enhance the Wilson Avenue streetscape and provide smaller stores along the Wilson Avenue frontage;

(b) make a financial contribution for improvements and maintenance of Wilson Avenue;

(c) manage storm water on the parking areas; and

(d) provide a 1 percent public art contribution.

Council at its meeting of July 27, 28, 29, 1999, upon adopting a joint report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on modifications to OPA 464 and amendments to the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, adopted the following resolutions.

(a) that Class Environmental Assessment (EA) for municipal roads projects in the Downsview Area Secondary Plan be completed under the existing funding arrangements with Canada Lands Company, Downsview;

(b) that upon completion of the Class EA, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services commence design and construction details for the Transit Road/Chesswood northerly extension as the first road project to implement the Class EA; and

(c) the City Solicitor to be directed to identify and to negotiate all legal agreements with Canada Lands Company - Downsview, that may be required to ensure that the construction of Transit Road/Chesswood northerly extension is front ended and fully funded through these agreements prior to the construction of any major development east of the Dufferin Street/Chesswood Drive axis.

Site Context:

The subject site is currently vacant and consists of 12.7 ha (31 acres) of land located on the south side of Wilson Avenue. To the east of the site is the TTC commuter parking lot, and further east is Allen Road, to the south is the Macdonald Cartier Freeway (Highway 401) and south of Highway 401 is the Yorkdale Mall. To the north are the de Havilland runway and the TTC Wilson yard. To the west of the site, along Wilson Avenue are two boarded up industrial uses, with a PetroCanada gas station at the corner of Wilson and Dufferin. Along Dufferin Street is a five storey commercial building, further south the Denison Armoury, owned by the Federal government and just north of the 401 on-ramp is a vacant parcel of land.

Proposal:

The applicant is seeking permission to construct five retail stores ranging in size from 1997.4 m² (21,500 ft²) to 12,6737.7 m² (137,112 ft²) (Schedule "E") on lands that form a part of the former CFB - Toronto (Downsview) military base. The proposal consists of a total gross floor area of 33,048.7 m² (355,744.8 ft²). The site is owned by the Federal government and will be sold to the Costco Canada Limited, which will then sell a portion of the site to the developer of the Home Depot store and the three smaller retail stores.

The three smaller stores will front onto Wilson Avenue and the larger stores will be located on the southern portion of the site. The applicant is proposing approximately 1652 parking spaces on the site, of which 15 will be designated at disabled parking spaces, and 11 loading spaces. A new public road linking Dufferin Street with Wilson Avenue and Transit Road will also be constructed to the City's requirements, with the appropriate intersection improvements. This is discussed in the Transportation Section below.

A statistical breakdown of the proposal is set out below.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan Policies

This application proposes development on lands designated Commercial Retail (CR) in the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (Schedule "C"), adopted by Council at its meeting on July 31, 1998. As a result, the applicant's request for a site-specific Official Plan amendment is not required, however, the Downsview Area Secondary Plan has not been approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, therefore the existing Official Plan designation for the site remains as "Downsview Specific Development Area". (Schedule A)

The Commercial Retail (CR) designation permits a range of retail and service commercial uses such as retail stores, restaurants and supermarkets, and up to two retail warehouses having a gross floor area greater than 9,000 m² with a maximum density of 0.5 FSI.

In conjunction with the Secondary Plan, Council approved the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan. Urban Design Guidelines were also adopted as an appendix to the Secondary Plan.

Zoning:

The site is currently zoned "Airport Hazard (A)" (Schedule "B") which permits uses associated with the Department of National Defence. A site-specific by-law is required to delete the existing Airport Hazard (A) zone on the subject site and apply appropriate development standards required by the Downsview Area Secondary Plan.

Comments from Civic Department and other reporting agencies:

Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) in the comments dated August 20, 1999, noted that there were no objections to the proposal from a transportation perspective subject to the applicant complying with the conditions outlined in his memorandum. (See Schedule "F")

Works and Emergency Services (Technical Services) noted the conditions required for approval of this project, with respect to sanitary sewers, storm sewers, roadways, engineering reports, soil contamination and solid waste and recycle collection. (See Schedule "G")

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Policy and Development Division) noted that the project is subject to a 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment. (See Schedules "H" and "I")

Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Economic Development) commented that it is important to recognize the positive economic and community benefits that a project of this size will bring and this includes both positive employment and tax assessment benefits as well as the local generation of retail expenditures. (See Schedule "J")

The Medical Officer of Health (Healthy Environments) commented that there are no objections to the application, provided that the environmental reports are peer reviewed by an independent environmental consultant. (See Schedule "K")

Transport Canada noted issues with respect to the height limits not affecting the de Havilland runway. (See Schedule "L")

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority noted the need for a storm water management plan. (See Schedule "Q")

Rogers, CN and Enbridge Consumer Gas noted no objections. (See Schedules"M", "N" and "R")

The Toronto Transit Commission commented that the project will generate significant delays to TTC buses on Dufferin and Wilson and to offset these services and cost impacts, requested a contribution of $500,000.00 toward transit signal priority improvements. They also noted certain legal matters relating to the property conveyance and access easements. (See Schedule "O")

DISCUSSION:

Planning Issues:

Use and Density:

The Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464) limits the FSI of the site to 0.5 and permits a range of retail and service commercial uses, including retail stores, restaurants, supermarkets and complementary retail and service uses. It also permits up to two retail warehouses having a gross floor area greater than 9,000 m². The applicant is proposing a total FSI of 0.26 (33,048.7 m²) for the two large retail warehouses and the three smaller retail and service uses. The applicant's proposal conforms with the uses and density limits in the Downsview Area Secondary Plan.

Height:

As the site is located at the south end of de Havilland's runway, any buildings or structures on the site are limited to a height ranging from 7.85 metres along the eastern portion of the Wilson Avenue frontage to 11.6 metres on the southern portion of the site. (Schedule "E") This height limit will ensure the continued operation of de Havilland's airport, an essential element of its operations. This height limit complies with criteria in Transport Canada publication TP 312E, Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices.

Site Plan and Urban Design:

Following discussions with staff, the applicant has submitted a revised concept plan, which accomplishes the following:

(1) the smaller commercial buildings have been moved closer to the front lot line along the Wilson Avenue frontage to reinforce and activate the street edge;

(2) the large format retail buildings have been relocated on the site, organized along a central spine to facilitate views and access from one store to the other;

(3) a new public road linking Dufferin Avenue, Wilson Avenue and Transit Road has been provided, and the driveways within the site have been aligned with the major access points on Wilson Avenue; and

(4) landscaped buffer zones of sufficient depth have been provided along surface parking lot along the Wilson Avenue and Transit Road extension frontages.

That Ministry of Transportation requires buildings to be setback from the Highway 401 right-of-way. The applicant is currently discussing with the Ministry the setback matter. Therefore, it is recommended that the comments from the Ministry of Transportation be forwarded to North York Community Council prior to its meeting of September 14, 1999.

Site Plan Approval

This proposal has been reviewed within the context of the Downsview Urban Design Guidelines. As part of the site plan approval process, the urban design objectives will be achieved and secured in the development through a Section 41 Agreement with the City.

Public Art Program

The Secondary Plan requires that the applicant provide one percent of the gross building construction costs for significant public art in all developments exceeding 20,000 m². Such contribution, its maintenance, the selection criteria and process is to be reported on and finalized prior to the issuance of a building permit. Provisions for the public art contribution will be secured through the Section 37 Agreement. (Appendix "A")

Wilson Avenue Streetscape Program

Council, at its July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 meeting, adopted motions that require developers within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan area to provide cash contribution to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape program. In keeping with Council's direction, the applicant is providing a contribution of $150,000.00 to the Wilson Avenue Streetscape program .The contribution consists of $50,000.00 in year one, $40,000.00 in year two, $30,000.00 in year three, $20,000.00 in year four and $10,000.00 in year five. These funds will be secured in the Section 37 Agreement and includes the provision of how the funds will be used to improve Wilson. (Appendix "A")

Cash-in-lieu of Parkland Dedication

The Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks and Recreation) Department has advised that this application is subject to a 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Staging of Construction

To ensure minimal impact on the surrounding neighbourhood and the de Havilland operations, the applicant has been requested to provide a plan for the staging of construction and the routing of construction vehicles. Particular emphasis will be on confining these vehicles to routes that will not impact on adjacent residential neighbourhoods and the height limitations of the de Havilland runway. The Section 37 Agreement (Appendix "A") will require the applicant to provide a plan to the satisfaction of City officials, prior to the issuance of a building permit. This construction staging plan will be reviewed at time of site plan approval.

Transportation:

Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects

The Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan (DATMP) satisfies Phases 1 and 2 of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects. Subsequent phases of the Class EA would proceed with development on the Downsview Lands and the need as identified through the development approval process, for Schedule C road projects in the DATMP. Council at its meeting of July 27, 1999 adopted a resolution directing staff to complete the Class EA for municipal roads under the existing funding arrangements with Canada Lands Company.

The proposed development has been reviewed in the context of the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, Official Plan Amendment 464 and Council's resolutions at its July 27, 1999 meeting. In addition, City transportation staff have reviewed a supporting transportation report entitled Transportation Impact Assessment for Proposed Downsview New Format Retail Centre (June1999), prepared by BA Transportation Consultants Group and a preliminary servicing report, Downsview Lands Block H (August 1999) prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited. Both reports are submitted on behalf of Costco Canada Inc.

The need for a new public collector road connecting Dufferin Street through the site to Wilson Avenue at its current signalized intersection with Transit Road, was identified as part of the City's comprehensive transportation review of the proposed development and in the context of the road network established as part of the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan. Subsequent phases of the Class EA, addressing design for the new public collector road and transportation improvements, are proceeding under the Class EA's definition of an "approved development plan" and concurrent with the securing of these road works under Section 37 and Section 41 of the Planning Act. Design of the road is being refined as part of the review associated with the processing of the subject application for zoning amendment and the accompanying site plan approval. Details of the road's design, location and characteristics along with all other required transportation improvements are contained in comments from Transportation Services. (Schedule "F")

Transportation Demand Management

Consistent with the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan, the transportation consultant has identified opportunities and detailed employment characteristics that support Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. More specifically these include encouraging transit usage by developing strong pedestrian linkages to connecting streets and transit service, and reducing single occupant auto use with the introduction of a ride-sharing program administered by the project tenants. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to submit a pedestrian circulation plan identifying linkages to transit service and the location of bicycle storage facilities.

The applicant, through a monitoring program, which captures employee travel characteristics and patterns, will monitor the effectiveness of the measures. Given the site's distance to the Wilson subway station and bus service, monitoring of the development should also include patrons. All monitoring is to be at the applicant's expense and secured through a Section 37 agreement.

Traffic

The proposed development can be accommodated with the required road network modifications and improvements that are consistent with the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan and have been refined during review of this development. All costs of acquisition and construction will be the responsibility of the applicant/landowner, and undertaken to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. Key elements of the required improvements are identified below and expanded upon in the Transportation Services memorandum dated August 20, 1999 (see Schedules "D" and "F")

(a) new collector public road connecting Dufferin Street and Wilson Avenue at Transit Road;

(b) the realignment of Transit Road north of Wilson Avenue;

(c) Wilson Avenue widening to include side by side left turns with a centre median;

(d) new signal locations at Dufferin Street and the Transit Road extension, and at the new central access to the site at Wilson Avenue;

(e) improvements at several intersections; and

(f) provide improvements/changes to the TTC park'n'ride facility including the relocation of the inbound bus access from eastbound Wilson Avenue to Transit Road to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services and the Toronto Transit Commission.

Parking

A parking standard of 1 spaces per 20 m² is recommended for the proposed development and will be implemented through the Zoning By-law. This requirement was derived from a review of the transportation consultant's report, and supplemented with staff's review and analysis of supply and observed demand of similar developments in North York and other municipalities.

Funding Agreement for Transit Road north of Wilson Avenue

As noted above, City Council adopted a motion that requested the City Solicitor to be directed to identify and to negotiate all legal agreements with Canada Lands Company - Downsview, that may be required to ensure that the construction of Transit Road/Chesswood northerly extension is front ended and fully funded through these agreements prior to the construction of any major development east of the Dufferin Street/Chesswood Drive axis. The Section 37 Agreement will secure the provision that the necessary agreements are secured prior to the issuance on any building permits for these lands.

Planned Commercial Function

The Official Plan permits commercial uses in a variety of locations throughout the former City of North York. The commercial structure is noted below and focuses commercial development on the: City Centre, the sub-centres, commercial areas and to a limited extent in industrial areas.

Commercial uses which are of a regional nature and which enhance the role and function of the downtown are encouraged to locate within the City Centre. Retail Warehouses, although a regional draw, would not be compatible with the urban design goals for the City Centre. The physical features of a retail warehouse surrounded by parking would not contribute to the social amenity or visual attractiveness, which is encouraged within the City Centre.

Retail warehouses are also not encouraged within sub-centres, because of the regional nature of the use. Sub-centres are to be community based and are intended to serve as a social and/or recreational focal point.

Within established commercial areas, this type of use could be accommodated, however, because of its physical characteristics, it may displace other uses which are less land intensive, more pedestrian friendly and more suitable to commercial locations.

Retail warehouses are most appropriately located within industrial areas or large vacant sites, where such uses can be accommodated and are compatible with surrounding uses.

In determining the use policies for lands within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, Council explored a number of land use scenarios for this site, and in the end has created this specific designation to accommodate retail and service commercial uses, including two retail warehouse operations as part of its planned commercial function within its Official Plan.

Required Studies:

Preliminary Servicing Report

As the site is a large vacant parcel, the City has required the applicant to undertake a Preliminary Servicing Report. The applicant retained the firm of Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited to examine the new municipal roadway, the water distribution system in the area, the existing local sanitary sewer, storm drainage and storm water management, and the proposed grading of the site. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has noted that the submitted servicing and storm water reports indicates that improvements to exiting infrastructure are required in order to service the proposed development and that storm water discharges from the site are subject to approval of the Ministry of Transportation. However, specific details of the necessary improvements and their associated costs, have not been provided. Therefore, the owner shall be required to retain the services of a Consulting Engineer to submit to this department, prior to the execution of the Section 37 Agreement, a detailed Engineering report outlining the municipal works necessary for this development including cost estimates and preliminary drawings for approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. The requirements for the report are detailed in the memorandum of Works and Emergency Services dated August 24, 1999. (See Schedule "G")

Environmental Impact Statement

The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited, dated July 1999, which concludes that the potential environmental impacts are assessed to be low, however, removal of localized areas of fill material is recommended during development. A peer review of this report is required, along with a Record of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment. This will be paid for by the applicant and secured through the Section 37 Agreement. The City will select the consultant to undertake and complete the peer review, prior to site plan approval. Works and Emergency Services noted that prior to the executing of the Section 37 Agreement, a Phase II Peer Review report stating that there is no existing or potential for contamination migrating to existing or proposed City owned lands and easements or lands to be conveyed to the City must be undertaken.

Lighting Study

As the site is at the south end of de'Havilland's runway and adjacent to Highway 401, the City requested the applicant to undertake a lighting study. The applicant retained Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited to prepare a lighting study for the site both off-site and on-site conditions. Lighting for the new road, the parking lot, and street lighting along Wilson Avenue will be secured in the Section 37 Agreement and reviewed at the time of site plan approval.

Archaeological Assessment

As required by the City, the applicant retained Archaeological Services Inc. to undertake a Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of the site. This assessment indicated that during the course of its survey of the site, no cultural material was encountered and further recommended:

(a) the property may be considered free from archaeological concerns;

(b) in the event that deeply buried cultural archaeological remains are found on the property during construction activities, the office of the Archaeology and Heritage Planning Unit, Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (MCzCR) should be notified immediately; and

(c) in the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the MCzCR and the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of Cemeteries Regulation Units of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations should be contacted.

The recommendations of this report will be secured in the Section 37 Agreement.

Market Study:

The City requested the applicant to undertake a market impact analysis to evaluate the proposed retail development on Block H, the established retail commercial facilities including Wilson Avenue and shopping centres in the local area. The applicant retained Coopers & Lybrand, now known as PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC), to undertake the study. This study concluded:

- "Because warehouse membership clubs sell far fewer items than supermarkets and do not carry the full range of food and sundry products typically required by the average consumer or household, Study Area residents will continue to use supermarkets, as well as speciality food stores, to fulfil their total food or grocery shopping needs. In fact, the proposed retail warehouse at the subject site will complement the supermarket also proposed on the site.

- For the most part, the existing Home Improvement Related Stores (HIRS) in the Study Area tend to be specialized and do not fulfil all of the home improvement needs of local residents. Although existing facilities may lose some business to the proposed Home Depot, the existing HIRS facilities in the Study Area are seen as providing somewhat different products and services, including neighbourhood convenience speciality products.

- Overall, the location, scale and form of the new development will not detract from the economic viability of existing shopping districts in the area and, in fact will likely be complementary and compatible with the existing retail structure. This includes the nearby Wilson Avenue which, based on inventory, has a local convenience function with a strong focus on service facilities.

- Based on our inventory of Wilson Avenue, we can conclude that the proposed new format retail centre on the subject site would not have any significant effects on establishments on Wilson Avenue. For the most part, the existing stores and service facilities along this strip serve the local neighbourhood and as such differ functionally from the type of development proposed on the subject site. Even if a store were to close on Wilson, there are alternative uses available. It should be noted that the majority of stores on Wilson are less than 2,500 square feet in size, thus differentiating them from the larger stores contemplated for the subject site. As such, the proposed new format retail centre on the subject site would offer a different shopping experience and would not duplicate existing facilities in the local area."

Robin Dee and Associates were retained on behalf of the City to review the findings of PWC and further concluded that given certain size limits on specific uses, the proposal would reduce the impact upon local businesses.

The recommendations contained within this report implement the finding of Robin Dee & Associates by establishing permitted uses for this site and maximum and minimum gross floor areas for the retail, supermarkets and retail warehouse stores. His comments are attached as Schedule "P".

Conclusions:

This report recommends approval, subject to conditions, of this application to build two large retail warehouses (Home Depot and Costco) and three smaller retail stores on lands within the Downsview Area Secondary Plan (OPA 464). The proposal is consistent with the land use and development policies of the Downsview Area Secondary Plan, adopted by City Council on July 31, 1998 and the zoning provisions set out in Appendix "A", of this report address the planning and transportation issues. Road infrastructure and intersection improvements, the provision of public art, construction staging and contributions to Wilson Avenue streetscape improvements will be secured through Section 37 and Section 41 Agreements.

Copies of all the reports and studies are available for review in the Planning Department at North York Civic Centre, during normal business hours.

