Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code

Harvey Sawh, 63 and 65 Winterton Drive

File No. Z-2296 (Markland-Centennial)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations, written submissions filed and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations in the report (August 20, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and for the reason that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application by Harvey Sawh for amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit a 10-unit retirement home at 63 and 65 Winterton Drive, not be approved.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting in accordance with Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (August 20, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider an application to amend the Residential (R1) zoning and the Official Plan (Utilities) of a site at 63 and 65 Winterton Drive to permit a 10-unit retirement home.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application by Mr. Harvey Sawh be approved subject to a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and the fulfilment of conditions outlined in this report; and

(2)subject to the conditions set out in this report, that by-laws to implement the Official Plan and Zoning Amendments to permit the proposed development be introduced at Council.

Background:

Over a two-year period, Mr. Sawh has submitted a number of proposals to the City to develop the formerly surplus hydro property. In 1997, a proposal for a 24-bed retirement home was withdrawn, and revised to request rezoning to First Density Residential (R1) to permit two single family dwellings, which was approved by Council in September 1997. More recently (in February 1998), an application to permit a 40-unit retirement residence was refused by the Ontario Municipal Board as being too intense for this site.

In its decision, the Board indicated that a retirement home in the range of 10-12 units could potentially be accommodated, subject to submission of a site plan which provides for significant set-backs separating the retirement home from neighbouring houses; provision of a significant front and rear yard with generous usable outdoor amenity area, significant landscaping including berming

to reduce visual impact, and submission of a design resembling a single family dwelling to achieve a consistent street scape on Winterton Drive.

Proposal:

The applicant has now submitted a revised application to amend the Official Plan and zoning to permit a 10-unit retirement residence in response to the findings stipulated by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), in its decision of November 27, 1998.

The applicant proposes to construct a one and a half split level building accessed by a single driveway off of Winterton Drive.

The project includes 10 suites and a manager suite, served by a common dining lounge, kitchen, and general office on the main floor (upper level). The lower level would contain 4 rooms, the manager suite, storage room, and exercise room. Parking for 7 cars is located in front of the building. Landscaping is provided along the Winterton Drive frontage, the side yard abutting existing single family dwellings which front onto Streatham Place, and the entire rear yard of the project.

A comparison of the main difference between the earlier proposal considered by the OMB, and the present revised submission are summarized as follows (See Table No. 1):

(1)a reduction in the number of units from 40 to 10, and corresponding decrease in the overall gross floor area from 2 306 m² (24,888 sq ft) to 700 m² (7,535 sq ft);

(2)the elimination of a substantive portion of the rear of the building, and replacement with landscaped open space; as a result landscaped open space ration is increased from 40 percent to 66 percent;

(3)the elimination of all of the front yard parking and paved area which formerly abutted single family residences adjacent to the property, and replacement with a landscaped berm buffer; and

(4)an increase in the side yard set-back from 3.0 metres to 4.61 metres.

Table No. 1

	Original Submission Considered by OMB	Current Proposal
Site Area	.32 ha (.78 ac)	.32 ha (.78 ac)
Gross Floor Area	2 306 m2 (24,888 sq ft)	700 m2 (7,535 sq ft)
Number of Rooms	40 + 1 manager suite	10 + 1 manager suite
Building Height	8.84 m (29 ft)	Same
Floor Space Index	.73	.30
Building Coverage	1 182 m2 (12,722 sq ft) 37 %	454 m2 (4,887 sq ft) 14 %
Paved Area	703 m2 (7,567 sq ft) 22 %	(6,763.9 sq ft) 20 %
Landscaped Area	1 283 m2 (13,815 sq ft) 41 %	2 086 m2 (22,453 sq ft) 66 %
Parking: Required - Provided -	14 spaces 16 spaces	4 spaces 7 spaces

Exhibit No. 1 is a map showing the location of the subject property and surrounding zoning. Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of the site plan and elevations, respectively. A summary of the site data for the proposal recently considered by the Ontario Municipal Board, and the current submission is listed in Table No. 1.

Comments:

Official Plan:

The property is designated for utility purposes in the Official Plan. An amendment to low density residential, which permits a range of grade-related housing including lodging houses, would be appropriate to reflect the intended use, and would be consistent with the existing First Density Residential (R1) zoning.

Although lodging houses are preferably located in higher density multiple occupancy areas of the City, they are permitted in all residential areas subject to the criteria regarding use and standards set out in the Official Plan Policy Section 4.2.2.0.

