It is encouraging to note that the School Crossings, were well utilized, particularly by the younger pedestrians. Most importantly, no conflicts between motorists or pedestrians were recorded during our study.

Collision History along Falmouth Avenue

Road and Traffic Services conducted a thorough three year review (1994, 1995 and 1996) of the reported collision history along Falmouth Avenue. This review showed that, during this time period, only one collision was reported. This incident that occurred late on a Sunday evening in January 1994 during foul weather. Although the driver failed to remain at the scene, the only reported damage was to a parked vehicle. Given this innocuous collision history, additional collision analysis is unwarranted at this time.

Possible Improvements to School Site

We have requested, in a previous memo, that the school consider improvements to their site in order to better facilitate school related pick-up and drop-off. These improvements may include, but not limit to expanded parking lot, circular driveway, two driveways to the parking lot and promotional campaign to encourage parents to obey the traffic signage and/or consider not driving children to school.

Conclusions:

Some alterations to the existing on-street parking restrictions along Falmouth Avenue can make them more consistent with changes at other schools. Specifically, installing "30 Minute Parking, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Monday - Friday" signs along the school/east side of the road directly in front of the school such that private vehicle passengers can directly access the school without having to cross in front of through traffic. This recommendation will provide sufficient room for approximately 16 private vehicles to park temporarily.

We also recommend to install a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m, Monday - Friday" restriction on the opposite/west side of the road to not allow even temporary parking on this side of the road. This new restriction will prohibit vehicles from stopping on both sides of the road.

We recommend reducing and adjusting the size of the School Bus Loading Zone which will provide more room for parents to load and unload children. Reducing the size of this zone was discussed with the school principal.

No Stopping Anytime restrictions are also recommended to be installed for 9 metres on either side of the existing School Crossings to ensure adequate sight lines for pedestrians and the school safety patrollers.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-7844, Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Falmouth WestOrdway Century7:00 a.m. to

AvenueRoadDrive6:00 p.m.

Monday to

Friday

Appendix 1

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

FalmouthEastOrdway Century7:00 a.m. to

AvenueRoadDrive6:00 p.m.

Monday to

Friday

Appendix 2

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Falmouth West OrdwayCentury 8:00 a.m. to

AvenueRoad Drive4:00 p.m.

Monday to

Friday

FalmouthBoth9 metres south18 metres furtherAnytime

Avenueof Brussels Roadnorth

FalmouthBoth9 metres north18 metres furtherAnytime

Avenueof Lorraine Avenuesouth

"Parking for Restricted Periods"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4Column 5

Maximum

Period

HighwaySideFromToTimes or DaysPermitted

FalmouthEast OrdwayCentury8:00 a.m. to30 minutes

AvenueRoadDrive4:00 p.m.

Monday to

Friday

13

Stop Sign on Gadsby Drive at Bimbrok Road

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June22, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To address the need for a stop sign on Gadsby Drive at Bimbrok Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $100.00 (approximate) funds, associated with the installation of the stop sign is available in the Roads and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the stop signs identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Staff from Road and Traffic Services noticed at the intersection of Gadsby Drive and Bimbrok Road that although a stop line and collector lines are painted on the road, no stop sign existed for eastbound traffic.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The intersection of Gadsby Drive and Bimbrok Road is located north of Eglinton Avenue between Midland Avenue and Brimley Road. A pedestrian crossover is located on Bimbrok Road at Gadsby Drive. Gadsby Drive is a short street that provides access to Glen Ravine Junior Public School.

The installation of a stop sign on Gadsby Drive would clearly define the right-of-way and stop motorists behind the sidewalk that exists on the west side of Bimbrok Road.

Conclusions:

A stop sign is recommended on Gadsby Drive to improve safety at this intersection for both motorists and pedestrians.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-7844

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

IntersectionStop Street

Gadsby Drive andGadsby Drive

Bimbrok Road

14

Centre left turn lane on Orton Park Road between

Brimorton Drive and Merkley Square

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June3,1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install a centre left turn lane on Orton Park Road between Brimorton Drive and Merkley Square.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $800.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the centre left turn lane pavement markings and signs are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

The $300.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the parking prohibition signs is available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-20200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted;

(3)the left turn only lane identified in Appendix 3 of this report be adopted; and

(4)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Road and Traffic Services attended meetings with the Curran Hall Community Association Executive to discuss traffic concerns on Orton Park Road. Specifically, the confusion created by the numerous driveways on both sides of the section of Orton Park Road between Brimorton Drive and Merkley Square was identified as a concern. Road and Traffic Services developed two proposals and placed these on two separate plans. The two options were a centre left turn lane and alternating left turn lanes.

The Curran Hall Community Association circulated illustrations of the two options to the area residents through their April 1998 news letter. Residents were asked to state their preference, provide any additional comments and deposit their completed forms in a survey box at a local coffee shop where full-size displays were also available to view. The results of the surveys were printed in the May 1998 newsletter and indicated a 70/30 split between the two options; the centre left turn lane option being preferred.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Orton Park Road is a 12.8 metre wide two lane residential road. Pavement markings were installed on Orton Park Road in 1997 to discourage passing on the right and create a more orderly flow of traffic. This consisted of the installation of edge lines 2.75 metres out from the curb. On the section of road between Brimorton Drive and Merkley Square, driveways provide access to retail plazas and residential homes on the west side of the road, with driveways to G.B. Little Public School, Botany Hill Drive and residential homes on the east side of the road. A pedestrian crossover exists on Orton Park Road at Brimorton Drive.

Left Turn Only Lane

Considering the numerous driveways on the section of Orton Park Road between Brimorton Drive and Merkley Square, the installation of a centre left turn lane would assist in defining the area designated for left turns. Other benefits of this left turn lane that we anticipate are: assisting motorists exiting the plaza driveways by creating a storage area away from the traffic flow, reducing confusion in the area with regard to turning movements and possible reduction of motorists' speeds due to the narrowing of the travel lanes.

It will also be necessary to extend the current No Parking Anytime restriction on both sides of OrtonPark Road from Brimorton Drive to a point 35 metres north of Merkley Square. Parking in this area would interfere with through traffic movement.

Collision History

A three-year review of the reported collision history, January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 reveals six collisions have occurred on the section of road between, but not including, Brimorton Drive and Merkley Square. No specific pattern was established in these collisions.

Conclusions:

The installation of a centre left turn lane and the complementary No Parking Anytime restriction on Orton Park Road between Brimorton Drive and Merkley Square will assist turning movements at the numerous driveways in the area. These amendments are recommended by Road and Traffic Services and also supported by the Curran Hall Community Association Executive.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-7844

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Orton ParkEast40 metres North62 metres SouthAnytime

Roadof Botany Hill Roadof Botany Hill Road

(South Intersection)(South Intersection)

Orton ParkWestBrimorton Drive90 metres North ofAnytime

RoadBrimorton Drive

Appendix 2

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Orton ParkEast62 metres South of35 metres North ofAnytime

RoadBotany HillMerkley Square

(South Intersection)

Orton ParkWestBrimorton Drive35 metres North ofAnytime

RoadMerkley Square

Appendix 3

"Left Turn Only Lanes"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

HighwayFromTo

Orton ParkBrimortonMerkley

RoadDriveSquare

15

Allowing Parking on the South Side of McLevin Avenue

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To address the need to allow some on-street parking on McLevin Avenue in the area of the Islamic Foundation of Toronto Mosque on the southwest corner of Markham Road and Nugget Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $1,000.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the parking/stopping restriction signs are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the current parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the parking and stopping regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted; and

(3)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Staff have investigated the parking generated by the mosque on numerous occasions over the past few years. Most recently, on Friday, March 20, 1998, between 12:30 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., we observed that as the mosque parking lot reached capacity, motorists tended to park in the residential community to the east of Markham Road, as well, some motorists took advantage of the paid parking provided in Kally's parking lot on the northwest corner of Markham Road and Nugget Avenue. Unfortunately, many motorists simply ignored the No Parking Anytime restrictions and parked on both sides of Nugget Avenue, on the boulevard and on private property.

Discussion:

With motorists parked on the south side of Nugget Avenue, just west of Markham Road, not only did this create congestion, but it also blocked sightlines for motorists exiting the mosque parking lot and eliminated the area in front of the mosque which is valuable for dropping-off and picking-up passengers. We do not support permitting motorists to park in this sensitive area for these reasons.

We also examined the feasibility of allowing parking on the south side of McLevin Avenue, east of Markham Road. Currently, both sides of McLevin Avenue between Markham Road and Greenspire Road are posted with a No Parking Anytime prohibition. These signs were installed in 1987 due to occasional on-street parking generated by businesses on the north side of McLevin Avenue. In an effort to relieve some of the parking congestion in front of the mosque, we can accommodate some parking on the south side of McLevin Avenue.

Based on our investigations, we are proposing is that the No Parking Anytime restriction remain on the north side but the parking restriction only apply from Saturday to Thursday on the south side between Markham Road and Greenspire Road. However, to ensure that no vehicles are parked on the street during the p.m. rush hour on Fridays, or any other days, we are also recommending a No Stopping, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. restriction on the south side of the street. We will also post No Standing restrictions in the vicinity of the existing Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stops.

Conclusions:

It is important to keep the area in front of the mosque clear of parked vehicles to maintain safe sight lines and create a pick-up and drop-off area for mosque patrons. By providing an alternative on McLevin Avenue for the excess parking, it is our intention to persuade the illegal parked vehicles away from the sensitive area in front of the church.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations

Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-7844, Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

McLevin BothMarkham GreenspireAnytime

AvenueRoadRoad

Appendix 2

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

McLevin NorthMarkhamGreenspireAnytime

AvenueRoadRoad

McLevin SouthMarkhamGreenspireSaturday to

AvenueRoadRoadThursday

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

McLevin SouthMarkhamGreenspire4:00 p.m. to

AvenueRoadRoad6:00 p.m.

16

Restricting Stopping on Littles Road

at Fleming Public School

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June3,1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To investigate the need for a stopping restriction in front of Fleming Public School on Littles Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $400.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the stopping restriction signs is available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the stopping restriction signs identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the stopping restriction signs identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted; and

(3)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Road and Traffic Services received notice from the Toronto Police, Community Programs Support Unit that a school safety patrol is being recommended at Fleming Public School. The intention was to start this program in September 1998 at the north intersection of Littles Road and Grayson Crescent. As such, a regulation School Crossing will be installed at this intersection.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Littles Road is a residential collector road with a posted 40 kilometre per hour speed limit. Fleming Public School is on the west side of the road, east of Morningside Avenue and south of Sewells Road. Currently, parking is allowed along a portion of the front of the school and stopping is restricted during weekdays on the opposite side. A School Bus Loading Zone also exists on the west side of the road. Toronto Transit Commission bus stops are both north and south of the school. One stop was recently moved from Grayson Crescent to Rangeley Drive to ensure clear sight lines at the proposed School Crossing.

Pedestrian Crossing Observations

Road and Traffic Services staff recorded the volume and location of pedestrians crossing by this school during our September 15, 1997 site investigations. The following tables show the result of our observations:

These tables show that there are a substantial number of pedestrians crossing in the area of Fleming Public School (there was a total of 364 total pedestrian crossings by the school during the two hours of observation). Although it is not indicated on these tables, most of the pedestrian crossings were concentrated between Grayson Crescent and Littles Road (north intersection) and a point further north by the intersection of Birrell Avenue and Littles Road. A park pathway just opposite Rangeley Drive was also noted as a significant pedestrian focal point.

