City of Toronto   *
HomeContact UsHow Do I...? Advanced search Go
Living in TorontoDoing businessVisiting TorontoAccessing City Hall
 
Accessing City Hall
Mayor
Councillors
Meeting Schedules
   
   
  City of Toronto Council and Committees
  All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
   

 

Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-17 -

Centre Core Holdings Inc. -

1 and 11 Granlea Road, 21 Calvin Avenue and

4 Vonda Avenue - North York Centre

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the application submitted by Centre Core Holdings Inc. regarding Zoning Amendment Application for 1 and 11 Granlea Road, 21 Calvin Avenue and 4 Vonda Avenue, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report.

The North York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report on the feasibility of requiring the establishment of a reserve fund administered in trust by the City to secure the maintenance of the rear lane.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on January 20, 1999, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of an application to permit 10 new small lot single detached dwellings, with a rear lane and rear yard garages, fronting onto Granlea Road.

Recommendation(s):

It is recommended that:

(1)the application for rezoning be approved, and the zoning be amended to R7 (8) to permit 10 single detached dwellings with a rear lane and rear yard garages, with the following exceptions:

(a)minimum lot area - 227 m²;

(b)minimum lot frontage - 7.6 metres;

(c)minimum front yard setback - 3.0 metres;

(d)minimum side yard setbacks - 0.6 metres;

(e)lot coverage of 50 percent maximum for all buildings and structures including garage; and

(f)maximum building height of 8.8 metres and 3 storeys provided that, for the third storey, window openings and doorways be permitted only in the front and side yards;

Prior to Enactment of Any Zoning By-law

(2)staff do all things necessary to secure all necessary agreements, financial and otherwise to implement the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department as set out in Schedule "F";

General Conditions

(3)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division as set out in Schedule "E";

(4)the conditions of the Parks and Recreation Planning Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, as set out in Schedule "G";

(5)prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan satisfactory to the Director, Community Planning, North District, addressing appropriate front yard landscaping, streetscaping along Granlea Road, Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue, and rear yard landscaping and fencing; and

(6)at the appropriate time, Council approve a release from part lot control by-law, subject to the conditions and policies for release of part lot control as adopted by Council. Prior to releasing part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land, the City will be advised in order that the part lot control exempting by-law may be revoked.

Background:

Proposal:

The application proposes an amendment to the Zoning By-law in order to permit 10 new small lot single detached dwellings, three storeys in height, where 4 dwellings currently exist. Pertinent site statistics are set out below:

Site Area(total) 0.2 ha (2,314.6 m²)
Lot Area(lots 1 and 10)

(lots 2-9)

227.8 m²

232.3 m²

Gross Floor Area(lots 1 and 10)

(lots 2-9)

209.5 m²

209.9 m²

Lot Frontage(per lot) 7.6 metres (25 feet)
Lot Coverage 47 percent

(32 percent house + 15 percent garage)

Yard Setbacks

Front

Side

Rear

3.0 metres

0.6 metres

15.7 metres

Units 10
Building Height 8.8 metres and 3 storeys
Parking Proposed 20 spaces

Location and Existing Site:

The site is located on the south side of Granlea Road, between Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue, southwest of Sheppard and Bayview. Four single detached dwellings currently occupy the site, fronting on Granlea Road, Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue. There are single detached dwellings to the north, south and east. Further to the north, there are office uses on the commercial lands abutting the south side of Sheppard Avenue. The "Roseways" townhouse complex is located to the west of the site.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Residential Density One (RD1) which permits single detached dwellings at a general density of 20 units per hectare (8 units per acre), and semi-detached dwellings at a general density of 30 units per hectare (12 units per acre).

The area southwest of Bayview/Sheppard which includes this site is also subject to Part D.15 of the Official Plan, the Sheppard East Subway Corridor Secondary Plan, introduced through OPA 392. The secondary plan maintains the existing RD1 designation. The approval of OPA 392 has been appealed to the OMB by the Bay Cal Group Inc, one of the homeowner groups in the area.

The RD1 designation allows the proposed detached dwellings. At approximately 43 units per net hectare (17 units per net acre), this proposal is above the general density normally permitted by the Official Plan. This density is appropriate however, for a location in the Sheppard Corridor and represents limited intensification, as discussed in this report.

Zoning By-law:

The site is currently zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling Zone (R4) which permits single detached homes and accessory buildings, as well as certain recreational and institutional uses. The proposal would require an exception amendment to the regulations for the R4 zone.

Other Department Comments:

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that they are satisfied with the proposed rear lane of 6.0 metres as shown on the revised site plan. Their comments are attached as Schedule "E".

The Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that the reconstruction of Granlea Road from Calvin Avenue to Vonda Avenue will be required, along with a sanitary sewer and a sidewalk along Granlea Road. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City, registered on title, requiring the future owners to jointly maintain the common elements (i.e. the rear lane), and granting mutual easements. Their comments are attached as Schedule "F".

The Parks and Recreation Planning Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has indicated that 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland will be required at the time of building permit application, and that the applicant will be required to enter into a Tree Preservation Agreement with the City. Their comments are attached as Schedule "G".

The Public Health Division has indicated that there are no outstanding Public Health requirements pertaining to the soils on the site. Their comments are attached as Schedule "H".

Community Consultation:

A community consultation meeting was held on July 28, 1998. A number of issues were raised by the residents:

  • this proposal may set a precedent for other applications in the area;
  • the zoning for the whole neighbourhood should be changed to allow a higher density;
  • a comprehensive assembly of the area is unlikely;
  • there is a limited market for homes larger and more expensive than the proposal;
  • the existing trees on the properties should be protected;
  • there should be landscaping and fencing to buffer the adjacent properties; and
  • traffic and parking issues should be addressed.

A number of submissions have been received from area residents raising similar issues (refer to Schedule "O"). Each of the issues is addressed in this report in the appropriate section.

Discussion:

Planning Issues:

Land Use and Density:

Sheppard Corridor Plan and Limited Intensification:

OPA 392 encourages transit supportive development in the Sheppard Corridor, with a high quality of urban design. New development is to be supportive of the existing goals and objectives of the Official Plan, which include the housing policies limiting intensification in stable residential neighbourhoods.

Stable residential areas within the Sheppard Corridor which have Residential designations are to be protected and enhanced in accordance with the housing policies and the Sheppard East Subway Corridor secondary plan, which has established the Bayview node as a residential development node with opportunities for a variety of housing types within walking distance of the subway station.

The Housing policies call for limited intensification which will enhance the viability of residential areas. This proposal will reinforce the stability of this neighbourhood as a low density residential area, and will set a precedent for other forms of low density limited intensification in the future. The development also provides the opportunity to provide new single detached dwellings within walking distance of the future Bayview subway station.

The policies governing RD1 areas recognize that in some cases this designation applies to lands developed with smaller lots at a higher density than normally permitted. Notwithstanding the designated density and the provisions of the Zoning By-law, for development in or near RD1 areas, regard is to be given to the character of existing or approved development, and maintaining appropriate land use performance standards and compatible built form.

This application proposes single detached dwellings on smaller lots, which are to be compatible with the other single detached dwellings in the area, and at a modest level of intensification which is appropriate given the site's proximity to the future subway station.

Built Form:

The General Development Criteria of the Housing policies, which are designed to ensure the continued stability of neighbourhoods and their regeneration, promote maintaining or creating compatible built form relationships between new and existing development in stable residential areas when limited intensification is considered. The scale, built form and massing of new housing should be sensitive to the physical character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

The application proposes replacement housing which includes elements of limited intensification which have been used successfully in other parts of the "new" City such as rear lanes, maximizing amenity space, and detached garages in the rear yard. These attributes of this proposal are appropriate for this location given the proximity to the future subway station at Bayview/Sheppard, and further met the requirements of the Housing policy.

The rear lane and rear yard garages provide for an attractive streetscape, in that vehicular parking is located to the rear of the houses, and there is a minimum of hard surfaces in the front yard. With well articulated front facades and generous front yard landscaping, this development will enhance the street, which can be difficult to achieve with small lot dwellings, which are often developed with below grade garages. The side walls of the units which abut Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue should have elevation treatments which reflect their public street frontage.

The proposal seeks to maintain the existing trees. A landscape plan indicating appropriate front yard landscaping, appropriate streetscaping along the three abutting streets, and sensitive rear yard landscaping and fencing to buffer the properties to the south, should be required as a condition of approval.

The applicant has proposed that the dwellings share access via a rear lane width of 6.0 metres, which narrows near the centre to permit the preservation of a mature oak tree. This is acceptable to the Transportation Services Division. The proposal provides two parking spaces per unit which meets the Zoning By-law standard.

The applicant requests permission to include a half storey within the roof portion of the houses. Technically this represents a third storey although the maximum permitted 8.8 metre building height is to be maintained. The third storey is appropriate given that there is no change to the massing of the proposed houses, however, there should be no overview of the abutting properties to the south fronting onto Calvin Avenue and Vonda Avenue, which are developed with 1½ storey houses. The amending by-law should permit window or door openings only facing the front and side yards, in order to minimize overview onto the neighbouring properties.

