The subject site does not have sufficient parking on site. The parking study completed by Grant Bacchus and dated June 6, 1997 (Refer to Schedule F) states that there is sufficient parking on the site to accommodate the parking demand for the retirement home.

9.0 Planning Issues:

9.1 Land Use

The existing retirement home is an appropriate use for this site. This proposal represents an opportunity to provide much needed housing for seniors. Council encourages the provision of a variety of dwelling types and forms designed to meet the housing needs of current and future senior citizens. Retirement homes and homes for the aged are residences providing accommodation for seniors where common dining facilities are provided. Council encourages retirement homes to be located on arterial roads or minor arterial roads such as Wilmington Avenue. The existing retirement home provides accommodation for seniors including a common dining facility, recreational area, sitting areas, outside deck and an accessory place of worship.

The retirement home being located in a predominately residential area provides seniors who live in the area with an opportunity to continue to reside in the community. This is not a new concept. Many municipalities across Ontario permit retirement homes to be located in residential areas.

The retirement home can take advantage of existing infrastructure, community facilities and transportation facilities without undue expense to the City. The retirement home can be adequately served by existing community facilities such as libraries, recreational facilities and parks. The existing roads and sewers adequately serve the demands of the existing retirement home without requiring any improvements to them. The accessory place of worship in 33 Wilmington Avenue will provide a service to the residents of the retirement home without increasing on site traffic. The site is well suited for access to public transit and the minor (Wilmington Avenue) and arterial (Sheppard Avenue) road system.

9.1.1 Compatibility with Adjacent Uses

The existing retirement home is compatible with the surrounding area. The site is located on the edge of an area predominately made up of single family dwellings and fronts on a minor arterial road. There are semi-detached dwellings located on the west side of Wilmington Avenue opposite the site. There are also apartment buildings just south of the site on both sides of Wilmington Avenue between Cocksfield Avenue and Sheppard Avenue.

This proposal conforms to General Development Criteria set out in the Housing Policies. The scale, massing and built form of the existing retirement home is sensitive to, and does not negatively impact upon, the adjacent stable residential neighbourhood. The existing retirement home being housed in two single family dwellings has little impact on the abutting residential properties in terms of overview, shadowing and loss of privacy. However, the North York Transportation Department is requiring that parking spaces be located in the rear yard of 33 Wilmington Avenue. This parking area should be properly screened from the adjacent properties to reduce any potential impact on them. The parking spaces in front of 33 Wilmington Avenue should be defined. The design and layout of the parking area can be addressed at the site plan approval stage. Matters relating to signage should also be addressed at the site plan approval stage.

9.1.2 35 Wilmington Avenue

The adjacent owner to the north of the site at 35 Wilmington Avenue, shown on Schedule G, has expressed concerns with the retirement home given the increase in activity. This lot is the last remaining one in the block. The owner of this site has tried to sell his property but has had difficulty due to the retirement home being located next door. It is unlikely that 35 Wilmington will ever be rebuilt as a single family dwelling in the future. To provide for long term reinvestment in the area, 35 Wilmington Avenue should be rezoned to RM2 to allow the flexibility of this site to be redeveloped with semi-detached dwellings. The semi-detached dwellings would be compatible with the area given that they are semi-detached dwellings located on the west side of Wilmington Avenue.

9.2 Zoning

RM2 exception zones is an appropriate way to implement this application. The proposed RM2 exception zone legalizes the existing retirement home on 31 and 33 Wilmington Avenue while providing long term reinvestment for 35 Wilmington Avenue and maintaining the long term perspective on these lots as low density residential in built form. The existing place of worship should be permitted as an accessory use within 33 Wilmington Avenue. The place of worship should be limited to a maximum gross floor area.

For the proposed RM2 exception, to implement the zoning there will need to be exceptions to requirements for yards, parking, maximum number of beds, lot area and lot frontage.

9.3 Conformity to the Building and Fire Codes

The existing retirement home operates within two single family dwellings. Both of these dwellings have not been reviewed against the Building Code or Fire Code in context of a retirement home. The Fire Department has informed us that there are a number of alterations that need to be done to 33 Wilmington Avenue to bring the building into compliance with the Fire Code regulations (Refer to Schedule "H"). The owner has been notified of the required alterations. Therefore, the applicant should be required to submit a building audit application for 31 and 33 Wilmington Avenue prior to the enactment of the amending zoning by-law identifying all deficiencies. Prior to the enactment of a zoning by-law the deficiencies should be completed.

10.0 Conclusion

The existing retirement home and the accessory place of worship is an appropriate use for this site and conforms to the Housing Policies of the Official Plan. The abutting property to the north at 35 Wilmington Avenue should be rezoned to RM2 to permit semi-detached dwellings in order to provide long term reinvestment in the area.

A staff presentation was made by Randy Jones, Planner, Planning Department (North York Civic Centre).

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

(April 1, 1998) from Mr. Barry Horosko, Bratty and Partners, Barristers and Solicitors;

(February 16, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Lino Vitorio;

(February 9, 1998) from Chief J. Jordan, Fire Prevention Division, North York Civic Centre, addressed to Mr. Joseph Sahar, Ahavath Achim Retirement Home, 33 Wilmington Avenue, M3H 5J1, confirming that all of the requirements of the modified Fire Marshal's order (Appeal No. FM 7032) have been met;

(undated) from Mr. Robert Rosenbaum, 38 Sandale Gardens, North York; and

Extract from the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on September 10, 1997.

The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council:

a) Mr. Murray H. Chusid, Solicitor, on behalf of Joseph Sahar

Mr. Chusid indicated that this application has been deferred on several occasions in order to address the concerns expressed by staff and to conduct the work necessary to comply with the Building and Fire regulations. That work has now been completed and the applicant will be able to satisfy the conditions outlined in the staff report.

He explained the merits of the application and agreed with planning staff that the proposal is an appropriate use for this site and conforms to the Housing Policies of the Official Plan.

Mr. Chusid also made reference to the conditions being recommended by the solicitor for the property owners of 198 Cocksfield Avenue and stated that while he had no objection to community consultation prior to final site plan approval, he did have concerns with the imposition of those conditions.

In his opinion, many of the concerns expressed are site plan issues which can be addressed at the site plan approval stage.

b) Mr. Andrew Salem, Solicitor, of the firm of Bratty & Partners, on behalf of Alfredo and Maddelena Grossi

Mr. Salem indicated that his clients were initially opposed to this application. They are now prepared to withdraw their opposition provided the conditions outlined in the communication dated April 1, 1998, from Barry Horosko, Solicitor, Bratty & Partners, are imposed. These conditions would address his clients' concerns and he therefore requested that these three conditions be incorporated into any decision by the Community Council.

c) Mr. Murray Kline

Mr. Kline supports the application for the existing retirement home.

d) Mr. Murray Hahn

Mr. Hahn commented in support of the existing retirement home and the type of care provided by its operators.

e) Mr. Nathan Shapiro

Mr. Shapiro supports the application. He also commented on the type of operation and care provided by the owners of this retirement home.

f) Ms. Freda Justiz

Ms. Justiz commented in support of the existing retirement home. The type of care and environment allows individuals in this home, her mother being one of them, to live a happy life and to be amongst other people in their community.

g) Ms. Wendy Isenberg

Ms. Isenberg indicated that she works in this facility. As such she has been able to see the type of care provided to these senior citizens. She believed it would be a terribly tragedy if this facility is closed especially since it fulfils a great need and it allows the senior citizens to stay in the area in which they lived most of their lives.

h) Ms. Jennifer Aquilino

Ms. Aquilino indicated that she works in many retirement homes and the care and environment in this particular home is commendable.

i) Ms. Gloria Hutman

Ms. Hutman spoke in support of the existing retirement home. Her father-in-law is currently in this home and the type of care he receives is truly remarkable. She further indicated that she visits her father-in-law frequently and during those times she has never experienced traffic or parking problems.

j) Ms. Susan Rosenthal, Solicitor, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Vitorio, property owners of 193 Codsell Avenue

Ms. Rosenthal commented in opposition to the application. She indicated that her clients' primary objections are with respect to loss of privacy, overview, noise and odours.

She requested a deferral of the application so that the impact on her client's property can be considered. In the event a deferral cannot be granted, and the application is recommended for approval, she requested that conditions be imposed to require the applicant to provide adequate buffering, some type of noise barrier and a mechanism to control odour.

Ms. Rosenthal also requested that the amending by-law be drafted in such a manner so that any further expansion to the existing retirement home is discouraged.

j) Mr. Daryn Mandle

Mr. Mandle indicated that he is a physiotherapist and provides physiotherapy to the residents in this home. In his opinion the existing retirement home is congruous with the community and the quality of care provided to its residents is quite high. He also indicated that he has never had a problem in finding a parking space.

k) Rabbi David Cooper

Rabbi Cooper commented in support of the application. He stated that the quality of care is commendable and having visited the site on a weekly basis, he has never experienced any problems with parking, traffic or odours.

l) Mrs. Jessie Silver

Mrs. Silver spoke in opposition to the application. Her primary concerns were with respect to the incremental manner in which this residential dwelling has been converted into a retirement home. The home in her opinion, is not properly licenced, does not comply with fire and health regulations and it is an intrusion to the residents in this area.

(Copies of the schedules, draft official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (January 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons that the proposal, as modified, is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Shell Canada Limited regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application for 4021 Yonge Street be approved, subject to the recommendations contained in the following report (January 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, with the following additional conditions:

(1) Recommendation 2.1 be deleted and replaced with the following and Recommendations 2.2 and 2.3 be renumbered to 2.1.4 and 2.1.5 and Recommendation 2.4 be renumbered to 2.2:

"2.1 In conjunction with a gasoline service station the following provisions shall apply:

2.1.1 The uses permitted shall be limited to:

(a) one retail store which may include an automated bank machine and the selling of prepared food and beverages to be consumed off the premises which shall not include a take-out restaurant;

(b) car washing establishment; and

(c) accessory uses to a gasoline service station.

2.1.2 The maximum gross floor area is 420m² with a minimum gross floor area for the car washing establishment of 170m²;

2.1.3 A maximum of 8 parking spaces are required; and

(2) The applicant ensure that the additional opportunities created by removing the take-out restaurant and the associated drive-through lane and parking are used to enhance the site plan.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on April 1, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (January 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend an Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit an upgrade to the existing gasoline station

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Part D.5, Section 4 of the Official Plan (York Mills Office Centre Secondary Plan) be amended to permit limited surface parking;

(2) the C1 and C1(45) zoning on the property be amended to General Commercial (C1) exception, subject to the following provisions:

(2.1) the maximum gross floor areas for uses in conjunction with a gasoline service are:

- retail store 150m²;

- car wash 180m²;

- take-out restaurant 90m²;

(2.2) the canopy area to protect and illuminate the gasoline pumps shall be of a maximum height of 4.3 metres and contain a maximum roof area of 650m²;

(2.3) the minimum landscaped area shall be 750m²; and

(2.4) the minimum width of each parking space shall be 2.7 metres and shall be 6.7 metres in length for parallel spaces or 5.5 metres in length for other spaces;

(3) prior to the enactment of a zoning by-law, the applicant shall apply for and receive site plan approval, achieving matters which include the following:

- access and on-site circulation to minimize ingress and egress movements, specifically with respect to the drive-through facility and car washing establishment;

- lighting, canopy and signage which reflects the site's location at Yonge Street and York Mills Road and proximity to residential neighbourhoods;

- increased landscaping, including a 3.0 metre landscaped buffer along the rear (east) lot line;

- noise attenuation fencing along the eastern edge; and

- overall site design integration of the new buildings and structures and suitability of parking;

(4) the following be fulfilled as part of the site plan approval:

(4.1) the conditions of the Transportation Department attached in Schedule "E", including conveyance and site plan related requirements;

(4.2) the conditions of the Public Works Department attached in Schedule "F";

(4.3) the conditions of the Parks and Recreation Department attached in Schedule "G";

(4.4.) the conditions of the Public Health Department, including requirements under the Gasoline Handling Act, attached in Schedule "H"; and

(4.5) the conditions of the Metro Planning Department attached in Schedule "I", including conveyances, building, location, access and streetscape permits from Metro Transportation and site and foundation plan approvals from the TTC prior to issuance of a building permit; and

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

Background:

Proposal:

Shell proposes to redevelop and upgrade its prominent site at Yonge Street and York Mills Road, as shown on Schedule "C", as follows:

- vehicle repair service component replaced with a new convenience retail store, cashier pay point for self-service customers, banking machine, washrooms and indoor garbage room;

- full-service attendant's kiosk, connected to the retail store building by an illuminated canopy;

- "third party tenant" (drive-through/take-out restaurant) north of the retail store; and

- car wash and self-serve vacuum island;

- landscaping; and

- parking and directional signage.

Traffic flow for the drive-through facility and car wash would be from south to north. For vehicles entering the site, access would be obtained from Old York Mills Road, with patrons exiting onto York Mills Road.

A summary of the most pertinent project statistics are set out in Table 1 below:

Application UDOZ-97-26 was made under the new Planning Act as it was received after May 22, 1996.

Site Location:

The 5,704m² site is located at the southeast corner of Yonge Street and York Mills Road. A Shell gasoline station with 11 gas pumps and vehicle service repair bays currently exist on the site. There is a high rise complex containing commercial uses on the north side of York Mills Road. To the south of Old York Mills Road is a TTC station, park and institutional uses. The west side of Yonge Street in the immediate vicinity is dominated by parkland and open space. Surrounding uses are primarily low density residential.

Two applications have been submitted on the adjacent site: a temporary use zoning by-law to allow the property to continue to be used as a pay parking lot and a proposal for a nine-storey, 141-unit residential apartment building, including a portion of the remnant density from the subject site. The applicant of the residential proposal will need to undertake a traffic study taking into consideration the change to the Shell site as a result of their proposal.

Official Plan:

The site is designated YMO (York Mills Office) in the York Mills Office Centre Secondary Plan (see Schedule "A") within Development Area #4, permitting office, retail, financial institutions, service shops, transit facilities, religious and educational facilities and recreational uses. The maximum FSI (floor space index) is 2.0. All parking facilities are to be provided in a structure. Therefore, an Official Plan amendment is required to permit the surface parking associated with the development.

Zoning By-law:

The site has two zones:

- the western half fronting along Yonge Street is zoned C1 (General Commercial) permitting a full range of commercial uses.

