|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on October 1 and 2, 1998
NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 9
1Process for Disposal of City Property
2Construction Noise By-law Violations
3Construction Noise - Request for Exemption - Toronto Transit Commission -
Sheppard Subway
4Fence - 20 Athabaska Avenue - North York Centre
5Sign By-law Variance Request - Off Premise Roof Sign - 1727 Jane Street - North
York Humber
6All Way Stop Control - Hullmar Drive and Wheelwright Crescent - Black Creek
7All Way Stop Control - Johnston Avenue at Pewter Road - North York Centre
8All Way Stop Control - Blakeley Road at Lorraine Drive - North York Centre
9Stopping Amendments - Derrydown Road - Black Creek
10Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Alloy Court - North York Humber
11Temporary Road Closure - Edinburgh Drive - North York Centre South
12Reduced Speed Zone (40 km/h) - Whittaker Crescent - Seneca Heights
13Parking Prohibitions - Kenneth Avenue - North York Centre
14Parking Prohibitions - Coldstream Avenue - North York Spadina
15Intersection Design - Horsham Avenue andCanterbury Place - North York Centre
16Impact of the Environmental Study Report Addendum - April 1998 - Elihu Pease
House - 34 Avondale Avenue - Response to Donalda and Louis Badone - North York
Centre
17Turn Restriction - Ambrose Road - Seneca Heights
18Parking Prohibitions - Rothmere Drive - North York Centre South
19Parking Prohibitions - Burdock Lane - Don Parkway
20All Way Stop Control - Florence Avenue at Radine Road - North York Centre
21Walkway Closing - 170 The Donway West (UDOZ-90-75) - Don Parkway
22Quit Claim of Easement - Registering of Sewer Easement - 2901 Bayview
Avenue - Seneca Heights
23Broadlands Community Centre - Parking Lot - Don Parkway
24Availability of Grants and Programs from Federal and Provincial Ministries for the
Acquisition of Lands for Parks and Community Related Purposes - Northwest Corner
of Finch Avenue Westand York Gate Boulevard - Black Creek
25Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application
UDZ-98-20-1261075 Ontario Inc. (Tor-bel Group) - 906 Sheppard Avenue West -
North York Spadina
26Preliminary Evaluation Report - Temporary Use By-law Application UD52-98-01 -
Alysse Fogel - 31 Foursome Crescent - North York Centre South
27O.M.B. Referral No. 1 of Official Plan Amendment No. 381 - Specific
Development Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue - North York Official Plan Part
C.9.140 (UDOP-38) - North York Centre
28Zoning Study UD43-KIR - South Side of Kirby Road - North York Humber
29Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-02 - John Waldie -
860 York Mills Road - Don Parkway
30Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-11 - The Park
Avenues of North York - 134 to 140 Finch Avenue West, 11 and 15 Carney Road
andthe Rear of 16 to 18 Altamont Road - North York Centre
31Zoning Amendment Application and Draft Plan ofSubdivision Application
UDZ-97-43 and UDSB-1237 - 295151 Ontario Limited - 65, 69, 71, 75, 81 and 83
Drewry Avenueand 53, 55 and 57 Fairchild Avenue - North York Centre
32Construction Noise - The Majestic Condominium - 20, 24, 26, 30 and 32 Empress
Avneue and 11, 15, 17 and 21 Kingsdale Avenue - Performance Bond - North York
Centre
33Toronto Transit Commission - 1999 Service Plan
34Street Vending Permit Application No. 97 - The Donway East - Don Parkway
35Post Road Road Allowance East of Bridle Heath Gate - North York Centre South
36UDOZ-94-11 and UDSP-96-27 (Revised) - State Development Corporation
(Hillside Road at York Mills Road) -Registration of Easement and Lowering of William
Carson Crescent Cul-de-Sac - 18 William Carson Crescent - North York Centre
South
37Proposed Amendment to Low Lot By-law No. 7273 - Lots 799 and 800, Plan
M-108 (Between Bedford Park Avenue) - North York Centre South
38Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-19 - Pat Giglio Et Al - 25-35 Finch
Avenue West, 5 and 9 Blakeley Road, 8-34 and 31-35 Lorraine Drive - North York
Centre
39Principle of Land Use Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
UDOZ-97-44 - Tridel Builders Inc. - 1857 Leslie Street - Don Parkway
401998 Ontario Trillium Foundation Caring Community Award - Jane-Finch
Community - Recognition Signage - Black Creek
41Deeming By-law - Plans M-108 and M-109 - North York Centre South
42In Right Access to 1200 Eglinton Avenue East - Don Parkway
43Speed Humps (2) - Romney Road (between Bathurst Street and Armour
Boulevard) - North York Centre South
44Other Items Considered by the Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 9
OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on September 16, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on October 1 and 2, 1998
1
Process for Disposal of City Property
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next
regular meeting of City Council to be held on October 28, 1998.)
The North York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the "Processes for Declaring Properties Surplus" outlined in the following report
(August 18, 1998), from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be approved subject to
Section (4)(a)(ii), being amended to read as follows:
"recommendations made by Property Management Committee for allocation, including
resolution of conflicting interests, be forwarded to the appropriate Community Council
for consideration and recommendation to the appropriate Standing Committee, and
recommendation to City Council";
(2)real estate matters under $500,000.00 that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of
special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at
that Councillor's request;
(3)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the
Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;
(4)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective
Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services
Committee; and
(5)the Council Procedure By-law be amended accordingly.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 18, 1998)
from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To provide all Community Councils with information as to the process for disposal of City
Property as requested by the Budget Committee.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Budget Committee at its meeting of May 26, 1998 requested that the Chief
Administrative Officer ensure that Community Councils are informed of the process with
respect to the disposal of property.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The process approved by City Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, in
considering the report from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, Acquisition and
Disposal of Real Property dated May 11, 1998, is as set out below.
PROCESSES FOR DECLARING PROPERTIES SURPLUS
(1)notice be provided to the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate of a potentially
surplus property, such as by means of:
(a)corporate asset reviews such as space rationalization;
(b)department reorganization, reduction in staffing or program change; and
(c)a new tax sale property.
(2)a review to be undertaken by the Facilities and Real Estate Division and respective
councillors, consulting with other departments to determine applicable considerations,
including the following:
(a)any utilities on the lands;
(b)development potential;
(c)economic development potentials;
(d)environmental issues;
(e)other potential cost and budget considerations, such as capital budget impacts; and
(f)achieving social objectives.
(3)a circulation to be undertaken to determine interest in potentially surplus properties:
(a)circulation by the Facilities and Real Estate Division to other divisions, departments and
ABC's to determine any interest in the property to meet their needs;
(b)circulation to the Council Strategy Committee for Persons without Homes, and other such
interests as Council may determine, from time to time; and that
(c)use by a non profit organization that supports a municipal purpose be considered as a
potentially appropriate use at this time before the property is officially declared surplus.
(4)reports are prepared and submitted under the following categories, with recommendations
regarding determination, as appropriate:
(a)allocation to a department expressing the interest:
(i)report is submitted by the Executive Director to Property Management Committee on
submissions of interest, with information as to the expressed interests;
(ii)decision is made by Property Management Committee for allocation, including resolution
of conflicting interests; and
(iii)if no resolution by Property Management Committee, the decision is made by the CAO.
(b)allocation if interest expressed under 3 (b) above (organization supporting a municipal
program):
(i)report is submitted by the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate to the Property
Management Committee on the proposed use; and
(ii)report is submitted by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to the Corporate Services
Committee, on the recommendation of the Property Management Committee, recommending
that the property be declared surplus and that the property be allocated to the organization
requesting it.
(c)disposal of a significant property where no public use identified:
(i)report is submitted by the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate to the Property
Management Committee on large, high profile properties; and
(ii)report is submitted by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to the Corporate Services
Committee, on the recommendations of the Property Management Committee, to recommend
that the property be declared surplus and be sold.
(d)disposal of other property where no public use identified:
(i)report is submitted by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to the Corporate Services
Committee, on the recommendation of the Property Management Committee, to recommend
that the property be declared surplus and be sold.
(e)disposal of non viable sites where no public use identified:
(i)report is submitted by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to the Corporate Services
Committee, on the recommendation of the Property Management Committee, recommending
that the property be declared surplus and sold to the abutting owner; and
(ii)if the owner is not interested, property is to be retained in the inventory for future
consideration.
(f)retention for potential longer term need by the City:
(i)report is submitted by the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate to the Property
Management Committee regarding the long term and interim use for the property, such as
leasing; and
(ii)report is submitted by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to the Corporate Services
Committee, on the recommendation of the Property Management Committee, if required, such
as for a major corporate initiative.
(5)staff of the Facilities and Real Estate Division provide the ward councillor with:
(a)notification of all real estate requests in the ward and keep the councillor informed of all
ongoing negotiations;
(b)information regarding details prior to the final conclusion of any transactions and before
any reports are signed or the matter is considered by the Corporate Services
Committee/Council; and
(c)a copy of the signed report that will be on the agenda of the Corporate Services
Committee.
Contact Name:
Roly Mayr, AACI, Director, Real Estate Services, (416) 396-4930, fax (416) 396-4241,
e-mail address: mayr@city.scarborough.on.ca
nyc98144
The North York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 8,
1998) from the City Clerk:
City Council, at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it Clause No. 28 of
Report No.7 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Proposed Sale of Lot 198 -
Woburn Avenue Registered Plan M-108 (Ward 9 - North York Centre South)".
Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the North
York Community Council for further consideration.
In addition, Council adopted the following recommendations:
"It is recommended that:
(1)Ward Councillors be notified of all real estate related requests in their Wards and be kept
informed of all ongoing negotiations;
(2)Ward Councillors be advised of the details prior to the final conclusion of any transactions
and before any reports are signed or the matter is considered by the Corporate Services
Committee/Council; and
(3)the following motion be referred to the next meeting of the Corporate Services Committee
to be held on June 22, 1998, for consideration with the report from the Commissioner of
Corporate Services on the processing of real estate transactions:
Moved by Councillor Flint:
'It is recommended that:
(a)real estate matters under $500,000.00, that are deemed by a Ward Councillor to be of
special interest, be considered by the Corporate Services Committee and City Council at that
Councillor's request;
(b)real estate matters under $500,000.00, of local significance, be considered by the
Community Council and City Council at a Councillor's request;
(c)matters related to the potential sale of any property be reported to the respective
Community Council for comment before being considered by the Corporate Services
Committee; and
(d)the Council Procedure By-law be amended accordingly.'"
A recorded vote on the adoption of Recommendation No. 1 moved by Councillor Shiner, and
Recommendations Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 moved by Councillor Flint, was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Shiner, King
AGAINST:NIL
ABSENT:Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Chong, Minnan-Wong
Carried
2
Construction Noise By-law Violations
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next
regular meeting of City Council to be held on October 28, 1998.)
The North York Community Council recommends that:
(1)on the issuance of every building permit, the builder/applicant/agent be issued an
information sheet notifying the builder of the requirements of the Construction Noise
By-law;
(2)the builder/applicant/agent be required to sign a release form indicating that they
have received, read and understand the requirements of the Construction Noise By-law;
and
(3)the following Resolution from Councillor Filion, North York Centre, be adopted:
"WHEREAS the maximum fines for construction related violations of the Construction
Noise By-law are not adjusted to the value or cost of construction; and
WHEREAS the current fines do not provide sufficient disincentive for builders of high
density dwellings;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council request the Provincial
Government to increase the fines for violations of the Construction Noise By-law related
to construction of high density development."
The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 13, 1998)
from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
As directed, to report on available measures "...such as a bond which would be forfeited upon
conviction for violation of a noise by-law, to discourage developers from blatantly ignoring
city by-law."
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
N/A
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received as information.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Report No. 6 of the North York Community Council Clause No. 28 (p).
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
A resolution adopted by North York Community Council directs me to report on measures,
such as a bond which would be forfeited upon conviction for violation of a noise by-law, that
are available to discourage developers from violating construction noise by-laws.
The violation of a by-law constitutes an offence that is punishable under the Provincial
Offences Act. On conviction, the Court can impose a fine of up to five thousand dollars
($5,000.00) for each offence. The purpose of the fine, of course, is both to punish the offence
and to discourage the offender or others from re-offending.
The Provincial Offences Act constitutes a complete code for a prosecution and punishment of
offences to noise by-laws. There is no authority for the City to impose an additional penalty of
the kind suggested or of any other kind.
There may, however, be one step the City could take to help City prosecutors obtain
meaningful fines against first offenders. On the issuance of every building permit, the builder
could be issued an information sheet notifying the builder of the requirements of the
construction noise by-law. If that were done as a matter of practice, the Courts might be more
inclined to impose a significant fine for a first offence.
Conclusions:
There is no authority for the City to impose additional penalties upon those convicted of
by-law offences. There may, however, be opportunities to attempt to ensure that the penalties
imposed by the Courts on offenders are sufficient to deter further offending.
Contact Name:
George M. Dixon
(fax 392-0005)
(e-mail gdixon@toronto.ca)
(tel. 392-7221)
3
Construction Noise - Request for Exemption -
Toronto Transit Commission - Sheppard Subway
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 13, 1998) from the Director of Municipal Standards, Urban Planning and
Development Services, and that the request for an exemption to the North York Noise
By-law No. 31317, as amended, be approved:
Purpose:
To report on an application received from the Toronto Transit Commission requesting an
exemption to North York Noise By-law No. 31317, as amended.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request for an exemption to the North York Noise By-law No.
31317, be approved.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Noise By-law No. 31317 on October 17, 1990, being
a by-law to ensure an environment free from unusual, unnecessary, or excessive sound or
vibration which may degrade the quality and tranquillity of life or cause nuisance. On
February 21, 1996, the Council of the former City of North York granted a six month noise
exemption to the TTC for the purpose of subway construction.
Discussion:
As part of the Rapid Transit Expansion Program, the TTC is proceeding with the construction
of the Sheppard Subway. By way of a letter dated July 22, 1998, the TTC is requesting a
further exemption form the North York construction noise by-law. Presently, tunneling for the
subway is conducted during the week from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. The TTC advises that
upcoming work will also be required during the evening, nights and on weekends for the
construction of the Yonge station. Work conducted after 10:00 p.m. is not expected to disturb
local residents.
Section 3 of North York Noise By-law No. 31317 states:
"Prohibition by Time and Place
No person shall emit or cause or permit the emission of sound resulting from any act listed in
Schedule "B" hereto if clearly audible at a point of reception located in an area of the
municipality within a prohibited time shown for such an area."
The operation of any construction equipment is prohibited as follows:
A.All day Sundays and Statutory Holidays.
B.7:00 p.m. one day to 7:00 a.m. next day.
Conclusions:
It is recommended that the request for an exemption from North York Noise By-law No.
31317, to permit construction equipment to operate as requested be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1.the request for an exemption from the North York Noise By-law be approved for a time
period not to exceed six (6) months; and
2.in the event the City receives construction noise complaints, they are to be referred to the
Toronto Transit Commission for investigation and the Toronto Transit Commission
investigate the complaint and consider potential construction noise mitigation for the activity
conducted by their contractor(s).
Contact Name:
David Roberts, , North York
Civic Centre, 395-7020 Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North -York.on.ca
4
Fence - 20 Athabaska Avenue -
North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (August 13,
1998) from the Director of Municipal Standards, Urban Planning and Development
Services, not be adopted; and that the application be refused:
Purpose:
To report on an application to permit a fence to be constructed notwithstanding the height of
the fence does not comply with North York Fence By-law No. 30901, as amended.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the fence be approved subject to the top 0.60m (2') of the fence being
constructed of wood lattice as opposed to solid boards.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law No. 30901 on July 8, 1992, being a
by-law for prescribing the height and description of lawful fences.
Discussion:
The subject property is located on the north side of Athabaska Avenue and contains a single
family dwelling. The owners of the property are in the process of erecting a fence along their
west property line. The west property line is the common boundary with the property known
as 18 Athabaska Avenue. A portion of the proposed fence would come to within
approximately 0.60m (2') of the windows located in the east wall of 18 Athabaska Avenue.
The wall in which the windows are located form part of an enclosed patio located to the rear
of the attached garage on the property, (the patio is labelled as 'frame shed' on the attached
plan of survey). The fence, where it is directly opposite the windows, would be approximately
1.83m (6') high, extend approximately 0.60m (2') above the sill of the windows and be
approximately 6.09m (20') long. A copy of a photograph depicting the location of the
enclosed patio is attached. The fence would not comply with Section3.1.2 of the fence by-law
which states:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Part, on single residential properties, no portion
of a fence erected shall extend above the sill of any window on an adjacent property,
excluding basement windows, that is opposite and within 3.0m (10 ft.) of the proposed
fence.".
It would appear from the information provided by the applicants that relations with the owners
of 18 Athabaska Avenue are somewhat strained and consequently, the applicants feel the
fence is necessary in order to ensure their privacy. Nevertheless, in order to minimize the
impact of the fence on the neighbour at 18 Athabaska Avenue, the top 0.60m (2') of the fence
should be constructed of wood lattice so as to allow natural light to reach the patio while at
the same time providing a reasonable degree of privacy for the applicants.
Conclusions:
It is therefore recommended that the request to erect a fence be approved subject to:
1)the top 0.60m (2') of the fence, where it is directly opposite the windows, be constructed of
wood lattice;
2)the fence be maintained in compliance with the fence by-law in all other respect; and
3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Contact Name:
David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services,
North York Civic Centre
395-7020, Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North-York.on.ca
_______
Mr. Aurelio Marrone appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with
the foregoing matter.
5
Sign By-law Variance Request -
Off Premise Roof Sign -
1727 Jane Street - North York Humber
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 3, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:
Purpose:
Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Gino Colarusso, of Pattison, for
a variance from the sign by-law to permit the erection of an illuminated off premise roof sign
oriented to face south bound traffic on Jane Street. The sign will be situated approximately
373 feet from another roof sign on the same side of the street.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)The request for a minor variance from the sign by-law be approved.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Section 5.2.1.1. of Sign By-law No. 30788 permits an off premise roof sign not exceeding
349.8 square feet to be erected on the roof of a building in a commercial zone provided that no
such roof sign is closer than 500 feet from another roof sign on the same side of the street.
The proposed 200 square foot sign is just over half the sign area permitted but is closer than
500 feet from another roof sign on the same side of the street and therefore contravenes the
by-law.
The existing single sided sign is oriented to face south bound traffic on Jane Street, while the
proposed single sided sign is oriented to face north bound traffic only. The applicant contends
that because both sign faces will not be seen at the same time and the proposed sign is
significantly smaller than that permitted, the intent of the by-law has not been compromised
even though the sign is 127 feet closer to the existing sign than permitted.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of this department that the proposed sign would not have a negative impact
on the surrounding area and that the intent of the sign by-law would not be compromised by
the erection of this sign.
Contact:
Edward Tipping
Director and Deputy Chief Building Official
395-7518
6
All Way Stop Control -
Hullmar Drive and Wheelwright Crescent -
Black Creek
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 31, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control at the intersection of Hullmar Drive and Wheelwright
Crescent
(east leg).
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department recommends
that Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be
amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the Hullmar Drive/Wheelwright
Crescent (east leg) intersection.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, northbound traffic on Wheelwright Crescent is required to stop at Hullmar Drive.
Traffic is required to stop on Hullmar Drive one block to the east and west of Wheelwright
Crescent at Gosford Boulevard and Peter Kaiser Gate, respectively.
Discussion:
Residents of Wheelwright Crescent have advised staff of their concerns for safety when
accessing Hullmar Drive, particularly during the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic periods.
Investigations by staff have verified the residents' concerns. Due to the change in the
horizontal and vertical alignment of Hullmar Drive, west of Wheelwright Crescent, the
visibility of eastbound traffic by northbound motorists is significantly reduced.
Conclusions:
The Transportation Division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the
intersection of Hullmar Drive and Wheelwright Crescent (east leg), to increase the level of
safety for vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484.
7
All Way Stop Control -
Johnston Avenue at Pewter Road -
North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 31, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control at the intersection of Johnston Avenue at Pewter Road.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department recommends
that Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be
amended to require traffic to stop at all approaches to the intersection of Johnston Avenue and
Pewter Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, eastbound and westbound traffic on Johnston Avenue is required to stop at Pewter
Road. Johnston Avenue functions as the major roadway as it carries a higher volume of traffic
through the intersection than Pewter Road.
Northbound and southbound traffic on Pewter Road currently travels unrestricted from
Sheppard Avenue West to Florence Avenue.
A review of the departments intersection location file indicated that numerous all way stop
studies have been completed in the past. The results generally indicated that although steadily
increasing, the warrants were not satisfied to support the installation of an all way stop
control.
As a result of additional concerns of local residents, a further all way stop study was
completed. The results concluded that traffic volumes have once again increased and the
technical warrants have been satisfied.
It was also observed that with the majority of the traffic required to stop, motorists are
confused with regards to the right-of-way. The results have generally been that northbound
and southbound traffic occasionally stops at the intersection and eastbound and westbound
motorists are increasingly disregarding the stop controls.
Consideration was given to reversing the stop controls, thereby allowing the heavier traffic
volumes on Johnston Avenue to free flow through the intersection. This was not deemed
appropriate.
It is not anticipated that the installation of the additional stop controls will adversely impact
traffic operations on Pewter Road or Johnston Avenue, or result in the displacement of traffic
to other adjacent roadways.
Conclusions:
The Transportation Division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the
intersection of Johnston Avenue and Pewter Road.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484
8
All Way Stop Control - Blakeley Road at Lorraine Drive -
North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 31, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To remove the southbound stop control, in order to eliminate any potential confusion for
motorists and pedestrians, at the intersection of Blakeley Road at Lorraine Drive.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the removal of the southbound stop control are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedules XVIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North
York, be amended so that southbound traffic not be required to stop at the intersection of
Blakeley Road at Lorraine Drive.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The former City of North York Council, approved a development application by Royal
Mansions Inc. for a 298 unit condominium apartment at 15-25 Lorraine Drive. The approval
was conditional upon the closure to through traffic on Lorraine Drive east of Blakeley Road
by means of constructing a cul-de-sac for westbound traffic on the east side of Blakeley Road,
and redirecting eastbound traffic north onto Blakeley Road.