Considering these crossing volumes, we support the recommendation by the police to install a School Crossing in front of Fleming Public School.

Traffic Operations - On-Street Parking Observations

An assessment of the current parking restrictions was also undertaken on Monday, September15,1997 during class admission / dismissal to determine the efficiency of thecurrent on-street parking restrictions. The following table shows the results of these observations:

*Illegal Parking (All Vehicles NOT School Buses)

It is encouraging that there is limit demand for off-street parking directly abutting the school. This is due to efficient use of the existing turning loop at the school.

Parking in the area referenced between the school driveways will be eliminated to accommodate a "No Stopping Anytime" restriction. This restriction is required to ensure good sight lines for the pedestrians and school safety patrollers in the vicinity of the proposed School Crossing and for motorists exiting the school turning loop driveway. Furthermore, the time restriction of the stopping restriction posted on the opposite/east side of the road will be amended to reflect the current "8:00a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" period posted at other Scarborough schools.

Collision History

It is important to note that in June of 1997, a pedestrian/vehicle collision occurred close to Fleming Junior Public School. The particulars of the this collision, are as follows:

On Thursday, June 12, 1997 at 3:45 p.m. a pedestrian crossed Littles Road without yielding the right-of-way to oncoming traffic. Fortunately, according to the police collision report, this collision did not result in anything beyond minor injuries to the pedestrian (that was noted as an 8 year old student of Fleming Public School). The southbound vehicle in this instance was only travelling at an approximate rate of 25 kilometres per hour.

It is also significant that both parties in the collision were residents of the neighbourhood and this collision occurred during inclement weather. The motorist involved in this collision was not charged with any driving offence.

Additional examinations into the collision history of this area from January 1, 1993 to December31,1996 indicate that there have been seven reported collisions in this area of the school along Littles Road. There has not been any general trend in these collisions (one collision in 1993, two collisions in 1994, two collisions in 1995 and two more in 1996) beyond that of drivers "failing to yield the right-of-way" to other drivers.

Nonetheless, it should be noted that, two other incidents involving pedestrians have also been documented in police reports. One of these incidents, in September 1996, involved an area resident slipping on wet grass as she rushed to catch a bus. This collision resulted in minor injuries to the woman. The remaining pedestrian collision, again in September 1996, occurred when a bicyclist struck the rear of a slow moving bus. The police report indicated that the bicycle did not have any brakes. Again, fortunately, the rider (that was noted as an 9 year old student of Fleming Public School) sustained only minor injuries.

According to the police reports, "the responsibility" for the occurrence of these pedestrian related collisions was assigned to each pedestrian involved. Examination of these reports shows that all three motorists were considered to be driving properly when the collisions occurred.

Conclusions:

The stopping restriction proposed in front of the school will provide good sight lines for pedestrians utilizing the proposed School Crossing, provided they are obeyed by motorists. The impact of these restrictions on pick-up/drop-off at the school should be minimal as most motorists currently utilize the off-street loop provided by the school. Motorists do continue to have the option of parking a block away from the school and walking the remainder of the way. This action would greatly reduce the traffic congestion in front of the school.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-7844

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Littles EastMorningviewBirrell8:30 a.m. to

RoadTrailAvenue4:30 p.m.

Monday to

Friday

Appendix 2

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Littles EastMorningview30 metres South of8:00 a.m. to

RoadTrailGrayson Crescent4:00 p.m.

(North Intersection)Monday to

Friday

LittlesEast15 metres North ofBirrell8:00 a.m. to

RoadGrayson CrescentAvenue4:00 p.m.

(North Intersection)Monday to

Friday

LittlesBoth15 metres North of30 metres South ofAnytime

RoadGrayson CrescentGrayson Crescent

(North Intersection)(North Intersection)

17

Draft Plan of Condominium Applications SC98012 and SC98013

Lee Development Corporation, 118 Corporate Drive and

Numbers 3, 5 and 7 Lee Centre Drive

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to grant draft plan approval for two condominium developments, which are currently under construction, on the subject site. Specifically, the request is to establish a commercial condominium (SC98012), at ground level, containing 11 retail units and a 261 unit residential apartment condominium (SC98013), as shown on the attached figure and Figures 2, 3A and 3B.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Scarborough Community Council:

(A)support the Draft Plan of Condominium SC98012 by Morris Rose Ledgett, on behalf of Lee Development Corporation, being Block 2, Registered Plan 66M-2288, known municipally as 118 Corporate Drive and 3, 5, and 7 Lee Centre Drive, subject to the following conditions:

(1)Plan as stamped "Recommended" this date (see Figure 2);

(2)the owner to sign the City's Standard Tax Agreement for payment of taxes and local improvement charges;

(3)the owner to complete all conditions of the Site Plan Control Agreement prior to registration, or enter into a financially secured development agreement with the City secured by a performance guarantee in a form and amount satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to guarantee completion of the site work if the owner chooses to register the condominium prior to completion of the project;

(4)prior to registration, the owner to submit the Final Condominium Declaration and Description for the approval of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings with respect to all easements and rights-of-way to ensure mutual access between all condominiums being proposed for Block 2, Registered Plan 66M-2288 for vehicular and pedestrian movements, parking, areas of exclusive uses, servicing and recreational facilities;

(5)the owner to make satisfactory arrangements with the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission (Scarborough Office) with regard to water and electrical servicing, including any agreements and/or easements that may be required;

(6)the owner to be responsible for distributing the Scarborough "Condominium" brochures supplied by the Works and Environment Department; and

(B)support the Draft Plan of Condominium SC98013 by Morris Rose Ledgett, on behalf of Lee Development Corporation, being Block 2, Registered Plan 66M-2288, known municipally as 1 Lee Centre Drive, subject to the following conditions:

(1)Plan as stamped "Recommended" this date (see Figure 2);

(2)the owner to sign the City's Standard Tax Agreement for payment of taxes and local improvement charges;

(3)the owner to complete all conditions of the Site Plan Control Agreement prior to registration, or enter into a financially secured development agreement with the City secured by a performance guarantee in a form and amount satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to guarantee completion of the site work if the owner chooses to register the condominium prior to completion of the project;

(4)prior to registration, the owner to submit the Final Condominium Declaration and Description for the approval of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings with respect to all easements and rights-of-way to ensure mutual access between all condominiums being proposed for Block 2, Registered Plan 66M-2288 for vehicular and pedestrian movements, parking, areas of exclusive uses, servicing and recreational facilities;

(5)the owner to make satisfactory arrangements with the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission (Scarborough Office) with regard to water and electrical servicing, including any agreements and/or easements that may be required; and

(6)the owner to be responsible for distributing the Scarborough "Condominium" brochures supplied by the Works and Environment Department.

Conclusions:

The initial phase of the Lee Development, known as Hillsborough Court, containing 464 residential units and ground level retail space, has been completed and registered as three separate condominiums. The Hillsborough Court development has helped to create a unique image along Corporate Drive in conjunction with the Consilium development by Tridel. The third tower of this development, known as May Tower, is currently under construction and will continue the urban street edge image of this portion of the City Centre area. Lee Development is requesting Draft Plan of Condominium approval to divide the current project with 11 at grade retail units having common element parking, and 261 residential units having 376 parking spaces.

The application has been circulated to the City's usual commenting agencies. The responses received to date have been incorporated into the conditions of approval.

This application is similar to the condominium applications for the three previous phases of this development approved by the former Scarborough Council in October 1995. The present applications comply with the City Centre Uses provisions of the Official Plan. The use, number of units and parking spaces comply with the applicable zoning provisions of the Progress Employment District Zoning By-law.

Contact Name:

Bill Kiru, MCIP, RPP

Planner, Community Planning Division

(416) 396-7014

(416) 396-4265 Fax Number

kiru@city.scarborough.on.ca

18

Churchill Heights Baptist Church - Waiver of Fees

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Scarborough Community Council for further consideration.)

The Scarborough Community Council:

(1)again recommends that Council waive the building permit fee ($37,042.80) for the Churchill Heights Baptist Church Expansion Program; and

(2)recommends that the Executive Director/Chief Building Official be requested to report on an application process to permit the waiving of building permit fees for new churches or expansions to churches:

Recorded votes:

Motion by Councillor Mahood to table with the direction that the Chief Building Official report on the practice of the former municipalities with respect to the waiving of building permit fees:

Yeas:Councillors Berardinetti, Mahood -2

Nays:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Cho, Duguid, Moeser,- 5

Recommendation No. (1):

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Moeser - 5

Nays:Councillors Ashton, Mahood, Tzekas - 3

Recommendation No. (2):

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Berardinetti, Duguid, Mahood, Moeser, Shaw, - 7

Nays:Councillor Cho - 1

The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having been advised by the Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Scarborough, that Recommendation No. (2) contained in the following report was improperly before the Community Council, since the Procedure By-law has not delegated authority to the Community Councils to discuss Development Charges. In accordance with this advice, the Community Council makes recommendation only with respect to Recommendation No. (1) in the following report.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (April22, 1998) from the Executive Director/Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

To report on the request of Mr. Douglas B. Robertson, on behalf of the Churchill Heights Baptist Church, to waive the building permit fee and development charges relative to the church building expansion program, permit application No. 98-00579.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Initial Estimates:

(1)Building Permit Fees$37,042.80

(2)Development Charges$13,483.28 (CITY)

$ 6,241.57 (SPUC)

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the fees for the building permit be collected according to the Building Permit By-law and not be waived; and

(2)development charges be collected as per the existing development charge by-laws and policy in Scarborough.

Discussion:

This request by the Churchill Heights Baptist Church needs to be considered on its individual merits with due regard to past practices and policies related to the granting of exemptions for the payment of fees.

Fees for building permits are charged on the basis of plan review and inspection services rendered according to rates set out in the Building Permit By-law. Even during the period of the Economic Action Plan, building permit fees for churches continued to apply in Scarborough.

With the creation of a new City of Toronto, the legislation carried forward all applicable by-laws from the previous local municipalities. The development charge by-laws provide for collection of these levies from non-residential development, and Scarborough Council did not include churches or church-related development when it adopted the "Going to BAT for Business" program in June1997.

In Scarborough, save for a brief period in 1997, development charges have been consistently collected for non-residential development. Last year, Scarborough Council considered, and waived development charges and building permit fees on a case-by-case basis for three church-related developments. Subsequent to this, it adopted a policy in regard to waiver of development charges under very specific circumstances which expired on December 31, 1997.

Conclusions:

1998 has been treated as a transition year where existing practices and by-laws will continue to apply, irrespective of the differences across municipalities, until new policies are put in place which address the differences in almost every aspect of municipal service. At this time, it would be inappropriate to modify existing by-laws on a piece-meal basis.

