1 Request for Exemption to By-law No. 81-89 Regulating the Height of Fences 5 Crandall Road
2 Esander Drive - Prohibition of Parking On the East Side from Industrial Street To a Point 36.6 Metres South
3 Request for Exemption to East York By-law No. 17-94 - To Prohibit the Discharge Of Guns or Firearms
4 Request for Variance from East York Sign By-law Requirements for Labels Retail Store At 3003 Danforth Avenue
5 Request for Variance from East York Sign By-law Requirements for Biway Retail Store At 3003 Danforth Avenue
6 Other Items Considered by the Community Council
5 Crandall Road
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council unanimously recommends that:
(1) the request for exemption to East York By-law No. 81-89, which regulates the height of fences, at 5 Crandall Road be approved;
(2) Section 3.2.2 of By-law No. 81-89, respecting the requirement for a non-refundable fee in the amount of $200.00, be waived, and such amount refunded to Ms. Atkinson; and
(3) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (September 21, 1999) from the East District Manager, Municipal Standards:
Purpose:
To report to the October 12, 1999 meeting of the East York Community Council in order to provide a report on a request for an exemption from the height of a fence at 5 Crandall Road as submitted by Ms. Pamela Atkinson.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The applicant has submitted the required, non-refundable fee of $200.00 as part of her exemption request.
Recommendations:
This report is submitted without recommendation and suggests that the East York Community Council make a decision based on the merits of the exemption request following input from the applicant and any other interested parties.
Background:
As a result of a complaint from an area resident, staff were called to investigate the construction of additional fencing on top of an existing fence on a deck as well as adjacent to a patio.
Comments:
The Municipal Standards Division inspected and subsequently determined that three panels of fencing were added on top of existing fencing which was located on a deck and adjacent grade-level patio.
The additional panels added to the deck fencing consists of two lattice panels. The first panel is 2.18 metres in length (7'2") and is 2.97 metres (9'9") in height from the surface of the deck and 3.91 metres (12'10") in height from grade. The second panel is 1.3 metres (4'3") in length and is 1.83 metres (6') in height from the deck surface and 2.96 metres (9'6") in height from grade.
By-law No. 81-89, Section 2.3.2 permits fences on decks to be no higher than 1.9 (6'3") metres in height from the surface of a deck and no more than 2.4 (8'2") from grade. Consequently, the first panel violates these two restrictions while the second fails on one of the restrictions.
The third panel consisting of board-on-board fencing has been installed on top of an already existing board-on-board fence. The additional portion has a length of 1.9 metres (6'3") and ranges in height from 2.69 metres (8'10") tapering down to the height of the original fence.
By-law No. 81-89, Section 2.1.2 restricts the heights of such fences to 2.35 metres (7'8") provided that that portion of the fence in excess of 1.9 metres (6'3") consists of open lattice work. Accordingly, the fence extension next to the patio at grade fails on both tests of this section.
All the other fencing around the rest of the yard complies with all other requirements of the By-law.
Conclusions:
The variances requested are quite significant but the applicant has submitted a letter outlining why they feel they need the additional height of fencing and it seems that it involves the impact of a rear addition to the neighbouring property and it will be necessary for the East York Community Council to determine whether or not the reasons outlined by the applicant warrant approval of the requested variances.
Contact Name:
Michael Vince
Manager of By-law Enforcement
397-4481
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (September 8, 1999) from Ms. Pamela Atkinson, East York:
By way of this correspondence I wish to apply for an exemption from the By-law which restricts the height of a fence on a deck and approximately four feet of a garden fence at the patio level for the following reasons:
(i) The deck has been an integral part of my home environment for more than 20 years, and used extensively by our family.
(ii) A two storey addition has been built by my neighbours bringing their building to within four feet of my home and deck. The location of three windows immediately facing the deck is intrusive and has invaded the privacy which I have enjoyed for over two decades.
(iii) The portion of lattice that has been added, and which is not compliant with the By-law has been installed in a tasteful manner. There are no protrusions from the deck and the fence does not in any way harm, impede or damage my neighbours property or property value.
(iv) The increased height of the garden fence at the patio level provides a small mount of privacy for a barbeque. This area is now overlooked by a large and imposing second floor deck.
I am enclosing pictures so that you may see that the fence has been constructed to offer privacy, and also to suit the existing structure of my home.