The intent of the closure was to create a physical separation between the redevelopment area
within the Uptown Plan and the stable residential community to the west.
The new roadway configuration has resulted in the elimination of the former Blakeley Road
and Lorraine Drive "T" intersection alignment. The new alignment has resulted in a 90 degree
curve for eastbound and southbound motorists.
Discussion:
Currently, eastbound traffic on Lorraine Drive is not required to stop for southbound traffic,
whereas southbound Blakeley Road traffic is required to stop.
As free flow traffic on Lorraine Drive is required to turn left at Blakeley Road and Blakeley
Road traffic is required to stop prior to turning right on to Lorraine Drive, this irregular
right-of-way control creates driver and pedestrian confusion and uncertainty, as there are no
crossing paths of vehicular traffic.
Conclusions:
To increase motorist and pedestrian safety, this department supports the removal of the
southbound stop control at the intersection of Blakeley Road at Lorraine Drive.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
9
Stopping Amendments - Derrydown Road -
Black Creek
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", restrictions on the east
side of the roadway, and delete the on-street School Bus Loading Zone on the west side of the
roadway.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the stopping restrictions and deletion of the school
bus loading zone are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1)that Schedule IX, of By-law No. 31001 of the former City of North York, be amended to
install a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", restriction on the east side
of Derrydown Road, from a point 23 metres north of the northerly limit of Bratty Road to a
point 121 metres northerly thereof; and
(2)that By-law No. 32759 of the former City of North York, be amended to delete the School
Bus Loading Zone located on the west side of Derrydown Road, from a point opposite the
northerly limit of Catford Road to a point 60 metres northerly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Principal Susan Jarson, Derrydown Public School, has requested that the existing on-street
School Bus Loading Zone on the west side of Derrydown Road be removed and that stopping
prohibitions be installed on both sides of Derrydown Road adjacent to the school.
The request is the result of participation by the Derrydown Public School in the newly created
Parent Safety Program (P.S.P.), which is being co-ordinated by the Toronto Police Services,
31 Division. The P.S.P. is a community based program that addresses daily safety problems at
elementary schools. City staff's involvement is to provide technical support and guidance to
the P.S.P. Steering Committee, which consist of parent volunteers, school staff/teachers, and
the Toronto Police Services staff, when dealing with traffic/parking operations.
Discussion:
Parking is currently permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the east side of
Derrydown Road, and stopping is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday,
on the west side, adjacent to the school.
The P.S.P. Steering Committee has observed that parents are stopping their vehicles on the
east side of Derrydown Road. This results in the children crossing the roadway from between
parked cars and restricts the flow of two way traffic, when vehicles are stopped illegally on
the west side of Derrydown Road.
Principal Jarson has advised that due to the construction of an on site School Bus Loading
Zone, the existing on-street loading zone is no longer required.
Conclusions:
Therefore, in order to insure a safer environment for the children attending the school, we
support the installation of the stopping prohibitions and removal of the existing on-street
School Bus Loading Zone.
Contact Name:
Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7467
________
Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina, declared his interest in the foregoing matter
in that he lives in the vicinity of the subject lands.
(Councillor Moscoe, at the meeting of City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, declared his
interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he lives in the vicinity of the subject lands.)
10
Proposed Parking Prohibitions -
Alloy Court - North York Humber
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install parking prohibitions on both sides of Alloy Court.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
To amend Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit
parking at any time on both sides of Alloy Court, from the westerly limit of Arrow Road to
the westerly limit of Alloy Court.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Alloy
Court.
Discussion:
The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has been
advised by Captain Charlie Clark, Toronto Fire Services, North Command, that through
changes to the uses of the buildings at 16 Arrow Road and 2256 Sheppard Avenue West,
which increased the occupancy of the persons in the area, specific safety standard
requirements must be met. To ensure the appropriate emergency response, parking must be
prohibited on both sides of Alloy Court.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this department would support the installation of parking prohibitions as
required.
Contact Name:
Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
11
Temporary Road Closure - Edinburgh Drive -
North York Centre South
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To temporarily close a portion of Edinburgh Drive for the purpose of conducting a religious
Sukkos celebration.
Source of funds:
With the exception of a fifty dollar application fee received from the applicant, all costs
associated with the temporary closure are included within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendations:
(1)by enactment of a confirmatory By-law adopting this report, Edinburgh Drive, from
Bathurst Street to a point 40 metres east of Bathurst Street, be temporarily closed from 8:00
p.m. to 11:30 p.m., on Tuesday, October 6, for the purpose of conducting a religious Sukkos
celebration, subject to the applicant's compliance with By-law No. 27433, of the former City
of North York; and
(2)during this temporary closure, there shall be no use of the closed road for vehicle traffic
except under the authority of a permit issued by the Commissioner of the Works and
Emergency Services Department.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Similar events have been conducted at this location for the past two years, without incident.
Discussion:
The Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has received
no objections, subject to the following conditions:
(i)the applicant shall ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and
any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles. Further, that the
organizers be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could well interrupt the event as
planned;
(ii)all activities are subject to the City's Noise By-law;
(iii)all parking restrictions/prohibitions, on the portion of Edinburgh Drive not affected by the
temporary closure, must be strictly adhered to; and
(iv)a representative for the Synagogue be accessible to the residents of Edinburgh Drive to
ensure that the above conditions are abided by.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this department recommends that the appropriate By-law be enacted to
ensure that Edinburgh Drive between Bathurst Street and the laneway 40 metres east of
Bathurst Street, be closed temporary on Tuesday, October 6, 1998, from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00
a.m..
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
12
Reduced Speed Zone (40 km/h) -
Whittaker Crescent - Seneca Heights
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 25, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To reduce the speed limit on Whittaker Crescent to 40 km/h.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the reduced speed zone are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
To amend By-Law No. 31878, of the former City of North York, to designate the maximum
speed limit on Whittaker Crescent at 40 km/h.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, the speed limit on Whittaker Crescent is 50 km/h.
At the request of parents of students attending the Elkhorn Public School and residents of
Whittaker Crescent, Councillor Joan King has requested the Transportation Division of the
Works and Emergency Services Department to consider reducing the speed limit on Whittaker
Crescent to 40km/h.
Discussion:
Whittaker Crescent is adjacent to the Elkhorn Drive Public School and therefore, the policy of
the former City of North York for the installation of 40 Km/h zones is satisfied.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, I would support the adoption of the appropriate By-law to designate the
maximum rate of speed on Whittaker Crescent at 40 km/h.
Contact Name:
Mike Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484.
13
Parking Prohibitions - Kenneth Avenue -
North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 19, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To prohibit parking at anytime on the east side of Kenneth Avenue, from Spring Garden
Avenue to a point 71.5 meters north of Sheppard Avenue East.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
To amend Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit
parking at anytime on the east side of Kenneth Avenue, from Spring Garden Avenue to a
point 71.5 metres north of Sheppard Avenue East.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of Kenneth Avenue, from
Sheppard Avenue East to Hollywood Avenue. There are four parking meters on the east side
of Kenneth Avenue, immediately north of Sheppard Avenue East. From the north limit of the
metered parking spaces to Hollywood Avenue, parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Monday to Friday.
Discussions:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has
received a request from Mr. Herb Freeman, 5 Kenneth Avenue, to prohibit parking at anytime
on the east side of Kenneth Avenue, between Sheppard Avenue East and Spring Garden
Avenue.
Mr. Freeman has indicated that vehicles parked on the east side of Kenneth Avenue in front of
the condominium at 5 Kenneth Avenue are causing a sight obstruction for motorists exiting
from the driveway.
Our investigation has verified Mr. Freeman's concern, as vehicles parked on either side of the
driveway access to 5 Kenneth Avenue create an obstruction.
Conclusions:
This department supports the request to prohibit parking at anytime on the east side of
Kenneth Avenue.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484.
14
Parking Prohibitions - Coldstream Avenue -
North York Spadina
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 31, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install parking prohibitions on the south side of Coldstream Avenue.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
To amend Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, to prohibit
parking between the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., on the south side of Coldstream Avenue,
from the westerly limit of Bathurst Street to the easterly limit of Glenmount Avenue
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited at any time on the north side of Coldstream Avenue, from the
westerly limit of Bathurst Street to the easterly limit of Glenmount Avenue, and permitted for
up to a maximum of three hours on the south side. There are also 26 delineated angled parking
spaces on the south side of Coldstream Avenue, within the municipal road allowance.
Discussion:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department have
been advised that vehicles are being parked overnight for extended periods of time. Despite
numerous requests to the Toronto Police Services, enforcement for illegal parking has proven
ineffective.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this department supports amending the parking restrictions on the south
side of Coldstream Avenue, between Bathurst Street and Glenmount Avenue.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484.
15
Intersection Design - Horsham Avenue and
Canterbury Place - North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To redesign the intersection of Horsham Avenue and Canterbury Place to enable the
introduction of regulatory traffic controls thereby improving the safety and efficiency of
traffic including emergency service vehicles through the intersection.
Source of Funds:
The 1999 Capital Works Road Improvements Budget
Recommendations:
(1)the intersection design Option 'B' as prepared by Works and Emergency Services dated
June16, 1998, with an estimated construction cost of $60,000.00 be included in the 1999
Capital Works Construction Program; and
(2)the necessary funds be acquired from the 1999 Capital Works Road Improvement Budget.
Background History:
As part of the community consultation process, associated with the development application
(UDOZ-98-04), the local community raised concerns about the existing traffic operations at
the Horsham Avenue/Canterbury Place intersection. The issues relate mainly to the current
traffic patterns and safety issues associated with the operations and present geometric design
of the intersection. As well, the emergency vehicles from Fire Station No. 1 and related
facilities on Canterbury Place, use this intersection and Horsham Avenue to access Bathurst
Street to the west.
The Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Division has reviewed the intersection
design and existing traffic operations. While the traffic volumes and the accident rate were
very low, the current design is not the most efficient and not conducive to the introduction of
additional regulatory traffic controls. Presently, with the curved alignment of Horsham
Avenue, the off-set intersecting alignment of Canterbury Place, and the large area of
pavement through the intersection, it was determined that a redesign of the intersection would
improve its operation.
Two intersection designs were developed:
Intersection Design Options:
Option 'A' would essentially extend Canterbury Place north to the intersection of the existing
Hounslow Avenue/Horsham Avenue. Horsham Avenue west of Canterbury Place would be
redesigned to extend easterly to intersect with Canterbury Place at 900 and be stop-controlled.
This design would require the removal of a large mature tree within Municipal road
allowance.
The initial cost estimate for the intersection re-design would be approximately $115,000.00
with no property requirements.
Option 'B' would be to modify the curve in the approach to the intersection of Canterbury
Place with Horsham Avenue to a more efficient 900 intersect.
The initial cost estimate for the intersection re-design would be approximately $60,000.00
with no property requirements.
Conclusion:
After reviewing both options, Option 'B' was determined to be the recommended option as:
(a)the re-design addresses the safety and operational concerns;
(b)the re-design is less disruptive to the community in general and the adjacent property
owners in particular; and
(c)the option is the more cost-effective choice.
Contact Name:
Pascoal D'Souza, Manager of Transportation Planning, Transportation Department, (North
York Office), telephone: 395-7458, fax: 395-7482. e-mail: pdsouza@city.north-york.on.ca
16
Impact of the Environmental Study Report Addendum -
April 1998 - Elihu Pease House - 34 Avondale Avenue -
Response to Donalda and Louis Badone -
North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends:
(1)the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 3;
(2)that the local Councillors, together with appropriate staff, hold discussions with Mr.
Louis Badone and Ms. Donalda Badone, regarding the acquisition and subsequent sale
of the noted property; and
(3)funds generated from the sale of the property be deposited into the Parks Acquisition
Fund.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998)
from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to address concerns raised by Donalda and Louis Badone, the
owners of the Elihu Pease House located at No. 34 Avondale Avenue on the effect of the
widening of Avondale Avenue as identified in the Environmental Study Report Addendum,
April 1998 of the Downtown Plan, South of Sheppard Avenue, Environmental Study Report -
Transportation Infrastructure Requirements September, 1996.
Specifically, North York Community Council at its meeting of April 9, 1998, requested a
report on the following:
(a)review the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board on the Elihu Pease House;
(b)develop a supplementary report as an Addendum to the Environmental Study Report
specifically with respect to the Elihu Pease House; and
(c)in cooperation with the Heritage Committee, develop a plan for dealing with the Elihu
Pease House.
Funding:
N\A
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Donalda and Louis Badone be advised that:
i)the implications of the widening of the roadway will not result in a physical impact on the
Elihu Pease House at No. 34 Avondale Avenue;
ii)should the Elihu Pease House be incorporated into a land assembly for the purposes of
redevelopment, the owner has the ability to relocate the building elsewhere on site or to
relocate the house to a suitable location that would enhance its preservation; and
iii)if the Elihu Pease House continues in its present location indefinitely, the House shall be
permitted to encroach within the road right of way;
(2)any transportation or development proposals that may require the relocation of the Elihu
Pease House be referred to the North York Heritage Committee for its review and comment;
and
(3)this report be adopted in its entirety to form an addendum to the Addendum Report (April
1998) of the Environmental Study Report of the Downtown Plan, South of Sheppard Avenue,
Environmental Study Report - Transportation Infrastructure Requirements September, 1996.
Background:
In September of 1996, the Environmental Study Report (ESR), entitled "Downtown Plan
South of Sheppard Avenue - Transportation Infrastructure Requirements" was completed and
filed with the City Clerk of the former City of North York to satisfy the required 30 day
public review provision of the Class Environmental Assessment process. The purpose of the
ESR was to identify the transportation infrastructure needed to support the land use and
development levels associated with the City's Official Plan Amendment No. 393 (OPA 393)
of the Downtown Plan, south of Sheppard Avenue.
In a letter dated November 29, 1996, the Minister of the Environment advised the City Clerk
of being in receipt of several "bump-up" requests of the ESR, but he decided to reserve his
decision on the grounds of prematurity. It was his position that the land use issues associated
with OPA No. 393 must first be resolved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The OMB
hearing commenced on April 29, 1997, concluded on June 5, 1997, with the Board's decision
released on September 29, 1997. (Ms. D.L. Santo, Vice-Chair)
In the ESR, the widening of Avondale Avenue to accommodate a five lane cross section was
shown to be fully on the south side of the road as these properties had already been assembled
by Wittington Properties Limited. The properties on the north side of Avondale Avenue, east
of Bales Avenue, which include the Elihu Pease House, were not contained within the plan
boundary (OPANo.393) and therefore, were not to be redeveloped for other than single
dwelling uses. Therefore, the improvements along Avondale Avenue which supported both
Wittington's development as well as the City's development objectives of OPA 393 could
occur without displacing the existing residential homes on the north side of the street.
Review of the Ontario Municipal Board Decision:
One of the principal implications of the OMB decision was that the boundary of the
Downtown Plan was moved from Bales Avenue east to Tradewind Avenue, allocating a
density of 3.5 f.s.i. on the lands on the north side of Avondale Avenue, including the Elihu
Pease site. By virtue of the decision, the Board not only granted approval to the Wittington
and Oakburn Apartment developments, and gave development rights to the properties on the
north side of Avondale Avenue, which includes the Elihu Pease House. In doing so, the Board
directed that any widening of Avondale Avenue would be taken from both the north and south
sides of the road allowance. The intent was that the widening of Avondale Avenue should
occur about the centre line of the road allowance. This principle was reiterated by Ms. D.
Santo on March 2, 1998, at a meeting to discuss issues arising out of the OMB September 29,
1997, decision.
The Board, in its decision, acknowledged that Mr. and Mrs. Badone were participants in the
hearing in order to protect their home at 34 Avondale Avenue. In its decision, the Board
directed the City to draft a site specific policy that "deals with the historic nature of the Elihu
Pease House and provides policies for bonusing for its preservation within a development
proposal or for the relocation of it to a suitable location that would enhance its preservation".
The Board went on to note that the house had been moved from its original location and
consists of only a portion of the original Pease Homestead .
The 'specific policy' to address the Elihu Pease House is attached to this report. The policy is
expected to be approved by the Board shortly.
Discussion:
In order to provide the road network to reflect the OMB decision, it was first necessary to
undertake further transportation analysis and to evaluate the road requirements under interim
and ultimate scenarios. The interim scenario considered and addressed the traffic impact
associated with the approval of the Wittington and Oakburn proposals and concluded that
these developments could proceed without further property acquisitions from the north side of
Avondale Avenue
For the interim scenario, the north curb line will be established as close to its present location
as possible with all the widening of Avondale Avenue taking place towards the south. This is
identified in the Addendum to the ESR. Consequently, the Elihu Pease House is not impacted
in the interim road network requirements.
The ultimate scenario will occur when property assemblies on the north side of Avondale
Avenue come forward with development proposals, within the context of the 'plan', which
may or may not include the Elihu Pease site, or possibly if City Council should determine to
proceed with the ultimate road improvements in advance of development. In either case,
Council would have to opportunity address the appropriate issues and give direction
accordingly.
The Addendum to the Environmental Study Report
The Addendum addresses the impact of the widening on both sides of Avondale Avenue,
reflecting the Board's decision. To shift the road right-of-way south around 34 Avondale
Avenue cannot be achieved within sound or safe design principles. The road at this location
forms the westbound approach to the Bales Avenue intersection and has to return to a centre
roadway alignment for the approach to the Yonge Street intersection within a very short
distance.
Given the Board's decision which contemplated the use of bonusing incentives to secure the
preservation of the House, in either its current location or a new location in order to
accommodate redevelopment, it is unreasonable to consider a permanent alignment to swerve
the roadway in an inappropriate and unsafe manner, around 34 Avondale Avenue.
However, it is reasonable to allow the Elihu Pease House to remain at its present location,
permanently or until development requires its relocation, by permitting an encroachment
(approximately 1.3 metres) into the 6 metre municipal boulevard.
North York Heritage Committee
In accordance with the direction of Community Council, staff met with the North York
Heritage Committee on July 9, 1998, to discuss the implications of the road improvements of
Avondale Road on the Elihu Pease House as recommended in the Addendum to the ESR.
The Committee was advised that the OMB has made specific reference to the Elihu Pease
House in its September 29, 1997, decision and that a specific policy has been prepared and
placed in the Official Plan Amendment No. 393. The policy has been approved by the OMB
as a modification to OPA 393 being an amendment to Part D.2. Section 3.14 with the addition
of Section 3.14.24 (policy attached).
Staff went on to illustrate how the Elihu Pease House could be retained by way of an
easement within the road right-of-way without having a physical impact on the building.
After due deliberation, the North York Heritage Committee accepts the recommendations of
the Addendum to the Environmental Study Report subject to certain conditions which have
been inserted into the recommendations of this report.
Conclusion:
By acknowledging that the "Environmental Study Report Addendum, April 1998," of the
"Downtown Plan, South of Sheppard Avenue, Environmental Study Report - Transportation
Infrastructure Requirements, September, 1996," was prepared to reflect the Ontario Municipal
Board's decision, and given the fact that the special policy for the Elihu Pease House
contemplates the possibility of relocating the house at some future time, it is not considered
reasonable to design an inappropriate road configuration for what may well be a temporary
situation.
Consequently, the option of allowing the Elihu Pease House to encroach into the new road
right-of-way or to relocate the house with a redevelopment proposal, in keeping with the
special policy, is consistent with the conclusions of the Environmental Study Report
Addendum (April 1998).
Contact Name:
Colin Couper, Transportation Services
Works and Emergency Services, District 3 .
Telephone 395- 7470, Fax 395-7482, E-mail cwcouper@city.north-york.on.ca.
________
Mr. Louis Badone appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with
the foregoing matter.
17
Turn Restriction - Ambrose Road -
Seneca Heights
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 3, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To prohibit U-Turns for northbound traffic on Ambrose Road, between Sheppard Avenue East
and Maureen Drive.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of the turn restriction are included within the 1998
operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule XV of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to
prohibit northbound U turns on Ambrose Road, between Sheppard Avenue East and Maureen
Drive.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has
received a request from Councillor David Shiner, on behalf of the residents of Ambrose Road,
to prohibit northbound motorists on Ambrose Road, between Sheppard Avenue East and
Maureen Drive, from completing U-Turns.
Residents of Ambrose Road have indicated that due to the delay to westbound left turning
traffic on Sheppard Avenue East, at the intersection with Ambrose Road/Provost Drive,
motorists are making a westbound right turn on Ambrose Road and then completing a U-Turn
on Ambrose Road to continue south on Provost Drive, to access the large commercial
properties on the south side of Sheppard Avenue East.
Discussion:
Our historical review of complaints/concerns of traffic operations at this intersection, along
with our recent investigations, confirm the residents concerns that northbound traffic on
Ambrose Road, particularly on Saturdays and Sundays, are completing U-Turns.
This activity, given the volume of traffic in the grater community, causes confusion for
northbound and southbound traffic on Ambrose Road, creates congestion within the
intersection, and increases the potential for incidents.
Conclusions:
The Works and Emergency Services Department supports the installation of the northbound
U-Turn restriction on Ambrose Road, between Sheppard Avenue East and Maureen Drive.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick,
Director of Operations, 395-7484
18
Parking Prohibitions - Rothmere Drive -
North York Centre South
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 3, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To remove the 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, parking restrictions on the south
side of Rothmere Drive, between Mildenhall Road and Proctor Crescent.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the removal of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998
operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to
rescind the "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", restrictions on the south
side of Rothmere Drive, between the easterly limit of Proctor Crescent and the westerly limit
of Mildenhall Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited on the south side of Rothmere Drive, between the hours of
8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Stopping is also prohibited on both sides of
Rothmere Drive, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from
Proctor Crescent to Mildenhall Road.
