TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 12

1Closure of Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Courtand Castlefield Avenue for Vehicular Traffic Only and To Install a Guardrail and Curbing - Ward 28, York Eglinton

2Tree Removal By-law Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

3Request for Extension of Expiry Date for Part Lot Control Exemption regarding 1575 Weston Road at Lippincott Street East - Ward 27, York Humber

4Request for No Stopping Anytime Prohibitionon John Street - Ward 27, York Humber

5Consolidated Report on a Preservation Zoning Study for a Portion of Strathearn Road; and A Zoning Amendment Application for 3 Strathearn Road Ward 28, York Eglinton

6Request for Removal of 1-Foot Reserve at Rear of 33 Priscilla Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber

7Encroachment Application for 37 Rochdale Avenue Ward 28, York Eglinton

8Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision regarding 91 Clovelly Avenue - Ward 28, York Eglinton

9Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 12

OF THE YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on October 14, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Bill Saundercook, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

1

Closure of Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Court

and Castlefield Avenue for Vehicular Traffic Only and

To Install a Guardrail and Curbing - Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (October8,1998) from the York Director of Professional Services.

The Community Council reports for the information of Council, having held a statutory public meeting on September 16, 1998, and having advertised the proposed alterations for four consecutive weeks in the Toronto Star, pursuant to Section 301 of The Municipal Act and the regulations thereunder.

The York Community Council submits the following report (October 8, 1998) from the YorkDirector of Professional Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the closure of Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Court and Castlefield Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

None required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the attached by-law to close that portion of Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Court and Castlefield Avenue be approved; and

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

Council Reference/Background History:

York Community Council at its meeting held on September 16, 1998, heard deputations from Mr.Wajid Khan, President, Dufferin Mazda and Mr. Gordon Patterson representing CastlefieldEstates concerning a proposal to close Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Court and Castlefield Avenue. Council, by motion, directed the York Director Professional Services to report next day on the feasibility of implementing a directional change in traffic, in order to increase the safety of the intersection, in consultation with Mr. W. Khan and Mr. G. Patterson.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The present geometric layout of the intersection is an irregular "Y-type" design, currently under stop control for vehicular traffic traversing in an easterly direction on Roselawn Avenue.

Castlefield/Roselawn Avenues are currently classified as an arterial roadway under the Official Plan, providing two-way vehicular traffic flow in an east/westerly direction.

The portion of Roselawn Avenue between Dufferin Street and Castlefield Avenue provides two-way vehicular in an east/westerly direction. Motorists presently can only enter the street from Dufferin Street, as westbound entry is currently prohibited at the Castlefield Avenue intersection. Presently the street provides access for Dufferin Mazda's service entrance and two (2) newly created streets, being Prado Court and Anastacia Court as part of the Castlefield Estates Development (former Fairbank Lumber).

The Castlefield Avenue and Roselawn Avenue intersection configuration is not a typical normal design, and as such, creates an unsafe condition for eastbound motorists entering Castlefield Avenue. During the development review process staff recommended the closure of Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Court and Castlefield Avenue to resolve the safety issue.

In accordance with Council's direction, we met with Mr. W. Khan, on site, to evaluate the feasibility of implementing a vehicular directional change on Roselawn Avenue. This meeting coincided with an earlier westbound single vehicular collision, that resulted in extensive private property damage to Dufferin Mazda and its employee's personal vehicles.

As a result of the meeting, Mr. W. Khan agreed to the closure of Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Court and Castlefield Avenue and also requested that the City extend the proposed guard rail further westerly along the south side of Castlefield Avenue to prevent future incidences, as experienced by the recent westbound single vehicular collision.

Conclusions:

In accordance with the approved Castlefield Estates Development Plan, requiring the developer to close Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Court and Castlefield Avenue, to improve overall safety for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic it is recommended the attached by-law be approved.

Contact Name:

Stephen C. Brown, York Manager Traffic/Parking

Tel: 394-2655; Fax: 394-2888

CITY OF TORONTO

DRAFT

BY-LAW NO.

To close a Portion of Roselawn Avenue

in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of York)

for Vehicular Traffic Only

WHEREAS subsection 297(9) of The Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.M.45 permits Council in any by-law closing a highway to provide that the same shall only be closed for vehicular traffic and not for pedestrian traffic, and to provide for the erection of barricades to enforce the due observance of the by-law.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Council of the City of Toronto hereby enacts as follows:

1.That the portion of Roselawn Avenue between Anastacia Avenue and Castlefield Avenue in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of York) which is designated as Part 1 on the plan deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Registry Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No.64) as Number 64R , be closed for vehicular traffic.

2.That the appropriate City official be authorized and directed to erect a guardrail and curbs at the locations shown on the drawing attached as Schedule "A" to this by-law.

3.That this by-law shall not take effect unless and until it has been registered in the Land Registry Office for the Registry Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 64).

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , 1998.

The York Community Council also submits the following report (April 27, 1998) from the YorkCommissioner of Operations Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request Council to pass a by-law authorizing the alteration of Roselawn Avenue at Castlefield Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

None required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City enact a by-law authorizing the alteration of Roselawn Avenue at Castlefield Avenue; and

(2)the City Clerk be directed to publish the required notice as set out in The Municipal Act.

Council Reference/Background History:

Item 13 of Section XVIII of the subdivision/site plan agreement between Castlefield Estates Inc. And the Corporation of the City of York dated October 14, 1997, states that:

"The owner agrees to complete, at its sole expense, the works required for the closing of a portion of Roselawn Avenue abutting the lands in accordance with the plans listed in Schedule 'D' and said work shall be completed within twelve (12) months following the first occupancy of any building constructed on the lands."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

To accommodate a residential subdivision development on the east side of Dufferin Street between Roselawn Avenue and the CN Railway right-of-way, the Operations Services Department requires that the owner of the subdivision close Roselawn Avenue at Castlefield Avenue and realign the section of Roselawn Avenue, west of Castlefield Avenue.

The purpose of the alteration which is shown on Appendix I, is to improve the overall safety for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic at the intersection.

In order to proceed with this work, Council must pass a by-law to stop up and close Roselawn Avenue. Section 301 of The Municipal Act provides that before passing a by-law for stopping up, altering, widening, diverting, selling or leading a highway for establishing or laying out a highway, notice of the proposed by-law shall be published at least once a week for four successive weeks, and further that Council shall hear any person who claims that this land will be prejudicially affected by the by-law and who applies to be heard.

In addition, under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, this type of project, which has minor environmental significance, is approved subject to the screening process. With this in mind, public notice for the project has been prepared. This notice will be delivered to residents/businesses affected by the works on or after May 27, 1998.

Conclusions:

In order to proceed with the road improvement work on Roselawn Avenue at Castlefield Avenue, it is necessary that authority be granted for the introduction of a bill in Council in the form of the draft by-law attached as Appendix III.

Contact Name:

Chi H. Ng, P.Eng.