I understand that staff and/or elected officials may be reviewing this situation further. They are invited and welcome to visit the site at 5 Crandall Road.
I understand also that there is a $200.00 fee for making this application. A cheque payable to the City of Toronto is enclosed.
Thank you for your time and assistance in this matter.
(A copy of the photographs referred to in the foregoing communication from Ms. Atkinson was circulated to Members of the Community Council with the Agenda for the meeting of the East York Community Council and the originals are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Ms. Pamela Atkinson, East York;
- Mr. Brad Holland, East York; and submitted photographs of the subject fence; and
- Mr. Don Laskin, East York.
(The East York Community Council also had before it photographs, submitted by the East District Manager, Municipal Standards, showing the subject fence as seen from the properties at No. 5 and 7 Crandall Road respectively, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause by deleting the words "Esander Drive" wherever they occur in the Clause and inserting in lieu thereof the words "Esandar Drive".)
The East York Community Council recommends that the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, be adopted:
Purpose:
To improve the turning radius for large trucks entering and leaving the driveway at Premises No. 39 Esander Drive.
Financial Implications:
Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Esander Drive from Industrial Street to a point 36.6 metres south; and
(2) the appropriate City officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Comments:
At the request of Economic Development Services, on behalf of Eka Chemicals, Premises No. 39 Esander Drive, we have investigated prohibiting parking on the east side of Esander Drive, south of Industrial Street to improve the turn radii for large trucks entering and leaving the driveway leading to Premises No. 39.
The subject section of Esander Drive operates two-way and has a pavement width of 9.45 metres. Parking is allowed for a maximum period of three hours at anytime on both sides of this street. Permit parking regulations are not in effect on Esander Drive.
Semi-trailers and large single unit trucks making deliveries to Premises No. 39 Esander Drive have significant difficulty turning at the gate leading to the plant facilities at Eka Chemicals when vehicles are parked on the east side of the street, south of Industrial Street. Recent site inspections by our staff have confirmed that manoeuvring difficulties occur on a regular basis. Trucks occasionally obstruct traffic flow for several minutes while drivers try to negotiate their turn. Additionally, parked vehicles are in jeopardy of being damaged by trucks.
Based on our assessment, prohibiting parking on the east side of Esander Drive from Industrial Street to a point 36.6 metres south, would eliminate about 5 parking spaces but improve the turning radius at the plant driveway by removing the source of the problem. No other businesses are located on the east side of Esander Drive south of Industrial Street and those nearby have on-site parking and loading facilities for customers and/or staff. Therefore, implementation of this proposal should not create inconvenience for other street users.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator
392-7771
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that East York By-law No. 17-94, being a By-law to prohibit the discharge of guns or firearms, be amended to provide that the Estonian Rifle Club be included in the list of those areas of the former Borough of East York Exempt from Section 1 of such By-law; and that the appropriate City officials, be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council.
The East York Community Council submits he following communication (September 29, 1999) from Councillor Michael Prue:
It appears that we inadvertently left off the Toronto Estonian Rifle and Pistol Club when we prepared our "Prohibition of the Discharge of Guns or Firearms" By-law in March of 1994.
In 1969 East York Council approved the application at Estonia House. It has been in operation ever since. Recently when renewal was sought by the Club they became aware that their name was no longer on the schedule of exempted properties.
To the best of my knowledge there have never been any incidents related to this range.
Would you please have staff prepare a report for our next Community Council agenda along with the appropriate by-law (if appropriate).
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that Council:
(1) approve the request for a variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a facial sign for Labels with an overall height of 4.26 metres (14.0 feet) at 3003 Danforth Avenue, on the north wall of the south wing of the building, facing the parking area;
(2) enact a site specific Sign By-law amendment, in the form attached to the report (September 27, 1999) from the Manager, East York Field Office, Works and Emergency Services, for 3003 Danforth Avenue; and
(3) authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Manager, East York Field Office, Building Division, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
The applicant proposes to install a facial sign with an overall height exceeding the height permitted by the Sign By-law of the community of East York. The proposed sign would be installed on the north wall of the south wing of the building, facing the parking area.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Council deny the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a facial sign for Labels with an overall height of 4.26 metres (14.0 feet) at 3003 Danforth Avenue, on the north wall of the south wing of the building, facing the parking area;
(2) if Council wishes to permit the facial sign, to do so by way of a site specific Sign By-law amendment, attached herewith, for 3003 Danforth Avenue; and
(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-law requirements where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would maintain the general intent of the by-law.