Discussion:
Councillor Joanne Flint, on behalf of the local residents and the Mildenhall Ratepayers
Association, have requested that staff of the Transportation Division of the Works and
Emergency Services Department remove the current parking restrictions on the south side of
Rothmere Drive. The existing stopping restrictions are to be maintained.
Conclusions:
This Division would support the residents request to amend the current parking regulations.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick,
Director of Operations, 395-7484.
19
Parking Prohibitions - Burdock Lane -
Don Parkway
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 3, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To remove the existing 60 minutes permitted parking restriction on the north and east side of
Burdock Lane.
Source of funds:
All funds associated with the removal of the parking control signs are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedule X of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended, to
permit parking for up to a maximum of three hours on the north and east side of Burdock,
from The Donway West to the easterly limit of Burdock Lane
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited at anytime on the south and west side of Burdock Lane. On
the north and east side of the Burdock Lane, vehicles are permitted to park for up to a
maximum of 60 minutes.
Discussions:
Councillor Gordon Chong, on behalf of the residents of Burdock Lane, has requested that staff
of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department remove the
existing 60 minutes permitted parking restriction on the north and east side of Burdock Lane.
A recent survey, conducted by Councillor Chong's office, indicated that the majority of the
affected residents on Burdock Lane feel the existing parking prohibitions/restrictions are too
onerous and are therefore in favour of removing the 60 permitted parking restriction.
Conclusions:
In view of the support of the affected residents, this department would have no objections to
the removal of the parking restrictions.
Contact Name:
Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
20
All Way Stop Control -
Florence Avenue at Radine Road -
North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 3, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control at the intersection of Florence Avenue at Radine Road.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the
1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
That Schedules XVIII and XIX of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be
amended to require traffic to stop at all approaches to the intersection of Florence Avenue and
Radine Road.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The area residents, by means of the attached petition, have requested that staff of the
Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department once again
investigate the installation of an all way stop control at the Florence Avenue/Radine Road
intersection.
Currently, eastbound and westbound traffic on Florence Avenue is required to stop and
Radine Road. Traffic on Radine Road travels unrestricted from Poyntz Avenue to the north
and Cameron Avenue to the south. The Cameron Avenue Elementary School is located one
block to the south at the intersection of Radine Road and Cameron Avenue.
A historical review of the intersection has indicated that several all way stop studies have been
conducted, during which the technical requirements for the installation of an all way stop
control were not satisfied.
Discussion:
During the completion of the most recent all way stop study, it was noted that overall the
intersection pedestrian and vehicle traffic volumes have increased, resulting in the technical
warrants for the installation of an all way stop control being satisfied.
The installation of the additional stop controls will not adversely impact traffic operations on
Radine Road or Florence Avenue and should not result in the displacement of traffic to other
adjacent roadways.
Conclusions:
Staff of this division supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of
Florence Avenue and Radine Road as it would provide additional protection for all road users
as well as not diverting traffic to other adjacent roadways.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick,
Director of Traffic Operations, 395-7484
21
Walkway Closing - 170 The Donway West (UDOZ-90-75) -
Don Parkway
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 1, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:
Purpose:
An approved development at 170 The Donway West includes the formal closing of a
municipal walkway at its present location with the relocation of the walkway to the westerly
limit of the site. The purpose of this report is to respond to a request from the developer to
alter the conditions of approval relating to the walkway, in particular, to discuss the merits of
proceeding with the registration of the closing by-law for the walkway in advance of
development of the site.
Funding Sources:
There are no municipal costs associated with this undertaking. All costs are to be borne by the
developer.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that staff be authorized to register the relevant by-law enacted on April 21,
1993, for the closing of the walkway, dedicated as a Public Walkway by By-Law No.110593
and registered on title as Instrument No. NY 218175, subject to:
(1)the applicant satisfying conditions (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv), as approved by North York
Council on January 27, 1993 (as outlined in the body of this report);
(2)condition (v) being referred to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, to make the
appropriate amendments and take the appropriate action;
(3)the registration of the closing by-law occurring concurrently with the conveyance of the
lands from Richwood Developments Limited and the Bank of Montreal to the City for the
relocated walkway;
(4)easements being provided over the Richwood Developments Limited site, and the Bank of
Montreal site to allow rights of passage for pedestrians over the subject holdings, so that the
existing pedestrian activities may continue until the relocated walkway is constructed;
(5)the applicant provide to the City a Letter of Credit to cover the cost of engineering and
construction of the relocated walkway in the amount estimated and/or contracted for the work
to be completed; and
(6)the relocated walkway being constructed in accordance with the specifications of the the
Department of Works and Emergency Services.
Council Reference:
On January 27, 1993, Richwood Developments Limited received approval from the City of
North York of an Official Plan amendment and rezoning application (OZ-90-75) for a four
storey apartment building. The applicant's holdings comprise of two parcels of land separated
by a six metre wide strip of City-owned land which was set aside and dedicated as a public
walkway. An existing office building, known as the Donway Building, is located on the east
portion of the applicant's site at No.170 The Donway West and situated to the east of the
walkway.
Discussion:
In 1991 and again in 1992, the North York Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) considered
the need for the subject walkway as well as a request for an encroachment on the municipal
property in relation to the specific development proposal.
It was recognized that while the walkway (Lawrence Avenue to the Donway West) can be
legally identified on a plan of survey, it could not be physically identified on the ground.
Nevertheless, the TAC determined that there was, and continues to be demonstrated need for a
pedestrian facility connecting Lawrence Avenue East to the Donway West in this vicinity.
The specific location of the walkway, presently owned by the City, is situated within what has
been developed as parking areas and pedestrian facilities associated with the Donway
Building, as well as the Bank of Montreal at No. 877 Lawrence Avenue East. Pedestrians are
not confined to the limits of the City-owned property and they have been observed to take a
variety of routes over the parking lots and surrounding open areas.
As part of the planning process, the applicant submitted a site plan, which proposed the legal
closing of the walkway at its existing location and relocating it to the west. The proposed
location of the relocated walkway abuts the westerly limit of the site and connects with
Lawrence Avenue through a new location across the Bank of Montreal property to the north
and would form the continuation of an existing walkway system continuing to the west, at the
south limit of the subject property.
The TAC accepted the new location and indicated that it would recommend to Council, the
legal closure of the existing walkway, subject to the zoning amendment application and
Official Plan application receiving approval.
On January 27, 1993 Council adopted the report of the Technical Advisory Committee which
recommended the closing of the walkway subject, in part, to:
(i)the applicant assuming responsibility for all costs associated with the closure of the
existing walkway;
(ii)the applicant assuming responsibility for securing the property acquisition to the City for
the relocated walkway from the Bank of Montreal and all costs associated therewith;
(iii)the applicant assuming responsibility for ensuring that easements are provided for City
services and the utility companies if required, or payment of all costs for the relocation of
services;
(iv)the closure of the existing walkway not be completed until such time as the City has been
provided with letters of credit or other securities satisfactory to the Commissioner of
Transportation and the City Solicitor for all costs associated with the above condition (i)
and(iii), together with a deed in fee simple free and clear of all encumbrances, except utilities,
to the City for those lands on which the relocation walkway is to be constructed; and
(v)the Commissioner of Property and Economic Development be directed to negotiate terms
of an agreement with the applicant for the proposed exchange of lands and to submit a report
to the Development and Economic Growth Committee on the proposed land exchange.
Subsequent Activity:
As noted from the foregoing, there has been considerable deliberation surrounding the closure
of the walkway to accommodate redevelopment of the subject site. Mr. Jack Winberg,
Richwood Developments Limited, has outlined in a letter of October 10, 1995, his request to
proceed with the registration of the closing by-law, but delay construction of the replacement
walkway until the site is redeveloped. His letter advised of some of the circumstances which
are the basis for his request and these have been considered by the TAC.
By virtue of the Council's previous approval which includes conditions for the legal closure
of the existing walkway, the establishment of a new (relocated) walkway, and the protection
of existing underground municipal services, the City is prepared to support the appropriate
redevelopment of the site even although the approved development is not proceeding.
In this case, the closing of this walkway is unique from other closures associated with
development, as this 'walkway' does not physically exist in the location of City ownership.
This act of closure may be considered a formality. In his letter, Mr. Winberg has indicated that
sufficient legal safeguards can be put in place to allow rights of passage for pedestrians over
his holdings, so that the existing pedestrian activities may continue until development takes
place. However, that position could not have been deemed acceptable, when the actual
provision for a walkway across the Bank of Montreal property was unknown and
unconfirmed.
On January 14, 1997, the Bank of Montreal, entered into a Site Plan Agreement with the City,
which was registered as Instrument No. TR002970 on April 29, 1997. Condition 12 of
Schedule "C" of the Site Plan Agreement requires the 'Bank' to ensure that a three(3) metre
wide public walkway can be achieved along the entire western portion of the site. With the
location for a walkway now confirmed and protected, the actual transfer of lands with the City
can be completed.
Conclusions:
After further deliberation, staff is satisfied that the registration of the closing by-law does not
impede the objectives of the site and redevelopment goals of the area, and further, that if the
necessary legal and binding commitments are undertaken by the applicant, the rights of
passage for the community will be protected, and then there may be a benefit to both the City
and the applicant to proceed with the registration.
Should Council adopt this procedure, then the construction of the walkway in its new location
should take place as soon as possible, even if such construction is prior to the construction of
the development.
Contact Name:
Colin Couper, Transportation Services
Works and Emergency Services, District 3 .
Telephone 395- 7470, Fax 395-7482, E-mail cwcouper@city.north-york.on.ca.
22
Quit Claim of Easement -
Registering of Sewer Easement -
2901 Bayview Avenue - Seneca Heights
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 4, 1998) from the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to respond to a request brought forward by D.S. Lea Associates
Limited, engineering consultants for the owner, Orlando Corporation, to relocate an existing
storm sewer in easement.
Source of Funds:
All costs to be paid by applicant, Orlando Corporation.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council approve the proposal to relocate the subject storm sewer subject to the conditions
described;
(2)the existing easement for the section of storm sewer to be abandoned be Quit Claimed;
(3)a 7.62m new easement be granted to the City by the property owner and registered on title
for the sections of storm sewer to be relocated; and
(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Background:
The Works and Emergency Services Department has received a written request from D.S. Lea
Associates Limited, on behalf of Orlando Corporation, the property owner at Bayview Village
- 2901 Bayview Avenue, to consider the relocation of an existing storm sewer in easement
that is situated on private property and in conflict with a proposed parking garage structure.
The parking structure is being proposed to accommodate parking requirements for the
forthcoming site plan application for a retail proposal on site.
As the time required to have the necessary storm sewer works designed, approved by the
appropriate authorities, tendered and constructed will have a major impact on the development
proposal, authority to proceed with the sewer relocation works, quit claim the existing
easement and obtain a new easement prior to the site plan application process is being brought
to Council for approval.
Discussion:
The proposed sewer work involves the relocation of approximately 155m of 1.2m x 2.4m box
culvert and is estimated to be $380,000.00. The storm sewer is part of the Wilket Creek Trunk
Storm System.
The proposed relocation will necessitate that parts of the existing easement for the section of
abandoned storm sewer be quit claimed and a new easement be registered for the relocated
sections of the storm sewer.
This department would agree to the proposed sewer relocation work subject to the following
conditions:
(i)an irrevocable letter of credit representing the cost of the works in the amount of
$380,000.00 plus 3 percent engineering fee in form satisfactory to the Finance Department
and Legal Department being deposited with the City;
(ii)D.S. Lea Associates Limited, consultant engineers for the property owner, Orlando
Corporation, obtain all required approvals and certify that all works have been constructed in
accordance with all City Standards and Specifications and provide "as constructed" drawings
to the City;
(iii)the property owner, Orlando Corporation, provides and pays for the new easement
documents to the City;
(iv)the property owner, Orlando Corporation, indemnify and save harmless the City from and
against all claims, demands, loss, costs, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings by
whomsoever made; and
(v)all other City requirements for the administration of the construction be satisfied.
Conclusion:
The proposal to relocate the existing storm sewer in easement prior to site plan approval can
be accommodated subject to the noted conditions.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng.
Chief Development Engineer
Tel. (416) 395-6307 Fax. (416) 395-0349
e-mail: rbedrosy@city.north-york.on.c
23
Broadlands Community Centre -
Parking Lot - Don Parkway
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next
regular meeting of City Council to be held on October 28, 1998.)
The North York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (August 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic
Development, Culture and Tourism, be received;
(2)the previous decision of the Council of the former City of North York to purchase
two residential properties to develop parking facilities for the Broadlands Community
Centre, be re-affirmed; and that the two lots be retained to create open space;
(3)if there is no agreement with the Grace Memorial Church by October 30, 1998, for
the use of its parking facility by patrons of the Broadlands Community Centre and
park, appropriate staff be authorized to proceed with the creation of a parking lot at 23
and 25 Castlegrove Boulevard, through the site plan process;
(4)if there is an agreement reached with the Grace Memorial United Church,
appropriate staff be authorized to proceed with the creation of an 18 space parking area
on the east side of Castlegrove Boulevard, alongside the existing artificial ice rink; and
(5)appropriate staff take into consideration the traffic concerns of the community;
The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1998)
from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
Two residential properties were purchased in 1998 for the purpose of developing needed
parking facilities at the Broadlands Community Centre. Reacting to concerns expressed by the
local residents, Parks and Recreation staff embarked on a new community consultation
process which resulted in recommendations for a different set of parking alternatives, and the
opportunity to return the two purchased properties to the re-sale residential market.
Source of Funds:
The development of a modified parking area (Recommendation 3) will cost an estimated
$95,000.00 with funding coming from designated current and capital budgets. The sale of the
two residential properties originally purchased at a cost of $547,020.00 will result in
comparable funds returning to the City's Parkland Acquisition Reserve Fund.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)plans be abandoned for the demolition of the acquired properties at 23 and 25 Castlegrove
Boulevard, for a parking lot;
(2)the two subject properties be offered for re-sale, with the proceeds credited to the Parkland
Acquisition Reserve Account;
(3)an eighteen space parking area be created on the east side of Castlegrove Boulevard, along
side the existing artificial ice rink;
(4)negotiations be undertaken regarding a possible agreement with officials of the
neighbouring Grace Memorial Church for the use of their parking area by patrons of
Broadlands Community Centre and Park; and
(5)the appropriate City officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Typical of facilities built in the 1950's and 1960's, Broadlands Artificial Ice Rink and
Community Centre were intended for use by local residents who could walk to their
neighbourhood facility. Parking facilities were frequently not provided at these types of public
recreation facilities. When the Broadlands facility was upgraded and expanded in 1993, funds
were limited, and the parking lot was eliminated from the re-construction plan.
Users and usage, however, have changed over the years, resulting in a critical lack of parking
for a very heavily used year round recreation facility. Predominant regular users of
Broadlands include senior adults, preschoolers, children with their families, and persons who
have physical challenges or disabilities.
In the fall of 1997, funds were made available through the Parkland Acquisition Fund in the
former City of North York, to purchase residential properties to the north of Broadlands
Community Centre, for the purpose of developing the required parking facilities. This plan
was approved by City Council and the purchase of two properties at a cost of $547,020.00
was concluded early in 1998, through the services of an independent agent.
Following the purchase of the properties, some local residents expressed their dissatisfaction
with the plan, citing concerns about the demise of the character of their neighbourhood
through the destruction of homes and the general economy of the plan. A public meeting of
the Broadlands Community Centre Advisory Council followed on April 29, 1998 during
which residents were provided with detailed plans for the parking lot development and were
asked to express their views on the subject. Consultation also took place with the Ward
Councillor.
Following the April 29 meeting, a moratorium was placed on the development, to allow an ad
hoc task group through the Advisory Council to receive and consider information regarding
parking alternatives and general standards and practices for provision of parking amenities in
the City of Toronto. The recommendations of the ad hoc task group and the Advisory Council
were conveyed to the Parks and Recreation Division on July 2, 1998. The resulting
recommendations now before the North York Community Council were shared with the
Broadlands community in a public open house on July 28, 1998.
The recommended plan proposes to develop eighteen parking spots on existing City property.
It further proposes to negotiate with a local church situated south of the community centre, to
share the church parking lot with community centre users. The plan also recommends
returning the two residential properties to the public market, with proceeds from the re-sale of
the homes going to the Parkland Acquisition Fund.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
About fifty residents attended the July 28 information sharing event hosted by the Parks and
Recreation Division. Comment cards were distributed to all in attendance and thirty-three
cards were returned to the Division. Twenty-three of these respondents strongly agreed with
the proposed action plan to develop a small parking lot along the side of the rink on the east
side of Castlegrove Boulevard. An additional seven respondents agreed but expressed
concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian safety. (These concerns will be discussed with
officials of the Transportation Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department).
Three disagreed with the proposal.
The cost of $95,000.00 to develop the recommended site is equivalent to the cost of the
originally proposed northern site. However, there is no cost to purchase land as the site is
already part of the existing complex. In addition, the re-sale of the two residential properties
will re-imburse the Parkland Acquisition Reserve Fund from which the original purchase was
made. Some residents expressed their belief that this plan is more fiscally responsible.
Conclusions:
The recommended plan provides much needed parking amenities at the Broadlands
Community Centre, while still preserving the private homes and the character of the
neighbourhood.
Contact Name:
Gary W. Stoner
District Lead - North
Parks and Recreation
Telephone:395-6190
Fax:395-0105
E-mail:gwstoner@north-york.on.ca
_______
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. John Murphy;
-Ms. Camille Serrao, on behalf of Broadlands Community Centre; and
-Mr. Ernie Magee.
24
Availability of Grants and Programs from Federal and Provincial
Ministries for the Acquisition of Lands for Parks and Community
Related Purposes - Northwest Corner of Finch Avenue West
and York Gate Boulevard - Black Creek
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and
Tourism:
Purpose:
As directed by North York Community Council at its meeting held on July 22, 1998, this
report is to advise Council on the availability of Grants and Programs from identified
Ministries for the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes at the
northwest corner of Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard,
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Economic Development, Culture and Tourism continue to pursue information from the
identified Ministries regarding the availability of Grants and Programs for the acquisition of
lands for parks and community related purposes at the northwest corner of Finch Avenue
West and York Gate Boulevard; and
(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report back to North
York Community Council at its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998, when it is
anticipated all responses and information from the identified Ministries regarding the
availability of Grants and Programs for the acquisition of lands for parks and community
related purposes will have been received.
Background:
1.0Subject Lands:
The subject lands are located at the northwest corner of Finch Avenue West and York Gate
Boulevard. The applicant has submitted applications to amend the zoning by-law and a plan
of subdivision comprising of 220 units of freehold townhouses and apartment buildings, with
a unit count of 775 units, along the Finch Avenue West frontage. A report on the above noted
applications, was adopted by North York Community Council at their meeting held on
Wednesday July 22, 1998.
2.0Meeting of North York Community Council July 22, 1998:
At its meeting held on July 22, 1998, North York Community Council adopted the following
recommendations:
"The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to:
(a)consult with the appropriate officials of the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources; the
Ministry of Community and Social Services; and the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and
Recreation; and the appropriate officials of the federal Ministry of Canadian Heritage/Parks
Canada; and
(b)report back to the Community Council meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, on
grants and programs which may be available through these agencies that would enable the
acquisition of these lands for parks and community related purposes."
3.0Consultation:
The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism contacted the above
noted Ministries enquiring about grants and programs for the acquisition of lands for parks
and community related purposes (see attached Schedules A, B, C and D).
Staff of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism have also made follow up phone
enquiries to these Ministries regarding the status of our request for information.
Comments and Discussion:
4.0Information Received:
At the time of writing this report, only one of the Ministries contacted had formally responded
in writing. Staff from the remaining three Ministries have acknowledged receipt of our letter
and have advised that our request will be brought to the Minister's attention as soon as
possible and that a response would be forthcoming.
Conclusions:
Staff from Economic Development, Culture and Tourism will continue to pursue information
from the identified Ministries regarding the availability of Grants and Programs available for
the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes.
The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism will report back to North
York Community Council at its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998, when receipt of all
responses and information from the identified Ministries is anticipated.
Contact Name:
Tim Park, Land Use Planner
Phone: 395-0221Fax: 395-7886
_______
(Copies of the schedules referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
25
Preliminary Evaluation Report -
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-20 -
1261075 Ontario Inc. (Tor-bel Group) -
906 Sheppard Avenue West - North York Spadina
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 2, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, subject to
the applicant being advised that the application, in its proposed built form, is unsuitable
for this site.
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to describe a new application that has been submitted for lands
located at the north east corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Wilson Heights Boulevard
(Schedule A). The zoning amendment application proposes a 5 storey, 80 unit condominium
apartment building with ground floor commercial.
Financial Implications:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, schedule a Community Consultation
Meeting; and
(2)staff prepare a final report evaluating the proposal as set out in this report and provide
notice of the Statutory Public Meeting at the appropriate time.
Background:
Proposal:
The application proposes a zoning by-law amendment to permit a 5-storey, 80 unit
condominium apartment building with ground floor commercial uses on lands located at the
north east corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Wilson Heights Boulevard. There is currently
an Esso Station located on the south half of the site while the north half of the site is vacant.
The pertinent statistics are as follows:
| Site Statistics |
|
| Land Area |
0.393 ha (0.971 acres) |
| Proposed Gross Floor Area |
8,003.95 mē |
| Proposed Density
- Floor Space Index (F.S.I.) |
2 |
| Proposed Parking |
130 parking spaces |
Official Plan and Zoning:
The lands are designated Sheppard West Commercial (SW-COM) under the Sheppard
West\Dublin Secondary Plan and zoned General Commercial (C1) (Schedules A and B).
