CITY CLERK

  Clause embodied in Report No. 2 of the North York Community Council, which was berore the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.

    3

Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application and

Subdivision Application UDOZ-97-34 & UDSB-1232 -

Romeo DiBattista - 665 Trethewey Drive

Ward 6 - North York Humber

 (City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the North York Community Council for further consideration.)

 The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports (February 16, 1998 and December 30, 1997) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons that the proposal, as modified, is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the applications submitted by Romeo DiBattista regarding an Official Plan and Zoning Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application for 665 Trethewey Drive, be approved, subject to the recommendations contained in the following report (February 16, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, with the following additional conditions:

 (1)lot 99 be opened to allow for construction vehicle entry and then closed and the land conveyed to the City;

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

 (3)the deletion of Subsection (3.1);

 (4)prior to the adoption of the amending by-law, the applicant, and staff of the North York Planning and Parks and Recreation Departments be requested to develop an alternative park design with a view to achieving a park of not less than 3 acres with no residential units backing onto it;

 (5)the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services continue to explore opportunities to improve access and address operational traffic issues in the area which will not negatively impact on the residential area to the north; and that construction traffic to the site be required to use Industry Street;

 (6)staff of the North York Planning Department review the appropriateness of the industrial zoning immediately adjacent to the site, in consultation with the Black Creek Task Force, and report to the next meeting of the North York Community Council scheduled to be held on April 1, 1998;

 (7)the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to review the possibility of redesigning the Black Creek Drive/Trethewey Drive intersection so that it can accommodate left turns; and

 (8)should signal lights be deemed necessary on Trethewey Drive at either one of the entrances to this development within five years from the start of construction, that the cost of such signal lights shall be borne by the applicant.

 The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on February 18, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

 The North York Community Council submits the following report (February 16, 1997) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning:

 Purpose:

 This report provides an update on the applicant=s revisions to the subdivision plan and responds to the Community Council=s request for additional information regarding transportation matters arising from its meeting held on January 21, 1998. Revised recommendations are provided below. Any changes from the previous recommendations are shaded.

 Funding:

 Not applicable.

 Recommendations:

 It is recommended that:

 (1)The Official Plan designation be amended to Residential Density Two (RD-2) and Local Open Space (LOS) and Part D.11 of the North York Official Plan be deleted;

 (2)The zoning on the property be amended to Multiple-Family Dwellings First Density Zone (RM1) exception and Open Space Zone (O1), subject to the following provisions:

(2.1)In addition to the uses permitted in an RM1 zone, the following uses are also permitted:

 (a)one-family detached dwellings;

 (b)semi-detached dwellings;

(c)home office uses provided such uses are within a dwelling;

(2.2)A maximum of 535 units shall be permitted, of which there shall be a minimum of 125 one-family, semi-detached dwelling units or a combination thereof;

 (2.3)The minimum Lot Frontage shall be as follows:

 (a)9.0 metres for one-family detached dwelling units;

 (b)7.0 metres for semi-detached dwelling units;

 (c)for multiple attached dwelling units, 7.0 metres, provided the parking is accessed from a public street and 5.4 metres, provided the parking is accessed from a private lane;

 (2.4)The minimum Lot Area shall be as follows:

 (a)210m5 for one-family detached dwelling units;

 (b)180m5 for semi-detached dwelling units;

 (c)160 m5 for multiple attached dwelling units;

 (2.5)The minimum yard setback for each dwelling shall be as follows:

 Front Yard 3.0 metres

Front Yard to garage which faces a front lot line 5.5 metres

Side Yard for 2-storey one-family detached1.2 metres and 0.6 metres,

dwellings provided the 0.6 metre yard setback abuts a minimum yard setback of 1.2 metres on the adjacent lot

Side Yard for 3-storey one-family detached1.5 metres and 0.6 metres,

dwellingsprovided the 0.6 metre yard

setback abuts a minimum

yard setback of 1.5 metres on the adjacent lot

Side Yard for all other 2-storey buildings1.2 metres

Side Yard for all other 3-storey buildings 1.5 metres

Rear Yard 6.0 metres

Rear Yard abutting, but not including, a 12.0 metres

3.0 metre wide private lane

Rear Yard for sites abutting an industrial zone 12.0 metres;

 (2.6)The maximum building height shall be 3 storeys for all dwelling units;

 (2.7)Each multiple attached dwelling shall not contain more than 8 dwelling units;

 (2.8)A minimum of 2 parking spaces of a minimum size of 5.5 metres long and 2.7 metres wide shall be provided for each unit. Tandem parking shall be permitted and one space shall be unenclosed. Parking will be permitted within 3.0 metres of the street line;

 (2.9)Accessory garages shall be a maximum of 1 storey and shall be a maximum width of 3.0 metres;

 (2.10)Where a private lane exists at the rear of the lot, an accessory building may be located within 1.0 metre of the rear lot line;

 (2.11)The yard setback between a dwelling unit and an open railway corridor shall be not less than 30 metres;

 (2.12)Lot coverage, floor area and landscaped area requirements shall not apply;

