Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-95-19 and

Plan of Subdivision Application UDSB-1224 -

Greatwise Developments Corporation - 305-308 Poyntz Avenue

and 314-317 and 325 Bogert 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 (August 25, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and the Director, City Planning, Policy and Research, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of lands, recommends that the applications for Amendments to the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and the Draft Plan of Subdivision be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report and subject to the following revised conditions:

(1)that the maximum density be reduced to 90,805 square metres, which is equivalent to a floor space index of 2.2, and the number of dwelling units be reduced;

the replacement of 249 rental units which represents 60 percent of the existing 416 rental apartment building be required;

and a tenant re-housing strategy be secured which ensures:

(i)existing tenants be given two compensation package options. Tenants who vacate their units and choose not to return to a rental replacement unit be provided with compensation which is equal to 6 months rent, instead of the minimum payment required under the Tenant Protection Act; and

for tenants who are required to move outside of the Bogert apartments during construction and who wish to return, a compensation package will be available for any increase in rent a tenant may have to pay for alternative accommodation. The compensation will not exceed $250.00 per month and will be payable until a replacement rental unit is ready for occupancy. In the latter option, the amount payable be reduced by any amount required to be paid under the Tenant Protection Act;

(ii)rents for the 60 percent replacement units be determined as follows:

the average rent (the "Base Rent") of the various unit types be calculated at the time of a final and binding approval of the proposed development from the Ontario Municipal Board. The Base Rent may be increased by permitted increases under the Tenant Protection Act, other than increases permitted because a unit becomes vacant. The Base Rent, including the permitted increases described above, be the maximum rent charged for any initial tenant occupying the replacement units. After the "first tenants" of the rental replacement unit is terminated, subsequent tenancies may be at market rent as permitted under the Tenant Protection Act; and

(iii)the placement of existing tenants within replacement rental units will be determined based on the seniority of their existing tenancies;

and provide for the following:

(iv)development charges only be payable upon the issuance of building permits, and a credit against development charges be given for the provision of pedestrian access down the valley slope and the proposed bridge to a maximum of $50,000.00;

(v)the parking rate requirement for any rental housing be 1.25 parking spaces per unit; and

(vi)the public easement adjacent to the valley edge be limited to 3m in width. The easement be located adjacent to the valley from Sheppard Avenue to the north and extend southerly. The southern termination point of the easement be across from the area on the site plan identified as "Lookout";

(2)that permanent structures be put in place to prevent any traffic infiltration from the new development into the stable Community prior to any occupancy of any of the new buildings; and that this condition form part of the development agreement; and that the final design be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with the local councillors and community representatives; and

(3)that the City Solicitor and the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Local Councillors, be authorized and directed to prepare a revised draft official plan amendment, draft zoning by-law and conditions of draft plan approval as may be required to give effect to these revised Recommendations prior to the commencement of the Hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board.

The North York Community Council also reports, for the information of Council, having:

(i) referred the condition moved by Councillor Filion that " parking under the proposed roads be permitted" to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report directly to Toronto City Council for its meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999; and

(ii)directed the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Toronto City Council for its meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999, on the recommendations to give effect to the revised conditions of approval and on any outstanding matters which require resolution to give effect to the recommendations of the North York Community Council.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (August 25, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and the Director, City Planning, Policy and Research:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to make final recommendations regarding the zoning and official plan amendment applications and the plan of subdivision application filed by Greatwise Development Corporation for the redevelopment of lands on the south side of Sheppard Avenue West, west of Easton Road and recommend the City Solicitor be authorized to seek approval of these applications as revised by the settlement proposal described in this report, at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing, scheduled to begin on October 25, 1999, in connection with appeals made respecting these applications submitted by Greatwise Development Corporation.

Executive Summary:

The applicant has filed applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision for the site at Sheppard Avenue West and Easton Road currently occupied by a 416 unit rental apartment building. These applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and a final hearing date has been set for October 25, 1999. The applicant is prepared to settle the outstanding appeal on the basis of the August 17, 1999 proposal that is at a density of 2.6 FSI with a total of 1,165 units of which 320 are proposed to be replacement rental units.

Generally, the total gross floor area for the development has decreased from the original proposal of 3.2 FSI and 1,610 units. In the review of this proposal, the rental housing component has increased as the applicant has modified the proposal to address community and planning concerns and meet the goals of the North York Official Plan and Metro Toronto Official Plan. The proposal assessed in this report serves to achieve the Principles of Development adopted by Council in April 1999 for this site and attains the following benefits:

-the conveyance of 2.4 ha of valley land to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

-new linkages from the new and existing community to the valley lands;

-a new on-site public park of 2,060 m²;

-on-site private recreational space;

-a $200,000.00 contribution for the improvement of local parks within the Lansing Community; and

-provision of 320 rental units with rents and a mix of unit types similar to the existing rental units on site.

