TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 6

1Street Naming - South Side of Gardiner Expressway, West of Park Lawn Road

2Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Nazeer S. BishayIn Trust, 22 Kingsview Boulevard - File No. Z-2245

3Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue

4Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue

5Traffic Assessment of Edgehill Road

6No Stopping/No Parking Prohibition Muncey Avenue

7Introduction of a Parking Prohibition Silverstone Drive

8Introduction of Parking Prohibition Windsor Road

9Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits Second Street

10Introduction of a Stopping Prohibition City View Drive

11Naming of Landscape Feature at the Mouth of the Humber River, West Bank

12Requirement for a Construction (Site) Management Plan for Infill Housing Projects

13Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

14Appeal of Zoning By-Law No. 136-1998, West Side of Islington Avenue between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive - File No. Z-2256

15Request for Exemption from Part Lot-Control - 1184112 OntarioLimited, 3 and 5 Birchview Boulevard

16Request for Exemption from Part-Lot Control - LaredoConstruction Inc., 21, 24 Fleeceline Road - File No. Z-2152

17Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 6

OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on May 27, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

1

Street Naming - South Side of Gardiner Expressway,

West of Park Lawn Road

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

1.Directional signage (approximately 4 feet by 8 feet) be installed, at the Developer's cost, with the wording To Mystic Pointe Neighbourhood at the following three adjacent locations:

(i)on the Gardiner Expressway west of the exit to the Park Lawn Ramp (just west of Royal York Road);

(ii)on the ramp just east of Grand Avenue;

(iii)at the exit to the new street from the ramp, incorporating a warning that this road does not connect to Lake Shore Boulevard West (i.e. Not a Through Road to Lake Shore Boulevard West); and

that staff report directly to City Council on any difficulties with respect to this proposal and, if any, recommended solutions;

2.the newly created street from the Park Lawn ramp be named Legion Road North with a normal street sign;

3.no signage be permitted on the Gardiner Expressway or the Park Lawn ramp for Legion Road North until such time as it may be connected to Legion Road and hence Lake Shore Boulevard West; and

4.the following report (February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, be received:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

1.referred a request for an historical plaque on the McGuinness building to the Etobicoke Historical Board for implementation, with the costs associated therewith to be absorbed by the Developer; and

2.requested the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District to submit a further report to the Etobicoke Community Council on traffic management for the new community east of Grand Avenue, to include recommendations with respect to traffic use of the local roads and details of previously approved traffic measures and why they are not working; and, that the report on Grand Avenue, previously requested, be brought forward at the same time.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To name a newly created "off-ramp" and road allowance from the Gardiner Expressway (formerly the Queen Elizabeth Way).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Toronto Council authorize the Solicitor to prepare and present a by-law designating "Mystic Pointe Boulevard" as the new street name for the newly constructed "off-ramp" and road allowance from the Queen Elizabeth Way extending to the limit of the extended ManitobaStreet.

Background:

On October 15, 1992, the Ontario Municipal Board conditionally approved the necessary amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Code and granted conditional Site Plan Approval and consent to sever the former 6.05 ha (14.95 ac) McGuinness Distillery site to permit the construction of a phased development consisting of 1,469 residential dwelling units.

The Official Plan amendment outlined necessary transportation improvements including the provision of a north/south road through the site and the construction of an "off-ramp" to be funded by the developer. As part of subsequent phases, funding arrangements will be secured for the construction of an underpass beneath the CNR which will link with the existing Legion Road to the south. (ExhibitNo. 1)

On July 14, 1995, and July 6, 1996, Etobicoke Council granted Site Plan Control Approval for the application by 153598 Canada Inc. for the Phase I lands subject to the Ontario Municipal Board endorsed conditions. The subject development is currently under construction and Condominium registration has occurred on a portion of said lands.

Comment:

The proposed "off-ramp" and road allowance which are currently under construction will intersect with the Queen Elizabeth Way (Park Lawn Road Exit) at its northerly end and terminate within the subject development site at the extension of Manitoba Street. The "off-ramp" and road allowance will be dedicated to the City. This development and future phases as well as the community to the west will gain direct benefit from this ramp.

The applicant has requested that the newly created "off-ramp" and road allowance be named "MysticPointe Boulevard". The name has been found acceptable to the Planning Department for former Metropolitan Toronto who is responsible for administering the Metro Street Name Index.

Contact Person:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP, Planner - South District, Development and Design

Tel: (416) 394-6004, Fax: (416) 394-6063

_____

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

-Mr. D. Feldman, Camrost Developments;

-Mr. R. Aishford, President, MTCC 1180; and

-Mr. T. Searay-Gaston, President, MTCC 1174.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following communications:

-(March 18, 1998) from Mr. M. Harrison;

-(April 24, 1998)from Mr. R. Aishford, President, MTCC 1180 and Mr. T. Searay-Gaston, President, MTCC 1174;

-(May 11, 1998) from Mr. T. Searay-Gaston, President, MTCC 1174;

-(May 18, 1998) from Mr. B. McReavie;

-(May 18, 1998) from Mr. R. Masotti;

-(May 19, 1998) from Mr. N. Tullo;

-(May 19, 1998) from Mr. F. Cavalieri;

-(May 20, 1998) from Ms. A. Wicinski;

-(May 20, 1998) from Ms. R. Cantone;

-(May 20, 1998) from Mr. J. and Mr. G. Hamilton;

-(May 20, 1998) from Ms. J. Wright Donnelly;

-(May 21, 1998) from Ms. C. Coote;

-(May 21, 1998) from Ms. J. Hurley and Mr. B. Young;

-(May 17, 1998) from Mr. I. Bulmer;

-(May 22, 1998) from Ms. L. Walker;

-(May 22, 1998) from Ms. L. Ieraci;

-(undated) from Mr. and Mrs. N. Mackereth;

-(May 21, 1998) from Mr. P. Bosak;

-(May 22, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. J. Wishart;

-(May 22, 1998) from Ms. K. Payne;

-(May 21, 1998) from Ms. L. Doucet;

-(May 22, 1998) from Ms. A. Maraone;

-(May 22, 1998) from Mr. T. Fabry; and

- (May 17, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. J. Wente.

(A copy of Exhibit 1, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Nazeer S. Bishay

In Trust, 22 Kingsview Boulevard - File No. Z-2245

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District;

(2)resolution of outstanding issues as soon as possible; and

(3)recovery of all costs incurred by the municipality, including staff and legal time, in association with the resolution of these issues:

Purpose:

To consider a site specific proposal to amend the Second Density Residential (R2) zoning to legalize a two-storey, single detached residential dwelling with a rear yard setback of 22.24 m (73.0 ft), a coverage of 33.6 percent, and a building height of 10.27 m (33.7 ft).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application be refused and that the applicant be invited to appear in deputation before the Etobicoke Community Council.

Background:

This property has a long and complex history involving numerous applications before the City, hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board, and legal matters before the Courts. A detailed chronology of the events related to the applications with the City has been attached as ExhibitNo.1.

In 1990 the applicant submitted a Committee of Adjustment application to permit the construction of a two-storey residential dwelling with a maximum height of 10.52 m (34.5 ft.), which exceeded the Zoning Code maximum of 9.5 m (31.2 ft.). The application was refused and was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board who also refused the application in 1991. A second Committee of Adjustment application (A-213/91) was for rear yard setback and floor space index variances was also refused by the Committee in 1991.

The applicant subsequently applied for a building permit on the basis of plans which complied with the Zoning Code. Building Permit No. B66685 was issued in August of 1991 and construction was completed over a three year period. In 1995, Zoning and Building Code violations were noted and the City initiated proceedings to remedy the violations. To maintain and legalize the dwelling, the applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment to authorize minor variances from the Zoning Code to legalize the existing situation with respect to rear yard setback, height and coverage. Other matters with respect to grading and front yard landscaping were to be corrected and are discussed further in this report under Agency Comments. The Committee of Adjustment application (A-91/96) was refused and appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant. The Board once again refused the application. The applicant has requested a review of this Board Decision in accordance with Section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act; however, no hearing date has been scheduled.