Contact Name:

Paul Byrne

Senior Planner

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 395-7105

Fax: (416) 395-7155

Authority:

Report No. Clause No. , as enacted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BILL NO.

WHEREAS authority is given to Council by Sections 34 and 37 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;

AND WHEREAS Amendment No. 464 of the Official Plan of the former City of North York contains provisions relating to the authorization of increases in height and density of development;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, the Council of a Municipality may, in a By-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., c.P. 13, as amended, authorize increases in the height and density of development otherwise permitted by the By-law that will be permitted in return for the provision of such facilities, services and matters as are set out in the By-law;

AND WHEREAS sub section 37(3) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, provides that, where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in the height and density of development , the Municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the Municipality dealing with the facilities, services and matters;

AND WHEREAS the applicant/owners of the lands hereinafter referred to have elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increase in the density of development permitted hereunder, beyond that otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by By-law, as amended, is to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law, which are to be secured by one or more agreements between the owners of such lands and the City of Toronto.

AND WHEREAS the City of Toronto has required the applicant/owners of the aforesaid lands to enter into one or more agreements having been executed dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increase in density in connection with the aforesaid lands as permitted by this By-law;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. Schedules AB@, and AC@ of By-law No. 7625 are amended in accordance with Schedule 1 of this by-law.

2. 64.33(93) MC(93)

DEFINITIONS

(a) For the purpose of this exemption the following definition will apply:

(i) "Retail Warehouse" means a commercial establishment, which has a principal use, the sale of merchandise to the public in a warehouse format, where all areas are accessible to the public except for areas with accessory uses, and without limiting the generality of this definition may include the sale of food, but is not a retail store for the purpose of this exemption .

(ii) "General Retail Store" means the use of a building for the display and sale, rental or lease to the general public, for merchandise such as, household furniture, general merchandise, books, toys, opticians, art supplies, liquor and pets, but does not include a motor vehicle dealership, a car rental agency, or an adult entertainment parlour, and is not a retail warehouse.

(iii) "Wholesale/retail Store" means the use of a building for the display and sale, rental or lease to the general public, for uses such as plumbing, heating and air conditioning equipment, electric wiring supplies and electrical construction equipment, office and store machinery, equipment and supplies and stationary and office supplies, but does not include a motor vehicle dealership, a car rental agency, or an adult entertainment parlour, and is not a retail warehouse.

PERMITTED USES

(b) None of the uses permitted in an MC zone apply, and only the following uses permitted:

General Retail Store

Gasoline Station accessory use to Retail Warehouse

Personal Service Shop

Retail Store

Retail Warehouse

Restaurant

Service Shop

Take-out Restaurant

Wholesale/retail Store

EXCEPTION REGULATIONS

(c) Gross Floor Area

(i) A maximum of 5000 m² of gross floor area, for all uses except for retail warehouse.

(ii) The gross floor area permitted for a retail warehouse shall be 0 m².

(d) Building Height

The maximum heights of all building and structures shall be as shown on Schedule "E".

SECTION 37 AGREEMENT

(e) Facilities, services or matters which are to be provided pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P. 13, as amended in order to permit the increased density and height authorized under subsections ((f) to (j)) of this By-law are:

(A) Municipal Services

Provision for, and timing of, all works, infrastructure and modifications to existing facilities and infrastructure, associated with the roads and servicing needed for this proposal to proceed as identified by the Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) in their memorandum dated August 20, 1999, and Works and Emergency Services (Technical Services) in their memorandum dated August 24, 1999, be located, designed and constructed to the City=s satisfaction and conveyed to the City free of any encumbrances and at no cost to the City. The applicant/landowner shall agree to provide or obtain all easements necessary for the proposal.

(B) Transportation & Parking

The applicant shall be responsible for the following conditions with all property acquisition and construction costs to be borne by the developer, at no cost to the City. All road designs will be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(1) The construction of the new Transit Road Extension through the site from Wilson Avenue to Dufferin Street dedicated by by-law as a public highway and constructed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(i) The road will have a right-of-way of 20 metres and a three-lane cross section;

(ii) At the Dufferin Street intersection, the right-of-way will be 23.5 metres to accommodate two eastbound through lanes, a median, one westbound left-turn lane and one westbound shared left and right-turn lane;

(iii) At the Wilson Avenue intersection, the right-of-way will be 27.0 metres wide to accommodate two southbound through lanes, a median, one northbound through lane, one northbound right-turn lane; and one northbound left-turn lane;

(iv) The daylight triangle shown as a proposed easement on the easterly bend in the Transit Road extension must be dedicated as a public road; and

(v) Street name, regulatory and advisory signs, pavement markings, street lighting, the provision of sidewalks on the public right-of-way are to be installed to City standards to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services with the cost being borne by the developer.

(2) The realignment of Transit Road north of Wilson Avenue as identified in the Downsview Area Transportation Master Plan and the north leg of the existing Transit Road intersection with Wilson Avenue must have a 23.5 metre right-of-way.

(3) All modifications to Dufferin Street and Wilson Avenue are to be completed to City standards.

(4) A northbound right-turn lane is required to be constructed at the new Dufferin Street signalized intersection to City standards.

(5) The new signalized intersection at Dufferin Street is to be constructed to City specifications, including Transit Priority technology and the protection for a future southbound Advanced Green phase.

(6) The new signalized intersection at Wilson Avenue Street is to be constructed to City specifications, including Transit Priority technology and a westbound Advanced Green phase.

(7) A southbound advanced green phased and associated hardware to operate during the PM Peak are to be installed at the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Wilson Heights Boulevard to City specifications.

(8) The westerly Wilson Avenue service access must be a minimum 7.0 metres wide with a minimum 9.0 metres curb radii.

(9) The westerly Wilson Avenue service access must be restricted to right-in/right-out movements only by extending the existing centre median easterly across this access to City standards and must be clearly signed as being for service vehicles only.

(10) The two-way accesses onto Transit Road extension must be a minimum 6.0 metres wide with 4.5 metre curb radii unless accessed by loading trucks where the curb radii must be a minimum of 9.0 metres.

(11) The access to the TTC car park must be 12 metres wide with 4.5 metres curb radii.

(12) All accesses that are designated fire routes must be designed to City standards and provide access to emergency vehicles, including minimum 6.0 metre pavement widths, minimum inside curb radii of 9.0 metres, and minimum outside curb radii of 15.0 metres (at channelized intersections).

(13) All existing accesses to Wilson must be closed and restored to City standards.

(14) Street lighting along Wilson Avenue is to be installed to City standards.

(15) The proposed public roads are to include 1.5 metre wide concrete sidewalks on both sides.

(C) Transportation Demand Management Measures and Monitoring

(1) The provision of a plan indicating pedestrian linkages and bicycle storage facilities shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the City.

(2) A plan detailing the implementation of a ride-share program for employees.

(3) The applicant shall retain a transportation consultant to report on the effectiveness of transportation demand management measures implemented. The report is to be prepared, to the satisfaction of the City.

(D) Funding of Transit Road north of Wilson Avenue

The provision of an agreement with the owner/applicant to ensure that the construction of Transit Road/Chesswood northerly extension is front ended and fully funded prior to the construction of any major development east of the Dufferin Street/Chesswood Drive axis, prior to the issuance on any building permits for these lands.

(E) Engineering Costs

(1) The owner shall pay upon the execution of this agreement the estimated total cost of the works, including the costs for design, tender, administration of construction and field supervision, as required by the City as outlined in the preliminary Engineering Report approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. The City may tender the said works for construction after the development by-law becomes effective.

(2) Should the cost of the construction of the above mentioned works exceed the sum of the estimates, the owner will pay the excess costs thereof to the City forthwith upon demand. Should the cost of construction of the said works be less than the said estimates, the balance of the sum deposited will be returned to the owner forthwith upon completion of the said works.

(3) The City shall undertake the design, and/or administration of construction, or may retain the services of a Consulting Engineer for the design and/or administration of construction of the municipal works required by the City.

The owner is required to pay the following costs:

(a) the services of a Consulting Engineer to undertake the design and/or administration of construction of the required works; and

(b) an Engineering Review Fee of 3 percent of the estimated construction cost of the required works if a Consulting Engineer is retained for the design and/or administration of construction;

or

(c) 5.5 percent of the final construction costs if the City undertakes the design; and

(d) 11 percent of the final construction costs if the City undertakes the administration of construction.

(F) Deeds and Surveys

(1) The owner shall be deposited with the City Solicitor deeds for these lands, in a satisfactory form, upon the execution of this agreement, and shall be registered by the City prior to any amending by-law becoming in effect.

(2) The owner shall provide to the Works and Emergency Services, a cronoflex reference plan, as deposited in the registry division of Toronto Boroughs and York South, showing as parts thereof all lands or easements to be conveyed to the City.

(3) The owner shall pay all registration costs and costs to prepare the reference plan(s).

(G) Storm Sewers

(1) The owner shall restrict post-development runoff to pre-development runoff rates for both minor (2 year) and major (100 year) storms. The maximum allowable storm water discharge rate from the subject land into the City's intercepting storm sewers shall be limited to the rate derived from a 20 percent runoff coefficient. Any excess is to be stored on-site.

(2) The owner's consulting engineer shall confirm to Works and Emergency Services that the storm water discharge rates from this development which will be permitted by MTO to be discharged to the their storm sewer system for Highway 401. The submitted storm water report and calculated on-site storm water detention volumes must be adjusted, as necessary, to reflect MTO's permissible discharge rate.

(3) The owner shall ensure that existing drainage patterns on adjacent properties shall not be altered and storm water runoff from the subject development shall not be directed to drain onto adjacent properties.

(4) The owner agrees that there may be runoff from rainstorms that exceeds the capacity of the City's storm service connections. Therefore, the owner shall be responsible to provide flood protection or a safe overland flow route for the proposed development without causing damage to the proposed and adjacent public and private properties.

(5) The owner shall install storm water pollution control devices, such as stormceptors or equivalent devices. Grass swales, perforated pipes, infiltration/exfiltration and detention systems are recommended for storm water quality management.

(6) The owner shall be advised that storm water detention tanks and/or super pipes will not be permitted within the proposed Transit Road road allowance. All storm water runoff in excess of permitted discharge rates resulting from this development must be stored on-site within the development blocks. The submitted Servicing and Storm water reports must be revised accordingly.

(H) Sanitary Sewers

(1) The owner be advised that the Servicing report proposes a sanitary sewer on easement which extends through Parcel D to the existing sanitary sewer on Wilson Ave to service Parcel A. In order to ensure sanitary servicing to Parcel A, it would be necessary for this easement to be a City easement. Prior to this Works and Emergency Services considering this servicing arrangement, the owner's consultant must investigate the possibility of a sanitary sewer located on the proposed Transit Road road allowance to service Parcel A to the existing sanitary sewer on Dufferin St. and report back to this Works and Emergency Services regarding capacity and elevation constraints and any necessary adjustments to the proposed grade of the Transit Road extension.

(I) Service Connections

(1) The owner is required to make application to the Works and Emergency Services, Sewer and Water Section, after the zoning amendment by-law is in effect and pay for the installation of City service connections from the property line to the City mains. These shall include one water and one sanitary service connection for each building and any necessary storm service connections. The owner is responsible to provide for the installation of the water, sanitary and any necessary storm service connections from the building to the City services at the property line.

(J) Solid Waste and Recycling Collection

(1) the owner be advised that the City does not collect trade waste, which is defined as any solid waste originating from any one or more industrial process or business, industry or commercial establishment. Therefore, the owner must arrange for private waste collection.

(K) Public Art

(1) Provision for one percent of the gross building construction costs for public art on publicly-accessible or publicly visible portions of the lands including abutting City-owned lands. Such contribution, its maintenance, the selection criteria and process is to be report on and finalized prior to the issuance of a building permit.

(L) Required Studies

(1) Environmental Review

Provision for the payment of costs and the undertaking of a peer review of the environmental investigation report prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited dated July, 1999 by a qualified consultant chosen by the City. The peer review shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to site plan approval.

(2) Noise Impact Statement

Provision of a Noise Impact Statement, at the time of site plan approval, dealing with the assessment of on-site equipment such as outdoor mechanical equipment to the Director, Community Planning, North District, for approval by the Medical Officer of Health.

(3) Lighting Plan

The provision of a Lighting Plan for both street lighting and on-site lighting requirements, at the time of site plan approval, to the Director, Community Planning, North District for approval by Works and Emergency Services (Technical Services)

(4) Construction Plan

Provision for a Construction Plan to be prepared prior to the issuance of a building permit and to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services (Technical Services) that details the staging of construction and the routing of construction vehicles.

(5) Archaeological Study

The applicant agrees to comply with the recommendations of the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of the site, undertaken by Archaeological Service Inc. to the satisfaction of the City.

(M) Changes to TTC Parking Lot

The owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with the required changes to the TTC commuter parking lot, with respect to revised access and land conveyances.

(N) Changes to Bus Access to Wilson Station

The owner shall be responsible for all TTC costs associated with signal timing changes, intersection and road improvements, and the design and construction of the new bus roadway.

(O) Opening of the Facility

The applicant shall agree that the opening of this project shall not occur until all works and roads required for the project and identified by the Works and Emergency Services have been constructed and conveyed to the City.

(P) Public Safety Program for Parking Areas

The Applicant shall agree to implement a public safety program, which includes the monitoring of operations of the parking facilities and publicly accessible areas during all hours of operations.

(Q) Cash Contributions

(1) Provision for a cash contribution to the City for the Wilson Avenue Streetscape

Improvements projects of $150,000.00, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the purposes of streetscape improvements to Wilson Avenue;

(2) Provision for a cash contribution of $500,000.00, to the City for transit signal priority improvements as identified by the TTC, along Wilson Avenue, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

(R) All of the above conditions must be met at no cost to the City.

PERMITTED USES AND EXCEPTIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 37 AGREEMENT

(f) Despite the provisions of subsections (c) above and subject to the owners of the lands entering into one or more agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, in accordance with the conditions of subsection (e) above, the following provisions apply.

EXCEPTION REGULATIONS

(g) Gross Floor Area

The maximum total gross floor area shall be 33,048.7 m² provided that:

(i) the number of retail warehouse buildings in the area of this exemption shall be limited to two and each shall be a minimum gross floor area of 9,000 m² of gross floor area;

(ii) the maximum gross floor area for a food retail store shall be 6038.5 m²;

(iii) the maximum gross floor area of apparel retail store shall be 2787.0 m²;

(iv) the maximum gross floor area of general retail store shall be 6038.5 m²; and

(v) the number of wholesale/retail stores in the area of this exemption shall be no greater than four and each with a minimum gross floor area of 557.4 m² and a maximum gross floor area of 929 m².

(h) Parking

(i) a minimum of 1 parking space per 20 m² of gross floor area shall be provided in the area of this exception, of which 15 are disabled parking spaces.

(i) Loading

(i) a minimum of 11 loading spaces shall be provided in the area of this exception.

(j) Yard Setbacks

(i) a maximum setback from the property line abutting Wilson Avenue for all uses except a retail warehouse, shall be 1 metre.

DIVISION OF LAND

(k) all the provisions of this exception shall apply to the whole of the area of this exception as if no severance, partition or division has occurred.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999

_________________ ________________

Mel Lastman, Novina Wong,

Mayor City Clerk

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

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

(i) (September 14, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Donald Dodgson and Mr. Joseph Parozopio, expressing their opposition to the proposed development;

(ii) (September 14, 1999) from Mr. Gerald Kroll, Q.C., Barrister and Solicitor, expressing his concerns with the proposed development;

(iii) (September 9, 1999) from Mr. Steven A. Zakem, Aird & Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, advising that his client is prepared to withdraw its appeal of portions of Official Plan Amendment No. 464 upon the decision of Council with respect to the CR designation on the Downsview lands; further if Council endorses a zoning by-law amendment substantially in accordance with the recommendations set out in the planning report, his client would withdraw its appeal and would do so prior to the next prehearing conference scheduled for October 8, 1999;

(iv) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. Julian Zuckerbrot, outlining his concerns with the proposed development;

(v) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. Zvi Richman, in support of the application;

(vi) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. Jay Lewis, in opposition to the proposed development;

(vii) (August 31, 1999) from Annette and Leslie Rosenthal, in opposition to the proposal;

(viii) (August 30, 1999) from Mr. Al Roffey, expressing his opposition to the proposed development; and

(ix) (August 24, 1999) from Mr. Stephen Kauffman, Director of Real Estate, The Home Depot, respecting the development application and confirming that the applicant is committed to building the proposed store at this location and the one proposed for the site located at 825 Caledonia Road since these stores would service separate Home Depot customer markets.

A staff presentation was made by Mr. Paul Byrne, Senior Planner, Community Planning, North District.

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

- Ms. Rosyln Houser, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, Costco Canada Limited, who commented on the merits of the application. During her submission she indicated that the introduction of a new public road on this site would provide outstanding accessibility. The site would be served by three new signalized entrances and five new accesses from the new public road.

Ms. Houser further indicated that a market impact analysis to evaluate the proposed retail development on Block H, the established retail commercial facilities including Wilson Avenue and shopping centres in the local area has been conducted and that analysis has concluded that the proposed new format retail centre on the subject site would not have any significant effects on establishments on Wilson Avenue. The existing stores and service facilities along this strip serve the local neighbourhood and as such differ functionally from the type of development proposed.

Ms. Houser concluded by commenting on the benefits of the proposed development and stating the applicant concurred generally with the recommendations outlined in the planning staff report but had some concerns with the request by the Toronto Transit Commission for a cash contribution of $500,000.00 for transit signal priority on Wilson Avenue. The notice of motion by Councillor Moscoe, which outlines a number of conditions, would alleviate and resolve their concern insofar as this issue was concerned.

- Mr. Chris Middlebro, Transportation Consultant, on behalf of Costco Canada Limited, who commented on the transportation aspects. During his submission, he indicated that the additional site generated traffic from the proposed development can be accommodated with the required road improvements and in his opinion, would actually improve traffic conditions at Dufferin Street and Wilson Avenue.

- Ms. Denise Altman, who expressed concern about the lack of information regarding this proposal. She also commented on the traffic congestion in the area and was of the opinion that the proposed development would only aggravate the situation further. In concluding she stated that there is no need for additional retail in the area and that the lands should either remain as open space or be utilized to house the homeless.

- Mr. David Birnbaum, representing Friends of the Downsview Lands, who expressed concerns with the application. The residents were of the opinion that the adjacent neighborhoods should be protected from the infiltration of traffic and that a traffic impact study should be extended to include a wider area. He also suggested that the development be phased in after which an evaluation of the impact on the surrounding neighbourhood can be conducted.