In addition, the applicant has put forward the option as part of its settlement proposal which directs all traffic generated from the new development out to Sheppard Avenue West. This has been made in response to community concerns about traffic infiltration into the balance of the community. While not technically necessary, this road design requirement serves to further illustrate how the application has evolved through the process in response to issues raised.

The provision of the 320 rental units on the site also achieves a mix of housing type on the site and in the community. It also illustrates how the replacement of rental housing in accordance with the new Metro Toronto Official Plan policies can be done in a manner that meets the criteria for residential intensification and achieves a well planned development.

For the past three months, the application has been the subject of an intensive mediation process involving community representatives, the local Councillors and City Departments. While a number of concerns have been successfully resolved, the mediation process failed to satisfy general community concerns with the final density in terms of Floor Space Index and unit count. The community representatives have withdrawn from the mediation. While minutes of these meetings were prepared after each meeting, these have not been attached to this report at the request of the community representatives.

It is the Recommendation of this report that the settlement proposal by the applicant represents a good development proposal that meets the objectives of both the North York and Metro Toronto Official Plans.

The applicant is prepared to settle the outstanding appeal on the basis of the August 17, 1999 proposal described in this report. If such proposal is not acceptable to Council, the applicant has reserved the right to proceed at the Ontario Municipal Board on the basis of the application as previously filed, or some variation thereof. Should this occur, the proposed added community benefits, the reduction in density and improved urban design may not be achieved.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.the City Solicitor seek approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision for 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue, at the Ontario Municipal Board, substantially in accordance with Recommendations 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this report;

OFFICIAL PLAN

2.the Official Plan be amended for the lands known as 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue, substantially in accordance with the following:

2.1that the tablelands designated RD3, RD1 and COM be redesignated all to RD3 and be amended with a Specific Development C.9 Policy which reads as follows:

C.9.215Lands located at Sheppard Avenue West and Easton Road as shown on Schedule C.9. 215

Notwithstanding the Residential Density Three of these lands and subject to entering into an Agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act, a maximum density of 2.6 FSI and a maximum height of 19 storeys may be permitted subject to rezoning provided that the agreement provides the following:

(a)the development of these lands shall proceed by plan of subdivision with the provision of new public roads; the plan of subdivision shall provide for a 5 percent parkland dedication on site;

(b)the owner shall convey, for a nominal sum all lands below the stable top of bank to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

(c)the owner shall grant an easement for public access above and along the stable top of bank of the ravine lands;

(d)the owner shall contribute $200,000.00 beyond any requirements of the Development Changes By-law for the purpose of local parks improvements in the Lansing Residential Community;

(e)development of this property shall include the construction of a minimum of 320 rental units which are of a similar average rent and a similar mix of one, two and three bedroom unit counts as exist at the time the zoning becomes final and binding; the base rent may be increased in accordance with the Tenant Protection Act, except for any increases which are permitted because the unit has become vacant for a period of ten years from the date of occupancy; and

(f)the phased construction of this property shall ensure that prior to the issuance of demolition permit for any existing rental units, there is a phased plan of construction of the replacement rental units which is fully integrated with a re-housing strategy acceptable to Council for all existing tenants without prejudice their tenant rights under the Tenant Protection Act and secured on title in a Section 37 Agreement;

2.2that the portion of the site below the top of bank and a 10 meter strip above the top of bank be designated as Valley Open Space (VOS).

ZONING BY-LAW

3.the Zoning By-law be amended for the lands known as 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue, substantially in accordance with the following:

3.1the lands subject to this rezoning be zoned RM3(6) and O1 as shown on Schedule D3 as follows:

(a)Permitted Uses:

Apartment Housing Dwellings with associated private recreational uses and Multiple Attached Dwellings. For the purposes of this exception Apartment House Dwellings may include residential units which have direct access at grade or which obtain access from a central interior corridor.

(b)Parking:

For all Apartment House Dwelling Units there shall be 1.5 parking spaces per units which includes 0.25 spaces for visitor parking.

For Multiple Attached Dwelling Units there shall be 1.75 parking spaces per unit which includes 0.25 spaces for visitor parking.

For Multiple Attached Dwelling Units where a driveway leads directly to the dwelling unit, 2 spaces per dwelling unit shall be provided.