Discussion:
The lands are located at the north east corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Wilson Heights
Boulevard within the Sheppard West\Dublin Secondary Plan. The proposed development is
similar to the applicant's development that is currently under construction across the street on
the south east corner of Sheppard Avenue West and Wilson Heights Boulevard.
Sheppard West\Dublin Secondary Plan:
(a)Land Use:
The Sheppard West Commercial designation encourages a wide mix of uses, including
multiple-family residential, retail and service commercial, office and institutional. The
proposed residential and commercial uses are consistent with the intent of the Sheppard West
Commercial designation.
(b)Density
The Sheppard West Commercial designation permits a maximum density of 2 F.S.I. The
proposed development complies with the plan's maximum density.
(c)Height and Massing:
In order to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential lands, the Secondary Plan limits
proposed buildings on lands designated SW-COM to a maximum height of the lesser of the
horizontal distance separating the building from the nearest residential property line that
coincides with the Secondary Plan boundaries, unless that boundary is a streetline (i.e. 45
percent plane). In our review of the plan we will be careful to look at the relationship of this
development to the stable residential area to the north of the site on the north side of
Cocksfield Avenue as well as the stable residential area adjacent to the site. Consideration of
the access controls from the site to Cocksfield Avenue will also be examined.
(d)Urban Design
Section 3.0 of the Secondary Plan sets out various development criteria and urban design
principles to be met by new developments in the Sheppard West\Dublin area, which relate to
matters such as creation of pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, location of buildings in relation to
the street, boulevard treatment, buffering, signage, promotion of underground parking, and
more. Consideration will be given to ensuring that appropriate buffering measures, such as
fencing and extensive landscaping, are used to protect the adjacent residential areas along
Cocksfield Avenue. Consideration will also be given to the possibility of off-site
improvements on the surplus boulevard and consideration of whether its improvement should
be assessed in the context of the overall development design and the configuration of the
intersection. A detailed summary of the Secondary Plan's urban design principles is set out
under Appendix 1.
Parking:
Under the Zoning By-law the proposal requires a minimum of 157 parking spaces. The
applicant is proposing to provide 137 parking spaces, a deficit of 20 parking spaces. The
applicant has been requested to provide a parking demand analysis to substantiate the reduced
parking.
Site Conditions:
The site has been identified as a potential soil contaminated property because of its prior use
as a gas station. The applicant has been advised that this application will be required to be
supported by any necessary studies required under the Ministry of the Environment
Guidelines for contaminated sites. Any approval of residential use on this property will be
conditional on a Record of Site Condition acknowledged by Ministry of the Environment.
City Wide Issues:
None.
Conclusions:
A final report will be prepared for the Community Council upon further review of the
application for a new mixed residential commercial building at 906 Sheppard Avenue West.
Contact Name:
Randy Jones, Planner
Phone: 395-7137Fax: 395-7155
_______
(A copy of Appendix 1 referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
26
Preliminary Evaluation Report -
Temporary Use By-law Application UD52-98-01 -
Alysse Fogel - 31 Foursome Crescent -
North York Centre South
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 2, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, subject to
Recommendation No. 2 being amended to provide that a public meeting be held at the
next meeting of the North York Community Council on October 14, 1998.
Purpose:
This is a preliminary evaluation of an application for a temporary use by-law to legalize a
professional medical office (dietician's practice) as a home occupation for a period of three
years.
Financial Implications:
None
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)staff, in consultation with local Councillors, undertake community consultation; and
(2)staff prepare a final report evaluating the proposal and provide notice of the Statutory
Public Meeting at the appropriate time.
Background:
Proposal
The proposal is for a temporary use by-law to legalize an existing 19m2 dietician's office in a
portion of the basement of a two-storey, single detached dwelling for a three year period. The
applicant has indicated that a three year temporary use would enable her to continue the
business while caring for young children. This application was submitted in response to
By-law Enforcement issuing a Notice of Violation dated April 1, 1998, for having a
commercial operation on site which is not permitted under the current zoning. The site
statistics are as follows:
|
Proposal Site Statistics |
| Site Area |
557m2 |
| Gross Floor Area - House |
"284m2 |
| Dietician's Office Floor Area |
"19m2 |
| Parking Spaces (driveway) |
2 |
Community Input
To date, a petition, letters and telephone calls have been received from area residents outlining
concerns related to increased traffic, safety, parking, volume of clients along with other issues
listed in the attached correspondence (Appendix "A").
Official Plan and Zoning By-law
The lands are designated Residential Density One (RD1) which permits primarily single and
semi detached dwellings. The official plan also permits minor commercial uses provided they
are ancillary to the residential use and serve the local population.
The property is zoned One Family Detached Fourth Density Zone (R4). A dietician's office is
not a permitted use in the R4 zone.
Discussion:
The following preliminary issues have been identified:
1.Medical Offices as Home Occupations
Up to 1996, a limited number of home occupations including offices of doctors, dentists and
drugless practitioners were permitted uses in residential zones. These uses have been removed
from the Zoning By-law and staff recommended policies on home occupations identified
medical offices as not being appropriate home occupations as a result of the anticipated
impacts on the neighbourhood.
2.Compatibility Criteria
During the preparation of the North York Housing Policies staff had recommended a set of
criteria to be considered when evaluating home occupations. These criteria have formed the
basis for review of recent home occupation applications and will be applied to evaluating the
merits of this proposal. In particular, the impact of the proposed home occupation in relation
to traffic, parking requirements, type of business operation and frequency of client
appointments will be evaluated to determine if the home occupation meets Council's objective
of enhancing residential neighbourhoods and ensuring that they continue as pleasant and safe
living environments.
3.Temporary Use
Past applications for temporary use bylaws have generally been for interim uses pending
future redevelopment of a site or local investment area. The proposed temporary use shall be
evaluated within the context of its establishment on-site given that the proposal is located
within a stable residential area and the area is not undergoing change or redevelopment.
Conclusions:
The proposal for a temporary use bylaw for a 19m2 dietician's office as a home occupation
will be evaluated within the context outlined in this report and community consultation will
be undertaken in consultation with local area councillors.
Contact Name:
Mary McElroy
Telephone: (416) 395-7143
_______
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following
communications:
(i)(August 17, 1998) from Ms. Cindy Weiner, President, St. Andrew's Ratepayers
Association, expressing the Association's opposition to the application; and
(ii)(September 13, 1998) from Jean Roy, North York, in opposition to the application.
(A copy of the Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
27
O.M.B. Referral No. 1 of Official Plan Amendment No. 381 -
Specific Development Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue -
North York Official Plan Part C.9.140 (UDOP-38) -
North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on
the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report
(September 2, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District,
recommends that Council rescind the adoption of Part C.9.140 of the Official Plan.
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having directed
the appropriate staff to do all things necessary to have the repealing by-law before the next
meeting of Council scheduled for October 1, 1998.
The North York Community Council also reports having held a statutory public meeting on
September 16, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning
Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998)
from the Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
This report provides background information for the public meeting scheduled for September
16, 1998 on Part C.9.140 of the Official Plan, which is the Specific Policy from Official Plan
Amendment No. 381 (the Uptown Plan) regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. The site
specific Official Plan amendment, and application UDZ-98-08, which seeks to implement the
policy, have both been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board.
Financial Implications:
Not Applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that North York Community Council receive this report for information.
Background:
88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue has an area of approximately 0.58 hectares, and is in the stable
residential area next to the west boundary of the Uptown redevelopment area. The subject site
is bounded on the east by the proposed Service Road and, in the interim, Willowdale
Presbyterian Church, on the west by the St. Edwards Church lands, and on the south by
Ellerslie Avenue. Most of these lands overlook the recently completed park on the south side
of Ellerslie Avenue, which includes the relocated Dempsey House. Two single family
dwellings at 98 and 100 Ellerslie are across the street from the western portion. To the north,
the site is bounded by the side yards of single family dwellings at 1 and 2 Basswood Road,
and the rear yard of 69 Churchill Avenue.
The specific official plan policy C.9.140 deals with these lands, and reads as follows:
"Notwithstanding the Residential Density One designation . . . development of these lands for
residential purposes is permitted provided that the maximum density on the lands is FSI=1.0,
and the maximum height of any permitted residential or accessory building shall be 11 metres
or three storeys, whichever is the lesser. If these lands are to be redeveloped, vehicular access
for this use shall be taken from the Uptown Service Road, and not from Ellerslie Avenue."
The policy was established by Item D.2.17 of Official Plan Amendment No. 381, originally
inserting it as a new paragraph in Part II, Section 1, D (b) "Other Specific Development" in
the District 11 Plan. OPA 381 was adopted by Council on May 19, 1993. When Official Plan
Amendment No. 377 consolidated residential policies of the District Plans into the
Comprehensive Official Plan, this policy was relocated to Part C.9.140 of the Official Plan.
OPA 377 was adopted on May 25, 1995.
This item in OPA 381 was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing on July 11, 1996 in response to concerns expressed by the
Yonge Street Area Ratepayer Associations (YSARA). Local residents also filed objections to
this item, represented by Mr. Donald Gray of 69 Churchill Avenue. North York and Ministry
staff facilitated mediation attempts, but were unsuccessful. No OMB Hearing has been held
on this matter yet.
An application has been filed (UDZ-98-08) seeking to implement the policy with a zoning
bylaw amendment that would enable development of a 66-unit 3-storey townhouse project on
the subject lands and properties directly to the east (70 to 84 Ellerslie Avenue). The applicant
for the proposed rezoning wrote to the OMB on April 27, 1998, requesting that the Board
schedule a Hearing on the OPA 381 referral.
The preliminary staff report on the rezoning application, dated June 9, 1998, was received by
Community Council on June 24, 1998. At its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, Council
adopted the June 24 recommendations of Community Council, that:
"site specific Official Plan Policy part c9.140 of Official Plan Amendment No. 381 be
re-opened . . . and . . . staff be authorized to schedule a public meeting to determine whether
the subject lands should be included in the development area."
Schedules A, B and D from the June 9 preliminary report on the application are also attached
to this report. They show the location of the lands covered by the specific policy C.9.140, the
official plan designations and current zoning of the subject lands and vicinity; and the
properties that are part of the rezoning application.
Schedule E to this report contains an annotated chronology outlining the steps leading to the
inclusion of this specific policy in OPA 381 and the subsequent referral to the OMB. Written
submissions from the public on this matter are attached in Schedule F.
Discussion:
Early in the Uptown Plan process, conflicting positions on the designation of these lands were
apparent. A group of owners of some of these lands made submissions noting the potential of
the site, and requested to be included in the Uptown redevelopment area. Other submissions
opposed the extensions of the Uptown boundaries.
In an October 1992 report responding to submissions on the second draft of the Uptown Plan,
staff indicated that development of the subject lands is not necessarily be dependent on them
being included within the boundary of the Uptown Plan. Staff recognized that the lots are very
deep and, if assembled, have redevelopment potential. They lie between the location of the
proposed Uptown Service Road and the St. Edwards Church property. Staff did not support
redesignating the properties to be within the Uptown, but instead advised that development
could be considered under official plan policies applying to residential areas.
This opinion was reiterated in a December 1992 report responding to submissions on the third
draft of the Uptown Plan, and a specific policy was proposed for the District 11 Plan that is
generally similar to the policy which was ultimately adopted in 1993. That report also noted
the properties are situated between a large parcel containing a place of worship and lands
identified as part of the Buffer Area within the Uptown Plan. The report included the
following staff comment:
"If the owners ... filed a joint application for redevelopment, the redevelopment of these lands,
in conjunction with or separately from lands within the Uptown, could be considered. A low
rise form of development, consistent with that proposed in the Buffer Area, may be
appropriate. The inclusion of a special policy in the District 11 Plan ... would foster
redevelopment of an appropriate type, without establishing a precedent by moving the
Uptown boundaries."
The specific policy permits modest intensification of residential use of these deep lots, at a
lower density than could be developed within the Uptown Buffer Area. Their redevelopment
together with the adjacent lands within the Uptown is permitted, but they do not have to
contain an identical building form. The specific policy also addresses concerns about traffic
impact in the stable residential area, by requiring redevelopment to take access solely from the
Service Road.
In the time since the adoption of the site specific policy in the D11 plan, lands across Ellerslie
Avenue from the subject lands have been developed as a park, including the relocated
Dempsey House. The connection from Ellerslie Avenue to the Service Road has been severed
as well.
Conclusions:
During the drafting of the Uptown Plan, staff recommended a specific policy to permit some
intensification of residential use of the subject lands, at a lower density than could be
developed within the Uptown Buffer Area. The site specific policy also addressed traffic
infiltration concerns through its requirement that access for new residential uses be taken from
the Service Road only.
The policy is based on the concept of limited intensification in stable residential areas
enunciated in the District Plan and subsequently in the Official Plan, while maintaining a
defined and stable boundary of the major redevelopment area of the North York Centre.
Since the adoption of the original site specific policy, the site has been further buffered from
other residential uses. The site specific policy is consistent with the principles of the Official
Plan permitting limited redevelopment in stable residential areas, and concentrating major
redevelopment projects in the North York Centre.
(A copy of the Official Plan Amendment and schedules referred to in the foregoing report are
on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
_______
A staff presentation was made by William Hollo, Director, Planning Services, City Planning
Division, North District.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following
communications:
(i)(September 2, 1998) from Jack and Viva Heaton, advising of their concerns with the
proposed amendment;
(ii)(August 27, 1998) from Mr. Stephen H. Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and
Solicitors, Solicitors for 1205373 Ontario Limited, in support of the proposed amendment;
(iii)(August 26, 1998) from Mr. William Withrow, requesting clarification on why this matter
is being re-examined;
(iv)(August 26, 1998) from Mr. D. Gregory Flude and Dr. Inese Flude, requesting the
opportunity to address North York Community Council and commenting on the proposed
amendment;
(v)(August 26, 1998) from Paul and Nina Cernavskis, expressing their concerns with the
proposed amendment;
(vi)(August 21, 1998) from Eleanor and Ian Searle, advising of their opposition to the
proposed amendment;
(vii)(undated) from Mr. Andris Cernavskis, advising of his concerns with the proposed
amendment;
(viii)(September 14, 1998) from Jule Ryder, advising of his opposition to the proposed
amendment;
(ix)(September 14, 1998) from E.J. and Elizabeth Tamalik, expressing their opposition to the
proposed amendment;
(x)(September 1, 1998) from Sharolyn Vettese on behalf of the Yonge Street Area Ratepayer
Associations and Steve Mullins on behalf of the Lansing Community Association, outlining
their reasons for not supporting the inclusion of 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue in the Uptown
Plan;
(xi)(September 14, 1998) from David and Judy Gainforth, expressing their opposition to the
proposed amendment; and
(xii)(September 12, 1998) from Edmund and Judith McCabe expressing their objections to
the proposed amendment.
The following persons addressed North York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-Mr. Stephen Diamond, Solicitor from the firm of McCathry Tetrault, on behalf of 1205373
Ontario Limited, property owners of 70 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue, who spoke in support of Part
C.9.140 of the Official Plan, which is the Specific Policy from Official Plan Amendment No.
381 regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue.
During his submission, Mr. Diamond indicated that since the adoption of the Specific
Development Policy, his client has reduced the scale of the proposed development on Ellerslie
Avenue from 66 units to 47 units and would include a 1.1 ha public park on the lands
municipally known as 76 Ellerslie. He also pointed out that the development would be of
condominium rather than freehold tenure. Access to the development would be provided from
Beecroft Road and as such there would be no traffic impact on the community.
Mr. Diamond requested that Community Council maintain its previous commitment given for
this proposal. In his opinion the site is uniquely buffered to the west by a large parking lot,
and is located adjacent to the City Centre and adjacent to parkland to the south. He also
pointed out that redevelopment of the property will contribute a functional section of the
Uptown Service Road in this location.
Mr. Diamond was also of the opinion that the proposed townhouse from of development
provides for an appropriate transition of density from the existing high density development in
the North York Centre to the stable low residential neighbourhood to the west. It would also
supplement the public parkland complement in the area.
In concluding he suggested that the Community Council hear the concerns of the ratepayers
and allow the public meeting on the rezoning application to proceed prior to the Ontario
Municipal hearing on this issue.
-Mr. D. Gregory Flude, who expressed his concerns with the current process. Since the
original Specific Development Policy and the current rezoning application are scheduled to be
heard by the Ontario Municipal Board in the near future, it is unnecessary, in his opinion, to
amend the Official Plan at this point in time. He further indicated that the Specific
Development Policy was the result of extensive deliberations by the City of North York
Council in and before 1993 when all parties had the opportunity to make their views known
and to have them fully canvassed. To seek to question the action of the City of North York
council after such a short time period, where there has been no material change in
circumstances is likely to bring the whole planning process into disrepute.
Mr. Flude further indicated that the Specific Development Policy makes good planning sense
when the unique circumstances of these properties are considered. At present the Uptown
boundary is a fence. It make no sense to establish a fence as the boundary when a natural
boundary has been defined by the existence of Edward the Confessor Church which severs the
block, cutting the east side from the west side. Feathering density trough a single family
residential development doe snot materially change the nature of the land use in the area while
ensuring that no one property bears the impact of a sudden change in density. In his opinion,
removing the Specific Development Policy would destabilize the residential area.
-Ms. Ronda Margolese, who indicated that she supported the deletion of the Specific Policy
from Official Plan Amendment No. 381 regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. In her opinion,
the development proposed for those lands would have a negative impact on the surrounding
community.
-Mr. Robert Weeks, who spoke in opposition to the development proposed for the lands on
Ellerslie Avenue. In his opinion, the proposal is not in conformity with the Uptown Plan, is
inappropriate and it would destabilize the area. He concluded by requesting that the boundary
in the Uptown Plan not be changed in order to accommodate this development.
-Ms. Carol Gold, who spoke in opposition to the rezoning application for 88 to 102 Ellerslie
Avenue. In her opinion, the proposal is precedent setting and goes against everything that the
Downtown and Uptown Plans stand for. While she would have not objection to the lands
being developed with infill housing, she did object to the proposed development.
-Ms. Sharolyn Vettese, on behalf of Yonge Street Area Ratepayers Associations, who spoke
in opposition to the Specific Policy in Official Plan No. 381 regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie
Avenue. In her opinion, this Policy should be deleted from the Plan because it goes against
everything that the residents have been working for in order to maintain a stable residential
area. Throughout the evolution of the North York Centre Secondary Plan, being the
Downtown and Uptown Plans, there have been two guiding principles. One being the
protection of the stable residential neighbourhood adjacent to the redevelopment area and the
other being the principle of ensuring that redevelopment did not take place outside the City
Centre boundary. The Specific Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie is an anomaly to the City's
established practice and policy.
Ms. Vettese requested that the Plan be adhered prior to matter being considered by the Ontario
Municipal Board. The Plan should be protected otherwise it would encourage ad hoc
development which in turn creates instability.
-Mr. Steve Mullins, President, Lansing Community Association, who informed the
Community Council that a motion was passed at the general meeting held by the Lansing
Community Association. that the Specific Policy regarding 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue be
removed from the Plan. The Association also had concerns with the rezoning application for
these lands.
-Ms. Amy Profenna, who spoke in opposition to the development proposed for the lands on
Ellerslie Avenue. Her primary objections were respect to increased traffic, the impact on
property values and quality of life. She also believed that a natural buffer zone was needed
between the high rise development in the City Centre and the existing residential area.
-Mrs. Anne Galilee, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Policy regarding 88 to 102
Ellerslie Avenue. She was concerned about the precedent setting nature of the development
proposed for these lands and enlarging the boundary of the Uptown Plan.
-Mr. John Windisman. who spoke in opposition to the Specific Policy regarding 88 to 102
Ellerslie Avenue. He was also concerned with the density of the townhouse development
proposed for these lands.
-Mr. Donald Gray, who expressed concern with the precedent setting nature of the
development proposed for the lands on Ellerslie Avenue. In his opinion, there is nothing
unique about the lands in question to warrant deviation from the Official Plan. He also
believed that if the lands municipally known as 78 Ellerslie Avenue are not part of the land
assembly, the requirement for the ring road cannot be satisfied.
-Ms. Marion Lick, on behalf of the Willowdale Central Ratepayers' Association; who spoke
in opposition to the Specific Development Policy for 88 to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. She also
explained the importance of preserving the stable residential communities and the tress
throughout the Uptown and Downtown Plan areas.
-Mr. William Bevelander, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Development Policy for 88
to 102 Ellerslie Avenue. He also indicated that he objected to suggestions made by the
Solicitor for the property owner of the lands in question because there is no mention of the
human factor. He concluded by stating that the stable residential area be maintained.
-Mr. Morry Smith, on behalf of the Lansing Community Association, who indicated that he
would like to see the City and staff supporting the position of the residents. He was also
concerned about the precedent setting nature of this proposal. In concluding he indicated that
he supported the protection of the stable residential area.
-Ms. Mary Ann Cross, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Development Policy for 88 to
102 Ellerslie Avenue and requested that it be deleted from the Plan. She further indicated that
she moved in this area to raise her family because of its quiet residential character. As such,
she would be opposed to any redevelopment in the area
-Ms. Mary Ann Cross also read a communication from Marilyn Bunker outlining Ms
Bunker's concerns with the Specific Development Policy relating to 88 to 102 Ellerslie
Avenue/
-Ms. Flude, who spoke outlined her reasons for supporting the Specific Development Policy
relating to the lands on Ellerslie Avenue.
-Ms. Neela Adamski, who spoke in opposition to the Specific Development Policy. She also
stated many of the residents who moved into this area because of its stable residential
character would eventually move elsewhere as a result of the negative impacts from
redevelopment.
-Ms. Viva Heaton, who spoke in opposition to the proposed development on Ellerslie
Avenue. Her primary concerns were with respect to increased traffic and precedent setting
nature of the application.