York Director of Professional Services

Tel: 394-2648

Fax: 394-2888

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 8, 1998) from Mr.Wajid Khan, President, Dufferin Mazda to Mr. Stephen Brown, York Manager, Traffic/Parking:

Further to our telephone conversation, please consider this an objection to the parkette planned to block off Roselawn Avenue at Anastasia Court on the following grounds:

(1)It would cause complete chaos with the residents of over 40 new homes trying to get on to a very busy Dufferin Street at anytime, especially during the morning and afternoon rush hours. At present, traffic can go either way towards Marlee Avenue via Castlefield Avenue or Dufferin Street via Roselawn Avenue. Closing one artery would be absolutely counter productive and will cause traffic jams.

(2)It would block off the entry to our property which is not acceptable.

(3)It will also cause residents of the 40 homes to access Castlefield Avenue only via Dufferin Mazda property which is once again unacceptable.

It is imperative that an alternate acceptable plan be worked out rather than the present one.

Suggestion:

I personally do not think any change is necessary.

It is suggested that two traffic signals be placed, one on Castlefield Avenue and one on Roselawn Avenue. The one on Castlefield Avenue coordinated with the Dufferin Street and Castlefield Avenue signal and the one on Roselawn Avenue, just west of Anastasia Court, with a short green of 15 to 20 seconds. Since Roselawn Avenue is already a one-way street, therefore there will be no oncoming traffic and there will no merging required as the Castlefield Avenue traffic would be stopped on the red light, while Roselawn Avenue traffic is exiting, and vice versa.

2

Tree Removal By-law

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September28, 1998) from the York Parks and Recreation Division:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request Council to direct the Legal Services Division to prepare a by-law to approve the removal of City-owned trees. The properties and reasons for removal are described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

Removal and planting costs are approved in the 1998 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor be requested to prepare a by-law for the removal of City-owned trees;

(2) the forestry staff begin removal and planting; and

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

Comments:

In accordance with York Policy, attached is a list of locations where trees located on City property have either been removed or are in need of removal and the reason for the request.

It should be noted that in each case, where a tree has been removed, the resident has agreed to permit the City to plant a replacement tree.

Conclusion:

Upon approval by Council, city forces will begin removal and planting of replacement trees.

Contact Name:

W. N. Kevin Bowser

York Director of Parks

Tel: 394-2487

Fax: 394-2707

(A copy of the list of trees for removal referred to in the foregoing communication, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

3

Request for Extension of Expiry Date for Part Lot

Control Exemption regarding 1575 Weston Road

at Lippincott Street East - Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To report on a request to extend the expiry date for Part-lot control exemption as it relates to 38 new townhouses on lands at Weston Road and Lippincott Street East.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council enact a By-law to extend the expiration of Part-lot control exemption and to delete certain parcels on the development site from Part-lot control exemption, in accordance with the draft Amending By-law attached as Appendix 2 to this report, and

(2)that appropriate City staff be authorized and instructed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the registration of the Amending By-law once it is enacted.

Background:

1.Use of Part-lot control exemption

On June 10, 1997, the former City of York Council enacted By-law No. 3499-97 to exempt a freehold townhouse development on the lands at 1575 Weston Road from the operation of Part-lot control. By-law No. 3499-97 expires on December 31, 1998. Thirty-eight townhouses fronting on Weston Road and Lippincott Street East have been developed and constructed by F. Zappone Limited. Nine townhouses remain to be sold and 2 townhouses, which have been sold, have not closed.

The removal of Part-lot control as authorized by Section 50(7) of the Planning Act is typically used in developments of semi-detached dwellings and freehold townhouses since it is much easier to finalize the precise lot boundaries after the dwellings have been constructed. It is also a more expeditious method of land division of dwellings and lots than either Plan of Subdivision or Consent. Accordingly, Part-lot control exemption was used for this 38 unit townhouse development.

2.Request to extend the expiration of Part-lot control exemption

A request has been received from the Solicitors for F. Zappone Limited, to extend the expiration of the Part-lot control exemption By-law for an additional period of one year. The developer/builder is refinancing the property and the new lender requires an extension to the said By-law prior to advancing funds.

Comment:

The request to extend the expiration of Part-lot control exemption is reasonable. However, the extension for a period of one year to December 31, 1999 would appear excessive in view of the indication by the developer/builder that it is anticipated that most of the remaining seven townhouses will be sold by year end with the balance to follow in 1999. Council should consider extending the expiry by only an additional six months. Doing so would provide a nine month period from October1, 1998 to sell and convey the remaining townhouses.

The provisions of Section 50(7) of the Planning Act also permit Council to amend a By-law exempting lands from Part-lot control in order to delete part of the land described in it once Part-lot control exemption has served it purpose. Once the by-law amendment is enacted it is necessary to also register the amending By-law in order to reinstate Part-lot control on those lots where exemption is no longer needed. Since twenty-seven of the lots with townhouses have been sold and conveyed, there is no further need for these lots to be exempt from the operation of Part-lot control. Council also should consider amending Schedule "A" to By-law No. 3499-79 which describes the lands exempted from Part-lot control to retain only Parts 28 to 38, inclusive and Part 41, as described on Reference Plan 64R-15348. Parts 28 to 38 are the lots containing the remaining townhouses to be sold. Part 41 is to be conveyed along with Part 28 as it is the side yard separating this Block of townhouses from the adjoining Block of townhouses which have already been sold and conveyed. Appendix 1 shows Parts 28 to 38 and Part 41.

Conclusions:

The request to extend the expiration of Part-lot Control as it applies to Weston Road and LippincottStreet East is reasonable. Council should consider enacting a By-law to amend Part-lot Control Exemption By-law No. 3499-97 in order to:

(i)extend the expiration of Part-lot control exemption for a further six month period to June31,1999, and

(ii)limit the operation of Part-lot control exemption to Parts 28 to 38, inclusive and Part 41, on Reference Plan 64R-15348 which contain the remaining townhouses to be sold.

A draft amending By-law is attached as Appendix 2.

Contact Name:

Lou Moretto

Manager of Community Planning, West District

Tel: 394-2617

Fax: 394-2782

Appendix 2: Draft Amending By-law

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW NO.

To amend CITY OF YORK BY-LAW NUMBER 3499-97

being a By-law to designate certain lands

not subject to Part-lot control

WHEREAS Subsection 50 (7.4) of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, as amended, authorizes City Council by By-law to extend the time period specified for the expiration of a by-law to designate lands within a registered plan of subdivision as lands subject to part-lot control;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 50 (7.5) of the Planning Act authorizes City Council by By-law to repeal or amend a by-law to designate lands within a registered plan of subdivision as land not subject to part-lot control, in order to delete part of the land described in it;

NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TORONTO ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1.By-law No. 3499-97 is amended by:

(a)deleting from paragraph 3 the date "December 31, 1998" and inserting in its place the following date "June 31, 1999";

(b)deleting Schedule `A' to By-law No. 3499-97 and replacing it with Schedule "A" attached hereto.

ENACTED and PASSED this day of October, 1998.