 (3)The Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc., dated February 3, 1998, be approved, subject to Schedule AC1" - Redlined Plan and the following conditions:

 (3.1)The applicant carry out the following prior to draft approval of the plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the appropriate City Transportation Official:

 (a)the design of the block of land required by the North York Transportation Department to enable a future extension of Industry Street along the east boundary of the subdivision;

 (3.2)The owner provide the City with a letter of credit to construct the road where Lot 99 is presently shown on the plan;

 (3.3)The owner provide at their cost fencing on lots which abut the park to the satisfaction of the appropriate City Parks and Recreation Official;

 (3.4)Prior to the registration of the Plan, the applicant will:

 (a)provide landscaping detail for the lots which abut the industrial uses and agree in the subdivision agreement to provide the necessary landscaping;

 (b)evaluate options to ensure that the long term maintenance of the buffer area is achieved and provide buffer and wall details to the satisfaction of the appropriate City Works Official in consultation with the local Councillors;

 (3.5)The Standard Conditions of Approval for Subdivisions, attached as Schedule AD@ to the Recommendations Report;

 (3.6)The conditions of the North York Transportation Department, attached as Schedule AE@ to the Recommendations Report and Schedule AE@ to this report;

 (3.7)The conditions of the North York Public Works Department, attached as Schedule AF@ to the Recommendations Report;

 (3.8)The conditions of the North York Parks and Recreation Department, attached as Schedule AG@ to the Recommendations Report;

(3.9)The conditions of the North York Public Health Department, attached as Schedule AH@ to the Recommendations Report and Schedule AF@ to this report;

 (3.10)The conditions of Metropolitan Toronto, attached as Schedule AI@ to the Recommendations Report and Schedule AG@ to this report, with a review of the requirement for a pedestrian connection via public lands from the new subdivision site prior to the registration of the plan;

 (3.11)The conditions of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, attached as Schedule AJ@ to the Recommendations Report;

 (3.12)The conditions of the Canadian Pacific Railway, attached as Schedule H@ to this report;

 (3.13)The conditions of the Canadian National Railway, attached as Schedule AN@ to the Recommendations Report;

 (3.14)The conditions of Bell Canada, attached as Schedule AO@ to the Recommendations Report or those of another duly authorized licenced telecommunications company;

 (3.15)The conditions of Consumers Gas, attached as Schedule AP@ to the Recommendations Report;

 (3.16)The conditions of North York Hydro, attached as Schedule AQ@ to the Recommendations Report; and

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

 Council Reference:

 On January 21, 1998, North York Community Council received a Recommendations Report on an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment and conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval to permit 520 townhouse and semi-detached dwelling units and a public park. Included in that report, were conditions that the applicant incorporate revisions to the plan.

 The North York Community Council directed that (see Schedule AI@):

(1) a statutory public meeting be held;

 (2) an information session be held prior to the statutory public meeting;

 (3)the Planning and Transportation Departments report on road access between the industrial area and the subdivision and the feasibility of requiring a financial contribution from the applicant for an industrial road to Trethewey Drive;

 (4)the Transportation Department report on changes that would be required if the recommended allowance for tandem parking was eliminated;

 (5)Councillors in the adjacent City Ward to the south be involved in the consultation.

 Discussion:

 1) Information Session:

 An Open House was held on February 9, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. at Brookhaven Public School. Representatives of the applicant, staff and Councillors were present to respond to comments and questions. Representatives of both Councillors Nunziata and Saundercook were in attendance at the Open House.

 The community continued to express general support for the significant reduction in the number of residential units and the ownership housing which will be promoted. The central park location was also supported and interest was expressed in exploring opportunities to open up and provide additional access points in the northern portion.

 A subdivision connection at the present termination of Industry Street (i.e. Lot 99) was generally favoured. Some people wished to see the connection opened immediately, while others thought that it should be opened in the future when industrial traffic has been reduced. A direct connection from Industry Street to Trethewey Drive along the eastern boundary of the site raised a concern of potential traffic infiltration through the existing neighbourhood to the north via Brookhaven Drive. The Black Creek Business Area Association also dealt with the transportation issues at their meeting of January 9th, 1998. The Association is in favour of a connection via Block 98 (now Lot 99). The Black Creek Business Area Association were not in favour of a connection along the eastern edge of the site from Industry Street to Trethewey Drive.(see Schedule AJ@).

 2) Industrial Road from Industry Street to Trethewey Drive/Tandem Parking:

 Comments from the Transportation Department are attached as Schedule AD@ to this report.

 3) Revised Plan:

 As requested in the Recommendations Report, the applicant submitted revised plans (see Schedule AC@). A redlined plan is attached as Schedule AC1@, with the following revisions included with the staff recommendations to reflect the new plan:

Park:

 To provide for a public promenade to the new park for the existing and new residents, the applicant has added a 3.0 metre strip of land along the east edge of the right-of-way of Street A1" from Trethewey Drive to the northwestern edge of the park.