_______
A recorded vote on the recommendation was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Chong,
Filion and Minnan-Wong
AGAINST:Nil
ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Shiner and King
Carried
28
Zoning Study UD43-KIR - South Side of Kirby Road -
North York Humber
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the written submissions and
based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the
following report (June11, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York
Civic Centre, recommends that the lands fronting on the south side of Kirby Road,
shown on Schedule A of the aforementioned report, be rezoned from RM5 to R5.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on
September16, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning
Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (June 11, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend a zoning by-law amendment for the lots on the
south side of Kirby Road. On April 1, 1998 North York Community Council passed a motion
directing Planning staff to "prepare a report regarding the zoning on the south side of Kirby
Road, considering options to make the zoning on the south side of the street consistent with
the rest of the street".
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)The lands fronting on the south side of Kirby Road, shown on Schedule A, be rezoned
from RM5 to R5.
Background
Location:
The study area is north of Wilson Avenue, east of Highway 400, and west of Jane Street. This
area is in the Oakdale Acres neighbourhood. Within the block facing Wilson Avenue are three
and four storey apartment house dwellings zoned RM5 and designated RD-3 in the Official
Plan On the north side of Kirby Road, and extending north over most of the rest of Oakdale
Acres are single family dwellings zoned R5 and designated RD-1 in the Official Plan.
Along the outlying edges of this residential area is an industrial area (between Jethro Road
and Torbarrie Road next to Highway 400) and commercial (on the south side of Wilson, and
on the north side between Dallner Road and Jane Street is the Sheridan Mall).
History:
When By-law No. 7625 was passed in 1952, the two blocks between Wilson Avenue and
Kirby Road were zoned RM4. In 1953, as part of a by-law that made numerous text and site
specific amendments to By-law 7625, the two blocks were zoned RM5. The Official Plan
designated this area "one family dwellings" from 1947. Since 1967 the south side of Kirby has
been designated RD-1. The zoning of these two blocks is not in conformity with the Official
Plan.
On February 5, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment considered a variance application to
permit a semi-detached dwelling at 31 Kirby Road. The variances requested were not granted
by the Committee of Adjustment. The applicant has appealed the refusal to the Ontario
Municipal Board. The Ontario Municipal Board will begin a hearing on June 24, 1998 to
consider the appeal.
Stable Residential Neighbourhoods:
Section 4.1 of the Official Plan requires that there be policies to conserve, protect and enhance
stable residential neighbourhoods. For RD-1 lands, only limited intensification will be
considered. There is very little evidence of new replacement housing being built in this
residential community. It would appear that there have been numerous renovations and
additions made to the housing in the area. This area is appropriately described as a stable
residential neighbourhood.
Built Form Compatibility:
Comparing the potential size of new single family dwellings with the potential size of new
semi-detached dwellings, it can be shown that new semi-detached dwellings are slightly
higher (0.4 m), have longer dwelling widths (3.0 m), resulting in larger potential building
massing.
However, semi-detached dwellings built to current by-law standards are out of scale and
character with the existing housing stock. Development of these lands for semi-detached
dwellings would require either a land assembly or significant changes to the current standards
for semi-detached dwellings.
Attached as Schedule C is an analysis of the application of the Official Plan policies, and the
implications for built form compatibility in the study area.
Community Consultation:
A community meeting was held on June 10, 1998 with 21 people attending. Councillors Judy
Sgro and George Mammoliti also attended. The people who attended felt that new single
family dwellings would be more compatible with their existing homes than semi-detached
dwellings and duplexes. After discussing the potential size of new single family dwellings
built to the R5 standards and new semi-detached dwellings built to RM2 standards, they
showed a strong preference for an R5 zoning for the study area.
Conclusion:
The RM5 zoning of the study area is inappropriate, and not in conformity with the Official
Plan.
The RM2 zone permits semi-detached dwellings. The development of semi-detached
dwellings, in conformity with the RM2 standards, requires land assembly or a reduction of
current zoning standards. If such development is to be considered, it should be by rezoning.
The R5 zoning applies to the rest of the neighbourhood, which shares the built form and age
of the study area. It is the appropriate zoning for the study area.
Contact Name:
David J. Douglas
By-law Review
Phone: 395-7136
Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of the schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
_______
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it during the
consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication dated September 2, 1998, signed by 9
property owners on Kirby Road, requesting that Kirby Road be rezoned to R5.
No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter.
29
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-98-02 -
John Waldie - 860 York Mills Road -
Don Parkway
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on
the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report
(August6, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that
the application submitted by John Waldie regarding Official Plan and Zoning
Amendment Application for 860 York Mills Road, be approved.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on
September16, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning
Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 6, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to recommend Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to
permit an increase in the retail and service commercial component of a new one storey
commercial building.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1)Part D.13, Section 3 of the Official Plan (Business Parks Secondary Plan) be amended to
permit retail uses and personal service shops within a freestanding building on the lands
located at 860 York Mills Road.
(2)the MO(6) zone be amended, subject to the following:
i)schedule MO(6B) be amended to identify this site as Parcel 9;
ii)on Parcel 9, notwithstanding the uses permitted in the MO zone, a retail store or personal
service shop is permitted up to the lesser density of 0.5 FSI or a combined total gross floor
area of 5,000 m2;
iii)on Parcel 9 the minimum yard setbacks for the corner lot shall be as follows:
a)1.5m for the front yard setback;
b)1.5m for the side yard setback from the street lot line; and
c)3.0m for all other side yards;
iv)on Parcel 9 the minimum dimensions for a loading space shall be 9.0m long and 3.6m
wide;
(3)during site plan review the objectives set out in Appendix A shall be achieved; and
(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect hereto.
Background:
The applicant proposes to construct a one storey commercial building (see Schedule "C"). The
revised site statistics are set out below.
|
Revised Site Statistics |
| Site Area |
3,234 m2 |
| Restaurant Uses
Retail Uses
TOTAL Gross Floor Area |
" 418 m2
" 274 m2
" 692 m2 |
| Floor Space Index |
0.21 |
| Parking Spaces |
60 spaces |
Site Location:
The site is located at the northeast corner of York Mills Road and Lesmill Road and is
currently occupied by a gasoline station. A car wash facility is located to the east of the
property and a dry cleaning establishment to the north. Across Lesmill Road there is a vacant
office/industrial building. Employment uses are found along both streets.
Official Plan:
The site is part of the Wrentham Estates Business Park. Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 443
designates the site Industrial (IND) (Schedule "A"). Retail and service commercial uses in the
Business Park are limited to 20 percent of the gross ground floor area (or largest floor) of a
building. The applicant proposes to increase the proportion to 75 percent retail uses, thereby
requiring an amendment to the Official Plan.
Zoning By-law:
The property is zoned Office Industrial Exception Zone (MO(6)) by Zoning By-law No. 7625,
permitting mainly employment uses (Schedule "B"). The zoning of the property implements
the restrictions of the Official Plan for retail uses. An amendment to the Zoning By-law is
required to permit the proposed increase in retail use and to accommodate the siting of the
building through site-specific setback and loading provisions.
Department Comments:
Department comments are attached in Schedules "E" to "G" and include the following
pertinent requirements:
The Transportation Department indicates that 60 parking spaces are required along with one
loading space. A number of site plan issues have also been identified (Schedule "E").
The Works and Emergency Services Department indicate that a 1.5 metre widening will be
required along the entire Lesmill Road frontage. Given the potential for soil contamination a
Phase II Peer Review has been requested as outlined in Schedule "F".
Community Consultation:
In consultation with the local Councillors, the business community within 120 m of the
property was contacted by mail to provide area businesses with a convenient forum to
comment on the proposal (Schedule "D"). A letter explaining the details of the proposed
development was mailed out on May29, 1998. The proposal generated two inquiries from
nearby land owners. The first inquiry was for more information on the proposal and included
a discussion of the development potential of a nearby property. The second inquiry raised the
following comments:(a)the need for block development of this site together with neighbouring properties to
articulate the entrance to the Business Park;
(b)not to preclude future access for abutting properties to Lesmill Road; and
(c)the need for a soils study at this stage to identify potential migration of contaminants onto
neighbouring properties and assign responsibility for cleanup of such contamination to the
property owner.
The creation of a gateway to the Business Park was identified as an important issue in the
Preliminary Evaluation Report. The applicant has revised the proposal to ensure that the
building is located close to the corner allowing for appropriate landscaping and building
articulation to be achieved through the site plan approval process. Block development is not
contemplated by the Business Park Secondary Plan and the creation of a gateway can be
achieved on this site through appropriate urban design criteria employed during the site
planning stage. In addition, existing access arrangements for abutting properties are not
impacted by this redevelopment.
With respect to soil conditions, the applicant has entered into an Agreement of Purchase and
Sale with Shell Canada conditional upon satisfactory cleanup of the site. The Agreement
provides the applicant with limited opportunities for soil testing at present. However, a
comprehensive analysis will be undertaken when the existing gas station tenant leaves and
gasoline tank removal is initiated.
As part of site plan approval, the applicant shall be required to submit any necessary studies
which demonstrate that the site and any abutting city-owned lands or easements can be
remediated to accommodate the intended use. The studies will identify any migration of
contamination off-site which may require further action by the Ministry of Environment. The
reports will be subject to a peer review and a record of site condition will be required prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Discussion:
Land Use and Zoning
The property is located on a major arterial road (York Mills Road) and is in a good location
on the edge of the Business Park to provide a range of retail and service commercial uses. In
principle, the proposal meets the intent of OPA 443 by providing commercial uses along the
major arterial road which are supportive of and compatible with the surrounding employment
uses of the Business Park. A similar application was approved for increased retail uses in the
area on the south side of York Mills Road and limited retail uses are permitted on the north
west corner of York Mills Road and Lesmill Road. The amended MO zone will ensure that
the technical requirements of the zoning by-law are met to protect and promote the prestige
nature of the Business Park.
In keeping with the zoning regulations applicable to other industrial arterial road frontage sites
an increased range of retail and service commercial uses is recommended at a maximum
density of, the lesser of, 0.5 FSI or 5,000 mē.
Urban Design
The intersection of York Mills Road and Lesmill Road serves as the south entrance into the
Business Park. Currently there are vacant buildings and under-utilized properties within the
immediate area. The proposed development will facilitate the articulation of this important
intersection and serve to enhance the general appearance of the area. The proposed setbacks
will allow for a street-related building, sufficient landscaping along the street frontages and
buffering from abutting properties. Parking and loading facilities will be situated to the rear
and side of the proposed building. Landscaping, building facade, parking lot design and
loading space configuration will be reviewed in detail at the site planning stage.
Conclusions:
The proposed building having increased retail and service commercial uses meets the general
land use principles of OPA 443. The proposed development will serve as an improvement to
this important intersection and provide a fitting entrance into Business Park. The new
development will provide increased amenities to the businesses within the area. The amended
MO(6) zoning will ensure the preservation of the prestige nature of the industrial park.
(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
_______
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication
(September1, 1998) from Mr. Derek E. Kaye, on behalf of the owners of Don Mills Car Wash,
advising of their concerns with the proposed application.
Ms. Linda Kaye, on behalf of the owners of Don Mills Car Wash, appeared before the North
York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and she outlined her
concerns with the application. During her submission she indicated that gasoline station sites
are known for soil contamination and possible migration of contaminants onto adjacent sites.
Since there is no requirement for an environmental study or a soil investigation report until
the site plan approval stage, there is no indication whether the site can be developed for the
uses contemplated by the applicant. She accordingly requested that the Community Council
consider the soils study prior to any rezoning approval because the ultimate development of
this site could have a negative impact on adjacent lands in terms of future redevelopment.
30
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-11 -
The Park Avenues of North York -
134 to 140 Finch Avenue West, 11 and 15 Carney Road and
the Rear of 16 to 18 Altamont Road - North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on
the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report
(June 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre,
and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that
the application submitted by The Park Avenues of North York regarding Official Plan
and Zoning Amendment Application for 134 to 140 Finch Avenue West, 11 and 15
Carney Road and the rear of 16 to 18 Altamont Road, be approved as set out in the
following report (June 10, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning and subject
to:
(1)construction access to the development being from Finch Avenue West; and
(2)the parkland be constructed as soon as possible.
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested
the Director, Community Planning, North District, to review the concerns expressed by Mr.
G. Belza on behalf of the community in order to make the necessary technical adjustments,
prior to the enactment of the by-law and to consult with the community with respect to the
design of the proposed park.
The North York Community Council also reports having held a statutory public meeting on
September 16, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning
Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from
the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
This is a recommendation report on an application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law to permit a residential development comprised of 148 condominium stacked
townhouse units. A 0.43 acre public park is also proposed on Carney Road next to the
development.
This application represents a significant redevelopment within the Central Finch West
Secondary Plan. It proposes a low rise residential condominium development in a concept
which is premised on a series of grade related dwelling units, focused on an interior atrium
space, larger than usual suites, and the creation of a new park space on Carney Road.
There are a number of municipal interests which this report will address. Among these:
(a)the arrangement of the site depends upon an exchange of lands between the applicant and
the city to consolidate an existing municipal lot with additional lands suitable to develop a
small park with frontage on Carney Road;
(b)the alignment of the access/egress for the proposal with the existing alignments of
Edithvale Drive south of Finch Avenue West and the installation of a signalized intersection
at this location; and
(c)the provision of public works improvements with an estimated cost of $91,000.00
including the construction of a storm inlet structure as part of an overall stormwater
management plan.
Since the development application rests on the Community Council considerations of land use
it is recommended that this be settled before the matter of any municipal land exchange be
considered at the Corporate Services Committee. Both requests, however, should be
considered at the same time when the matter comes before Council for approval.
The report also gives the applicant direction on urban design objectives to be achieved, all of
which should be reflected in a revised conceptual site plan prior to the statutory public
meeting at Community Council. It is important that the development proposal work within the
context of the Central Finch Secondary Plan, relate well to the Finch Avenue West streetscape
and to the abutting stable residential areas. Within the organization of the site there is an
opportunity to maintain the new development concept and realize its full development
potential with improvements to the internal ordering of the site such as site circulation for
pedestrians, service and private vehicles, amount of open space and distance between
buildings.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)lands described as Parts 1, 2 and 3 on Schedule "F" be redesignated from RD1 to LOS;
prior to the adoption of an amendment to the Official Plan and the enactment of a zoning
by-law the following matters be addressed:
(a)the lands shown on Schedule "F" be described in a plan of survey reference satisfactory to
the Acting Commissioner of Planning and the City Solicitor;
(b)Part 1 be retained in municipal ownership;
(c)Parts 2 and Part 3 shown on Schedule "F" be conveyed to the City for parkland purposes
with terms satisfactory to the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation;
(d)prior to Council consideration of this application, the Property Section of the Finance
Department report to the Corporate Services Committee on the conveyance of the City owned
lands shown as Part 4 on Schedule "F" to the applicant in exchange for those lands within Part
3 which represent more than the required 5 percent parkland dedication that the applicant is
prepared to convey to the City for parkland purposes; and
(e)Parts 5 and 6 are to be retained by the applicant as part of their development site;
(2)the zoning for the subject site be amended to Multiple-family Dwelling First Density Zone
(RM1) with the following exceptions:
(a)for the purpose of this exception, "Multiple Attached Dwelling" shall mean a building
consisting of a series of one family dwelling units where each unit has access from an internal
corridor or access from the outside, or any combination thereof;
(b)subject to technical changes which may occur at Site Plan Approval, the Minimum Yards
shall be as shown on Schedule "C";
(c)Gross Floor Area
(i)a maximum gross floor area of 8,039.16 mē shall be permitted on the lands shown as Part
A on Schedule "G" designated Central Finch Mixed Use 1; and
(ii)a maximum gross floor area of 9,679.39 mē shall be permitted on the lands shown as Part
B on Schedule "G" designated Central Finch Residential 2;
(d)parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the following:
1.75 spaces per unit, of which a maximum of 11 spaces may be surface parking designated for
visitors. All parking may be permitted below grade;
(e)Maximum Building Height:
(i)13.0m and 4 storeys on the area shown as Part A on Schedule "E";
(ii)10.0m and 3 storeys on the area shown as Part B on Schedule "E"; and
(iii)in no case shall the height of any portion of a building (except accessory structures)
exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance separating the building from the nearest
residential property line that coincides with the boundaries of the Central Finch Secondary
plan;
(f)a maximum of 148 units is permitted with an minimum average unit size of 100 m2;
(g)based upon the revised drawings, Council shall be satisfied that the City's affordable
housing policies will be met and Council may in the by-law require a minimum of 25 percent
of the number of units provided shall have a maximum floor area of 70 mē for a one bedroom
unit, 80mē for a two bedroom unit, and 120m2 for a three bedroom unit; and
(h)the RM1 provisions of Lot Area, Street Frontage, Lot Coverage, Floor Area and Distance
Between Buildings may be regulated through the zoning by-law or addressed by the site plan;
(3)the zoning for the proposed park be amended to Open Space (O1).
(4)staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of
any zoning by-law the following conditions have been satisfied:
(a)the conditions of the Transportation Department attached as Schedule "H";
(b)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department attached as Schedule
"I"; and
(c)the conditions of Parks and Recreation attached as Schedule "J";
(5)prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law, the Acting Commissioner of Planning shall
have granted site plan approval which shall achieve the objectives outlined in Appendix "A";
these shall be reported upon further at the time of the public meeting;
(6)in accordance with Council policy, the Owner shall execute an agreement of undertaking
that the project will proceed to Condominium approval; and
(7)the agreements which apply to the lands on Schedule "E", dated December 1, 1961 and
October 14, 1964 between Beatrice and Harry Bentley and the former City of North York
(Instrument Nos. 376624 and 444371), attached as Schedule "K", be released by the City.
These agreements at present require that lands which now form a portion of the development
site, and which previously were landlocked, proceed to development only through a plan of
subdivision. Since these lands now form part of a larger consolidated assembly, with frontage
on Finch Avenue West, they can be developed through rezoning and a condominium
description.
Background
1.0Location and Existing Site:
The site is located on the north side of Finch Avenue West between Carney Road and
Altamont Road. Generally, the site is surrounded by single family dwellings. However, east of
the site on the east side of Altamont Road is an existing residential 3 and 4 storey stacked
townhouse development.
Immediately to the west of the site at 142 Finch Avenue West there is a proposed zoning
amendment application by Crown Tech to permit a dental laboratory (UDZ-97-14) (Refer to
Schedule "B"). That proposal is currently in the circulation stage of the planning review. On
the west side of Carney Road there are single family dwellings and a privately owned vacant
parcel of land.
2.0Proposal:
The proposal is for a 148 unit, 3 and 4 storey stacked condominium townhouse development.
An 8.5m wide internal driveway runs through the site from the east side lot line across to the
west side lot line and down to Finch Avenue West to a proposed signalized intersection. The
internal driveway will be aligned with Edithvale Drive. The access to the underground
parking is located at the northeast corner of the site. The garbage pick up area is situated next
to the parking ramp. Parking is provided below grade, except for 14 visitor spaces which are
proposed to be located at the surface, along the sides of the internal driveway.
The proposal is summarized in the table below.
| PARTICULAR |
PROPOSAL |
| Site Area |
13,698.49mē (3.38 acres) |
| Gross Floor Area |
17,225.65mē (185,421.42ftē) |
| Floor Space Index |
1.28 (over entire site)
0.99 (on CFR-2 lands)
1.96 (on CFMU-1 lands) |
| Units |
148 (41 units per acre) |
| Private Driveway Width |
8.5m |
| Parking |
Residents require approx. 259 spaces
providing 310 spaces
Visitorsrequire 37 spaces
providing 14 surface spaces
23 underground spaces |
The proposed site plan is shown on Schedule "C".
The applicant has increased the size of their original development site which consisted only of
a landlock parcel of land shown on Schedule "E" attached, by acquiring lands along Finch
Avenue West. The additional lands provide the necessary frontage on and access to the site
from an arterial road.
There are two agreements on title that date back to the early 1960's which apply to the portion
of the site shown on Schedule "E ". The agreements state that the said lands may only be
developed as part of a plan of subdivision (Refer to Schedule K). As these lands are being
included as part of a comprehensive development the agreements can be released from title.
3.0Planning Controls:
3.1Official Plan and Zoning:
The site is located within the Central Finch Area Secondary Plan. The southerly third of the
site fronting onto Finch Avenue West, is designated Central Finch Mixed Use 1 (CFMU-1).
The balance of the site is designated Central Finch Residential Two (CFR-2). Specific policies
relating to the Central Finch Plan that apply to the site are outlined in Appendix "B". The
entire site is zoned R4 (One-family Detached Dwelling Zone).
For the Official Plan designations and zoning for the site and the surrounding area, refer to
Schedules "A" and "B" attached.
4.0Other Department Comments:
A summary of the relevant comments received from the circulated departments and agencies
is outlined below.
The Transportation Department has advised that the proposed development requires a
signalized intersection at Edithvale Drive. The internal driveway on the site is to be aligned
with Edithvale Drive. A Traffic study prepared by BA Consulting dated May 1998, supports
the proposed signalized intersection. The cost for constructing the proposed signalized
intersection is to be paid for by the applicant. The Transportation Department further advises
that three surface visitor parking spaces shown as numbers 1, 2 and 3 on Schedule "C" be
deleted as they are located too close to the proposed signalized intersection. The
Transportation Department requires an easement agreement with the applicant and the owners
of the properties to the west (142 Finch Avenue West and 7 Carney Road) to allow them to
have access to the proposed signalized intersection on Finch Avenue West (Refer to Schedule
"H").
The Parks and Recreation Department advises that as the City owns a 20m wide parcel of land
on Carney Road which is shown as Parcels 1 and 4 on Schedule "F". The applicant is
conveying to the City the bulk of 11 and 15 Carney Road which is shown as Parts 2 and 3 on
Schedule "F", for the statutory parkland dedication requirement. The amount of land being
conveyed by the applicant exceeds the statutory requirement. The Parks and Recreation
Department has suggested that the City convey the eastern portion of the municipal lands on
Carney Road, which is shown as Part 4 on Schedule "F' to the applicant in exchange for the
additional lands. The amount of land to be exchanged is approximately 290 mē in area (Refer
to Schedule "I").