The Zoning Amendment application was submitted on October 22, 1997. Processing of the application was delayed as the applicant refused to erect a zoning sign on his property in accordance with the procedures and requirements of a Zoning Code Amendment application. Notwithstanding the lack of a zoning sign on the applicant's property, staff have processed the application to bring forward a report for Council's consideration.

Site Description:

The site is located in the northwest quadrant of Dixon Road and Islington Avenue, on the north side of Kingsview Boulevard (Exhibit No. 2). The site is rectangular in shape with a frontage of 21 m (70ft.) and a lot depth of 91 m (298 ft.). The site contains a detached, two storey dwelling with an attached garage and indoor swimming pool with an approximate total floor area of 873 m2 (9,402sq.ft.). The front yard has been landscaped with interlocking brick. A circular driveway has been defined with a series of concrete planters. A driveway along the east side of the property leads to a rear yard parking area and attached garage (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4).

The area has been developed with one and two-storey, detached residential dwellings. The site abuts a one-storey bungalow to the west and a detached back split dwelling to the east.

Comments

Official Plan:

The existing dwelling and the proposed zoning amendment would be in conformity with the Etobicoke and the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plans.

Zoning Code:

The applicant is requesting amendments to the Second Density Residential (R2) zoning provisions, as they existed at the time of the issuance of the building permit, to permit and legalize the existing dwelling as constructed. The following amendments have been requested:

Staff's review and evaluation of this development has been consistent since the first application submitted to the Committee of Adjustment prior to any construction commencing on the site. Staff at that time did not support a development of the size proposed by the applicant and appeared before the Ontario Municipal Board in opposition to the application. The Board at that time accepted staff's position that the dwelling would not be characteristic of the dwellings in the area and would physically dominate the streetscape due to its proposed height and mass. At the second Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, conducted after the building was erected, the Board found that, "The height of this building creates a structure that imposes itself on the street." and "Although the offense is numerically minor, its impact is noticeable, imposing and adverse."

Staff's position on this development remains the same. The amendments requested generate significant impacts and in staff opinion should not be granted.

Agency Comments:

The applicant has covered the entire front yard with paving stone. Previously no delineation of the driveway existed. The Zoning Code permits a maximum of 40 percent of the front yard area to be utilized for driveway purposes. To resolve the situation the applicant has installed concrete planters to delineate the driveway/parking area in accordance with the Zoning Code. The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has indicated that the concrete planters in the front yard should permanently delineate the driveway and landscaped area in a manner acceptable to the Division. Methods to achieve this have been submitted to the City and are currently being reviewed.

The existing grading of the site was not completed in accordance with the approved building permit plans resulting in drainage issues. The Development Planning Section of the Works Department has indicated that the rezoning application should not be considered until outstanding grading and drainage issues are resolved. Revised engineering reports have been submitted by the applicant and are currently being reviewed by the Works Department.

Conclusions:

In staff's opinion the proposed Zoning Code amendments are not warranted and it is recommended that the application be refused and that the applicant be invited to appear in deputation.

Contact Name:

Paul Zuliani, Area Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8230 Fax: (416)394-6063

_____

Mr. C. Tzekas, of Weir & Foulds, Solicitor for the applicant, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(Copies of Exhibits 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

3

Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls

Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To evaluate a request for the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of YorkleighAvenue and Freemont Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the relocation of the regulatory signs are allocated in the 1998 Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)all-way stop controls not be erected at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and FreemontAvenue;

(2)the stop signs currently controlling northbound and southbound traffic on YorkleighAvenue be relocated to control the eastbound and westbound traffic on Freemont Avenue;

(3)the effectiveness of this initiative be evaluated in six months; and

(4)that the associated by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division has received a request from CouncillorGiansante for the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of YorkleighAvenue and FreemontAvenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Comments and Discussion:

Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue are classified as local roads. Each has a roadway width of approximately 7 metres, providing one lane of traffic per direction. The speed limit on both streets is 50 km/h; there are sidewalks located on the south side of Yorkleigh Avenue and the west side of Freemont Avenue; parking is permitted on both roadways for a maximum period of three hours.

To assess traffic conditions at the intersection, the following information was obtained:

(1)turning movement count study conducted at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and FreemontAvenue;

(2) automatic approach counts conducted at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and FreemontAvenue;

(3)radar speed studies conducted on Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue; and

(4)review of the three year accident history.

Turning Movement Count Summary:

The following chart summarizes the results of the turning movement counts undertaken on February25, 1998, at the intersection of Yorkleigh and Freemont Avenues.

.

TIME	N/B	S/B	E/B	W/B	N/B + S/B TOTAL	TOTAL ENTERING INTERSECTION	BALANCE OF FLOW N-S/E-W
7-8 AM	54	14	28	10	68	106	64/36
8-9 AM	61	18	55	22	79	156	51/49
4-5 PM	56	23	74	11	79	164	48/58
5-6 PM	47	25	58	8	72	138	52/48
TOTAL	218	80	215	51	298	564	53/47
VEH/H	54	20	54	13	74	141	N/A

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has provided the following warrants for the installation of all-way stop controls on roads and streets considered to be neither arterial nor major collector streets:

a)total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches must exceed 350 for the highest hour recorded; and

b)a volume split should not exceed 65/35 for a four-way control.

As noted in the turning movement count summary, the peak hour at this intersection is 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. The total vehicle volume on all approaches during this hour is 164 vehicles and the vehicle volume split is 52/48. Although the volume split does meet the warrant requirement, the vehicle volume fails to meet the minimum requirement necessary to satisfy the vehicle volume warrant. The existing traffic volumes favour the stop controls for north and southbound traffic on FreemontAvenue as opposed to the signs presently controlling east and westbound traffic on Yorkleigh Avenue.

Notwithstanding the results of the vehicular volume studies, there are a number of conditions that must also be addressed when considering the introduction of all-way stop controls at an intersection. The stop sign installation guidelines provided in the Highway Traffic Act, Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, indicate that all-way stop controls should not be used under the following conditions:

1)Where pedestrian protection--in particular school children--is a prime concern as this concern can usually be addressed by other means.

2)As a speed control device.

3)At intersections having less than three or more than four approaches.

4)At offset or poorly defined intersections.

5)On truck or bus routes unless in an industrial area where two such routes cross.

6)On multi-lane approaches where a parked or stopped vehicle on the right will obscure the stop sign.

7)Where traffic would be required to stop on grades.

8)As a method of deterring the movement of through traffic in a residential area.

9)Where visibility of the sign is hampered by curves or grades and a safe stopping distance of less than 100 metres exists.

10)Where any other traffic device controlling right-of-way is permanently in place within 250metres, with the exception of a "Yield" sign.

Three of these conditions are of concern at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and FreemontAvenue: the roadway grade at the intersection; the driver visibility of the intersection and the safe stopping distance requirement on approach to the intersection; and the intersection definition.

The grade of the roadway on Yorkleigh Avenue at Freemont Avenue is 6 percent. This relatively steep grade on Yorkleigh inhibits the ability of a driver to start and, more importantly, stop a vehicle on a grade, particularly during inclement weather when pavement conditions are hazardous. The vertical curve on the eastbound approach reduces the driver's visibility of the intersection to approximately 60 metres, 40 metres below the recommended safe stopping distance of 100 metres. Compounding the visibility issue is the poor definition of this intersection. Unlike more recently developed intersections where the roads are generally wider and curbs and sidewalks have been constructed, Yorkleigh Avenue is narrow and treed or landscaped to the road's edges reflecting the more rural character of the neighbourhood. The features make the intersection less discernible to an approaching motorist.

Radar Speed Studies:

Radar speed studies conducted on Yorkleigh Avenue west of Freemont Avenue between 7-9a.m. and 4-6 p.m. revealed an average speed of 48 km/h . Given the 50 KM/H legal speed limit, this speed is within acceptable levels.

Accident Analysis:

An accident analysis for the last three years revealed that there have been no reportable accidents at the intersection of Freemont Avenue and Yorkleigh Avenue.