 The applicant has also provided openings at the northeast edge of the park. To ensure sight vistas, adequate access and visibility for the new park, a reconfiguration at the northeast edge to delete Block 44 and provide a minimum of 20 metres between lots is recommended. Further to increase the park opening at the northwest corner of the park, Block 39 and Lots 40 through 43 should be shifted 5.0 metres to the east. These revisions are reflected on the redlined plan.

 Road Pattern:

 The road pattern through the subdivision has been modified by the applicant to provide a more direct connection from the future access to Industry Street and the connection via Block 98 (now Lot 99) has been widened to 20 metres. The applicant has also added a cul-de-sac turning circle area at the termination of Street 3, which meets the Public Works standard, while staff has identified Lot 99 on the redlined plan as a block to be dedicated to the City of Toronto, rather than shown as a residential lot.

 To reflect staff=s recommendation that the laneways in the northern portion of the site be private, they have been designated as Blocks 137 through 139 on the redlined plan.

 Unit Mix:

 At the applicant=s request, one-family detached dwellings in addition to semi-detached units are also permitted within the recommended RM1 Zone. These units will complement the variety of units to be built with a minimum of 125 one-family and/or semi-detached types. A minor increase in the number of residential units overall is recommended from 520 to 535 as a result of the shift in housing types and street frontage.

4) Outstanding Concerns of Applicant:

 The applicant has identified the following outstanding concerns outlined in their letter dated February 9, 1998 (see Schedule AK@ to this report) which are not recommended by staff:

 (1)the laneways for the units adjacent to Trethewey Drive are proposed to be public;

 (2)a block of land required by the Transportation Department for an easterly connection between Industry Street and Trethewey Drive is not proposed;

 (3)block 98 (now lot 99) is shown on the revised plan as a residential lot to be held by the applicant in trust for a specific period of time until compatible land uses are built on the adjacent lands;

 (4)the applicant proposes to construct sidewalks on only one side of the streets;

 (5)the applicant has concerns with the Standard Conditions of Approval for Subdivision (see Schedule AD@ to the Recommendations Report) regarding the form of securities for services and the review period for the conditions of draft subdivision approval; and

 (6)the applicant also wishes to reduce the caliper of the street trees from 100mm to 75mm and the corresponding protection zone.

Conclusions:

 The approval of the application to construct a maximum of 535 new homes in a residential subdivision with a public park, with conditions, based on a revised plan is recommended in this Supplementary Report. Changes to the recommendations in the previous Recommendations Report have been reflected in bold in this report and a redlined plan is included. A Draft Official Plan Amendment (Schedule AA@) and Zoning By-law (Schedule AB") reflecting the recommendations are attached to this report.

 Contact Name:

 Alan Binks, Planner

Phone: 395-7100Fax: 395-7155

______

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

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

 (i) (January 26, 1998) from Richard P. Quance, Fellows, McNeil, Barristers-at-Law, Suite 216, 111 Richmond Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2G4, on behalf of Universe Investments, property owner of 1533 Jane Street, indicating that prior to any consideration or approval being given, that it be determined that there will be no need for any encroachment or expropriation of any of the lands belonging to Universe Investments and that there are no other adverse consequences to Universe Investments; and that the applicant satisfy any and all concerns with respect to increased traffic flows which will likely result from the contemplated development;

 (ii)(January 29, 1998) from Jeanette Nevers, 1540 Jane Street, Apartment 508, Toronto, Ontario, M9M 2R7, commenting on the existing schools, churches and commercial facilities in the area; and

 (iii)(February 13, 1998) from Angelo Sangiorgio, Superintendent of Planning and Facilities, Toronto Catholic School Board, 80 Sheppard Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6E8, objecting to the application in light of the fact that a school site, suitably sized and located with the subdivision has been omitted.

The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council:

 a)Ms. Emma Jackson on behalf of the Black Creek Business Area Association

 Ms. Jackson indicated that there has been discussions between the applicant and the Black Creek Business Area Association. The Association is pleased with the discussions that have taken place with the applicant thus far and would like this application to come to fruition, as soon as possible.

 b)Mr. Denis Olerenshaw

 Mr. Olerenshaw commented on the potential traffic problems in the area as a result of large developments. He also offered some suggestions to improve the traffic situation such as connecting Industry Street to the proposed development directly. This is part of the approved plan for Bridgehome 2000. The proposal to connect Industry Street was supported by the Black Creek Association.

 In addition, he suggested that a post-like structure be erected at the entrance of Lot 99 to prevent the drivers of construction trucks to use Brookhaven Drive.

 c)Mr. Richard Quance, Solicitor, on behalf of Universe Investments, property owner of 1533 Jane Street

 Mr. Quance expressed concern with the requirements set out by the Transportation Department and his client did not want any portion of his lands being sacrificed for the road widening.

 d)Mr. Steve Diamond, Solicitor, on behalf of Romeo DiBattista

 Mr. Diamond, on behalf of the applicant, outlined the history related to these lands and commented on the three outstanding concerns being the requirement of land for the extension of Industry Street; the dedication of Block 98 (now Lot 99); and the maintenance of the proposed laneways, which in his opinion, should be made public laneways.

 ______

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