- the eastern half is zoned C1(45) permitting gasoline and service station and accessory uses. This exception by-law was recently enacted to simply reflect the previous 1969 zoning which permitted the relocation of the gas station as a result of the subway construction.

An amendment to the zoning by-law is required in order to expand the range of uses on the eastern portion of the site to be consistent with those currently permitted on the western portion.

Schedule "B" illustrates the existing zoning areas of the site and the wider area.

Comments from Other Departments and Agencies:

The following section summarizes significant comments received from the departments and agencies circulated.

The Transportation Department notes that while 15 parking spaces are shown on the plan, only 14 parking spaces are required. However, the Transportation Department does not consider the parking space denoted for handicapped use as part of the total supply as it must be used for the garbage room access as well. Therefore, the actual parking supply on site would meet the required 14 spaces. Other modifications to directional signage, parking aisle and sidewalks are to be submitted through a revised site plan, as contained in Schedule "E".

As part of its comments contained in Schedule "F", the Public Works Department provides conditions related to deposit of funds for the works required on the property, location of the car wash facility in relation to the existing storm sewer, storm water discharge levels and garbage collection.

The Parks and Recreation Department requests in Schedule "G" that landscaping along the Old York Mills Road frontage opposite York Mills Park be reviewed during the site plan stage. The Parks and Recreation Department also advises that a 2 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication applies to the application.

The Public Health Department notes in Schedule "H" that it is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) as required under the Gasoline Handling Act due to the movement of gasoline storage tanks to occur on the property. Public Health also notes that any environmentally hazardous materials are to be properly disposed of prior to demolition of the existing service station and that municipal water and sewer services are to be maintained.

The Metropolitan Planning Department has no objections to the application, subject to several technical requirements outlined in Schedule "I". The Metropolitan Transportation Department has advised that a conveyance across the frontage of the property on Yonge Street is required. It also requires specific inbound and outbound directional movements, radii and signage for the four Metro Road access points, necessitating some plan revisions.

Community Consultation:

A questionnaire was circulated by the local Councillors, with summary comments as follows:

Items were viewed favourably: Items not particularly favoured:

- improved access to the gas pumps; - addition of the drive-through facility;

- upgraded appearance; and - loss of service bays for vehicle repairs;

- improved landscaping. - perceived increases in traffic levels; and

- convenience store 24-hour operations.

There was mixed reaction to the proposal for the addition of a car wash.

A community meeting was held on September 4, 1997. Notes from this meeting are attached as Schedule "D" and other correspondence is located in the Index to this report. In summary, the following general matters were raised at the meeting and corresponded quite closely to the completed questionnaires:

(1) additional land uses - combination of uses, particularly the drive-through restaurant and, to a much lesser extent, the car wash facility in terms of site congestion;

(2) traffic and access - internal management of traffic, traffic levels and access;

(3) site design - a "more residential looking" architectural design, lighting from the canopy and signage to reflect this site's location close to a residential area; and

(4) environmental standards - the applicant's responsibility for decommissioning the existing tanks and the installation of new ones, which must follow established standards.

These issues are discussed in the following section.

Discussion:

(1) Land Use

The site is already used as a gasoline and service station at a major intersection, where higher density commercial uses are permitted. The proposal is in line with most new stations today and represents the types of services commonly included as accessory to a gas station. The sizes of the buildings proposed are acceptable given the size and location of the site within a mixed use area, with the density proposed being considerably lower than the 1.0 FSI as-of-right zoning. In addition, the uses proposed on the eastern portion of the site are already permitted as-of-right in the zoning by-law on the western portion.

Further review related to the operations of the site and the attainment of appropriate design standards would occur during the site plan stage and the applicant is required to sign a site plan agreement.

(2) Traffic and Access

The Metropolitan and North York Transportation Departments conclude that the uses and densities proposed are not "destination" uses. A significant increase in the number of vehicles travelling along Yonge Street or York Mills Road is not expected from the proposal, including the drive-through and car wash facilities to be added to the site. It is anticipated that the accessory uses will predominantly serve the persons who are already on site to purchase gasoline.

Restrictive turning movements are included in the conditions of approval requested by Metropolitan Toronto, particularly with respect to left turns into the site and other restrictions on turning movements. On-site traffic movement is expected to be improved through the wider aisles between pump islands and adequate parking spaces for patrons to minimize conflicts between those entering/exiting and others driving or walking to another part of the property. The requirements by Metropolitan Toronto for car stacking will also contribute to less conflicts, with management of the site's operations important to the success of the project.

(3) Urban Design

Overall, an upgraded appearance is expected to result from the plan. While the materials to be used by Shell are its standard, they are generally consistent with upgrades on other sites and are compatible with existing buildings in the area. The canopy, while relatively long, would provide added weather protection, modern illumination methods, additional space and safety.

The new zoning standards for gasoline sites apply to this Shell site. Consistent with car wash facilities and retail stores being permitted on such sites located in "Residential Neighbourhoods", a 3.0 metre landscaping strip and noise attenuation fence should be added along the rear (eastern) edge of the property. This is particularly important given the existing and proposed residential development to the east.

While the parking is adequate for the uses proposed, the handicapped space proposed alongside the washrooms at the south end of the retail store must be moved in order to avoid conflicts with the garbage room provided. The landscaping, pump islands, canopy, signage, lighting, access details and any other relevant matters will be reviewed further during the site plan stage.

Conclusions:

The applicant's proposal to upgrade the existing gasoline facility and provide an increased range of accessory services is within the general land use and density provisions in the York Mills Office Secondary Plan. The inclusion of surface parking is appropriate given the nature of the use involved, as are the retail uses being sited at the east end of the site. The proposal, in essence, represents a shifting of the location of the proposed commercial uses to allow them on the eastern portion of the property, as such uses are already allowed on the western side. It is recommended that an implementing by-law covering the entire site at the major intersection of Yonge Street and York Mills be approved, subject to conditions requested from agencies and a detailed review of landscaping, buffering, lighting, signage, servicing, access and other issues being addressed at the site plan stage prior to by-law enactment.

Contact Name:

Alan Binks, Planner, 395-7100

A staff presentation was made by Alan Binks, Planner, Planning Department (North York Civic Centre).

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

(I) (March 11, 1998) from Mr. Marty Fruchtman expressing his opposition to the redevelopment;

(ii) (March 6, 1998) from Mr. George G. Flint advising of his opposition to the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments; and

(iii) (January 19, 1998) from A. Mukherjee, P. Eng., Acting Manager, Program and Development Engineering, Metro Transportation Department advising of required changes to the site plan.

The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council:

a) Mr. R. Dragicevic on behalf of Shell Canada Limited

Mr. Dragicevic indicated that Shell Canada Limited intends on redeveloping the site. Meetings with the community have been held on various occasions and it was his understanding that Councillor Flint, Ward Councillor, would be introducing modifications to the recommendations contained in the planning staff report. His client is prepared to accept those modifications.

He further indicated that the site has been the subject of a thorough review by the former Metro Works and Transportation Departments with respect to access points . As a result of that review, there would be no left-turn movements from the major roadways. His client would be submitting the site plan application as soon as possible. He accordingly requested that the Community Council endorse Councillor Flint's modifications and that planning staff be requested to expedite the Official Plan Amendment.

b) Mr. Ying Hope

Mr. Hope indicated that the modifications being suggested by Councillor Flint address many of the concerns expressed by the residents. However, the introduction of a car washing establishment may have some impact in terms of entry and exit to the site. He requested the Councillors to take cognisance of this and to involve the Commissioner of Transportation in any future study of this issue.

Councillor Feldman, North York Spadina, declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that he resides in the immediate vicinity of the development application.

(The various schedules referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, recommends the adoption of the report (February 4, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, with the following modifications:

(1) Section 19 (Section 15.1(b) of Zoning By-law No. 7625) dealing with sidewalks for apartment houses be deleted;

(2) Section 30 (Section 22.8 of Zoning By-law No. 7625) dealing with the location of garbage containers be referred back to the North York Planning Department for a comprehensive report;

(3) the following Sections of Zoning By-law No. 7625 be referred to the North York Planning Department for an additional report:

(i) Section 36 dealing with General Provisions for O Zones;

(ii) Section 64.23(74) dealing with a missing schedule in reference to amenity space per unit; and dealing with a reference to the C1(75) zone;

(iii) Section 64.23(75) dealing with a missing schedule;

(iv) Section 64.39(2) dealing with missing schedule; and dealing with a reference to Section 39; and

(v) Section 64.39(2) dealing with Section 39.

(4) That the 2.0 metres minimum distance between an accessory building larger than 10m², and a dwelling as set out in Section 9 of the draft by-law be increased to 3.0 metres.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on April 1, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning:

Purpose:

As part of the ongoing Zoning By-law Review program, challenges and problems with the zoning by-law are identified, and solutions are found to address problems that have arisen in the day to day use of the by-law. The purpose of this study is to identify and recommend changes which will contribute to fewer variances, improved clarity, more consistent interpretation and better enforcement of By-law No. 7625.

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the North York Community Council:

(1) hold a public meeting to consider the draft General Zoning By-law Amendment By-law attached as Schedule A to this report; and

(2) recommend enactment of the General Zoning By-law Amendment By-law, with any modifications considered appropriate, subsequent to the public meeting.

Background:

This By-law and report is part of the continuing work program for the North York Civic Centre By-law Review Section. At regular intervals the Planning Department has put together a listing of regulations that should be revised in order to correct errors and to improve clarity. These changes have been identified through the experience of the Planning, Building and By-law Enforcement staff over the past two years. The last amendment of this type was By-law No. 32737 (also called the Interpretation By-law), which was passed April 17, 1996.

Discussion:

The changes proposed do not fall easily into one specific category. They can range from changing the format of specific sections and correcting typographical errors in the original by-law, to the consolidation and amendment of sections that have been left by other amendments, to the elimination of obsolete provisions. The amendments proposed also address omissions found in the consolidated By-law No. 7625:

(1) reduce the number of variance applications (especially technical variances);

(2) reduce conflicts between regulations;

(3) clarify wording for better understanding and enforceability; and

(4) provide corrected exceptions for St. Louis de France church at 1415 Don Mills Road, and the Yonge Norton Centre at Doris and Norton.

Conclusions:

The zoning by-law amendments recommended by this study should be enacted.

Contact Name:

David J. Douglas, Planner, 395-7136

(A copy of Schedule A and the draft General Zoning By-law Amendment by-law referred in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To report on an application to permit the existing swimming pool enclosure (fence) to remain as constructed notwithstanding the fence is electrified and therefore contrary to North York Fence By-law No. 30901, as amended.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the request to maintain an electrified fence on the property be refused.

Background:

The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law No. 30901 on July 8, 1992, being a by-law for requiring the owners of privately owned outdoor swimming pools to erect and maintain fences and gates around such swimming pools. The by-law further prohibits any attachment to a fence to be used as a conductor of electrical current.

Discussion:

The subject property is located on the east side of Arran Crescent in the area east of Yonge Street and south of Steeles Avenue East. There is a two storey dwelling on the property and a swimming pool in the rear yard. The property backs onto Brebeuf High School. Upon receiving a complaint concerning an electrified fence, an inspection of the property revealed the following deficiencies:

• the gate providing access to the back yard is not locked when the pool area is not in use; and



• the fence has a wire attached to it for the purpose of conducting an electrical current.

Section 2.2.1 of the Fence By-law states:

"The owner of every swimming pool shall ensure that any access point forming part of the swimming pool enclosure is kept locked, except when the enclosed area is in use."

Section 4.1.3 of the same by-law states:

"No person shall permit a fence or any attachment to a fence to be used as a conductor of electrical current."

The owner of the property has taken steps to keep the gate locked when the pool area is not in use therefore, the only outstanding issue is with respect to the electrified fence. The existing wood fence encompasses the back yard and has a wire attached to the top of it which carries 12 volts of current. The applicant submits that the electrified fence is necessary to in order to cope with squirrels, raccoons and chipmunks that frequent his garden. The North York Animal Control unit advises that to the best of their knowledge there are no unusual problems in this particular area with respect to nuisance wildlife. A site plan and three photographs are attached hereto.

As the photographs of the property indicate, there would be no difficulty for small rodents such as squirrels and chipmunks to circumvent the electric wire by accessing the property through gaps at the bottom of the fence. Furthermore, given the location of trees on the property, it is not likely that raccoons would be discouraged from accessing the property as well. Rather than maintaining an electrical fence to try and discourage wildlife, it might be beneficial for the applicant to contact North York's Animal Control staff for advice on steps that can be taken to 'wildlife proof' his property using more conventional methods.

Conclusions:

It is therefore recommended that the electrical conductor on the fence be removed forthwith inasmuch as there is no hardship placed on the applicant to comply with the fence by-law.

Contact Name:

David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services, North York Civic Centre, 395-7020

Mr. Phillip Beale appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To report on an application for an exemption to the dog muzzling requirements of North York By-law No. 32823.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the request for an exemption be granted based upon the fact that there is no evidence to indicate that the dog is aggressive other than while it is protecting its own property.

Background:

The former City of North York enacted Muzzling By-law No. 32823 on July 10, 1996. The by-law requires a muzzle order to be issued to the owner of a dog where the Chief Animal Control Officer has reason to believe that the dog has bitten a person or a domestic animal on two occasions. Where an order to muzzle has been issued, the by-law further requires the owner to muzzle the dog except when it is on the property of the owner.

Discussion:

The issuance of the Muzzle Order to Ms. Mathews is based upon the receipt of two separate dog bite incidents to human victims reported by the Public Health Department. In the first incident, the North York Public Health Department received a report of a dog bite on September 24, 1997, to a postal carrier making a delivery on the dog owner's property. The second incident occurred on December 28, 1997, to a tenant walking past the dog. On January 6, 1998, a 'Notice to Muzzle' order was issued to Ms. Mathews, 147 Northover Street in the community of North York.

The two bite reports received for the dog owned by Ms. Mathews were as a result of the dog being territorial and protecting its property. The North York Animal Centre has no other record of complaints regarding the dog owned by Ms. Mathews and there have been no reports of the dog running at large or acting in an aggressive manner while being walked by the owner.

Conclusions:

It is therefore recommended that the request for an exemption from the muzzle order be granted in view of the fact that the incidents occurred while the dog was protecting its territory and furthermore, the muzzle order is not applicable while the dog is on its own property.