(c)Maximum Gross Floor Area

-Maximum gross floor area for all Apartment House Dwellings is 44, 158 m²

-Maximum gross floor area for Multiple Attached Dwellings is 0 m²

-Maximum gross floor area of all uses is 44,158 m²

(d)Maximum Number of Residential Units

-Maximum number of Apartment House Dwelling Units is 416

-Maximum number of Multiple Attached Dwelling Units is 0

(e)Maximum Height

-Maximum height for all Apartment House Dwellings is 6 storeys

-Maximum height for all Multiple Attached Dwellings is 0 storeys

SECTION 37 AGREEMENT

(f)Facilities, services or matters which are to be provided pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.P. 13, as amended in order to permit the increased density and height authorized under subsections (h) to (l) are:

(a)development of these lands shall proceed by plan of subdivision with the provision of new public roads; the plan of subdivision shall provide for a 5 percent parkland dedication on site;

(b)the owner shall convey for nominal sum all lands below the stable top of bank to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

(c)the owner shall grant a public easement above and along the stable top of bank of the ravine lands for public access to the valley lands;

(d)the owner shall contribute $200,000.00 beyond any requirements of the Development Changes By-law for the purpose of local parks improvements in the Lansing Residential Community;

(e)development of this property shall include the construction of a minimum of 320 rental units which are of a similar average rent and a similar mix of one, two and three bedroom unit counts as exist at the time the zoning becomes final and binding; the base rent may be increased in accordance with the Tenant Protection Act, except for any increases which are permitted because the unit has become vacant for a period of ten years from the date of occupancy;

(f)the phased construction of this property shall ensure that prior to the issuance of demolition permit of any existing rental units, there is a phased plan of construction of the replacement rental units which is fully integrated with a re-housing strategy acceptable to Council for all existing tenants without prejudice their tenant rights under the Tenant Protection Act and secured on title in a Section 37 Agreement;

(g)despite the provisions of subsections (c), (d) and (e) above and subject to the owners of the lands entering into one or more agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, as amended, in accordance with the conditions of subsection (f) above, the following provisions apply:

(h)Maximum Gross Floor Area

-Maximum total gross floor area for all Apartment House Dwellings is 100,315 m² provided that a minimum of 27,500 m² is secured as a rental accommodation building;

-Maximum total gross floor area for Multiple Attached Dwellings is 7,000 m²; and

-Maximum total gross floor area for all uses is 107,315 m²

(i)Maximum Number of Residential Units

-Maximum total number of Apartment House Dwelling units is 1,125

-Maximum number of Multiple Attached Dwelling units is 40

(j)Maximum Height

-Maximum height for all Apartment House Dwellings is shown on Schedule "D2" in metres and Schedule "C" in storeys whichever is less.

-Maximum height for all Multiple Attached Dwellings is shown on Schedule "D2" in metres and Schedule "C" in storeys whichever is less.

(k)Yards

-Minimum yards shall be as shown on Schedule "D1"

(l)Recreation Space

-a minimum of 1.5 m² per unit of indoor private recreational space shall be provided

-a minimum of 1.5 m² per unit of outdoor private recreational space shall be provided

PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

4.the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the lands known as 314-317 and 325 Bogert Avenue and 305-308 Poyntz Avenue be approved, substantially in accordance with the following:

4.1that this approval applies to draft plan of subdivision drawing dated July 27, 1999, as prepared and certified by Colin B. Bogue, Ontario Land Surveyor which shows three apartment blocks, a townhouse block, three new public streets, a park block and valley open space block as shown on Schedule "D", and

4.2that the roads as shown on the draft plan shall be dedicated as public highways;

4.3that the owners agree in the subdivision agreement with the City to satisfy the financial requirements of the City for the provision of roads and services;

4.4that the owner shall convey Block 5 as shown on the draft plan as public parkland;

4.5that the owner shall convey Block 6 as shown on the draft plan to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

4.6that the owner shall convey Block 7 and 8 to the City for the required Sheppard Avenue West road widenings;

4.7that prior to final approval and registration of this plan, the owner shall submit an updated geotechnical report to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and amend the top of bank location if necessary;

4.8that a 10 metre public easement be granted to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority or to the City, as may deemed appropriate by the City Solicitor, to provide public access to the valleylands;

4.9that the lands conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be cleaned of all garbage prior to their conveyance;

4.10that easements for all utilities and public services be granted to the authority having jurisdiction;

4.11that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services as contained in their memorandum dated August 25, 1999 attached as Schedule "J";

4.12that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as contained in their memorandum dated May 20, 1999 and October 16, 1998 attached as Schedules "M1" and "M2";

4.13that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Toronto Transit Commission as contained in their memorandum dated September 28, 1998 attached as Schedule "N2";.