Comments:
The Sign By-law allows signs for buildings in accordance with the zoning designation of the area where the buildings are located and in accordance with the type of the occupancy of the buildings.
The Labels retail store is located in the Shoppers World Plaza, in an area designated as Commercial zone. The Sign By-law for the community of East York allows, for commercial plazas or shopping centres, one facial sign for each occupant, provided the sign does not exceed 1.2 metres (4.0 feet) in height.
The applicant is proposing to install a facial sign, the Labels retail stores logo, on the north wall of the south wing of the building, facing the parking area. The sign will have an overall height of 4.26 metres (14.0 feet), which is 3.06 metres (10.0 feet) higher than what is permitted by the Sign By-law.
Conclusion:
Staff is of the opinion that the request for variance to install an oversized facial sign for Labels retail store, at 3003 Danforth Avenue, be denied. The overall height of the proposed sign is two and a half times larger than what is permitted by the Sign By-law and, as such, is beyond the parameters for minor variances from the Sign By-law requirements. If Council wishes to allow the variance, it may do so by way of a Site Specific Sign By-law amendment.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos
(416) 397-4482
City of Toronto
Bill No.
By-law No.
To amend By-law No. 64-87 a By-law "For Prohibition and Regulating the Erection of Signs and Other Advertising Devices, being a by-law of the former Borough of East York.
The Council of the City of Toronto Hereby Enacts as follows:
By-law No. 64-87, a By-law "For Prohibiting and Regulating the Erection of Signs or Other Advertising Devices" as amended, being a by-law of the former Borough of East York, is further amended by inserting Article 4.2.8., following Article 4.2.7., as follows:
"4.2.5. Notwithstanding Sentence 4.2.1.(c), the following sign shall be permitted to be installed for Labels retail store, located at the property known as 3003 Danforth Avenue, in the year 1999.
(a) one (1) facial sign with an overall height of 4.26 metres (14'-0"), displaying the Labels retail store Logo, on the north elevation of the south wing of the building, facing the parking lot."
Enacted and Passed this day of , A.D. 1999.
Case Ootes, Novina Wong
Deputy Mayor City Clerk
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Bill Houston, on behalf of Twilight Signs, Mississauga, and submitted a written brief and drawings with respect thereto; and
- Mr. Steven Jolly, on behalf of Labels Retail Store, Toronto.
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that Council:
(1) approve the request for a variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a facial sign for BiWay with an overall height of 4.26 metres (14.0 feet) at 3003 Danforth Avenue, on the north wall of the building facing Danforth Avenue;
(2) enact a site specific Sign By-law amendment, in the form attached to the report (September 27, 1999) from the Manager, East York Field Office, Works and Emergency Services, for 3003 Danforth Avenue; and
(3) authorize and direct the appropriate City officials to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council.
The East York Community Council submits the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Manager, Field Office, Building Division, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
The applicant proposes to install a facial sign not in compliance with the Sign By-law of the community of East York. The sign would be located on the north wall of the building, facing Danforth Avenue.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Council deny the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a facial sign for BiWay with an overall height of 4.26 metres (14.0 feet), at 3003 Danforth Avenue on the north wall of the building facing Danforth Avenue;
(2) if Council wishes to permit the facial sign, to do so by way of a site specific Sign By-law amendment, attached herewith, for 3003 Danforth Avenue; and
(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-law where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would maintain the general intent of the by-law.
Comments:
The Sign By-law allows signs for buildings in accordance with the zoning designation of the area where the buildings are located and in accordance with the type of the occupancy of the buildings.
The BiWay store is located in the Shoppers World Plaza in an area designated as Commercial zone. The Sign By-law for the community of East York allows, for commercial plazas or shopping centres, one facial sign for each occupant, provided the sign does not exceed 1.2 metres (4.0 feet) in height.
The applicant is proposing to install a facial sign, the BiWay logo, on the north wall of the building, facing Danforth Avenue, with an overall height of 4.26 metres (14.0 feet), which is 3.06 metres (10.0 feet) higher than what is permitted by the By-law.
