(Report dated May 28, 1998, addressed to Scarborough Community Council, from the Director of Municipal
Standards, Urban Planning and Development Services.) Subject:261 Port Union Road
Purpose:
At its meeting on May 27th, the Scarborough Community Council requested a report concerning the division=s
involvement in investigating neighbourhood complaints including noise generation, property use and property
maintenance of the above property.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Nil
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Background/History:
The property known municipally as 261 Port Union Road is a plaza located on the east side of Port Union Road
directly south of Fanfare Avenue. An access lane which abuts the residential units to the east, runs north and south
between Fanfare and Ravine Park and provides access to the rear of the commercial units. The division records
indicate that the property has been the subject of a number of complaints since the early 1980's. These complaints
have revolved around the issue of excessive noise, land use and property standards.
When the plaza was constructed, a board on board fence approximately five feet high was erected along the
easterly property line which divides the commercial use from the residential properties. This fence is showing signs
of deterioration and is in need of repair. The owner of the property, Sun Life, has indicated its intention to construct
a 3 metre (10 feet) high board on board fence as a replacement. The abutting residents note that a 4 metre (13 feet)
concrete sound barrier was constructed in place of the board on board fence in the vicinity of the grocery store at
the south end of the development. The division has been advised that this barrier has performed adequately in
lessening the noise in that area. As a result, the residents are requesting a similar fence along the rest of the rear lot
line. We understand that such a project would cost upwards of $140,000.00 as opposed to $60,000.00 for a wooden
fence. Sun Life has indicated to the residents that the cost of the wooden fence is preferable.
It should also be noted that the existing noise barrier exceeds the maximum height under the city=s fence by-law by
0.91 metres (3 feet) although an exemption could be applied for.
The noise complaints have been centred around two issues. Firstly, a public garage forms part of the plaza at the
north end. This multi bay operation has its vehicular entrance off of the rear lane. Complaints have included
excessive idling of vehicles and the testing of vehicles in the rear lane. In this regard, three legal actions under the
noise by-law have been initiated. The first was heard in August 1979 and resulted in a conviction and fine of
$150.00. The second charge was withdrawn in January 1992 on a technical error while the third was heard in
September 1992 and was dismissed.
The court ruled that the noise associated with the use was not unusual. Secondly, the noise generated in the early
hours by the garbage trucks as well as the transport trucks delivering to the commercial uses has produce noise
levels which have caused problems for the neighbours.
Property Standards issues at the property have, in the past, been restricted to litter and debris as well as the use of
bulk garbage containers. Periodically over the years, bulk containers have appeared in the rear lane and the division
has followed up with appropriate notices to remove. Most recently, an Order to Comply dated May 12, 1998 has
been issued directing that the containers be removed. A compliance date of June 24th has been established. In
response to this Order, Shopper=s Drug Mart, a tenant in the plaza has submitted a proposal to create an enclosure
for the bins in the rear lane. No decision has been made regarding this proposal.
The residents have queried the auto repair use at the site for a number of years however the use is permitted under
Zoning By-law 1978 as amended.
Conclusion:
Except in the instance of a swimming pool, the installation of a fence does not require a permit or any permission
from the city unless the height is exceeded. The Division has reviewed the past correspondence on this issue and
has met with a number of residents on site. It is clear that both parties to this issue are well entrenched.
The Division believes however, that all alternatives have not yet been explored. As noise is the main issue, it might
be advantageous for both parties to engage a sound engineer to examine possible solutions. For example, perhaps a
3 metre (10 feet) solid concrete noise barrier might be an effective alternative to a 3 metre (10 feet) board on board
fence. Since costs are always an issue, perhaps a staged construction program for the installation of a 4 metre (13
feet) concrete noise barrier may be acceptable. Another consideration might be to construct noise barriers in the
areas where the noise generation is most prominent.
Contact Name:
Bryan Byng, Supervisor
(416) 396-5341
(416) 396-4266 Fax Number
byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca
(Copy of map attached, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)