Conclusions:

Traffic conditions at the intersection of Yorkleigh Avenue and Freemont Avenue do not meet the minimum requirements of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario warrants for all-way stop controls. The traffic volumes and intersection configuration favour the relocation of the stop controls currently controlling northbound and southbound traffic on Yorkleigh Avenue to Freemont Avenue, to control the eastbound and westbound traffic.

Contact Name:

Gwyn Thomas, Manager, Traffic and Parking Operations - Transportation and Engineering Planning.

(416) 394-8414; Fax 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls

Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To evaluate a request by area residents for the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the relocation of the regulatory signs are allocated in the 1998 Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)all-way stop controls not be erected at the intersection of Thirtieth Street and RimiltonAvenue;

(2)the stop signs currently controlling eastbound and westbound traffic on Rimilton Avenue be relocated to control northbound and southbound traffic on Thirtieth Street;

(3)the effectiveness of this initiative be evaluated in six months; and

(4)the associated by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division has received correspondence from Mr.May, 243Thirtieth Street (Attachment No. 2), and a petition from area residents (Attachment No. 3), requesting the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of Thirtieth Street and RimiltonAvenue. These residents are concerned with the frequency of vehicle collisions at this location. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Comments and Discussion:

To assess traffic conditions at the intersection, the following information was obtained:

(1)manual approach counts conducted at the intersection of Thirtieth Street and RimiltonAvenue;

(2)radar spot speed studies conducted on Thirtieth Street at Rimilton Avenue;

(3)an intersection capacity analysis;

(4)review of the three year accident history; and

(5)intersection description, including existing parking restrictions, sidewalks and land use.

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has provided the following warrants for the installation of all-way stop controls on roads and streets considered to be neither arterial nor major collector streets:

a)total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches must exceed 350 for the highest hour recorded; and

b)a volume split should not exceed 65/35 for a four-way control.

(1)Manual Turning Movement Count

Date: February 25, 1998

The following observations and analysis were derived from the manual count:

(a)The total vehicle volume on all approaches for the highest hour, 8-9 a.m. is 302vehicles. This volume does not meet the minimum vehicular volume requirement of 350 vehicles necessary to fully satisfy the volume warrant.

(b)The balance of flow for the highest hour recorded is 81/19, which does not meet the volume split warrant (65/35) for four-way control.

During the manual count an average of 11 pedestrians per hour were observed crossing the through street (Thirtieth Street). All pedestrians were high school students and were able to cross safely in the intersection. No potential vehicular/pedestrian conflicts were observed.

(2)Radar Speed Studies

Radar speed studies conducted on Thirtieth Street, east of Rimilton Avenue, between 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. revealed an average speed of 50 km/h. Given the 50 km/h legal speed limit, this speed is within acceptable levels.

(3)Intersection Capacity Analysis

The intersection capacity analysis reveals that the intersection of Thirtieth Street and RimiltonAvenue is operating under optimum conditions, level of service A. The probability of a queue-free state at the approaches to the through street (Thirtieth Street) is high, 97percent; the intersection delay is minimal: 1 sec/veh.

(4)Accident Analysis

The accident analysis for the past three years indicates that four reportable accidents have occurred at or near the intersection of Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue. Three of these accidents were right angle impact collisions; the other was a single motor vehicle collision. In all three of the right angle impact collisions, the driver of the vehicle on the stop street, Rimilton Avenue, disobeyed the stop control. Road and weather conditions were not a factor in either accident. In examining the cause of these accidents it was clear that the driver's view of Thirtieth Street is constrained when approaching the intersection eastbound or westbound on Rimilton Avenue. Drivers approaching the intersection tend to roll beyond the curb line of Thirtieth Street into the intersection in order to get a clear view of oncoming traffic. As a result, eastbound and westbound motorists are colliding with vehicles in the near side, oncoming lane of traffic.

The third accident occurred on Thirtieth Street north of Rimilton Avenue on November15,1997, at 9:42 a.m. This single motor vehicle collision occurred when a driver proceeding northbound on Thirtieth Street lost control and struck a tree at 236ThirtiethStreet. The road surface conditions were very poor as a result of a winter snow storm. The driver failed to adjust to these conditions and was subsequently charged with careless driving.

(5)Intersection Description

Parking Regulations: Three hours maximum on both roadways.

Lane Configuration: One lane in each direction.

Speed Limit: 50 km/h on both roadways.

Sidewalks: Both sides of through and stop streets.

Land Use: R2 Residential (Second Density).

Conclusions:

Traffic conditions at the intersection of Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue do not meet the minimum requirements of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario warrants for all-way stop controls. Inadequate site lines were identified at this intersection for eastbound and westbound traffic which may have contributed to the occurrence of the angle type collisions. The relocation of the existing stop signs from the east and west approaches of the intersection to the north and south approaches will improve the driver sightlines of oncoming traffic. This will provide a more effective level of control and will reduce the potential of right angle accidents at this intersection.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Traffic Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning Division.

(416) 394-8453, Fax 394-8942.

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received a written submission (undated) from concerned residents of Thirtieth Street, submitting further considerations to assist in the decision regarding stop controls at Thirtieth Street and Rimilton Avenue.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

5

Traffic Assessment of Edgehill Road

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Etobicoke Community Council for further consideration.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To address concerns with respect to the speed and volume of vehicular traffic on Edgehill Road.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)no additional traffic control measures be implemented on Edgehill Drive.

Background:

Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby received correspondence and a petition (Attachment No. 1) from area residents requesting that measures be taken to control the amount and speed of vehicular traffic on Edgehill Road. This communication was referred to the Commissioner of Works with a request for a report. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Comments and Discussion:

Edgehill Road is classified as a local road with a legal speed limit of 50 km/h. One lane of traffic per direction is provided on this roadway; there are no sidewalks.

To assess traffic conditions on Edgehill Road, the following information was obtained:

(1)Twenty-four hour automatic traffic counts and manual peak hour traffic counts recorded on Edgehill Road, north of Colwood Road, on April 29, 1998, and April 23, 1998.

(2)A historical count analysis.

(3)Radar speed studies, conducted on April 23, 1998, on Edgehill Road, near Colwood Road.

The following chart summarizes the results of the automatic and manual counts recorded on Edgehill Road, north of Colwood Road.

Both the automatic and manual peak hour volumes are consistent and would not be considered excessive; the 24 hour volume is well within the acceptable limits for a local type roadway.

An average of 7 pedestrians per hour were observed walking along Edgehill Road; no potential vehicular and pedestrian conflicts were observed.

(1)Historical Count Analysis

The following table compares the recent automatic traffic counts to those recorded in 1993.

In the last five years, there has been a minimal increase in the volume of traffic on EdgehillRoad. Although no data is available for 1997, a significant increase in the volume of traffic on this roadway was anticipated as the result of the reconstruction of RoyalYorkRoad between Ashley Park Road and Eglinton Avenue. Edgehill Road provides a direct link between Royal York Road and Edenbridge Drive to Scarlett Road.

(2)Radar Speed Studies

Radar speed studies conducted on Edgehill Road, near Colwood Road, on April 23, 1998, between the hours of 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. indicate an average speed of 43 km/h. Since the legal speed limit on this roadway is 50 km/h, these results are well within acceptable levels.

Conclusion:

It is evident from the results of these studies that--with the exception of 1997--traffic volume on Edgehill Road has not increased significantly during the last five years. In 1997, Royal York Road, between Ashley Park Road and Eglinton Avenue, was being reconstructed and Edgehill Road was being used temporarily as an alternate route. Traffic studies conducted this year indicate that vehicular traffic and speeds on Edgehill Road have returned to normal levels.

Contact Name:

Mark Hargot, Traffic Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8453: (Fax) 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

6

No Stopping/No Parking Prohibition

Muncey Avenue

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To present a status report to Community Council regarding the no parking/no stopping restrictions on Muncey Avenue.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the No Parking/No Stopping prohibitions on Muncey Avenue currently in place be retained; and

(2)staff continue to liaise with the administration of Timothy Christian School to ensure that the traffic guidelines adopted are adhered to.

Council Reference:

Council, at its meeting held on October 2, 1995, adopted Clause 159 of the Fifteenth Report of the Works and Environment Committee, which recommended:

"THAT stopping be prohibited on both sides of Muncey Avenue between Elmhurst Drive and Golfdown Drive, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday."