The Works and Emergency Services Department reports that the stormwater management
report submitted by the applicant's Engineering consultant provides an acceptable strategy for
controlling the storm water runoff from the site. Details relating to refuse collection will form
part of the site plan review (Refer to Schedule "J").
5.0Public Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was held on February 18, 1998 attended by approximately
50 people (Refer to Schedule "L"). The key issues that arose from the meeting were:
(a)improving the safety for pedestrians crossing this section of Finch Avenue West;
(b)the existing high levels of traffic infiltrating through the area;
(c)parking of construction workers on local streets during construction;
(d)how the applicant proposes to manage the storm water on site without adversely impacting
the neighbouring properties; and
(e)providing sufficient parking on site.
The proposed signalized intersection at Edithvale Drive and Finch Avenue West will help in
making it safer for people crossing this section of Finch Avenue West.
The only vehicular access to the site will be from Finch Avenue West. Traffic from this site
will not be expected to infiltrate through the abutting residential area.
Provided that there is an agreement between the applicant and the Parks and Recreation
Department, construction workers will be able to park on the proposed parkland rather than on
Carney Road during the construction period.
Storm water will be managed on site through the use of an underground retention tank. The
storm water will be collected through the use of catchbasins on site which will lead to the
retention tank. The storm water will then be released at intervals into the storm water trunk
sewer along Finch Avenue West.
With respect to the issue of parking, the applicant is proposing to provide more parking than
is required under the Zoning By-law.
6.0Planning Issues:
6.1Land Use:
The applicant's proposal for a residential only development with stacked townhouse units
conforms to the Central Finch Secondary Plan. The proposed stacked townhouse development
is in context with the developments that have been approved along Finch Avenue West, in
particular the existing development to the east at the northeast corner of Finch Avenue West
and Altamont Road.
6.2Official Plan Amendment
An Official Plan amendment is recommended for the proposed park on Carney Road which
would appropriately redesignate the lands from Residential Density One to Local Open Space.
The Official Plan under Section 1.3.1 states that "minor adjustments to boundaries between
land use designations shall not require an amendment to the Official Plan." After the
redesignation of the proposed parkland from RD1 to LOS, there will be a small portion of
land designated RD1 that is shown as Parts 4, 5 and 6 on Schedule "F", that will remain. A
minor adjustment to the CFR-2 boundary is appropriate to include these lands. The lands
included are now all internal to the site. The new park now becomes the boundary of the Plan
along the west side of the development lands. The density attributed to these lands is nominal.
As these lands are adjacent to the proposed public park they will have a minimal impact on
the surrounding residential lands.
6.3Urban Design
The proposed residential development is contained within three buildings that are laid out on
the site in a row going north from Finch Avenue. The proposed building fronting on Finch
Avenue West provides an opportunity for strong streetscape presence.
There are a number of urban design issues with the proposed site plan that need to be
addressed more fully, such as the location of garbage and recycling facilities, opportunities to
increase amenity space throughout the project, layout and width of the internal driveway(s),
grade related units which complement the various street frontage(s), distance between
buildings, and the size of the building foot prints particularly Building 'A' on the Finch
Avenue W frontage. A list of urban design objectives outlined on Appendix "A" have been
established to assist the applicant in revising their site plan.
It is important that the proposed site plan satisfy the urban design objectives outlined on
Appendix"A" and be available to the public at the statutory public meeting.
The enacting by-law can be implemented after the applicant has received site plan approval.
The site plan process will allow for the review of the submission in further detail with respect
to urban design issues and will allow for refinement of the zoning by-law.
6.4Public Park
A 0.43 acre public park is also proposed as part of this development. The amount of land to be
conveyed by the applicant to the City for parkland, based upon the net site exclusive of any
lands to be conveyed to the City, exceeds the 5 percent statutory requirement by
approximately 2.5 percent. In exchange for the additional land, the Parks and Recreation
Department has recommended that the eastern portion of the municipal lands on Carney Road
( Shown as Part 4 on Schedule "F") be conveyed to the applicant to be included in the
development proposal. In exchange for the City owned lands, the applicant will convey lands
that have frontage on Carney Road. The proposed land exchange will be reported upon to
Council through the Corporate Services Committee. In terms of timing, it is important that the
Community Council's recommendations on the official plan and zoning amendment proceed
to Council concurrently with and those of the Corporate Services Committee's on the land
exchange.
All of the proposed parkland should be redesignated from Residential Density One to Local
Open Space and rezoned from R4 to O1 (Open Space Zone) to appropriately reflect the
change in use.
6.5Parking
The applicant's proposal at 148 units would require a total of 259 parking spaces, based upon
the Zoning By-law's minimum requirement of 1.75 spaces per unit for multiple attached units.
The applicant is providing a total of 307 spaces, 296 in the underground garage and 11 surface
spaces on the side of the internal driveway. The Transportation Department indicates that
minor changes will need to be made to the below grade parking arrangement to separate the
required visitor parking area from the residents' parking area. Revisions to the plans to
address this concern and the urban design issues may impact on the overall level of parking.
This will be reported on further at the time of the public meeting.
6.6Ingress and Egress
Ingress and egress to the site will be off Finch Avenue West at a proposed signalized
intersection. The internal driveway is proposed to be aligned with Edithvale Drive. The
proposed signalized intersection should improve the level of safety for pedestrians crossing
this section of Finch Avenue West while making it easier for vehicular traffic entering and
leaving the site.
Conclusions:
This proposal for a 148 unit, 3 and 4 storey stacked townhouse development is an appropriate
development for this site and conforms to the Central Finch Secondary Plan.
The proposed signalized intersection at Edithvale Drive will improve the level of safety for
pedestrians crossing this section of Finch Avenue West while making it easier for residents
entering and leaving the proposed development site.
Council needs to approve the proposed land exchanged prior to amending the Official Plan or
zoning by-law.
It is important that the applicant submit a revised site plan that incorporates the urban design
objectives outlined on Appendix "A" to assist the public at the time of the statutory public
meeting.
An RM1 exception zoning with provisions for setbacks, building height, gross floor area,
parking, unit count and affordable housing is recommended.
Contact Name:
Randy Jones, Planner
Phone: 395-7137
Fax: 395-7155
(A copy of the Schedules, Appendices, draft official plan amendment and draft zoning by-law
amendment referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North
York Civic Centre.)
_______
A staff presentation was made by Randy Jones, Planner, City Planning Division, North
District.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. George Belza, on behalf of the property owners of Carney Road and other property
owners in the area. During his submission he stated that the residents generally concur with
the recommendations in the staff report but had some specific concerns with those
recommendations dealing with the parkland, the gross floor area, parking and the RM1
provisions of Lot Area, Street Frontage, Lot Coverage, Floor Area and Distance between
buildings. With respect to Recommendation 1 (d), the residents would like the park to be built
by the City and the existing dwellings demolished. The park should also be a "passive" park.
With respect to Recommendation 2 (c)(i) and (ii) and Recommendation 2(d), the figures
should be corrected to reflect the figures in the Draft Zoning By-law. Insofar as
Recommendation 2 (h) was concerned, he was of the opinion that it should be expanded to
include a statement that planning staff be directed to meet with the residents in order to
resolve these issues during the site plan review stage. Such matters as screening and drainage
are site plan issues which have not been evaluated and should also be discussed at a
community meeting prior to the enactment of the by-law. He also requested that construction
access be off Finch Avenue.
-Ms. Elaine Berg, who expressed concern with the traffic congestion in the area.
-Mr. John Hofbauer, who expressed concern with the boundary of the Central Finch West
Secondary Plan being adjusted in order to accommodate this development.
-Mr. William Missios, who expressed concern with the proposed development.
-Ms. Nancy Singer, Planning Consultant, on behalf of the applicant, who commented on the
merits of the application. She also indicated that a number of discussions have been held with
planning and other city staff in order to address their concerns as well as those expressed by
the community. However, the applicant would be willing to meet with the community once
again in order to discuss the issues raised, prior to the enactment of the amending by-law.
Screening and privacy are site plan issues and would be addressed during the site plan review
stage.
31
Zoning Amendment Application and Draft Plan of
Subdivision Application UDZ-97-43 and UDSB-1237 -
295151 Ontario Limited - 65, 69, 71, 75, 81 and 83 Drewry Avenue
and 53, 55 and 57 Fairchild Avenue - North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on
the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report
(August27, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the
reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the
application submitted by 295151 Ontario Limited regarding Zoning Amendment
Application and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application for 65, 69, 71, 75, 81 and 83
Drewry Avenue and 53, 55 and 57 Fairchild Avenue, be approved.
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested
the Director, Community Planning, North District, to respond to the traffic concerns raised by
the Silverview Homeowners Association in their submission dated September 16, 1998.
The North York Community Council also reports having held a statutory public meeting on
September 16, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning
Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 27, 1998)
from the Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
This report recommends approval of an application to permit the residential development of
the lands with thirty-two (32) townhouse units on a new public road and five (5) one family
detached dwellings fronting Fairchild Avenue.
Financial Implications:
All financial requirements will be secured through the execution of a subdivision agreement.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the application for plan of subdivision of 65, 69, 71, 75, and 81 Drewry Avenue and 53, 55
and 57 Fairchild Avenue be draft approved, subject to the conditions in Appendix "C";
(2)the zoning be amended in accordance with an implementing zoning by-law which
generally complies with the draft by-law attached as Schedule "G" and the by-law be
perfected prior to enactment;
(3)prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law, site plan approval be granted generally in
accordance with the conditions described in Appendix "B"; and
(4)staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of
any zoning by-law, the following condition has been satisfied:
(i)the Owner has paid to the City in cash or certified cheque, the Yonge Centre Development
Charges in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time.
Background:
1.0 Proposal
The applicant proposes a new street connected to Drewry Avenue with a total of 32
townhouse units. Five one family detached dwellings are also proposed with frontage onto
Fairchild Avenue and with a parkland conveyance at the southern end of the site. The
pertinent statistics are listed below:
|
Townhouses |
Single Detached |
Total |
| Site Area |
|
|
7,343 mē |
| Gross Floor Area |
4,957 mē |
883 mē |
5,840 mē |
| FSI |
|
|
0.8 |
| Dwelling Units |
32 |
5 |
37 |
| Lot Frontage/Unit |
4.89 m (16 feet) |
8.23 m (27 feet) |
|
| Height |
3 storeys |
2 ― storeys |
|
| Parking Proposed |
64 spaces (1 garage
plus 1 driveway
space/unit) |
20 spaces (2
garage spaces plus
2 driveway
spaces/unit |
84 spaces |
2.0Location and Existing Site
The site is located on the south side of Drewry Avenue and on the east side of Fairchild
Avenue. Five one family detached dwellings fronting Drewry Avenue and three one family
detached dwellings fronting Fairchild Avenue currently occupy the site. There are three one
family detached dwellings east of the site. A 6 storey 55 unit residential apartment building
has been approved at 43 Drewry Avenue. One family detached dwellings are to the south of
the site. The corner lot known municipally as 85 Drewry Avenue is also occupied by a single
family home. The applicant has an interest in the house at 83 Drewry Avenue, but has not
included it in this development application.
3.0Planning Controls:
3.1Official Plan:
The site is designated Uptown Residential Density Two (UR2) which permits residential uses.
A density of 1.5 FSI has been assigned to the site with a height limit of 18 m on most of the
townhouse portion and a height limit of 11 m on the single family house portion.
3.2Zoning:
The site is currently zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone (R4) which
permits one family detached dwellings.
3.3Site Plan
The Site Plan approval process is required by Council to proceed concurrently with the
rezoning process for the City Centre development applications. The applicant submitted a site
plan application which has been processed with the rezoning application and has provided
detailed drawings to enable evaluation of the application in the context of the environment
and urban design objectives of OPA447. The approval of site plans has been delegated and
approval can be granted upon Community Council consideration of this report. Urban design
considerations are outlined in Appendix "A" and the recommended conditions of Site Plan
approval are listed in Appendix "B".
4.0Other Department Comments:
The Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that a reduced right-of-way of
18.5 m and a turning radius in the cul-de-sac of 15.25 m is acceptable provided letters of
approval are received from Bell Canada, Consumers' Gas, Rogers Cablesystems and Toronto
Hydro. A stormwater management plan is also required to be submitted by the applicant's
consulting engineers for City approval. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".
The Parks and Recreation Division has indicated that land rather than cash-in-lieu of parkland
is required as the City Centre residential community has a parkland deficit. The applicant has
included a park land dedication in their plan. Their comments are attached as Schedule "I".
The Public Health Division has indicated that they have no outstanding Public Health
requirements pertaining to soils on the site. Their comments are attached as Schedule "J".
The Fire Department has indicated that water supply must be within 90 metres of the
buildings. Their comments are attached as Schedule "K".
The Transportation Division has indicated that the proposed development will not generate
significant traffic and concur with the findings of the traffic impact study submitted by the
applicant. Their comments are attached as Schedule "L".
5.0Community Consultation:
A community consultation meeting was held on June 25, 1998. A number of issues were
raised by the residents:
- the new park is not needed;
- the size of the single family detached lots on Fairchild Avenue is small;
- there have been basement flooding problems in the area; and
- traffic congestion on Drewry Avenue needs to be assessed.
Each of these issues is addressed in this report in the appropriate section.
Discussion:
6.0Planning Issues:
6.1Land Use:
The proposed residential townhouses and detached dwellings conform with the permitted uses
of the Official Plan designation on this site. In order to achieve street related townhouses, the
applicant submitted a plan of subdivision application containing a new street connected to
Drewry Avenue. This new street also provides a finer grain road grid pattern promoted by the
Plan. The plan of subdivision is illustrated in Schedule "E". This plan of subdivision also
includes the creation of new one family detached dwelling lots fronting Fairchild Avenue. The
provision of a similar built form next to the stable residential neighbourhood to the west
allows for an appropriate interface between the North York Centre lands and the adjoining
residential neighbourhood as intended by the Plan. Park land has also been provided at the
south end of the proposal in accordance with Official Plan policies.
In order to achieve an appropriate subdivision of lands on Fairchild Avenue, it is
recommended that the plan of subdivision be revised so that all of the proposed lots fronting
Fairchild Avenue have a similar lot frontage of 8.2 m and the rear portion of lot 5 which the
applicant had proposed be reserved as a future development block be included as part of the
park land conveyance as illustrated in Schedule "E1". The resulting lot widths of 8.2 m are
wider than the original proposal presented at the community consultation meeting of 6.8 m
which responds to the community consultation concerns regarding lot size.
6.2Density
The maximum density assigned to this site, exclusive of incentives and transfers, is 1.5 FSI.
The proposed development is below this maximum at a proposed density of 0.8 FSI and a net
FSI of 1.0 excluding the new road allowance. This development does not maximize the
density potential, but it does provide an appropriate housing form compatible with the stable
residential neighbourhood to the west of the site.
6.3Comprehensive Development
The applicant has added a number of properties to the original application that was submitted
in the fall of 1997 in order to achieve a more comprehensive development proposal. The
original proposal was for 15 townhouses on part of a new street intersecting Drewry Avenue.
The applicant has since added property to achieve a full road allowance with townhouses on
both sides and single family lots and park space with access to Fairchild Avenue.
The broader block from Fairchild to the future Uptown Service Road location and from
Drewry Avenue to Inez Court has also been examined conceptually to determine how the
larger block could develop. The block concept plan is illustrated in Schedule "F". This
concept includes the division of the larger block by an extension of the new street which
creates a finer grain road grid system. This in turn creates smaller development parcels on the
balance of the block.
Under this concept, the proposed new street intersecting Drewry Avenue would eventually
connect with Inez Court. Inez Court will no longer have access onto Fairchild Avenue once
the Service Road is constructed. Townhouses could continue south of the proposal on this
new street. This is an appropriate built form near the stable residential neighbourhood to the
west, but does not maximize the density allowed by the plan. The sites to the east of the site
have the potential to utilize their density more fully and include the density attributable to the
service road with mid-size residential apartment buildings. The property at the corner of
Fairchild Avenue and Drewry Avenue has the potential to be developed in the future with low
density housing such as small lot single family homes as proposed by this applicant.
The assumptions used to develop this concept are outlined on Appendix "E". Different
assumptions of land assemblies, distribution of density or built form could produce a different
scenario. This is for illustrative purposes only.
6.4Infrastructure
6.4.1Traffic and Parking
The proposed development generally is composed of two parts which are not reliant upon
each other in order to function from an access or built form perspective. The detached single
family homes fronting onto Fairchild Avenue will have access from Fairchild Avenue and
will not generate a significant amount of vehicular traffic. The townhouses will be accessed
from the new proposed road and will have no direct connection to Fairchild Avenue. Both
parts of this application generate an insignificant amount of traffic with a minimal impact to
the surrounding roadway network. This proposal does not generate a significant increase of
traffic on Drewry Avenue. This development is not dependant on the service road.
The applicant has proposed parking be provided for each townhouse unit in single car garages
and driveways associated with each individual unit. This will provide 2 spaces per unit. The
lots at the southern end of the proposed road next to the cul-de-sac will require an
encroachment agreement with the City to permit parking on the driveway within the road
allowance. This encroachment will not be required once the proposed street is extended
through to Inez Court since the cul-de-sac would be removed in favour of a 18.5 m wide road
allowance. Parking for the single family homes will be provided in double car garages and
driveways at grade on each individual lot.
6.4.2Sewers
The new development is required to provide a new sanitary sewer which is oversized and
more than adequate. Basement flooding that has occurred in the area during wet weather will
not increase due to the new development and should decrease due to the extra capacity
provided in the new oversized sanitary sewer and storm water management plans.
A stormwater management plan is required to be provided by the owner's consulting
engineers in order in ensure that there are no storm water flows originating from the
development onto adjacent properties and that stormwater is managed in an appropriate
manner.
6.5Parkland
The Official Plan recognizes that additional parkland and open space areas are needed to serve
residential growth in the North York Centre. The applicant has included a parcel for parkland
in the proposal fronting on Fairchild Avenue. When Inez Court is closed at Fairchild Avenue
with construction of the service road, this closed road allowance can be made available for
additional park if Council desires. The proposed park land conveyance helps achieve the
consolidation of park land in this area as shown in the concept plan in Schedule "F".
Conclusions:
This residential development is appropriate. It provides an appropriate interface between the
stable residential neighbourhood to the west and the Uptown development area. It also
provides the opportunity to create a fine grain road grid pattern leaving parcels which are
likely to be developed.
Contact Name:
Karen Whitney; Tel.: 395-7109
(A copy of Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office
of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
_______
A staff presentation was made by Karen Whitney, Planner, City Planning Division, North
District.
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it during the
consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:
(i)(September 1, 1998) from Karl and Miriam Knavery, advising of their opposition to the
application;
(ii)(September 8, 1998) from Mr. Glen Rowatt, in support of the application;
(iii)(September 9, 1998) from Mr. John Limeina, advising of his concerns with the
application;
(iv)(undated) from L. Lehman, advising of her concerns with the application;
(v)(September 16, 1998) from Mr. William West, President, Silverview Homeowners'
Association, outlining the Association's concerns with respect to the traffic situation in the
Cummer/Drewry/Yonge Street area; and
(vi)(undated) from Joe Martin, outlining his support for the proposal.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter:
-Mr. Dominic Campione, who commented in opposition to the application. His primary
concerns were with respect to increased traffic congestion and basement flooding in the area.
-Mr. Joseph Porco, who outlined his concerns with the proposal and in particular, the traffic
congestion on Drewry Avenue. In his opinion, the traffic congestion in the area should be
assessed and measures should be taken to alleviate the situation.
-Mr. Frank Reiss, on behalf of the applicant, who addressed the concerns raised. During his
submission he indicated that a traffic impact study has been conducted by a transportation
consultant, which study concludes that the development would generate a small amount of
traffic with minimal impact to the surrounding roadway network. After reviewing this study,
the Transportation Division has indicated that it concurs with this finding. Insofar as drainage
was concerned, he indicated that drainage will be directed in such a manner to ensure that no
drainage problems are created on adjacent lands. In addition, the new dwellings would be
connected to the storm sewer and not the sanitary sewer as is the case with many of the
dwellings in the area and which may be causing the flooding problems.
Mr. Reiss concluded by stating that he concurred with the recommendations outlined in the
staff report.
-Mr. Goldthorpe, who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary objections were
respect to drainage; increased traffic and density.
-Mr. Glen Rowatt, on behalf of the property owner of 65 Drewry Avenue, who spoke in
support of the application. In his opinion, the proposed development conforms with the
Uptown Plan and it enhances the area.
_______
A recorded vote on the recommendation was as follows:
FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Filion,
Minnan-Wong, King
AGAINST:Councillor Flint
ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Shiner
Carried
32
Construction Noise - The Majestic Condominium -
20, 24, 26, 30 and 32 Empress Avenue and
11, 15, 17 and 21 Kingsdale Avenue -
Performance Bond - North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next
regular meeting of City Council to be held on October 28, 1998.)
The North York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the City By-law and Building Inspectors be directed to monitor the Majestic
Condominium site for offences to the Noise By-law, as well as other by-law and building
code infractions; to lay a separate charge each time a violation is observed; to report
back to North York Community Council when there are violations;
(2)the building permit not be issued and that the applicant be requested to meet with
Councillor Filion and Councillor Gardner to work out a solution to the noise problem;
and that staff defend the City's position in the event that legal action is taken on this
recommendation; and
(3)the By-law Review Committee, when considering amendments to the Noise By-law,
take into consideration all possible measures to strengthen the by-law in order to make
it easier for charges to be laid.