Contact Name:

Bernie E. Roth, P.Eng., Director/CBO, Scarborough District

396-7660

396-4266 (fax)

19

Proposed Encroachment Agreement Permitting a Metal Fence

Adjacent to 3311 Kingston Road to Encroach Onto the

Kingston Road and Whitecap Boulevard Road Allowances

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation Number 970 have requested permission to erect a metal fence adjacent to their location at 3311 Kingston Road. This fence would encroach onto the Kingston Road and Whitecap Boulevard road allowances

Funding:

If approved, the standard encroachment fee of $350.00 will be deposited into Account No.71290, the General Development Reserve Fund.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City permit Condominium Corporation No. 970 to install a metal fence encroaching to a maximum of approximately 15.5 metres onto the Kingston Road and Whitecap Boulevard road allowances subject to:

(a) entering into a encroachment agreement with the City;

(b)payment of the administration fee of $350.00 and registration cost of $50.00;

(c)provision of proof of insurance satisfactory to the City's Manager of Risk and Insurance; and

(d)maintenance of the encroachment in good condition;

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

Background:

Condominium Corporation Number 970, located at the south-west corner of Kingston Road and Whitecap Boulevard, has experienced trespassing and vandalism of its outdoor amenities. The police have recommended installation of a fence parallel to the road to deter intruders. The condominium has arranged to install a metal fence along the street line, approximately one metre away from the sidewalk. However, the property line jogs near Whitecap Boulevard, and installing the fence along the property line would result in a large area of lawn between the fence and the sidewalk. This area would be difficult for the City to maintain and may create an "alcove" situated well back from the street but outside of the fence and could result in additional security concerns both for the condominium and passersby. The Condominium Corporation has therefore requested permission to install the fence one metre from the sidewalk along both the Kingston Road and Whitecap Boulevard frontages. Total area of City property which would be enclosed by such a fence is estimated to be 180 square metres (1,937 square feet).

The zoning of the property is A - Apartments, with Performance Standards permitting 60 units per acre. The Official Plan designates the property for Higher Density Residential Uses.

Comments:

The usual City Departments and outside agencies have been contacted, and no objections to the proposed encroachment agreement have been received, provided the fence is designed to permit easy access to a storm sewer which crosses part of the property. The Condominium Corporation has agreed to ensure the City has access. From an operational perspective, therefore, the encroachment may be tolerated.

The encroachment policy of the former City of Scarborough considered this to be an area encroachment. This would require payment of an annual fee of $0.40 per square foot, or $775.00 per year. However, as there is a cost savings in terms of reduced maintenance by locating the fence closer to the sidewalk, it is recommended that the annual fee be waived.

Conclusion:

Approval of the encroachment agreement will enable the Condominium Corporation to maintain the area to the standard of their remaining grounds and eliminate a maintenance problem for the City.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate,

Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax Number (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

20

Proposed Encroachment Agreement for an Existing

Frame Garage to Remain Encroaching onto the

Aylesworth Avenue Road Allowance

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The new owners of 220 South Woodrow Boulevard have requested that the City enter into an encroachment agreement to permit an existing garage to remain encroaching onto the Aylesworth Avenue road allowance by approximately 3.8 metres (12.5 feet).

Funding:

If approved, the standard encroachment fee of $350.00 will be deposited into Account No.71290, the General Development Reserve Fund.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City permit the owners of 220 South Woodrow Boulevard to retain the existing garage in its present location, encroaching approximately 3.8 metres (12.6 feet) onto the Aylesworth Avenue road allowance, subject to:

(a)entering into a encroachment agreement with the City;

(b)payment of the administration fee of $350.00 and registration cost of $50.00;

(c)provision of proof of insurance satisfactory to the City's Manager of Risk and Insurance;

(d)maintenance of the encroachment in good condition; and

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

Background:

A recent survey of the property at 220 South Woodrow Boulevard determined that the garage located at the rear of the property encroaches approximately 3.8 metres (12.6 feet) onto the Aylesworth Avenue road allowance. The purchasers have requested an encroachment agreement with the City to permit the garage to remain in its current location.

Comments:

The subject property includes an approximately 70 square metre (750 square feet) 68 year old house, located on a 7.6 metre (25 foot) x 34 metre (111 foot) lot. The zoning of the property is S - Single Family, with Performance Standards permitting one dwelling per lot with a minimum of 7.5 metre frontage and a minimum area of 232 square metres, or two houses per lot with a minimum of 15 metres frontage and a minimum area of 510 square metres. The Official Plan designates the area for low density residential uses.

The property extends from South Woodrow Boulevard to Aylesworth Avenue. The garage is located at the rear of the property, with vehicle access from Aylesworth. The garage is known to have been at its current location since at least 1973, but appears to be significantly older.

The usual City Departments and outside agencies have been contacted, and no objections to the proposed encroachment agreement have been received. From an operational perspective, therefore, the encroachment may be tolerated

Conclusion:

The proposed formalization of the existing encroachment will not hamper the City's operational requirements within the road allowance and approval of the encroachment agreement is recommended.

Contact Name:

R. Mayr, AACI, Director of Real Estate,

Telephone (416) 396-4930, Fax Number (416) 396-4241

mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca

21

Private Tree Removal - St. David's Village

1290 Danforth Road

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1)refuse to issue a permit to remove the subject trees required to allow the applicant to expand the parking area at St. David's Village; and

(2)direct the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough, to work with the applicant to find alternatives to meet the parking requirements, including exploring the possibility of demolishing the vacant house on the site and the utilization of that site for parking purposes.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (June8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough:

Purpose:

Under the provisions of the City of Scarborough Tree Protection and Conservation By-Law No.25150, a permit is required to remove trees thirty centimetres in diameter or greater, generally in good condition, on private property.

An application for a permit to remove three trees thirty centimetres in diameter on private property has been filed by Mr. Phillip Utting, Administrator of St. David's Village, 1290 Danforth Road, Scarborough, Ontario, M1J 3L9 to allow for the construction of an expanded parking area at St.David's Village.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council:

(1)refuse to issue a permit to remove the subject trees required to allow the applicant to expand the parking area; or

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant planting six 80 mm caliper large growing, native shade trees upon completion of construction.

Comments:

The three trees in question are thirty centimetre diameter Austrian Pine in fair condition. All three trees require a permit and the consent of City Council for removal. The plan submitted by St.David's Village, prepared by NAK Design Group, dated March 25, 1998, indicates that the trees must be removed in order to expand the parking area in this location. The proposed parking area expansion, in its present form, precludes the retention of the trees. The applicant has agreed to plant six new trees in order to create another amenity area on the site if approval is granted for the removal of the three Austrian Pines and has submitted landscape plans which reflect this condition.

As required under the provisions of the City of Scarborough Tree Protection and Conservation By-Law No. 25150, a notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required fourteen day posting period, in order to provide the community with an opportunity to object to the removal of trees. At the time of this report, a petition signed by 150 residents objecting to the removal of trees was received in response to the notice of application.

Under the provisions of the Scarborough Tree By-Law No. 25150, Section 6 (E) "where an objection is received, the Commissioner shall refuse to issue a permit and shall prepare and forward a report to the next Committee meeting."

Should Community Council recommend that the request to remove the subject trees be granted, such approval should meet the conditions outlined in the above recommendation.

Contact Name:

Victoria Jeffery

Telephone:(416) 396-8733

Facsimile:(416) 396-5399

e-mail:jefferyv@toronto.ca

Ms. Fran Ellicott, President of the St. David's Village Residents' Council, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

22

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ98002

M., M. and P. Diciero, 4 Lochleven Drive

Scarborough Village Community

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated May 21, 1998, from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommends that the report of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June24,1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (May 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This application is to amend the Scarborough Village Community Zoning By-law as it pertains to 4 Lochleven Drive, from Highway Commercial Uses to Two-Family Residential, to permit the construction of two new semi-detached dwellings, each with a minimum frontage of 7.6 metres (25feet) and a minimum lot area of 360 square metres (3875 square feet).

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council amend the Scarborough Village Community Zoning By-law, as amended, with respect to 4 Lochleven Drive, being Part of Block P, Registered Plan 1834, as follows:

(A)Zoning By-law Amendment:

(1)Permitted Use: Two-Family Residential;

(2)maximum one dwelling unit per parcel with a minimum frontage of 7.6 metres (25feet) and a minimum lot area of 360 square metres (3875 square feet);

(3)minimum front yard setback 6 metres (20 feet);

(4)minimum side yard building setback, 0.9 metres (3 feet) from side lot lines on one side only;

(5)maximum coverage: 33 percent of the area of the lot or parcel; and

(6)an attached garage shall be erected with each dwelling unit;

(B)Site Plan Control:

that Site Plan Control be removed from the property once the proposed zoning is in effect; and

(C)that Council authorize any unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law Amendment as may be required to give effect to this resolution.

Background:

(1)This proposal would implement the Official Plan policies for this property, which are intended to encourage the redevelopment of older commercial properties (typically used car lots) to a more appropriate land use and built form. This proposal would introduce new housing stock, at an appropriate scale to provide a transition from the predominantly single-family neighbourhood to the north to mote intensively built forms as one approaches Kingston Road as well as reflect the built townhouse form of development on the east side of the street.

(2)The land is designated Medium Density Residential (RM) in the Official Plan, permitting a maximum net residential density of 40 units per hectare (16 units per acre). The Medium Density Residential designation provides for a variety of dwelling unit types including street townhouses, stacked townhouses, low-rise apartments and other such projects, to a maximum height of four-storeys. In addition, the Official Plan provides for single and semi-detached dwelling unit forms within this designation.

(3)The land is zoned Highway Commercial and permits Day Nurseries, Automobile Sales, Service and Maintenance Uses excluding auto body repair and/or auto-wrecking yards, Funeral Homes, Fraternal Organizations, Hotels and Motels, Places of Worship, Professional and Business Offices, Recreational Uses and Specialized Commercial Uses. The land is under site plan control.

(4)The subject property has a frontage of approximately 15 metres (50 feet) on Lochleven Drive and a lot depth of approximately 47.5 metres (156 feet). The site is approximately half a block north of Kingston Road. The existing single-family dwelling is to be demolished and two semi-detached dwellings are proposed. The area topography is such that the subject land is situated at a "high point"on Lochleven Drive. This application represents an opportunity to examine existing grading on the subject and abutting properties, which has resulted in storm water run-off and retaining wall problems. Grading is an issue which will be examined further through the associated Consent process. There are no trees of any significance on the subject property.

(5)The subject land is bounded by one and two-storey single-family dwellings on the north and south, by apartments on the west and townhouses on the east. Although the site has been zoned Highway Commercial since the early 1960's, a single-family dwelling was constructed many years ago.

(6)On March 4, 1998, Scarborough Community Council considered a Preliminary Evaluation Report on this application and directed that the Public Meeting be targeted prior to the summer recess. Consent application SB98002 to create the proposed lots has been submitted in conjunction with the rezoning and will be dealt with following Council's decision on the proposed Zoning By-law amendment application.

Comments:

(1)The land is presently under site plan control. The Official Plan excludes residential development of one or two dwelling units per parcel (i.e., singles or semis) from site plan control. I therefore recommend that site plan control be lifted from this site.

(2)The application was circulated to technical agencies and departments for their comments. There were no comments or objections raised to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment by the reporting agencies. However, a number of conditions will be imposed on the consent approval, to ensure proper and orderly development of the land.

Conclusions:

The proposed rezoning of this land to Two-Family Residential will implement the policies of the Official Plan to encourage the redevelopment of commercially zoned properties that have developed with uses other than commercial and will provide for the removal of the Highway Commercial zoning.

Contact Name:

Aristotle Christou, Senior Planner

(416) 396-5228

(416) 396-4265 Fax No.