This matter was placed before Council in response to a petition from the residents of Muncey Avenue requesting the introduction of this prohibition as a resolution to the traffic problems and inconvenience caused by the parents/caregivers of children attending Timothy Christian School who used Muncey Avenue to park their vehicles while attending to their children at the school. Since parking is prohibited on Elmhurst Drive in front of Timothy Christian School, parents/caregivers were using Muncey Avenue as a convenient drop off and pick up location.

Following the introduction of this by-law, officials of Timothy Christian School indicated that the prohibition seriously limited parents/caregivers safe accessibility to the school. They were forced to use less convenient streets in the area which compromised the safety of the children.

Staff met with the school administration on several occasions to discuss the matter, and recommended several on-site drop off and pick up alternatives. The school's Building Committee evaluated these proposals and concluded that due to the limited space available on school property, and the current level of student activity, vehicle access to the property would be an unacceptable safety hazard.

Council, at its meeting held on November 25, 1996, adopted Resolution No. 336, being a Notice of Motion to Council which recommended:

"THAT the matter regarding the implementation of the No Stopping restrictions on MunceyAvenue be reopened and officials from Timothy Christian School be given the opportunity to appear before the Works and Environment Committee to determine if a compromise could be reached on this matter."

Council, at its meeting held on January 20, 1997, adopted Clause 11 of the Second Report of the Works and Environment Committee, 1997, which recommended:

"THAT the 'No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday' prohibition on the east side of Muncey Avenue be amended to a 'No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday' prohibition;

THAT staff meet with the school administrators and the Metropolitan Toronto Police to develop appropriate traffic guidelines;

THAT these guidelines be conveyed by the school to the parents and the residents of MunceyAvenue; and

THAT staff review this issue within five months and submit a status report to Committee."

Staff met with officials from Timothy Christian School to outline acceptable driving rules within the school zone. These guidelines were adopted by the school administration and conveyed to the parents of the school children.

Since the introduction of the amendment of the "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the east side of Muncey Avenue, staff has had the opportunity to review the parking/stopping patterns of the parents/caregivers of Timothy Christian School. The parents/caregivers are following the guidelines adopted by the school administration. Very few parents utilized Muncey Avenue as a drop off and pick up area; most continued to use EndicottAvenue and Turpin Avenue as the preferred drop off and pick up locations.

Council, at its meeting held on June 9, 1997, adopted Clause 108 of the Eleventh Report of the Works and Environment Committee, 1997, which recommended:

"THAT the trial period for the current parking/stopping regulations on Muncey Avenue be extended to January 1998;

THAT staff continue to review this issue and submit a status report to the Works and Environment Committee in January 1998; and

THAT the parking/stopping guidelines adopted by the administration of Timothy Christian School be conveyed by the school's administration to the parents of the school children and the residents of Muncey Avenue at the commencement of school in September 1997."

Discussion:

Staff has continued to monitor the traffic activity on Muncey Avenue over the past year and has found that the vast majority of parents/caregivers are following the parking and stopping guidelines adopted by the school administration. Parents/caregivers continue to observe the No Stopping regulation on the west side of Muncey Avenue between Elmhurst Drive and Golfdown Drive and are using the NoParking/Kiss and Ride Zone on the east side of Muncey Avenue as intended. The administration of Timothy Christian School is continually advising parents/caregivers of their responsibilities when they use Muncey Avenue and staff provide support as required. A map of the area is AttachmentNo.1.

Conclusions:

Parents/caregivers of the children attending Timothy Christian School are complying with the parking and stopping by-laws currently in effect on Muncey Avenue. The school's administration continues to reinforce the adopted guidelines and has effectively addressed the concerns of the residents of the street. Based on staff's evaluation of this matter, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419, Fax 394-8942.

(Copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Introduction of a Parking Prohibition

Silverstone Drive

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of an overnight parking prohibition on both sides of Silverstone Drive between Mount Olive Drive and Langfield Crescent.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate signage are allocated in the 1998 Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on both sides of Silverstone Drive between Mount Olive Drive and Langfield Crescent, between the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; and

(2)the appropriate by-law (Attachment No. 1) be amended accordingly.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division is in receipt of correspondence from ProfessorRanjan Chhibber, 63 Silverstone Drive, addressed to Councillor Bruce Sinclair (Attachment No.2) requesting the introduction of a parking prohibition on Silverstone Drive between Mount Olive Drive and Langfield Crescent. Mr. Chhibber offered the following parking proposals:

(a)prohibit parking at all times on Silverstone Drive between Mount Olive Drive and LangfieldCrescent;

(b)prohibit parking during peak hours, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on Silverstone Drive between Mount Olive Drive and Langfield Crescent; and

(c)prohibit overnight parking, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., on Silverstone Drive between MountOlive Drive and Langfield Crescent.

The thirteen affected homeowners who reside on Silverstone Drive between Mount Olive Drive and Langfield Crescent were polled by letter to obtain their views on these proposals (Attachment No.3). The following chart summarizes the results of the poll:

A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Comments:

Silverstone Drive is a two-lane roadway; parking is permitted on both sides of the street for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential. High and medium density housing occupies the area on the south side of Mount Olive Drive between Kipling Avenue and Silverstone Drive; on the south-east corner of Silverstone Drive and MountOliveDrive; and on the north-east corner of Stevenson Road and Silverstone Drive. NorthAlbion Collegiate is located on the north-west corner of Kipling Avenue and MountOliveDrive. Highfield Junior School is located on the south-west corner of MountOliveDrive and Silverstone Drive. The high incidence of on-street parking on SilverstoneDrive can be attributed to this street's proximity to the high/medium density housing complexes in the immediate area. Residents of these complexes frequently park on this section of Silverstone Drive, often in excess of the three hour limitation.

Conclusion:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-Ordinator Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419, Fax 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Introduction of Parking Prohibition

Windsor Road

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Windsor Road between Kingsview Boulevard and the south limit of the road.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are allocated in the 1998 Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on both sides of Windsor Road between Kingsview Boulevard and the south limit of the road; and

(2)the appropriate by-law (Attachment No. 1) be amended accordingly.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division is in receipt of a petition from the residents of Windsor Road (Attachment No. 2) requesting the introduction of a parking prohibition for both sides of Windsor Road between Kingsview Boulevard and the south limit of the road. A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

Comments:

Windsor Road is a two-lane roadway; parking is permitted on both sides of the street for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate area is predominantly residential.

The primary factor contributing to the high incidence of on-street parking on Windsor Road is the close proximity of this street to the high density housing complexes located on Dixon Road. The residents of these buildings are parking on Windsor Street rather than using the parking facilities on site. At many times, both sides of the street are being utilized, normally in excess of the three hour maximum limitation. A staff review of the parking supply available at these buildings clearly indicates that adequate parking facilities have been provided on the premises of 320/330/340/370/380/390Dixon Road. Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus among the affected residents, Council's endorsement of the recommendation contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

9

Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits

Second Street

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme on Second Street between LakeShore Boulevard West and Lakeshore Drive.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are allocated in the 1998 Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the On-Street Parking Permit Programme be introduced on the west side of Second Street between Lake Shore Boulevard West and Lakeshore Drive; and

(2)the appropriate by-law (Attachment No. 1) be amended accordingly.

Background:

In September 1997 and March 1998, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division received correspondence from HazarosSurmeyan, 24 Second Street (Attachment No. 2), and Debbie Wilson, 24Second Street (Attachment No. 3), requesting the introduction of permit parking onto SecondStreet south of Lake Shore Boulevard West. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

In 1995, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division received requests for the introduction of on-street parking permits from the residents of a number of streets in the New Toronto area, including Second Street. In response, staff polled the affected residents of these streets to solicit public opinion (Attachment No. 5). At that time, the residents of Second Street south of LakeShoreBoulevard West were opposed to the permit programme.

In evaluating these most recent requests, the forty-nine (49) affected residents were polled by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 6). There were thirty (30) respondents to the poll: two (2) were opposed; twenty-eight (28) were in favour. The apartment building at 24SecondStreet has 23 units. It was built in 1957, predating the introduction of Etobicoke's current parking standards for residential development. As a result, when current parking standards are applied, there is a shortfall of 18 parking spaces on site. Consequently, the residents who do not have parking available to them have no alternative but to leave their vehicles on the street.