Contact Name:

Carl Bandow, Administrator, North York Animal Centre, 395-7086

(A copy of the Notice to Muzzle is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (February 5, 1998) from the Chief Building Official/Building Commissioner, which was deferred by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on February 18, 1998, not be adopted and that the request by Omni, The Outdoor Company, for a variance from the Sign By-law be approved:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Omni, The Outdoor Company, for a variance from the sign by-law to permit an off premise roof sign oriented to face east and west bound traffic on Finch Avenue West.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the request by Ingrid V. Brooks, of Omni the Outdoor Company, be denied as a minor variance from the sign by-law.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In a letter dated January 20, 1998, Ingrid V. Brooks of Omni the Outdoor Company, is requesting permission to erect an off premise roof sign oriented to face east and west bound traffic on Finch Avenue West. The sign will be approximately 242 feet from an existing roof sign located on a separate portion of the building to the south and facing Bathurst Street . Both signs are located on the same property at the south east corner of the intersection of Finch Avenue and Bathurst Street.

Section 5.2.1.1. of North York Sign By-law No. 30788 permits off premise roof signs having a maximum sign area of 349.8 square feet to be erected on the roof of a commercial building provided that no such roof sign will be closer than 500 feet from another roof sign on the same side of the street.

Although the proposed sign is well within the area limitations set fourth in the by-law, it is closer than 500 feet from an existing roof sign on a separate portion of the building and therefore contravenes the by-law.

The owner contends that the layout of the plaza is large enough to accommodate two roof signs and that the signs are in keeping with the intent of the by-law. The owner has also expressed that the second sign will help to offset rising operation costs associated with the plaza.

Conclusions:

It is the opinion of this department that the variance is not minor and that the intent of the sign by-law is not served by the erection of this sign as it will have a negative impact on the area. Therefore it is recommended that this request be denied as a minor variance from the sign by-law.

The North York Community Council also reports having before it a communication (April 1, 1998) from Ms. Ingrid V. Brooks, Operations Manager, Omni, The Outdoor Company, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.

Ms. Ingrid V. Brooks appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre not be adopted and that the request for an exemption to the North York Noise By-law No. 31317 be denied.

The North York Community Council reports having requested the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre, to bring to the attention of the appropriate two local Councillors any requests for exemptions to the North York Noise By-law No. 31317.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To report on an application received from PCL Constructors Canada Inc., 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 tranquillity of life or cause nuisance.

Discussion:

The subject property is located on the north-east corner of Hillcrest Avenue and Yonge Street in the area north of Sheppard Avenue East. An office building on the property is currently undergoing renovations. The offices are being used seven days a week and consequently jack hammering during the renovation will be too noisy for the tenants. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting permission to work until 10:00 p.m. from April 6, 1998, to May 29, 1998, in order to complete alterations to the existing concrete structure in a timely fashion. The applicant has indicated that they will "... try to minimize the work and complete it as soon as possible so as not to inconvenience anyone for a longer period than necessary".

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 '...point of reception...' in this case would be the residential properties to the south and east of the subject property and consequently, the operation of any construction equipment is prohibited as follows:

• All day Sundays and Statutory Holidays
• 7:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. next day.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that the request for an exemption to North York Noise By-law No. 31317, to permit construction equipment to operate until 10:00 p.m. be approved subject to the following conditions:

1. in the event complaints concerning construction noise after 7:00 p.m. are received by the By-law Enforcement Division, the exemption to 10:00 p.m. be rolled back to 9:00 p.m.; and

2. the exemption to the hours of work apply Monday to Saturday only.

Contact Name:

David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services, North York Civic Centre, 395-7020

Ms. Marion Lick, President, Willowdale Central Ratepayers' Association appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To report on an application to permit a portion of an existing fence on the property to remain as constructed notwithstanding the height of the fence is contrary to North York Fence By-law No. 30901, as amended.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the request to maintain the fence as constructed be approved.

Background:

The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law No. 30901 on July 8, 1992, being a by-law for prescribing the height and description of lawful fences.

Discussion:

The subject property is located on the north side of Wedgewood Drive in the area east of Yonge Street and south of Steeles Avenue East. The property contains a recently constructed two storey dwelling. The property abutting to the east (188 Wedgewood Drive) contains a two storey dwelling with a detached double garage, approximately 10m (33') long, in the rear yard. The garage has a west side yard setback of approximately 0.34m (1.11').

The owner of 186 Wedgewood Drive has erected a wood fence along a portion of her east property line. The fence complies with the by-law except for a portion of the fence which is approximately 12.20m (40') long and opposite the garage on the property known as 188 Wedgewood Drive. The fence at this point is approximately 2.44m (8') high and projects beyond both ends of the garage by approximately 1.06m (3.5'). The fence was erected at this height for the purpose of screening the garage from view. A site plan and three photographs are attached hereto. The fence by-law does permit privacy screening subject to certain restrictions as set out in Section 3.1.7 of the by-law which states:

"Except as provided in Sub-section 3.1.2 any portion of a fence erected between residential properties, may be increased to a height not exceeding 2.5m (8.2ft.) provided that the aggregate length of such portion or portions does not exceed 7.2m (24 ft.) per lot."

In this particular case the portion of the fence in question exceeds the 7.2m (24') per lot provision by approximately 4.87m (16').

Conclusion:

It is therefore recommended that the request to maintain the fence on the property as constructed be approved inasmuch as the majority of the 2.44m (8') portion of the fence screens the garage on the abutting property and does not create a hardship for the abutting property owner.

Contact Name:

David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services, North York Civic Centre, 395-7020

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

- Mr. Pileggi; and

- Mrs. Hodgson.

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

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the folowing report (March 20, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre, with the exception of the exemption request for Contract No. T-52-98 - York Mills Road which is not required due to the fact that the necessary funding for this project has been removed from the budget.

The North York Community Council reports having requested the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre, to consult with the local Councillors on any future noise exemption requests prior to the matter being placed on the North York Community Council agenda.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (March 20, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To report on an application received from the City of Toronto Transportation Department 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 tranquillity of life or cause nuisance.

Discussion:

The City's Transportation Department is planning road resurfacing work on certain arterial roads in North York between April 20^th and December 4^th of this year. The attached table shows the specific locations were the work will be done. With respect to the exemption being requested, the Transportation Department advises as follows:

"Each intersection will require a noise exemption for two (2) successive weekends between the hours of 7:00 p.m., Friday to 6:00 a.m., Monday between the dates specified. This will allow the existing pavement surface to be removed to a depth of 125 mm or down to the concrete road base and paved with base asphalt during the first weekend, followed up by adjustment of maintenance hole frames and covers during the week between the rush hour periods and surface asphalt paving the following weekend. In case of inclement weather or equipment breakdown, a third weekend may be required."

The department submits that the exemption is necessary to insure that work is completed during the dates and times mentioned in order to minimize disruption to commuters using these major arterial roads.

Section 3 of North York Noise By-law No. 31317 states:

"Prohibition by Time and Place

No person shall emit or cause or permit the emission of sound resulting from any act listed in Schedule "B" hereto if clearly audible at a point of reception located in an area of the municipality within a prohibited time shown for such an area."

The operation of any construction equipment is prohibited as follows:

• All day Sundays and Statutory Holidays
• 7:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. next day.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that the request for an exemption to North York Noise By-law No. 31317, to permit construction equipment to operate as requested be approved subject to the following condition:

Any complaints concerning construction noise related to this program be referred to the City's Transportation Department for mitigation.

Contact Name:

David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services, North York Civic Centre, 395-7020

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To relocate the existing school bus loading zone on the south side of Parent Avenue, adjacent to the St. Conrad Catholic School, to the west side of Roding Street.

Source of funds:

The funds associated with changes to the location of the school bus loading zone and signage are continued within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that By-law No. 30358, of the former City of North York, be amended to relocate the existing school bus loading zone, associated with the St. Conrad Catholic School, from Parent Avenue to the west side of Roding Street, south of Parent Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

This department has reviewed a request from representatives of the St. Conrad Catholic School Advisory Council, forwarded by John Hlady with the Toronto Catholic School Board, to relocate the existing school bus loading zone of Parent Avenue to the west side of Roding Street, adjacent to the east side of St. Conrad Catholic School.

Discussions:

Mr. Hlady has indicated that school buses, when stopped in the existing loading zone on Parent Avenue, are interfering with traffic accessing/egressing the school parking lot. Often, traffic is congested on both Parent Avenue and within the school parking lot.

Furthermore, students boarding or alighting the buses travel through the school parking lot in order to access the school property or building. This activity is creating a safety concern for students as they must walk through traffic within the parking facility.

Investigations by staff of this department have verified these concerns. The relocation of the bus loading zone will not adversely affect vehicle or pedestrian traffic on Parent Avenue or Roding Street.

Conclusions:

In order to improve pedestrian safety, this department supports the relocation of the school bus loading zone from Parent Avenue to Roding Street.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To install an all way stop control, to improve pedestrian and motorist safety at the intersection of Heathrow Drive and Chesham Drive/Forthbridge Crescent.

Source of funds:

Funds for the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

This department recommends that Schedules XVIII and XIX of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersection of Heathrow Drive and Chesham Drive/Forthbridge Crescent.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A previous study was conducted in October of 1992 to determine whether an all way stop control would be warranted at the above noted intersection. Based upon the results of the study, an all way stop was not recommended. This department has subsequently been requested by Councillor Maria Augimeri to reevaluate the traffic operations in an effort to improve pedestrian safety by implementing any necessary improvements.

Discussion:

Currently, southbound motorists on Forthbridge Crescent and northbound motorists on Chesham Drive are required to stop at Heathrow Drive. The above referenced intersection forms a standard four legged intersection. Heathrow Drive traffic currently travels free flow from Tumpane Avenue, which is 213 metres to the east of Chesham Drive/Forthbridge Crescent, to Jane Street, which is 427 metres to the west. The Tumpane Public School is located on the south side of Heathrow Drive, east of the intersection.

Observations by staff of this department have concluded that the numerous children which cross the roadway during the morning and evening peak periods, do so without the protection of the stop controls.

The results of the most recent all way stop study, conducted on February 24, indicate that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control have been satisfied.

Conclusions:

In view of the foregoing, this department supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Heathrow Drive and Chesham Drive/Forthbridge Crescent.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

Protection from traffic generated by the development known as "Chelsea Gate" (108 Finch Avenue West) requires the prohibition of right-turns at the development's access on Altamont Road.

Source of Funds:

As part of the Development and Site Plan Agreement, the cost for the implementation of the required signage is to be borne by the developer.

Recommendations:

(a) that the necessary By-law be enacted to prohibit outbound right-turns at the access driveway from the "Chelsea Gate" development to Altamont Road; and

(b) the necessary funds be acquired from the developer to cover the cost of the sign installation.

Background History:

Zoning Amendment application (UDOZ-90-026) was approved to permit the construction of a townhouse development which had access on Altamont Road. To prevent development generated traffic from infiltrating the local stable residential community to the north, a right-turn prohibition was recommended at the driveway on Altamont Road.

Conclusion:

As the development is constructed and now being occupied, it is appropriate that the right-turn prohibition be installed to prevent traffic infiltration from this development into the local residential community to the north of the site.

Contact Name:

Pascoal D'Souza, Manager of Transportation Planning, Transportation Department (North York Office), 395-7458

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To relocate the pedestrian crossover on Cummer Avenue from Simeon Court to Ruddington Drive.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with this relocation of the Pedestrian Crossover are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

To relocate the existing pedestrian crossover on Cummer Avenue from Simeon Court to the east side of Ruddington Drive.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The relocation of the pedestrian crossover on Cummer Avenue, from its existing location at the intersection of Simeon Court, was requested due to the low number of pedestrians which are being serviced following the closure of the Snowcrest Public School. It was determined that the relocation of the pedestrian crossover to the east side of the intersection with Ruddington Drive, would better serve the existing transit stops, access to Ruddington Park, the high density residential developments and the seniors complex on the north side of Cummer Avenue.

Discussions:

Consideration was given to the relocation of the pedestrian crossover to the new walkway on Ruddington Park. The walkway was to be located 50 metres east of Ruddington Drive. However, it was determined that the majority of pedestrian crossings of Cummer Avenue would continue to occur at the intersection of Ruddington Drive. Any pedestrians wishing to cross Cummer Avenue and who travelled along the walkway through Ruddington Park could easily walk to the intersection of Ruddington Drive.

Conclusions:

This department supports the relocation of the pedestrian crossover on Cummer Avenue from Simeon Court to a point immediately east of Ruddington Drive.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To install an all way stop control, to improve traffic flow and motorist safety at the intersection of Charleswood Drive and Collinson Boulevard.

Source of funds:

Funds for the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 Operating Budget.

Recommendation:

This department recommends that Schedules XVIII and XIX of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersection of Charleswood Drive and Collinson Boulevard.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A previous study was conducted in August of 1994 to determine whether an all way stop control would be warranted at the above noted intersection. Based upon the results of the study, an all way stop was not recommended due to the low volume of traffic. This department has subsequently been requested by Councillor Michael Feldman to reevaluate the traffic operations at this intersection, and recommend any appropriate improvements.

Discussions:

Currently, eastbound and westbound motorists on Charleswood Drive are required to stop at Collinson Boulevard. Collinson Boulevard traffic is currently unrestricted from Invermay Avenue, which is 365 metres to the north of the intersection, to Wilson Avenue, which is 92 metres to the south.

The area surrounding the intersection is single family residential to the north and commercial to the south.

The results of the most recent all way stop study, conducted on February 11, indicated that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control have now been satisfied.

Conclusions:

In view of the foregoing, this department supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Charleswood Drive and Collinson Boulevard.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To temporarily close a portion of Ridley Boulevard in order to conduct their annual Victoria Day Street Party and fireworks display.

Source of funds:

A $50.00 application fee has been received from the applicant All other costs are included within this department's 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That permission for the temporary closure of Ridley Boulevard, Bombay Avenue to Sandringham Drive, be granted and that the appropriate By-law be enacted by Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Similar events have been conducted at this location for the past three years, without incident.

Discussions:

A request has been received from Mr. Peter Seligman, on behalf of the residents of Ridley Boulevard to temporarily close Ridley Boulevard to vehicular traffic. This closure is required to accommodate their annual Victoria Day Street Party and fireworks display.