23

Official Plan Amendment Application P96022

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z96040

Elisa Bourdon, 4342 Lawrence Avenue East

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated June 8, 1998, from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommends that the report of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June24,1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the West Hill Community Secondary Plan and the West Hill Community Zoning By-law, for the lands located on the north side of Lawrence Avenue east of Manse Road, as shown on the attached Figure.

The Official Plan Amendment proposes to maintain the existing Low Density Residential designation, but through the addition of a Numbered Policy, would provide for a Private Educational Institution and Day Nursery. The Zoning By-law Amendment proposes to maintain the existing "Single Family Residential (S)" zone but through the addition of a site specific exception, would permit only a Private Educational Institution, Day Nursery and one single family dwelling.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council:

(A)Official Plan:

amend the West Hill Community Secondary Plan, with respect to the property located on the north side of Lawrence Avenue east of Manse Road, known municipally as 4342 Lawrence Avenue, being Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 1502, as shown on Figure 1, by adding the following Numbered Policy:

"North Side of Lawrence Avenue, East of Manse Road

A Private Educational Institution and Day Nursery is permitted within the Low Density Residential designation.";

(B)Zoning By-law:

amend the West Hill Community Zoning By-law Number 10327, as amended, with respect to the property located on the north side of Lawrence Avenue, east of Manse Road, known municipally as 4342 Lawrence Avenue, being Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 1502, as follows:

(1)amend the "Single Family Residential (S)" zoning to permit only a Private Educational Institution, Day Nursery and one single family dwelling;

(2)add the following development standards:

-gross floor area of the Private Educational Institution shall not exceed 1400square metres (15,070 square feet);

-floor area of the Single Family Dwelling shall not exceed 175 square metres (1,884 square feet);

-maximum height of the Single Family Dwelling - 10 metres (33 feet);

-minimum rear yard setback 10 metres (33 feet);

-minimum street yard setback 6 metres (20 feet);

-minimum side yard setback 3 metres (10 feet); and

-the Regulations for Single-Family, Two-Family and Street Townhouse Dwellings as contained in Sub-Clause 15, Clause VI - Provisions for all Zones, shall not apply;

(C)Other Matters:

designate the subject lands as a Site Plan Control area; and

(D)Miscellaneous:

authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as may be required to properly carry out the intent of this resolution.

Background:

The lands have a lot area of approximately 3,320 square metres (35,745 square feet) and a lot frontage of 37 metres (121 feet) on Lawrence Avenue. A two and half storey, recently renovated dwelling exists on the property which will remain and be used by the principals of the proposed school for their personal use. The proposed school will have 5 classrooms, plus 4 common rooms (a library, computer lab, shop and art room). The school will accommodate children ranging in age from 3 years (Nursery School) to 13 years (Grade 8). At full operation, it is expected that the school will accommodate 100 children and 8 teachers.

The existing Low Density Residential designation provides for only detached and semi-detached dwellings. Lawrence Avenue is designated as a 36 metre (118 feet) arterial road on the Roads Plan. The lands are currently zoned "Single-Family Residential (S)", permitting one single family dwelling per parcel of land with a minimum of 15 metres (49 feet) frontage on a public street and a minimum area of 696 square metres (7,500 square feet).

The lands are not subject to a Site Plan Control By-law. Site Plan Control should however apply to the construction of a Private Educational Institution and as such Site Plan Control should be placed on these lands, in accordance with Council's policy.

The north side of Lawrence Avenue east of Plumrose Boulevard contains three dwelling units of which the existing single family dwelling is the most easterly. Lands on the south side of Lawrence Avenue opposite the subject property are developed with a block townhouse development accessed from Valia Road.

The lands to the west and north of the subject property are designated Low Density Residential. Recently approved draft plans of subdivision provide for a north/south road extending from Lawrence Avenue to Kingston Road within the former Scarborough Transportation Corridor lands. It is expected that all new single family residential lots created in this area will front onto this north/south street, with their rear yards adjacent to the subject property. The draft plan of subdivision for the lands to the north of the subject property proposes single family dwelling lots backing onto the subject lands.

The vacant lands to the east of the subject property are designated and zoned for "Places of Worship (PW)". Conceptual approval was granted in 1993 by the Council of the former City of Scarborough for a 1,371square metres (14,760 square feet) church with all associated parking to be located to the north and east of the building. Access to the parking lot would be at the extreme east of the site, furthest from the school site. The approved site plan provides for a 4 metre (13 feet) landscape strip to be constructed adjacent to the subject property.

A Preliminary Evaluation Report was before Scarborough Community Council on April 15, 1997 at which time it endorsed the processing of the applications in the normal manner, with the area of the statutory public notice to include all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the property.

Comments:

(1)The application was circulated to various technical review agencies, none of which expressed concern with the proposed Montessori School. The former Metropolitan Toronto Planning

Department requires that the easterly access provide inbound movements only and that the westerly access provide one-way southbound movements only. Appropriate on site signage and pavement markings will be required.

(2)The Site Plan detailed in the Preliminary Evaluation Report has since been revised to accommodate a permanent structure rather than a modular school building as originally proposed. The proposed Montessori school will be approximately 1,400 square metres (15,070 square feet), basement included.

(3)As indicated in the Preliminary Evaluation Report the site has a large number of mature trees along the north, west and east property lines. The owner has submitted a Tree Preservation Plan which identifies that the majority of trees along the perimeter of the site will be preserved. In an effort to preserve as many trees as possible throughout the site, trees which can be relocated will be moved elsewhere on the site away from the proposed building and driveways. However, a number of trees will have to be removed in order to construct the Montessori school and required driveways. In addition, a wooden privacy fence will be constructed along the north property line at the rear of the property.

(4)A total of 15 parking spaces are provided on site, including two handicapped parking spaces. Given that the majority of students will arrive by car, two drop off areas have been provided, as shown on Figure 3.

Conclusion:

The redevelopment of this site providing for a Private Educational Institution, Day Nursery and the existing Single Family dwelling will not adversely impact the surrounding uses. The proposed one-storey school and Day Nursery would be compatible with the existing single family and multiple family dwellings in the immediate neighbourhood and with the proposed Place of Worship to the east of the subject lands.

Contact Name:

Victor Gottwald, Acting Senior Planner

Phone: (416) 396-5004, Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-Mail: gottwald@city.scarborough.on.ca

Ms. Elisa Bourdon appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and expressed support for the staff recommendations.

24

P92024/Z87116/T94005

High Glen Developments Limited/Rossland Real Estate Limited

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report (undated) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled 'Official Plan Amendment Application P9202, Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z87116, Draft Plan of Subdivision T94005, HighGlen Developments Limited, Rossland Real Estate Limited, Part of Lot 11, Concession 4, Malvern Community (Scarborough Malvern)', be adopted, subject to:

(1)deleting the references to 'Figure 3' in Recommendations B and C, and inserting in lieu thereof the reference 'Figure 2A'; and

(2)deleting the references to 'Street Townhouse' in 1.2 and 1.8 of RecommendationB and inserting in lieu thereof the words 'Semi-Detached'.")

The Scarborough Community Council:

(a)recommends the adoption of the following report (June23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough; and

(b)reports having requested that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, report directly to Council on July 8, 1998, on the outcome of the June29,1998, community information meeting respecting this matter, and provide detailed recommendations on the Official Plan designation, Zoning By-law provisions and the recommended conditions of Draft Plan approval to implement the preferred Draft Plan of Subdivision for these lands:

Purpose:

To obtain instructions for the City Solicitor regarding the City's position at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for July 28, 1998 for the lands shown on Figure 1.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Council of the City of Toronto direct the City Solicitor to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board on July 28, 1998 to achieve the objectives for the proposed development as described in this report.

Background:

High Glen Developments Limited proposes to develop 4.2 hectares (10.4 acres) immediately south of the Canadian Pacific Railway corridor, west of the Rouge Valley. The lands are currently vacant. T he applicant proposed a total of 81 dwellings units but has recently revised the proposal to provide 80 dwelling units consisting of 50 street townhouses on lots with minimum six metre (20 feet) frontages and 31 single family dwellings on lots with minimum 9 metre (29.5 feet) and 12 metre (40 feet) frontages, and a pedestrian walkway connection to the Rouge Valley as shown on Figure 2. The five partial lots created would be developed with the adjacent subdivision to the west owned by Cummer-Yonge Investments Limited.

Two Preliminary Evaluation Reports on the subject applications and for the adjacent Cummer-Yonge Investments Limited applications, were considered by the former Scarborough Council on April13,1994 and June 24, 1997, respectively. The first Preliminary Evaluation Report directed staff to hold a Community Information Meeting and report further to Council on the issues of the Finch Avenue extension, the Morningside Subwatershed Study, the status of the acquisition of the Ontario Hydro lands and the Canadian Pacific Railway Pit Spur line. The second Preliminary Evaluation Report addressed the above issues and directed staff to process the applications in the normal manner and to hold a second Community Information Meeting. A Community Meeting was targeted sometime after the summer break, however with the pending elections, no meeting was held. Consequently, the applicant for High Glen Developments Limited appealed the applications for lack of Council decision. The Cummer-Yonge Investments Limited applications were not appealed. With the concurrence of the Law Department, a second Community Meeting will be held on June 29, 1998 for the appealed applications to an expanded area as directed by the former Scarborough Council.

The subject lands are designated as Finch Avenue Realignment and Special Uses Area which allows only non-residential uses and in the vicinity of the Finch Avenue Realignment, may accommodate automobile-oriented and service uses. The lands are zoned Agricultural Uses in the Agricultural Holding By-law which permits agricultural uses and single family dwellings on lot having minimum 30 metre (100 feet) frontages and 0.8 hectare (1.9 acre) lot areas.

The lands south of the subject lands contain single family dwellings on lots ranging between approximately 8.3 metres (27 feet) and 24.7 metres (81 feet) frontages, and semi-detached dwellings having approximately six metre (20 feet) frontages. The lots containing the semi-detached dwellings are zoned Street Townhouse Residential.

Comments:

(A)Official Plan Objective

Finch Avenue was deleted from the Scarborough Official Plan by the former Scarborough Council on June 24, 1997 as Amendment 990. While the Amendment has been appealed, staff do not consider Finch Avenue an issue affecting the subject lands and support a redesignation of the lands to Low Density Residential. The proposed density would conform to the Low Density Residential designation in the Malvern Community Secondary Plan.

(B)Zoning By-law Objective

The proposed lot frontages and areas are consistent with the residential dwelling lots in the area and would provide for dwellings compatible with the existing residential development to the south. Staff do not oppose the deletion of the subject lands from the Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law and incorporating the lands into the Malvern Community Zoning By-law with the appropriate Single-Family Residential and Street Townhouse Residential Zones, and development standards similar to existing lots in the area. A Major Open Spaces Zone would also need to be established adjacent the Rouge Valley, in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Partial lots that would be created would be excluded from the rezoning until the lands to the west have been considered by Council. Other site specific standards such as a minimum building setback from the railway right-of-way would also be incorporated into the rezoning.

(C)Draft Plan of Subdivision Objective

The proposed lotting in Figure 2 may not represent the optimum for assuring the maintenance of the required berm within the rear yards, property maintenance between the required fencing along the railway right-of-way and the noise attenuation fence on top of the berm within the rear yards or for a trail connection to the Rouge Park. In order to ascertain the community's input, the applicant's revised scheme and an alternative scheme providing for a single-loaded road abutting the railway right-of-way will be presented at the Community Information Meeting on June 29, 1998. The single-loaded road could form part of the recreation trail, provide for an enhanced streetscape by incorporating landscaping on the berm adjacent the railway and provide for an increased building setback from the railway which may reduce the noise impact from the railway.