Conclusion:

The On-Street Parking Programme provides an excellent alternative source of parking for those residents who do not have or cannot provide adequate parking facilities on their property. This programme continues to meet with the approval of those residents directly affected by it and it should continue to be introduced through the public consultative process.

Based on the staff investigation of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents who reside on Second Street south of Lake Shore Boulevard West, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-6, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Introduction of a Stopping Prohibition

City View Drive

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a stopping prohibition on both sides of City View Drive between the north limit of Dixon Road and a point 211.5 metres north thereof.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the 1998 Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on both sides of City View Drive be changed to a "No Stopping Anytime" prohibition between the north limit of Dixon Road and a point 211.5metres north thereof; and

(2)the appropriate by-laws (Attachment Nos.1 and 2 ) be amended accordingly.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division is in receipt of correspondence from Mr.AlainK. Sutton, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Toronto Congress Centre (AttachmentNo. 3) requesting a change to the existing parking by-laws. Trucks parked on CityViewDrive are unsightly and block the view of the centre from the street. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

The Toronto Congress Centre opened in 1995 and has now become one of the leading trade and convention centres in the country. In 1994 the developers of the centre invested a significant amount of money to widen City View Drive in front of the centre from two to four lanes to accommodate projected traffic volumes. The trucks parking on City View Drive effectively reduce the roadway to two lanes negating the impact of the improvement and, as Mr. Sutton states in his letter, they are unsightly and block the view of the centre from the street. Parking enforcement has had little effect in discouraging this practice.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Naming of Landscape Feature at the Mouth

of the Humber River, West Bank

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May12,1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for naming a landscape feature at the mouth of the Humber River, "Sheldon Lookout", in recognition of a donation of $100,000.00 from Mr.DavidSheldon and his family that funded the landscape design and construction of the project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The donation from Mr. Sheldon and his family paid the cost of the project. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism staff coordinated and administered the project.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the landscape feature on the west side of the Humber River marked on the map in Appendix1 be named "Sheldon Lookout" in recognition of the $100,000.00 donation from Mr. Sheldon and his family that funded the landscape design and construction of the project; and

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

Council Reference:

On July 2 and 3, 1997, Metropolitan Council approved the acceptance of a donation of $100,000.00 from Mr. David Sheldon and his family for a specialized landscape project at the mouth of the Humber River (Clause No. 8 of Report No. 9 of the Environment and Public Space Committee). Council also expressed its appreciation to Mr. Sheldon and his family for their generosity.

Embodied in the same report was a request from the donor to investigate the feasibility of naming the site of the project after his family in recognition of the donation. The Environment and Public Space Committee directed staff to report back on the naming issue as soon as possible.

In August 1997, the firm of Gunta Mackars Landscape Architecture was selected to design the specialized landscape feature at the mouth of the Humber River.

Discussion:

Construction of the project began in the fall of 1997 with the reshaping of the contours of the site and the installation of large rocks. Final construction of additional landscape details and installation of plant material will be completed in June 1998. The donors are very pleased with the project and staff agree that the donation has made possible the transformation of the site into a public amenity on the waterfront.

After many discussions between staff and the donors, it was suggested that a fitting recognition of the family's generous donation would be to name the site "Sheldon Lookout". The name "Sheldon" refers to the donor and the term "Lookout" describes the site with its unobstructed views of the lake, the sky and the Toronto skyline.

Conclusions:

The donation from Mr. Sheldon and his family has added a unique landscape feature to the waterfront trail and provides a striking transition from the Humber River Pedestrian/Cycle Bridge to the development at Humber Bay Shores.

Contact Name:

Frank Kershaw

Tel: 392-8199; Fax: 392-3355

12

Requirement for a Construction (Site) Management Plan

for Infill Housing Projects

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, as amended by the addition of a further requirement - (15) the posting of a telephone number:

Purpose:

To respond to a request by Etobicoke Community Council dated April 1, 1998, regarding the requirement for a Construction (Site) Management Plan for all infill housing projects in established neighbourhoods and the guarantees and deposits to be placed before any type of permits are issued.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)As a condition of Site Plan approval for all redevelopment proposals, particularly for infill housing projects, the applicant shall be required to submit a Construction (Site) Management Plan prior to the issuance of any permits.

(2)The signing of a separate Construction Management Agreement may also be required prior to the issuance of permits if deemed necessary by Urban Development staff.

(3)Financial guarantees (minimum of $1,000.00) shall also be required prior to the issuance of permits to ensure that measures are satisfactorily implemented. The amount of additional per unit or floor area (or site area) charges shall be determined by the Commissioner of Urban Development and the Commissioner of Works.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On April 1, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council received correspondence from the City Solicitor and heard deputations in connection with the townhouse development now under construction by Eden Oak Homes Ltd. in the Skeen's Lane area.

Residents had voiced their concerns regarding the presence of mud and dirt on roadways, dust, inadequate fencing, lack of clean-up procedures, and demolition/construction debris on neighbouring properties.

In their decision, the Etobicoke Community Council directed the Commissioner of Urban Development and the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke Division, to submit a report making recommendations with respect to the requirement of a site management plan for all infill housing projects, and guarantees and deposits to be placed before any type of permits are issued.

In June, 1997, the former Etobicoke Council granted Site Plan Approval for the Newport Beach Developments Inc. project consisting of 242 condominium units within Humber Bay Shores. This approval required the applicant to provide a "construction plan, outlining access, parking and storage arrangements for construction vehicles and equipment, to the satisfaction of abutting property owners, the Works Department and the City Solicitor". Because this proposal was located adjacent to an existing operating motel (Seahorse Motor Hotel), this requirement was later prepared as a separate agreement, as opposed to being part of the Site Control Agreement.

More recently, on May 6, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council directed that a construction management agreements be signed for the next phase of Eden Oak Homes Ltd. (a commercial apartment building at 3400 Lake Shore Boulevard West) and for the redevelopment of SirAdamBeck School in Alderwood.

Comments:

Both the former City of North York and former City of Toronto impose requirements with respect to construction site management on developers.

In former City of North York, for example, although not a condition of Site Plan Approval, the owner is required to provide to the Public Works Department a Construction Protection Plan prior to the issuance of any permits. Such a plan must detail matters relating to construction hoarding, covered walkways, aerial cranes, truck unloading areas, trailer parking areas, material storage areas, temporary land and road closures, sidewalk diversions and closures proposed on the site and on the road allowance during construction of the project. The plan must receive prior approval from the former North York Transportation Department (or former Metropolitan Toronto Traffic Department) before submission to the Works Department.

The owner must also deposit a guarantee and emergency fund ($1,000.00 per construction year or portion thereof) to ensure the municipal property is kept clean and safe during the course of construction. The deposit or remainder thereof is then returned to the owner.

In the former City of Toronto, applicants are required to submit a Demolition and Dust Control Plan for approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any building permit.

Having reviewed the requirements of other municipalities, namely the former Cities of North York and Toronto, as well as the terms of the Newport Beach Construction Management Agreement, staff

would recommend that the following be included in all construction management plans as deemed appropriate by the relevant City department (i.e. Works, Health, Building, etc.)

(1)Dust/mud control on and off-site

(2)Location of truck loading points, trailer parking

(3)Location and height of temporary material storage areas

(4)Access/truck routing

(5)Provision of hoarding, temporary fencing, covered walkways, sidewalk diversions

(6)Location and timing of temporary road closures and alternative routes/detours

(7)Location and extent of operation of aerial cranes

(8)Noise abatement measures (if required)

(9)Estimated period of construction

(10)Details of piling and shoring activities

(11)Control of storm run-off

(12)Removal/disposal of excavated/demolition materials

(13)Parking management plan for existing parking to be displaced and for employee/construction vehicle parking.

(14)Depositing of appropriate financial guarantee to ensure municipal property is kept safe and clean.

The foregoing matters will be the subject of further discussion and/or refinement by City staff.