Conclusion:
Staff is of the opinion that the request for variance to install an oversized facial sign for BiWay, at 3003 Danforth Avenue, should be denied. The overall height of the proposed sign is two and a half times bigger than what is permitted by the Sign By-law and as such is beyond the parameters for minor variances from the Sign By-law requirements. If Council wishes to allow the variance, it may do so by way of a site specific Sign By-law amendment.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos
(416) 397-4482
Bill No.
By-law No.
To amend By-law No. 64-87, a By-law "For Prohibiting and Regulating the Erection of Signs and Other Advertising Devices", being a by-law of the former Borough of East York.
The Council of the City of Toronto Hereby Enacts as follows:
By-law No. 64-87, a By-law "For Prohibiting and Regulating the Erection of Signs or Other Advertising Devices" as amended, being a by-law of the former Borough of East York, is further amended by inserting Article 4.2.9., following Article 4.2.8., as follows:
"4.2.5. Notwithstanding Sentence 4.2.1.(c), the following sign shall be permitted to be installed for BiWay, located at the property known as 3003 Danforth Avenue, in the year 1999.
(a) one (1) facial sign with an overall height of 4.26 metres (14.0 feet), displaying the BiWay Logo, on the north elevation of the building, facing Danforth Avenue."
Enacted And Passed This Day Of , A.D. 1999 .
Case Ootes Novina Wong
Deputy Mayor City Clerk
Mr. William Smith, on behalf of BiWay Retail Store, Toronto, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)
(a) Toronto Pedestrian Committee.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following communication:
(September 23, 1999) from Ms. J. Doiron and Ms. R. Swarbrick, Co-Chairs, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, requesting an opportunity to address the East York Community Council with respect to pedestrian issues and local concerns; and to encourage local participation in the Toronto Pedestrian Committee.
Ms. Helen Riley, East York, on behalf of the Toronto Pedestrian Committee, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(b) Fire and Ambulance Services KPMG Fire Station Locations and Fire/Ambulance Study.
The East York Community Council referred the following joint reports to the Community Services Committee and Council with the recommendations that:
(1) prior to implementing changes that will significantly reduce the number of fire apparatus within the boundaries of the former East York, the following issues must be addressed: (i) the reallocation of run volume from decommissioned apparatus; and (ii) response capability must be analysed; and reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Fire Chief, to submit a report thereon to the East York Community Council and the Community Services Committee;
(2) a representative of the Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association be included in any further discussions of the working group established by the Fire Chief to review KPMG's recommendations; and
(3) the communications system, breathing apparatus, and map system be standardized:
(September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Fire Chief and General Manager, Ambulance, providing a response to the recommendations contained in the KPMG Fire and Ambulance Services Station Location and Facilities Study; also providing estimated construction and fire station repair costs; and recommending that City Council adopt the recommendations of the KPMG Study, as amended by this report, and that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to implement those recommendations in accordance with the implementation schedule included as 'Attachment B';
(September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Fire Chief, respecting the closing of fire stations T26 and T31;
(September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Fire Chief, respecting risk and insurance; and
(September 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and Fire Chief, respecting Rationalization of Facilities; Re-allocation of Apparatus; Fleet Maintenance; and Human Resource Implications.
The following City officials gave verbal presentations with respect to the KPMG Fire Station Location and Fire/Ambulance Facilities Study:
- Deputy Fire Chief Richard A. Simpson, Fire Services, and submitted a map indicating Toronto Fire Station locations; and
- Mr. Norm Lambert, Director, Emergency Services Operational Support, Ambulance Services, and submitted a written brief with respect thereto.
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Jim Lee, President, Toronto Professional Fire Fighters' Association, and submitted a written brief with respect thereto;
- Mr. Ron Smith, East York;
- Mr. Grant Litherland, East York;
- Mr. John Coles, Don Mills; and
- Mr. Archie Mott, District Chief, formerly of East York.
(c) Decision-Making Protocol for Parks and Recreation Matters - All Wards.