In accordance with the former City of North York Procedural By-law No. 24733, the appropriate agencies and departments have been contacted for comments. There have been no objections to the closure, subject to the applicant adhering to the following conditions:

• •that the fireworks display set up area not be closer than 30 metres to property or people, or near overhead wires; and



• •the applicant shall ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles. Further, that the organizer be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could well interrupt the program as planned.

Conclusions:

This department recommends that the appropriate by-law be enacted to ensure that Ridley Boulevard, from Bombay Avenue to Sandringham Drive, is closed to vehicle traffic on Monday, May 18, 1998, from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m..

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, at 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To modify/amend the existing traffic by-law entries to match the posted restrictions.

Source of funds:

All funds associated with amendments to the traffic by-law are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Schedules VIII, IX, XV and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to allow for the coordination of the entries between the traffic by-law and signs posted on specific roadways.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Regular operational maintenance.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As a result of regular maintenance, several locations were identified where the specific by-law entries did not match the posted signs. To allow for proper enforcement of the restrictions, the traffic by-law must be amended

Conclusions:

This department supports the amendments to the traffic by-law.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To install parking prohibitions on the north and west sides of Hickorynut Drive.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

To amend Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit parking from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north and west sides of Hickorynut Drive, from the westerly limit of Hickorynut Drive to the southerly limit of Hazelnut Crescent.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The residents of Hickorynut Drive have requested the installation of parking prohibitions on the north and west sides of Hickorynut Drive. The residents have advised that motorists, associated with the commercial properties on Sheppard Avenue East park their vehicles daily.

Currently, parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south and east sides of Hickorynut Drive, from the westerly limit of Hickorynut Drive to the southerly limit of Hazelnut Crescent.

Discussions:

As a result of our investigation, staff of this department have confirmed the residents' concern as several vehicles were parked on the north and west sides of Hickorynut Drive. A review of our location file has revealed that there have been several previous requests for enforcement of the parking restrictions. Based upon the continued complaints, it would appear that enforcement alone has been ineffective in reducing the level of on street parking.

Conclusions:

This department supports amending the parking restrictions.

Contact Name:

Mr. Mike Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To prohibit parking on the west side of Duncanwoods Drive, from Benrubin Drive to Pearldale Drive.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

To amend Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit parking on the west side of Duncanwoods Drive, from the southerly limit of Benrubin Drive to the northerly limit of Pearldale Drive.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, parking is prohibited on various sections of Duncanwoods Road, from Islington Avenue to Finch Avenue West.

Discussions:

At the request of our Maintenance Section, this office has reviewed the current parking restrictions on Duncanwoods Drive.

As a result of our investigation, it has been determined that, although no by-law exists to prohibit parking at any time on the west side of Duncanwoods Drive, between Benrubin and Pearldale Drives, parking control signs are currently posted.

As the parking prohibitions are posted and we have not received any request from either the residents or local Councillor to remove the parking control signs, it is recommended to enact the appropriate by-law.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this department would recommend that the appropriate By-law be enacted to prohibit parking on Duncanwoods Drive, between Benrubin Drive and Pearldale Drives.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To install an all way stop control at the intersection of Barse Street and Fairlawn Avenue.

Source of funds:

Funds for the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

This department recommends 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 Barse Street and Fairlawn Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A previous all way stop study was conducted in November 11, 1994, to determine whether an all way stop control would be warranted at the intersection of Barse Street and Fairlawn Avenue. Based upon the results of the study, an all way stop was not recommended. This department has subsequently been requested by Mr. Paul Anoyal, 560 Fairlawn Avenue, to evaluate traffic operations at the intersection and to recommend any appropriate improvements.

Discussions:

Currently, northbound and southbound motorists on Barse Street are required to stop at Fairlawn Avenue.

The results of the most recent all way stop study, conducted on December 9, 1997, indicated that the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop control have been satisfied.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this department supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Barse Street and Fairlawn Avenue.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To install stopping prohibitions on the south side of Baycrest Avenue

Source of funds:

All costs associated with installing the stopping prohibitions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

To amend Schedule IX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit stopping at any time on the south side of Baycrest Avenue, from the westerly limit of Bathurst Street to the easterly limit of Khedive Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently parking is prohibited at any time on both sides of Baycrest Avenue, between Bathurst Street and Khedive Avenue.

Previous concerns for parking were received from Mr. Joe Ascano, 11 Baycrest Avenue, and security staff for the Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care.

Both Mr. Ascano and Baycrest Centre security staff have indicated that vehicles, which have displayed Disabled Person Parking Permits, are parked on both sides of Baycrest Avenue. As vehicles with displayed permits are exempt from the parking restrictions, no parking enforcement is available. There is, however, no exemption for individuals displaying a Disabled Persons Parking Permit, within a "No Stopping" zone. With vehicles parked on both sides of the roadway, two way traffic cannot be maintained and there is the potential that emergency services may experience delay, particularly when responding to an incident at the Baycrest Centre.

Discussions:

As a result of our investigation, staff of this department has confirmed that the existing parking activities are restricting the flow of two way traffic and interference with access/egress from driveways on the south side of the roadway and to the Baycrest Centre.

Conclusions:

As identified above, this department supports amending the stopping restrictions on Baycrest Avenue.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To allow payment-in-lieu of parking to be applied against a 9 space parking deficiency resulting from a change in use to the second floor of the property at 1887 Avenue Road.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that payment-in-lieu of parking be applied against the 9 space parking deficiency, consistent with the approvals granted by the former North York Council for the same building, at a rate of $1,500.00 per space.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The applicant applied to the former North York Council in November, 1996, seeking approval for a 15 space parking deficiency which resulted from a restaurant (230m² G.F.A.) to be located on the ground floor of an existing building.

In a report to the Transportation Committee dated November 21, 1996, it was recommended that payment-in-lieu of parking be applied. This was approved and subsequently adopted by Council on December 11, 1996, by Resolution No. 96-18A. The approval granted a parking variance of 15 spaces with provision that payment-in-lieu of parking be applied against the deficiency at the rate of $1,500.00 per space, payable over a period of 5 years.

Discussions:

Under the current proposal, the applicant is seeking a further parking variance for an additional 9 space parking deficiency that results from a proposed restaurant use (café) 96.3m² G.F.A. which is to be located on the second floor of the existing building. Given that on-street and off-street public parking is available in the vicinity of the site, this department will support the requested parking variance.

Conclusion:

The on-site and nearby parking conditions which led to the previous approval by Council of an earlier payment-in-lieu of parking have not changed. As a result, the current request for parking variance can be considered with the same criteria, and approved under the same terms.

Mr. Mark Shiner appeared before the North York Community Council on behalf of the applicant.

Councillor Shiner declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that the representative of the applicant is a relative.

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that the representative of the applicant is a relative.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To install parking prohibitions on both sides of Barmac Drive, south of Ormont Drive (west leg).

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

To amend Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York to prohibit parking at anytime on both sides of Barmac Drive, from a point 288 meters south/west of the southerly limit of Ormont Drive (east intersection) to the southerly limit of Ormont Drive (west intersection).

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, parking is prohibited on both sides of Barmac Drive from the southerly limit of Ormont Drive (easterly intersection), to a point 288 meters south/west of Ormont Drive. Parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on all other sections of this roadway.

An investigation indicated that motorists are parking on both sides of Barmac Drive west of the prohibited zone. It should be noted that this section of Barmac Drive has a 90 degree curve and serves a large industrial community. I would advise that this parking activity severely restricts the flow of two way traffic and creates a dangerous situation, particularly in the area of the curve in the roadway.

Discussions:

A review of our street location file has indicated that on street parking has been an ongoing concern for some time.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, this department would support the implementation of parking restrictions on Barmac Drive.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To temporarily close portions of Baycrest Avenue and Neptune Drive, to accommodate the 18^th Annual Baycrest Challenge Fun Run.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the temporary closure of portions of Baycrest Avenue and Neptune Drive, excluding the $50.00 application fee, are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That the appropriate by-law be enacted to grant permission for the temporary road closure of portions of Baycrest Avenue and Neptune Drive, on Sunday, May 10, 1998, from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. subject to the applicant's compliance with Procedural By-Law No. 27433 of the former City of North York.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Similar events have been conducted at this location for the preceding 17 years, without incident.

Discussions:

This department has received no objections from any affected departments and agencies, subject to the following condition from the Fire Department:

• •the applicant shall insure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and obstacles that would interfere with the movement of fire department vehicles, in the event of an emergency, and that personnel be readily available to remove the barricades in order not to impede the movement of the Fire Department vehicles should an emergency occur. Further, the organizers of the event be made aware that should an emergency arise within the involved area, it could well interrupt the program as planned

Conclusions:

In view of the foregoing, this department supports the temporary closure of portions of Baycrest Avenue and Neptune Drive as requested by the applicant.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To install, on a temporary basis, traffic calming measures on Wendell Avenue and Gary Drive.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the temporary traffic calming measures are included within the 1998 traffic calming budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that, for a six month trial period, traffic calming measures be installed on Wendell Avenue and Gary Drive. The specific measures would include intersection diverters, pinch points or chicanes, and a traffic circle.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In accordance with the former City of North York Council Policy for Traffic Calming, staff have met with the affected residents to address their traffic related concerns. A residents working group was established to identify both the concerns and the traffic calming measures which the residents considered appropriate for their community.

Discussion:

On March 19, staff met with Councillor George Mammoliti and members of the working group, which represented the residents of the greater community, to develop a traffic calming proposal. The development of the proposal was necessary to address the residents long standing concern for transient traffic, specifically combination tractor trailers. These heavy vehicles, often making deliveries to industrial properties surrounding the community, are using local streets inappropriately to access the adjacent arterial roadway system.

The proposal, which was endorsed by the working group, calls for the following test installations:

• •intersection diverters on the south approach to the Wendell Avenue/Pellatt Avenue intersection and the south and east approaches to the Gary Drive/Yelland Street intersection;
• •a series of "pinch points" or chicanes on Wendell Avenue, between Pellatt Avenue and Gary Drive; and
• •a traffic circle at the intersection of Wendell Avenue with Gary Drive.

In accordance with Council Policy, these measures will be installed on a temporary basis, for a six month period. At the end of this period, the residents will be polled and their input requested as to the permanency of the traffic calming proposal.

The temporary traffic calming measures will be installed using planters, concrete curb stones and pavement markings. Throughout the evaluation process, minor modifications may take place as a result of localized traffic conditions. The narrowing of the travelled portion of the roadway width to 6.0 metres or the installation of the intersection diverters and traffic circle, will not interfere with street maintenance, snow removal operations or emergency services.

Materials currently exist in stock to install the temporary measures, at a minimal cost. It is estimated that should the plan be implemented on a permanent basis, the total expense would be approximately $62,500.00. Appropriate funding would subsequently have to be allocated from approved capital accounts. The following identifies the estimated cost for each of the traffic calming measures being considered within the proposal:

Conclusions:

It is recommended that approval be granted to install, on a temporary basis, the traffic calming measurers as identified above, and that at the completion of the six month trial period staff be directed to report back to the Community Council with the residents decision on whether permanent construction of the traffic calming measures should proceed.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, at 395-7484.

The North York Community Council reports having also had before it a communication (April 1, 1998) from Councillor Sgro in support of the recommendations of staff for the installation of traffic calming measures at the subject locations.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the encroachment and backfalling driveway referred to in the following report (March 4, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, North York Civic Centre, be approved subject to the specified conditions:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to consider the request for a proposed encroachment and backfalling driveway at the above location.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that if the proposed encroachment and backfalling driveway are approved by the City, the encroachment and driveway be subject to the following conditions:

1) the owner(s) enter into an encroachment agreement with the City;

2) the agreement also includes a provision to "save harmless" the City in the event that the owners are flooded as a result of the backfalling driveway; and

3) the City Solicitor be authorized to do all things necessary.

Background:

The Public Works Department is in receipt of a letter dated March 2, 1998, from Mr. Frank Reiss of Terraventure Group (copy attached) requesting an encroachment agreement and permission to construct a backfalling driveway on City property. The request is for a proposed encroachment which is not covered under the current policy.

The former City of North York policy provides for existing and inadvertent encroachments and requires the following for an application to be approved:

i) that all encroachments be subject to a legal agreement being entered into between the City and the owner of the property abutting the encroachment;

ii) that such agreement be to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Public Works and be registered on the title of the property abutting the encroachment;

iii) that a suitable survey drawing of the lands involved, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, showing the location of the encroachment, its dimensions and areas, and any significant features and fences pertinent to the encroachment and satisfactory to the Commissioner of Public Works, be provided by the owner, to delineate the encroachment and that such plan be attached to and form part of the agreement;

iv) the owner provide confirmation letters from the utility companies that they have no objections to the encroachments prior to entering an encroachment agreement; and

v) that the owner pay a one-time administrative fee of $150.00 to the Department of Public Works and a one-time administrative fee of $250.00 to the Legal Department.

The Committee of Adjustment at its meeting on December 18, 1997 approved a variance to the Zoning By-Law No. 7625 to allow for a 2.86 metre front yard set back instead of the required set back of 6.0 metres for this site.

As a result of the variance and in order to maintain a maximum backfalling driveway slope of 10 percent, the proposed driveway's high point would be located approximately 3.14 metres on City property. The boulevard at this location is approximately 10 metres wide. The proposed driveway would be susceptible to storm water runoff from City property which could cause flooding on private property, therefore, the City must be protected from liability in the event that this occurs.

The proposed encroachment onto City property consists of a retaining wall along each side of the proposed driveway extending a maximum distance of approximately 3.14 metres beyond the property line.

Conclusion:

There are no conflicts with existing or proposed municipal services, therefore, the department has no objections to the proposed encroachment or the backfalling driveway subject to the owner entering into an encroachment agreement with the City and saving the City harmless in the event of flooding.

Contact Name:

Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering, 395-6235.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the North York Community Council for further consideration.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

Mr. Guido Ronchin, of Radius Design Group Limited, has requested approval for three curb cuts/driveway entrances for 2 Suncrest Drive.

Source Funds:

There are no City funds required with respect to this matter.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the policy of the former City of North York Council, which reads in part, as noted, be upheld.

"That when the frontage of a property exceeds 69 feet or the frontage and flankage of a corner lot exceeds 69 feet, the owner be permitted two curb cuts not to exceed a total of 30 feet."