In some instances, staff may determine, in consultation with the City Solicitor, that the City should enter into a Construction Management Agreement, separate from the Site Control Agreement, with the applicant and possibly abutting or other affected property owners in the immediate vicinity of the proposed construction. Such an agreement would be reviewed by the appropriate departments/divisions such as the Works Department, Health Department and Building Division, as well as Urban Development.

With respect to the financial guarantee, it is recommended that the minimum amount of $1,000.00 be supplemented by an additional per unit charge for residential development and an additional charge based on floor area and/or site area for other forms of development.

It is also suggested that the foregoing recommendations be applicable to other forms of infill development in residential areas (e.g. schools, commercial uses, etc.) as well as to other areas experiencing redevelopment construction (e.g. mainstreet areas).

Conclusions:

Staff feel that the imposition of conditions, at the Site Plan approval stage, regarding the submission of Construction Management Plans, the signing of agreements to implement same (if required), and the depositing of financial guarantees (if required) are appropriate measures to manage construction particularly for infill projects in residential neighbourhoods and other areas affected by redevelopment.

This report has been reviewed by the Works Department and City Solicitor who are in agreement with the recommendations contained herein.

Contact Name:

Linda Bunce, Principal Planner

Tel: (416) 394-8221; Fax: (416) 394-6063

13

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, as amended by the following:

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that legal and staff representation be approved for the appeal regarding 24 and 26 Montgomery Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To advise Toronto Council of a number of Committee of Adjustment Decisions which have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and to recommend whether legal and staff representation is warranted.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial impact.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)Legal and staff representation be provided for the appeals regarding ApplicationNo.A-31/98ET, 63 Medulla Avenue and Application No. A-111/98ET, 26Holyoake Crescent.

(2)Legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding 121 Melrose Street, 16 Albert Avenue, 45 and 45A Frances Avenue, 24 and 26 Montgomery Road, 100NorthDrive, 26 Honbury Road and 52 Arborwood Drive.

Comment:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(i)Address: 63 Medulla Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant:63 Medulla Avenue Developments Inc.

Appellant:63 Medulla Avenue Developments Inc.

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:Proposed variances to the Zoning Code (Section 320-24.3, Supplementary Regulations for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities) to permit the use of lands not which do not permit recycling facilities, as well as permit the outside storage of materials.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Staff Recommendation:Since the City has previously been represented at the OMB in opposition to relaxing development standards for recycling facilities, legal and staff representation should be provided in support of the Committee's decision.

(ii)Address: 121 Melrose Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant:Maria Gaspar

Appellant:Maria Gaspar

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:A variance is requested to legalize an existing single, detached dwelling containing three residential apartment units, whereas the R2 Mimico zone does not permit apartments in single, detached dwellings.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Staff Recommendation:The R2 zone in Mimico permits triplexes. Legal representation is not recommended.

(iii)Address: 16 Albert Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant:1178605 Ontario Limited

Appellant: 1178605 Ontario Limited

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:The property is occupied by an existing apartment building containing 17 apartment units, the applicant is proposing to convert the laundry room into an apartment unit. Variances are required with respect to parking, landscaping, curbing and gross floor area.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Staff Recommendation:The majority of the variances are required to legalize the site conditions of the existing apartment building which was constructed in the late 1950's. Legal representation is not recommended.

(iv)Address: 45 and 45A Frances Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant:Nickolaus Franz Gorican and Elizabeth Alice Gorican

Appellant: Nickolaus Franz Gorican and Elizabeth Alice Gorican

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:The site has a frontage of 15.2 m (50 ft.). The applicants propose to sever the lot into two separate properties, each with a lot frontage of 7.6 m (25 ft.) and a lot area of (3,502.3sq.ft.). The applicants would retain the existing dwelling on one lot and the severed lot would be developed as a single detached dwelling with a shared driveway. The Second Density Residential R2 zone requires a minimum lot frontage of 13.5 m (44.29 ft.) and a lot area of 510 m² (5,489.77 sq.ft.). In addition, the applicant is requesting a reduced side yard setback for the retained lot.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Staff Recommendation:The lot area and frontage figures of the proposed lots would be similar to the lot standards exhibited by a number of properties in the immediate area. Legal representation is not recommended.

(v)Address:24 and 26 Montgomery Road (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant:Sharon House Corporation

Appellant:Sharon House Corporation

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:The applicants propose to establish a group home for the purpose of providing non-medical nursing care to members of the Christian Science Church Community. The Zoning Code limits occupants of a group home to those individuals who have been referred by a hospital, court or government agency, recognized social services agency or health professional. In addition, the facility is to be at least partly publicly funded or licensed or approved in accordance with provincial statute. The proposal does not meet these criteria.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Staff Recommendation:The proposed group home would be providing non-medical care for individuals through a privately run facility. With the proposed retention of the existing dwellings, it is anticipated that the facility would operate in a manner similar to those group homes recognized by the Zoning Code definition. Staff note that the application would be subject to the Site Plan Control Approval process, during which the details of site design and landscaping would be reviewed. Legal representation is not recommended.

(vi)Address:100 North Drive (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant:Beverly Elaine Torrance

Appellant:Peter Plastina

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:Variances are requested to legalize the location of the existing dwelling and attached swimming pool which are located 1.1 m (3.7ft.) and 0.0m, respectively from the westerly lot line. Whereas, the Zoning Code requires a minimum building setback of 1.2m (3.9ft.) for both the dwelling and the swimming pool.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Approved.

Staff Recommendation:The files of the Urban Development Department indicate that the existing dwelling and pool were constructed in 1965 and 1966, respectively. Legal representation is not recommended.

(vii)Address:26 Honbury Road (Rexdale-Thistletown)

Applicant:Mohammad Aslam Goraya and Kishwar Goraya

Appellant:Mohammad Aslam Goraya and Kishwar Goraya

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application Date:Proposed variances to the side yard setback and dwelling depth requirements of the Zoning Code in order to legalize a one storey attached garage.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused

Staff Recommendation:The applicant had approval to extend his dwelling but exceeded that approval. Staff do not consider this a substantive planning issue. Legal representation is not recommended.

(viii)Address:52 Arborwood Drive (Rexdale-Thistletown)

Applicant:Lawrence Renne

Appellant:Lawrence Renne

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:Proposed variances to the rear yard setback and dwelling depth requirements of the Zoning Code in order to legalize a one-storey sunroom.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused

Staff Recommendation:Staff do not consider this a substantive planning issue. Legal representation is not recommended.

(ix)Address:26 Holyoake Crescent (Rexdale-Thistletown)

Applicant:Salvatore Vescio and Sophia Kourtis

Appellant:Salvatore Vescio and Sophia Kourtis

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:To permit the continued use of this single family detached house as a lodging house for a maximum of eight (8) lodgers.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused

Staff Recommendation:This house is in a low density residential area. The Official Plan suggests that lodging houses are better suited to higher density residential areas. However, the Plan acknowledges that lodging houses can be permitted in low density residential areas through site specific by-law amendments evaluated on the basis of a number of criteria. It is staff's opinion that this application is more than a minor variance, consequently staff recommend that legal representation be provided.

Conclusion:

The subject appeals were reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that appeal items (i) and (ix) involve substantive planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is warranted for these appeals.

As items ii), iii), iv), v), vi), vii), and viii) do not involve substantive planning issues, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is not warranted for these appeals.

Contact Name:

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, Director of Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8216 Fax:(416)394-6063

14

Appeal of Zoning By-Law No. 136-1998,

West Side of Islington Avenue between Orrell Avenue and

Riverbank Drive - File No. Z-2256

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To authorize the City Clerk and City Solicitor to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval of By-Law No. 136-1998, notwithstanding the appeal from M. Virginia MacLean, CasselsBrock & Blackwell, on behalf of F-F Construction Company Limited and Charles and Pauline Sammut.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Cost associated with legal and staff time required to prepare and attend Municipal Board hearing.

Recommendation:

That the City Clerk and City Solicitor be authorized to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval of By-Law No. 136-1998 to increase the minimum lot area requirement for any newly created lot in an area west of Islington Avenue between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive.