SCHEDULE "A" To City of Toronto By-law No. ____________.

SCHEDULE "A"

Part of Lots N and O on registered Plan 500, in the City of Toronto (formerly the City of York), being more particularly described as Parts 28 to 38, inclusive, and Part 41 on Reference Plan64R-15348, deposited in the Registry Office for the Registry Division of Toronto (No. 64).

(A copy of Appendix 1: Reference Plan 64R-15398 referred to in the foregoing communication, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

4

Request for No Stopping Anytime Prohibition

on John Street - Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September25,1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Purpose:

Councillor Frances Nunziata is requesting the feasibility of changing the current No Parking Anytime regulation on both the north and south sides of John Street to a No Stopping Anytime prohibition.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

Traffic budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Uniform Traffic By-law No. 2958-94 be amended to prohibit stopping on both the north and south sides of John Street between Weston Road and a point 30 metres east thereof; and

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

Council Reference/Background History:

Barbara Bonkowsky, Shift Supervisor, Parking Enforcement West, Toronto Police Services, through Councillor Frances Nunziata, is requesting consideration to change the current No Parking to a No Stopping Anytime regulation on both the north and south sides of John Street to facilitate unimpeded vehicular flow.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

John Street is a collector roadway, traversing in an east/westerly direction between Weston Road and Rosemount Avenue. The street currently provides two-way vehicular traffic flow.

The intersection of Weston Road and John Street is controlled by traffic control signals. The Uniform Traffic By-laws prohibit parking within thirty (30) metres of any signalized intersection in the City of Toronto.

Presently on-street parking is prohibited on the south side of John Street between Weston Road and South Station Street, including a thirty (30) metre signed prohibition on the north side.

Conclusions:

Barbara Bonkowsky, Shift Supervisor, Parking Enforcement West, Toronto Police Services is requesting consideration to change the current thirty (30) metre No Parking prohibition to a No Stopping regulation on both the north and south sides of John Street, east of Weston Road. This request is to facilitate unimpeded vehicular flow onto John Street from Weston Road. Presently, motorists regularly park on both the north and south sides of John Street immediately east of Weston Road, within the thirty (30) metre No Parking restriction, inhibiting access onto the street. Because John Street is a service loop for the Toronto Transit Commission, unimpeded vehicular access is critical for service delivery. Therefore, we recommend and support changing the thirty (30) metre No Parking restriction to a No Stopping regulation on both the north and south sides of JohnStreet.

Contact Name:

Stephen C. Brown

York Manager Traffic/Parking

Tel: 394-2655

Fax: 394-2888

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (September 17, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata:

Please find attached a memorandum forwarded to Stephen Brown, Manager, Traffic/Parking, Works and Emergency Services, York Civic Centre, on August 12, 1998, requesting a report on the feasibility of changing the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the south side of John Street between Weston Road and South Station Street.

I have now been advised by the Manager of Traffic/Parking that a report will be prepared for consideration at the next meeting of the York Community Council scheduled for October14,1998.

Would you please have the attached communication placed on the next agenda of York Community Council for consideration along with the report from S. Brown when received.

Also, would you please schedule John Kiru, Co-ordinator, Weston B.I.A., to appear as a deputant to speak on this matter and advise me of the approximate time this item will be considered so that I can forward the information to Mr. Kiru.

Should you require any further information, please contact my office.

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (August 12, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata to the York Manager, Traffic/Parking:

It has been brought to my attention by Barbara Bonkowsky, Shift Supervisor, Parking Enforcement West, after observing vehicular conflicts in the Weston Business Improvement Area, that T.T.C. buses travelling southbound on Weston Road are experiencing difficulty turning eastbound on John Street due to vehicles parked illegally on the south side of John Street at Weston Road. Buses are forced to manoeuvre around those illegally parked cars and if the vehicles are queued in the opposing lane on John Street, buses are forced to block Weston Road until the road is cleared to turn. In turn, this is also causing northbound traffic on Weston Road to back up.

After observing the vehicles parked on the south side of John Street, it was determined that they were patrons of the Pizza Pizza establishment located on the south-east corner of Weston Road. Shift Supervisor Bonkowsky further advised that Parking Enforcement staff would have a difficult time enforcing the "No Parking" regulation, for reasons which you are aware.

Presently, John Street is by-lawed, "No Parking Anytime" on the south side, from Weston Road to South Station Street, as well as on the north side of John Street from Weston Road and a point 32 metres east thereof.

In light of the fact that John Street is a T.T.C. bus route and that staff from Parking Enforcement West have witnessed the above-mentioned conflict, would you please investigate the feasibility of changing the "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the south side of John Street to a "No Stopping" or "No Standing" regulation.

This type of regulation change would assist the T.T.C. increase the safety at the intersection of Weston Road and John Street, and assist Parking Enforcement West staff in keeping the area clear with stricter regulations.

Please advise me of your findings and any action taken.

________

-Mr. John Kiru, Coordinator, Weston Business Improvement Area, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

5

Consolidated Report on a Preservation Zoning Study

for a Portion of Strathearn Road; and

A Zoning Amendment Application for 3 Strathearn Road

Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (September28,1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Directorof Community Planning, West District, to:

(1)undertake a review of the lands not only on the south side of StrathearnRoad, but on the entire street, as to appropriate uses;

(2)identify the parameters on which the development of the by-law was based, including background information and the conditions that existed in the late 1950s; and

(3)provide a comparison of land usage for all the prestige areas in Wards27 and 28.

The York Community Council submits the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To report on the study requested by York Community Council regarding the possibility of additional preservation zoning measures for the south side of Strathearn Road and to consider a site specific zoning amendment application for 3 Strathearn Road.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the rezoning application for 3 Strathearn Road be refused; and

(2)the planning staff and legal staff be directed to attend the November 18, 1998 Ontario Municipal Board hearing to support this recommendation.

Background:

1.Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located on the south side of Strathearn Road, west of Bathurst Street. (see Appendix 1: Location Map) The site has a frontage of 40.3 metres (132 ft) and lot area of 0.68 hectare (1.68acres). An existing single detached house is currently situated on the westerly 26 metres of the site.

The surrounding area is characterized by large houses on large lots on the south side of StrathearnRoad between Bathurst Street and Markdale Road with lot widths ranging from 18.2 m (60 ft) to 42 m (138 ft). Detached houses are located on the north side of Strathearn Road with lots averaging 15 metres (50 feet). The Cedarvale Ravine and Park abuts the application site to south. Single detached homes surround the site on all other sides.

2.Proposal

The applicant is proposing a zoning amendment to sever the lot into two equal parcels, both with frontage on Strathearn Road, which result in the demolition of at least a portion of the existing house on the lot. The westerly lot will have a frontage width of 21.4 metres and an area of 0.35 hectares while the easterly lot will have a frontage width of 18.9 metres and a lot area of 0.33 hectare. No development plans have been submitted for redevelopment of the lands. (See Appendix 2: Lot Severance Plan) Relief is sought from Subsection 16(1) of By-law No. 1-83 which restricts additional dwelling units, subsequent to demolition.