Neighbourhood Context and Appeal of OPA 392:

The residents groups in the area differ in their views as to whether this neighbourhood should be maintained as a low density residential area (SOS Preservation Group), or designated as a key development area (Bay Cal Group Inc). A submission from each of these groups is attached to this report. This is a stable residential area deserving protection in accordance with the principles of the Sheppard Corridor secondary plan, and one which is appropriate for limited intensification of the type proposed by this application. No larger assembly has occurred. Discussions will continue with the Bay Cal Group Inc to focus their appeal of OPA 392, and seek solutions, prior to the OMB pre-hearing conference which is expected to be held early in 1999.

Rear Lane Maintenance and Mutual Easements:

The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City requiring the future owners to jointly maintain the common elements (i.e. the rear lane) and requiring mutual easements to give effect to their mutual rights-of-way to gain access over other unit owners' lands. This agreement shall be registered on title, guaranteeing that the owners of the properties and their successors in title will be responsible for the provision, construction, maintenance and repair of the common elements and that the City will not be required to assume such services at any time in the future.

Part Lot Control:

At the appropriate time, Council should consider a by-law to release the site from part lot control because of the division of the existing four lots and the mutual easements which the applicant intends to seek. Council's tariff of fees for the processing of an application t o release part lot control will be applied to any such proposal. A by-law to designate lands as not subject to part lot control, authorized by Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, would be enacted in accordance with the North York Council policy adopted in 1995. The applicant will be required to advise the City following the sale of all of the houses in order that the by-law can be repealed to prevent further subdivision of the lands.

Conclusions:

The application is consistent with the RD1 designation and the objectives of the Sheppard East Subway Corridor secondary plan in terms of land use and density. The location of the garages in the rear yard, combined with appropriate landscaping and streetscaping, will enhance the street and the neighbourhood. The proposal represents compatible and sensitive infill development which conforms to the Housing policies for limited intensification in stable residential areas.

Contact Name:

Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner

Telephone: (416) 395-7110Fax: (416) 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

A staff presentation was made by Ms. Ruth Lambe, Senior Planner, Urban Planning and Development Division, North District.

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

(i)(January 20, 1999) from Mr. Frank D. Reiss, representative on behalf of the applicant, outlining the merits of the application and requesting two amendment to the recommendations contained in the staff report;

(ii)(January 13, 1999) from Mr. H. I. Kershen, in support of the application;

(iii)(January 12, 1999) from Mr. Robert L. Burton, in support of the application;

(iv)(January 5, 1999) from Mr. Clifford G. Cooper and Ms. Evelyn M. Cooper, on behalf of the Bay-Cal Homeowners Group Inc., Sheppard Corridor Ratepayers' Association, outlining the Association's concerns with the application and forwarding a list of residents wishing to address the North York Community Council on this matter;

(v)(January 4, 1999) from Mr. Stan Santavy, in opposition to the application;

(vi)(undated) from Ms. Evelyn Dewar, advising of her concerns with the application;

(vii)(undated) from Mr. Dan Di Liddo, advising of his concerns with the application; and

(viii)(undated) from Mr. Clifford Cooper on behalf of the Bay-Cal Homeowners Group Inc., Sheppard Corridor Ratepayer's Association outlining the Association's concerns and objections with the proposal.

The following persons addressed the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Barry McMonagle, President, Bayview Willowdale Homeowners' Association, who spoke in support of the proposed development. In his opinion, the proposed development meets the objectives of the Sheppard East Subway Corridor secondary plan in terms of land use and density. It would also ensure that the residential character of the neighbourhood is maintained.

-Mr. Sandford Malach, who spoke in opposition to the application. In his opinion, a decision on this proposal should be deferred until such time as the Ontario Municipal Board has rendered a decision on Official Plan Amendment 392. He also believed that given the proximity of this site to the Sheppard Subway, the lands should be developed at a higher density.

-Ms. Barbara Garbens, President, S.O.S. Preservation Group, who spoke in support of the proposed development. During her submission she indicated that careful consideration should be given to the preservation of the residents' existing quality of life and the preservation of greenspace. She also suggested that fencing and screening be provided in to buffer the adjacent properties and that appropriate safety measures be undertaken during the construction phase.

In concluding Ms. Garbens indicated that the proposal represents compatible infill development which conforms to the Housing policies for limited intensification in stable residential areas.

-Mr. Clifford Cooper who spoke in opposition to the proposed development. His primary objections were with respect to the lot coverage and density proposed; the design of the proposed dwellings, which in his opinion, is incompatible with existing dwellings; lack of greenspace; the removal of existing trees and increased traffic.

Mr. Cooper further indicated that given the proximity of these lands to the subway node, a townhouse development is an inappropriate use of the lands. In his opinion, since the subject lands are close to public transportation, schools, churches and other services, the lands should be developed at a higher density in order to generate the much needed tax base for the City while providing more open greenspace, efficient parking and traffic conditions and increased subway ridership.

