May 28, 1998

 To:Scarborough Community Council

 From:Harold Bratten, P.Eng.

Director of Municipal Standards

 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

 Harold Bratten, P.Eng.

Director, Municipal Standards

Urban Planning and Development Services

  BGB