The East York Community Council reports having advised the Economic Development and Parks Committee that it concurs with the recommendations contained in the report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, attached to the following communication (September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk, as amended by the Economic Development and Parks Committee at its meeting on September 13, 1999:
(September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that the Economic Development and Parks Committee, at its meeting on September 13, 1999, referred the attached report (August 23, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting a protocol for processing parks and recreation matters through Committees of Council, as amended, to all Community Councils for consideration with a request that any comments be forwarded to the Economic Development and Parks Committee for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on November 8, 1999.
(d) Organizational Structure for the New Committee of Adjustment.
The East York Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Planning and Transportation Committee, and Council, unanimously recommending that the report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted, subject to the following amendments:
(1) amending Recommendation (2)(i) to read as follows:
"(2)(i) the Committee operate as six District Panels corresponding with the six geographic districts of the Community Councils;"
(2) amending Recommendation (2)(ii) to read as follows:
"(2)(ii) the Committee comprise a total of 34 members assigned and nominated as follows:
North York District: 5 members all nominated by North York Community Council;
Toronto District: 9 members all nominated by Toronto Community Council;
East York District: 5 members all nominated by East York Community Council;
Scarborough District: 5 members all nominated by
Scarborough
Community Council;
York District: 5 members all nominated by
York Community
Council; and
Etobicoke District 5 members all nominated by
Etobicoke Community
Council;";
(3) amending Recommendation No. (2)(v) to read as follows:
"(2)(v) each Committee Hearing be held in the evening; and";
(4) amending Recommendation No. (2)(vi) to read as follows:
"(2)(vi) the Committee's six District Panels conduct Hearings in the following six locations: Toronto City Hall and the East York, North York, York, Etobicoke, and Scarborough Civic Centres.";
(5) amending Recommendation No. (6) by adding at the end thereof "in line with the Community Councils", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:
"(6) The Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services submit a report to City Council, at the beginning of its next term, evaluating the new Committee of Adjustment's organizational structure in line with the Community Councils."; and
(6) notwithstanding Recommendation No. (3) above, any Committee of Adjustment Hearings which are held at the East York Civic Centre be held in the evening:
(September 14, 1999) from the City Clerk, Planning and Transportation Committee, advising that at its meeting on September 13, 1999, the Planning and Transportation Committee referred Recommendations Nos. (2) to (6) contained in the attached report (August 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, with respect to the organizational structure for the Committee of Adjustment, together with the following motions, to the Community Councils for review and comment to the Planning and Transportation Committee for its meeting scheduled to be held on November 1, 1999:
By Councillor McConnell:
"That Recommendation 2(iii) of the report (August 26, 1999) be amended to clarify that it is the Committee of Adjustment that appoints a City-wide Chair, so as to read:
"2(iii) the Committee of Adjustment appoint a City-wide Chair to provide leadership for the Committee and each Panel appoint a District Chair to guide the process at the local level"; and
By Councillor Berger:
"That the membership of the Committee of Adjustment consist of 5 members, chaired by the Secretary-Treasurer.";
(September 16, 1999) from Ms. Lorna Krawchuk, East York, providing comments with respect to the proposed organizational structure of the new Committee of Adjustment;
(October 3, 1999) from Ms. May Weir, East York, providing comments with respect to the proposed organizational structure of the new Committee of Adjustment;
(October 12, 1999) from Mr. Justin J. Van Dette, Vice President, Parkview Hills Community Association, advising that at its meeting on September 27, 1999, the Parkview Hills Community Association unanimously passed a motion in favour of the preservation and existence of the East York Committee of Adjustment and in opposition to the proposal to merge the East York Committee of Adjustment with Scarborough's Committee of Adjustment; and
(October 12, 1999) from Mr. John L. Parker, Toronto, providing comments with respect to the proposed organizational structure of the new Committee of Adjustment.
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Justin Van Dette, Vice-President, Parkview Hills Community Association;
- Mr. Brian Athey, Chair, East York Committee of Adjustment;
- Mr. George Vasilopoulos, East York;
- Ms. Donna-Lynn McCallum, East York, and submitted a written brief with respect thereto;
- Mr. Terry Kuzak, on behalf of the Thorncliffe Park Tenants' Association,
- Mr. Norm Smith, Ward 2 Property Owners' Association, East York;
- Mr. Alan Gaw, President, Topham Park Homeowners' Association;
- Ms. Agnes Vermes, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association; and
- Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, East York.