Notwithstanding the above, a residential subdivision can be supported on the subject lands. In supporting the development, standard City conditions may be applied such as the owner making satisfactory arrangements with the City for: all services and easements; payment of Development Charges; street tree planting; five percent cash in lieu of parkland; dedication of all streets, public walkways, 0.3 metre (one foot) reserves and corner roundings to the City at no charge and free and clear of all encumbrances; lifting of 0.3 metre (one foot) reserves; constructing temporary turning circles; contribution for the costs of geodetic and aerial surveys, engineering costs and inspection fees performed by the City; and maintenance of installed hydrants. Site specific requirements would include a provision of an adequate recreation trail connection to the Rouge Park.

Specific agency requirements may include: the owner making satisfactory arrangements for the supply of underground electric and water distribution, street lighting systems, telephone services and required easements; installing fencing along the railway right-of-way and open space corridors, submitting a stormwater management report and applying appropriate stormwater techniques to the satisfaction of the agencies; conveying open space corridors to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and implementing appropriate noise attenuation measures.

Conclusion:

Residential development of single family and street townhouses can be supported on the subject lands. Sufficient flexibility exists in the objectives described to incorporate changes to the subdivision plan.

Contact Name:

Sylvia Mullaste, Planner

Phone: (416) 396-4265

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-Mail: mullaste@city.scarborough.on.ca.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (undated) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

Scarborough Community Council on June 24, 1998 directed that I report to Council on the outcome of the June 29, 1998 Community Information Meeting and that I provide detailed recommendations on the proposed Official Plan designation, Zoning By-law provisions and conditions of draft plan approval on a preferred draft plan of subdivision.

Source of Funds:

No funds are required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

A.Official Plan

the Malvern Community Secondary Plan be amended with respect to the lands located south of the Canadian Pacific Railway, west of the Rouge Valley, north of the Havenlea Road, Gramercy Square and Harvest Drive termini, and east of the western terminus of Misty Hills Trail, being Part of Lot 11, Concession 4, by deleting the Special Uses Area designation and adding the Low Density Residential designation.

B.Zoning By-law

1.the Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law be amended by deleting the lands shown on Figure3, located south of the Canadian Pacific Railway, west of the Rouge Valley, north of the Havenlea Road, Gramercy Square and Harvest Drive termini, and east of the western terminus of Misty Hills Trail, being Part of Lot 11 , Concession 4 and that these lands be incorporated into the Malvern Community Zoning By-law, as amended, with the following zoning:

1.1for lots having minimum lot frontages of nine metres (30 feet), Single-Family Residential Zone: maximum one single family dwelling per lot as shown on Registered Plan;

1.2for lots having minimum lot frontages of six metres (20 feet), Street Townhouse Residential Zone: maximum one dwelling unit per lot as shown on the Registered Plan;

1.3minimum three metre (10 feet) street yard building setback except the main wall containing the vehicular access shall be set back a minimum of six metres (20 feet);

1.4maximum ground floor area is 50 percent of the lot area;

1.5a garage shall be erected with each dwelling;

1.6minimum 30 metre (100 feet) building setback from the Canadian Pacific Railway right-of-way;

1.7for the Single Family Residential Zone: minimum one metre (3 feet) side yard building setback on one side and 0.5 metres (1.5 feet) on the other side. Chimneys, pilasters, projecting columns, balconies, unenclosed porches and canopies shall not project in the required side yards;

1.8for the Street Townhouse Residential Zone: minimum side yard building setback, for dwelling units that are attached above grade, one metre (3 feet) from the end wall to the side lot line; and

1.9for Block A: Major Open Spaces.

C.Draft Plan of Subdivision

The proposed draft plan of subdivision, as generally shown on Figure 3, be approved subject to the following conditions:

(1)The owner is to make satisfactory arrangements with the City regarding matters such as: all services and easements; payment of Development Charges; street tree planting; five percent cash in lieu of parkland; dedication of all streets, public walkways, 0.3metre (one foot) reserves and corner roundings to the City at no charge and free and clear of all encumbrances; lifting of 0.3 metre (one foot) reserves on Registered Plan M-2277; and contribution to the City for the costs of geodetic and aerial surveys; maintenance of installed hydrants; construction of sidewalks; and payment for engineering costs and inspection fees performed by the City.

(2)The owner to make satisfactory arrangements with the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission regarding the supply of underground electric and water distribution and street lighting systems.

(3) The owner to construct a temporary turning circle at the northern extension of Misty Hills Trail if the development proceeds prior to the adjacent subdivision T87020, owned by Cummer-Yonge Investments Limited, and post a sign at the end of the road indicating that the road may be extended to accommodate future development.

(4)The owner to revise the Noise Impact Feasibility Study, prepared by J.E. Coulter Associates Limited, dated January 3, 1996. The owner agreeing to implement the noise attenuation measures identified, to the satisfaction of the City, Ministry of Environment and Energy and Canadian Pacific Railway.

(5)The owner to construct and/or fund a public recreation trail through the plan of subdivision to the Rouge Park to the satisfaction of the City and deed to the City without charge and free and clear of all encumbrances the recreation trail.

(6)The owner to enter into an agreement to convey Block A to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

(7)The owner to make satisfactory arrangements with Bell Canada regarding services and required easements.

(8)The subject lands are to be zoned in accordance with the proposed development standards prior to the registration of the plan, with the exception of the proposed partial Blocks which will be zoned with the adjacent subdivision T87020, owned by Cummer-Yonge Investments Limited.

(9)Prior to registration of the plan and prior to any grading, the owner is to submit a stormwater management report describing the storm drainage system for the proposed development including how the proposed development ties into the final and approved Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study, the proposed methods of controlling or minimizing erosion and siltation on-site and in downstream areas during and after construction, an erosion and sediment control strategy which includes a description and plan being prepared, and the location and description of all outlets and other facilities which may require permits under Ontario Regulation 158 and receiving the same prior to the registration of the subdivision plan to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

(10)Prior to the registration of the plan and prior to any grading, the owner is to submit a stormwater management report describing how the proposed development ties into the existing development, and the appropriate Best Management Practices to be employed to ensure no negative impact on the quality and quantity of ground and surface water resources as it relates to fish and their habitat, to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

(11)The owner to develop the proposed development in conformity with the approved recommendations of the Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study and to apply the stormwater management techniques in the stormwater management report to the satisfaction of the City, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

(12)The owner is to install permanent fencing along the lot(s) abutting Block A and providing a suitable opening to accommodate access to the Rouge Valley to the satisfaction of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

(13)The owner is to install permanent fencing along the Canadian Pacific Railway right-of-way and construct a berm to the satisfaction of the City.

(14)The proposed development is to comply with the requirements of the Scarborough Tree By-law No. 25150 prior to any grading or excavation work on the subject lands and prior to the issuance of any building permit.

D.Council authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Draft Plan of Subdivision to properly carry out the intent of the resolution.

Background:

The Community Information Meeting held on June 29, 1998 was attended by approximately 16people. Written comments received are attached as Appendix A. The applicant's original and revised plans of subdivision were presented along with a proposed alternative plan prepared by Planning staff which incorporates a single-loaded road. Issues raised with the proposed residential development included: the subject lands should be parkland as there is a lack of parkland in the community; existing rear yards are too small; townhouses are not desirable, single family dwellings are preferred; townhouses should be built adjacent to four-lane streets and not two-lane residential streets; crime in the area and the lack of police stations; increase in traffic through existing streets and the difficulty experienced in turning from Old Finch Avenue onto Morningside Avenue; impact to wildlife utilizing the subject lands; the recreation trail being the only positive aspect; a berm and noise fence are unsightly; dust and dirt from the construction work; noise from the railway and the noise attenuation fence that was not constructed; whether a new road would connect to Morningside Avenue; a single-loaded road would entice children onto the railway tracks and would not be safe; there should be more land for the berm or buffer in order to provide a wildlife corridor; and there should be more open space.

Finch Avenue was deleted from the Scarborough Official Plan by the former Scarborough Council on June 24, 1997 as Amendment 990. While the Amendment has been appealed, staff do not consider Finch Avenue an issue affecting the subject lands.

Comments:

Parkland and Recreation Trail Connection

Malvern Community is deficient in community and neighbourhood parkland according to the Official Plan objective of 0.7 hectares (1.7 acres) per 1,000 population. According to Recreation, Parks and Culture staff, a shortage of programmable sports fields exits within the Community. The subject lands however are not considered large enough to provide for the sports fields required. The subject lands, located within Neighbourhood 3 in the Malvern Community, are well serviced by Harvest Moon Park, Littles Park, the Morningside Trail Ravine and by the Rouge Park to the east.

A recreation trail was proposed by the applicant in response to the Recreation, Parks and Culture Department's early comments on the development proposal. A trail approximately fivemetres(16.4feet) in width along the entire length of the development was proposed by the applicant between the proposed berm and the rear yards of the dwellings. Safety and maintenance concerns were raised by Recreation, Parks and Culture staff and the applicant was advised to investigate alternative options. A trail connection from the Morningside Tributary lands to the west to the Rouge Park would be desirable to Recreation, Parks and Culture staff if the development incorporated a single-loaded road pattern. If a single-loaded road pattern did not occur, the pedestrian pathway connection shown by the applicant's revised proposal from Samuel Teitel Court and Havenlea Road would be acceptable to the Recreation, Parks and Culture staff.

Rear Yards

Concern was expressed regarding the size of existing rear yards being too small for children to play within and streets becoming playgrounds. The Zoning By-law requires a minimum 7.5metre(25feet) rear yard setback. This is a standard minimum rear yard requirement within the Malvern Community and in most of the former City of Scarborough. The rear yard requirement is considered adequate for providing rear yard amenity space.

Single Family Dwellings versus Townhouses

Staff do not oppose the development of townhouses. The Low Density Residential designation applying to the lands to the south provides for street townhouses. The lands zoned Street Townhouse Residential to the south contain semi-detached dwellings with minimum six-metre (20feet) frontages. The proposed townhouses would have comparable lot frontages to the existing semi-detached lots and would provide comparable development to existing development in the area.

Traffic and Roads

The existing road pattern was designed to handle traffic generated from the development of the subject lands. When the subdivision immediately to the south was approved, the approval was conditional upon the owner erecting signs at the end of each street stating that the streets may be extended into the adjacent lands and that the adjacent lands are planned for the Finch Avenue diversion and future development of commercial uses. In so doing, the area residents would be apprised of future development to the north and the potential of additional traffic. Such signs presently do not exist.

Many examples exist of street townhouses located on two-lane residential streets within the City with similar lot frontages as those proposed. The proposed townhouses do not set a precedent.

The residents were advised that the Old Finch and Morningside Avenue intersection will be signalized by the end of September. The residents were also advised that there would be no road connection directly to Morningside Avenue from the proposed development.