4.14that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism as contained in their memorandum dated August 24, 1999 attached as Schedule "H";

4.15that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of the Fire Services Division as contained in their memorandum dated June 15, 1995 attached as Schedule "K2";

4.16that the owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement with the City in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to carry out the conditions of Toronto Healthy Environments Program as contained in their memorandum dated March 18, 1999 attached as Schedule "L";

4.17that the owner agree in wording satisfactory to the City Solicitor to carry out or cause to be carried out the Standard Conditions of Approval as attached as Appendix "A";

Notes to Draft Approval:

4.18that the owner is advised to grant any easements to Rogers Cable that may be required. Rogers requires one conduit or conduits form the street line for each unit;

4.19the owner is advised that standard clearances of 0.3 m minimum vertically and 0.6 m horizontally be maintained for Enbridge (Consumers Gas); prior to any demolition Gas Service must be cut off at Gas Service;

4.20the owner is advised to grant Bell Canada any easements that may be required for telecommunication services, and/or fiber optic digital switching site; Bell requires one conduit or conduits of sufficient size from each unit to the electrical room and one conduit or conduits of sufficient size from electrical room to street line;

4.21the owner is advised to provide the electrical requirements for this development to grant Toronto Hydro any easement that may be required for the electrical services.

GENERAL CONDITIONS

5.that prior to the issuance of the Ontario Municipal Board Order , the applicant/owner enter into agreements with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act R.S.O. 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 (Plan of Subdivision) in a form and with content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Director, Community Planning, North District to secure matters described in this report and these agreements be executed by the Owner and registered on title as a first charge against the subject lands.

6.that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development and Planning Services report back to City Council for authority of the execution of these agreements prior to the issuance of the Ontario Municipal Board order.

Background:

Official Plan Amendment and Plan of Subdivision applications were first filed in 1995 accompanied by a concurrent application for Demolition under the Rental Housing Protection Act,1989. The Zoning Amendment application was not complete until the required fees were filed in July 1998 with revised plans. A community information meeting on the original application was held on January 15, 1996, at the North York Civic Centre, attended by approximately 280 area residents and tenants. At that meeting, community concerns were raised with respect to the increased density, the overall height of the building, the potential for increased traffic infiltration through the local neighbourhood, the adequacy of parking, the potential impact on local community services such as schools and park space, and tenants' concerns regarding the loss of their homes.

The application under the Rental Housing Protection Act (UD53DE-95-001) was withdrawn by the applicant on December 15, 1997 due to the repeal of the Rental Housing Protection Act. The applicant subsequently filed revised plans in July 1998 with a zoning application. In October 1998, the applicant filed appeals with the Ontario Municipal Board citing inaction by the City in approving the applications involving this development. Further revised plans were submitted by the applicant on March 11, 1999 in conjunction with their notice of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Despite the appeals by the applicant, processing of the revised application has continued and at the North York Community Council meeting held on March 30, 1999, a Principles of Development Report was adopted and approved by City Council.

A series of working group meetings were held with local residents to seek input on a revised plan which generally meets the principles adopted by Council for this site and resolves the issues of the area homeowners, tenants and the applicant. As a result of the ongoing discussions, the applicant submitted further revised plans on August 17, 1999 which provides for 1,165 units and 320 rental apartment units as a response to staff and community concerns.

Ontario Municipal Board Status:

These applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)and a final hearing date has been set for October 25, 1999 for a duration of 5 weeks. Given Council's schedule, the appeal period for by-laws which Council may pass for this site cannot be completed prior to the October 25, 1999 hearing date. Consequently, Council should give further direction to staff , beyond the Principles Report, prior to the commencement of the hearing, as the OMB will be making the final decisions on the approval or refusal of this application. Staff recommend support of the application in accordance with the conditions set out in the recommendations section of this report on the basis of the proposed settlement. Should Council support this position at the OMB, it must direct the City Solicitor and staff to attend the OMB hearing.

The first OMB Pre-hearing conference was held on April 16, 1999 to deal with preliminary and procedural matters including: the identification of parties, participants and issues, the determination of dates and the duration of the hearing, as well as the hearing of motions. At this pre-hearing Mr. Steve Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault (acting on behalf of Greatwise), brought forward a motion to determine the policies that would be applicable as evidence on the subject applications. Three additional parties, with applications similar in nature to the Greatwise application, were granted party status to Mr. Diamond's motion.