Staff are satisfied that the revised proposal generally meets the criteria set out in Section 4.2.2.0 of the Official Plan (Exhibit No. 4) with respect to the use, location and development standards for lodging houses; the exception being Section (a) which prescribes that such uses be located on arterial roads. Notwithstanding the above, the Ontario Municipal Board in their findings on the previous application, concluded that the retirement facility at this location would not result in any noticeable traffic or parking problems for the area; nor was the site's location on a local road raised as an issue in the Board's consideration of appropriate use for the site. Staff note that the site is located only one block south of Eglinton Avenue West, a major arterial road, which can be readily accessed by Martin Grove Road.

Zoning:

The site is zoned First Density Residential (R1) which limits use of the property to two single family dwellings only. The proposed senior's residence is classified as a lodging house in the Etobicoke Zoning Code. In residentially zoned areas, lodging houses are permitted uses only in the Fourth or Fifth (R4, R5) zones subject to supplementary regulations for lodging house which restrict use locations and development standards. Therefore, in order to permit the current "retirement home", a site specific amendment will be required to permit this facility in an R1 zone and exempt the facility from certain supplementary regulations for lodging houses.

The current proposal generally complies with the supplementary regulations for lodging houses with staff's evaluation contained in Exhibit No. 5. In particular, it is noted that the revised proposal meets or exceeds all of the criteria related to intensity of use, landscaped area, amenity area, side yard and rear yards, all of which are critical in achieving a suitable buffer from the adjacent single family community.

One area, which does not appear to completely respond to the Board's comments, relates to the easterly side yard setback. In this regard, staff note that the side yard abutting the front portion of the proposed retirement residence has been increased from 3 metres to 4.61metres. The rear portion of the easterly side yard however, has actually been reduced from 4.68 metres to 4.61 metres. Staff have requested that as a condition to this report, the building be shifted westerly as far as technically feasible toward the hydro right-of-way to maximize the separation between the retirement home and the abutting single family dwellings on Streatham Place.

Staff note that there is also an opportunity to shift some of the parking currently located along the westerly lot line further toward the building thereby significantly increasing the landscape buffer on Winterton Drive.

It would be appropriate for the implementing zoning by-law to tie down the details of the current proposal including use, number of residents, setbacks based on the footprint of the building. It would also be appropriate for a more detailed version of the site plan to be submitted, illustrating the particulars of the landscaped area, fencing, as well as the previously noted recommendations related to increased buffer on Winterton Drive and the shifting of the building to the east as far as possible.

Prior to enactment of an amending by-law a revised plan detailing landscaped area and details, lot grading and fencing as well as revised parking layout to achieve more landscaping on Winterton Drive and the shifting of the building to the east to achieve a better buffer between adjacent residential on Strathearn Place will be required.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

Toronto Health Services, Toronto Fire Services, Canada Post, Bell Canada, the Toronto Police Service, Park Services West District, the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto District Catholic School Board have expressed no concern with the proposal.

The Transportation Services Division of Works and Emergency Services has advised that the level of vehicular traffic generated by this development during actual weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours is not expected to impact on the operation or level of service of the abutting road network.

The proposed driveway location and design is acceptable, with the applicant being financially responsible for removal and/or relocation of any utilities in order to introduce the proposed driveway.

The proposed parking supply and layout are generally acceptable. However, it has been recommended that the parking area along the west lot line be shifted toward the building by approximately 4.0 m, to permit additional landscaping on Winterton frontage and increased clear throat distance for the main entrance driveway. A revised plan reflecting the above is condition to by-law approval.

The Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services advised that water, storm and sanitary are available to service the site. Storm water management, both quality and quantity measures in a requirement to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services. The driveway and reconstruction of the sidewalk on Winterton Drive is to be in accordance with Std 220-225 and Std 249, respectively.

To ensure that the development of the subject property does not create a drainage problem to this or the abutting lands, the applicant will be required to submit a lot grading plan showing existing and proposed grades for the Works and Emergency Services Department's approval. The Works and Emergency Services Department have also advised that the plan of survey shows an encroachment along a portion of the east side of the property, and that a resolution of the matter must be reached prior to the approval of a grading plan.

All of the above will be addressed as conditions to site plan approval. Finally, it has been noted that a minor adjustment to the ground floor plan is required to accommodate the necessary recycling equipment, and garbage set-out area, also required as a condition to site plan approval. The applicant has also been requested to submit environmental information for peer review (soil, ground water) which is a condition to be satisfied prior to the enactment of an amending by-law.