3.Previous Consent Application

A consent application to sever the property in order to create a new 15 metre wide lot for development with a single detached dwelling was refused by the Committee of Adjustment on December 2, 1997, and subsequently appealed by the applicant, Mr. Kerr, to the Ontario Municipal Board. This application was in compliance with the Zoning By-law as there were no plans to demolish any part of the existing house. One of the concerns expressed by some of the neighbours was that the 15 metre (50 feet) width of the new lot while conforming to the by-law was out of character with existing lots on the south side of the street.

On May 5, 1998, the Ontario Municipal Board adjourned the hearing for this appeal to November18, 1998. Although City staff were not present at the hearing, we understand that the severance proposal, which is the subject of this report, was presented to the Board as a possible solution to settle outstanding concerns of parties appearing at the Board. All parties appearing at the Board advised that the adjournment was appropriate.

The adjournment was granted to permit the submission of a zoning amendment application which was filed on May 30, 1998, and to allow enough time for Council to reach a decision on the matter. The applicant on September 2, 1998, filed an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board for consideration of this application on the basis that Council has neglected to make a decision on the application. The applicant has further requested that the appeal of this application be consolidated with the appeal of the consent application that will resume before the Board on November 18, 1998, since the two applications are directly related.

4.Official Plan and Zoning

The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits detached houses. The site is zoned R1-Residential District under Zoning By-law No. 1-83 and under By-lawNo.3623-97 which introduces new zoning regulations for all residential zoning districts, and which is currently under appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board as it applies to R1 zones. The size of the proposed lots (0.35 and 0.33 hectares) conforms to the minimum lot area of 0.0375 hectares under Zoning By-law No. 1-83. No minimum lot area is required under By-law No. 3623-97. The proposed frontage widths (21.4 and 18.9 metres) conform to the minimum frontage width of 12metres required by both by-laws.

An area specific zoning under Subsection 16(1) of Zoning By-law No. 1-83 also applies to the site. This subsection was introduced by By-law No. 16035 passed by Council for the Borough of York in February 1959. Subsection 16(1) contains provisions to regulate the replacement of existing dwellings on Strathearn Road. In part, it states that:

(1)" No dwelling house which on the date this By-law is passed is erected on lands abutting -

(a)both sides of Strathearn Road extending from Bathurst Street westerly and north-westerly to the south limit of Markdale Avenue;

and is thereafter demolished or destroyed in whole or in part shall be replaced by more than one, one-family dwelling house."

Subsection 16(1)will not permit the proponent to demolish all or a part of the existing dwelling house at 3 Strathearn Road for the purpose of creating two residential development lots. The zoning application therefore requests exemption from the provisions of Subsection 16(1).

5.Motion on Preservation Area Study

On April 1, 1998, the York Community Council passed a motion directing the York Commissioner of Development Services to:

"report on proposed methods to introduce additional preservation measures for the ravine side of Strathearn Road between Cedarvale Park and Bathurst Street, including the feasibility of increasing the minimum frontages applied to this street, in order to preserve the established character of the area."

A map of the preservation zoning study area is attached as Appendix 3. Since this motion directly affects the subject rezoning application, planning staff have incorporated the preservation zoning study into this report on the site specific rezoning application.

A preservation zoning provision to increase minimum lot frontages to 22.8 metres (75 feet) for the south side of Strathearn Road from Glen Cedar Road to Bathurst Street was previously proposed by By-law No. 2981-78 passed in 1978. On the appeal of the By-law by the applicant, Mr D. Kerr, the Ontario Municipal Board, on January 2, 1980, ruled that the subject area did not require the additional protection of an increase in the minimum lot frontage in light of the provisions of subsection 16(1) of Zoning By-law which were already in existence.

Comments:

(1) Preservation Zoning Area Study

The purpose of the study was to determine the preferences of the local homeowners with respect to minimum lot frontage, and whether they felt the existing legislation aided that preference. In addition, the lots frontages were tested to determine if there was a better alternative to Subsection 16(1) of the Zoning By-law to preserve the character of the area.

(a)Results of the Proposed Preservation Area Survey

Forty-two surveys were mailed to homeowners within and abutting the Strathearn Road Preservation Zoning Study Area. (See Appendix 3) Nineteen responses were received, equalling a 45 percent return. The full study questions and responses are in Appendix 5: Strathearn Road Survey Questions and Responses. The average length of ownership on the street is 18 years. Most of the residents of the street were attracted to the area by the ravine and unique character of the area, including the beautiful houses, large lots, and open spaces between the homes.

Of the 19 responses, three (15 percent) would consider subdividing their lots in future, 13(68percent) indicated that the existing regulations meet the needs of their property, and 12(63percent) felt the existing regulations meet the needs of the neighbourhood. The apparent preference is for maintaining the current wide lots that now exist on the street and the existing regulations.

When asked if other types of regulations would be preferred, 36 percent of the fourteen respondents answering this question would prefer that no severance be allowed, 36 percent would prefer regulations that would only allow large houses to be built, 14 percent indicate a need for traffic control regulations, and the balance indicated other preferences.

To summarize, the majority of respondents indicated that subsection 16(1) was acting to preserve the neighbourhood; however they would like the extra assurance of not allowing any severance. The latter is not possible as the ban on severance may result in a claim of discrimination, as previously ordered by the Ontario Municipal Board.

(b)Proposed Preservation Area Lot Width Study

The second part of the Preservation Zoning Area Study was to determine the number of lots that could be divided to yield additional lots under the current minimum 12 metre (39.4 ft) lot frontage provisions in Zoning By-law No. 1-83 and By-law No. 3623-97 for R1 zones, and under wider lot frontage scenarios.

Table 1: Strathearn Road Potential New Lot Creation Chart shows all the large properties located on the south side of Strathearn Road and the number that could be divided in different circumstances. To summarize, twelve properties could divide their lots under the general R1 provisions of the by-law. In most instances the existing houses would require demolition. Under Subsection 16(1), however, only three properties could be subdivided to produce new development lots.

When increasing the minimum front lot width to 15.2 m (50 ft), five properties could be subdivided; at 18.3 m (60 ft), three properties could be subdivided; and at 21.4 m (70 ft), none of the properties could be subdivided.

Based on these results, it appears that Subsection 16(1) prevents the majority of large lots from being further subdivided and helps maintain the integrity and character of the area. The alternative would be to increase the lot frontage requirement to 18.3 metres (60 ft), which would equal the number of properties protected under Subsection 16(1).

The results coupled with the fact the area has not experienced any new lot creation and related residential development for at least 20 years indicates that the existing area specific zoning in Section16(1) has served to maintain the stability and character of the area. No further or different preservation measures based on a minimum lot frontage requirement would be necessary. This is essentially the same conclusion as the Ontario Municipal Board reached in its Order on the previous preservation By-law No. 2981-78 proposed for the area.