Noise

The Railway has specific requirements as to when and how often a train whistle is to be used. These requirements are regulated by the Federal Government. Development of the lands south of the subject lands required a noise attenuation fence along Finch Avenue if it were constructed. As Finch Avenue was deleted from the Scarborough Official Plan by the former Scarborough Council as Amendment 990, this fence will not be constructed. Other required noise attenuation measures for the development to the south contained requirements for a berm and fence at the east end of the existing development, measures for reducing noise within dwellings and noise warning clauses. These matters have been undertaken. The proposed development will have noise requirements incorporated within the development to meet the Ministry of Environment and Energy standards.

Safety

Concern was raised with the single-loaded road scheme as the road near the railway lands would entice children to climb the fence along the railway lands. While fencing would be required along the railway right-of-way regardless of the scheme, the community believed fencing would not deter children from entering the railway lands. No fencing presently exists along the railway right-of-way.

Wildlife

The applications were reviewed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural Resources. In comments received, no mention of providing a wildlife corridor through the subject lands was described. The Morningside Subwatershed Study Phase 2 Report generally identifies a wildlife corridor along the railway lands and corridors north of the railway.

Other Matters

Dust and dirt concerns during construction are matters to be addressed during construction by the Buildings Division or the Works and Environment Department. The berm is the requirement of the Railway and would be required in case of derailment. The noise attenuation fence would be required to satisfy noise requirements of the Ministry of Environment and Energy.

Applicant's Revised Plan of Subdivision - Figure 2

Block 36 of the revised plan would be bounded by a chain link fence along the railway right-of-way, and a noise attenuation fence on top of the berm, for a width of 15 metres (50 feet). It is unknown who will be responsible for these lands. If the lands were dedicated to the City, the City would be responsible for the maintenance of a portion of the berm and possibly the noise attenuation fence. This situation is not desirable.

Block 37 indicates the pedestrian walkway and a portion of the required berm which may include a noise attenuation fence. It is not desirable for the City to maintain the berm or the noise attenuation fence.

Block 38 would be deeded to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. It is unknown whether the Conservation Authority agrees to having or maintaining a berm as it was not required by the Railway or by the noise report prepared for the original plan. Furthermore, the plan does not indicate how the pedestrian walkway provides access to the Rouge Valley, especially as a noise attenuation fence was to wrap toward the south beside the west side of Block 38.

In order to identify and zone Block 38, the top-of-bank would need to be established in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

Alternative Plan of Subdivision - Figure 3

Residential development with single-loaded roads along railway rights-of-way exist within the Malvern Community west of Morningside Avenue containing Horseshoe, Glanvil, Lady Bower and Overlord Crescents. A townhouse co-operative development also exists on the south side of Old Finch Avenue, east of Morningside Avenue and contains interior driveways with parking areas along portions of the now abandoned Canadian Pacific Railway Spur line. In both locations, chain link fencing separates the development from the railway rights-of-way, with the townhouse development also containing a low berm.

A single-loaded road provides the opportunity to have visual access onto the road and railway lands as the fronts of the dwellings would face the street and overlook the berm and railway lands. A noise fence may not be required if alternative noise attenuation measures are incorporated into the design of the dwellings. Moreover, the proposed townhouses could provide a noise barrier to the dwellings to the south and would have a greater setback from the railway than the applicant's plan. A revised Noise Report would be required to describe the alternative measures. The proposed townhouses would also have rear yards adjacent other rear yards instead of a berm and noise attenuation fencing which would have a maximum overall height of 6.7 metres (22 feet) within the rear yard.

The proposed landscape buffer would incorporate the berm but could also contain landscaping to provide an enhanced streetscape. A higher fence along the railway right-of-way may also be requested. The landscape buffer in part could provide for a wildlife corridor raised by the community. Preliminary discussions with the Works and Environment Department indicate that provision for a reduced road allowance along the landscape buffer, a landscaped island in Gramercy Square, and ownership of the berm within the landscape buffer have merit for further review.

Conclusion:

The alternative concept for a plan of subdivision is the preferred option.

Contact Name:

Sylvia Mullaste, Planner, Scarborough Civic Centre

Phone: (416) 396-5244, Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-Mail: mullaste@city.scarborough.on.ca)

(A copy of each of the following documents, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(i)Figure 2, headed "Applicant's Revised Plan of Subdivision";

(ii)Figure 3, headed "Proposed Subdivision Concept"; and

(iii)written comments received from attendees at the June 29, 1998 Community Information Meeting.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a copy of a composite draft plan of High Glen Phase 3, including Ontario Hydro Lands, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(July 10, 1998) from Mr. Gord McGregor, commenting on the Official Plan Amendment Application; and

(ii)(July 6, 1998) from Mr. John MacKenzie, Save the Rouge Valley System Inc., requesting Council to designate the High Glen properties as parkland and to acquire these lands for inclusion within the Rouge Park.)

25

Request for Fence By-law Exemption

Hamilton Brown, Raymond Frost, 38 Cherryhill Avenue

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1)strike out the recommendation contained in the following report; and

(2)refuse the Fence By-law Exemption.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (June 6, 1998) from the Director of Municipal Standards:

Purpose:

The applicants are seeking approval to permit an existing fence to remain at its current height and location. The applicants have constructed a 1.8 metre (6 feet) high fence extending 2.7 metres (8.86feet) into the street yard abutting Cherryhill Avenue. Measurements taken at the site indicate that the fence is 5.74 metres (18.83 feet) from the Cherryhill streetline; 9.3 metres (30.5 feet) from the driveway of 36 Cherryhill Avenue and 5.8 metres (19 feet) from the driveway of 38 Cherryhill Avenue.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council approve the application to permit a board on board fence with a height of 1.8 metres (6 feet) extending a distance of 2.7 metres (8.86feet) along the southerly lot line into the street yard abutting Cherryhill Avenue.

Background/History:

Acting upon a complaint received, an inspection of 38 Cherryhill Avenue was undertaken on May22, 1998. The inspection revealed a 1.8 metre (6 feet) high fence extending into the street yard abutting Cherryhill Avenue. As a result of these findings, a notice under Fence By-law 24945 as amended was sent on May 25th to the registered owners. Subsequent to the issuance of the notice, a request from the owners seeking an exemption was received on May 30th.

Inspections of the property were undertaken on June 1st and 6th at which time photos were taken and sight lines examined. The inspections revealed a clear line of sight in both directions of the sidewalk and road from the driveway of the applicant.

Justification:

Section 14 of By-law 24945 as amended provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, Supervisor,

(416) 396-5341, (416) 396-4266 Fax Number

byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

The following persons appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter, and expressed opposition to the Fence By-law exemption requested:

-Ms. Sandy Brown; and

-Mr. Andy Brown.

26

Request for Fence By-law Exemption

Linda and Graham Fisher, 420 Brownfield Gardens

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report:

Purpose:

The applicants are seeking approval to permit an existing fence to remain at its current height and location. The fence is of board on board construction with lattice at the top and is located on the applicant's north property line. The fence extends 11.54 metres (37.86 feet) into the front yard and has a height of 1.62 metres (5.25 feet).

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council approve the application to permit a board on board fence with lattice at a height of 1.62 metres (5.25 feet) in the front yard a distance of 11.54 metres (37.86 feet) along the north property line.

Background/History:

On April 28, 1998, an inspection was conducted at 428 Brownfield Gardens. While at the site, the inspector noted a fence at 420 Brownfield Gardens in the front yard which exceeded the height requirements of Fence By-law 24945 as amended. He advised the owner of the by-law requirements and a notice was issued on April 29, 1998. Subsequent to this notice, a request for exemption was received from the owners on May 22, 1998.

The property was inspected on May 23rd and it is noted that the applicant's property is located on the west side of Brownfield Gardens and is the last house on the dead end street. The applicants abut a residential property on the north side and the West Rouge Public School on the south side. The applicant's driveway and the neighbour's driveway to the north are not located next to the fence and as such, there is adequate sight visibility for vehicles exiting the property. There are no sidewalks on the street and the end of the fence is located 5 metres (16.4 feet) from the edge of the pavement.

It is noted that the fence ends in the vicinity of a hydro pole and by-law enforcement personnel in charge of the road allowance have advised that the fence is approximately 1.8 metres (6 feet) onto city property. In this regard, the applicants should be aware of the city's right to remove any encroachment at the owner's expense in order to undertake work on city property.

Justification:

Section 14 of By-law 24945 as amended, provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, Supervisor

(416) 396-5341, (416) 396-4266 Fax Number

byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

27

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing Ontario Hydro

(Graywood Investments Limited/Norstar) Appeals

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the recommendation of the Scarborough Community Council embodied in the confidential transmittal letter dated June 30, 1998, from the City Clerk, be approved, in principle, by City Council, subject to deleting therefrom the phrase '(at fair market value based on their current land-use designation)', so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

'The Scarborough Community Council further recommends that the following Resolution be approved, in principle, and referred to the City Solicitor to form part of the Land Acquisition Strategy to be presented by the City Solicitor at the Ontario Municipal Board:

"RESOLVED that the City of Toronto seek the co-operation of the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the landowners, and other potential partners, to help, in conjunction with the City of Toronto, to acquire the surplus Hydro corridor or selective sections of the Hydro lands north of Highway 401, between McNicoll Avenue, Pharmacy Avenue and Warden Avenue, and south of Highway 401, between Pharmacy Avenue and Warden Avenue, for dedication to the City of Toronto or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for Public Parkland and Recreational Use, Cycling Trails and Walkways, Floodplain and Storm Water Management and Ecosystem protection." ' "

In addition, City Council, at its in-camera portion of the meeting, issued instructions to staff, such instructions to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1)adopt the Recommendations ofthe Scarborough Community Council, contained in the confidential communication (June30,1998) from the City Clerk, respecting the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on the Ontario Hydro (Graywood Investments Limited/Norstar) Appeals, which was forwarded to Members of Council under confidential cover; and, having regard for these recommendations,

(2)receive the following reports:

Ontario Hydro (Graywood Investments Limited) - Lands North of Highway 401:

(a)(April 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough,

responding to Community Council's direction, at its meeting held on April 1, 1998, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(b)(March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that:

(1)staff process the applications in the normal manner and convene community information meetings in consultation with the Ward Councillors;

(2)the applicant be required to submit transportation, servicing reports and an environmental and ecological survey of the corridor; and

(3)staff submit a further report not later than the June 24, 1998, meeting of the Scarborough Community Council on the results of the above reviews and consultations.

(c)(June 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising Community Council that Graywood Investments Limited has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board on the basis of the City's failure to make a decision on the subject applications within 90 days of receipt of the applications, and recommending that this report be received for information.

Ontario Hydro (Norstar) - Lands South of Highway 401:

(a)(April 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that The Scarborough Community Council defer consideration of this application until applications for rezoning and draft plan of subdivision, site plan approval or condominium, together with supporting transportation and servicing reports as well as an environmental and ecological survey of the corridor, are submitted to enable staff to thoroughly assess the impact of the proposed Official Plan Amendment.

(b)(June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising Community Council that Ontario Hydro has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board on the basis of Community Council's failure to provide the requisite Notice of a Public Meeting within 45 days of receipt of the subject application, and recommending that this report be received for information.