Toronto Hydro has advised that relocation of the existing Toronto Hydro Plant to accommodate this project will be at the applicant's expense. The proposed development will be supplied from the existing Toronto Hydro distribution system, and services to buildings shall be underground at the owner's expense. The above-noted requirements are included as conditions to site plan approval.

Community Meeting:

A community meeting, attended by 16 residents, was held on June 24, 1999. The residents remain firmly opposed to the concept of a retirement facility at this location, and prefer that the developer develop the site for two single family dwellings in accordance with recently approved variances. They also remain concerned about traffic congestion, and speculated that further applications to add more space to the facility would likely occur in the future.

Staff reiterate that neither the use of the site for retirement home nor traffic impact were considered an issue when the Ontario Municipal Board rendered its decision for this site. As noted earlier, if approved, the by-law should restrict the lodging house to a retirement home facility, detailing maximum number of residence, set-backs, landscaped area, and the footprint of the building. No additions or alterations should be permitted to this use without amendment to the by-law.

Conclusion:

The proposed retirement facility, as revised, is in conformity with the relevant Official Plan policy, and supplementary regulation for lodging houses. The proposal has also been revised to meet the intent of the requirements of the Ontario Municipal Board in its decision on the previous proposal, including a substantial increase in landscaping, reduction in units from 40 to 10, and a significant increase in setbacks to provide an adequate buffer from adjoining single family uses.

Although the site being developed with two single family dwellings as originally proposed would form a more logical integration with the existing community, it is evident that the retirement home is an acceptable alternative which can be adequately buffered from the Community and is in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board requirements with respect to this site. It should be understood that should Council approve this application, it would be a site-specific amendment based on the present submission, with any additions or alterations subject to a further by-law amendment application.

Conditions to Approval:

(1)The enactment of an amendment to the Official Plan from Utilities to Low Density Residential in accordance with Draft Official Plan attached as Exhibit No. 6.

(2)Prior to the enactment of an amending by-law the applicant shall submit:

(i)a revised site plan, including redesign of parking area in front of the building and the introduction of additional landscaping, and shifting of the building as far as technically feasible to the west property boundary;

(ii)a detailed landscaping plan including fencing, lot grading, and landscape details to the satisfaction of Staff Advisory Committee; and

(iii)environmental information (soil and ground water) for peer review.

(3)The amending by-law shall confirm the existing First Density Residential (R1) zoning of the site and permit a lodging house subject to the following conditions:

(i)the lodging house use shall be restricted to a retirement home for seniors and the elderly;

(ii)a maximum of 10 residents and one manager suite may be accommodated;

(iii)set-back, height, Ground Floor Area, shall be in accordance with the approved site plan; and

(iv)no exterior alterations or additions to the facility shall be permitted, except as required to comply with other municipal and provincial regulations.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael McCart, Senior Planner

Community Planning, West District

Tel.: (416) 394-8228; Fax: (416) 394-6063

  Exhibit No. 1

  Exhibit No. 2

_______

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications:

(i)(August 27, 1999) from Mrs. B. Easton, Etobicoke, outlining her concerns regarding the proposed development;

(ii)(August 29, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. David Skene, Etobicoke, outlining their various concerns with respect to the proposed development;

(iii)(September 1, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Jim Bowes, Etobicoke, submitting their comments in strong opposition to the proposed development;

(iv)(September 1, 1999) from Mr. Ron Coulter, Etobicoke, submitting comments in opposition to any change in the Official Plan to amend this designation;

(v)(September 1, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Santon, Etobicoke, advising of their opposition to the rezoning of the subject lands for the purpose of a retirement home or any other (R4) use; and

(vi)(September 14, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Bing Wong, Etobicoke, advising, for the reasons outlined in the communication, that they object to the proposed development.

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

-Ms. Josie Dobosz, Etobicoke, expressing concerns regarding increased traffic congestion at the subject site; and filed a copy of her deputation with respect thereto;

-Ms. Barbara Bowes, Etobicoke, in opposition to the re-zoning to permit a business venture on a residential street; and

-Mr. Jim McMurray, Executive Director, Richview Residence, commenting that there is a great need for retirement home facilities in the Etobicoke district.

(A copy of each of Exhibits Nos. 3 to 6, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 14 and 15, 1999, and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)