(2)Public Process:

Two community meetings have been held. The first was held on July 23, 1998, to present and discuss the zoning amendment application with the neighbourhood. Approximately eleven people attended the meeting. The neighbours expressed concern about the precedent that such a zoning amendment and subsequent severance would create for the remaining properties on the south side of the street, and the compatibility of the proposal with the existing neighbourhood.

The second meeting was held on September 10, 1998 to discuss the results of the preservation zoning study, attached as Appendix 4 and Table 1, which was completed during the Summer 1998. Ten people attended the meeting. The study consisted of a review of lot widths and the effects of subsection 16(1) on possible severances in the study area; a mail-in survey which was completed by 19 property owners on Strathearn Road; and, a review of the previous preservation Zoning By-law No. 2981-78 and the related Ontario Municipal Board decision of 1980.

The comments from the second meeting focused on the results of the preservation survey and lot width study and generally indicated that Subsection 16(1) had protected the area from lot severances and intensification. Results from the survey indicated that residents were attracted to the area by the ravine and the unique character of the area which included the large lots. The test results for larger minimum lot frontage widths at a 15.2 metre (50 feet),18.3 metre (60 feet), and a 21.4 metre (70feet)lot minimum was discussed. It was determined that the provisions of Subsection 16(1) provided less potential for the creation of a few additional redevelopment lots through consent than the establishment of a 15.2 metre minimum lot frontage requirement, and the same potential for the creation of additional lots with an 18.3 metre minimum lot frontage requirement.

The site specific rezoning for 3 Strathearn Road was also reviewed with respect to removing the provisions of Subsection 16(1) from this property and relying solely on the minimum 12 metre lot frontage provisions under Zoning By-law No. 1-83 and appealed By-law No. 3623-97. It was evident that a precedent could be set which could apply to the demolition, severance and redevelopment of the 12 other large properties in the study area to result in the creation of many more residential lots and new residential construction than could now occur. There was little support for removing Subsection 16(1) and replacing it with other types of preservation measures, especially since this Subsection appears to be more stringent than that of any other former municipality in Toronto.

(3)Evaluation of the Application

(a)Conformity of the Application with Official Plan Policies

Section 9.12 of the Official Plan for the former City of York allows single detached houses in Low Density Residential Areas. Section 9.14 sets out the criteria by which rezoning applications are assessed and found suitable. This section regards Low Density Residential neighbourhoods as stable and requires any new residential development to be carefully integrated to ensure:

"that any intensification, infill, conversion or redevelopment for housing purposes which is permitted to occur will reflect the opportunities and constraints of the location and will result in a compatible built form in adjacent areas."

To guide the assessment of a rezoning application for approval the policies of the Official Plan also indicate that:

"Council shall seek an appropriate balance between the desire to attract re-investment to upgrade the housing stock and the desire to ensure that intensification activities are in keeping with the built form of the neighbourhood and enhances adjacent land use."

The existing preservation zoning provisions contained in Subsection 16(1), coupled with the proposed R1 zoning provisions contained in By-law No. 3623-97 provide the appropriate balance between providing modest intensification opportunities that are in keeping with the neighbourhood and ensuring the stability of the area. Approval of the proposed application would result in a precedent in the neighbourhood which could apply to the potential of subdivision for the other 12 large properties on the south side of Strathearn Road. The area was not meant to be viewed as one where intensification was encouraged. Approval of this type of application will start to change the character of the area, and is therefore not within the intent of the Official Plan, nor the preservative zoning restriction.

(b)Suitability of Rezoning 3 Strathearn Road

As noted above, the implications of permitting the rezoning could create a precedent for approval of other similar applications along the south side of the street in the area.

After two meetings with the residents to discuss the specific rezoning application and the Preservation Zoning Area Study, residents appear to be more carefully considering the precedent that exempting the subject property from the provisions of Subsection 16(1) may have on the remainder of the properties on the south side of Strathearn Road. Should applications be brought forward to divide the 12 properties that are large enough to be divided into one or more additional 12 metre lots, 15 additional lots could be created from the 12 existing lots, for a total of 27 lots. The potential subdivision could also result in the loss of many of the homes and likely the mature landscaping on the south side of the street that the neighbourhood now enjoys. The intent of the Zoning By-law is to maintain the character of the area. As this application would involve the demolition of the existing house and its replacement with two dwellings it fails to meet the requirement.

Due to the precedence setting nature of removing Section 16(1) for 3 Strathearn Road, it is recommended that the subject application be refused. The applicant does have a right to divide his property, and is advised that the previous consent application that was before the Ontario Municipal Board complied with existing zoning provisions.

Conclusions:

Alternative minimum lot frontage measurements were tested in the Preservation Zoning Study Area; however, they would result in more or equal numbers of potential lot divisions and intensification opportunities when compared to those that could now occur under the regulations imposed by Subsection 16(1) of the Zoning By-law. Subsection 16(1) has worked well as a preservation measure for the area and will continue to do so in future. It allows a very limited opportunity for subdivision on three lots out of the 18 surveyed in the Preservation Study Area and as such provides an acceptable balance for accommodating modest intensification while ensuring the stability of the residential area. No other preservation measures are recommended for the area.

Approval of the subject zoning amendment application is likely to set a precedent for similar applications in relation to the other 12 large lots on Strathearn Road. This precedent would potentially undermine the character, stability, and integrity of by the area and therefore does not meet the intent of the Official Plan and the preservative zoning restriction. It is therefore recommended that the zoning amendment application be refused.

Contact Name:

Wendy Johncox, RPP MCIP

York Senior Planner:

Tel: 394-2869

Fax: 394-2782

(Copies of Appendices 1 to 4 and Table 1 referred to in the foregoing communication, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998 and copies thereof are on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

________

-Mr. Earl Schwebel, on behalf of Ms. Janet Fine, a resident of Strathearn Road, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

6

Request for Removal of 1-Foot Reserve at Rear of

33 Priscilla Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October7,1998) from the York Director of Professional Services:

Purpose:

To address a request for removal of a one-foot reserve at the rear of 33 Priscilla Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

None required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.the one-foot reserve strip as noted in Registered Plan No. 615, being the west limit of Winfield Avenue, be removed; and

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

Council Reference/Background History:

Jassie Khurana, of Khurana Associates, wrote to the Chair and Members of York Community Council on August 26, 1998, requesting York Community Council take the necessary steps to allow vehicular access over the one-foot reserve strip where Winfield Avenue terminates at the rear of 33Priscilla Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The one-foot reserve is located at the west limit of Winfield Avenue, which abuts part of lot 83 to part of lot 86, Registered Plan No. 916 (See Appendix I).

The purpose of the one-foot reserve is to allow the municipality to control vehicular access to and from Winfield Avenue. Since Winfield Avenue is a short, local residential street with very low volume of traffic, the one-foot reserve is no longer warranted.

Conclusions:

The Department has no objection to the request for removal of the one-foot reserve strip located in Registered Plan No. 615, being the west limit of Winfield Avenue.