Background:

A public meeting was held by the Etobicoke Community Council on February 18, 1998 to obtain the views of all interested parties with respect to this rezoning application. At its meeting held on March4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council adopted Clause 13 embodied in Report No. 2 of the Etobicoke Community Council, thereby approving the application as addressed in a Planning staff report dated January 21, 1998. Subsequently, Council passed By-Law No. 136-1998 which confirmed this approval amending Chapters 320 and 324 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, with respect to the subject lands.

Comment:

It is normal practice to authorize the City Clerk and City Solicitor to proceed to the OntarioMunicipal Board for approval of a zoning by-law.

Conclusion:

Authorization for the City Clerk and City Solicitor to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval of By-Law No. 136-1998 be granted.

Contact Name:

Cathie Best, Director, Clerk's Division

Tel: (416) 394-8080

15

Request for Exemption from Part Lot-Control - 1184112 Ontario

Limited, 3 and 5 Birchview Boulevard

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To review a request for exemption from Part Lot Control.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for exemption from Part Lot Control be approved and that staff be authorized to forward the draft bill to City Council for adoption.

Background:

In July, 1997, the property located at the southwest corner of Birchview Boulevard and RoyalYorkRoad was rezoned, under By-law 1997-133, from Second Density Residential (R2) to Third Density Residential (R3) to permit the development of a pair of semi detached dwellings. In October, 1997, building permits were issued and construction of the two semi-detached dwellings is substantially complete.

Proposal:

The applicant is requesting exemption from part lot control in order to create two separate parcels for the semi-detached units.

Exhibit No. 1 is a location plan and Exhibit No. 2 is a reduction of the draft plan of survey indicating the proposed property line dividing the site into two lots.

Comment:

The project was reviewed prior to the issuance of a building permit and all necessary financial securities have been posted to ensure completion in accordance with the approved plans. The lifting of part lot control is requested in order to permit the sale of the individual units.

Staff of the Urban Development Department, Fire Department, Building Standards and the Works Department have reviewed the application and have no concerns with the requested exemption. Urban Development staff are satisfied that sufficient public notice for the project was given in connection with the application for rezoning and that further public notice is not warranted.

Conclusion:

An exemption from part-lot control for the project is considered appropriate for the orderly development of the land.

Contact Name:

Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8229 Fax: (416)394-6063

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

16

Request for Exemption from Part-Lot Control - Laredo

Construction Inc., 21, 24 Fleeceline Road - File No. Z-2152

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Etobicoke Community Council Solicitor and the Toronto School Board be requested to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council on the reasons why the contribution to the School Board was not received, as required under the Development Agreement, for Phase I of the project.")

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, subject to the posting of a Letter of Credit, in Trust, or a certified cheque payable to the City, in Trust, prior to June 3, 1998 to be held pending resolution of issues with the Toronto District School Board:

Purpose:

Request for exemption from part-lot control in order to legalize frontyard encroachments for each townhouse within the 152-unit freehold townhouse development at 21, 24 Fleeceline Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for exemption from part-lot control by Laredo Construction Inc. to legalize frontyard encroachments for each townhouse within the 152-unit freehold townhouse development at 21, 24 Fleeceline Road be approved, and that the necessary by-law be prepared by the appropriate staff/authority to be forwarded to Toronto Council.

Background:

On February 24, 1995, Queensland Developments Ltd. submitted an application to amend the OfficialPlan and Zoning Code to permit a 152-unit townhouse project at 21, 24 Fleeceline Road, which was approved by the former Etobicoke Council on September 5, 1995.

On March 8, 1996, Etobicoke Council adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 33-96 redesignating the site from Office to Medium Density Residential, and passed implementing By-law 1996-58, rezoning the site from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the proposed townhouse project.

The Metropolitan Commissioner of Planning granted draft plan of subdivision approval for the 152 lots on September 20, 1996. Site Plan Control Approval was granted by Etobicoke Council on October 6, 1997, and the project is currently under construction.

On April 24, 1998, Laredo Construction Inc. submitted a request to the Urban Development Department, Etobicoke Division for exemption from part-lot control for the townhouse project.

Exhibits Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are photo-reductions of the location map, lot plan and typical reference plan, respectively.

Comments:

The approval of a by-law to lift part-lot control has been requested in order legalize certain minor frontyard encroachments for each of the townhouse units.

The townhouse units are intended to be constructed with the centre line of the common wall coinciding with the lot line so that each owner owns half of the wall; however, due to the fact that the front facades of the townhouse units are staggered, a small exterior portion of the wall projects into abutting lots.

In order to facilitate conveyance, there is a need to recognize these projections as separate parts on a reference plan. In addition, there is also a need to create a separate part around these projections for the purposes of providing maintenance easements (Exhibit No. 3).

The application has been reviewed with Realty Services, Building Standards, Parks and Recreation, Works Department, Toronto Hydro, and the Solicitor for Etobicoke who have no objection to the proposal.

Conclusions:

The requested exemptions are considered appropriate.

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato MCIP, RPP, Planner - South District, Development and Design

Tel. (416) 394-6004 Fax (416) 394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council further reports having received the following communication:

(May 22, 1998) from the Toronto District School Board, requesting deferral of the request by Laredo Construction Inc. for exemption from Part-Lot Control pending resolution of a contribution to the Board's cost of additional school facilities required as a result of the development of 152 townhouses on the site.

_____

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

-Mr. R. Pyne, on behalf of Laredo Construction Inc.; and

-Ms. S. Daoust, Toronto District School Board.

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 27, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (June 2, 1998) addressed to Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair, Etobicoke Community Council, from Mr. Paul J. Peterson, McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors, requesting, on behalf of the Toronto District School Board, that the developer provide payment or letter of credit without conditions, or that City Council defer approval of the current application.)

17

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, received this Clause as information, subject to striking out and referring Item (a), entitled "Etobicoke Community Care Access Centre", embodied therein, to the Corporate Services Committee for consideration, notwithstanding subsection 128(5) of the Council Procedural By-law.)

(a)Etobicoke Community Care Access Centre

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)referred a request by the Etobicoke Community Care Access Centre, for office space in one of the three facilities comprising the Civic Centre complex, to Facilities staff and the appropriate officials, to work with Toronto Hydro and the Toronto Board of Education, noting that requests for use of any facilities in the Etobicoke Civic Centre or any of the City of Toronto buildings are on hold pending completion of the review of the use of space requirements in City-owned premises;

(2)requested staff to identify, in consultation with Mr. W.Goursky, of the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, Etobicoke Office, appropriate office space at the Etobicoke Civic Centre, to be provided to Mr. Goursky until such time as the review of space requirements is completed, and subject to further review at that time;

(3)recommended that all groups occupying space in municipal facilities in Etobicoke without lease or written agreement be subject to the foregoing conditions;

(4)that CRIME S.C.O.P.E. also be advised that their use of office space at the Etobicoke Civic Centre is subject to the same terms and conditions.

_____

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing:

-Ms. J. Ward, Board Chair, Etobicoke Community Care Access Centre; and

-Mr. W. Goursky, Area Planner, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, Etobicoke Office.

(b)Request for Amendment to the Etobicoke Sign By-Law with Respect to Mobile Signs

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)directed the Urban Development Department staff:

(i) to continue to enforce the Etobicoke Sign By-law with respect to mobile signs; and

(ii)to waive the $100.00 retrieval fee if the business or the sign company involved did not receive proper notification that the sign was to be removed;

(2)directed that a public meeting be held by the Etobicoke Community Council to allow sign companies and all interested parties an opportunity to express their views with respect to mobile signs, to be forwarded to the City of Toronto Council in concert with the Community Council's concerns; and

(3)received a submission from Mr. D. MacPhail, on behalf of the mobile sign industry, with respect to the need for revisions to Etobicoke's Sign By-law as it relates to mobile signs.

_________

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing:

-Mr. D. MacPhail;

-Ms. M. Coutts;

-Mr. R. Heron; and

-Ms. L. Duff.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports have received a communication (May 25, 1998) from Mr. J. Wright, supporting the enforcement of regulations regarding portable signs.