Also at the June 10, 1999 hearing , the participants and parties were determined, however, the Board noted that it appreciates that some persons have not decided the level of participation they wish to undertake (status as a party or a participant) and therefore status has been left open for further consideration at the subsequent prehearings. Listed below is the current status of the involved persons to date and their status:

Status	Counsel/Agents	Representing
Appellant	S.H. Diamond and C.A. MacDougall	Greatwise Development Corporation
Parties	Sharon Haniford	City of Toronto
	Henk Mulder and Sylvia Klibingaitis	Bogert Tenants Association Incorporation
Participants	Morry Smith	Lansing Community Association
	Howard Tessler	Federation of Metro Tenants Association
	Jane Garner	David Sambrook
	Miriam Chimsky	herself
	Sylvia Klingaitis	herself
To be determined	Troy Ellenor and Tony Cribben	South Ward Nine Ratepayers Association
	Stephen R. Jakob	East Cameron Avenue Ratepayers' Association

Future OMB dates include:

Prehearing No. 3 on September 7, 1999

Prehearing No. 4 on October 7, 1999

Full hearing commencing October 25, 1999 for five weeks to deal with the merits of the Greatwise development application.

Proposal:

The proposal has been modified several times since its initial submission in 1995. The statistics in Table "1" illustrate the changes in the proposal over the last four years. The first development proposal consisted of 1,610 new units of which 290 would be market and senior rental apartments. In March 1999,a revised proposal consisting of 1,387 units of which 292 would be market rental was submitted and referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. The current proposal which is a result of further discussions with staff to address community concerns, was submitted on August 17, 1999 consisting of 1,165 units of which 320 units will be new rental apartments with a gross density of 2.6 FSI. Including the valley lands currently owned by the developer, the density proposed is 1.6 FSI. The valley lands, currently owned by the applicant and zoned RM3 and O1, are to be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for public purposes.

Generally, the total gross floor area for the development has decreased from the original proposal with the rental housing component increasing as the applicant has modified the proposal to address community and planning staff concerns and meet the goals of the North York Official Plan and Metro Toronto Official Plan. It is important to note that the density attributed to the new rental units should not be viewed as a density bonus. In fact, the overall density of site was continuously reduced as the number of proposed new rental units increased.

The proposal involves the redevelopment of the table lands of this site through the phased demolition of the existing 416 apartment rental units and their replacement with 320 new rental apartment units and 805 condominium apartments and 40 townhouses. A new network of public streets has been proposed which extends both Bogert and Poyntz Avenues into the site and links the site to Sheppard Avenue with a new north/south street. Pedestrian and visual linkage from the east/west streets to the valley have also been proposed. A public walkway along the top of bank and into the valley lands further connects this site to the valley lands. These lands are further enhanced with the provision of a 2,060 m2 public park extending the full distance between Bogert Avenue and Poyntz Avenue shown as Block 5 on Schedule "D".

The southern portion of the site, shown as Block 4 on Schedule "D", will contain three storey townhouses with rear yards abutting the rear yards of the single family homes to the south. The block on the northeast portion of site (Block 2) is the location for the new rental apartment buildings which will have 3 storey podiums addressing both Easton Road and Sheppard Avenue West and will then step up to a maximum height of 10 storeys. The central block between the Poyntz and Bogert extension (Block 3) which abuts the new park is defined by a 3 storey apartment building next to the park, with higher buildings to the west up to a maximum of 10 storeys. The remaining building block located next to the valley lands will contain the highest apartment buildings with two 19-storey towers. Lower apartment buildings will also occupy this block with a 3 storey podium addressing Sheppard Avenue West and the valley edge.

Statistics Table 1:

	Existing	1995 Proposal	July 1998 Proposal	March 1999 Proposal	August 1999 Proposal
Site Area Total table lands ravine lands	65,755 m2 41,275 m2 24,280 m2
Land Use Area Residential Public roads Sheppard widening Ravine parkland table parkland community centre	60,103 m2 0 m2 5,652 m2 0 m2 0 m2	34,223 m2 6,942 m2 24,480 m2 0 m2 0 m2	33,204 m2 6,942 m2 24,480 m2 0 m2 1,019 m2	33,204 m2 6,942 m2 24,480 m2 0 m2 1,019 m2	31,340 m2 6,815 m2 1,060 m2 24,480 m2 2,060 m2 0 m2
Gross Floor Area Residential Single detached Townhouses Apartment-condo Apartment-rental TOTAL Recreational Public Private	829 m2 0 m2 0 m2 43,329 m2 44,158 m2	0 m2 (included in condo) 116,030 m2 23,320 m2 139,350 m2	0 m2 8,600 m2 78,370 m2 23,500 m2 110,470 m2 470 m2	0 m2 7,600 m2 88,910 m2 25,400 m2 121,910 m2 470 m2	0 m2 7,000 m2 72,815 m2 27,500 m2 107,315 m2 0 m2 1,748 m2
Units Single detached Townhouses Apartment-condo Apartment-rental TOTAL	8 0 0 416 424	0 80 1,240 290 1,610	0 66 924 270 1,260	0 54 1,041 292 1,387	0 40 805 320 1,165
Heights Single detached Townhouses apartment-condo apartment-rental	1-2 storeys - - 1-6 storeys	- 4 storeys 6 to 18 storeys 6 to 14 storeys	- 3 storeys 2 to 19 storeys 8 storeys	- 3 storeys 2to19 storeys 8 storeys	- 3 storeys 3 to 19 storeys 3 to 10 storeys
Density total site table land only	0.67 1.07	2.12 3.38	1.68 2.68	1.85 2.95	1.63 2.6
Parking townhouses apartment-rental apartment-condo	450 (of which 285 rented)		92(1.4/unit) 324(1.2/unit) 1,294 (1.4/unit)	95 (1.75/unit) 364 (1.25/unit) 1,564 (1.5/unit)	70 (1.75/unit) 400 (1.25/unit) 1,207 (1.5/unit)