Contact Name:

Chi H. Ng, P.Eng.

York Director of Professional Services

Tel: 394-2648

Fax: 394-2888

(A copy of Appendix I referred to in the foregoing communication, was forwarded with the Added Starters of the York Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

The York Community Council also submits the following communication (August26,1998) from Mr. Jassie Khurana, Khurana Associates:

That York Community Council take the necessary steps to allow vehicular access over the one-foot reserve strip in Registered Plan No. 615 where Winfield Avenue (formerly Mariposa Street) terminates at the rear of the above property.

The owner of No. 33 Priscilla Avenue wishes to construct a new two storey detached house on the lot. In the process, it has become evident that a one foot reserve abutting the rear lot line at the terminus of Winfield Avenue technically prevents vehicular access to the property as it has not been assumed for highway purposes.

As Community Council is aware, the purpose of the reserve strip is long overtaken by developments in the area. As the end of the construction season is drawing near, an early disposition on this matter will be highly appreciated.

7

Encroachment Application for 37 Rochdale Avenue

Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October2,1998):

Purpose:

To present comments from applicable departments concerning this encroachment application.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Encroachment application first made August 24, 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor be request to prepare a by-law authorizing the encroachment at 37Rochdale Avenue; or if necessary, to prepare an Encroachment Agreement and By-law authorizing the entering into of that agreement; and

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

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Bell Canada:

I have reviewed the encroachment application for 37 Rochdale Avenue. I have no objection to the application as shown.

Consumers Gas:

We have indicated on the attached print our existing and/or proposed underground plant. We have no objection to the above proposal, provided our standard clearances of 0.3m minimum vertically and 0.6m minimum horizontally are maintained.

Hydro Commission:

The proposal would have no immediate impact on Toronto Hydro's facilities at this location.

Notwithstanding the above, we have fundamental objection to such compromises being made to the public road allowance. Utilities are dependent on this corridor to install, maintain and eventually replace their plant in consideration of safety, workability and proper clearances. It is our opinion that private developments be designed to the limitations of the property without resorting to the consumption of the public road allowances at the expense of the legitimate users of this corridor.

Planning Department:

The Urban Planning and Development Services Department has reviewed your application and has no objections to the requested encroachments.

Building Department:

This department has no objection to the proposed encroachment agreement for the above mentioned location.

Operations Department:

The Works and Emergency Department has no objection to the application for an encroachment agreement to cover a portion of porches on Harvie Avenue and Rochdale Avenue.

The department requires the owner to modify the two retaining walls to satisfy the department for sight line.

Municipal Standards Division:

No active files.

Conclusions:

That the encroachment application for 37 Rochdale Avenue be approved.

Contact Name:

Chi H. Ng, P.Eng.

York Director of Professional Services

Tel: 394-2648

Fax: 394-2888

(A copy of the site plan was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of October 14, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

8

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision

regarding 91 Clovelly Avenue - Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September28,1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To provide information on appeals of Committee of Adjustment decisions which have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and to recommend whether or not legal and staff representation is warranted.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There will be no financial costs associated with the appeal recommended for legal and staff representation.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Legal and Planning staff representation be provided for the appeal regarding Application No. CA-98-223, 91 Clovelly Avenue.

Comment:

The application and appeal is summarized as follows:

Address:91 Clovelly Avenue (Ward 28: York Eglinton)

Applicant:Fabian and Wendy Peredo

Appellant:Fabian and Wendy Peredo

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:CA-98-223. The applicant proposes to construct a front yard parking space where minimum parking provisions exist. (See Appendix A and B attached).

Requested variances are:

By-law Plans

minimum driveway width2.4 m 2.6 m

Committee of Adjustment Decision:(July 28, 1998) Refused.

Staff Recommendation:

The Planning Division recommended to the Committee that the driveway has sufficient width and there is ample space to provide a parking space in the rear yard. Therefore it was requested that the application be refused.

Conclusions:

The subject appeal was reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that the application involves substantive planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is warranted.

Contact Name:

L. Moretto

Director, Development Review

York Civic Service Centre

Tel: 394-2617

Fax:394-2782

(Copies of Appendices A and B referred to in the foregoing communication, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of October14,1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

9

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Poll for Permit Parking on Feltham Avenue between

Spears Street and Avon Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports that prior to the implementation of permit parking on Feltham Avenue between Spears Street and Avon Avenue, which was adopted by Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, that the CityClerk be requested to poll the residents on an individual block basis, to determine their interest in permit parking, and that the required action be taken based on the results of that poll.

The York Community Council on September 16, 1998, recommended the implementation of permit parking on Feltham Avenue between Spears Street and Avon Avenue, which was adopted without amendment by Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.

Reference Clause No. 10 in Report No. 10 of the York Community Council.

(b)Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments,

Goldlist Properties Inc., 310 & 312 Tweedsmuir Avenue,

Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to:

(a)arrange for the Open House Meeting to be held in November 1998 at the HolyRosary Parish Hall;

(b)include in the further staff report prior to scheduling the Planning Act public meeting, information on the pertinent legislation applicable to this proposal;

(c)continue circulating the application; and

(2)received the following report:

(September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, advising that the report is to provide preliminary comments on an application received on July 30, 1998, from Goldlist Properties Inc.; that the application is to amend the Official Plan for the former City of York planning area and Zoning By-law No. 1-83 to permit the construction of two new 25 storey condominium buildings of 119 units each, and 32 townhouses, for a total of 270 units; and that the development will entail the demolition of two existing high rise rental apartment buildings containing 246 units; that the development specific issues relate to height, density, massing, design, landscape preservation, traffic impact and on-site parking and circulation; and that in addition to these issues, the impact of the loss of rental units and their replacement with new condominium units in the context of the mix of housing types and tenure in the area has also been identified; and recommending that (1) this report be received; (2) the application continue to be circulated, (3) an Open House Meeting be scheduled for October 1998, and; (4) that a further staff report be available prior to the scheduling of the Planning Act public meeting;

(c)Traffic Calming Measures on Greenbrook Drive,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)heard deputations from two residents on Greenbrook Drive regarding the additional traffic control measures to be installed, one being in favour and the other being opposed; and having received a petition from residents on Greenbrook Drive indicating opposition to the proposed measures; that Councillor Saundercook will be submitting a Notice of Motion to Council on October 28, 1998 to consider the reopening of Clause No. 1 of Report No. 10 of the York Community Council, insofar as it pertains to paragraph (9) only of this Clause;

(2)directed that any consultation on this matter with the local residents take place prior to the October 28, 1998 meeting of Council; and

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the General Manager, Transportation Services, to develop a comprehensive report with respect to a protocol for the implementation of traffic calming measures in communities, and on the feasibility of conducting a pre- and post-implementation analysis of such measures.

Reference Clause No. 1 in Report No. 10 of the York Community Council regarding the Alteration of Various Streets in the City of Toronto (York District) by the Installation of Traffic Calming Measures, which was adopted without amendment by Council on October1and 2, 1998.