(c)Former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital/Humber College Lands - File No. 570.6.6

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following reports (i) and (ii) for information:

(i)(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, providing an update on the status of projects on the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital/Humber College lands; and

(ii)(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, providing additional information with respect to the roadway redevelopment and enhanced streetscaping associated with the Kipling Avenue Extension into the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital/Humber College lands.

_____

Ms. N. Sendall, Co-ordinator of the Gate House Project, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council to give a presentation on the restoration project on the subject property.

(d)Sheldon Avenue Water Supply

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the following communication:

(May 5, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, requesting that the watermain improvements on Sheldon Avenue, scheduled for repair in the year 2005, be moved forward to 1999.

(e)Franklin Carmichael Art Centre - Repairs

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 27, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, Etobicoke District reporting, as requested, on the immediate repair needs at the Franklin Carmichael Art Centre and associated costs.

(f)Update on the Removal of Illegally Placed Signs

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, reporting on the status of the removal of signs placed illegally on City property and advising that over 250 portable signs have been identified as being illegally placed on City property.

(g)New Development Applications for Etobicoke District

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following reports (i) and (ii) for information:

(i)(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District forwarding a list of development applications received by the Urban Development Department, Etobicoke District, up to May 12, 1998; and

(ii)(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, forwarding a list of development applications received by the Urban Development Department, Etobicoke District, up to May 21, 1998.

(h)Preliminary Report - Application for Amendments to the Zoning Code, Roman Catholic Church of the Resurrection Society of the Franciscan Fathers, 3700BloorStreet West - File No. Z-2266

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application to amend the Limited Commercial (CL) and Third Density Residential (R3) zoning of a vacant site at 3700BloorStreet West to permit a church centre and a nursing home.

(i)Preliminary Report - Application for Amendments to the Zoning Code, 1177284Ontario Limited, North-East Corner of Evans Avenue and Horner Avenue - File No. Z-2267.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application to amend the Private Open Space (POS) zoning to permit the establishment of a crematorium and columbarium at a cemetery (Ontario Hospital Cemetery) located at the north-east corner of Evans Avenue and HornerAvenue.

(j)Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Scarlett Gate Developments, 542ScarlettRoad

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be held to consider the following report:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, regarding an application for rezoning from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit 12 townhouses on the west side of Scarlett Road, north of LaRose Avenue.

(k)Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - D.E. & V.I. Investments Limited (Shell Canada Limited), 475 Renforth Drive - File No. Z-2258

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be held to consider the following report:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, regarding an application for rezoning to permit the conversion of service bays to accessory retail floor space to accommodate a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with an existing service station operation at the south-east corner of Renforth Drive and Rathburn Road.

(l)Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Shell Canada Limited, 320Burnhamthorpe Road - File No. Z-2257

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be held to consider the following report:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, regarding an application for rezoning to permit the conversion of existing service bays to accessory retail floor space to accommodate a convenience store and food sales in conjunction with an existing service station operation at the south-west corner of Burnhamthorpe Road and Martin Grove Road.

(m)City of Toronto Re: Old Mill Terrace Residence Inc.,

30-68 Old Mill Terrace/Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 13, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, reporting on an Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to a minor variance appeal respecting 30-68Old Mill Terrace, and advising that the presiding Board Member has reserved his decision.

(n)Appointment of Members to the Greater Toronto Airport Authority.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communications (i) and (ii):

(i)(April 20, 1998) from the President and Chief Executive Officer, GTAA, requesting citizen appointees to the Greater Toronto Airports Authority Consultative Committee (GTAACC), and the Noise Management Committee (NMC); and

(ii)(January 9, 1998) from the President and Chief Executive Officer, GTAA, reviewing the mandate of the two consultative committees (NMC) and (GTAACC) and requesting that appointments be made with a view to the stipulated mandate of the respective committees.

(o)Neighbourhood Watch Program

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(April 27, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No. 33 contained in Report No. 4 of the North York Community Council, headed "Neighbourhood Watch Program", which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on April 16, 1998.

(p)Ward Boundary Review Process

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding for information and any attention deemed necessary, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 4A of The Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Ward Boundary Review Process", which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998.

(q)Existing Environmental Committees and the Environmental Task Force

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team with respect to the recommendations of The Works and Utilities Committee regarding existing environmental committees and the Environmental Task Force and, in particular, that each Community Council be asked to advise the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team on the ongoing need for a general environmental advisory committee for its Community after receiving comments from the Environmental Task Force.

(r)Application for Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Code - TananaInvestments and Royal Gate Apartments, 1407 Royal York Road - FileNo.Z-2249

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred the continuation of the public meeting regarding an application by Tanana Investments and Royal Gate Apartments for amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan, pending the outcome of a meeting between the applicant, interested residents and the local Councillors.

(s)Alderwood Memorial Park

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services for report to the Etobicoke Community Council:

(May 21, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, requesting the support of Community Council to allow the local residents to raise funds toward a new play structure for Alderwood Memorial Park, and to have the City match contributing dollars in accordance with the former City of Etobicoke policy.

(t)City of Toronto re: Ontario Municipal Board Decision involving CantronIndustriesLimited/OMB File: PL971249

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 26, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, advising that the Motion for Leave to Appeal the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, approving a proposed Plan of Subdivision submitted by Rattling Chain Investments Inc., was dismissed by Divisional Court.

(u)Request for Revision of Parking Requirements in front of 1137-1141RoyalYork Road

The Etobicoke Community Council report having referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, for review and report back to the Etobicoke Community Council:

(May 20, 1998) from Mr. M. Collins, regarding an ongoing situation with industrial dumpsters parked in the roadway in front of 1137-1139-1141 Royal York Road, and the need to revise parking requirements.

(v)Marie Curtis Park

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication to the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services for report to the Etobicoke Community Council:

(May 25, 1998) from Ms. P. Straatsma, requesting the support of Community Council to allow the local residents to raise funds toward upgrading playground equipment in MarieCurtis Park.

(w)City Powers, Policies and Procedures Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing Before and After the Proclamation of the Tenant Protection Act.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to the next meeting of the Community Council:

(May 20, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding, for review by the Community Council, the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, from its meeting on May 19, 1998, regarding condominium conversion and the demolition of rental housing; requesting staff to report by early fall of 1998 on appropriate City-wide policies and procedures; and recommending the adoption of an interim policy.

(x)Etobicoke Multicultural and Race Relations Committee

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)concurred in the request contained in the following communication for allocation of a drop-off point for food and essential items in the Etobicoke Civic Centre for donations to the Sierra Leone Relief Effort; and

(2)designated Councillor Bruce Sinclair as the Community Council representative on the Etobicoke Multicultural and Race Relations Committee:

(May 26, 1998) from Ms. H. Webb, Chair, Etobicoke Multicultural and Race Relations Committee, seeking a location at the Etobicoke Civic Centre as a drop-off point for donations to the Sierra Leone Relief Fund, and the naming of a Member to represent the Community Council on the Committee.

(y)Window Safety Devices - 2355 Lake Shore Boulevard West

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, to provide Community Council members with a list of work orders outstanding for a period exceeding six months; and

(2) received the following report for information:

(May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, providing by-law information on window safety devices for apartment buildings, and to update on the status of the apartment building located at 2355 Lake Shore Boulevard West with respect to property use matters.

(z)Tree Cutting Permits

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following proposal by Councillor Blake Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway:

That staff report on whether the Etobicoke Community Council should adopt a permit program for cutting down trees on private property, and how such a program could be expedited as part of the by-law harmonization process with the entire City, or otherwise.

(aa)Eden Oaks Developments - Skeens Lane Re-development

The Etobicoke Community Council reports have referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, for the appropriate action:

(May 22, 1998) from Mrs. M. Piperni, regarding the negative impact on her property and that of her neighbours as a result of the development project in the Skeens Lane area.

(bb)City of Toronto Re: Canadian-General Tower Limited/OMB Hearing

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received a confidential briefing from the City Solicitor with respect to the status of negotiations regarding outstanding objections filed with the Ontario Municipal Board involving a proposed residential development at 207 New Toronto Street.

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH BROWN

Chair

Toronto, May 27, 1998

(Report No. 6 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998.)