Council Reference/background History:

By Resolution of Council 89-57 the former City of North York Council on September 20, 1989, approved Works Committee Report 17, Clause 5, without amendment. The recommendation approved in part reads:

"That when the frontage of a property exceeds 69 feet or the frontage and flankage of a corner lot exceeds 69 feet, the owner be permitted two curb cuts not to exceed a total of 30 feet."

Number 2 Suncrest Drive is a single family dwelling located at the north east corner of Glenorchy Road and Suncrest Drive. The frontage on Suncrest Drive is approximately 24m and the flankage on Glenorchy Road is approximately 29m. The property is currently serviced with 3 curb cuts/driveway entrances. A 6.0m curb cut on Glenorchy Road services a garage and two curb cuts/driveway entrances on Suncrest Drive, measuring 4.5m and 5.1m form a circular driveway. The existing curb cuts/driveway entrances were granted under a former department policy.

A building application has been approved for the demolition of the existing single family dwelling and the construction of a new house.

On a site plan received under Building Application No. B98-0507 the applicant is proposing three driveways to service the new single family dwelling. A 6.25m driveway on Glenorchy Road to service a garage and two 3.5m driveways on Suncrest Drive to act as a circular driveway for a total of 13.25m, approximately 43 feet.

By policy of the former City of North York Council, two curb cuts, not to exceed a total of 30 ft. (9.1m) is permitted.

Comments And/or Discussion And/or Justification:

The number and size of driveway entrances for residential properties are regulated to limit front yard hard surfaces, to encourage the utilization of on-street parking, to ensure that there is sufficient boulevard space for snow storage, and to control access for safety reasons. Excessive front yard hard surfaces eliminates green space and results in increased quantity and speed of storm water runoff contributing to the erosion of receiving streams and lower water quality.

Conclusion:

In view of the policy of Council restricting the number of driveways per single family dwellings it is advised that no action be taken.

Contact Name:

Dominic Gismondi, P. Eng., Director of Roads and Sidewalk Operations, 395-6239

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that sanitary control manholes not be installed to Nos. 3466, 3468, 3470 and 3472 Bathurst Street and that Barrett Type Clean-outs be installed in the basements of all seven of the subject properties.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (March 19, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

John Montana, the owner/builder of the above property, has requested to be exempted to install sanitary control manholes to Nos. 3466, 3468, 3470 and 3472 Bathurst Street as required in Sewer By-Law No. 31442, as amended.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendation:

It is recommended that sanitary control manholes be installed to Nos. 3466, 3468, 3470 and 3472 Bathurst Street and Barrett Type Clean-outs be installed in the basement of Nos. 3460, 3462 and 3464 Bathurst Street. Due to conveyance of land to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto - Transportation Department, sufficient land on private property does not exist to install control manholes to the latter. A minimum 3.0 metre distance from the building face to the property line must exist in order to adequately install the manholes, therefore, Barrett Type Clean-outs are to be installed instead of control manholes.

Council Reference/Background History:

On March 18, 1998, a letter was received by this Department, from Montana Construction, requesting an exemption of the City of North York Sewer Use By-Law, No. 31442, as amended, regarding the above.

A Drain Permit No. D97-4523, by the former City of North York Building Department, was issued on September 24, 1997 indicating that a sanitary control manhole for each unit of the building be installed on private property (seven [7] units; seven[(7] manholes). These manholes were located on the portion of private property that was conveyed to the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto - Transportation Department. (The conveyance of land was brought to our attention at a later date.) On September 29, 1997, a letter was sent to the former North York Public Works Department by Fu Associates Ltd. (mechanical engineering company working on behalf of John Montana) requesting that the sanitary control manholes not be required to be installed on private property. The Public Works Department responded to that letter on October 6, 1997, by stating that the control manholes must be installed as per the City of North York Sewer Use By-Law No. 31442, as amended.

A second letter was sent to Fu Associates Ltd. on March 11, 1998, again stating that control manholes are required to be installed on private property. Mr. John Montana informed our staff on March 12, 1998, that there was a conveyance of land which reduced the portion of private property fronting the building and does not allow for the installation of the control manholes. The Public Works Department reviewed the application with the new land configuration and informed him verbally on March 16, 1998, that Nos. 3460 to 3464 do not have sufficient land on private property to install control manholes, therefore, Barrett Type Clean-outs are required instead. Units Nos. 3466 to 3472 have sufficient land on private property and control manholes must be installed.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The construction of a building requires the approval of several departments within the municipality such as the Building Department, Planning Department, Public Works Department, etc. It is the responsibility of the builder to ensure that all requirements from all departments are met. The Public Works Department did not inform Mr. Montana or his agents not to install control manholes.

Conclusions:

In keeping with the City of North York Sewer Use By-Law No.31442, as amended, Section 7 (1)(a), and in light of the restriction of private property fronting several units, it is advised that sanitary control manholes be installed for Nos. 3466, 3468, 3470 and 3472 Bathurst Street and Barrett Type Clean-outs be installed in the basement of Nos. 3460, 3462 and 3464 Bathurst Street.

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

- Mr. John Montana, Montana Construction; and

- Mr. Danny Fu, Fu Associates Ltd.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The owner of 89 Larkfield Drive. (Mr. D. Finnie) has requested that the building water rate in the amount of $416.00 which was paid under Municipal Services Application No. 004701 be refunded as he used water from his neighbours during construction of the new house at the subject location.

Source of Funds:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the building water rate not be refunded. Mr. Finnie had water available from the existing old water service on the property.

Council Reference/Background History:

A memorandum dated January 16, 1998, was received by this Department from Committee Secretary, Ms. C. Davidovits requesting a report be submitted to the Community Council in reply to Mr. D. Finnie's letter dated December 15, 1997.

Building Water Rates are monies charged to an applicant in conjunction with the fee for a new water service connection for any water that may be used by the builder during construction, prior to the installation of a meter.

In accordance with Works Committee Report 2, Clause 4, as adopted by Council on January 26, 1981, by Resolution 81-3, building water rates for all buildings were set at $1.28 per $1000.00 of building value. These values were used to establish the building water rate of $416.00 at this location.

Water By-law No. 32789 states, "A flat rate unmetered charge for water for use in building construction shall be made at the time of application for a new water service."

Mr. Finnie applied and paid for a new water service connection and building water rates on August 13, 1997. A meter was installed at 89 Larkfield Dr. on February 5, 1998. Records indicate that the new water service connection was installed by the City on September 12, 1997. The old water service connection, on the property, which could have been used by the builder until this date, was disconnected.

Conclusions:

In view of the 1981 Council decision and the current Water By-law No. 32789, it is advised that no action be taken.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends:

(1) the adoption of the following report (March 4, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, North York Civic Centre; and

(2) that the storage pipe and reference to the report (March 4, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, North York Civic Centre, be registered on title:

Purpose:

To lift Low-Lot By-Law No. 7273 from Lots 799 and 800, Plan M-108, Bedford Park Avenue.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. Lots 799 and 800, Plan M-108 be released from the provisions of Lot By-law No. 7273 subject to:

(a) the owner providing for the design and construction of the storage pipe works as proposed by the Consultant's Report prepared by Greenland Engineering Group dated October 2, 1997;

• the owner covenants and agrees to deposit to the City, a letter of credit in the amount of $70,000.00 to guarantee the satisfactory and prompt performance of the works as proposed by Greenland Engineering Group. The letter of credit shall be kept in full force and effect, until such time as the City accepts the said service, at which time the letter of credit shall be returned to the owner;

• a 3.5 metre easement be conveyed to the City at no cost over the proposed box culvert to ensure maintenance of the system;

(d) building permits not be released until a grading plan is submitted to the Works Department for approval, certification from a Consultant Engineer is received by the City verifying that all works have been completed satisfactory to the Commissioner of Public Works and that Agreements be concluded, and registered on title to maintain the grading as approved by the Commissioner of Public Works and Building and indemnify the City from all claims and damages;

• no building openings below the flood line contour of 176.0 metres; and



• all legal costs to be borne by owner; and

2. as per Council's Policy, subject to North York Community Council's approval, the Legal Department provide to Council for Public Hearing the By-law for removal of provisions of the Low-Lot By-law and that the Planning Department send out the notice of the policy of the by-law in the same manner as any other zoning amendment.

Background:

By-Law No. 7273, called Low-Lot By-Law, was passed in March of 1951 and stated that "no building or structure for residential or commercial purposes may be erected on lands set forth in Schedule "A" hereto which lands being low lying, marshy or of unstable character. The cost of construction thereon of satisfactory water works, sewage or drainage works is prohibitive".

Present North York Policy to lift Low-Lot By-law is as follows:

"The By-law for removal of the provisions of the Low-Lot By-Law must be made available by the Legal Department to Council for the Public Hearing called under the notice. Upon Council approval, notices of the passing of the by-law are sent out in the same manner as any other zoning amendment. If no appeals are received within 35 days, the by-law comes into effect.

In the event there is an agreement required to cover such things as accepting liability, retaining a Drainage Engineer, providing drainage works, then the agreement must be prepared by the Legal Department in consultation with the Public Works Department, with the agreement being signed in the usual way prior to the Public Hearing."

In 1986, an Engineering Report was prepared by the Consulting Engineers firm of Cosburn Patterson Wardman Ltd., on behalf of the owner, Mr. Camilleri. A Works Committee report was prepared for Council addressing the request for the lifting of the Low-Lot By-law. Works Committee Report No. 4, Clause 6 was received and adopted by Council on March 24, 1986, recommending that Lots 799 and 800, Plan M-108, not be released from the provisions of By-law No. 7273. The reason for refusal is that, based on the Consultant's Report, any dwelling built on the subject lots will be susceptible to flooding during a 100 year storm and increase the potential of flooding of others within the immediate area.

Comments:

As an Engineering Report is one requirement in the process of lifting the Low-Lot By-law, Greenland Engineering Group on behalf of the current owner, Mr. John Andriano, submitted a new Storm Drainage Engineering Report on July 11, 1997, that would study storage and drainage for a 100 year storm protection to be provided for the two subject lots. The Consultant's Report recommended the construction of a 2.4m by 1.8m concrete culvert, at an estimated cost of $70,000.00 within a 3.5m easement to provide the 100 year storm protection. The report states that this solution will alleviate any adverse effects of a 100 year storm on the subject properties and well as the adjacent properties. A further recommendation concluded that no openings in the proposed building on this lot be below the elevation of 176.0m. North York Public Works has reviewed the Consultant's Report and accept the recommendations.

Conclusions:

North York Public Works has no objections to the owner's request for the lifting of the Low-Lot By-law subject to compliance to Greenland Engineering Group Engineering Report of October 2, 1997, and their recommendations to permit a structure to be built and subject to the owner depositing a letter of credit in the amount of $70,000.00 as guarantee. Procedural conditions to lift the Low-Lot By-law will be as established by Council.

Contact Name:

Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering, 395-6235.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 23, 1998) from the Chief Building Official/Building Commissioner, and that the request from Councillor Flint to waive the permit fee for the erection of a temporary tent at the subject event be approved:

Purpose:

Evaluate and comment on a request received from Councillor Flint, to waive the permit fee for the erection of a temporary tent, for the "Backs in Motion" event sponsored by the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College.

Recommendation:

The Building Department advises that:

(1) it has no objections to the request from Councillor Flint to waive the permit fee for this year's event, being approved by the North York Community Council; and

(2) the applicant be advised to file the application for the permit at least 3 weeks prior to the event.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1997, North York Council approved a recommendation from the Legislation and Intergovernmental Affairs Committee to waive the permit fee to erect a temporary tent, for the "Backs in Motion" event that was held in Sunnybrook Park last year.

Conclusions:

This Department recommends the approval of the request from Councillor Flint, to waive the permit fee for the erection of a temporary tent for this years "Backs in Motion" event, by the North York Community Council.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 2, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to grant Special Occasion (Beer Garden) Permits to the groups listed in Appendix I. All normal conditions and requirements would apply as per previous City of North York policy and the Municipal Alcohol Policy.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A fee of $50.00 is charged for Special Occasion Permits. If groups have requirements for goods and services which are not readily available at the site, the Department will attempt to accommodate, but will bill at cost for expenses incurred.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) permission be granted to the groups listed in Appendix I to hold Special Occasion (Beer Garden) Permit Events;

(2) the groups obtain a Special Occasion Permit (S.O.P.) from the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario;

(3) the groups be charged the approved Special Occasion Permit fee of $50.00 and for goods and services not readily available at the site;

(4) the groups provide proof of liability insurance coverage in the amount of $2M naming the City as additional insured;

(5) all bartenders and servers be required to attend a Server Intervention Training Program at the groups' expense; and

(6) appropriate City officials be directed to carry out all things necessary thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Each year the Department (North York Region) receives requests from various groups for Special Occasion (Beer Garden) Permits to complement their community events. These events are oftentimes held in support of charity fundraisers and community oriented initiatives.

The Liquor License Board of Ontario requires that for events of this nature, approval be granted by City Council, ideally ninety days prior to the event. In addition, special inspections and approvals from other Departments such as Building, Health, and Fire, may be required.

Discussion:

Historically, these events have proven to be very positive, both in terms of community benefit and enjoyment of same. Financially, these events have minimal impact on the Department's budget and operationally, the Department anticipates no difficulties in meeting the requirements of these requests.

As directed by City of North York Council on May 24, 1995, by Resolution No. 95-09, all groups regardless of the occasion are to be treated in a like manner and be charged a Special Occasion Permit fee of $50.00. As previously indicated, if a group however has requirements for goods and services which are not readily available at the site, the Department will attempt to accommodate but will bill at cost for expenses incurred.

Conclusions:

Acknowledging the minimal financial and operational ramifications, the Department's past experience with these groups, the community benefit from these events and the enjoyment of same, Council is encouraged to support the recommendations contained in this report.

Contact Name:

David Brown, Office of the Commissioner, 395-6196

SPECIAL OCCASION (BEER GARDEN) PERMIT REQUESTS

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 23, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Council's approval to accept, as an official gift from the Philippine Government to the City of Toronto, a bust of Dr. Jose P. Rizal to be erected in Earl Bales Park to commemorate the Filipino patriot.