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

-Mr. Vince Pileggi, Toronto; and

-Mr. Larry Colle, Toronto.

(d)Request for Barrier at Smythe Park - __Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to direct the General Manager, Parks and Recreation and the York Director of Parks, to report on:

(1)(a)the installation of appropriate signage in Smythe Park to facilitate enforcement with respect to NoTrespassing and No Parking, to prohibit the use of the park between the hours of 11:00p.m. and 6:00 a.m., in consultation with Sgt. Hogg; and

(b)the feasibility of installing a low beam across the entrance of the park to prohibit access to trucks involved in phantom dumping, and on the impact such barrier would have on police and emergency vehicles;

(2)whether there are any barriers at entrances to other parks in Toronto;

(3)whether the City has the authority to use the Trespass to Property Act to control activities during specific hours on public lands including school areas.

(i)(September 16, 1998) from the President, Roselands Ratepayers and Residents Association to Councillor Bill Saundercook, requesting that a barrier be installed at the Scarlett Road entrance to Smythe Park; that the barrier be locked from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., in view of the activities in the park such as vandalism, drinking, racing, and phantom dumping.

(ii)(September 21, 1998) from Councillor Saundercook to the President, Roselands Ratepayers and Residents Association, advising that their communication of September 16, 1998 has been forwarded to 12 Division, Toronto Police Services.

(iii)(September 21, 1998) from Councillor Saundercook to Sgt. Paul Hogg, 12 Division, Toronto Police Services, forwarding the communication from the Roselands Ratepayers and Residents Association.

(iv)(September 30, 1998) from Councillor Nunziata requesting that Sgt. Paul Hogg and the Vice President, Roseland Ratepayers and Residents Association, be listed as deputations.

(v)(September 17, 1998) from Councillor Nunziata advising that the staff of Parks and Works Departments have been requested to report on the feasibility of installing a barrier at Smythe Park.

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

-Sgt. Paul Hogg, 12 Division, Toronto Police Services; and

-Mr. Jack Lund, Vice President, Roselands Ratepayers & Residents Association.

(e)Policy Directions: Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation.

The York Community Council reports having considered Recommendations 1 to 7 in the following joint communication (October 14, 1998) from the Animal Alliance of Canada, the Animal Protection Institute, the Canadian Alliance for Furbearing Animals, and Zoocheck Canada Inc.; and having recommended to the Board of Health as follows:

(1)that Recommendations 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7, be endorsed;

(2)that Recommendation 3 regarding Part IV, DOGS, Section 13(1), that the words "for humane reasons" be added at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:

"13.(1)Any dog running at large contrary to the provisions of this by-law may be seized and impounded, or euthanized, for humane reasons."

(3)that Recommendation 5 regarding PART V, CATS, Section 20(1), that the words "for humane reasons" be added at the end of the paragraph to read as follows:

"20.(1)Any cat trespassing contrary to the provisions of this by-law may be seized and impounded, or euthanized, for humane reasons."; and

forwarded the following documents submitted by the Toronto Humane Society, to the Animal Services Advisory Committee of the Board of Health for consideration:

-A Compendium to the Evaluation of the Department of Public Health's Report on Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation (September25, 1998); and

-An Evaluation of the Department of Public Health's Report on Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation (September 3, 1998).

(i)(October 14, 1998) joint communication from the Director, Animal Alliance of Canada (AAC); the International Programme Director, Animal Protection Institute (API); the Director, Canadian Alliance for Furbearing Animals (CAFA); and the Director Zoocheck Canada Inc., advising that they generally support the direction taken by the Medical Officer of Health for the City's harmonized animal care and control legislation; and submitting the following recommendations to improve the proposed by-law:

1.Part II, Prohibited Animals, Section 3: That the Toronto Wildlife Centre should be added to the list of facilities exempt from the prohibition.

2.Part III, The Care of Animals, Section 5: That the wording in this section be replaced with the following:

"Every person who keeps an animal within the City's boundaries shall provide the animal or cause the animal to be provided with adequate and appropriate living conditions including care, food, water, shelter, exercise, attention and veterinary care as may be required to meet the species specific needs of the animal and to keep the animal in good health."

3.Part IV, Dogs, Section 13(1) be amended by deleting the word "euthanized".

4.Part V, Cats, Section 19 be amended to delete the word "trespass" and replace it with "roaming at large on private property other than that of the owner."

5.Part V, Cats, Section 20(1) be amended by deleting the word "trespassing" to "roaming at large on private property other than that of the owner" and by deleting the word "euthanized".

6.Part VI, Spay/Neuter Clinics, be amended by adding Section 24 which would read as follows:

"24.A special fund be set up by the City from the cat registration revenues to assist the elderly and poor with the cost of pet sterilization."

7.That a new section be added to read:

"No one shall be permitted to set a snare, leghold, body-gripping or similar trap in the City of Toronto.";

and that Council request enabling legislation from the Provincial government, similar to that held by the former City of Toronto and City of Scarborough, in order to provide the new City of Toronto with the power to enact this section of the by-law.

(ii)(September 16, 1998) from the Board of Health regarding Policy Directions: Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation, advising that the Board at its meeting on September 15, 1998:

(1)adopted the report (September 1, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health recommending that:

(i)this report be forwarded to each Community Council for further consultation on October 14, 1998 with the community and that comments be forwarded to the Board of Health by October 23, 1998;

(ii)the Board of Health give consideration to holding a special meeting in mid-November to hear deputations on draft animal care and control legislation;

(2)adopted the joint report (August 26, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health and City Solicitor recommending that the proposed by-law be forwarded to the Community Councils for consideration at their meetings on October 14, 1998; and that the recommendations from those meetings be forwarded to the Board of Health by October 23, 1998.

(iii)(August 28, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding copy of Clause No. 1 in Report No. 7 of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, as adopted by Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 regarding Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks.

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

-Mrs. Clementine Slater, Toronto;

-Ms. Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance of Canada;

-Ms. Daniela Quaglia, Public Affairs Advisor, Toronto Humane Society;

-Ms. Nathalie Karvonen, Toronto Wildlife Centre; and

-Ms. Fiona Venedam, York Director of Animal Control.

(f)Indoor Bocce Courts - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to direct the General Manager, Parks and Recreation and the York Director of Parks, to proceed with the construction of the proposed indoor bocce courts on the north side of Fairbank Park; and

(2)received the deputations:

(October 8, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc advising that the bocce courts at Fairbank Parks has taken three years to process; that an appropriate location for the courts within the park has been the predominate issue at hand and needs to be addressed immediately; and requesting that this matter be placed on the agenda for consideration on October 14, 1998.

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

-Vice President, Board of Directors, Seniors Bocce Club; and

-Executive Director, York Fairbank Seniors.