Disposal of Surplus Ontario Hydro Lands in the New City of Toronto:

(May 20, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee, on May 19, 1998, directed that:

"WHEREAS the Hydro Corridor lands from McNicoll Avenue to Lawrence Avenue have been the subject of a planning study which recommends that the Corridor be disposed of for a number of land uses; and

WHEREAS the former City of Scarborough Council unanimously recommended that the Corridor be maintained as open space; and

WHEREAS there are numerous other Hydro Corridors in existence in the new City of Toronto that may be declared surplus;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Scarborough Community Council:

(1)be advised that the redesignation of lands in the Hydro Corridor, from McNicollAvenue to Lawrence Avenue, from Open Space to Residential may have City-wide implications with respect to planning and development and recreational use; and

(2)be requested to submit any comments regarding urban planning and development and recreational use issues related to the aforementioned lands to the next meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, scheduled to be held on June 15, 1998."

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

-Ms. Elaine Brown, Bridlewood Community; and

-Mr. Don Dakers.

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (June 30, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding a confidential report (June 15, 1998) from the City Solicitor.)

(Extract from the confidential report dated June 30, 1998, from the City Clerk.)

Resolution:

The Scarborough Community Council further recommends that the following Resolution be approved, in principle, and referred to the City Solicitor to form part of the Land Acquisition Strategy to be presented by the City Solicitor at the Ontario Municipal Board:

"RESOLVED that the City of Toronto seek the co-operation of the Federal Government, the Provincial Government, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the landowners, and other potential partners, to help, in conjunction with the City of Toronto, to acquire the surplus Hydro corridor or selective sections of the Hydro lands north of Highway 401, between McNicoll Avenue, Pharmacy Avenue and Warden Avenue, and south of Highway 401, between Pharmacy Avenue and Warden Avenue, (at fair market value based on their current land-use designation) for dedication to the City of Toronto or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for Public Parkland and Recreational Use, Cycling Trails and Walkways, Floodplain and Storm Water Management and Ecosystem protection."

28

Request for Fence By-law Exemption

Wanita Deacur, 28 Greenhedges Court

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13, 1998) from the Director of Municipal Standards:

Purpose:

The applicant is seeking approval to permit an existing fence to remain at its current height and location. The applicant has constructed a solid board fence along the westerly lot line extending into the street yard a distance of approximately 7.3 metres (24 feet). On the westerly lot line, the fence height is staggered and ranges in height from 1.76 metres (5.8 feet) at the street to 2.03 metres (6.6feet) in line with the front face of the house.

A 1.32 metre (4 feet 4 inch) solid board fence has been constructed 1.2 metres (4feet) back from the sidewalk. This fence runs parallel to the sidewalk for a distance of approximately 3 metres (10 feet).

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council:

(a)approve the application to permit a solid board fence running a distance of approximately 7.3 metres (24 feet) in the street yard along the westerly lot line varying in height from 1.76metres (5.8 feet) at the street line to 2.03 metres (6.6 feet) at the front face of the house; and

(b)approve the application to permit a solid board fence running a distance of approximately 3metres (10 feet), parallel to and 1.2 metres (4 feet) back from the sidewalk at a height of 1.32 metres (4 feet 4 inches).

Background/History:

In September 1997, an inspection was undertaken at 28 Greenhedges Court. The inspection revealed a fence in the street yard running along the westerly lot line and parallel to the sidewalk. The fence was measured and exceeded the permitted height. As a result, a notice of violation was issued on October 1, 1997 to the registered owners of the property. The owner contacted the inspector and as a result, submitted a letter requesting an exemption to exceed the fence height.

The property was inspected on April 24th at which time fence measurements were taken and sight lines for vehicles backing out of the driveway were examined. A clear line of sight was evident for vehicles backing out of the applicant's driveway and the fence on the westerly lot line was located far enough away so as to not present a visibility issue.

The application and property was also examined by the road allowance by-law inspector and he has advised that the fence as it is now located does not pose any problems. He further advises that the fence appears to be located on private property.

Justification:

Section 14 of By-law 24945 provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, Supervisor

(416) 396-5341, (416) 396-4266 Fax Number

byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

29

Stop Signs on the Streets Intersecting Burnview Crescent

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1)strike out the recommendation contained in the following report; and

(2)receive the report.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (June 3, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To provide Through Street status to Burnview Crescent in order to place stop controls on all intersecting roads.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $450.00 (approximate) funds, associated with the installation of three stop signs is available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the stop signs identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the request of an area resident, Road and Traffic Services investigated the need for a stop control southbound on the west leg of Gaiety Drive at Burnview Crescent.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The west intersection of Gaiety Drive at Burnview Crescent is in a residential community south of Lawrence Avenue, and west of Bellamy Road North. Burnview Crescent functions as a residential collector road connecting to both arterial roadways. Gaiety Drive is a minor local road and intersects Burnview Drive at both the east and west extension of the street.

At present, there are three uncontrolled "T" type intersections on Burnview Crescent. They are at the east and west intersections of Gaiety Drive, and Vesper Court. All intersections warrant a stop control to define the right-of-way. Periodic on-street parking along the north side of the street, and the horizontal curvature of the roadway alignment on Burnview Crescent, further support the need to stop vehicular traffic before proceeding onto Burnview Crescent.

Conclusions:

Stop Signs are recommended for the streets intersecting Burnview Crescent to define the right-of-way at all intersecting roadways.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-7844, Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Through Streets"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

HighwayFromTo

BurnviewLawrenceBellamy Road

CrescentAvenueNorth

30

Ontario Municipal Board Hearings

Z95016 - John Cautius, 3360 Midland Avenue

SA98005 - 1248161 Ontario Limited, 255 Blantyre Avenue

Scarborough Agincourt and Scarborough Bluffs

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council direct the City Solicitor:

(1)to request the Ontario Municipal Board to set a Hearing date for consideration of the Appeal by John Cautius, 3360 Midland Avenue, Part of Lot 78, R.C.P. 9828, Milliken Employment District, Ward17, Scarborough Agincourt; and

(2)to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision with respect to Minor Variance Application SA5/98, 1248161 Ontario Limited, 255 Blantyre Avenue, Block A, Registered Plan 3288, Birchcliff Community, Ward 13, Scarborough Bluffs.

The Scarborough Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received a report (June 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising of the status of various appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board (please refer to Item (j) embodied in Clause 32 of this Report: "Other Items Considered by the Community Council") and having approved the requests by Councillors Mahood and Altobello, that the subject two Appeals be forwarded to Council for specific direction to the City Solicitor.

Background:

Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z95016

John Cautius, 3360 Midland Avenue (south of Passmore Avenue):

The Council of the former City of Scarborough, at its meeting held on December 12, 1995, refused an application by MacGyver Auto Body, on behalf of John Cautius, respecting the property located at 3360 Midland Avenue, for a Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a public garage, limited to collision and auto repairs, on the basis that such a use would be contrary to the intent of Council policies on vehicle service and repair, which permit such uses within this Employment District only north of Passmore Avenue. The applicant appealed the decision of Council on January 10, 1996, but no hearing date has been set by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Variance Application SA5/98 - 1248161 Ontario Limited, 255 Blantyre Avenue:

The owner of the subject property wishes to construct a Senior Citizens' Home which would exceed the coverage restrictions of the Zoning By-law (53 percent of the lot), and in order to proceed, applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a variance from the provisions of the Birchcliff Community Zoning By-law No. 8786, as amended. The applicant has appealed the May 20, 1998, decision of the Committee of Adjustment which refused the variance.

31

Recognition of Native Cemetery

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report, subject to inserting the words "the Ward Councillors and the community working group" after the word "representatives" in Recommendation No. 2, such that Recommendation No.2 shall now read:

"(2)staff be directed to consult with First Nations representatives, the Ward Councillors and the community working group, in order to identify a suitable new name for the site and to develop initiatives that will result in appropriate dignity and respect for this cemetery."

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To inform Scarborough Community Council of First Nations concerns that the location known as Taber Hill Park is treated as parkland rather than as a Native cemetery as per Cemetery file No.0425151 (Appendix 'A').

Funding:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the location known as Taber Hill Park be recognized as a Native cemetery and ossuary; and

(2)staff be directed to consult with First Nations representatives in order to identify a suitable new name for the site and to develop initiatives that will result in appropriate dignity and respect for this cemetery.

Background:

On August 17, 1956, a large Native burial site dating back to approximately 1250 AD and of Iroquois origin was discovered during residential development in the Lawrence Avenue and Bellamy road area. It is estimated that the remains of 472 individuals are contained here. After the find, the area was purchased as parkland.

Over the years, a number of events marked the special heritage significance of the area. The Provincial Ministry of Travel and Publicity declared the area an Historic Site and on October 20 and 21, 1956, a greatly publicized reburial service was performed at the site by the Hereditary Chiefs.

In 1961, Scarborough dedicated a cairn and plaque in the presence of First Nations and Provincial representatives. In 1966, the Feast of the Dead ceremony was re-enacted. In 1974, the site was designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Discussion:

Since its acquisition by Scarborough, the area has been used as a public park. During the winter months, it is particularly popular for tobogganing.

The cairn has been subjected to graffiti over the years but recently has been the target of racist defacement. Staff have sought police assistance in addressing this serious matter (see Appendix 'B'). First Nations representatives are concerned about the lack of respect being shown to this historic burial site, not only through the graffiti on the memorial cairn but also through its use as a public park. They have requested that the cemetery designation of the site be honoured and that the area be renamed from a park to a cemetery (see Appendix 'C').

Conclusion:

As the owner of the Native burial site located on the lands known as Taber Hill Park, the City is obliged under The Cemeteries Act to preserve the dignity of this cemetery. First Nations representatives have expressed their concerns that the active recreation use of the hill on the site, which is the burial mound, does not show proper respect for the area.

Cedarbrook Park is nearby and provides an alternative location for tobogganing.

Contact Names:

Tom TusekAlexandra Y. Semeniuk

DirectorDirector

Parks and Urban ForestryArts and Heritage Services

Tel. No. (416) 396-7377Tel. No. (416) 396-5230

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following supplementary report (June5,1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide, as directed by Scarborough Community Council on May27,1998, information on the variety of recreational venues surrounding the Tabor Hill area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Discussion:

The size of Tabor Hill Park is 1.49 ha (3.7 acres) including the Ossuary/Cemetery which covers an area of 0.342 ha (0.845 acre) and is shaped as a mound (please refer to Appendix "A")

The whole park is used by neighbouring residents for spontaneous recreational activities and tobogganing on the mound is the most popular.

The alternative recreational venues in surrounding areas are: (please refer to Appendix "B")

Cedarbrook Park -some activities programmed and permitted by the Department.

Numerous opportunities for a variety of spontaneous recreational activities including tobogganing. Approximate distance .75 km.

South Bendale Park -tobogganing opportunities. Approximate distance .85 km.

Hague Park-tobogganing opportunities. Approximate distance .85 km.

Woodsworth Park and -softball field field permitted by the Department.

William Treadway P.S.Approximate distance .60 km.

Lusted Park-open space. Approximate distance .30 km.

Cedarbrae C.I.-soccer/football field permitted by the Department. Approximate distance 1 km. Indoor pool/gym permitted and programmed for various community and departmental programs.

Conclusions:

The future and type of recreational activities at Tabor Hill Park will depend on guidance provided by First Nations representatives and public input and participation in the meeting scheduled for June11, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at William Treadway Public School.

Contact Name:

Tom Tusek, Director

Parks, Planning and Urban Forestry

Telephone: 396-7377

Facsimile: 396-5399

E-Mail: tusek@toronto.ca

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

-Ms. Frances Sanderson, First Nations Council of Toronto;

-Mr. Rodney Bobiwash, First Nations Council of Toronto; and

-Mr. Richard Schofield, Chairman, L.A.C.A.C. and Member of the Scarborough Historical Society, who provided a brief description of the history of this site.