Location and Existing Site:

The site is located south of Sheppard Avenue West, west of Easton Road. It is currently developed with a 1 to 6 storey rental apartment building with 416 units at 325 Bogert Avenue, and 8 detached dwellings at 305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 Bogert Avenue.

The existing apartment building at 325 Bogert Avenue, constructed in 1965, has a gross floor area of 43,329 m² (466,413 ft²) and a density of approximately 1.0 FSI (tableland portion). Zoning compliance of the existing use include the lands below the top of bank as part of the calculable site area.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan:

Currently, the principal designation of the table land portion of this site is RD3 (Residential Density Three) which permits the existing low rise apartment building at 325 Bogert Avenue with a density of up to 100 units per hectare. The majority of the valley lands are designated VOS (Valley Open Space). A small portion of the site at the north-east corner is designated COM (Commercial) and the existing single family homes fronting onto Easton Road are designated RD1 (Residential Density One) which permits low density residential uses.

Zoning:

The site currently has four zoning categories: the lands at 325 Bogert Avenue are zoned RM3 (Multiple-Family Residential Third Density Zone) which permits townhouses and apartments at a density of 0.75 times the lot area and a height of 9.2 metres; O1 (Open Space Zone) which permits recreational uses, schools and day nurseries; and C6 (Special Commercial Zone) which permits primarily offices uses and single detached dwellings at 1.0 times the lot area. The lands at 305-308 Poyntz Avenue and 314-317 Bogert Avenue are zoned R4 (One Family Detached Dwellings Fourth Density Zone) which permits single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum frontage of 15 metres.

Policies of the Official Plan Applicable to the Application

The Official Plan policies applicable to this proposal include: policies that apply in the form of criteria or "tests" in the case of development applications, and, more general policies that must be considered in determining whether the application achieves the general intent of the Official Plan. The remainder of this section discusses the other Official Plan policies that must be considered in connection with this application. Excerpts of the Official Plan referred to below are contained in Appendix "B". The section which follows evaluates the proposal against the Development Criteria found in Section 4.0 and the Redesignation to a Higher Density Criteria of Section 5.0.

Section 2 of Part A of the North York Official Plan (The Concept) groups residential areas into 54 "Residential Communities" illustrated on Map C.1.2. The subject site is located within the "Lansing" Community bounded by Yonge Street and the Downtown, Highway 401, the Don River Valley and the York Cemetery. These communities are intended to offer a diverse range of housing for households of various income, size and tenure.

Section 2 incorporates a definition of 'stable residential neighbourhood'. These are areas where:

-residents enjoy a good quality living environment

-major redevelopment in not anticipated

-regeneration or reinvestment in the housing of the community is occurring.

The Lansing Community falls within this definition. It is well-established community with adequate community facilities, services and amenities. It consists mainly of single detached dwellings with the exception of the apartment building on the subject site and the commercial buildings along Sheppard Avenue West. The redevelopment of the subject site is considered as part of the reinvestment in the housing of the community.

Section 2 of the North York Official Plan describes the "Existing Urban Structure" as a pattern of land use which typically includes lower density residential neighbourhoods within the interior of arterial corridors and higher density residential and other uses along the arterial corridors. The subject site flanks onto Sheppard Avenue West, an arterial road, and is developed at a higher density than the surrounding lower density neighbourhood. The remainder of Sheppard Avenue West, towards Yonge Street, contains commercial and residential uses.

Under the heading "The Need to Modify the Existing Urban Structure", it is recognized that in a mature urban area such as North York, goals of increased housing or employment can only be achieved in two ways: intensification of land use or through conversion of one land use to another. Since the application does not involve a change in land use, it falls within the category of intensification.

Section 3 of the Official Plan describes the key elements of the Concept and general strategies for achieving the individual goals. Section 3.9 recognizes that redevelopment within the existing land use pattern will pose challenges. As a result, the Plan provides criteria by which Council may determine whether to permit redevelopment. These criteria are discussed in greater detail in following section of this report.