(g)Request for Removal of Tree at 17 Grandville Avenue,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to direct the York Director of Parks, to report on:

(a)an alternative solution after a further review of the circumstances related to the tree; and

(b)the status of York's schedule with respect to tree pruning; and

(2)requested the York Director of Professional Services to report on the claim submitted in August by the owner of 17 Grandville Avenue, regarding the damage to the property caused by roots from the tree on City property; and

(3)received the deputation:

(i)(October 1, 1998) from the York Director of Parks, advising that the owner is requesting that a City-owned tree be removed as a drain pipe on her property had to be replaced in the basement; and recommending that the mature Maple tree located at 17 Grandville Avenue be pruned and not removed as it does not qualify for removal according to the Tree By-law.

(ii)(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Labaine Miller,17 Grandville Avenue, advising of problems experienced and damages to her property for several years by roots from the City-owned tree; has submitted a claim for reimbursement for repairs in the amount of $1,284.00; requesting that the tree be removed and replaced with a tree of more suitable size; and also submitted an inspection report from Drysdale Tree Farms Limited providing an evaluation of the tree and potential safety issues.

________

-Ms. Labaine Miller, 17 Grandville Avenue, Toronto, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(h)Request for Removal of Tree at 8 Louvain Street,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998:

(October 1, 1998) from the York Director Parks, advising that the owner of 8 LouvainStreet is requesting that the City-owned fruit bearing tree on the boulevard be removed; and recommending that this tree not be removed as requested by the homeowner, as it does not qualify according to the Tree By-law.

(i)Request for Reversal of On-Street Permit Parking on Lambton Avenue,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports that having recommended alternate side parking on Lambton Avenue on September 16, 1998, which was adopted by Council on October1and2,1998, and which allows for parking to be alternated on both the north and south sides of the street; that the following communication be received:

(October 2, 1998) from Councillor Saundercook advising that a resident on Lambton Avenue is requesting that parking on Lambton Avenue be reversed from the north to the south side of the street.

(j)Request for Construction of Bus Bays on Lavender Road

for St. Matthew Catholic School - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Director of Professional Services to commence discussions with officials of St. Matthew Catholic School and representatives of the School Council, regarding the estimated cost of constructing the bus bays on Lavender Road, and the possibility of a cost-sharing arrangement with the Toronto District Catholic School Board.

(September 23, 1998) from Councillor Bill Saundercook requesting that staff report on the feasibility of constructing bus bays on Lavender Road to facilitate the St. Matthew Catholic School.

(September 14, 1998) from the Chairperson, St. Matthew Catholic School Council to the York Director of Professional Services, advising of the traffic congestion on the street; requesting a cost estimate for the construction of bays for the school buses; and enclosing a summarized background history (June 24, 1998) between the St. Matthew School and the City and the Site Master Plan drawing.

(k)Shell Station on Bathurst Street at Claxton Boulevard,

Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its next meeting to be held on November 12, 1998:

(September 12, 1998) signed by Councillor Mihevc on behalf of Councillors Adams, Bossons and Davis, requesting that the Committee of Adjustment defer the subject application to allow for a meeting with local residents and Shell officials; to examine the legal means by with the City can regulate the hours of operation of the Shell station and kiosk; and to examine the by-laws related to signage and lighting.

(l)Policy regarding Road Reconstruction and Traffic Calming,

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)reaffirmed the former City of York's policy, that where feasible, traffic calming measures be installed in conjunction with road and sidewalk reconstruction; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Director of Professional Services to submit a preliminary list to the Community Council in December 1998, in advance of the budget, identifying roads and sidewalks due for reconstruction in 1999; and that the areas scheduled for reconstruction in Ward 28 be examined with a view to the possible installation of traffic calming measures:

(September 17, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc advising of the former City of York's policy regarding the feasibility of installing traffic calming devices together with road and sidewalk reconstruction; and requesting that this policy be reaffirmed.

(m)Planter Box at Barrie Avenue and Winona Drive,

Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Director of Professional Services to investigate and report on this matter:

(September 23, 1998) from Councillor Mihevc advising that residents have complained that the planter box at the intersection of Barrie Avenue and Winona Drive is being removed and access gained where prohibited; and requesting that staff look at more permanent options to restrict the traffic flow at this intersection.

(n)Application for Liquor Licence, 1688 Eglinton Avenue West,

Roti King Restaurant - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to forward the municipal comments to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario:

(October 1, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that departmental comments have been received, and requesting authorization to forward same to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

(o)288 and 290 Boon Avenue, Ward 28 - York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 30, 1998) from the Manager, Field Office, West District, providing information as requested by the Community Council, on the eavestrough at 290 Boon Avenue and on whether the permit issued to construct the building was issued correctly; and recommending that the report be received.

(p)Traffic Concerns in the Cedarvale Area,

Ward 28 - York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having reopened this item which was received by the Community Council earlier this day, and having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager, Parking/Traffic, to forward the further report being prepared on this issue, to the Urban Economic Development Committee, for consideration together with Clause No. 3 of ReportNo.10 of the York Community Council, which was referred to that Committee by Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.

(October 8, 1998) from Councillor Mihevc requesting that the recommendation in Clause No.3 of Report No. 10 of the York Community Council be split into two motions to allow for separate voting; and that both items are traffic related and need to be dealt with on an individual basis.

(q)New Development Applications Received,

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 24, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, advising that new development applications have been received for the following:

2 Florence Crescent - Alteration of attached residential garage to permit a retail store.

9-17 Robina Avenue - Four semi-detached dwellings and part of a fifth semi-detached dwelling on a portion of the site which straddles the former Cities of York and Toronto.

2130 Eglinton Avenue West - Proposed 11 townhouses.

450 Gilbert Avenue - Proposed development of 10 semi-detached dwellings.

1515 Bathurst Street - Proposed 5790 m2 addition to existing Secondary School, Basilian Fathers of St. Michael's College School..

165-171 Vaughan Road - Extension of expiry of Site Plan Approval for development of Continuum Care Seniors' Facility.

(r)Planting of Trees on Watson Avenue,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having expressed its support for tree planting initiatives; and having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to direct the General Manager, Parks and Recreation and the York Director of Parks to meet with Mr. Chicoine, interested residents and officials of Humbercrest School, to discuss this proposal:

(October 2, 1998) from Mr. Mark Chicoine advising that residents on the street are interested in planting more trees, and suggesting a "Green Watson Avenue" campaign involving other residents and the Humbercrest School.

(s)Deputations.

The York Community Council reports having approved the following procedure regarding deputations:

If a particular report or communication on which a person wishes to speak is listed on the regular or supplementary agenda, the Community Council will dispense with the required written notice of intent to speak.

(t)Beautiful York Contest.

The York Community Council presented awards to winners in the Back Yard, Corner Lot, Condominium, Small Front and Large Front categories, in the annual Beautiful York Contest.

(Councillor Miller, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in Item (e), headed "Policy Directions: Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he has a financial interest in a company that does business with the Toronto Humane Society.)

Respectfully submitted,

BILL SAUNDERCOOK,

Chair

Toronto, October 14, 1998

(Report No. 12 of The York Community Council, including an addition thereto, was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on October 28, 19 and 30, 1998.)