- Ms. Maxine Povering, who spoke in opposition to the application. Her primary concerns were with respect to traffic infiltration into the surrounding neighbourhood and the negative impact of this development on small businesses in the area. She concluded by stating that a further traffic study of Wilson Avenue is required in light of the existing traffic congestion on that road.

Recorded Votes:

A recorded vote on a motion moved by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, that Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-41 not be approved until such time as the Wilson Avenue Revitalization Study has been finalized, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri

AGAINST: Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, King

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Berger, Feldman, Shiner

Lost

A recorded vote on Recommendation (2) moved by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong

AGAINST: Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri, King

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Berger, Feldman, Shiner

Carried

A recorded vote on Recommendation (3) moved by Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, King

AGAINST: Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Berger, Feldman, Shiner

Carried

A recorded vote on the recommendations, as amended, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong,

AGAINST: Councillors Mammoliti, Augimeri, King

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Berger, Feldman, Shiner

Carried

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that the Applicant's Solicitor is employed by the same law firm as his son who is not a real estate lawyer and does not personally act on this file.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause:

(a) in accordance with the following recommendation embodied in the report dated September 21, 1999, from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

"It is recommended that City Council adopt the recommendations of North York Community Council respecting applications UDOZ-95-19 and UDSB-1224, passed at its meeting held on September 14, 1999, and the revised conditions of approval contained in Appendix A attached to this report to implement the decision of North York Community Council.";

(b) in accordance with the following recommendations embodied in the report dated September 27, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the Developer's request for encroachment on public road allowance for underground parking garages be refused; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to do all things necessary to implement Council's directions."; and

(c) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to submit a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the impact of allowing any similar arrangements to proceed, with specific attention to the resulting vacancy rate among moderately-priced rental housing, such report to also address whether a holding by-law could be placed on all multi-residential buildings;

(2) Council re-affirm its commitment to the protection of rental housing;

(3) Council renew its request to the provincial government to follow the City of Toronto's lead by:

(a) enshrining rental housing protection in provincial legislation; and

(b) supporting the City of Toronto's current by-laws that protect rental housing from being eliminated; and

(4) the following motion be referred to the Planning and Transportation Committee for consideration at such time as the overall City-wide parking policy and standard is submitted to the Committee for consideration:

Moved by Councillor Pitfield:

'It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the Works Committee on the development of a City-wide policy on encroachment of parking structures into the public right-of-way.' ")

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (August 25, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and the Director, City Planning, Policy and Research, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the applications for Amendments to the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and the Draft Plan of Subdivision be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report and subject to the following revised conditions:

(1) that the maximum density be reduced to 90,805 square metres, which is equivalent to a floor space index of 2.2, and the number of dwelling units be reduced;

the replacement of 249 rental units which represents 60 percent of the existing 416 rental apartment building be required;

and a tenant re-housing strategy be secured which ensures:

(i) existing tenants be given two compensation package options. Tenants who vacate their units and choose not to return to a rental replacement unit be provided with compensation which is equal to 6 months rent, instead of the minimum payment required under the Tenant Protection Act; and

for tenants who are required to move outside of the Bogert apartments during construction and who wish to return, a compensation package will be available for any increase in rent a tenant may have to pay for alternative accommodation. The compensation will not exceed $250.00 per month and will be payable until a replacement rental unit is ready for occupancy. In the latter option, the amount payable be reduced by any amount required to be paid under the Tenant Protection Act;

(ii) rents for the 60 percent replacement units be determined as follows:

the average rent (the "Base Rent") of the various unit types be calculated at the time of a final and binding approval of the proposed development from the Ontario Municipal Board. The Base Rent may be increased by permitted increases under the Tenant Protection Act, other than increases permitted because a unit becomes vacant. The Base Rent, including the permitted increases described above, be the maximum rent charged for any initial tenant occupying the replacement units. After the "first tenants" of the rental replacement unit is terminated, subsequent tenancies may be at market rent as permitted under the Tenant Protection Act; and

(iii) the placement of existing tenants within replacement rental units will be determined based on the seniority of their existing tenancies;

and provide for the following:

(iv) development charges only be payable upon the issuance of building permits, and a credit against development charges be given for the provision of pedestrian access down the valley slope and the proposed bridge to a maximum of $50,000.00;

(v) the parking rate requirement for any rental housing be 1.25 parking spaces per unit; and

(vi) the public easement adjacent to the valley edge be limited to 3m in width. The easement be located adjacent to the valley from Sheppard Avenue to the north and extend southerly. The southern termination point of the easement be across from the area on the site plan identified as "Lookout";

(2) that permanent structures be put in place to prevent any traffic infiltration from the new development into the stable Community prior to any occupancy of any of the new buildings; and that this condition form part of the development agreement; and that the final design be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with the local councillors and community representatives; and

(3) that the City Solicitor and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Local Councillors, be authorized and directed to prepare a revised draft official plan amendment, draft zoning by-law and conditions of draft plan approval as may be required to give effect to these revised Recommendations prior to the commencement of the Hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board.

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

(i) referred the condition moved by Councillor Filion that " parking under the proposed roads be permitted" to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report directly to Toronto City Council for its meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999; and

(ii) directed the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Toronto City Council for its meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999, on the recommendations to give effect to the revised conditions of approval and on any outstanding matters which require resolution to give effect to the recommendations of the North York Community Council.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 25, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and the Director, City Planning, Policy and Research:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to make final recommendations regarding the zoning and official plan amendment applications and the plan of subdivision application filed by Greatwise Development Corporation for the redevelopment of lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue West, west of Easton Road and recommend the City Solicitor be authorized to seek approval of these applications as revised by the settlement proposal described in this report, at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing, scheduled to begin on October 25, 1999, in connection with appeals made respecting these applications submitted by Greatwise Development Corporation.

Executive Summary:

The applicant has filed applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision for the site at Sheppard Avenue West and Easton Road currently occupied by a 416 unit rental apartment building. These applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and a final hearing date has been set for October 25, 1999. The applicant is prepared to settle the outstanding appeal on the basis of the August 17, 1999 proposal that is at a density of 2.6 FSI with a total of 1,165 units of which 320 are proposed to be replacement rental units.

Generally, the total gross floor area for the development has decreased from the original proposal of 3.2 FSI and 1,610 units. In the review of this proposal, the rental housing component has increased as the applicant has modified the proposal to address community and planning concerns and meet the goals of the North York Official Plan and Metro Toronto Official Plan. The proposal assessed in this report serves to achieve the Principles of Development adopted by Council in April 1999 for this site and attains the following benefits:

- the conveyance of 2.4 ha of valley land to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

- new linkages from the new and existing community to the valley lands;

- a new on-site public park of 2,060 m²;

- on-site private recreational space;

- a $200,000.00 contribution for the improvement of local parks within the Lansing Community; and

- provision of 320 rental units with rents and a mix of unit types similar to the existing rental units on site.

In addition, the applicant has put forward the option as part of its settlement proposal which directs all traffic generated from the new development out to Sheppard Avenue West. This has been made in response to community concerns about traffic infiltration into the balance of the community. While not technically necessary, this road design requirement serves to further illustrate how the application has evolved through the process in response to issues raised.

The provision of the 320 rental units on the site also achieves a mix of housing type on the site and in the community. It also illustrates how the replacement of rental housing in accordance with the new Metro Toronto Official Plan policies can be done in a manner that meets the criteria for residential intensification and achieves a well planned development.

For the past three months, the application has been the subject of an intensive mediation process involving community representatives, the local Councillors and City Departments. While a number of concerns have been successfully resolved, the mediation process failed to satisfy general community concerns with the final density in terms of Floor Space Index and unit count. The community representatives have withdrawn from the mediation. While minutes of these meetings were prepared after each meeting, these have not been attached to this report at the request of the community representatives.

It is the Recommendation of this report that the settlement proposal by the applicant represents a good development proposal that meets the objectives of both the North York and Metro Toronto Official Plans.

The applicant is prepared to settle the outstanding appeal on the basis of the August 17, 1999 proposal described in this report. If such proposal is not acceptable to Council, the applicant has reserved the right to proceed at the Ontario Municipal Board on the basis of the application as previously filed, or some variation thereof. Should this occur, the proposed added community benefits, the reduction in density and improved urban design may not be achieved.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. the City Solicitor seek approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue, at the Ontario Municipal Board, substantially in accordance with Recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this report;

OFFICIAL PLAN

2. the Official Plan be amended for the lands known as 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue, substantially in accordance with the following:

2.1 that the tablelands designated RD3, RD1 and COM be redesignated all to RD3 and be amended with a Specific Development C.9 Policy which reads as follows:

C.9.215 Lands located at Sheppard Avenue West and Easton Road as shown on Schedule C.9. 215

Notwithstanding the Residential Density Three of these lands and subject to entering into an Agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act, a maximum density of 2.6 FSI and a maximum height of 19 storeys may be permitted subject to rezoning provided that the agreement provides the following:

(a) the development of these lands shall proceed by plan of subdivision with the provision of new public roads; the plan of subdivision shall provide for a 5 percent parkland dedication on site;

(b) the owner shall convey, for a nominal sum all lands below the stable top of bank to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

(c) the owner shall grant an easement for public access above and along the stable top of bank of the ravine lands;

(d) the owner shall contribute $200,000.00 beyond any requirements of the Development Charges By-law for the purpose of local parks improvements in the Lansing Residential Community;

(e) development of this property shall include the construction of a minimum of 320 rental units which are of a similar average rent and a similar mix of one, two and three bedroom unit counts as exist at the time the zoning becomes final and binding; the base rent may be increased in accordance with the Tenant Protection Act, except for any increases which are permitted because the unit has become vacant for a period of ten years from the date of occupancy; and

(f) the phased construction of this property shall ensure that prior to the issuance of demolition permit for any existing rental units, there is a phased plan of construction of the replacement rental units which is fully integrated with a re-housing strategy acceptable to Council for all existing tenants without prejudice their tenant rights under the Tenant Protection Act and secured on title in a Section 37 Agreement;

2.2 that the portion of the site below the top of bank and a 10 meter strip above the top of bank be designated as Valley Open Space (VOS).

ZONING BY-LAW

3. the Zoning By-law be amended for the lands known as 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue, substantially in accordance with the following:

3.1 the lands subject to this rezoning be zoned RM3(6) and O1 as shown on Schedule D3 as follows:

(a) Permitted Uses:

Apartment Housing Dwellings with associated private recreational uses and Multiple Attached Dwellings. For the purposes of this exception Apartment House Dwellings may include residential units which have direct access at grade or which obtain access from a central interior corridor.

(b) Parking:

For all Apartment House Dwelling Units there shall be 1.5 parking spaces per units which includes 0.25 spaces for visitor parking.

For Multiple Attached Dwelling Units there shall be 1.75 parking spaces per unit which includes 0.25 spaces for visitor parking.

For Multiple Attached Dwelling Units where a driveway leads directly to the dwelling unit, 2 spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided.

(c) Maximum Gross Floor Area

- Maximum gross floor area for all Apartment House Dwellings is 44, 158 m²

- Maximum gross floor area for Multiple Attached Dwellings is 0 m²

- Maximum gross floor area of all uses is 44,158 m²

(d) Maximum Number of Residential Units

- Maximum number of Apartment House Dwelling Units is 416

- Maximum number of Multiple Attached Dwelling Units is 0

(e) Maximum Height

- Maximum height for all Apartment House Dwellings is 6 storeys

- Maximum height for all Multiple Attached Dwellings is 0 storeys

SECTION 37 AGREEMENT

(f) Facilities, services or matters which are to be provided pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P. 13, as amended in order to permit the increased density and height authorized under subsections (h) to (l) are:

(a) development of these lands shall proceed by plan of subdivision with the provision of new public roads; the plan of subdivision shall provide for a 5 percent parkland dedication on site;

(b) the owner shall convey for nominal sum all lands below the stable top of bank to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

(c) the owner shall grant a public easement above and along the stable top of bank of the ravine lands for public access to the valley lands;

(d) the owner shall contribute $200,000.00 beyond any requirements of the Development Charges By-law for the purpose of local parks improvements in the Lansing Residential Community;

(e) development of this property shall include the construction of a minimum of 320 rental units which are of a similar average rent and a similar mix of one, two and three bedroom unit counts as exist at the time the zoning becomes final and binding; the base rent may be increased in accordance with the Tenant Protection Act, except for any increases which are permitted because the unit has become vacant for a period of ten years from the date of occupancy;

(f) the phased construction of this property shall ensure that prior to the issuance of demolition permit of any existing rental units, there is a phased plan of construction of the replacement rental units which is fully integrated with a re-housing strategy acceptable to Council for all existing tenants without prejudice their tenant rights under the Tenant Protection Act and secured on title in a Section 37 Agreement;

(g) despite the provisions of subsections (c), (d) and (e) above and subject to the owners of the lands entering into one or more agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, in accordance with the conditions of subsection (f) above, the following provisions apply:

(h) Maximum Gross Floor Area

- Maximum total gross floor area for all Apartment House Dwellings is 100,315 m² provided that a minimum of 27,500 m² is secured as a rental accommodation building;

- Maximum total gross floor area for Multiple Attached Dwellings is 7,000 m²; and

- Maximum total gross floor area for all uses is 107,315 m²

(i) Maximum Number of Residential Units

- Maximum total number of Apartment House Dwelling units is 1,125

- Maximum number of Multiple Attached Dwelling units is 40

(j) Maximum Height

- Maximum height for all Apartment House Dwellings is shown on Schedule "D2" in metres and Schedule "C" in storeys whichever is less.

- Maximum height for all Multiple Attached Dwellings is shown on Schedule "D2" in metres and Schedule "C" in storeys whichever is less.

(k) Yards

- Minimum yards shall be as shown on Schedule "D1"

(l) Recreation Space

- a minimum of 1.5 m² per unit of indoor private recreational space shall be provided

- a minimum of 1.5 m² per unit of outdoor private recreational space shall be provided

PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

4. the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the lands known as 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue be approved, substantially in accordance with the following:

4.1 that this approval applies to draft plan of subdivision drawing dated July 27, 1999, as prepared and certified by Colin B. Bogue, Ontario Land Surveyor which shows three apartment blocks, a townhouse block, three new public streets, a park block and valley open space block as shown on Schedule "D", and

4.2 that the roads as shown on the draft plan shall be dedicated as public highways;

4.3 that the owners agree in the subdivision agreement with the City to satisfy the financial requirements of the City for the provision of roads and services;

4.4 that the owner shall convey Block 5 as shown on the draft plan as public parkland;

4.5 that the owner shall convey Block 6 as shown on the draft plan to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

4.6 that the owner shall convey Block 7 and 8 to the City for the required Sheppard Avenue West road widenings;

4.7 that prior to final approval and registration of this plan, the owner shall submit an updated geotechnical report to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and amend the top of bank location if necessary;

4.8 that a 10 metre public easement be granted to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority or to the City, as may deemed appropriate by the City Solicitor, to provide public access to the valleylands;

4.9 that the lands conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be cleaned of all garbage prior to their conveyance;

4.10 that easements for all utilities and public services be granted to the authority having jurisdiction;

4.11 that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services as contained in their memorandum dated August 25, 1999 attached as Schedule "J";

4.12 that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as contained in their memorandum dated May 20, 1999 and October 16, 1998 attached as Schedules "M1" and "M2";

4.13 that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Toronto Transit Commission as contained in their memorandum dated September 28, 1998 attached as Schedule "N2";.

4.14 that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism as contained in their memorandum dated August 24, 1999 attached as Schedule "H";

4.15 that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Fire Services Division as contained in their memorandum dated June 15, 1995 attached as Schedule "K2";

4.16 that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of Toronto Healthy Environments Program as contained in their memorandum dated March 18, 1999 attached as Schedule "L";

4.17 that the owner agree in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to be carried out the Standard Conditions of Approval as attached as Appendix "A";

Notes to Draft Approval:

4.18 that the owner is advised to grant any easements to Rogers Cable that may be required. Rogers requires one conduit or conduits form the street line for each unit;

4.19 the owner is advised that standard clearances of 0.3 m minimum vertically and 0.6 m horizontally be maintained for Enbridge (Consumers Gas); prior to any demolition Gas Service must be cut off at Gas Service;

4.20 the owner is advised to grant Bell Canada any easements that may be required for telecommunication services, and/or fiber optic digital switching site; Bell requires one conduit or conduits of sufficient size from each unit to the electrical room and one conduit or conduits of sufficient size from electrical room to street line;

4.21 the owner is advised to provide the electrical requirements for this development to grant Toronto Hydro any easement that may be required for the electrical services.

GENERAL CONDITIONS

5. that prior to the issuance of the Ontario Municipal Board Order , the applicant/owner enter into agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 (Plan of Subdivision) in a form and with content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Director, Community Planning, North District to secure matters described in this report and these agreements be executed by the Owner and registered on title as a first charge against the subject lands.

6. that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development and Planning Services report back to City Council for authority of the execution of these agreements prior to the issuance of the Ontario Municipal Board order.

Background:

Official Plan Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications were first filed in 1995 accompanied by a concurrent application for Demolition under the Rental Housing Protection Act,1989. The Zoning Amendment application was not complete until the required fees were filed in July 1998 with revised plans. A community information meeting on the original application was held on January 15, 1996, at the North York Civic Centre, attended by approximately 280 area residents and tenants. At that meeting, community concerns were raised with respect to the increased density, the overall height of the building, the potential for increased traffic infiltration through the local neighbourhood, the adequacy of parking, the potential impact on local community services such as schools and park space, and tenants' concerns regarding the loss of their homes.

The application under the Rental Housing Protection Act (UD53DE-95-001) was withdrawn by the applicant on December 15, 1997 due to the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act. The applicant subsequently filed revised plans in July 1998 with a zoning application. In October 1998, the applicant filed appeals with the Ontario Municipal Board citing inaction by the City in approving the applications involving this development. Further revised plans were submitted by the applicant on March 11, 1999 in conjunction with their notice of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Despite the appeals by the applicant, processing of the revised application has continued and at the North York Community Council meeting held on March 30, 1999, a Principles of Development Report was adopted and approved by City Council.

A series of working group meetings were held with local residents to seek input on a revised plan which generally meets the principles adopted by Council for this site and resolves the issues of the area homeowners, tenants and the applicant. As a result of the ongoing discussions, the applicant submitted further revised plans on August 17, 1999 which provides for 1,165 units and 320 rental apartment units as a response to staff and community concerns.

Ontario Municipal Board Status:

These applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)and a final hearing date has been set for October 25, 1999 for a duration of 5 weeks. Given Council's schedule, the appeal period for by-laws which Council may pass for this site cannot be completed prior to the October 25, 1999 hearing date. Consequently, Council should give further direction to staff , beyond the Principles Report, prior to the commencement of the hearing, as the OMB will be making the final decisions on the approval or refusal of this application. Staff recommend support of the application in accordance with the conditions set out in the recommendations section of this report on the basis of the proposed settlement. Should Council support this position at the OMB, it must direct the City Solicitor and staff to attend the OMB hearing.