The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having
deferred sine die, the following Resolution by Councillor John Filion, North York
Centre:
WHEREAS in March 1997, the Council of the City of North York approved the development
of a 23-storey, 269 unit residential development at 20, 24, 26, 30 and 32 Empress Avenue
and11, 15, 17 and 21 Kingsdale Avenue (The Majestic Condominium) and enacted By-law
No. 32948; and
WHEREAS a Development and Site Plan Approval Agreement was executed between the
owner and the City of North York, which included conditions of Site Plan Approval to be
satisfied prior to building permit issuance; and
WHEREAS one of the conditions of Site Plan Approval requires the owner to submit final
drawings incorporating revised details to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning, in
consultation with the Ward Councillor; and
WHEREAS a community meeting was held on June 29, 1998 with the participation of
planning staff, representatives of the community, and the applicant, during which community
representatives expressed their concerns regarding construction safety, traffic, and noise after
7:00 p.m. and before 7:00 a.m.; and
WHEREAS the applicant has already greatly upset area residents with illegal construction
noise at this site prior to the issuance of a building permit; and
WHEREAS the applicant has a history of disregarding the City's Noise By-law and existing
deterrents have been unsuccessful in changing this behaviour;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT in order to address community concerns
regarding potential Noise By-law infractions during the construction of the building, the
North York Community Council requests the applicant to post a Performance Bond with the
City of Toronto in the amount of $50,000.00 as a condition of the issuance of the building
permit, and that the bond only be drawn upon for each conviction of Noise By-law infraction
during construction, in increments of $10,000.00; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the letter of credit be returned to the applicant
following construction if no notices of violation or court dates are pending.
_______
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication
(September2, 1998) from Mr. John M. Alati, Davies, Howe, Partners, Barristers and
Solicitors, Solicitors on behalf of Grape Arbour Construction Ltd., the owners of the subject
lands, advising of his client's concerns and intention to address the North York Community
Council when this matter is dealt with.
Mr. John M. Alati, Davies, Howe, Partners, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitors on behalf of
Grape Arbour Construction Ltd., the owners of the subject lands, appeared before the North
York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
33
Toronto Transit Commission - 1999 Service Plan
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to further review the possibility of
extending the Rivalda Road Service, North of Bradstock Road, on weekends only during
the daylight hours;
(2)the following Resolution from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, be
adopted and forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission for consideration:
"WHEREAS Truman Road is an unimproved road with no curbs, asphalt or storm
sewers and is subject to heavy flooding in the Spring "run-off" and hence incapable of
handling heavy bus traffic; and
WHEREAS a significant number of the users of the 115 Silver Hills bus are students
travelling to York Mills Collegiate Institute, St. Andrew's J.H.S., Etienne Brule and
Windfields J.H.S., all of which are accessed directly from York Mills Road; and
WHEREAS the 115 Silver Hills bus that now operates from 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and
2:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (weekends and holidays excluded) provides much needed
additional rush hour service on York Mills Road between Yonge Street and Leslie
Street; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the 115 Silver Hills service NOT be
combined with the 78 St. Andrews service as proposed in the 1999 Service Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the 1999 115 Silver Hills bus service and the 78
St. Andrews service remain unchanged for 1998."; and
(3)the following Resolution from Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights, be adopted
and forwarded to the Toronto Transit Commission for consideration:
WHEREAS North York General Hospital and Branson Hospital have been
amalgamated; and
WHEREAS patient care and emergency services have been substantially reduced at
Branson Hospital; and
WHEREAS North York General Hospital is now responsible for this increased patient
service load; and
WHEREAS the review of the previous service cuts to 51 Leslie - Sunday Service
indicates a 0.20 customer per dollar ratio; and
WHEREAS this is very close to the minimum financial standard of 0.23 customer per
dollar ratio; and
WHEREAS Leslie Street area residents without automobiles have lost their Sunday
service;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Toronto Transit Commission
review the reinstatement of the 51 Leslie - Sunday Service.
_______
Mr. Bill Dawson, Superintendent, Service Planning and Monitoring, Toronto Transit
Commission, was in attendance and made a presentation regarding the 1999 Service Plan.
34
Street Vending Permit Application No. 97 -
The Donway East - Don Parkway
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (July 10,
1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, be
received; and that Street Vending Permit Application No. 97 be refused:
Purpose:
To consider an appeal of a decision by the Transportation Division of the Works and
Emergency Services Department to refuse an application by Daniela Dimitrova for a street
vending permit to sell hot dogs and sausages on The Donway East, adjacent to Don Mills
Middle School and Don Mills Collegiate Institute.
Source of funds:
No funding is required.
Recommendation:
That Council direct the Commissioner to issue a permit for the sale of hot dogs and sausages
within the municipal boulevard adjacent to the Don Mills Collegiate Institute.
Background:
The North York Transportation Department received an application on October 16, 1995,
from Mr. Nikolay Boyanov, for a Street Vending Permit to sell hot dogs and sausages at a
location adjacent to the Don Mills Middle School and Don Mills Collegiate Institute. Based
on the concerns of the former City of North York Councillor Don Yuill that the proposed
vending location was too close to the school, the application was refused. No appeal was
issued by the applicant.
The Transportation Division recently received two applications for a permit to sell hot dogs
and sausages from the municipal boulevard adjacent to the Don Mills Collegiate.
The first, application number 97, was received on March 3, 1998. Staff reviewed the
application and had determined that there was sufficient space within the municipal boulevard
to accommodate the request and that the location would not create a pedestrian impediment or
sight obstruction. Further to the requirements of By-Law No. 32100 of the former City of
North York, the Public Health Department, Public Works Department and local Councillors
were contacted for comments regarding the application. The Public Health and Public Works
Department, as well as Councillor Gordon Chong, had no objection to the issuance of a
permit. Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, as a result of an objection from Mr. Cam Pinkerton,
Principal, Don Mills Middle School, objected to the application. As a result, the permit was
not issued.
A second application, number 98, was received on March 31, 1998. As with all applications,
the location was determined to be appropriate and comments were requested. As no objections
were received from the appropriate departments or local Councillors, the application was
approved.
Discussion:
With the formal notification of the refusal of application number 97 the applicant, Ms.
Daniela Dimitrova, provided a formal request to appeal the decision of this department. Based
upon the provision of By-Law No. 32100, an applicant may, where an application has not
been approved, give notice to the Commissioner that they desire Council to consider the
application. Should Council direct, the Commissioner will issue an appropriate permit.
Conclusions:
It is the conclusion of staff of the Transportation Division that the issuance of two(2) vending
permits within the municipal boulevard adjacent to the Don Mills Collegiate Institute will not
create a pedestrian impediment, sight obstructions or create traffic operational concerns on
The Donway East.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, at 395-7484.
________
Mr. Sunny Chhabra, Counsel on behalf of the applicant, appeared before the North York
Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
35
Post Road Road Allowance East of Bridle Heath Gate -
North York Centre South
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends:
(1)the adoption of the following report (June 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Transportation, North York Civic Centre, subject to the following amendments:
(a)Recommendation No. 1 be amended to read as follows:
"Legally close that unimproved portion of the Post Road road allowance which extends
east of Bridle Heath Gate, save and except for the portion that abuts No. 1 Bridle Heath
Gate, and dedicate it as parkland.";
(b)the following additional Recommendation No. 3 be added thereto:
"That the undedicated portion be declared surplus to the City's needs and be offered for
sale at fair market value to the abutting property owners as per Council's policy.";
(c)the following additional Recommendation No. 4 be added thereto:
"Staff be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.";
and
(2)the potential sale of the undedicated portion of the Post Road road allowance, as
described in Recommendation No. 1(b), be referred to Parks Department staff for a
report thereon to the North York Community Council.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (June 23, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
To legally close that portion of the Post Road road allowance, east of Bridle Heath Gate and
dedicate the same as parkland. Ownership to be retained by the City.
Funding Sources:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)legally close that unimproved portion of the Post Road road allowance which extends east
of Bridle Heath Gate and dedicate it as parkland; and
(2)the closure be subject to the provision of utility easements as required.
Background History:
In 1975, North York Parks and Recreation Department expropriated approximately 0.3156
hectares from the rear of 1 Bridal Heath Gate. The expropriated property is below the top of
the bank at the southern limit of Windfields Park and was acquired for the purpose of access
to the watercourse for flood control and maintenance of the Wilket Creek. Windfields Park
was never formally extended to include the expropriated land.
In October 1995, Mrs. Arend, the owner of No.1 Bridle Heath Gate, contacted the North York
Parks and Recreation Department requesting to purchase a portion of the property which had
been expropriated as No.1 Bridle Heath Gate could not comply with the R1-A zone of the
Zoning By-Law where the minimum lot size is 0.81 hectares(2 acres). The request of Mrs.
Arend was not granted.
Discussion:
In July 1997, Mr. Karsten Arend, made a request with respect to the possible acquisition of
that portion of the Post Road road allowance abutting No.1 Bridle Heath Gate to the south.
The purpose of the acquisition was to build a new driveway and to close access to the general
public from accessing the public valley lands to the east. Apparently at times such as luncheon
hours, fast food wrappers and soft drink containers have been deposited along the unimproved
road allowance by certain members of the public although this issue has never been brought to
the City's attention for investigation.
At a point, approximately 15 metres east of Bridle Heath Gate, the subject portion of road
allowance slopes down into the valley lands and connects with the west branch of the Wilket
Creek. A 300-mm diameter municipal water main and a 250-mm diameter municipal sanitary
sewer are located within this portion of Post Road. An existing row of mature deciduous trees
(approximately fifteen) are planted within and along the north side of the road allowance.
Mr. Arend has assured staff that if he was successful in his bid to acquire that portion of Post
Road road allowance, he would not destroy the existing trees and would accept whatever
easements necessary to protect municipal services and/or public utilities.
More recently however, representatives of the Parks and Recreation Department, North York
Office, have advised of ongoing work in the valley to the east with respect to the Wilket
Creek sanitary trunk sewer, and in particular the need to protect for municipal access to both
sides of the watercourse by the various municipal authorities or agencies which may be
involved.
Conclusion:
While it has been determined that the road allowance is surplus to the road needs of the
municipality, ongoing ownership is required until the access provisions from the west side of
the watercourse and the valley have been resolved. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the
subject section of Post Road road allowance be legally closed, retained in the ownership of the
City and dedicated at this time as parkland. If in the future any part of this property is deemed
surplus to the City's needs, then the abutting property owners, who have shown an interest in
the property acquisition, may be approached and advised accordingly.
Contact Name:
Colin Couper, Director of Transportation Planning,
Works and Emergency Services, Transportation, North York Office.
Telephone 395-7470, Fax 395-7482, e-mail cwcouper@city.north.york.on.ca.
36
UDOZ-94-11 and UDSP-96-27 (Revised) -
State Development Corporation (Hillside Road at York Mills
Road) -
Registration of Easement and Lowering of William Carson
Crescent
Cul-de-Sac - 18 William Carson Crescent - North York Centre
South
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 4, 1998) from the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4, subject
to the cul-de-sac being lowered and subject to the owner assuming all related expenses:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to request:
(a)Council's authority for the City to enter into an easement and right-of-way agreement with
the owner for the installation and maintenance access of a municipal storm sewer on the
property at 18 William Carson Crescent; and
(b)Council's direction regarding the owner's request to lower the existing cul-de-sac at the
north limit of William Carson Crescent.
Funding Sources:
All costs to be paid by the owner, State Development Corporation.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)a 6.0 metre wide easement for a proposed municipal storm sewer and inlet structure and
4.0 metre wide right-of-way for maintenance access be granted to the City by the property
owner and registered on title, subject to conditions described;
(2)Council provide direction with respect to owner's proposal to have the cul-de-sac lowered
at the north limit of William Carson Crescent; and
(3)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to
give effect thereto.
Discussion:
A.Registering of Easement:
As a condition of the Site Plan and Development Agreement, executed on December 23,
1996, between the City and the former owner of the property, for a development located at 18
William Carson Crescent, the owner is required to provide an adequately sized inlet and pipe
system to accommodate the external drainage from upstream of the subject property and
redirect it to the existing storm sewer on William Carson Crescent. Part of the external runoff
is drainage from the Old Yonge Street road allowance to the north, which outlets onto private
property beyond the north limit of the subject development.
The owner proposes to construct an inlet structure and storm sewer to redirect the runoff from
the property on the north limit of the development site. This inlet structure and storm sewer
will be constructed in an easement which will be conveyed to the City. The proposed storm
sewer will connect to the existing intercepting sewer on William Carson Crescent. The owner
proposes to construct the storm sewer in two phases in conjunction with the phasing of the
three residential condominium buildings. The cost of the storm sewer works is $365,000.00.
Conditions:
This department has no objection to this proposal subject to the following conditions:
(a)the registration of the entire easement and rights-of-way occur prior to any registration of
condominium;
(b)the necessary Ministry of Environment Certificate of Approval being obtained;
(c)an irrevocable letter of credit representing the cost of the works in the amount of
$365,000.00 plus 3 percent engineering fee in form satisfactory to the Finance Department
and Legal Department being deposited with the City;
(d)Al Underhill Associates Limited, consultant engineers for the property owner, State
Development Corporation, be retained for the design, construction administration and
inspection and certify that all works have been constructed in accordance with all City
Standards and Specifications and provide "as constructed" drawings to the City in a form to
its satisfaction;
(e)the property owner, State Development Corporation, provides and pays for the new
easement documents to the City;
(f)the property owner, State Development Corporation, indemnify and save harmless the City
from and against all claims, demands, loss, costs, damages, actions, suits or other proceedings
by whomsoever made; and
(g)all other City requirements for the administration of the construction be satisfied.
B.Proposal to Lower William Carson Crescent Cul-de-sac
The owner's development proposal includes lowering William Carson Crescent from a point
north of the City's Fire Hall to the north limit of the cul-de-sac. The owner's Consulting
Engineers, Al Underhill Associates Limited, have submitted a preliminary design dated
March23, 1998, proposing that the cul-de-sac be lowered approximately 1.7 metres at the
north limit.
The lowering of William Carson Crescent cul-de-sac, excluding the costs of constructing a
required sidewalk and relocating the utilities is estimated at $250,000.00. The proposed
lowering of William Carson Crescent and associated works would be at the applicant's
expense. City Council's direction is requested in response to the owner's proposal.
In the event City Council does not approve the lowering of the cul-de-sac, the owner has
submitted an alternate workable proposal for the development site. However, the owner has
advised that the preferred development proposal includes lowering the cul-de-sac.
As the proposal impacts the adjacent development at 11 William Carson Crescent, Zoning
Amendment Application File UDOZ-97-32, we have required and received confirmation from
the adjacent property owner that they have no objection to the cul-de-sac being lowered. The
adjacent property owner, L&A International Management Limited, has also indicated that in
the event Council turns down this proposal, they are prepared to design their development
accordingly.
Conclusion:
The department recommends approval of owner's proposal with respect to the granting of an
easement on the property at 18 William Carson Crescent for the purposes of a storm sewer
subject to conditions as outlined above.
The department requests Council's direction in response to the owner's request to have the
William Carson Crescent cul-de-sac lowered.
Contact Name:
Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng.
Chief Development Engineer
Tel. No. 395-6307
Fax No. 395-0349
E-mail: rbedrosy@city.north-york.on.ca
37
Proposed Amendment to Low Lot By-law No. 7273 -
Lots 799 and 800, Plan M-108
(Between Bedford Park Avenue) -
North York Centre South
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following
Resolution (June 18, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the proposed amendment to Low Lot By-law No.
7273 for Lots 799 and 800, Plan M-108 (between 446 and 466 Bedford Park Avenue), in
accordance with the staff recommendation embodied in Report No. 4 of the North York
Community Council, as adopted by the City of Toronto, at its meeting held April 16, 1998, be
adopted with the following amendments:
(1)any development of the lot be subject to Site Plan Control; and design features and
materials of any structure to be built on the lot be included in the Site Plan;
(2)no trees or bushes be cut prior to the sign off of the Site Plan;
(3)there be no detached garage constructed in the rear of the property;
(4)there be no vehicle access to the property from the rear laneway; and
(5)there be no driveway, structure, deck, porch or fence constructed over the easement.
38
Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-19 -
Pat Giglio Et Al - 25-35 Finch Avenue West,
5 and 9 Blakeley Road, 8-34 and 31-35 Lorraine Drive -
North York Centre
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (September
3, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, be adopted; subject to
the applicant agreeing to pay the required fee in eight monthly incremental payments,
the first payment to commence on November 1, 1998, in a secure financial collateral
form satisfactory to the appropriate staff.
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is for Council to consider the applicant's requests to: 1) defer the
balance of fees owing for the above-noted application (in the amount of $20,210.00) until the
end of this calendar year, and 2) process their zoning amendment application within the North
York Centre in the absence of a concurrent site plan application.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)the applicant's rezoning amendment application not be received nor processed:
(i)without the required fees and outstanding materials required for a complete zoning
amendment application; and
(ii)without a concurrent site plan application and required fees, containing sufficient detail to
enable Master Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.
Background:
Proposal:
The application proposes an amendment to the zoning by-law to permit high-rise apartment
house dwellings and related commercial uses in accordance with the North York Centre
Secondary Plan (Schedule A).
As the applicants are a group of homeowners who are currently seeking a developer, they
have not submitted a detailed site plan, a site plan application, nor the required fees to process
a zoning amendment application. A concept plan is attached as Schedule B. It is their intent to
secure a conceptual approval from the City to redevelop the site, as noted in their letter
attached as ScheduleC. Detailed zoning information, a site plan application, and the balance
of fees would be submitted when the lands are acquired by a developer, which they expect
could occur by the end of the calendar year.
Discussion:
As per Council policy, site plan applications are required to be processed concurrently with all
North York Centre zoning and/or Official Plan amendment applications.
With respect to fees, Section 69(1) of the Planning Act permits the council of a municipality,
by by-law, to prescribe a tariff of fees for the processing of planning applications. Section
69(2) of the Act states that notwithstanding the tariff of fees prescribed, the council of a
municipality, in processing an application may reduce the amount of, or waive the
requirement for, the payment of a fee where it would be unreasonable to require payment in
accordance with the tariff.
In this case, the applicant has paid the base fee of $1290.00 for a zoning amendment
application. Based on the proposed gross floor area however, they would be required to pay
the maximum fee of $21,500.00 plus the cost of advertising the Statutory Public Notice and
Notice of Passing of a By-law. The present outstanding balance is $20,210.00, plus an amount
to be determined for the giving of Notice.
In addition to the above matters, a number of other items are missing from the submitted
zoning amendment application including a detailed conceptual site plan, elevations and
statistics; a boundary survey of the subject lands; and the consent of all of the owners of lands
included within the application. At the time of submission, not all owners had not consented
to the rezoning of their properties. The Department wrote letters to these people asking if they
wished to give their consent for such rezoning. To date, 3 of the 20 property owners have not
consented to having their properties included in the rezoning. It is premature to report on the
application until a comprehensive land assembly has been achieved.
Until the application submission is complete, staff are not able to process the application. The
applicant has been advised in writing of these outstanding requirements. Our letter to them is
attached as Schedule D.
Information received to date has been circulated to various city departments for their
information.
City Wide Issues:
None.
Conclusions:
The applicant's requests to defer the payment of fees and not require a concurrent site plan
application are not consistent with Council policy and general practice. Payment of fees at the
time of submission of an application is directly related to the work involved in processing of
an application, which begins immediately upon its receipt with the opening of the file and its
circulation to various departments and agencies for their comment.
Staff will work with the residents to help them in their pre-submission negotiations with a
developer, and to assist in any way possible to refine their preliminary concept and the land
use issues which need to be settled to bring this proposal to maturity. In the alternative, the
applicant can pay the fees under protest and has a right of appeal to the Ontario Municipal
Board under Section 69(3) of the Planning Act to have the matter of the administrative fees
arbitrated in that forum.
Concurrent site plan approval was approved as Council policy in order to establish at the time
of rezoning, the level of design detail needed to ensure conformity with urban design
guidelines as set out in the Official Plan. This rationale is still valid. It is recommended that a
site plan application be submitted that would allow for a Master Plan level of detail as a site
plan approval. In this way, staff can report on matters of official plan policy conformity which
the analysis of the site plan application will achieve.
Contact Name:
Alan Theobald
Telephone: 395-7166
_______
The following persons addressed the North York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-Mr. Peter Cheatley; and
-Mr. Pat Giglio, the applicant.
(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
39
Principle of Land Use Report -
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-97-44 -
Tridel Builders Inc. - 1857 Leslie Street - Don Parkway
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(August 27, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the appropriateness of the change in land use from
industrial to residential and retail as directed by the North York Community Council on
January 21, 1998.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the application be refused.
Background:
1.0Proposal:
An Official Plan and zoning amendment application was received in December 1997 to permit
2 high rise residential buildings, a one-storey recreational amenity facility and a one-storey
retail commercial building, all at a density of 2.7 FSI (Schedule C). In response to concerns
raised by residents at the community meeting, the applicant revised their plan recently to
reduce the height of the residential buildings and reduce the amount of commercial gross floor
area proposed. Pertinent site statistics are set out below.
|
Original Proposal |
Revised Proposal |
| Site Area |
3.1 ha (7.7 acres) |
3.1 ha (7.7 acres) |
| Gross Floor Area
Residential
Recreational Amenity
Retail
TOTAL |
80,450 mē
2,190 mē
1,860 mē
84,500 mē |
66,303 mē
1,997 mē
929 mē
69,229 mē |
| Floor Space Index |
2.7 |
2.2 |
| Units |
460 |
460 |
| Building Heights
Residential buildings
Recreational amenity building
Retail building |
32 storeys
1 storey
1 storey |
25 storeys
1 storey
1 storey |
In April 1998, the applicant also submitted, in support of the proposal, an 'Economic
Implications Study' prepared by Clayton Research and a 'Planning Report' prepared by Peter
Cheatley. The former concludes that the proposed residential uses will ensure the viability of
the surrounding employment area; and that the employment lost from the Imperial Tobacco
use would be offset by employment projected for the proposed retail component of the
project.