(e) Traffic Concerns on McRae Drive Between Millwood Road and Laird Drive and Proposed Road Classification System.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(A) re-opened minute No. 10.18 with respect to the report (June 29, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding the proposed road classification system which the Community Council had previously considered at its meeting on September 14, 1999; and
(B) referred the following communications and report to the Works Committee and Council advising that it:
(1) endorses the recommendation of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the classification for McRae Road from Laird Drive to Millwood Road be changed from minor arterial road to collector road;
(2) recommends that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to:
(a) submit a further report to the East York Community Council and the Works Committee with respect to Millwood Road and Southvale Drive;
(b) conduct a study of McRae Road such study to consider stop signs at Southvale Drive and McRae Road and other traffic calming measures acceptable to the community and paying particular attention to the needs of the Fire Services and the TTC; and
(c) bring forward a harmonized City-wide policy with respect to speed bumps and speed humps and that until such a policy is approved by City Council, all further requests for such traffic calming measures throughout the City be held in abeyance:
(October 4, 1999) from Mrs. J. Lauzon, Toronto, requesting an opportunity to address the Community Council with respect to traffic concerns on McRae Drive between Millwood Road and Laird Drive;
(October 5, 1999) from Ms Carol Burtin-Fripp, Leaside Property Owners' Association Inc., requesting the East York Community Council to re-open the issue with respect to the proposed road classification system;
(October 11, 1999) from Co-Chairs, Toronto Pedestrian Committee, forwarding recommendations from the Toronto Pedestrian Committee with respect to the proposed road classification system; and
(October 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, reporting, as requested, on the issue of McRae Drive as it evolves from a minor road to a collector road and concerns raised by Ms. Swarbrick in her deputation to the East York Community Council on September 14, 1999.
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Mrs. J. Lauzon, East York;
- Mr. Eric Olson, East York; and
- Ms. Carol Burtin-Fripp, Leaside Property Owners' Association, and submitted a written brief with respect thereto.
(f) Florida Restaurant - 940 Pape Avenue Amendment to Encroachment Agreement.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1) referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services with a request that he submit a report thereon to the East York Community Council, such report to include comment on:
(a) time frames presently in practice in East York with respect to the use of outdoor patios;
(b) whether or not any complaints, including complaints with respect to noise or rowdyism, have been received regarding this location; and
(2) requested the City Clerk to forward the above-requested report, when it is available, to all residents within a 60 metre radius of the subject property at 940 Pape Avenue, in order to allow such residents to address this Community Council should they have any concerns with respect to this matter:
(September 29, 1999) from Councillor Michael Prue, respecting an encroachment agreement between the former Borough of East York and the former owners of the Florida Restaurant regarding an outdoor patio; advising that the new owner of the Florida Restaurant has applied for and received a liquor license from the Liquor License Board to serve alcohol on the patio for the same hours as his restaurant (i.e. from opening to 2:00 a.m. or closing) until December 31, 2000; further advising that the present owner is requesting that Section 8 of the aforementioned encroachment agreement be amended to provide that alcoholic beverages may be served until at least midnight or, preferably, until the close of business; and requesting that the Community Council be advised of the process to be followed in considering this request.
(g) Request for Variance from East York Sign By-law Requirements for Moores Retail Store at 3003 Danforth Avenue.
The East York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting scheduled to be held on November 9, 1999:
(September 27, 1999) from the Manager, Field Office, Building Division, Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending that Council deny the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of more than one facial sign on the same wall elevation, for Moores store, at 3003 Danforth Avenue.
(h) Harmonization of Sign By-law.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1) referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with a request that he submit a report thereon to the next meeting of the Community Council to be held on November 9, 1999, such report to provide background information; and
(2) recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee that having regard that the following communication was not delivered to the East York Community Council until after the commencement of its meeting, the Planning and Transportation Committee defer consideration of this matter until the East York Community Council has had sufficient time to consider the requested information:
(October 12, 1999) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council, forwarding Item (h), entitled "Harmonization of Sign By-law", embodied in Clause No. 24, of Report No. 8 of the North York Community Council, headed "Other Items Considered by the Community Council", which City Council, at its meeting held on September 28 and 29, 1999, struck out and referred 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.
Respectfully submitted,
JANE PITFIELD,
Chair
Toronto, October 12, 1999
(Report No. 11 of The East York Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999.)