The first OMB Pre-hearing conference was held on April 16, 1999 to deal with preliminary and procedural matters including: the identification of parties, participants and issues, the determination of dates and the duration of the hearing, as well as the hearing of motions. At this pre-hearing Mr. Steve Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault (acting on behalf of Greatwise), brought forward a motion to determine the policies that would be applicable as evidence on the subject applications. Three additional parties, with applications similar in nature to the Greatwise application, were granted party status to Mr. Diamond's motion.

Also at the June 10, 1999 hearing , the participants and parties were determined, however, the Board noted that it appreciates that some persons have not decided the level of participation they wish to undertake (status as a party or a participant) and therefore status has been left open for further consideration at the subsequent prehearings. Listed below is the current status of the involved persons to date and their status:

Future OMB dates include:

Prehearing No. 3 on September 7, 1999

Prehearing No. 4 on October 7, 1999

Full hearing commencing October 25, 1999 for five weeks to deal with the merits of the Greatwise development application.

Proposal:

The proposal has been modified several times since its initial submission in 1995. The statistics in Table "1" illustrate the changes in the proposal over the last four years. The first development proposal consisted of 1,610 new units of which 290 would be market and senior rental apartments. In March 1999,a revised proposal consisting of 1,387 units of which 292 would be market rental was submitted and referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. The current proposal which is a result of further discussions with staff to address community concerns, was submitted on August 17, 1999 consisting of 1,165 units of which 320 units will be new rental apartments with a gross density of 2.6 FSI. Including the valley lands currently owned by the developer, the density proposed is 1.6 FSI. The valley lands, currently owned by the applicant and zoned RM3 and O1, are to be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for public purposes.

Generally, the total gross floor area for the development has decreased from the original proposal with the rental housing component increasing as the applicant has modified the proposal to address community and planning staff concerns and meet the goals of the North York Official Plan and Metro Toronto Official Plan. It is important to note that the density attributed to the new rental units should not be viewed as a density bonus. In fact, the overall density of site was continuously reduced as the number of proposed new rental units increased.

The proposal involves the redevelopment of the table lands of this site through the phased demolition of the existing 416 apartment rental units and their replacement with 320 new rental apartment units and 805 condominium apartments and 40 townhouses. A new network of public streets has been proposed which extends both Bogert and Poyntz Avenues into the site and links the site to Sheppard Avenue with a new north/south street. Pedestrian and visual linkage from the east/west streets to the valley have also been proposed. A public walkway along the top of bank and into the valley lands further connects this site to the valley lands. These lands are further enhanced with the provision of a 2,060 m2 public park extending the full distance between Bogert Avenue and Poyntz Avenue shown as Block 5 on Schedule "D".

The southern portion of the site, shown as Block 4 on Schedule "D", will contain three storey townhouses with rear yards abutting the rear yards of the single family homes to the south. The block on the northeast portion of site (Block 2) is the location for the new rental apartment buildings which will have 3 storey podiums addressing both Easton Road and Sheppard Avenue West and will then step up to a maximum height of 10 storeys. The central block between the Poyntz and Bogert extension (Block 3) which abuts the new park is defined by a 3 storey apartment building next to the park, with higher buildings to the west up to a maximum of 10 storeys. The remaining building block located next to the valley lands will contain the highest apartment buildings with two 19-storey towers. Lower apartment buildings will also occupy this block with a 3 storey podium addressing Sheppard Avenue West and the valley edge.

Statistics Table 1:

Location and Existing Site:

The site is located south of Sheppard Avenue West, west of Easton Road. It is currently developed with a 1 to 6 storey rental apartment building with 416 units at 325 Bogert Avenue, and 8 detached dwellings at 305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 Bogert Avenue.

The existing apartment building at 325 Bogert Avenue, constructed in 1965, has a gross floor area of 43,329 m² (466,413 ft²) and a density of approximately 1.0 FSI (tableland portion). Zoning compliance of the existing use include the lands below the top of bank as part of the calculable site area.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan:

Currently, the principal designation of the table land portion of this site is RD3 (Residential Density Three) which permits the existing low rise apartment building at 325 Bogert Avenue with a density of up to 100 units per hectare. The majority of the valley lands are designated VOS (Valley Open Space). A small portion of the site at the north-east corner is designated COM (Commercial) and the existing single family homes fronting onto Easton Road are designated RD1 (Residential Density One) which permits low density residential uses.

Zoning:

The site currently has four zoning categories: the lands at 325 Bogert Avenue are zoned RM3 (Multiple-Family Residential Third Density Zone) which permits townhouses and apartments at a density of 0.75 times the lot area and a height of 9.2 metres; O1 (Open Space Zone) which permits recreational uses, schools and day nurseries; and C6 (Special Commercial Zone) which permits primarily offices uses and single detached dwellings at 1.0 times the lot area. The lands at 305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 Bogert Avenue are zoned R4 (One Family Detached Dwellings Fourth Density Zone) which permits single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum frontage of 15 metres.

Policies of the Official Plan Applicable to the Application

The Official Plan policies applicable to this proposal include: policies that apply in the form of criteria or "tests" in the case of development applications, and, more general policies that must be considered in determining whether the application achieves the general intent of the Official Plan. The remainder of this section discusses the other Official Plan policies that must be considered in connection with this application. Excerpts of the Official Plan referred to below are contained in Appendix "B". The section which follows evaluates the proposal against the Development Criteria found in Section 4.0 and the Redesignation to a Higher Density Criteria of Section 5.0.

Section 2 of Part A of the North York Official Plan (The Concept) groups residential areas into 54 "Residential Communities" illustrated on Map C.1.2. The subject site is located within the "Lansing" Community bounded by Yonge Street and the Downtown, Highway 401, the Don River Valley and the York Cemetery. These communities are intended to offer a diverse range of housing for households of various income, size and tenure.

Section 2 incorporates a definition of 'stable residential neighbourhood'. These are areas where:

- residents enjoy a good quality living environment

- major redevelopment in not anticipated

- regeneration or reinvestment in the housing of the community is occurring.

The Lansing Community falls within this definition. It is well-established community with adequate community facilities, services and amenities. It consists mainly of single detached dwellings with the exception of the apartment building on the subject site and the commercial buildings along Sheppard Avenue West. The redevelopment of the subject site is considered as part of the reinvestment in the housing of the community.

Section 2 of the North York Official Plan describes the "Existing Urban Structure" as a pattern of land use which typically includes lower density residential neighbourhoods within the interior of arterial corridors and higher density residential and other uses along the arterial corridors. The subject site flanks onto Sheppard Avenue West, an arterial road, and is developed at a higher density than the surrounding lower density neighbourhood. The remainder of Sheppard Avenue West, towards Yonge Street, contains commercial and residential uses.

Under the heading "The Need to Modify the Existing Urban Structure", it is recognized that in a mature urban area such as North York, goals of increased housing or employment can only be achieved in two ways: intensification of land use or through conversion of one land use to another. Since the application does not involve a change in land use, it falls within the category of intensification.

Section 3 of the Official Plan describes the key elements of the Concept and general strategies for achieving the individual goals. Section 3.9 recognizes that redevelopment within the existing land use pattern will pose challenges. As a result, the Plan provides criteria by which Council may determine whether to permit redevelopment. These criteria are discussed in greater detail in following section of this report.

Part B contains the Major Policies of the Official Plan. Section 2.2 establishes that uses of a similar nature may be grouped together and the location and density of land uses will be based on the ability of the transportation network to support such development. The evidence in this report indicates that the increase in density for this site can be accommodated by the transportation network (see Transportation Section).

Part B, Section 3, Housing, indicates that Part A, The Concept Plan, shall be guided by the policies contained in C.4 (Housing). The policies of this Section is intended to achieve a balance between the regeneration of residential areas so as to maintain their stability and, creating new opportunities for additional housing to meet the needs of the City. New housing development is to be accommodated without compromising the stability of the neighbourhood. In the case of this application, the reinvestment to condominium ownership housing, in the form of townhouses and apartments, is indicative of the stability of the community.

Section C.2 contains Parks and Open Space policies. Section 4.3.3 deals with development in valley land impact zones (V.I.Z.). The valley lands are not included in the calculation of density for this site as a result of these policies, nor are they considered to satisfy the parks dedication requirements. A setback of 10 metres from the top of bank is also consistent with these policies.

Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan is the basis for the site specific development principles that were adopted by Council in April 1999 which are discussed in this report. These principles provided a strong direction for achieving modifications in the proposal .

The provision of the 320 rental units on this site achieves a mix of housing types on the site as well in the community. The affordability objective of the Official Plan is met as the 320 rental units represents 27 percent of the total number of the proposed units. The housing objectives noted in Section 1.1, indicate Council's general support for initiatives aimed at expanding the City's housing opportunities. New opportunities for housing involve change in certain locations of the City. It is the intent of Council to manage future change in a manner such that the City's residential areas continue to function as viable residential neighbourhoods. It is also the intent of Council to provide a mix of housing opportunities as outlined in Section 2.4 of the Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan.

Community Consultation:

Several community meetings were organized by the local Councillors prior to the April 16, 1999 prehearing with the local homeowners and separate meetings with the tenants to discuss the application. Staff attended and explained urban design principles, the City's emerging policy on the replacement of rental housing, and transportation matters. Staff also provided information on the progress of the application and the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing. The applicant did not attend these meetings.

Subsequent to the Principles Report being adopted by Council and the initial pre-hearing being held at the Ontario Municipal Board, a community working group was set up by planning staff in order to work towards resolution of the issues of this application. The working group was comprised of representatives of the South Ward Nine Elected Ratepayers, Lansing Community Association, East Cameron Avenue Ratepayers Association, the Bogert Tenants Association plus several other interested residents. Representatives of the local Councillors and the developer also attended the meetings. The issues discussed during the five meetings are outlined in Appendix "C" of this report which ranged from transportation capacity to urban design. This was a mediation exercise to focus the issues and to seek a settlement among the various stakeholders. At the end of the process a satisfactory resolution on the outstanding matters was not achieved and the community representatives withdrew from the process. Although minutes of these meetings were produced to outline the progress made, these are not published with this report out of respect for the "without prejudice" nature of these negotiations. While agreement on the overall development was not reached, the discussions did help the developer make modifications to their proposal based upon community issues raised.

Other Department Comments:

The Parks and Recreation Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has indicated that the comments from their letter dated August 24, 1999, that in assessing the August 17, 1999 proposal:

- the conveyance of parkland proposed by the applicant is acceptable

- the contribution of $200,000 above the required development charges be directed towards improvement to the parks within the Lansing Community at the discretion of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture

- a contribution of $25,000 towards the connection to the valleys lands is acceptable

- both indoor and outdoor recreational space is encouraged

These comments are attached as Schedule "H".

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that the roadway capacity analysis demonstrates that the additional site generated traffic from the proposed development can be accommodated. A conveyance of a road widening along Sheppard Avenue West is required to secure the 36 metre right-of-way in the Metro Toronto Official Plan in addition to the building and conveyance of the new proposed local street system through the development site through the plan of subdivision. The new north/south public street will permit right-in right-out movements only onto Sheppard Avenue West. Additional road improvements have been specified in their comments attached as Schedule "I" and include improvements to the Easton Road and Sheppard Avenue West intersection with the addition of left turn lanes. The signage and channelization controls proposed by the applicant directing traffic towards Sheppard Avenue West at the Bogert Avenue extension and the Poyntz Avenue extension intersections with Easton Road are acceptable. All improvements will be at the expense of the developer.

The Technical Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has specified conditions for the services to be installed by the developer including public roads, sidewalks, public walkways, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, stormwater management facilities, and water. Easements and land conveyances for road widening and sewers have been specified. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority requirements are also further outlined in the comments. These comments are attached as Schedule "J".

The North Command of the Fire Services Department has indicated that they require the following additional information as part of the revised Site Plan Control and Building Permit submissions: the locations of fire access routes, fire hydrants (new and existing), siamese Fire Department connections, and Fire Alarm System Control Panels (principle entrance of buildings). The Fire Service Department also indicated that the pedestrian promenade beyond the extension of the Poyntz Avenue to the top of bank must be accessible for Fire Services. Their comments are attached as Schedules "K1" and "K2".

The Toronto Healthy Environments Program has indicated that they have no objection to the revised development proposal provided that an environmental site assessment be completed in accordance with the 'Ministry of the Environment's Guidelines for Use At Contaminated Site in Ontario' (revised 1997 edition). Their comments are attached as Schedule "L".

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has indicated that the comments from their letter dated October 16, 1999 (Schedule "I" in the March 15, 1999 Report to North York Community Council) continue to apply to the revised development application. Their comments requested that:

- The applicant revise the plan to include a 10-meter buffer in the valley block.

- The applicant submit a storm water drainage system report, overall grading plans for the lands within the plan, and a final plan to accommodate the requirements of the stormwater management report prior to final registration of the plan.

- The applicant enter into agreement with the Authority or the City of Toronto respecting the conveyance of the revised Block 7.

- The municipality's restrictive zoning by-law recognize the revised Block 7 in a zoning category prohibiting structural encroachments, placement of fill or the removal of vegetation except for the purposes of flood or erosion control.

- The applicant obtain all necessary permits from the Authority prior to the registration of each phase of the plan.

- The applicant submit to the Authority a remedial planting plan for the gully erosion.

- a subdivision agreement with wording acceptable to the Authority be created to cause:

- the works in condition 2 and 6 to be carried out;

- the design and implementation of on-site erosion and sediment control which meet the requirements of the Federal Fisheries Act;

- the maintenance of all stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control operating in good repair during the construction period in a manner satisfactory to the Authority;

- the erection of permanent fencing along the boundary of the valley corridor block (Block 7); and

- the conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by B.P. Walker Associates Limited and dated August 16, 1989 which needs to be updated to include any changes up to the 1999 revisions of the application

With respect to the revised development application, this department has indicated that the proposed new storm sewer should be combined with the existing sewer, or the same alignment should be used to reduce the disturbance to the valley slope. A permit for this work will be required from the Authority. They require a copy of the overall grading plan illustrating future surface drainage routes and they note that they are not supportive of the use of oil-grit separators for residential development and prefer the cash-in-lieu option. Their comments are attached as Schedule "M1"and "M2". It should be noted that the applicant is proposing the easement but not the conveyance of the 10 m buffer area above the top of bank which will contain a public walkway and no building structures will be permitted in this area. Any new structures below the top of bank associated with the pedestrian linkage into the valley is subject to the approval of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

The Toronto Transit Commission has indicated that they require more precise drawings from the developer with respect to the building on the north-west corner of the site so that they can assess whether the proposal still allows for a southerly alignment of the Sheppard Subway in this area even though the alignment of the subway is currently on the north side of Sheppard. A clause should also be included in the subdivision agreement to inform perspective purchaser of potential noise and vibration intrusions that may result from the extension of the subway.

School Boards and Toronto Library

The Toronto Public Library has indicated there are adequate facilities to serve the proposed application. The Toronto Public School Board has indicated that anticipated enrollment from the development can currently be accommodated at Cameron Public School and Northview Heights Secondary School, however alternate arrangements are required for students that would normally attend Willowdale Middle School. While the City of Toronto has control over the provision of public parks and libraries, the provision of school facilities is beyond the City's jurisdiction.

The Toronto Catholic District School Board has indicated that they object to the revised proposals for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments due to a lack of permanent facilities available to accommodate enrolment from the proposed development. Their comments are attached as Schedule "O" This same objection to the original application was outlined in a letter dated February 25, 1999 (Schedule "K" in the March 15, 1999 Report to North York Community Council).

These comments are attached as Schedules "O", "P" and "Q".

The utilities comments including Bell, Hydro, Rogers Cable, and Enbrige Consumers Gas are attached as Schedule "R", "S", "T" and "U".

Discussion:

General Principles of Development:

Council adopted in April 1999 a set of Principles to guide and assess the development proposal. The focus of these principles included the following considerations:

- the distribution of density and appropriate built form on the site should ensure the perimeter treatment along Sheppard Avenue West should take into account the low rise Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area; the perimeter treatment along Easton Road should take into account the single family neighbourhood on the opposite side of the street; a landmark building should address the larger valley land horizon with appropriate transition to Sheppard Avenue;

- urban design and built form considerations are to determine if the design of the development is appropriate;

- transportation impacts and the provision of adequate hard and soft services need to be assessed to determine the feasibility of development;

- redevelopment of this site should seek 100 percent replacement of the existing rental housing with units which are of a similar type, size and level of affordability as currently provided at this location.

Throughout this report, Principles adopted by Council are box highlighted.

The primary consideration in determining the appropriateness of the redevelopment of this site is achieving a development that meets the principles of land use, site organization, built form and infrastructure capacity. In addition to this consideration, the community benefits that can be achieved serve to further enhance the proposal and the adjacent neighbourhood.

Density

The final determination of an appropriate distribution of density on the site should be dependant upon a final consideration of feasibility of development and the site organization, built form and transportation considerations described [in the March 1999 Principles Report] and detailed further in the urban design criteria of Part C.4 of the Official Plan.

This guiding principle on density adopted by Council as the principle to evaluate this application was that the final density be based upon feasibility of development and site organization, built from and transportation consideration. The gross density on the table lands that is supported by staff is 2.6 FSI based upon fulfilment of the other principles of the March 1999 Principles Report. This density includes the density for the new roads and parkland which is standard practice in the City when the developer is supplying the land, but does not include the valley lands to be conveyed. While a site's size and organization can generate a variety of built forms, it is important to note that densities in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 are not uncommon in North York. The approval of a new apartment house dwelling on a existing rental housing site at 1 Canyon Avenue on Sheppard Avenue West near the Bathurst Street intersection ( UDOZ-97-48) at 2.9 FSI is a recent example. The benefits that were achieved on this site included conveyance of the valley lands to the TRCA, a $50,000.00 contribution to recreational space in the existing rental building and the retention of the rental building for a minimum of 15 years. Another example of intensification is a mixed use development at Eglinton Avenue and Sloane Avenue (UDOZ-91-20) which abuts low density residential land and was approved in 1994 at a density of 2.25 FSI primarily for residential uses. No additional benefits were secured through a Section 37 agreement in this case. A further example of a recently approved intensification development is an apartment hotel development at Bathurst Street and Glen Park Avenue (UDOZ-97-45) which was approved at a density of 3.5 FSI abutting a low density area.

Residential Intensification:

Intensification of existing residential land is encouraged in the North York Centre, identified subcentres, some specific arterial roads and on infill or redevelopment sites. This policy enables the City to accommodate additional housing that is responsive to the housing needs of existing and future residents and fosters more efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure.