Part B contains the Major Policies of the Official Plan. Section 2.2 establishes that uses of a similar nature may be grouped together and the location and density of land uses will be based on the ability of the transportation network to support such development. The evidence in this report indicates that the increase in density for this site can be accommodated by the transportation network (see Transportation Section).

Part B, Section 3, Housing, indicates that Part A, The Concept Plan, shall be guided by the policies contained in C.4 (Housing). The policies of this Section is intended to achieve a balance between the regeneration of residential areas so as to maintain their stability and, creating new opportunities for additional housing to meet the needs of the City. New housing development is to be accommodated without compromising the stability of the neighbourhood. In the case of this application, the reinvestment to condominium ownership housing, in the form of townhouses and apartments, is indicative of the stability of the community.

Section C.2 contains Parks and Open Space policies. Section 4.3.3 deals with development in valley land impact zones (V.I.Z.). The valley lands are not included in the calculation of density for this site as a result of these policies, nor are they considered to satisfy the parks dedication requirements. A setback of 10 metres from the top of bank is also consistent with these policies.

Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan is the basis for the site specific development principles that were adopted by Council in April 1999 which are discussed in this report. These principles provided a strong direction for achieving modifications in the proposal .

The provision of the 320 rental units on this site achieves a mix of housing types on the site as well in the community. The affordability objective of the Official Plan is met as the 320 rental units represents 27 percent of the total number of the proposed units. The housing objectives noted in Section 1.1, indicate Council's general support for initiatives aimed at expanding the City's housing opportunities. New opportunities for housing involve change in certain locations of the City. It is the intent of Council to manage future change in a manner such that the City's residential areas continue to function as viable residential neighbourhoods. It is also the intent of Council to provide a mix of housing opportunities as outlined in Section 2.4 of the Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan.

Community Consultation:

Several community meetings were organized by the local Councillors prior to the April 16, 1999 prehearing with the local homeowners and separate meetings with the tenants to discuss the application. Staff attended and explained urban design principles, the City's emerging policy on the replacement of rental housing, and transportation matters. Staff also provided information on the progress of the application and the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing. The applicant did not attend these meetings.

Subsequent to the Principles Report being adopted by Council and the initial pre-hearing being held at the Ontario Municipal Board, a community working group was set up by planning staff in order to work towards resolution of the issues of this application. The working group was comprised of representatives of the South Ward Nine Elected Ratepayers, Lansing Community Association, East Cameron Avenue Ratepayers Association, the Bogert Tenants Association plus several other interested residents. Representatives of the local Councillors and the developer also attended the meetings. The issues discussed during the five meetings are outlined in Appendix "C" of this report which ranged from transportation capacity to urban design. This was a mediation exercise to focus the issues and to seek a settlement among the various stakeholders. At the end of the process a satisfactory resolution on the outstanding matters was not achieved and the community representatives withdrew from the process. Although minutes of these meetings were produced to outline the progress made, these are not published with this report out of respect for the "without prejudice" nature of these negotiations. While agreement on the overall development was not reached, the discussions did help the developer make modifications to their proposal based upon community issues raised.

Other Department Comments:

The Parks and Recreation Branch of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department has indicated that the comments from their letter dated August 24, 1999, that in assessing the August 17, 1999 proposal:

-the conveyance of parkland proposed by the applicant is acceptable

-the contribution of $200,000 above the required development charges be directed towards improvement to the parks within the Lansing Community at the discretion of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture

-a contribution of $25,000 towards the connection to the valleys lands is acceptable

-both indoor and outdoor recreational space is encouraged

These comments are attached as Schedule "H".

The Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has indicated that the roadway capacity analysis demonstrates that the additional site generated traffic from the proposed development can be accommodated. A conveyance of a road widening along Sheppard Avenue West is required to secure the 36 metre right-of-way in the Metro Toronto Official Plan in addition to the building and conveyance of the new proposed local street system through the development site through the plan of subdivision. The new north/south public street will permit right-in right-out movements only onto Sheppard Avenue West. Additional road improvements have been specified in their comments attached as Schedule "I" and include improvements to the Easton Road and Sheppard Avenue West intersection with the addition of left turn lanes. The signage and channelization controls proposed by the applicant directing traffic towards Sheppard Avenue West at the Bogert Avenue extension and the Poyntz Avenue extension intersections with Easton Road are acceptable. All improvements will be at the expense of the developer.

The Technical Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department has specified conditions for the services to be installed by the developer including public roads, sidewalks, public walkways, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, stormwater management facilities, and water. Easements and land conveyances for road widening and sewers have been specified. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority requirements are also further outlined in the comments. These comments are attached as Schedule "J".