32

Other Items Considered by The Community Council

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Request For Fence By-Law Exemption

Mary Graham and Steve Duriancik, 109 Phyllis Avenue

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on July 22, 1998, at the request of the applicant:

(April 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that the Scarborough Community Council approve the application to permit a 3.81 metre (12.5 feet) section of fence to remain at a height of 3.0 metres (10 feet) whereas By-law 24945, as amended, permits a maximum height of 2.0 metres (6.8 feet).

(b)Contravention of By-law No. 24222 at 936 Port Union Road

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report, subject to striking out the word "review" in the recommendation, and substituting therefor the word "approval":

(June 6, 1998) from the Director of Municipal Standards, recommending that the Scarborough Community Council direct staff to call for tenders to remove the fill material and debris at 936 Port Union Road and that the results of the tendering process be brought back to the Community Council for review.

(c)Neighbourhood Complaints - Plaza at 261 Port Union Road

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on July 22, 1998, with a request that staff of By-law Enforcement, Works and Emergency Services and Legal Services meet with the Ward Councillors and the area residents in an attempt to achieve resolution of this issue:

(May 28, 1998) from the Director of Municipal Standards, responding to Community Council's request, at its last meeting, that staff investigate property standards complaints at Ravine Park Plaza, and recommending that this report be received for information.

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

-Mr. Bill Brock, Area Resident;

-Mrs. Barbara Overine, Area Resident; and

-Mr. Mike Longathie, Area Resident.

(d)Removal of the Parking Restriction on Dorset Road

and Neilson Avenue - Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on July 22, 1998, at the request of Councillor Ashton, in order to permit further consultation between the Ward Councillors and area residents:

(June 3, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, recommending that:

(1)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded; and

(2)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.

(e)Preliminary Evaluation Report

Official Plan Amendment Application SP97024

Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97042

Paul Viaros, 381 - 383 Birchmount Road

Birchmount Park Employment District

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having concurred in the recommendation to defer the following report (b) for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on July 22, 1998:

(a)(June 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending a further deferral of the Viaros' applications to the meeting scheduled to be held on July 22, 1998, since the further consultation with the applicant, requested by Community Council, is still in the process of being arranged; and

(b)(May 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Council refuse the applications by Paul Viaros to amend the Official Plan (P97024) and the Employment district Zoning by-law (Z97062) to permit 35 square metres (376 square feet) of the existing industrial building to be used for an automobile sales business for the reasons outlined in the Commissioner's report.

________

Councillor Altobello declared his interest in the foregoing matter as his family owns a business on Raleigh Avenue.

(f)Proposals for a New Direction

Former Scarborough Transportation Corridor Lands Study

Phase 3 - St. Clair Avenue to Eglinton Avenue (W96052)

Wards 13 and 15

Scarborough Bluffs and Scarborough City Centre

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(June 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that:

(1)Scarborough Community Council convene a Public Meeting targeted for the third quarter of 1998 in the evening, to consider amendments to the official Plan and Zoning By-law, as described in the report; and

(2)notice of this Public Meeting be given by direct mail to all interested parties and owners and tenants within 120 metres (400 feet) of the affected lands.

________

Councillor Altobello declared his interest in the foregoing matter as he owns property in the area affected.

(g)Staff Reports to Committee of Adjustment

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report, and having directed that the Committee of Adjustment be requested to re-affirm its previous policy with respect to staff reports to Committee of Adjustment:

(June 10, 1998) from the Secretary-Treasurer and Manager, Scarborough Committee of Adjustment, providing, as directed by Committee of Adjustment at its meeting held on June10, 1998, report from the Secretary-Treasurer and Manager, dated June 5, 1998, for the information of Scarborough Community Council.

(h)Consent Applications - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising Community Council of the Consent Decisions granted by the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)New Applications Received - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(June 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising Community Council of the new applications received during the three-week period ending May 29, 1998, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(j)Ontario Municipal Board Hearings - All Scarborough Wards

Further to the Scarborough Community Council's recommendations to Council contained in Clause 30 of this Report, Community Council reports having received the following report and having requested that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, report further with respect to the action by former Metropolitan Toronto officials regarding their appeal of the distance separation respecting Group Homes:

(June 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising Community Council of the status of the various Appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(k)Site Plan Control Approvals - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising Community Council of the various Site Plan Control Approvals granted by the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(l)Request for Changes to Scarborough Tree By-law No. 25150

The Scarborough Community Council reports having directed that the following report be referred to the Sub-Committee on the Harmonization of By-laws:

(June 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough, responding to a petition containing 144 signatures, submitted by Ms. Hanan Jibry, Birch Cliff area resident, requesting amendments to the Tree Protection and Conservation By-law to ensure that permits are required and public notification takes place before trees are removed due to developments on private property.

________

Ms. Hanan Jibry appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(m)Animal Services in Scarborough and the Relationship between

the Scarborough Animal Centre and Provincially-Chartered

and Local Organizations

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(June 10, 1998) from the Manager, Animal Centre, Scarborough, responding to Community Council's request, at its last meeting, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n)Ward Boundary Review Process

The Scarborough Community Council reports having set a time of 7:30 p.m. at its meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday, September 17, 1998, to consider the matter of Ward Boundaries, as requested by Council:

(May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk, referring a copy of Clause No. 1 embodied in Report No.4A of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, adopted by Council at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998, wherein it is recommended that:

"Community Councils be requested to hold meetings to invite the public's input on the matter of ward boundaries, ward division and governance, and report thereon through the Urban Environment and Development Committee."

(o)Condominium Conversion and Demolition Control Policies

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(May 20, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee, on May 19, 1998, recommended to Council the adoption of the report (May1,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, Recommendation No. 2(a) of which affects Community Councils, viz:

"2(a)when The Tenant Protection Act comes into effect, staff report to the Community Councils on condominium applications that involve the conversion of rental housing, and the Community Councils hear deputations and make recommendations to the City Council;".

(p)City-Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97021

585 and 587 Kennedy Road - Kennedy Park Community

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the Public Meeting under The Planning Act on the subject application and the following report (b) to the meeting of the Community Council scheduled to be held on September 16, 1998 at 2:00p.m.:

(a)(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Scarborough Community Council further defer the Public Meeting on the following report to 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 22, 1998, as the further consultation meetings, as directed by Community Council, are still in the process of being arranged.

(b)(April 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Council:

(A)amend the Kennedy Park Community Zoning By-law, as amended, with respect to 585 and 587 Kennedy Road, being Part of Lot 3 and Part of Lot 4, Plan 3507, as follows:

(1)Permitted Use: Multiple Family Residential;

(2)one suite (individual dwelling unit) per 199 square metres (2,142squarefeet) of lot area;

(3)minimum front yard setback 6 metres (20 feet);

(4)minimum side yard building setback:

-for single-family dwellings 0.9 metres (3 feet) from side lot lines;

-for semi-detached dwellings, 0.9 metres (3 feet) from side lot lines on one side only;

-for a row of townhouses, 0.9 metres (3 feet) from end walls to side lot lines;

(5)minimum rear yard setback 7.5 metres (25 feet);

(6)maximum coverage: 50 percent of the area of the lot or parcel; and

(B)authorize any unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law Amendment as may be required to give effect to this resolution.

(q)Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97061, Juhan Holdings Inc.

5739, 5741, 5743 and 5745 Finch Avenue East - Malvern Community

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the Public Meeting under The Planning Act on the subject application and the following reports (b) and (c) to the meeting of the Community Council, scheduled to be held on July 22, 1998, at 7:30 p.m., at the request of Councillor Cho:

(a)(June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Scarborough Community Council further defer the Public Meeting on this application to 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 22, 1998, as the further consultation meetings, as directed by Community Council, are still in the process of being arranged.

(b)(April 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Council:

(A)amend the Malvern Community Zoning By-law Number 14402, as amended, with respect to the lands located at 5739-5745 Finch Avenue, being Block B, Registered Plan M-1667, as follows:

(1) delete the contents of the existing Exception and replace it as follows:

(a)only the following uses are permitted:

-Day Nurseries;

-Financial Institutions;

-Laundromats;

-Laundry and Dry Cleaning Pick-ups;

-Offices;

-Personal Service Shops;

-Restaurants;

-Sale of drugs, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and tobaccos;

-Sale of household hardware;

(2)add the following development standards:

-minimum of 2.3 parking spaces per 100 square metres (1,076square feet) of gross floor area for all uses except for Day Nurseries and Restaurants;

-minimum driveway width shall be 5.8 metres (19 feet) for two-way traffic; and

(B)authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law amendment as may be required to properly carry out the intent of this resolution.

(c)(June 18, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, recommending that:

(1)physical traffic calming measures not be considered for Baldoon Road at this time; and

(2)staff be directed to conduct up-to-date traffic counts and speed surveys for Baldoon Road, and submit a report to Scarborough Community Council in the fall of 1998 indicating appropriate mitigating measures, as required.

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

-Mr. Greg McConnell, Solicitor, Fleury Comery, on behalf of the applicant and in opposition to the deferral;

-Mr. Peter Campbell, Area Resident, in favour of the deferral; and

-Ms. Janet Anderson, Area Resident, in favour of the deferral.

(r)Inventory of Cycling Trail Opportunities

in Rail and Hydro Corridors

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following communication and having requested the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, to report to the Scarborough Community Council on the status of the Canadian Pacific Railways spur line which extends from Lawrence Avenue to the Price Club lands:

(June 17, 1998) from the City Clerk, referring for Scarborough Community Council's advance information, extract of the minutes of the Urban Environment and Development Committee meeting held on June 15 and 16, 1998, containing UEDC's recommendations to Council's July 8th meeting with respect to the subject matter.

(s)Interim Purchasing By-law - Awarding of Contracts

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(June 8, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that Council, at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, by adopting Clause 17 embodied in Report No. 7 of the Corporate Services Committee, as amended, authorized Community Councils to approve contracts between $1.0million and $2.5 million and forward such approvals to Council for information.

(t)Morningside Heights

Refinement of Industrial Uses Designation and Boundary

Between Industrial and Residential Uses

Environmental Strategy for Employment Lands

Large Lot Subdivision

The Scarborough Community Council reports having directed that the following report be forwarded to Council for information, to be considered in conjunction with Clause1 embodied in Report No. 8 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

(June 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, responding to Scarborough Community Council's directions at its last meeting with respect to further reports being provided on the Morningside Heights issue, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(Councillor Altobello, at the meeting of City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, declared his interest in Item (e), entitled "Preliminary Evaluation Report, Official Plan Amendment Application SP97024, Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97042, Paul Viaros, 381-383Birchmount Road, Birchmount Park Employment District, Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that his family owns a business on Raleigh Avenue.)

(Councillor Altobello, at the meeting of City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, declared his interest in Item (f), entitled "Proposals for a New Direction, Former Scarborough Transportation Corridor Lands Study Phase 3 - St. Clair Avenue to Eglinton Avenue (W96052), Wards 13 and 15, Scarborough Bluffs and Scarborough City Centre", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns property in the area affected.)

Respectfully submitted,

LORENZO BERARDINETTI,

Chair.

Toronto, June 24, 1998.

(Report No. 6 of The Scarborough Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.)