As this site is located on an arterial road, the appropriateness for redevelopment and residential intensification must meet the criteria to guide the redesignation of the residential lands to a higher density in addition to the general development criteria of Part C.4 of the Official Plan. The criteria in Section 5.0 of Part C.4 specifically guide the redesignation of residential lands to a higher density.

While the Principles Report of March 1999 further refined the development criteria for this specific site, the broader criteria found in Section 5.0 of Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan were generally addressed. A key criterion was the net community benefit of this proposal which is discussed in detail below:

On lands now developed with residential use where intensification of the site is proposed, the ability of the proposed development to result in a net benefit to residents in terms of on-site facilities and improvements to amenities. Council may secure the net benefit(s) through various techniques such as an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. Council may require the provision of on-site amenities to supplement municipal services.

This proposal includes a number of opportunities to improve existing amenities both on and off site. The applicant has proposed to provide the following benefits in terms of on-site facilities and improvements to amenities:

- conveyance of all of the lands below the top of bank to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

- connect the valley lands both physically and visually to the new and existing community

- provide a 2,060 m² public park abutting Easton Road

- contribute $200,000.00 for the improvement of park facilities in the Lansing Community

- provide a pathway and bridge to the Earl Bales valley walkway and park in partnership with the City

In addition to these on-site facilities and improvements to amenities the applicant has also proposed:

- a new public street network on the site

- replacement of 320 of the existing 416 rental apartment units with new apartment units of similar rents and similar mix of unit types

This benefits package represents a significant net benefit to existing residents of the community and future residents as well.

In addition the unique location and size of the site allows for the achievement of the following criterion:

The suitability of the size and configuration of an assembly of land proposed for redevelopment such that it does not impede the ability of the remnant lands to develop in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Plan.

The site is composed primarily of the existing apartment site and the valley lands. The addition of the eight single family detached dwellings on Easton Road completed the site. This site is unique compared to other parcels along Sheppard Avenue as it is very large and has considerable depth (approximately 200 m). The site is self contained, bordered by natural ravines and public roads. Its existing multiple residential character has remained self-contained for over 30 years adjacent to a single family detached area. The part of the parcel which will not be developed will be conveyed to a public authority either as valley land or local park land. These lands will be designated to reflect their public use offering no further development lands of this type in the immediate area. Further development of the type proposed would not be appropriate given the size of the surrounding lots and the low density residential uses. The pattern of ownership in the low density area to the east and south remains fragmented in multiple ownership and functioning well as one family detached homes.

As discussed earlier in the report the proposal does not destabilize adjacent stable residential lands. This is an exceptional site not found elsewhere in the low density residential area. A survey of the abutting area shows that a large majority of the households are owner occupied and no pattern of assembly has been established. Given the existing pattern of development and the prices of homes, a large land assembly is unlikely. In addition, there was a recent review of the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area policies which determined the current policies of the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area are appropriate including limiting development to lots fronting onto Sheppard Avenue West which are generally the size of a typical single depth lot.

The low density area has well defined boundaries to the north with the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area, to the east with the North York Centre boundary and to the west with the existing apartment site. Council has never amended the boundary of the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area. Along the North York Centre boundary attempts to alter the boundary of the North York Centre Secondary Plan by even one lot have been refused by the Ontario Municipal Board. Based on current Council policies, any attempt to assemble lands and break the pattern of single family dwellings on these interior streets would be contrary to the Official Plan and not supported.

With the site organization and design of this development, the relationship with the surrounding residential community can work well in a manner that preserves the existing stable single family dwelling area and enhances and rejuvenates the existing apartment site.

Transportation

From a transportation perspective, the site is well situated with direct access to the adjacent arterial and local road network, an existing signalized intersection and surface transit service providing a connection to the Yonge Subway and the future Sheppard Subway. The site is located on the arterial road Sheppard Avenue West and located approximately 1.2 km from the Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue intersection which is the location of the Yonge subway and future Sheppard subway station connection. There is public bus service at Sheppard and Easton approximately every 7 minutes during peak periods.

The applicant is also proposing new public streets through the site which connect to the existing streets of Bogert Avenue and Poyntz Avenue, plus an additional north/south street which connects to Sheppard Avenue West.

A review of the traffic requirements associated with the development was undertaken by transportation staff in conjunction with the required traffic impact studies prepared by the applicant's consultants. The initial submission reviewed by transportation staff and presented to the community proposed direct access to Sheppard and Easton Avenues, and future public road connections to Poyntz and Bogert Avenues which allowed for continued use of the existing grid road network. The transportation assessment undertaken concluded that traffic associated with the development could be accommodated on the existing roads from a capacity perspective. In order to address community concerns with respect to potential traffic infiltration from the development using the adjacent local roads, a monitoring proposal was recommended to identify increases in traffic at specific stages relating to build out of the development, taking into account the current disruption in traffic patterns which occur as a result of the Sheppard Subway construction. At that time, and if deemed required by the community, physical mitigative measures could be explored and implemented at the expense of the applicant

In response to community concerns the applicant has subsequently revised the access arrangement for the development restricting all traffic movements solely to Easton and Sheppard Avenues, primarily through physical channelization prohibiting use of the local road network as shown on Schedule "D6". The applicant's traffic consultant has demonstrated that sufficient capacity is available at the signalized intersection of Sheppard and Easton Avenues to accommodate the total traffic generated from the development. The proposed access to the site as modified is acceptable in this regard. The traffic impact of the development on the local roads will be less than under the current conditions, where access to the grid road network is available for the existing site. Traffic generated by replacement of these units will now be directed exclusively towards Sheppard Avenue West as a result of the physical restrictions. Given that traffic infiltration is no longer a concern for the community the recommendation with respect to monitoring of the local roads is not a requirement for this development.

Comments from the Transportation Services Division are contained in Schedule "I" and further elaborate with respect to the specific access design, conveyance required along Sheppard Avenue frontage, intersection improvements, parking and loading requirements, streetscape and permits. Compliance with these requirements must be adhered to at Site Plan Control.

With respect to overall parking for the site, the applicant is proposing to provide a total of 1,677 spaces whereby 1,757 spaces would be required with respect to by-law conformance, a shortfall of 80 spaces. The applicant has proposed a reduction in parking for the rental component of the development, however maintaining the required parking ratio for the condominiums as set out in Zoning By- law No. 7625. The reduction for the rental use is based on information the applicant's consultant has obtained for the existing rental building relating the number of parking spaces which are currently being leased (285) compared with the number of leased units (407) spaces. In light of the community's concern with respect to adequate parking on site, and to avoid the occurrence of on street parking of visitors, the Transportation Services Division requires that all parking conform with the parking standards as set out in Zoning By-law No. 7625 unless further information is presented prior to commencement of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing to substantiate a lower parking rate which will not result in off site parking.

The Replacement of the Existing Rental Housing Units

Background

The Principles of Development Report indicated that rental housing is a significant part of the City's housing market constituting half of all housing units. Rental demand is currently very strong as reflected in the 0.9 percent vacancy rate. This demand will likely remain strong as there is little new supply of rental apartment units. In addition, the number of condominium units available for rental is declining. Between 1997 and 1998, the number of condominium units available for rent in the City decreased by more than 5 percent. More importantly, the need for rental housing is strongest for those households with low to moderate incomes and tenants at the lowest incomes are least able to cope in a constrained housing market.

Official Plan policy statements intended to preserve the rental housing stock were adopted by the majority of the former municipalities that comprise the City of Toronto, including the City of North York. In attempting to preserve rental housing, these policies recognize the importance of maintaining a balanced mix between the rental and freehold forms of tenure.

Policies of the City of North York:

The City of North York Official Plan contains policies in Part C.4, Housing, which promote the preservation, maintenance and upgrading of viable housing and in particular call for the retention of rental housing. The policies affecting this application are:

"Section 2.6.1 - Tenure

Council recognizes rental accommodation as an essential type of housing tenure for a large portion of North York residents. Council also recognizes the importance of freehold tenure. It is the policy of Council to encourage a well-balanced mix of both of these forms of tenure.

Section 2.6.3 - Retention of Rental Housing

Rental accommodation is recognized by Council as an essential form of housing tenure for many residents of North York. Council encourages the retention of existing rental housing, particularly market affordable rental housing. In this regard, it is the intent of Council to:

1) discourage the demolition or renovation of housing which would reduce the number of dwelling units available; and

2) apply the requirements of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, (RHPA) Council's condominium conversion policy set out above, and other applicable legislation in considering applications to demolish, convert, renovate or sever rental property or part, thereof.

Section 2.6.4 - Replacement of Housing

When considering applications which have the effect of removing existing multiple residential housing from the market, Council shall require where appropriate, that at least the same number of units be replaced through the redevelopment project and, where possible, that the units are made available at the same level of affordability."

Policies of the Former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

Policy No. 125 of the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan states that it is the policy of Council to "encourage investment in new private rental housing and the preservation and maintenance of existing rental housing to support provincial and federal policies in this regard."

Current Policies of the Amalgamated City of Toronto:

At its meeting held on April 15, 1999, City Council adopted new Official Plan policies (OPA 2 - an amendment to the Metropolitan Official Plan) respecting the conversion and demolition of rental housing. These new policies resulted largely in response to the coming into force in June 1998 of the Tenant Protection Act (TPA). The TPA repealed the RHPA, which enabled the former municipalities to regulate the conversion and demolition of rental housing. The TPA does not require municipalities to consider proposed changes to rental properties. However, municipalities can adopt Official Plan policies that reflect the municipality's objectives related to maintaining and increasing the supply of housing including rental units.

The overall objective of OPA 2 is to maintain and replenish the supply of residential buildings, particularly rental buildings. This objective is accomplished by permitting the conversion of rental buildings to condominium only when the vacancy is at or above 2.5 percent for the preceding two year period. The policy provides an exception for high-end rent apartments and equity co-operatives that can meet the listed criteria. The overall objective is also to be achieved by seeking the retention of rental units, by means available to the City including the acquisition or leasing of a property where units are at risk of being demolished, and the replacement of rental units where demolition is proposed in connection with an application for redevelopment. Such is the case with this application.

The policies related to the demolition of rental housing adopted by Council are:

"It is the policy of Council:

135.4 to seek the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, where appropriate, acquiring or leasing a property where such units are at risk of being demolished.

135.5 (a) when considering redevelopment applications involving the demolition of rented residential units, to seek the replacement of the demolished rental units with rental units of a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability in the new development, and/or alternative arrangements, which in the opinion of Council are consistent with the intent of this policy; and

(b) when considering such applications in the context of an increase in height and/or density, to secure such replacement units and/or alternative arrangements through an appropriate legal agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act."

Rental housing replacement in context of an increase in height or density is not viewed as a bonus in the form of increased density allocated to the site above and beyond what might be considered appropriate. Section 37 agreement is a tool to secure on title all community benefits one of which is the security of the continued rental tenure at similar rents.

The Proposal

The application proposes to demolish all 416 existing rental units on the site. As a result the applicant was asked to address replacing the rental units with a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability, in accordance with the requirements of Section 135.5(a) of OPA 2, as described above. The applicant has provided the following offer in terms of replacement of the existing rental units:

1. The construction of a new rental building containing 320 units representing 77 percent of the existing units.

2. The new building will contain a mix of units types in proportion to the mix of unit types found in the existing building resulting in the following totals:

11 bachelors

124 1 bedroom

153 2 bedrooms

32 3 bedrooms

3. The average unit size by type will be:

450 square feet bachelor

630 square feet 1 bedroom

825 square feet 2 bedroom

1,050 square feet 3 bedroom

4. Rents for the replacement units will be determined as follows:

The average rent of the various unit types (Base Rent) will be calculated at the time of the Ontario Municipal Board decision approving the application. The Base Rent will be the maximum rent charged to tenants occupying units in the new building for a period of ten years subject to any permitted rent guideline increases except for increases permitted because a unit becomes vacant.

5. The replacement rental units will be within a new rental building, as opposed to a building registered as a condominium, provided that at the time the applicant applies for a building permit for the rental building, the property tax rate which applies to a rental building is equivalent to or less than that of a condominium building. Under the new multi-residential class (for apartments) adopted by Council in October 1998, the tax rate is equal to the residential rate which applies to condominium and single family homes and supports this provision becoming a permanent feature of the regulations. Currently, the property tax rate applying to multi-residential buildings is limited to a period of eight years. It is anticipated that the new tax rate will be become a permanent feature of the regulations governing property taxes. If that is not the case, if the property tax rate for a rental building increases such that it is greater than the rate that would apply to a condominium, alternative measures will need to be negotiated and secured on a long term basis by way of a Section 37 Agreement.

6. At the present time, the applicant has made preliminary proposals respecting the phasing of construction and a rehousing strategy which needs to be negotiated and discussed with the existing tenants and finalized prior to the commencement of any Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The conditions of approval outlined in this report recognize this situation and could be assisted by an Ontario Municipal Board appointed Mediator. The draft Official Plan indicates the phased construction of this property shall ensure that prior to the demolition of any existing rental units, there is a phased plan of construction of the replacement rental units which is fully integrated with a re-housing strategy acceptable to Council and secured on title in a Section 37 agreement.

Evaluation of the Proposed Rental Housing Replacement

1. Number of Units

There exists on the site 416 rental units. Initially, the applicant proposed constructing a new rental building with 140 units and a seniors apartment building with 130 for a total of 270. Without a sponsor for the seniors building, the applicant proposed the construction of 292 new market rental units. Following discussions with staff, the applicant increased the total number of rental units to 320. This number represents 77 percent of the total existing number of units. The goal of the policy in terms of similar number of units is 100 percent. In the case of this application, when all matters of good planning are taken into account, including good urban design and a mix of units together with the expectations of the applicant for the development of this site, and the need for the applicant to erect the rental building as a separate building, the 320 proposed units a is reasonable minimum.

2. Mix of Units

The mix of unit types, that is, bedroom size, is proportional to the current mix within the existing building. This is acceptable as the 2 and 3 bedroom units account for over 60 percent of all the units. These type of units are of benefit because their size make them suitable for families with children.

3. Average Size of Units

The existing building was completed in 1968. Unit sizes at that time were typically larger than today. It would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to build units of identical size. The proposed unit sizes were obtained by surveying existing condominium apartments and a non-profit apartment building in the area as well as two government sponsored non-profits in the former City of Toronto. The proposed sizes are an average of the buildings surveyed. These sizes were also considered appropriate by City Housing Development staff.

4. Rents

The current average rents by unit type in the existing rental building are very similar to the overall City average rents as calculated by CMHC rental market survey conducted every year in October. Initially, the applicant proposed the average unit rent at the time of demolition, which might occur in 18 months to two years from now, plus a 10 percent increase. The concern is that the provision of 'vacancy decontrol' under the Tenant Protection Act, whereby rents may be increased to the level the market might bear once the unit becomes vacant, will permit average rents to increase in dramatic fashion between now and the time of demolition. Consequently, the applicant agreed to establish the average rent level at the time of approval of the zoning application by the Ontario Municipal Board and maintain these levels of rents for a period of ten years following the construction of the new building subject to any annual rent control guideline increase.

5. Securing Rental Buildings

One major deterrent to the construction of new rental buildings is the property tax applying to rental buildings of 7 units or more. The property tax rate is significantly higher than a similar building that is registered as a condominium. The tax rate for the residential property class, to which a condominium building applies, is 1.26 percent and for the multi-residential property class, to which a rental building applies, is 4.65 percent. The property tax rate change is the most significant factor in the improvements of the economics of a rental building project. Consequently, if tax rate change does not become a permanent feature under the Fair Municipal Finance Act regulations, the applicant would like to register the building as a condominium in order to achieve the tax rate benefit. The applicant would agree to sign an agreement whereby all the units would continue to be rented for a set period of time.

Plan of Subdivision

The submission of the Plan of Subdivision by the applicant serves to achieve the new public road network and divide the site into appropriate development blocks. The subdivision process also allows for detailed scrutiny to ensure the site has the ability in terms of existing and planned public infrastructure, services and facilities to accommodate the proposed change. A detailed functional servicing report has been submitted by the applicant to address all of the servicing requirements.

Assessment of Principles of Development

The adopted Principles based upon the broader criteria are assessed in terms of the August 1999 proposal.

Site Organisation

Public access to the valley lands should be provided through the site and from Sheppard Avenue

Poyntz and Bogert Avenues should continue through the site providing both visual and physical access to valley lands.

One of the significant benefits from the redevelopment of these lands is the visual and physical connection of the existing neighbourhood and the proposed development to the views and amenities of the Don Valley lands including Earl Bales Park. The design of the existing building on its large lot blocks views and physical access to the valley on Poyntz and Bogert Ave. Currently the valley is accessible to the neighbourhood only by crossing the Sheppard Avenue West bridge to Don River Boulevard. Residents of the existing apartment currently have a poorly marked path to the valley about 30 metres north of Sheppard Ave.

The August 1999 proposal provides for the extension of the Poyntz and Bogert Ave. approximately 120 metres west of Easton Ave. A new north south street will connect these streets north to Sheppard Ave. These are typical 20 metre wide public right of ways and are proposed as extensions of the existing streets with roads, public sidewalks, lighting and street trees. From this point to the top of the valley view corridors and publicly accessible private streets will extend the sidewalks, lighting and landscape to the proposed walkway at the top of bank.

The March 1999 proposal with buildings over the Bogert Ave view corridor has been modified to open public views to the valley.

A public promenade with views of the valley should be built adjacent to the top of the slope with connections to Poyntz, Bogert and Sheppard Avenues and the Don Valley trail system.

Buildings, above and below grade, should have a 10 metre setback from crest of the valley slope and location of the crest to be determined to the satisfaction of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

The provision of a 10 metre wide setback from the top of bank above and below enhances the stability of the slopes of the valley, preserves the space for existing trees and provides the opportunity for a public path that will connect the sidewalks along Bogert, Poyntz and Sheppard Ave. The applicant has agreed to build this public path and to improve the steps and path into the valley. Money has been provided for a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge to link the site to the significant parkland west of the Don River.

This amenity can be considered equivalent on a smaller scale to the boardwalk in 'the Beach'. In this case each street ends with views to the valley and the sidewalks provide access to a valley side promenade that provides both views and access to the valley. This improved relationship to the Don Valley will be shared by the existing neighbourhood and the development.

While the walkway has not been designed at this stage it should in principle be broad enough for comfortable public use, hard surfaced for year round use, appropriately landscaped to preserve existing trees and enhance its comfort and celebrate the views. The pathway will need to meet the design requirements of TRCA and the City. It is an objective of the design to provide accessibility to the public sidewalks of Bogert, Poyntz and Sheppard Ave without the use of stairs. These improvements will be designed as part of the site plan approval for Block 1. They will be built by the applicant and maintained by the City to ensure its long term public accessibility.