Source of Funds:

There is no cost associated with this monument as the responsibility for the production and installation of the bronze bust, including any landscape work, would be assumed by the Filipino community. The maintenance of the site will be the responsibility of the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1) that the City of Toronto accept as a gift a monument to Dr. Jose P. Rizal and erect it in Earl Bales Park in the designated location;

(2) that a moratorium be placed on any further installation of monuments and memorial trees in Earl Bales Park until a consolidated public art policy is completed and a specific plan developed for Earl Bales Park, and approved by a future meeting of Council ; and

(3) that the appropriate City Officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Consul General for the Philippines, Francisco F. Santos, has been in contact with Parks and Recreation for the purpose of making a gift of a bust of Dr. Jose P. Rizal and asking for permission to erect the bust as a monument in Earl Bales Park. With a centennial celebration planned for June 6, 1998, he has requested approval in time for that event. It is also proposed that the unveiling ceremony take place during the Philippines' Independence Day program and picnic at Earl Bales Park scheduled for June 6, 1998.

The bust of Dr. Rizal measuring 2.6ft x 2 ft x 1 ft, is made of cold cast bronze material mounted on a 6.6 feet granite pedestal and would be erected at the Earl Bales Park upon approval by the Toronto City Council. The recommended site for the bust is identified on the attached map. (Appendix I- site No. 2) The artist's concept for the site is shown on Appendix II. Earl Bales Park has been chosen for a number of reasons: it is a favourite site of the Toronto Filipino community; it is centrally located; it is easily accessed; and it has hosted many Filipino community events in recent times.

.

Historical Justification:

On June 12, 1998, the Republic of the Philippines will commemorate the 100th year of Philippine Independence. The centennial celebration aims to call on Filipinos abroad to manifest a deep sense of national pride, to appreciate the legacy of patriots and to share their history with the Toronto community. Therefore, this historical event provides a rare opportunity for members of the Filipino-Canadian community in Toronto to work jointly with the Philippine Consulate General in honouring the martyrdom of the Philippine's foremost national hero, Dr. Jose P. Rizal.

Jose Rizal is honoured as a hero of the Philippine Republic for the work that he did in the late 19^th century to awaken a sense of nationalism and ethnic pride among Filipinos. Dr. Rizal is said to have been the first Filipino to set foot on Canadian soil, on May 12, 1888. As a philosopher and doctor and a man noted for his talents in poetry, languages, music, and art, Rizal's actions embodied adoration for his people, combined with great respect and concern for their health and prosperity. His writings were particularly controversial having had influence on the nationalist movement.

Rizal was arrested after returning to the Philippines from Hong Kong in 1892, but this did not stop others from disseminating his message and carrying on his work. An organization called the Katipunan, formed by Andres Bonifacio, was created with the aim of shaking off Spanish domination and gaining Filipino independence. On August 26, 1896, an insurrection broke out in the province of Cavite. Spain sent military reinforcements to increase its army to 30,000 men. Rizal, held to be responsible for the rebellion, was condemned to death on December 30, 1896. He is viewed as a national figure responsible for leading the independence movement against Spain.

Comment:

Earl Bales Park is a very popular site within the city and during summer weekends, thousands of visitors make use of the park and its facilities. Due to this popularity, the park has been chosen by a number of groups as a logical site for the placement of various monuments and also by individuals as a suitable location for individual memorials such as commemorative trees and benches. At present, there are three major monuments, the Holocaust Memorial, the Raoul Wallenberg Monument, a monument to lost children, and over ninety memorial trees. North York Council also approved the installation of a Jewish War Memorial in the park to be undertaken some time in the near future. All of these are extremely worthwhile projects but the park is in danger of becoming a memorial park rather than an active recreational facility as originally intended. After the installation of the Filipino monument, a moratorium would allow for a review of the present situation and a more planned and considered approach to future installations.

Conclusions:

The Division recommends that this generous gift of a monument to Jose P. Rizal be accepted from the Philippine government and erected in Earl Bales Park at the site designated on the accompanying map.

Contact Name:

Gary W. Stoner, Deputy Commissioner, Parks and Recreation, 395-6190.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion (January 21, 1998), from Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway, which was deferred by the North York Community Council at its meeting of January 21, 1998:

"WHEREAS community safety is a priority to the residents of the North York community; and

WHEREAS the Toronto Police Service has received fewer resources in the last number of years and have come to rely more and more on Neighbourhood Watch; and

WHEREAS the North York community has come to rely and depend on Neighbourhood Watch as an effective way of protecting our communities; and

WHEREAS Neighbourhood Watch has been an unqualified success in promoting community safety and crime prevention;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the North York Community Council endorse Neighbourhood Watch as integral in fighting crime and promoting crime prevention in the City of Toronto;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the North York Community Council adopt Neighbourhood Watch as a model for establishing community safety and crime prevention programs;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that funding for Neighbourhood Watch in North York be continued;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution be circulated to all other Community Councils in the City of Toronto."

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 13, 1998) from the Manager, Culture Branch, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The North York Heritage Committee (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee) at its meeting held on February 10, 1998, recommended that Council for the City of Toronto accept the donation of a Heritage Conservation Easement from the owners of the historic Elihu Pease House, Louis and Donalda Badone, in accordance with part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990). This report is placed before North York Community Council for its consideration further to the advice of the North York Heritage Committee (LACAC).

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1) that Council for the City of Toronto, approve in principle the receipt of a donation of a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement on the property known as the historic Elihu Pease House, located at 34 Avondale Road, Toronto, under the terms of part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and in accordance with the advice of the North York Heritage Committee (Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee);

(2) that municipal staff be given the authority to negotiate the terms of the Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement with Louis and Donalda Badone, the owners of the Elihu Pease House;

(3) that staff report back to Council for the enactment of a municipal By-law and execution of the agreement; and

(4) that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On September 29, 1997, the following direction was given to the City of North York by the Ontario Municipal Board in connection with the historic Elihu Pease House and Official Plan Amendment No. 393:

"The Board directs the City to draft a site specific policy that deals with the historic nature of the Elihu Pease House and provides policies for bonusing for its preservation within a development proposal or for the relocation of it to a suitable location that would enhance its preservation. The Board notes that it has been moved once from its original location and consists of a portion of the original Pease Home."

In addition to the site-specific policies in Official Plan Amendment No. 393 that City staff have been developing, Mr. and Mrs. Badone have asked the City to enter into a "Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement" in order to secure an added layer of protection for their heritage property (see Appendix "B"). Also, at its recent hearing of March 2, 1997, the Ontario Municipal Board directed staff to include in Official Plan Amendment No. 393, a provision whereby Council may consider the acquisition of a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement on the property known as 34 Avondale Avenue.

Heritage Conservation Easement Agreements:

In the Province of Ontario, the primary means of protecting built heritage is through designation by municipal councils under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990). In 1990, the Elihu Pease House was designated (By-Law No. 31251) by the City of North York as a building of architectural and historical significance under the Act.

The Act also permits municipal councils to pass by-laws to enter into voluntary agreements, known as heritage conservation easement agreements, with owners of any type of real property. In the case of heritage buildings, easements can be used as an effective preservation tool for significant heritage features and as protection against demolition.

In general, the owner who is subject to a heritage conservation easement agreement has agreed to take positive actions to protect the property, such as maintaining the heritage elements, and refraining from damaging those aspects of the property that lend it heritage significance. As with designation, the owner also agrees to seek the written approval of Council for any work which affects the appearance or construction of the building's heritage elements.

The easement agreement also runs with the title of the property affecting all subsequent owners and requires the owner to provide adequate insurance for the reconstruction of the building, in the event of loss or damage.

Comments:

The North York Heritage Committee serves as the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (LACAC) to advise Council on matters relating to the preservation of properties considered to be of historical and/or architectural significance in the North York community.

At its meeting of February 10, 1998, the North York Heritage Committee gave full consideration to the acquisition of a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement on the property municipally known as 34 Avondale Avenue, Toronto (see Appendix "A"). The North York Heritage Committee endorsed the principle of a municipal acquisition/donation of a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement protecting the Elihu Pease House on the present property and recommended that municipal staff be given the authority to negotiate the appropriate terms of the agreement with the owners of the Elihu Pease House. The North York Heritage Committee further recommended that this matter be forwarded to North York Community Council for approval in principle.

Conclusions:

This Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement is being considered at the request of the property owners Louis and Donalda Badone. As one of few surviving 19^th century buildings remaining in the North York Centre area, the Elihu Pease House is part of the unique and special heritage of North York. The securing of a Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement on the property is an appropriate measure which can secure the long-term preservation of the Elihu Pease House on its present property.

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

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the Toronto Taste '98 event being held by Second Harvest be declared a community festival event.

The North York Community Council submits the following communication (February 23, 1998) from Misa Kim, manager, Development and Special Events, Second Harvest:

"In compliance with our application for a special occasion permit from the Liquor License Board of Ontario, we are providing you with the following information regarding the special event we are hosting, Toronto Taste '98.

Toronto Taste '98 is a benefit in support of Second Harvest, Toronto's only perishable food recovery program. Second Harvest collects and delivers fresh food to help feed more than 153,000 hungry people in Toronto every day.

Toronto Taste '98 will take place Sunday, June 7, 1998, at 4:30 p.m. at the Vaughan Estate, The Estates of Sunnybrook. The Estates of Sunnybrook are located at 2075 Bayview Avenue, North York.

This will be an indoor/outdoor event, where people will be able to sample the culinary works of 60 of the city's finest chefs. The outdoor component will require six tents, 30 bar-b-ques and we will have fire extinguishers on site.

Approximately 1,200 people are expected to be in attendance at this event.

If you have any questions regarding this event, you can contact me at Second Harvest."

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the South African Freedom Day event being held by The Canadian Council of South Africans be declared a community festival event.

The North York Community Council submits the following memorandum (February 27, 1998) from Jaye Robinson, Interim Lead, Special Events:

"On April 26, 1998, the Canadian Council of South Africans will be hosting South African Freedom Day Celebrations on Mel Lastman Square. The Special Events Office has approved the event and is aware of the organization's intentions of obtaining a Special Occasion Permit to sell beer on Mel Lastman Square.

The Special Events Office has met with the organizing committee and is satisfied that the event will be produced in a professional manner and will be very successful. I respectfully submit this memorandum requesting your approval."

(City Council on April 16, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the report dated April 7, 1998, from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York, headed 'By-laws for Official Plan and Zoning Amendments, Romeo DiBattista, 665 Trethewey Drive', embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that Council resolve that the changes to the zoning by-law are minor and technical in nature and therefore, pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further public meeting is required.'; and

(2) any site plan applications related to the development at 665 Trethewey Drive be circulated to the Councillors for Ward 27 - York Humber, in order that the opportunity for public input from residents in their constituency can be facilitated if deemed appropriate; and

(3) the four Councillors from North York Humber and York Humber be invited to participate in the design of the proposed public park of 1.2 hectares for this project in order that community concerns can be addressed.' ")

The North York Community Council recommends that the following Supplementary Report No. 2 (March 26, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, be adopted and that the subject applications be approved with the following revisions and additional conditions:

(1) the addition of the following wording to Recommendation 3.1(iv):

", Jane Street or Trewethey Drive and not be allowed to use local residential streets.";

(2) Recommendation No. 3.2 be amended to read as follows:

"The subdivision agreement shall require that the owner provide funds for one traffic light on Trethewey Drive at either of the two entrances to the subdivision site, should they be deemed necessary by the City within five years from the start of construction.";

(3) Recommendation No. 3.3 be amended to provide for the Letter of Credit to be for a period of up to five years;

(4) the deletion of the following from Note No. 10 in Schedule "E" attached to the subject report (Transportation Department comments):

"and the costs borne by the applicant.";

(5) the replacement in Note No. 11 in Schedule "E" attached to the subject report (Transportation Department comments) of "must be provided at no cost to the City" with "The applicant pay a prorated amount of the total cost based on the proportion of traffic generated by the development."; and

(6) that the layout and use of the park be the subject of a community meeting organized by the Parks and Recreation Department and the two local Councillors:

Purpose:

This report is a review of revised plans submitted by the applicant on March 16, 1998. Recommendations of this report incorporate the actions of the North York Community Council on February 18, 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Official Plan designation be amended to Residential Density Two (RD-2) and Local Open Space (LOS) and Part D.11 of the North York Official Plan be deleted, as attached in Schedule "P";

(2) the Zoning By-law, attached as Schedule "Q", be enacted which amends the zoning on the property to Multiple-Family Dwellings First Density Zone (RM1) exception and Open Space Zone (O1);

(3) the Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc., dated March 12, 1998, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

(3.1) prior to the registration of the Plan, the owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement to carry out the following to the satisfaction of the appropriate City officials:

(i) submit plans and carry out the approved landscaping treatment for the lots which abut industrial uses prior to the issuance of any building permit;

(ii) submit options and agree to carry out a preferred option for the long term maintenance of the buffer area and appropriate treatment of the buffer and wall details in consultation with the local Councillors, prior to the issuance of the building permit;

(iii) submit plans demonstrating the enhancement of the Trethewey Drive frontage through building elevation location and treatment, landscaping, decorative fencing and pedestrian and vehicle access , on all lots which abut Trethewey Drive or an easement which abuts Trethewey Drive, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and

(iv) all construction traffic to the site be required to use Industry Street;

(3.2) the subdivision agreement shall require that the owner provide funds, satisfactory to the appropriate City official, for traffic lights on Trethewey Drive at its two entrances to the subdivision site, should they be deemed necessary by the City within five years from the start of construction;

(3.3) lot 119 be conveyed to the City and access be opened initially during the construction phase and closed until a full road connection to Industry Street is deemed necessary by the City, and the applicant provide the City with a letter of credit to construct a road on this block;

(3.4) the Standard Conditions of Approval for Subdivisions, attached as Schedule "D" to this report;

(3.5) the conditions of the North York Transportation Department, attached as Schedule "E" to this report;

(3.6) the conditions of the North York Public Works Department, attached as Schedule "F" to this report;

(3.7) the conditions of the North York Parks and Recreation Department, attached as Schedule "G" to this report;

(3.8) the conditions of the North York Public Health Department, attached as Schedule "H" to this report, with the following clarifications:

(i) appropriate new block number references apply to the newly revised plan;

(ii) with respect to the recommended Detailed Noise Control Study:

- ensure that the analysis has taken into account the use of the facility at 123 Industry Street by Monto Industries Limited when it is running in season and at full capacity; and

- the study will consider potential at-source measures as necessary, in addition to those required on residential side, in consultation with representatives of Monto Industries Limited and to the satisfaction of the City's Medical Officer of Health; and

(iii) in addition to the warning clause regarding railway corridor noise and vibration, that a warning clause be registered on title advising purchasers that despite measures to mitigate noise, odour and other effects from adjacent industries, the use of the adjacent lands for industrial purposes may be of concern to occupants;

(3.9) the conditions of Metropolitan Toronto, attached as Schedule "I" to this report;

(3.10) the conditions of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, attached as Schedule "J" to this report;

(3.11) the conditions of the Canadian Pacific Railway, attached as Schedule "K" to this report;

(3.12) the conditions of the Canadian National Railway, attached as Schedule "L" to the Recommendations Report;

(3.13) the conditions of Consumers Gas, attached as Schedule "M" to this report;

(3.14) the conditions of North York Hydro, attached as Schedule "N" to the Recommendations Report;

(3.15) the conditions of Bell Canada, attached as Schedule "O" to the Recommendations Report or those of another duly authorized licenced telecommunications company;

(4) the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services report on a public lane policy for the City of Toronto;

(5) the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services continue to explore opportunities to improve access and address operational traffic issues that will not negatively impact on the residential area to the north;

(6) the North York Planning Department review the appropriateness of the industrial zoning immediately adjacent to the site in consultation with the Black Creek Task Force and report back to the North York Community Council at the next meeting;

(7) the Interim Functional Lead for transportation review the possibility of redesigning the Black Creek/Trethewey Drive intersection in order to accommodate left turns; and

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

Council Reference:

On February 18, 1998, North York Community Council recommended that the applications be approved subject to the recommendations in the Supplementary Report and specific conditions shown in the extract attached as Appendix A.