2.0Location and Existing Site:
The site is located on the north side of York Mills Road, just east of Leslie Street (Schedule
B). It has narrow frontage on Leslie Street where the main access is presently located. More
than half the York Mills Road frontage is taken up by the York Mills Road bridge which
passes over the CN tracks immediately east of the site. As such, that portion of the frontage is
situated below the level of the road. The remaining frontage (approximately 50 m) is at road
level. The site also has access to Scarsdale Road, located on the south side of York Mills
Road, via a private road running from the south end of the property under the York Mills
Road bridge.
3.0Planning Controls:
3.1Official Plan:
The site is designated Industrial, permitting primarily employment uses. Amendment 443 -
Industrial Policy, adopted by Council in October 1997, maintains the subject property's
Industrial land use designation which would allow a broader range of industrial and
commercial uses.
3.2Zoning:
The site was formerly zoned Industrial - Inside Storage and Industrial Office Holding Zones
(M2, MOF(H)), permitting limited industrial and commercial uses. By-law 33091 recently
rezoned the site to Industrial-Commercial Zone (MC(H)), permitting an expanded range of
employment uses.
4.0Community Consultation:
At the Community Consultation session held on March 23, 1998 (Schedule D), and attended
by approximately 100 persons, issues were raised about the following:
1)the precedent setting nature of the proposal. Would there be pressure on the remaining
employment area to redevelop in a similar manner?;
2)the 32 storey proposed building height is too high and is not in keeping with the area;
3)whether the surrounding road network would be able to accommodate the traffic generated
by the proposal; and
4)should retail uses be included in the development given its potential impacts on the traffic
network?
With respect to traffic, it is noted that the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Study
prepared by D.S. Lea Associates, which concludes that traffic generated by the proposed
development can be accommodated by the existing road network.
Discussion:
In order to determine principles of land use to guide development of this property, it is
appropriate to review the following: 1) the geographic context of the site; and 2) the Official
Plan policy context for the conversion of industrial lands to residential.
5.1Geographic Context:
As shown below, the site is located within a large 'employment area', generally permitting a
mix of industrial, office, retail and service commercial and institutional uses. This large area
extends both north and south of York Mills Road and can be divided into two groups: lands
within the Wrentham Estates Business Park (located east of the CNR tracks), and lands within
adjacent industrial areas.
The Wrentham Estates Business Park is a concentrated, industrially-designated employment
area which promotes and contains a variety of more prestige-type commercial and industrial
uses, as well as retail and institutional uses.
The adjacent industrial areas, located predominantly west of the CNR tracks (and within
which the subject property is located), are also designated Industrial, and also comprise a mix
of industrial, office, service commercial and institutional uses. This cluster of employment
uses extends both north and south of York Mills Road.
This broad, industrially-designated area is a relatively isolated and distinct part of the city, in
both a physical sense, as noted above, and a functional one. It represents a concentration of a
variety of employment uses, from industrial to retail, office, service commercial and
institutional, among others. There are no existing residential uses within this boundary.
Within the 'western triangle' portion of the employment area (lands on the north side of York
Mills Rd, between Leslie Street and the CNR) alone, there are approximately 75 business
establishments containing 1,561 employees, including 4 printing firms, a Measurements
Canada facility, 14 warehousing or wholesale trade-related firms, 10 stores, 3 restaurants, 2
travel agencies, 4 real estate offices, 2 gas stations, a medical lab, optician, a bank, other
office uses including consulting firms, lawyers and accountants.
Exclusively residential uses are found on the west side of Leslie Street, both north and south
of York Mills Road. With the exception of the northwest and southwest corners of Leslie and
York Mills, which are developed with a total of five, 18 storey apartment buildings and a
number of 2-storey townhouses immediately adjacent, the surrounding area west of Leslie
Street is developed with single-family dwellings, parks and schools (Schedule B).
5.2Industrial Land Use Strategy:
5.2.1Official Plan Policy and Zoning
Over the past four years, a review of Industrial policy was undertaken in light of growing
industrial vacancy rates, and the loss of business, employment and assessment in the City's
industrial areas. This review led to the establishment of four basic principles for development
of a revised Industrial Policy:
- the Official Plan should promote existing industrial areas as employment areas;
- a clear and simple land use strategy should be created that removes impediments to desired
land uses, encourages the growth and diversification of industrial activity, and safeguards
the existing concentrations of viable manufacturing activity and employment;
- the Official Plan should provide for the orderly transition of surplus employment lands to
other uses; and
- the Zoning By-law should be the primary tool to regulate the nature and standards of
employment activities, and should do so through clear and simple requirements and
standards.
A revised Industrial Policy, known as Amendment 443, replaces the various Industrial
designations lying outside residential communities with one Industrial designation. This
industrial designation encourages a wider range of employment uses, including industrial,
warehousing, office, retail and service commercial.
In keeping with the intent of the new industrial land use strategy, the zoning of all industrial
lands has been amended to broaden the range of permitted employment uses, and to minimize
land use conflicts between industrial and non-industrial uses by restricting the location of
certain industrial uses adjacent to residential zones.
The new zoning strategy affects the subject property, as well as all lands within the 'western
triangle' and the arterial fronting property on Scarsdale Road, by amending their former
zoning from M2, MOF(H) to MC(H). The amended zoning enhances the opportunity for
employment uses by significantly increasing the office floor area and greatly expanding the
range and amount of permitted commercial uses. These zoning changes have the potential to
significantly enhance the usability of the site and its viability for continued employment use.
5.2.2Residential Uses on Industrial Lands
Residential uses are prohibited within the Official Plan Industrial designation. The policies
state that Industrial areas should generally be preserved for employment purposes, however it
is recognized that the City may have more land designated for this purpose than will be
required in the long term. Accordingly, the Plan establishes criteria to review conversions to
residential use which allow for an orderly transition to alternative uses. Evaluated against
these criteria, it is concluded that the conversion of these lands to residential would not
represent an orderly transition from industrial uses for the following reasons:
- the site is not located on the periphery of an industrial area, and the boundaries of change
are not logical or appropriate, given that this site is located in the middle of an expansive
and successfully functioning employment area extending both north and south of York
Mills Road;
- a residential approval would jeopardize the planned role and function of the remaining
viable employment area by establishing a precedent for further requests to similarly amend
the Plan, especially within the 'western triangle'. It is also premature in light of recent
changes to Official Plan and zoning policies whose intent is to promote the area for
employment uses;
- residential uses at this location would limit the redevelopment options of the adjacent
industrially zoned lands in terms of range of uses, setbacks, building heights and
landscaping requirements. Any new residential uses abutting existing, industrially-zoned
lands have the potential to give rise to incompatibilities where none currently exist; and
- the boundaries of change are not desirable, and will not create a defined edge which will be
stable over the long term, given the likelihood of requests for similar change elsewhere in
the employment area were this to be approved. To redesignate the site for residential use
would set the stage for future residential redesignation in this area, thus creating further
land use instability and unnecessary eroding of the employment land use base in this area.
5.3Economic Context:
Within Part C.4 - Housing policies of the Official Plan, specific policies are set out to guide
the redesignation of non-residential lands to residential use. It notes that Council may consider
such applications when one of the following conditions apply:
"1) there is a demonstrated need to improve or rejuvenate areas due to obsolescence or
physical or economic decline; or
2)the introduction of residential land use will not jeopardize the continued viability of
commercial, industrial, institutional and open space land uses."
In this case neither of these conditions would apply. Condition 2) does not apply given that
there is a real concern, as noted above, regarding the continued viability of existing
employment uses in the area with the introduction of residential at this location. Similarly,
condition 1) does not apply given that the area is not in a state of economic decline. In fact,
recent trends are contributing to the stability and success of this employment area.
Over the last decade or so, while employment in the traditional industrial activities of
manufacturing and warehousing has decreased within the City, employment in office and
service activities has increased. This change in employment structure was based on a number
of factors, including inequitable tax structures making it more economically viable for
industry to locate outside of Metro, and restrictive zoning regulations. However, as noted in
the comments of the Economic Development Centre (Schedule E), there have been significant
changes in the recent past which should enhance the attractiveness of the City for industrial
and employment uses generally. One is the 8 year phasing of the City of Toronto (416)
business education tax to the provincial average, which over time will level the playing field
economically for business and industry both within Toronto and throughout the province. The
second is that within the local community of North York, more flexible zoning regulations are
now in place which broaden the range of permitted uses within traditional industrial zones. It
is anticipated that these changes will help to slow the exodus of industry from the City, while
also promoting opportunities for a wider range of employment uses to locate in these
industrial areas.
At a micro level, the Economic Development Centre (EDC) advises that employment levels
generally have been quite stable within the industrial area surrounding the subject lands, and
that reinvestment is occurring. They anticipate that the above-noted changes will cause
employment levels within this area to remain stable over the short to medium term. They also
note that the size of the subject site, 3.1 hectares (7.7 ac), makes it attractive for certain types
of employment uses, as there are a limited supply of this size of industrially-zoned lots
available within the City. It is even rarer to find a building of Imperial Tobacco's size (7,535
mē) and interior design specifications (21 ft. ceiling heights). It is also in a visible location
which is good for retail or other employment uses, given that it has York Mills Road frontage,
Leslie Street access, and is located near the intersection of two arterial roads, Highway 401
and a GO Station further north.
Conclusions:
The subject property is situated in the middle of a large and successful employment area,
which has gradually gone from traditional industrial land uses, in keeping with its original
zoning, to an area which now supports a variety of employment uses. The long term strategy
of the newly-adopted Industrial Policy is to recognize the importance of these kinds of lands
for employment purposes, by expanding the usability of traditionally industrial districts. The
new industrial zoning will implement the intent of the industrial policies by enhancing the
range of permitted uses within these areas. In combination with recent economic trends and
changes, it is expected that these zones will become even more attractive for employment
uses.
Based on all of the above, the applicant's proposal for a predominantly residential
redevelopment of the lands is not appropriate. The proposal does not meet the Official Plan
compatibility criteria for redesignation to non-residential uses as it pertains to this location.
The redesignation will jeopardize the planned role and function of adjoining land uses, and
will have negative impacts on and set a precedent for future non-employment development.
The boundaries for change are not appropriate and will not create a defined edge which can
remain stable over the long term. And, the site is not in an area experiencing economic
decline. Given the thriving employment nature of the industrial area in which the subject
property is located, and its effectiveness as a location for employment uses, this is not a
location which should be removed from the City's employment base.
Contact Name:
Malani Rawal, Planner
Tel.: 395-7100
Fax: 395-7155
_______
Mr. Steve Upton, Tridel Builders Inc., appeared before the North York Community Council in
connection with the foregoing matter.
(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
40
1998 Ontario Trillium Foundation Caring Community Award -
Jane-Finch Community - Recognition Signage -
Black Creek
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following
Resolution (September 16, 1998) from Councillor Maria Augimeri, Black Creek:
WHEREAS the Jane-Finch Community has been selected to receive the 1998 Ontario
Trillium Foundation Caring Community Award; and
WHEREAS only five communities were so recognized in the Province of Ontario this year;
and
WHEREAS the Jane-Finch Community is the only community in Toronto to be so honoured;
and
WHEREAS such an award reflects positively, not only on the Jane-Finch Community, but the
entire City of Toronto; and
WHEREAS the Jane-Finch Community has made major contributions to the multiculturalism
that makes Toronto the best city in the world in which to live;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the North York Community Council endorse
the placing of signs at major intersections and points of interest in and around the Jane-Finch
Community in recognition of this prestigious and well-deserved honour; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Transportation staff work in conjunction with the
Network of Community Based Organizations to design and create these signs, and determine
the appropriate locations for their display.
41
Deeming By-law - Plans M-108 and M-109 -
North York Centre South
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following
Resolution (September 16, 1998) from Councillor Milton Berger, North York Centre
South:
WHEREAS authority is given to Council be subsection 50(4) of the Planning Act, R.S.O.
1990, c.P.13, as amended, to pass a by-law to designate any plan of subdivision or part thereof
that has been registered for eight years or more, which shall be deemed not to be a registered
plan of subdivision for the purpose of subdivision control; and
WHEREAS Plans M-108 and M-109 were registered more than eight years ago; and
WHEREAS Plans M-108 and M-109 created lots that are 20 feet (6.5m) wide; and
WHEREAS it is expedient and prudent to ensure that the creation of lots in this area that are
20 feet wide be considered either by Council or by the Committee of Adjustment;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT a by-law that deems parts of Plans M-108
and M-109 to not be on a registered plan for the purpose of subdivision control set out in
subsection50(3) of the Planning Act, be brought forward for enactment at the Toronto City
Council meeting of October 1, 1998, and that City staff do everything necessary to give effect
thereto.
42
In Right Access to 1200 Eglinton Avenue East -
Don Parkway
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 9, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to obtain authority to amend Metro By-Law 75-84, being the
by-law designating Eglinton Avenue East between Leslie Street and Jonesville Crescent as a
controlled access road, in order to permit an in right vehicular access to 1200 Eglinton
Avenue East.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications to the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that authority be granted to amend Metro By-Law No. 75-84 to permit an
in right access to 1200 Eglinton Avenue East.
Discussion:
Amexon Property Management (Amexon) has requested a direct access to 1200 Eglinton
Avenue East from Eglinton Avenue East. The access is required to service an office building
owned by Amexon on the north side of Eglinton Avenue East midway between the Don
Valley Parkway and Don Mills Road. Currently the access to this building is from Gervaise
Drive which makes it difficult for people to find. Amexon have stated that the occupancy rate
in the building has not risen above fifty percent since it was constructed in 1969.
Amexon believe that they can significantly improve the occupancy rate of this building with
direct access from Eglinton Avenue East, and an aggressive marketing campaign. The B.A.
Consulting Group have undertaken a traffic study and geometric design of the entrance and
have determined that the proposed right access will solve the problem of motorists finding and
accessing 1200 Eglinton Avenue East with no negative traffic impact on the area.
It should be noted that consideration of this access is related strictly to the existing land uses,
and if a change of use is sought in the future, the adequacy of an access onto Eglinton Avenue
would have to be reviewed.
Conclusion:
As there are no negative traffic impacts associated with the proposed access, and it will
contribute to the revitalization of businesses in the Don Mills area, the access should be
permitted.
Contact Name:
Keeva G. Lane, Supervisor, Road Allowance Control, Transportation
Phone No.: (416) 392-9312; Fax No.: (416) 392-9317
E-mail Address: keeva_lane.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca
43
Speed Humps (2) - Romney Road
(between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard) -
North York Centre South
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following
Resolution (September 16, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre
South:
WHEREAS Romney Road from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard is scheduled for
resurfacing now; and
WHEREAS this block of Romney Road is used by many transient motorists as a "cut-off"
from Bathurst Street to Armour Boulevard; and
WHEREAS residents have requested the installation of speed humps to slow down vehicles
on their block; and
WHEREAS all residents of the affected block of Romney Road have been made aware of the
opportunity for speed humps by letter, survey and public meeting; and
WHEREAS staff have determined - and residents have agreed - on the most suitable location
for speed humps; and
WHEREAS a petition was received in which the majority of residents expressed their desire
for speed humps; and
WHEREAS speed humps can be installed in connection with the current road resurfacing at
no extra cost;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT two (2) speed humps of standard City design
be installed on Romney Road between Bathurst Street and Armour Boulevard at suitable
locations identified by the Transportation and Public Works Departments in connection with
the 1998 road reconstruction.
44
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, received this Clause for information.)
(a)Committees - Committee of Adjustment - UDCA-97-779 - Talim-Ul-Islam Ontario -
86 Rivalda Road - Ontario Municipal Board Decision - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following for
information:
(i)(August 28, 1998) from the City Solicitor advising of the outcome of the Ontario
Municipal Board hearing held on June 18, 1998, with respect to the subject property; and
(ii)(September 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor clarifying that the local councillor who
appeared at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing was Councillor Judy Sgro, not Councillor
George Mammoliti.
(b)Sign By-law Variance Request - Roof Level Wall Signage - Steel Art Signs - 5140
Yonge Street - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having:
(1)deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 14, 1998, in
order to allow Building Department staff to meet with the local Councillors to review the
plans submitted prior to the reports being placed on to the agenda; and
(2)requested that all future reports are first discussed with the local Councillors to
ensure that the reports submitted to Community Council include plans, drawings and
descriptive information related to the actual sign and the nature of the variance request.
(September 2, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, recommending
approval of the requested minor variance from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit
the erection of two wall signs.
_______
Ms. Filo Costa, Trimark Investment Management Inc., appeared before the North York
Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(c)Sign By-law Variance Request - First Floor Wall Signage - Trimark Trust - 5140
Yonge Street - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having:
(1)deferred the following report to its next meeting scheduled for October 14, 1998, in
order to allow Building Department staff to meet with the local Councillors to review the
plans submitted prior to the reports being placed on to the agenda; and
(2)requested that all future reports are first discussed with the local Councillors to
ensure that the reports submitted to Community Council include plans, drawings and
descriptive information related to the actual sign and the nature of the variance request.
(September 2, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, recommending
approval of the requested minor variance from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit
the erection of three wall signs.
_______
Ms. Filo Costa, Trimark Investment Management Inc., appeared before the North York
Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(d)Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Old Orchard Grove - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its
next meeting scheduled for October 14, 1998, in order that a more formal survey of the
community can be undertaken:
(August 31, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3, recommending that
Schedule VIII of By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit
parking from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Old Orchard
Grove, between Barse Street and Falkirk Street.
(e)5 Percent Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication - 693316 Ontario Limited - 508-518
Coldstream Avenue - North York Spadina.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred the following report to its
next meeting scheduled for October 14, 1998, in order to provide the local Councillors
an opportunity to meet with the applicant and appropriate staff:
(August 18, 1998) from the Director of Policy and Development, Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism, recommending that the 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication
payment remain applicable for this development.
(f)Report - OPPI 1998 Excellence in Planning Awards.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 1, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on
recent awards conferred by OPPI (Ontario Professional Planners Institute) for North York
Planning Projects.
(g)Proposed Zoning By-law - L & A International Management Limited UDZ-97-32 - 11
William Carson Crescent - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(August 31, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, advising of an
objection to this zoning by-law application from Adam J. Brown, Solicitor for the applicant.
(h)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan Amendment Application UDOZ-98-18
- Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre - 123 Wynford Drive - Don Parkway.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 1, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an
application to amend the Official Plan to permit development of the site with high density
residential uses, and recommending that staff continue processing the application in the
manner outlined in the report.
(i)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-17 -
Centre Core Holdings Inc. - 1 and 11 Granlea Road, 21 Calvin Avenue and 4 Vonda
Avenue - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 2, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an
application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit 10 new small lot single detached dwellings
with shared driveways and rear yard garages, and recommending that staff continue
processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.
(j)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-16 - Rocco
Grossi - 1 Upwood Avenue - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(August 26, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an
application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, and
recommending that staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the
report.
(k)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
UDOZ-98-14 - Bearpoint Group Inc. - 50 and 60 Oak Street - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 2, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an
application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed residential and
light industrial development, and recommending that staff continue processing the application
in the manner outlined in the report.
(l)Introduction of New Works and Emergency Services General Managers and District
Directors.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following
presentation:
Mr. Barry Gutteridge, Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, appeared before the
North York Community Council and introduced the newly appointed senior management
team for Works and Emergency Services.
(m)Claim - Reimbursement for Damages During the Bridle Path Area Road
Reconstruction - 77 The Bridle Path - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having directed staff to request the
contractor to reimburse Mr. Perry J. Dellio, 77 The Bridle Path, the sum of $780.00
(plus G.S.T.) for the damages to his sprinkler system and to report back to North York
Community Council.
(May 19, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, forwarding a request
from the owner of 77 The Bridle Path for compensation for costs incurred as a result of
damage to his sprinkler system by the contractor during the local improvements to The Bridle
Path area last year.
(n)Applications - Official Plans and Rezoning Matters.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following
communication and directed that no action be taken:
(July 22, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, recommending that
the Planning Department inform local Councillors about all Official Plan and re-zoning
applications immediately upon their receipt by means of a consent FYI item on the
Community Council agenda; and that this consist of a photocopy of the application form, area
map and accompanying letter from the applicant.
(o)Stopping Up Flindon Road - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following
communication:
(September 15, 1998) from Councillor Judy Sgro, North York Humber, requesting that staff
report on the following items to the next Community Council meeting:
(1)the legal process and time frame for the 'stopping up' of Flindon Road at a location just
west of the last driveway on the south side of the street;
(2)the construction of a turning circle at the end of the Flindon Road (once it's 'stopped up');
and
(3)the installation of four way stop signs at the intersection of Flindon Road, Acacia Avenue
and Flaxman Road.
(p)North York Community Council - October 14, 1998 - North York Spadina.
The North York Community Council reports having requested that any matters dealing
with issues located in the North York Spadina Ward not be placed on the agenda for its
meeting scheduled for October 14, 1998.
(q)North York Community Council - October 14, 1998 - Municipal Animal Care and
Control Legislation.
The North York Community Council reports having requested that a time be scheduled
for its October 14, 1998 meeting, in order to consider the Municipal Animal Care and
Control Legislation.
(r)North York Community Council - November 12, 1998 - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having requested that any matters dealing
with issues located in the North York Humber Ward not be placed on the agenda for its
meeting scheduled for November 12, 1998.
(s)The North York Community Council - November 12, 1998 - Draft Capital Budget.
The North York Community Council reports having requested that the Draft Capital
Budget be considered at its meeting scheduled for November 12, 1998, at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
MILTON BERGER,
Chair
Toronto, September 16, 1998
(Report No. 9 of The North York Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City
Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.)
|