If it forms part of the final design for development, the community centre and/or dedicated public parkland should be located in a manner that enhances its public prominence.

There was not a demonstrated need to pursue the community centre proposed in April 1999. The current proposal provides a 0.21 ha. public park on the table land in addition to the dedication of the valley lands for conservation and recreation purposes.

The proposed park location is at the east end of Block 3 between the existing neighbourhood and the site. Its location, surrounded on three sides by public streets enhances its public visibility, accessibility and its apparent size by visually adding the space of the street to the park.

The applicant will also improve the park with features such as play ground equipment. The park design will be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture.

Existing trees on the site should be, where possible, preserved and incorporated into the street and open space design.

The current proposal is laid out and organized in a manner that allows for the preservation of many existing mature trees on the site. The trees that can be preserved include:

- Existing trees in the valley lands, on the slopes of the valley and in the 10 metre top of bank setback. These lands are being given to the TRCA and the preservation of these trees and wood management comes to public control. These trees are the most significant mature trees on the property and will become part of a significant environmental asset.

- Existing trees along the southern edge of site will be in incorporated into the rear yards of the proposed townhouses. These trees are an important part of enhanced views and privacy between the site and the adjacent existing houses as described in detail below.

- Existing trees on land dedicated for the public park. The demolition of the four existing houses will leave a small collection of trees as the base planting for the new park.

- A mature group of Austrian Pines along Sheppard Avenue will be in the Sheppard Avenue right of way as a result of road widening. These can be preserved if no further widening of Sheppard Avenue is proposed.

The existing trees located adjacent to the existing building would be damaged in the demolition process and will not be preserved. Similarly small clumps of mature trees in the courtyard of the existing apartment will also not be able to be preserved. In general, the proposed development will result in a substantially improved landscape character for the site through tree preservation and the addition of new street trees as well as new landscaping on private lands. These will be secured through the subdivision and site plan approval process.

Built Form

New buildings facing Easton Avenue will respect the setbacks, height and landscape character of the existing houses on the east side.

The new development provides equivalent heights and significantly larger setbacks than the existing context for houses on east-side of Easton Road. The existing houses on Easton Road face Bogert or Poyntz Avenues. Easton Road is the side street for these houses and typically has 1.8 metre setbacks from the property line. The typical height of existing houses is one and a half storeys. Existing zoning limits new houses or renovations to 8.5 metres or two storeys.

The August 1999 proposal has had considerable improvements to the relationships to Easton Road from the first applications. The current proposal has three storey townhouses or apartments along Easton Road with large setbacks. Most of the Easton frontage is the edge of the new public park that forms the end of Block 4. The edge of this park is a 3 storey apartment, 35 metres from the Easton Road right of way. On the north block a 3 storey base of an apartment is proposed with a 6 metre setback from Easton Road.

New buildings along the south property line will respect the setbacks, height and landscape of the existing houses south of the site.

The proposed development improves the relationship of the site to the rear yards of existing Gwendolen Crescent houses south of the site. Currently a resident and visitor parking lot, garbage storage and main access road are directly north of the rear fences of these houses. The proposal replaces these noisy and unsightly uses with private rear yards of three storey townhouses. It is recommended that these townhouses be setback 9.5 metres from the property line. In this set-back the mature trees that are part of the site can be preserved and additional planting can be provided to enhance the views and privacy of this rear condition for both existing and proposed townhouse development.

The three storey height for the new townhouses with the 9.5 metre setback meets the 45 degree angular plane from the rear property line of the neighbours to the south. Building under this line minimises overlook, privacy and shadowing issues for the existing properties from the new development.

Careful consideration has been given to the massing and built form of the proposal so as not to impact the existing low density area. The new development will serve to improve the relationship between the site and the existing single family homes and promote the stability of the residential neighbourhood as outlined in criteria 10 of Section 5.0, Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan.

Buildings should be located and organized to define and support public streets and open spaces and all buildings will front onto an existing or proposed public street.

The development is proposed using traditional urban design with public streets and parks dividing the land into blocks. Buildings are organized along the edges of the blocks giving spatial definition to the public street and creating an open space in the centre of the block. Individual buildings take their address and have entrances from the public streets. The uses of the buildings and in particular the ground floor uses and a fine grain of entrances supports pedestrian activity and helps ensures a safe and legible street system. Private or shared residential uses in the block such as parking access and recreation uses are organized in and around the open spaces in the centre of block. This helps integrate the new development into the existing context.

To further integrate new apartments into existing streets of single family houses, grade accessible apartments at the base of the apartments will be encouraged at the site plan approval stage.

Buildings on new blocks should be massed in a manner that defines the adjacent streets and open spaces with an appropriate scale and to provide good pedestrian comfort.

The August 1999 proposal represents a significant lowering of the height of buildings to achieve better scale of definition for the public streets and open spaces and to improve the environmental quality of these spaces. The average height of buildings has been reduced from 14 to 10 stories and setbacks increased to enhance street proportions as described below.

The urban design approach for this site, places building mass at the edge of block where it defines public streets and creates private open spaces within the block. The spatial and environmental quality of these spaces is determined in part by the proportion of these spaces i.e. the relative height of the walls to the width of the space. The lower the walls and wider the space the more open and undefined the space will feel, and also the more sunlight the space will have and the more it will be open to winds. The taller the walls, the more enclosed the space feels, and sheltered from sunlight and wind. In this development we have balanced these extremes.

The proportion and scale of each of the streets proposed in the development is described as follows:

Poyntz Avenue Extension - is a street 20 metres wide with 5 metre setbacks on the south, adjacent the townhouses, and a 2 metre setback to the north with a 6 storey building base rising with step backs to 8 and 10 storeys. This is a significant reduction of the height from the April 1999 scheme which had three storey town houses with 8 and 10 storey buildings at the property line. (Schedule "E1")

Bogert Avenue Extension - The south side is defined by a six storey base building setback 6 metres that rises to 10 storeys. The north side is defined by a six storey base that rises to 8 and 10 storeys. This is a significant reduction from the March 1999 submission that had 10 and 12 storey buildings with no setback from the property line. West of the new street, the two towers over looking the ravine rise to 19 storeys from a two storey base that helps to deflect winds from these taller building elements. (Schedule "E2")

Sheppard Avenue West - Buildings are built to the new Sheppard property line ranging from 9 to 5 metres from its current location. due to a required road widening. The buildings rise from 3 storeys base and then step back 3 metres to 8 storeys. This is a considerable improvement to the March 1999 application that had 8 and 10 storey buildings rising directly from the property line. (Schedule "E1")

Easton Avenue - This relationship been described in the previous sections. (Schedule "E1")

New Street - This is a typical 20 metre street with 5 metre setbacks on the east rising to 10 storeys. On the west the buildings rise to 10 storeys with an 8 metre setbacks on the west except for the foot print of the towers which rise to 19 storeys with a 4 metre setback. This is a substantial improvement from March 1999 which had 12 storey buildings on the east and west side with 7 metre setbacks. (Schedule "E2")

Building heights and massing should minimize excessive shadowing, wind or snow drifting effects within the block, along the streets and within open space areas, in keeping with the Pedestrian Comfort Guidelines in the Official Plan. The wind conditions in outdoor areas of this development should be compatible with outdoor activity. This should be determined by a wind study, which should be required for this development, as outlined in the Pedestrian Comfort Guidelines in the Official Plan.

A set of sun/shadow diagrams for the August 1999 proposal have been attached for September 21, at 10am, 12pm,2 pm and 4 pm and are attached as Schedules "G1" through "G4". These diagrams show insignificant impact on the surrounding streets and the proposed public park.

A study will have to be submitted by a qualified microclimate specialist to confirm appropriate wind conditions have been achieved at the site plan stage. The massing and street layout has used "building mass concepts for wind control" outlined in the Official Plan.

The tallest buildings should be located adjacent to the largest open spaces, being Sheppard Avenue West and the valley.

To minimize the negative scale and shadow impacts of the massing on the existing neighbourhood, the development steps away from the existing smaller scaled houses located north, south and east of the site. Two nineteen storey towers are proposed adjacent the valley in Block 1, with the appropriate setback from the top of bank. The two towers are proposed to flank Bogert Avenue extension at a point furthest from existing houses on Easton Avenue, Sheppard Avenue West and Gwendolen Crescent.

The point tower closest to widened Sheppard Avenue West is 62 metres from the properties on Roy Crest Avenue. This represents a building height which is 90 percent of the separation distance and accommodates a 43 degree angular plane. The point tower closest to Easton Road is 152 metres from the closest properties on Easton Road. This represents a building height which is 37 percent of the separation distance and accommodates a 19 degree angular plane. The point tower closest to Gwendolen Crescent is 79 metres from the closest properties on Gwedolen Crescent and accommodates a 35 degree angular plane.

The towers are proposed as point towers with floor plates of approximately 23 metres square. The relatively small plate of these apartments and the diagonal orientation of these minimizes the impact of the shading of these on the neighbourhood and the valley. This improves the relationship between the new development and the existing single family homes.

Along Sheppard Avenue West 8 storey buildings have been proposed in the August 1999 proposal with 3 storey podiums. This 3 storey podium creates a good relationship between the new development and the commercial buildings in the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area to the east. A step back of 3 metres is proposed and then buildings rise to eight storeys. These will have minimal shadowing impact on the rear yards of the properties north of Sheppard Avenue West as shown in the shadow diagrams.

The first building site after crossing the bridge along Sheppard Avenue from the west is a significant landmark site. The building massing and landscape at this site should celebrate this important transition point where Sheppard Avenue crosses the Don River.

The August, 1999 proposal provides an opportunity to reinforce this important place in Toronto's city pattern where an important arterial road, Sheppard Ave crosses the main branch of the Don River with a deep valley, high bridge and spectacular views. The large setbacks at top of the valley and the wide Sheppard Ave right of way at the bridge provide opportunity for a significant open space and planting. The details of these and the integration and character of the adjacent building will be secured in the Site Plan approval stage for the development of Block 1.

The streetscape treatment of the new streets should provide pedestrian amenity and should extend the character of the existing local streets in order to integrate the site with the neighbourhood.

The final design of the streetscapes for new streets on the site has not been completed but include extending the pattern of roads, sidewalks, street trees and furniture into the redevelopment site. With the provision of street furniture and lighting, the new development can be integrated into the existing context. Those parts of Bogert Avenue and Poyntz Avenue that are privately owned but publicly accessible will extend the public elements of streetscape design on the site to promote comfortable and safe public access.

Service access and parking ramps should be organized in a manner that minimizes their impact on streets and open spaces. Parking should be provided at the rear of buildings or in underground garages.

The proposed development considerably increases the public amenity for the area by minimizing the negative servicing and parking relationships in the current development. Currently garbage and servicing takes place in full view of public streets or adjacent to existing houses.

Development on this site will place parking for residents and visitor primarily underground. This is indicated on the conceptual site plan and each site will be reviewed at site plan approval stage to achieve this. Garbage pick up and loading will be reviewed and secured at site plan approval stage to minimize its negative impact on the public streets and pedestrian open spaces. The size of this site allows the servicing needs to be met in accordance with criteria 7, Section 5.0, Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan.

A minimum of 1.5 m5 of private indoor recreational space per residential dwelling unit, and a minimum of 1.5 m5 of private outdoor recreational space per residential dwelling unit should be provided for the new development

Each block proposed for apartments has a shared courtyard space defined on two or three sides by buildings and open to a public street on one or two sides. These open spaces would provide the opportunity for the required outdoor amenity space. In general these face west or south and will have adequate sunlight access for comfortable use. The proposed townhouses will have private back yards.

The Zoning By-Law will require a minimum of 1.5 m2 of private recreational space per unit. At site plan approval stage the appropriate location and landscaping of the open spaces and uses in the adjacent building edges would be secured to encourage the safe and comfortable use of these spaces by residents.

Conclusions:

The proposed settlement of these applications represents an opportunity to rejuvenate and revitalize the development site with a housing intensification project that achieves desirable built form and site organization, and provides for the substantial new rental housing of a similar type and level of affordability as the existing units. This application illustrates how new affordable market rental housing can be achieved on a site under the new Official Plan policies regarding rental housing and while realizing a development which meets the criteria for good development under the housing intensification policies of the North York Official Plan.

The community benefits proposed by the applicant in their settlement proposal for:

- the control of all new development traffic away from the stable single family dwelling area to Sheppard Avenue West,

- the conveyance all of the valley lands to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,

- new linkages from the new and existing community to the valley lands,

- a new on-site public park,

- on-site private recreational space,

- a $200,000 contribution for the improvement of local parks within the Lansing Community

- replacement of 77 percent of the existing rental units with similar rents and mix of unit types all serve to make this application advantageous for both the new and existing community.

The option suggested by the applicant as part of the settlement proposal for directing all traffic generated from the new development out to Sheppard Avenue West in response to community concerns about traffic infiltration into the balance of the community while not technically necessary, serves to further illustrate how the application has evolved through the process in response to issues raised.

In conclusion, the settlement proposal by the applicant represents a good development proposal that achieves the objectives of both the North York and Metro Toronto Official Plans.

Contact Names:

Joe D'Abramo, Principal Planner

Policy and Research, City Planning Division

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 395-7120

Fax: (416) 395-7155

Karen Whitney, Senior Planner

Community Planning, North District

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 395-7109

Fax: (416) 395-7155

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

A staff presentation was made by Ms. Karen Whitney, Senior Planner, Community Planning, North District.

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

- Mr. Stephen Diamond, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, advised that the new Official Plan requests developers to provide rental housing and housing intensification. He stated that the density of the development has been reduced to 2.2, and have proposed to provide 249 rental units with rents similar to the existing rental units. The site is very large and has considerable depth, is located 1 km. from the Sheppard Subway; is on a major arterial road and next to a ravine, all of which provide significant public benefits. With respect to the density, he pointed out that densities of 2 to 3 are not uncommon in North York. In addition he advised that the developer would be providing a $200,000.00 cash contribution for improvements to local parks within the Lansing Community and that a parkette would be established at the east end of the site near Easton Road. He further advised that it is realized that traffic is a major concern of the community however it was believed that by directing traffic onto Sheppard rather than permitting traffic to use local streets, the traffic impact of the development would be less than under the current conditions. In closing he stated that the application represents an opportunity to rejuvenate the site with affordable housing.

- Mr. David Sambrook, President, South West Ward Ten Ratepayers Association gave a slide presentation and presented a model of the proposed development to illustrate its configuration, the density, the road design and the impact that the size will have on the surrounding neighbourhood, adding that the large towers would create a wind tunnel. The existing apartment blends in with the existing community while the proposed development does not and will be obtrusive. He commented that the size of the development consisting of 1,165 units of which 320 are to be replacement units is too large for the surrounding neighbourhood and would have a negative impact on the area as a result of the increased traffic, which would be directed onto Sheppard Avenue. He indicated that the traffic channelling will not remain in the long term as the new residents of the development would want it removed because of the inconvenience of getting to the local school and parks. He added that the one benefit of the development to the community of opening up of the valley lands is not the beneficial promenade it is made out to be since the trees will block any view of the valley.

- Mr. John Mayer, who spoke in opposition to the development, gave a slide presentation and commented that the configuration of the development limits public access to the valley and gives the visual message to "keep out - private property". He also felt that the proposed parkette was too small to be of much benefit to the community and expressed concern that during construction of the development, the mature trees could be destroyed and requested that every effort be made to preserve them. (Also filed a written submission which is on file with the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre).

- Mr. Troy Ellenor, who spoke in opposition to the development, expressed concern that the proposed development was too large and that the density would adversely affect the stable residential neighbourhood; adding that there are no other high-rise buildings in the vicinity. With respect to the increased traffic resulting from the development, he suggested "no turning" signs at the intersections of Poyntz and Easton and at Bogert Avenue and Easton. He further suggested that the Community Council amend the development agreement to include physical barriers at Poyntz and Easton and Bogert and Easton, thus creating a ring road to separate the development site and the local area. He also didn't agree with the density comparibles set out in the staff report. (Also filed a written submission which is on file with the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre).

- Mr. Roger Taylor on behalf of the South Ward 9 Ratepayers Association, who spoke in opposition to the development and questioned whether the sanitary sewer had sufficient capacity and whether the increased density of the development would create a situation where the sewer capacity could be exceeded.

- Mr. Ian Robin, who spoke in opposition to the development, indicated that he considered the proposal unreasonable, and believed that it would destabilize the surrounding community. He further commented that the development is on a huge scale, very dense and too close to the neighbouring residential development. He also indicated that the 75m buffer used in the downtown was not used here.

- Mr. Anthony Cribben, South Ward 9 Ratepayers Association, who spoke in opposition to the development, advised that the area is quiet and stable, has a school and a park in the area and stated that he felt the development was not compatible with the existing low density neighbourhood. He expressed the opinion that the area does not need enhancing or revitalizing and that the new development is obtrusive and invasive and advised that he was seeking Council's support to modify the development.

- Mr. Richard Lote, who spoke in opposition to the development, expressed the concern that the proposed development is too dense and could cause a decrease in property values in the area. He questioned where the funds would be obtained to develop the amenities. He then commented that the increased density would destabilize the area and was concerned about school and library capacity in the area.

- Mr. Russell Chapman declined the opportunity to speak and advised that his questions had already been raised.

- Mr. Paul York, on behalf of the Wingreen Court Tenants' Association and Tweedsmuir Tenants' Association advised that many tenants and landlords will be watching the decision made with regard to this development. He commented on the negative social effect and the stress on the present tenants that will be created by the demolition and expressed concern regarding the inability of some tenants to find affordable rental accommodation. He further commented that phasing in replacement units does not work in practice and that a 60 percent replacement is considered unacceptable given the current vacancy rate. In addition he stated that North York Community Council should not set a precedent of demolishing existing rental housing.

- Ms. Joyce Job on behalf of Mr. Mulder of the Bogert Tenants' Association, urged Council not to approve the application, advising that the development would have a negative impact on the community because of the increased density and traffic that would result. She further advised that a burden would also be placed on the school in the area as a result of the increased enrolment. In addition she commented that the tenants want to keep their homes and felt that the new apartments being built will be smaller and more expensive. (Also filed a written submission from the Bogert Tenants' Association, which is on file with the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

- Mr. Morry Smith, Vice-President, Lansing Community Association, who spoke in opposition to the application and who filed a copy of his written submission. He commented that the excessive traffic would destabilize the surrounding residential area and felt that the development should not be approved unless there is a reduction in size and all the rental units are replaced. He also indicated that the new access road onto Sheppard Avenue would be unsafe.