On March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, City Council referred the applications back to North York Community Council for further consideration.

Discussion:

1) Revised Plan:

North York Community Council did not approve the request for public lanes and requested a redesign of the park. The applicant submitted revised plans shown on Schedule "C" with two significant changes:

- the lanes, previously located to the south of Trethewey Drive, have been eliminated and replaced with lots backing onto Trethewey Drive; and

- the proposed public park of 1.2 hectares (3.0 acres) has been moved to the Trethewey Drive frontage surrounded on all sides by public streets.

The previous plan made a positive contribution to the streetscape of Trethewey Drive and the relationship with the northern community by providing units which fronted directly onto street. To ensure the positive aspects are maintained in the revised plan, the 31 units abutting Trethewey Drive can be treated with a combination of decorative fencing, landscaping and units facing directly onto Trethewey Drive. The public park with a frontage of over 170 metres along Trethewey Drive will also serve to enhance this frontage. The conditions of draft subdivision approval have been revised to require the submission of detailed plans showing building location and elevations, landscaping and decorative fencing which demonstrate how this enhanced frontage can be achieved.

The proposed park location on Trethewey Drive will provide a gateway to the new residential area and provide easily accessible park space for the existing residential community. Parks and Recreation Department have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objection to the new location.

2) Information Session:

The revised plans were displayed at an Open House was held on March 25, 1998. Representatives of the applicant, staff and Councillors were present to respond to comments and questions. The community once again expressed support for the proposed low rise residential subdivision plan. Specific to the park and Trethewey Drive frontage, area residents are interested in how the park is going to be designed. They generally agreed that the park location would be easily accessible for the existing residents. The park design should incorporate sufficient buffering on Trethewey Drive with more active elements located as far to the southern portion of the park as possible.

3) Industrial Use at 123 Industry Street:

To address issues recently raised by Monto Industries, a tenant currently using the facility at 123 Industry Street (southeast corner of Industry Street and the eastern property boundary), the following additional conditions are recommended:

- the noise analysis consider this use while running in season and at full capacity;

- at-source measures be considered; and

- a warning clause advising purchasers that noise, odour and other effects from adjacent industries may be of concern to occupants.

Planning staff will be reporting on the status of the industrial lands to the east of this plan and the on-going investigations of the Black Creek Task Force at the next meeting of North York Community Council.

Conclusions:

The approval of the revised plans to construct a maximum of 535 homes and public park is recommended. Conditions and previous recommendations of North York Community Council are consolidated in this report. A Draft Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law reflecting the recommendations are attached to this report.

Contact Name:

Alan Binks, Planner, 395-7100

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

(i) (March 17, 1998) from Mr. David L. Smith, Vice President, Monto Industries Limited, advising that while the noise study recommends some form of buffering for the noise emanating from his company, he is concerned that it will be difficult to design a buffer that will sufficiently suppress the sound while allowing the company easy access to service its equipment; and

(ii) (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that Clause 3 of Report No. 2 of the North York Community Council was referred back to the North York Community Council for further consideration.

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

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to forward the implementing by-laws for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments pertaining to the subject site for Council's enactment.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council resolve that the changes to the zoning by-law are minor and technical in nature and therefore, pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further public meeting is required.

Council Reference:

At its meeting held on April 1, 1998, North York Community Council recommended approval of the subject applications and amendments to the North York Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Discussion:

Subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act provides that where a change is made in a proposed zoning by-law after the holding of a statutory public meeting, Council shall determine whether any further public notice is to be given. In this case, the park location was revised and rear lanes were deleted from the plan. These changes were reviewed at a community meeting on March 25, 1998 and recommended for adoption by North York Community Council on April 1, 1998. Minor technical changes to the by-law were made which, in part, make it more consistent with By-law No. 7625.

The amending by-laws to adopt Official Plan Amendment No. 459 and to amend North York By-law No. 7625 are on the agenda to be considered by City Council. The Legal Department has also reviewed the by-laws as to form. Should the by-laws be enacted, one certified copy of each should be sent to the Legal Department.

Contact Name:

Alan Binks, Planner, Phone: 395-7100, Fax: 395-7155.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1) Clause A.6.2 of the Subdivision Agreement (Option [a]) referred to in the following report (March 23, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, North York Civic Centre, be re-confirmed; and

(2) Council establish a policy for residential building lots for single and semi-detached dwellings developed by plans of subdivision to have a storm drain extended to the rear of proposed dwellings to alleviate any future rear lot drainage problems, where required:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to respond to a request from The Goldman Group, developer of the above subdivision for exemption from a Subdivision Agreement condition which requires the extension of house storm drains for rear lot drainage.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council provide direction on The Goldman Group's request for relief from Clause A.6.2 of the Subdivision Agreement which requires extension of house storm chains for rear lot drainage to either:

(a) re-confirm Clause A.6.2 of the Subdivision Agreement;

(b) grant exemption from Clause A.6.2 of the Subdivision Agreement with no conditions; or

(c) grant exemption from Clause A.6.2 of the Subdivision Agreement provided that the developer deposits an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $84,000.00 for a period of five years after the assumption of the subdivision to cover any unforeseen drainage problems.

(2) Council policy be established for residential building lots for single and semi-detached dwellings developed by plans of subdivision to have a storm drain extended to the rear of proposed dwellings to alleviate any future rear lot drainage problems, where required; and

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

Background:

The Works and Emergency Services is in receipt of letter dated March 23, 1998 from Ms. Cynthia Murphy of 1196391 Ontario Ltd., (The Goldman Group) requesting exemption from condition A.6.2 of the Subdivision Agreement with the City file UDSB-1227, Plan 66M-2306. Clause A.6.2 of the Subdivision Agreement with the former City of North York states:

"The OWNER agrees to provide a building storm drain for lots graded from rear to front at the rear wall of each dwelling, which shall be deep enough to accommodate a connection from a rear lot catchbasin. Prior to the assumption of the municipal services by the City, the OWNER agrees to install a rear lot catchbasin and connection to the building storm drain on the lot in which it is deemed necessary by the Commissioner".

Discussion:

The Works and Emergency Services is responsible for the review of the engineering design for plans of subdivision, including grading and rear lot drainage.

Recently, there has been an increased number of draft plans for residential subdivisions with lots having narrower frontages and reduced side yard set backs. Rear lot drainage may be impacted by the trend of having larger residential building envelopes on a combination of narrower frontages and reduced side yard set backs.

Typically residential lots in plans of subdivision are graded to provide rear lot drainage by a combination of swales and rear lot catchbasins with connections to municipal sewers.

In the past, there have been situations where rear lot drainage problems have arisen as a result of homeowners altering grading and/or swales being obstructed. In some cases, rear lot catchbasins have had to be installed to alleviate drainage problems. These installations, which had to be done after the construction of houses has been completed, have proved to be quite expensive, causing inconvenience to homeowners and subject to numerous disputes among homeowners, house builders and the subdivision developer and City.

At the former City of North York, rear lot drainage and ponding problems that arise after the assumption of a subdivision have been rectified based on a cost sharing arrangement between the City and the property owner. Former City of North York Policy of Council No. 93-09 permits owners experiencing flooding or ponding problems at the rear of their residential properties to apply to the Works Committee for City aid to a maximum of 50 percent of the total cost to resolve the problem.

The cost of installing a rear lot catchbasin with a connection to a municipal sewer in standard situations is on average $10,000.00 with the City's share being approximately $5,000.00.

It is quite possible that swales draining the rear of residential lots could become obstructed with the construction of permanent features such as walkways, fencing, landscaping, etc., by a property owner. This is of particular concern when property owners are impacted as a result of drainage being obstructed or lot grading altered on a neighbouring property. This can in some cases become very difficult to resolve by the City if consent is not given by the owner to the City to enter onto private property. In situations where consent is given, the City may be exposed to liability for performing work on private property.

Typically, rear lot drainage problems can be resolved with the installation of a catchbasin in the vicinity of the ponding area on private property and drained by a pipe between houses to the municipal sewer located on the street. This becomes problematic when sideyard set backs between dwellings are relatively narrow and there is insufficient space for access to permit the installation of a pipe as an outlet for ponding water at the rear of a property.

It is relatively inexpensive, estimated at $200.00 per lot, to extend a storm connection to the rear of a property before houses are built and therefore, the Department has included this as a requirement in subdivisions such as this one. Unfortunately, the developer and builder inadvertently failed to provide these installations during the construction of the subdivision and houses. In order to construct now, it is estimated that the cost is approximately $2,000.00 per lot or approximately $84,000.00 for the 42 houses involved. If Council wishes to grant relief from this requirement, it is recommended that as a condition, the developer post security in the form of a letter of credit in the amount of $84,000.00 for a period of five years from assumption of the subdivision to cover any unforeseen drainage problems.

Conclusion:

The extension of a storm connection from the front to the rear of each proposed single or semi-detached dwelling within new plans of subdivision serves as a preventative measure by providing an outlet to alleviate any future rear lot drainage problems. The extension of a storm connection pipe, if done in conjunction with the house construction for each residential dwelling is a relatively low cost measure and is a fraction of the expense of installing a new connection after house construction and landscaping is completed.

Contact:

S. Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering, 395-6235

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

- Ms. Cynthia Murphy, Senior Planner, 1196391 Ontario Ltd. (The Goldman Group); and

- Mr. Frank Dodano.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

To temporarily close Brookfield Road to allow the York Mills Valley Association to conduct their annual Valley Fair.

Source of funds:

With the exception of a $50.00 application fee, all costs associated with the temporary closure are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendations:

That permission for the temporary closure of Brookfield Road be granted and that the appropriate By-law be enacted by Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Similar events have been conducted at this location in the past, without incident.

Discussions:

A request has been received from Mr. Grant Warfield, on behalf of the York Mills Valley Association Setup Committee, to temporarily close Brookfield Road to vehicle traffic. This closure is required to accommodate their annual Valley Fair.

In accordance with the former City of North York Procedural By-law No. 24733, the appropriate agencies and departments have been contacted for comments. There have been no objections to the closure, subject to the applicant adhering to the following condition:

- The applicant shall ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles. Further, that the organizer be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could well interrupt the program as planned.

Conclusions:

This department recommends that the appropriate By-law be enacted to ensure that Brookfield Road is closed to vehicle traffic on Saturday, June 6, 1998, from 10:00 am to 7:00 pm.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, at 395-7484.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the confidential report (February 20, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre, respecting the matter of Development Charges for Seneca College, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover.

The North York Community Council reports having requested the City Solicitor explore whether under the "omnibus bill" charges can be levied that are unable to be levied under the Development Charges Act and provide a supplementary report on this matter to the North York Community Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council adopt this report and instruct its solicitors to do all things necessary to effect a refund of development charges paid by Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology in respect of its development at:

(a) York University, and obtain a dismissal of Court file no. 97-CU-119883; and

(b) Newnham Campus and obtain a withdrawal of their complaint filed pursuant to Section 8 of the Development Charges Act;

(2) Council delegate authority for hearings with respect to complaints made under Section 8 of the Development Charges Act to the North York Community Council in respect of North York Development Charges as an interim measure; and

(3) Council consider how hearings with respect to complaints made under Section 8 of the Development Charges Act should be conducted for the other former municipalities on an interim basis.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)

(See Clause No. 41 of Report No. 4A of The North York Community Council.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Community Voices of Support.

The North York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to provide a report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on the impact of the commercial concentration tax and downloading on community and volunteer agencies as it relates to new charges or user fees; new taxes and/or rents; the sideloading from the City of Toronto and school board, and its agencies, boards and commissions.

The North York Community Council heard a presentation from the following individuals with respect to Community Voices of Support which is a network of community-based health and social services agencies across Metropolitan Toronto organized to give voice to the vital contribution that the voluntary community service sector makes to the quality of life in the City and communities:

- Ms. Karen Liberman, Culture Director, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;

- Ms. Shelley Zuckerman, Executive Director, North York Community House; and

- Ms. Leslie Kirke, Executive Director, Conflict Mediation Service, Downsview.

(A copy of various documents provided to Members of the North York Community Council is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

(b) Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils.

The North York Community Council reports having:

(1) received the following communication (March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause 2 of Report No. 3 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team headed "Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils" wherein it is recommended that the Community Councils have community consultation on this issue and report back to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team;

(2) approved two workshops to be held on to be determined dates to discuss such issue;

(3) requested the City Clerk and staff of the Chief Administrative Officer's office to facilitate such workshops;

(4) requested that an invitation to attend the workshops be issued to:

(i) all ratepayer associations in the former City of North York; and

(ii) any other organizations which Members of North York Community Council feel should be invited and that the Members of North York Community Council provide the names of such organizations to the Interim Contact for the North York Community Council.

(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted, without amendment, Clause 2 of Report No. 3 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team headed "Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils".

(c) Requirements Of Statutory Powers Procedure Act, Planning Act And Toronto's Interim Procedural By-law.