-Ms. Evelyn Dewar, President, Bal Cal Group Homeowners Association, Sheppard Corridor Ratepayers Association, who spoke in opposition to the application. In her opinion, the proposed development would undermine future development along the Sheppard subway line. She further indicated that lands in close proximity to the subway should be developed at a higher density.

-Mr. Robert Pastoor, who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary concerns were with respect to the laneway proposed for this development and the nature of the application. He believed that there should be a comprehensive land assembly rather that rezoning one particular site.

-Mr. Dan Di Liddo, who spoke in opposition to the application. During his submission he indicated that many of the owners in the area believe that consideration of this application should be deferred until such time as the Ontario Municipal Board has rendered a decision on Official Plan Amendment 392. Given the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board, the density proposed for this development may not be suitable. He was also concerned about the fact that this proposal may set a precedent for other applications in the area, In light of this area being in such close proximity to the subway line, he was concerned that taxpayers may eventually end up subsidizing the subway.

-Mr. Malcolm Sobie who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary concerns were with respect to the density proposed given the proximity of the subject lands to the subway. In his opinion, if intensification is not suitable to support the subway line, many of the homeowners in the area would eventually have to pay higher taxes. He believed that development in the area should be done on a comprehensive basis rather than spot rezoning.

-Mr. Frank D. Reiss, Terraventure Group, on behalf of the applicant, Centre Core Holdings Inc, who commented on the merits of the application. During his submission he indicated that developing these lands at a higher density, as requested by some of the deputants, would require a land assembly of many more existing properties. This process, in his opinion, would destablize the neighbourhood which consists primarily of single family dwellings.

Mr. Reiss also pointed out that the site is over 600 metres from the proposed subway station at the north-east corner of Sheppard and Bayview Avenues. This site could therefore not be considered part of the subway node development at that location. However, ample opportunity would still exist for Council to approve higher density development directly on Sheppard Avenue and on Bayview Avenue in this neighbourhood without the destabilizing effects of inserting high density in this stable single family neighbourhood.

Mr. Reiss further stated that the applicant has had several meetings with many of the adjacent and nearby residents and the proposal before the North York Community Council addresses many of their concerns with respect to the garages. The garages have been moved to the north and a more pleasing streetscape has been created by proposing a mutual rear lane instead of mutual driveways.

Mr. Reiss concluded by stating that the applicant concurred generally with the recommendations contained in the staff report with the exception of the provision for a sidewalk and the requirement for the five percent cash-in-lieu park dedication.

-Mr. Robert Bond, who agreed with many of the previous speakers that these lands should be developed at a higher density.

Motions and Recorded Votes:

A.Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, moved that consideration of this application be deferred until Official Plan Amendment No. 392 has been dealt with by the Ontario Municipal Board.

B.Councillor Filion, North York Centre, moved that:

(i)the application be approved subject to the conditions contained in the report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District; and

(ii)General Condition (3) dealing with the requirement for a sidewalk, as outlined in Schedule "E" of the report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, be deleted.

C.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that General Condition (4) dealing with the requirement for the five percent cash-in-lieu parkland dedication, as outlined in Schedule "G" of the report (December 15, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, be amended to allow a payment of $2,000.00 per lot for a total payment of $20,000.00.

D.Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina, moved that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer report on the feasibility of requiring the establishment of a reserve fund administered in trust by the City to secure the maintenance of the rear lane.

F.Councillor Li Preti, Black Creek, moved that Councillor Moscoe's recommendation dealing with the amendment of the parkland dedication to allow a payment of $2,000.00 per lot for a total payment of $20,000.00 be referred to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in order to provide a report on the existing cash-in-lieu parkland dedication policy for the former City of North York in comparison to the other former Municipalities in the City of Toronto.

A recorded vote on motion A, moved by Councillor Gardner, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Gardner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro

Lost

A recorded vote on motion E, moved by Councillor Li Preti, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Chong

AGAINST:Councillors Berger, Flint, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro

Lost

A recorded vote on motion C, moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Berger, Flint Chong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillor Sgro

Lost

A recorded vote on Part (ii) of motion B, moved by Councillor Filion, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Augimeri, Gardner, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Minnan-Wong, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillor Sgro

Lost.

A recorded vote on Part (i) of motion B, moved by Councillor Filion, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

AGAINST:Councillors Gardner, King

ABSENT:Councillor Sgro

Carried

A recorded vote on motion D, moved by Councillor Moscoe, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Moscoe, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Chong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Gardner, Filion, Minnan-Wong

ABSENT: Councillor Sgro

Carried

 

   
Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

 

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links
© City of Toronto 1998-2005