- Mr. Claudio Sirizzotti, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed his concern regarding the seniors in the area, some who have lived there for 25 years. He also expressed concern with regard to the rental rate increases in the new development and the availability of affordable apartments.

- Ms. Heide Albrecht, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed concern about losing her home and advised that many people in the apartment building are single mothers and older people with nowhere else to go. She also advised that the development will destabilize the community and create traffic problems.

- Ms. G. Creutz, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed the concern that the community will be destabilized and the traffic problems will become much worse.

- Ms. Nicolina Brown, who spoke in opposition to the application. She advised that Cameron Public School will not be able to handle the increased enrolment caused by the development.

- Mr. Raul Vomisecu, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed his objection to the increased density and the 19 storey towers.

- Ms. Pedram Moallemian, on behalf of the Kenneth/Sheppard Buildings Tenant's Association, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed the concern that many of the tenants are on a fixed income, and as a result of having to move from their homes, more will be added to the homeless population. He also expressed the concern that existing rental apartments will be demolished and will not be replaced 100 percent. He then suggested that the demolition application be denied, which would set a precedent in the City of Toronto. He then advised that for many children, it is the only home they have known and that many seniors cannot afford rental accommodation elsewhere; adding that it would be preferable if Council refused this development application.

- Ms. Helen Hanson, who filed a note expressing her concerns regarding homelessness and advising that she supports the views of the Lansing Ratepayers Association.

- Ms. Audrey Robins, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed her views and concerns regarding homelessness.

- Ms. Iris Pellew, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed her concern for the homeless and requested that her home not be destroyed.

- Mr. Slobodan Trivic, who spoke in opposition to the application, and expressed his concerns regarding the homeless, the rental increase, the erosion of the hill and the vibration from the subway.

Recorded Votes:

A recorded vote on Recommendations (1) (2) and (3) and the requested report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services directly to City Council for its meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999, moved by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, as amended by Councillor King's motion to delete the words, "up to a maximum of two years" in Recommendation (1) (i) was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Shiner, King

AGAINST: NIL

ABSENT: Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Augimeri, Berger, Feldman, Minnan-Wong

Carried

A recorded vote on the recommendations, as amended, was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Li Preti, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Shiner, King

AGAINST: Councillors Moscoe, Flint

ABSENT: Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Augimeri, Berger, Feldman, Minnan-Wong

Carried

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 21, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide City Council, as directed by the North York Community Council, with a comprehensive list of recommendations that give effect to the conditions of approval adopted by the North York Community Council on September 14, 1999 for this application. As is explained in the accompanying August 25, 1999 staff report, the application concerning this site has been appealed by the applicant and a hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board is scheduled to begin on October 27, 1999. Accordingly, City Council is not being asked to formally adopt amendments to the North York Official Plan and Zoning By-law, rather the conditions of approval attached to this report will be used in support of Council's position at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. In addition, the hiring of outside expert witnesses will be required since the Planning report, dated August 25, 1999, supports a density greater than that adopted by North York Community Council.

Recommendation:

1) That should City Council adopt the recommendations of North York Community Council respecting applications UDOZ-95-19 and UDSB-1224, passed at its meeting held on September 14, 1999, then the revised conditions of approval contained in Appendix A attached to this report implement the decision of North York Community Council and should be approved.

Comments:

At its meeting held on September 14, 1999, North York Community Council had before it a joint report, dated August 25, 1999, from the Director of Community Planning North District and the Director of Policy respecting an application to develop a 10 acre site at Easton Road and Sheppard Avenue West currently containing 416 rental apartments. North York Community Council did not adopt this report, however, it did pass a motion which had the effect of reducing the density, reducing the number of replacement rental units and eliminating the restrictions on vacancy decontrol. Staff was requested to forward to City Council revised conditions of approval.

In light of the North York Community Council decision, outside expert witnesses will be required to support the proposed conditions of approval.)

(A copy of Appendix A, which was attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to a resolution passed by North York Community Council on September 14, 1999 that a condition of approval of the above noted applications, vis-a-vis that "parking under the proposed road be permitted" be referred to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report directly to Toronto City Council for its meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. The Developer's request for encroachment on public road allowance for underground parking garages be refused.

2. The appropriate City officials be authorized to do all things necessary to implement Council's directions.

Council Reference and Background:

The applicant has filed applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-Law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision for the 6.57ha site at Sheppard Avenue West and Easton Road. The site is currently occupied by a 416 unit rental apartment building and 8 houses. The applicant's proposal of 1125 units in high rise apartment buildings and 40 units townhouse buildings was considered by the North York Community Council on September 14, 1999. As reported in a separate report from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services,

the Community Council approved the Amendments to the Official Plan, Zoning By-Law and the Draft Plan of Subdivision subject to certain conditions.

One of the conditions requested by the Developer was that "parking under the proposed roads be permitted". The Community Council directed that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report directly to Toronto City Council on this condition for its meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999.

Discussion:

Encroachments on public highways in the former City of North York are subject to North York Council Policy, which is still in effect. The former North York Council policy does not allow encroachments on public highways except the minor encroachments as permitted by certain by-laws for certain private building parts such as air conditioners, sills, brackets, awning covers, etc., projecting beyond main walls of buildings and other structures such as telephone booths, cables, etc. These types of encroachments can be accepted subject to Council approval, and provided certain conditions are met, such as an encroachment agreement, no objections from utility companies, indemnification of the City, legal survey, and payment of administration fees. A full description of the encroachment policy is attached as Appendix A.

Although many developers in the past have requested encroachments for underground parking garages under public roads, they have always been asked by the City (former North York) to revise their proposals to remove the encroachments. Some examples of recent development applications which originally proposed parking encroachments but were later revised include Tridel at Northtown Plaza (Yonge Street and Church Avenue, Z-92-54), Westnor-Wittington at the MacLean Hunter site (Yonge Street and Highway 401, Z-92-07), and the Pemberton Group at Finch Avenue East and Kenneth Avenue, (Z-93-36).

As a public policy, it is very strongly recommended that encroachment of private structures, such as parking garages, not be permitted on public highways for the following reasons:

- The main reason for turning down these encroachment requests is that the public road allowance is for public infrastructure use and public benefit only.

- There is the potential for public infrastructure installation and maintenance activities to be jeopardized, restricted or damaged by these private encroachments.

- There is also the potential for fire, flooding and damage to the encroaching garage structure through groundwater leaks, watermain breaks, sewer collapse, gas or hydro plant explosion.

- There are potential property damage, loss of life, injury and associated liability issues.

- Underground parking garages have a general history of leaking and deteriorating roof structures. Constructing these structures under public highways is extremely risky and troublesome.

- Even if all the liability issues are addressed by agreement, once the development is complete, it will not be the developer but a condominium corporation representing individual residents and tenants and taxpayers facing the City in case of a lawsuit, making it very difficult for the City to protect its rights.

A review of the policies of other former municipalities within the City of Toronto has confirmed that the former North York policy of not allowing parking encroachments is generally consistent with their practices and policies. Scarborough, Etobicoke, York and East York policies/practices do not allow these types of encroachments. North York has allowed encroachment of pedestrian tunnels under special circumstances as it benefits the general public. The City of Toronto has an extensive pedestrian path system under the downtown streets for the overall benefit of the public but also has a few encroachment agreements for downtown parking. A recent example is the Bay-Adelaide Centre parking garage encroaching onto Temperance Street. Another example is Skydome. However, these are major commercial centres with extensive public use and meeting places and cannot be compared to a regular residential condominium project.

As this development has quite sizeable blocks under which it is feasible to install parking garages reasonably under private property, there are no extenuating circumstances for the City to consider allowing construction of parking structures on public roadways. It should be noted that no rationale has been provided as to why the developer wants to build parking under the public roadways. In any event, should Council decide not to accept this department's recommendation of refusing the encroachment, the development of these lands should proceed on the basis of private internal roads and services. All of the internal roads and services should be designed to the City's standards, however, they would not be assumed by the City but would remain private.

As this will set a precedent for other developers to request encroachments for underground parking, the City staff in Finance/Real Estate, Legal and Works & Emergency Services would need to carefully assess the financial, liability and engineering implications of such requests.

If this request is granted, the City would also very likely be subject to further pressure from developers for not only underground encroachments but also above ground encroachments to build additional floor space above road allowances.

Conclusion:

The Developer's request for encroachment on the public road allowance for underground parking has numerous negative implications and liability consequences for the City; the development has quite sizeable blocks where parking garages could be built under private property; and it is recommended, therefore, that the request be refused.

Contact Name:

Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng., Manager, Development Services, District 3; Tel. 395-6307

Dev Tyagi, P.Eng., Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4; Tel. 395-6243)

(A copy of Appendix A, which was attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (September 27, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Chris Lumb expressing concerns regarding the Greatwise Development Corporation application, and requesting City Council make public safety a priority in reviewing the merits of this application.)

Sheppard Subway Construction Noise -

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 8, 1999) from the District Manager, North, Municipal Licensing and Standards and Court Services:

Purpose:

To report on an application (August 16, 1999) received from the Toronto Transit Commission requesting an exemption to North York Noise By-law No. 31317, as amended.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for an exemption to the North York Noise By-law No. 31317, be approved.

Background:

The former City of North York enacted Noise By-law No. 31317 on October 17, 1990, being a by-law to ensure an environment free from unusual, unnecessary, or excessive sound or vibration which may degrade the quality and tranquility of life or cause nuisance.

On October 1 and 2, 1998 and April 13, 14, and 15, 1999, Council granted six-month extensions to the original six-month noise exemption to the TTC for the purpose of subway construction. The original noise exemption was granted on February 21, 1996.

During 1999, overnight work will be required at several sites, including the tunnelling operation between Leslie Street and Don Mills Road. Night work is typically required for major utility relocations or decking installation. These often require major road lane reductions which are not acceptable during the day due to the severe traffic impact. Some night work may also be required to achieve project milestones to ensure construction is completed on time to open the subway in 2002 (particularly at Yonge Station).

Typically, work conducted after 10 p.m. are those activities which are not expected to disturb local residents. They will also continue to be pro-active in contacting Police, Municipal Licensing and Standards and the relevant City Councillors in advance of any night work, and in providing a justification for such work.

In view of their responsible management of construction to date, and project schedule constraints, they respectfully request a six-month extension of the noise by-law exemption.

Discussion:

As part of the Rapid Transit Expansion Program, the TTC is proceeding with the construction of the Sheppard Subway. By way of a letter dated August 16^th, 1999, the TTC is requesting a further exemption from the North York Construction By-Law. Previously, tunnelling for the subway was conducted during the week from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. The TTC advises that upcoming work will also be required during the evening, nights and on weekends for the construction of the Yonge Station and other locations. Work conducted after 10:00 p.m. is not expected to disturb local residents.

Section 3 of North York Noise By-Law No. 31317, states:

"Prohibition by Time and Place

No person shall emit or cause or permit the emission of sound resulting from any act listed in Schedule B hereto if clearly audible at a point of reception located in an area of the municipality within a prohibited time shown for such an area"

The operation of any construction equipment is prohibited all day Sundays and Statutory Holidays and 7:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. next day.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that the request for an exemption for North York Noise By-law No. 31317, to permit construction equipment to operate as requested be approved, subject to the following conditions:

(1) that the request for an exemption from the North York Noise By-Law be approved for a time period not to exceed six (6) months; and

(2) that in the event the City receives construction noise complaints, they are to be referred to the Toronto Transit Commission for investigation and the Toronto Transit Commission investigate the complaint and consider potential construction noise mitigation for the activity conducted by their contractor(s).

Reviewed by: Harold Bratten, Acting Executive Director

Municipal Licensing and Standards - UPDS

Telephone: 392-8768

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To prohibit parking at anytime on the north side of Hanover Road, opposite 130 Maniza Road.

Source of funds:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking at anytime on the north side of Hanover Road, from a point opposite the westerly limit of Maniza Road to a point 60 metres westerly thereof.

Council Reference:

Currently, parking is permitted for periods of up to a maximum of three hours on the north side of Hanover Road and prohibited at anytime on the south side, from the westerly limit of Maniza Road to a point 60 metres westerly thereof.

Comments:

Through the local Councillors offices, staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, have received numerous complaints of parked vehicles on the north side of Hanover Road. The complainants indicated that vehicles associated with Bombardier (deHavilland) are continually parking on the roadway, limiting access to their properties.

To address a similar concern, parking was previously prohibited on the south side of the roadway, adjacent to 130 Maniza Road.

Councillors Howard Moscoe and Michael Feldman support the implementation of the parking prohibitions.

Conclusions:

The implementation of the parking restrictions will not adversely affect the availability of parking for the adjacent properties. The Transportation Division supports the implementation of the parking restrictions, as per the residents' request.

Contact Name:

Allen Pinkerton, Manager, Traffic Operations - District 3

395-7463 (telephone)

395-7482 (facsimile)

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

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, amended this Clause, by deleting Recommendation No. (3) embodied in the joint report dated September 13, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the City Solicitor, viz.:

"(3) this report be referred to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration.")

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and City Solicitor:

Purpose:

In order to present the City's case in the most effective manner, an economic and financial analysis is necessary for the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) to understand the full impact of the land use decision it is being requested to make. This report is therefore seeking additional funding to allow the City Solicitor to retain consulting firm to provide expert economic analysis and evidence at the OMB hearing scheduled to commence October 12, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The Legal Services Division budget includes an allocation of $500,000.00 for the retention of outside consultants for OMB hearings. This budget allocation has been almost fully committed and funds are currently not available to retain additional consulting services. In view of the number of outstanding hearings requiring outside consultants, the City Solicitor has prepared a report to the Policy and Finance Committee advising of the status of the budget allocation and recommending, among other matters, that all expenditures beyond the budgeted amount be charged to the Corporate Contingency Account. That report will be submitted to the Policy and Finance Committee for its consideration at its meeting of September 16, 1999 and by Council at its meeting of September 28, 29, 30, 1999.

The Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer has reviewed and concurs with this financial impact statement.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

• appropriate consultants with municipal finance and economic expertise be retained to provide evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding Glenarda Properties

applications for 20 Bond Avenue;

• funds in the amount of $25,000.00 to retain consulting services be allocated from the Legal Services Operating Budget with any amount in excess of the Legal Services Budget allocation charged to the Corporate Contingency Account; and

(3) this report be referred to Policy and Finance Committee for consideration.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The site, approximately 6 acres in size, was the subject of zoning and subdivision applications to permit a mixed use development. These applications were refused by Council at its meeting held on May 11 and 12, 1999 so that the lands would retain their current industrial designation and zoning of Industrial Zone One (M1)

The applicant has referred both applications to the Municipal Board. Pre-hearing conferences were held on May 17 and August 9, 1999. The hearing is scheduled to commence on October 12, 1999.

In July, 1999, the applicant also made an application to amend the Official Plan to redesignate the site from industrial to a residential designation to permit 75 residential units, consisting of 11 detached and 64 semi-detached units. This was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and consolidated with the zoning and subdivision appeals already at the Board at the pre-hearing conference on August 9, 1999.

Planning staff cannot provide evidence in support of Council's position. Accordingly, at its meeting held June 9, 1999, Council adopted the City Solicitor's report and authorized him to retain an outside planning consultant. A maximum of $20,000.00 was made available from the Legal Services Operating Budget for this purpose and a planning consultant has been retained for the hearing.

In addition to land use concerns there are a number of other issues which will be addressed at the forthcoming OMB hearing including:

- the existing and future economic viability of the employment area along Scarsdale Road of which 20 Bond Avenue forms a part;

- the appropriateness of a change in use for the site within the existing industrial and economic policies of the City of Toronto;

- the existing and future viability of the site and buildings in its current use; and

- the comparative municipal financial implications of land use choices for the site.

Consultants being considered have particular expertise in the areas of economic viability of employment lands and municipal finance issues. The addition of this kind of evidence is essential to support the City's position at this hearing. Further, knowledge gained at this hearing with respect to the economic viability of employment lands, as well as the municipal finance implications of land use choices, will be extremely beneficial to staff for subsequent hearings which are similar in nature. A maximum of $25,000.00 will be required to retain this kind of expertise.

Conclusions:

Given the complex nature of the economic and municipal finance issues in this case and the importance of presenting these issues in support of the Council=s Decision before the Ontario Municipal Board, additional funds of $25,000.00 should be allocated from the Legal Services Operating Budget with any amount in excess of the Legal Services Budget allocation charged to the Corporate Contingency Account to retain consulting services.

Contact Names:

Paul Sandiford, 395-7404 Bruce Graham, 392-3381

Brenda Librecz, 397-4700 Larry J. Darkes, 392-7247

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, struck out and referred this Clause to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for further consideration.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber:

WHEREAS the City's Chair of the User Fee Committee initiated an amalgamated city wide policy on free bocce for seniors; and

WHEREAS a Bocce/Card Playing Advisory Committee established by the User Fee Committee and endorsed by the Economic Development and Parks Committee, has made recommendations to the North Division Parks and Recreation staff and a staff report has been drawn up; and

WHEREAS a memorandum and report dated July 22, 1999, makes six recommendations; and

WHEREAS Toronto Parks and Recreation Policies re Bocce for Seniors, are being implemented without regard to the Advisory Committee's recommendations;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the North York Community Council review the issue of indoor bocce program user fees for older adults; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the North York Community Council recommend that the recommendations made by the Bocce/Card Playing Advisory Committee be adopted.

The North York Community Council also submits the following memorandum (July 22, 1999) from the Acting Manager, Parks and Recreation, West Region, addressed to the Director, Parks and Recreation, North District:

"On Monday, July 5, 1999, Parks and Recreation Division staff attended a meeting with Councillor George Mammoliti, Councillor Mario Giansante and representatives from various bocce clubs including Gord and Irene Risk Indoor Bocce Centre, Grandravine Indoor Bocce Centre, Amesbury Indoor Bocce Centre, Grey Club, Kingsview Club and Riverlea Seniors Club.

The meeting discussed the impact of the new user fee policy on older adults playing indoor bocce. The users of the bocce program wanted to ensure that older adults, across the City, have full and equitable access to indoor bocce programs. The following recommendations were agreed to by the representatives present at the meeting:

(1) an older adult is any individual over the age of 60 years;

(2) older adults are responsible for paying $10.00 for an indoor bocce court membership fee which will allow them access to any bocce facility in the City of Toronto;

(3) any person with a disability will be treated as an older adult;

(4) all indoor bocce facilities, with full and regulation size courts, will be operated and staffed by the City of Toronto, Parks and Recreation Division;

(5) older adults playing cards, in the bocce areas, are required to purchase a membership card at a cost of $10.00; and

(6) all indoor bocce facilities will have hours of operation as follows:

Monday - Thursday 12:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.