The North York Community Council reports having:

(1) received the following report (March 17, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre; and

(2) requested the City Solicitor to prepare a report for consideration by the North York Community Council on the obligations and procedural responsibilities with respect to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act:

(March 17, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre, reporting as directed on the Interim Procedural By-law as it relates to the requirements of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Planning Act.

(d) Parking Prohibitions - Garnier Court - Seneca Heights.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred sine die the following report:

(February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation recommending that City of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to prohibit parking at any time on certain sections of the north side of Garnier Court, and on certain sections of the south side between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

(e) Quit Claim Of Easement - 5 Glen Park Avenue - North York Spadina.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report as it relates to 5 Glen Park Avenue until its next meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998, in order that Councillor Moscoe may consult with the Synagogue:

(February 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Public Works recommending that the City easements at 204 Richard Clark Drive, 357 Hollywood Avenue and 5 Glen Park Avenue be quit claimed subject to the City assuming no liabilities for any of the physical services (pipes) within the easements.

(f) Damaged Sod - 2 Northgate Drive, Off Whitley Avenue Flankage - North York Spadina.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred sine die the following report:

(February 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Public Works recommending that no immediate action be taken regarding the request by the residents of 2 Northgate Drive to replace the boulevard sod off Whitley Avenue because of weeds.

(g) Encroachment - 10 Amos Crescent - North York Spadina.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its next meeting scheduled for May 6, 1998:

(March 4, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works recommending that if the proposed encroachment is approved by the City, the encroachment be subject to the following conditions:

(1) the owner(s) enter into an encroachment agreement with the City;

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to do all things necessary.

(h) Driveways - 325 Hollywood Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report and communication until its next meeting scheduled for May 6, 1998, in order to obtain a report from Urban Planning (Forestry) on the best method of designing the driveway in order to protect the tree:

(i) (March 23, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works recommending that the policy of the former City of North York Council regarding number of permitted driveways be upheld; and

(ii) (March 30, 1998) from Frioz and Parvin Gulamhusein outlining their concerns with respect to the decision by the Public Works Department not to approve the request for two curb cuts/driveway entrances for the construction of a new single family dwelling.

(i) Environmental Events - Spring 1998.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(March 20, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Parks and Recreation, informing local Councillors about the sites which are proposed for this year's naturalization plantings in their communities.

(j) Interim Delegation Of Authority - Community Council - Rental Housing Protection Act.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on March 4, 5, and 6, 1998, adopted, without amendment a motion by Councillor Brown which provided for the delegation to each Community Council the authority to give notice and hold any public meeting regarding applications under the Rental Housing Protection Act as required by Section 11 of that Act in respect of land within the part of the urban area it represents and that the Urban Environment and Development Committee is delegated the authority to hold such meetings in respect of land that is within the geographic area represented by more than one Community Council.

(k) Special Event - Crime Concern - Neighbours Night Out - June 16, 1998.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(February 10, 1988) from Ms. Carol Johnson, Crime Concern, advising of a neighbourhood community event on June 16, 1998, and requesting support and assistance to spread the celebration across more of the City.

(l) City of Toronto Act, 1997 - Proposed Amendment to Bill 103.

The North York Community Council deferred consideration of the following Notice of Motion from Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway and communication from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre, to the meeting at which the matter of the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils is to be considered:

(January 21, 1998) from Councillor Minnan-Wong, Don Parkway, regarding a request for an amendment to subsection 8(4) of Bill 103; and

(January 30, 1998) from the Solicitor, North York Civic Centre, recommending that if it is decided to seek an amendment to the City of Toronto Act, 1997, the City Solicitor be directed to seek the same from the Ontario Legislature.

(m) Change in North-End Looping of 97 Yonge Bus Route - Results of Public Consultation.

The North York Community Council reports having:

(1) referred Recommendations Nos. 3 and 4 contained in the following communication (February 26, 1998) from Mr. Vincent Rodo, General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission, to the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, to review the intersection of Moore Park Avenue and Hilda Avenue; and

(3) requested the Toronto Transit Commission to implement the routing change on a three month trial basis and provide a report on its findings to the North York Community Council meeting scheduled to be held on June 24, 1998.

(February 26, 1998) from Mr. Vincent Rodo, General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission reporting on a routing change of the 97 Yonge bus route.

Ms. Gayle Brown appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(n) Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application OZ-88-40 - R. G. Thwaites - 15 Cameron Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having:

(1) received the following communication; and

(2) recommended that a second public meeting be scheduled to consider this application:

(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, referred Clause 1 of Report No. 2 of the North York Community Council, headed "Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application OZ-88-40 - R. G. Thwaites - 15 Cameron Avenue - Ward 10 - North York Centre", back to the North York Community Council for further consideration.

(o) Preliminary Report - Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application UDZ-98-04, UDSP-98-015 - Oxford Hills Developments (Horsham) Inc. - 24, 26, 36, 38 and 44 Horsham Avenue - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:

(March 13, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 16 unit, 3 storey freehold townhouse development; and recommending that the application be referred to the North York Planning Department to continue reviewing and processing in the manner outlined in the report.

(p) Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UD0Z-98-01 - B.Y. Group Ltd. - 111 Barber Greene Road - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:

(March 13, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit 31 townhouses, and recommending that the application be referred to the North York Planning Department to continue reviewing and processing in the manner outlined in the report.

(q) Preliminary Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-50 - Romzanali Akbarali in Trust - 101 - 123 Bartley Drive - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:

(March 12, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a residential development comprising of two 4-storey apartment buildings, ten 3-storey townhouse units and four 2-storey semi-detached units; and recommending that the application be referred to the North York Planning Department to continue processing in the manner outlined in the report.

(r) Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UD0Z-98-03 - Rowland Lincoln Mercury - Southwest Corner of Eglinton Avenue East and Jonesville Crescent - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:

(March 13, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments in order to permit the immediate construction of an automobile dealership and the future construction of a restaurant; and recommending that the application be referred to the North York Planning Department to continue reviewing and processing in the manner outlined in the report.

(s) Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UD0Z-98-02 - John Waldie - 860 York Mills Road - Don Parkway.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:

(March 16, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a one storey commercial building containing a restaurant and service commercial uses; and recommending that the application be referred to the North York Planning Department to continue reviewing and processing in the manner outlined in the report.

(t) Preliminary Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-06 - Liberty Walk Developments Inc. - 760 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Spadina.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:

(March 16, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a development consisting of 245 four storey townhouse units; and recommending that the application be referred to the North York Planning Department to continue reviewing and processing in the manner outlined in the report.

(u) Recommendation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-96-30 - Harry Snoek - 15-19 Finch Avenue West and 7-11 Blakely Road - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report and authorized staff to schedule a public meeting:

(March 18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit two residential apartment buildings and submitting recommendations with respect thereto.

(v) Committee of Adjustment - Minor Variance Application for semi-detached dwelling - 31 Kirby Road - North York Humber.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following motion by Councillor Mammoliti:

"WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment has recently dealt with a minor variance application for semi-detached dwellings at 31 Kirby Road; and

WHEREAS the south side of Kirby Road in the vicinity of 31 Kirby Road is zoned RM5, but developed as single family dwellings;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Planning staff prepare a report regarding the zoning on the south side of Kirby Road, considering options to make the zoning on the south side of the street consistent with the rest of the street."

(w) UDOZ-96-27 and UD52-97-03 - 1190082 Ontario Limited (Tridel) - 22 Old York Mills Road - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following motion by Councillor Flint:

"WHEREAS the applicant has had a number of meetings with area community groups to review the applications and site plan for the proposals on the site;

AND WHEREAS the applications have been with the City for over one and a half years;

AND WHEREAS there is an issue of the timing between scheduled Community Council meetings;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Planning staff be given the authority to schedule a statutory public meeting for the subject applications when the Acting Commissioner of Planning has signed the final report.

(x) Property Tax Fairness - Multi-Residential Properties.

The North York Community Council reports having requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the North York Community Council on a mechanism to ensure that savings that accrue as a result of assessment on multi-residential buildings are passed back to the tenants of such buildings.

The North York Community Council heard a presentation from Mr. Howard Tessler, Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations on the issue of property tax fairness for tenants of multi-residential properties.

(A copy of Mr. Tessler's presentation is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

(y) 1998 City Planning Work Program.

The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the recommendation of the Urban Environment and Development Committee embodied in the following communication (March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk, save and except for the description of Project No. (9) appearing in subclause (1)(a)(ii) of the Committee's recommendation which it recommends be amended to read as follows:

"Responds to the closure of CFB Downsview and several specific applications. Included in the study for the purposes of establishing appropriate principles of land use and density are the City (formerly Metro) owned lands at the south east corner of Allen Road and Sheppard Avenue West. The study will result in a Secondary Plan for the area, as well as rezoning to permit specific developments on the CFB Downsview lands.":

(March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a copy of a report (March 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services to all Community Councils for their comments on the 1998 City Planning Work Program and requesting that any comments be forwarded to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for consideration at its meeting of April 20, 1998.

(z) High Priority Items Being Considered by Transportation Staff on Eglinton Avenue West, Between Dufferin Street and W. R. Allen Road - Wards 22 and 28 - North Toronto and York-Eglinton.

The North York Community Council reports having:

(1) received the following communication (March 25, 1998) from the City Clerk; and

(2) expressed its reservations and concerns on behalf of the residents using the Allen Road about the extreme measures that the former City of York and the former Metropolitan Toronto have taken with respect to the traffic management plan for the former City of York Ward 2.

(March 25, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998, had before it a report (February 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, listing high priority items being considered on Eglinton Avenue West, between Dufferin Street and the W. R. Allen Road. The Urban Environment and Development Committee directed that the report (February 25, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, be forwarded to the North York Community Council and the York Community Council for information.

Respectfully submitted,

MILTON BERGER,

Chair

Toronto, April 1, 1998

(Report No. 4 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on April 16, 1998.)

Clause Page

1 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
UDOZ-96-38 - Joseph Sahar - 31 and 33 Wilmington Avenue
North York Spadina 2524

2 Recommendations Report -
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
UDOZ-97-26 - Shell Canada Limited -
4021 Yonge Street
North York Centre South 2534

3 General Zoning By-law Amendment UD43-HSK
All North York Community Council Wards 2543

4 Request for Exemption to Fence By-law -
Phillip Beale - 31 Arran Crescent -
North York Centre 2545

5 Appeal to Muzzle Order - Ms. Darlaine Mathews -
147 Northover Street
Black Creek 2547

6 Sign By-law Variance Application -
Omni, The Outdoor Company - 305 Finch Avenue West
North York Centre 2548

7 Request for Exemption from Noise By-law -
PCL Constructors Canada Inc. - 5075 Yonge Street
North York Centre 2550

8 Request for Exemption to Fence By-law -
Constance Hodgson - 186 Wedgewood Drive
North York Centre 2552

9 Request for Exemption from Noise By-law -
Resurfacing Arterial Roads
North York Spadina; North York Centre South;
Don Parkway and Seneca Heights 2553

10 Relocation of School Bus Loading Zone -
St. Conrad Catholic School - Roding Street
Black Creek 2555

11 All Way Stop Control - Heathrow Drive at Chesham Drive

Black Creek 2557

12 Right-Turn Prohibition - Altamont Road at the Access
to Chelsea Gate (108 Finch Avenue West)
North York Centre 2558

13 Relocation of Pedestrian Crossover - Cummer Avenue
Seneca Heights 2559

14 All Way Stop Control - Charleswood Drive at
Collinson Boulevard - North York Spadina 2560

15 Temporary Road Closure -
Ridley Boulevard between Bombay Avenue and Sandringham Drive
North York Centre 2562

16 Parking, Stopping and Turn Prohibitions -
Amendments to the Traffic By-law 2563

17 Parking Prohibitions - Hickorynut Drive
Seneca Heights 2564

18 Parking Prohibitions - Duncanwoods Drive
North York Humber 2565

19 All Way Stop Control - Barse Street at Fairlawn Avenue
North York Centre South 2566

20 Stopping Prohibitions - Baycrest Avenue
North York Centre South 2567

21 Payment-in-Lieu of Parking -
Baker's Dozen Co. Ltd. - 1887 Avenue Road
North York Centre South 2569

22 Parking Prohibitions - Barmac Drive
North York Humber 2570

23 Temporary Road Closure -
Baycrest Avenue and Neptune Drive
North York Centre South 2571

24 Traffic Calming - Wendell Avenue, Pellatt Avenue to Gary Drive
and Gary Drive, Yelland Street to Wendell Avenue
North York Humber 2572

25 Encroachment - Vacant Lot North of 28 Glenavy Avenue
North York Centre South 2574

26 Request for Three Curb Cuts/Driveway Entrances -

2 Suncrest Drive at Glenorchy Road - North York Centre South 2576

27 Sanitary Control Manholes -
3460-3472 Bathurst Street
North York Centre South 2578

28 Building Water Rates - 89 Larkfield Drive
North York Centre South 2580

29 Low Lot By-law No. 7273 - Bedford Park Avenue
North York Centre South 2581

30 Request to Waive Building Permit Fees -
Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College -
Annual Fundraising - "Backs in Motion" Run - April 26, 1998 2584

31 Special Occasion Permits for Community Events
North York Humber; Black Creek;
and North York Centre 2585

32 Filipino Commemorative Monument - Earl Bales Park
North York Spadina 2587

33 Neighbourhood Watch Program 2590

34 Request for Heritage Conservation Easement Agreement -
Elihu Pease House - 34 Avondale Avenue
North York Centre 2591

35 Community Festival Event - Second Harvest
The Estates of Sunnybrook - 2075 Bayview Avenue
North York Centre South 2593

36 Community Festival Event -
The Canadian Council of South Africans -
North York Centre - Mel Lastman Square 2594

37 Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application and
Subdivision Application UDOZ-97-34 and UDSB-1232
Romeo DiBattista - 665 Trethewey Drive
North York Humber 2595

38 Provision for Relief of Subdivision Agreement Condition -
Rosemount Subdivision UDSB-1227 - The Goldman Group
North York Humber 2602

39 Temporary Road Closure - Brookfield Road
North York Centre South 2605

40 Development Charges Application
Seneca College at York University and Newnham Campus
Black Creek and Seneca Heights 2606

41 UDSP-95-109 - Royal Mansions
15 - 25 Lorraine Drive 2607

42 Other Items Considered by the Community Council. 2608