Friday - Sunday 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.

The recommendations are consistent with the new user fee policy which classifies the indoor bocce program as a subscriber program. The new policy, however, recommends that older adults pay a $12.00 membership fee for subscriber programs rather than the $10.00 recommended at the meeting.

In addition to the user fee issues, the representatives at the meeting were unanimous in the view that the Parks and Recreation Division should manage and staff all regulation size indoor bocce facilities to ensure consistency in the application of policies and procedures.

Councillor Mammoliti was requested that staff prepare a report for Council on the issues agreed to at the July 5, 1999 meeting."

Rezoning Application UDOZ-99-02 -

181 Finch Avenue West - North York Centre

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution by Councillor Filion, North York Centre:

WHEREAS the overwhelming majority of community concerns pertaining to development application UDOZ-99-02, Quadrant Dental Technologies Inc., 181 Finch Avenue West, expressed at the statutory public meeting held by North York Community Council on July 15, 1999 have been resolved by the attached settlement agreement dated September 7, 1999 made between Mr. Adam Brown, acting as counsel for the Applicant, and Mr. George Belza, acting as agent for the Edithvale-Yonge Community Association and other area ratepayers; and

WHEREAS the general intent of the resolution pertaining to this development adopted by City Council at its meeting on July 27-30, 1999 is largely satisfied by said settlement;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Solicitor be instructed to support the substance of the settlement at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled to commence on September 21, 1999 and, in consultation with staff, be authorized to seek any additional refinements in the form of the by-laws that may be warranted and agreed to by the counsel for the Applicant and the agent for the ratepayers, and that site plan approval with respect to the revised site plan be subject to conditions of approval consistent with the settlement being established and a consequent Site Plan Agreement satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Director of Community Planning, North District, being entered into; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the appropriate City staff take the necessary steps to implement the foregoing.

Councillor D. Shiner, Seneca Heights, declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the applicant is representing Councillor Shiner in another matter.

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

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the Applicant is representing him on another matter.)

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends:

(1) the adoption of the following Resolution by Councillor Filion, North York Centre:

WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment recently refused a second set of variances requested by the Applicant for the Symphony Square development currently nearing completion at 15-27 Lorraine Drive following deputations by ratepayer representatives and both local Councillors; and

WHEREAS the Chief Administrative Officer is presently investigating certain controversial matters directly related to the requested variances, including the size of the building relative to that permitted by applicable zoning, at the request of the Mayor and City Council for report thereon to North York Community Council and the Administration Committee; and

WHEREAS the Applicant has appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board for an early hearing date without awaiting the results of said investigation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(a) the City take a position at the OMB hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment's decision to refuse the requested variances;

(b) the City Solicitor be instructed to do all things necessary to defend said decision and assist the Chief Administrative Officer's staff in achieving an acceptable resolution of this matter, in consultation with the local Councillors and ratepayer representatives, and report thereon through the Chief Administrative Officer to North York Community Council and the Administration Committee; and

(c) as part of the investigation mandated by City Council, and in anticipation of the OMB hearing, the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to expeditiously undertake an independent audit of the Symphony Square building in order to quantify, floor-by-floor, what has actually been built, recording for each floor the number and type of units constructed or partially constructed, as well as the gross floor areas of all mechanical spaces, habitable spaces and exempt spaces, including bicycle storage and recreational areas; correlate the findings thereof with the density permitted by the zoning by-law, including that purchased from the City, and with the development charges paid to the City; and, after making said audit available to the City Solicitor for introduction as evidentiary material at the Board hearing, subsequently report thereon to North York Community Council and the Administration Committee, making such recommendations as may be warranted; and

(2) That the condominium plan, under File No. UDYC-99-348 - Symphony Square Ltd., not be released for registration until it has been verified that the project complies with Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, and a joint report from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, North District and the Director, Community Planning, North District, is submitted to the North York Community Council.

The North York Community Council, also reports for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to North York Community Council on the costs associated with conducting an independent audit of the Symphony Square building and on the findings of said audit upon its completion.

Recorded Votes:

A recorded vote on Recommendation (1) moved by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, was as follows:

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

AGAINST: NIL

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Augimeri, Feldman, King

Carried

A recorded vote on Recommendation (2) moved by Councillor Shiner, Seneca Heights, was as follows:

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

AGAINST: NIL

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Augimeri, Feldman, King

Carried

(City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, notwithstanding subsection 127(5) of the Council Procedural By-law, received this Clause, as information, subject to striking out and referring Item (h), entitled "Harmonization of Sign By-law", embodied therein, to the Community Councils for further consideration and report thereon to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting to be held on November 1, 1999.)

(a) Tree Removal Request - 47 Fairmeadow Avenue - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999:

(September 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, reporting on a request from the owner of 47 Fairmeadow Avenue for the removal of a City owned 25 cm Colorado Blue Spruce tree and recommending that the request to remove a City tree be refused.

(b) Referral of Zoning By-law Amendment Application UDZ-99-08 and Referral of Approval of Site Plan Application UDSP-99-027 - Cassels Brock and Blackwell - 267 Finch Avenue East - North York Centre.

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

(August 31, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, advising that appeals have been filed by Cassels Brock and Blackwell, applicant and solicitor, on the grounds that the Council of the City of Toronto has failed to make a decision on the applications within the time frames stipulated in the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, and recommending that the report be received for information.

(c) Proposed Road Classification System.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999.

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested a further report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding:

(i) the feasibility of amending the road classification to provide that the proposed northerly extension of Transit Road to Chesswood Drive and the southerly extension of Transit Road to Dufferin Street being classified as a minor arterial road;

(ii) the feasibility of amending the road classification to provide that Glencairn Avenue, west of Dufferin Street to Ennerdale Street, being re-classified as a collector road;

(iii) the feasibility of extending Tangiers Road northerly to Murray Ross Parkway in order to improve public transit to York University; and the feasibility of Tangiers Road being classified as a collector road; that this report be written in consultation with the Toronto Transit Commission;

(iv) the feasibility of amending the proposed road classification of Shoreham Drive and Gosford Boulevard from a collector road to a minor arterial road;

(v) the feasibility of reclassifying Empress Avenue as a local road.

(vi) a process for allocating funds for traffic signals and pedestrian crosswalks to each Community Council on a per capita basis, in addition to the existing budget used for such purposes;

(vii) a policy to reduce speed limits on minor and major arterial roads near schools, through the Community Councils;

(viii) the various services in connection with the proposed road classifications; and

(ix) the rationale used to classify roads such as Arrow Road, Trethewey Drive and Ingram Drive as minor arterial roads.

The North York Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having requested the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, to:

(1) meet with the Ward Councillors to review the proposed classification of the roads and the recommended speed limits for those roads; and

(2) determine the road classifications in each Ward in consultation with the Ward Councillors .

A recorded vote on an amendment moved by Councillor Berger, to amend the recommendation moved by Councillor Shiner, to delete the words "for the purposes of scheduling a public hearing" after the words "October 12, 1999", so that the recommendation now reads "The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999", was as follows:

FOR: Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Filion, King

AGAINST: Councillors Flint, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

ABSENT: Councillors Sgro, Augimeri, Feldman

Carried

(July 14, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Works Committee at its meeting held on July 14, 1999, referred the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting a Proposed Road Classification System to all Community Councils for consideration and requested that comments be submitted to the Works Committee for consideration at its November 3, 1999 meeting.

(d) License Agreement - Microcell Connexions Inc. and Clearnet PCS Inc. - Telecommunications Equipment - Leslie Street Water Tower - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999:

(August 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, providing information as to the status of the discussions with Clearnet PCS Inc. and Microcell Connexions regarding the relocation of their monitoring equipment at the Leslie Street Water Tower to an alternate location, as requested by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on July 15, 1999, and recommending that the report be received for information.

(e) Sign By-law Variance Request - Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine - 1255 Sheppard Avenue East - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999:

(August 31, 1999) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, reporting on a request by Ms. Anne Kim of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, for a variance from the Sign By-law to permit an identification wall sign of 490 square feet at the corner of Sheppard Avenue and Leslie Street and recommending that the request be approved.

Mr. Peter Cheatley appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter on behalf of the Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine.

(f) All Way Stop Control - Castlegrove Boulevard and Royal Doulton Drive - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999, in order to allow the Ward Councillors an opportunity to consult with area residents.

(August 23, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, recommending that Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersection of Castlegrove Boulevard and Royal Doulton Drive.

(g) Harmonized Residential Water Service Connection Repair Program.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999:

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Works Committee to defer this matter which is expected to be considered by the Works Committee at its meeting scheduled for October 6, 1999, in order to allow the North York Community Council an opportunity to forward its comments and/or recommendations regarding this issue.

(June 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, respecting the development of a strategy to upgrade the private portions of residential water service connections at no cost to homeowners, and an estimate of the cost to do so, advising that the City undertaking a private side water service repair program will be a significant increase in level of service at an annual cost of $10.96M, but that undertaking the complete water service repair from the water main to the meter at one time and by one contract would ensure the work is carried out in the most cost-effective and expedient manner; further advising that given the numerous demands on the water and wastewater capital budget, staff do not recommend this increased level of service, especially as it would involve working on private property; and recommending that this report be received for information.

(h) Harmonization of Sign By-law.

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

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

(1) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to bring forward for Council approval in six months, a Harmonized Sign By-law and a "free-standing" by-law for dealing with signs on City property; and

(2) that until such time as a Harmonized Sign By-law and policy has been adopted by City Council, the strict enforcement of the provisions contained within the existing Sign By-laws of the former area municipalities, be carried out by appropriate City staff.

(August 25, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, providing an update on the status of the comprehensive City-wide Sign By-law and proposed changes to the existing North York Sign By-law, as requested by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on July 15, 1999.

(i) Official Plan Amendment Application UDOP-99-21 - Glenarda Properties Ltd. - 20 Bond Avenue - Don Parkway.

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

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (August 6, 1999) from Mr. Rodney L. K. Smith, Blaney, McMurtry, Stapells, Friedman, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Weblo Ontario Limited Partnership, addressed to the Ontario Municipal Board, outlining his client's opposition to the redesignation of the property at 20 Bond Avenue.

(August 10, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, advising that the applicant has referred the zoning and draft plan of subdivision applications to the Ontario Municipal Board and recommending that the report be received for information.

(j) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-99-18 and UDSP-99-083 - Shermount Co-operative Housing Development - 650 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Spadina.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999:

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the applicant to meet with the Ward Councillors, the Director, Community Planning, North District and representatives of the Toronto Housing Company to discuss the shape and form of this application, prior to the preliminary evaluation report being considered.

(August 30, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the development of a 6, 8 and 10 storey apartment building with 393 units and 52 - 3 storey townhouses; and recommending that:

(1) staff, in consultation with the local councillors, determine appropriate community consultation;

(2) the application fees, totalling $45,600.81, be paid in full prior to the sending of notices for the statutory public meeting; the filing of fees may be staggered installments, with 25 percent of the fees owed to be paid upfront; and

(3) staff prepare a final report evaluating the official plan and zoning amendment proposal and provide notice of a statutory public meeting at the appropriate time.

(k) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-99-23 - Jerrett Funeral Chapels Limited - Southeast Corner of Yonge Street and Otonabee Avenue, East of Laneway - North York Centre.

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

(August 12, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to convert an existing temporary parking lot located at Yonge Street and Otonabee Avenue to permit a permanent parking lot for the funeral home located at 6191 Yonge Street; and recommending that staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.

(l) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-99-22 - Brown Dryer Karol - 200 Finch Avenue West - North York Centre.

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

(August 26, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to expand the list of permitted commercial uses in the existing three-storey commercial building; and recommending that:

(1) staff, in consultation with the local councillors, schedule a community consultation meeting with area residents;

(2) staff prepare a Final Report evaluating the application, and provide Notice of the Statutory Public Meeting at the appropriate time; and

(3) the applicant be requested to submit a Site Plan Application and fee prior to the scheduling of a community consultation meeting.

Councillor D. Shiner, Seneca Heights, declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the applicant is representing Councillor Shiner in another matter.

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of Council on September 28 and 29, 1999, declared his interest in Item (l), entitled "Official Plan Amendment Application UDOP-99-21 - Glenarda Properties Ltd. - 20 Bond Avenue - Don Parkway", embodied in this Clause, in that an associated Solicitor in the firm representing the Applicant is representing him on another matter.)

(m) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-99-17 - Duca Community Credit Union Limited, c/o Hendrik Op't Root - 5270 and 5290 Yonge Street - North York Centre.

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

(August 25, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, providing preliminary comments on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 21-storey mixed-use building; and recommending that:

(1) the applicant be required to submit a Site Plan Approval application and fee, pursuant to North York Community Council policy for all amendment applications in North York Centre, prior to the scheduling of a community consultation meeting;

(2) the proposal be revised to address the planning issues as outlined in this report; and

(3) subject to the submission of a Site Plan Approval application and revised plans, pursuant to Recommendations (1) and (2) above, that:

(a) staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, schedule a community consultation meeting with area residents; and

(b) staff prepare a Final Report evaluating the proposal and provide Notice of the statutory public meeting at the appropriate time.

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

- Mr. Hendrik Op't Root, Architect, on behalf of the applicant, who indicated that he concurred with the staff recommendations; and

- Mr. Conrad Willemsey, Project Coordinator.

(n) Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-99-11 - Weston Consulting Group for 1333955 Ontario Incorporated - 1723 Finch Avenue West - Black Creek.

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

(August 26, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on the stability of the top of bank for this property as requested by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on June 23, 1999, and recommending that the report be received for information.

(o) Site Plan Application UDSP-99-100 - 576807 Ontario Inc. - Y. Erez Architect - 35-49 Bales Avenue - Waiving of Application Fee - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999:

(August 30, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on a request from the applicant to defer payment of the Site Plan Approval Application fee to the time of the issuance of a building permit and recommending that the request not be approved.

(p) New Practices for the Review of Development Applications.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following reports to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999, at 2:00 p.m.:

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

(i) requested the City Clerk to notify all members of the public who attended the North York Community Council meeting of September 14, 1999, of the continuation of the public meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999, at 2:00 p.m.

(ii) requested the Planning and Transportation Committee to defer consideration of this matter which is expected to be considered by the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting scheduled for October 4, 1999, in order to allow the North York Community Council an opportunity to hear all deputations scheduled for the continuation of the public meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999; and to subsequently forward its comments and/or recommendations regarding this issue

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

(i) (September 14, 1999) from Ms. Sharolyn Vettese, Chair, Yonge Street Area Ratepayer Associations, submitting comments and concerns with regard to this matter;

(ii) (September 14, 1999) Mr. Morry Smith, Vice-President, Lansing Community Association Inc., submitting recommendations with regard to this matter; and

(iii) (September 1, 1999) from Mr. Jim Murphy, Director of Government Relations, Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, expressing the Association's support in principle for the report's commitments to implement best practices across the new City.

(August 25, 1999) from the Committee Administrator, Planning and Transportation Committee, forwarding a report (July 30, 1999) from Councillor Filion providing suggested amendments with regard to the New Practices for the Review of Development Applications; and

(August 3, 1999) from the Committee Administrator, Planning and Transportation Committee, advising that the Planning and Transportation Committee at its meeting held on July 12, 1999, referred the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting New Practices for the Review of Development Applications to each Community Council for public consultation, review and report back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its October 4, 1999 meeting.

Mr. George Belza appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter on behalf of the Edithvale Yonge Ratepayers Association and he commented on suggested amendments to the recommendations outlined in the report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting New Practices for the Review of Development Applications. He also indicated that he would submit a written submission outlining his suggested recommendations prior to the continuation of the public meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999 at the North York Community Council.

(q) Renaming of Stanley Community Centre to 'Domenic DiLuca Community Centre' - North York Humber.

The North York Community Council reports having amended the Operative Paragraph in the following Resolution by Councillor Mammoliti to read "Therefore be it Resolved that City staff personnel be directed to work with the local community and the local Councillors, with regard to the renaming of the Community Centre in honour of the late Domenic DiLuca" and having deferred consideration of the Resolution, as amended, to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999:

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to prepare a report on this issue, in consultation with the Ward Councillors, for consideration by the North York Community Council at is meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999.

The North York Community Council submits the following Resolution from Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber:

WHEREAS on Thursday, August 26, 1999, Domenic DiLuca (President of the Stanley Seniors) passed away suddenly in North York; and

WHEREAS the late Domenic DiLuca was a community minded individual who was instrumental in helping bring to his community improvements to it's Community Centre for everyone to use; and

WHEREAS Domenic DiLuca had been an organizing driving force and the President of the local Community Seniors Association; and

WHEREAS all the local community has benefited by Domenic DiLuca's community involvement and achievements; and

WHEREAS the local Community Centre has been appreciated by the community and has been a well used facility by all; and

WHEREAS Domenic DiLuca had been working with City Officials and the local Councillors on an ongoing basis regarding topics that always benefitted the entire community;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City staff personnel be directed to work with the local community and the local Councillors, to achieve the renaming of the Community Centre in honour of the late Domenic DiLuca.

(r) North York Community Council - October 12, 1999 - North York Humber.

The North York Community Council reports having endorsed the following Resolution by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber:

THAT all items pertaining to Ward 6 - North York Humber, which are not of an urgent nature, not be placed on the agenda for the October 12, 1999, meeting of the North York Community Council.

(s) Waiving of Tree Preservation Charges for the Removal of Trees - 1857 Leslie Street - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having amended the last Operative Paragraph in the following Resolution by Councillor Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway, to read "Further Resolved that an equal amount be paid by the applicant and applied to the improvements in the local area and be subject to approval by the Planning Staff, and be made to the satisfaction of the local Councillors", and having deferred consideration of the Resolution, as amended, to its next meeting scheduled for October 12, 1999:

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to prepare a report on this matter, such report to comment on the manner in which the funds collected from the applicant would be utilized.

The North York Community Council submits the following Resolution from Councillor Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway:

WHEREAS Council approved the development of a commercial retail shopping mall at York Mills Road and Leslie Street municipally known as 1857 Leslie Street (UDCA-99-343); and

WHEREAS in order to improve the traffic flow, the City required a signal light be installed at York Mills Road and Scarscale Road; and

WHEREAS this new intersection requires the removal of a number of trees; and

WHEREAS extensive landscaping has been incorporated into the Site Plan; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Tree Preservation Charges as determined by the City arborist be waived; and

FURTHER that the amount of these charges be applied to improvements to the local area and be subject to approval by the Planning Staff and be to the satisfaction of the local Councillors.

Mr. John Davies, property owner of 1857 Leslie Street, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Respectfully submitted,

JOANNE FLINT

Vice-Chair

Toronto, September 14, 1999

(Report No. 8 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on September 28 and 29, 1999.)