The North Command of the Fire Services Department has indicated that they require the following additional information as part of the revised Site Plan Control and Building Permit submissions: the locations of fire access routes, fire hydrants (new and existing), siamese Fire Department connections, and Fire Alarm System Control Panels (principle entrance of buildings). The Fire Service Department also indicated that the pedestrian promenade beyond the extension of the Poyntz Avenue to the top of bank must be accessible for Fire Services. Their comments are attached as Schedules "K1" and "K2".

The Toronto Healthy Environments Program has indicated that they have no objection to the revised development proposal provided that an environmental site assessment be completed in accordance with the 'Ministry of the Environment's Guidelines for Use At Contaminated Site in Ontario' (revised 1997 edition). Their comments are attached as Schedule "L".

The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has indicated that the comments from their letter dated October 16, 1999 (Schedule "I" in the March 15, 1999 Report to North York Community Council) continue to apply to the revised development application. Their comments requested that:

-The applicant revise the plan to include a 10-meter buffer in the valley block.

-The applicant submit a storm water drainage system report, overall grading plans for the lands within the plan, and a final plan to accommodate the requirements of the stormwater management report prior to final registration of the plan.

-The applicant enter into agreement with the Authority or the City of Toronto respecting the conveyance of the revised Block 7.

-The municipality's restrictive zoning by-law recognize the revised Block 7 in a zoning category prohibiting structural encroachments, placement of fill or the removal of vegetation except for the purposes of flood or erosion control.

-The applicant obtain all necessary permits from the Authority prior to the registration of each phase of the plan.

-The applicant submit to the Authority a remedial planting plan for the gully erosion.

-a subdivision agreement with wording acceptable to the Authority be created to cause:

-the works in condition 2 and 6 to be carried out;

-the design and implementation of on-site erosion and sediment control which meet the requirements of the Federal Fisheries Act;

-the maintenance of all stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control operating in good repair during the construction period in a manner satisfactory to the Authority;

-the erection of permanent fencing along the boundary of the valley corridor block (Block 7); and

-the conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report prepared by B.P. Walker Associates Limited and dated August 16, 1989 which needs to be updated to include any changes up to the 1999 revisions of the application

With respect to the revised development application, this department has indicated that the proposed new storm sewer should be combined with the existing sewer, or the same alignment should be used to reduce the disturbance to the valley slope. A permit for this work will be required from the Authority. They require a copy of the overall grading plan illustrating future surface drainage routes and they note that they are not supportive of the use of oil-grit separators for residential development and prefer the cash-in-lieu option. Their comments are attached as Schedule "M1"and "M2". It should be noted that the applicant is proposing the easement but not the conveyance of the 10 m buffer area above the top of bank which will contain a public walkway and no building structures will be permitted in this area. Any new structures below the top of bank associated with the pedestrian linkage into the valley is subject to the approval of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

The Toronto Transit Commission has indicated that they require more precise drawings from the developer with respect to the building on the north-west corner of the site so that they can assess whether the proposal still allows for a southerly alignment of the Sheppard Subway in this area even though the alignment of the subway is currently on the north side of Sheppard. A clause should also be included in the subdivision agreement to inform perspective purchaser of potential noise and vibration intrusions that may result from the extension of the subway.

School Boards and Toronto Library

The Toronto Public Library has indicated there are adequate facilities to serve the proposed application. The Toronto Public School Board has indicated that anticipated enrollment from the development can currently be accommodated at Cameron Public School and Northview Heights Secondary School, however alternate arrangements are required for students that would normally attend Willowdale Middle School. While the City of Toronto has control over the provision of public parks and libraries, the provision of school facilities is beyond the City's jurisdiction.

The Toronto Catholic District School Board has indicated that they object to the revised proposals for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments due to a lack of permanent facilities available to accommodate enrolment from the proposed development. Their comments are attached as Schedule "O" This same objection to the original application was outlined in a letter dated February 25, 1999 (Schedule "K" in the March 15, 1999 Report to North York Community Council).

These comments are attached as Schedules "O", "P" and "Q".

The utilities comments including Bell, Hydro, Rogers Cable, and Enbrige Consumers Gas are attached as Schedule "R", "S", "T" and "U".

Discussion:

General Principles of Development:

Council adopted in April 1999 a set of Principles to guide and assess the development proposal. The focus of these principles included the following considerations:

-the distribution of density and appropriate built form on the site should ensure the perimeter treatment along Sheppard Avenue West should take into account the low rise Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area; the perimeter treatment along Easton Road should take into account the single family neighbourhood on the opposite side of the street; a landmark building should address the larger valley land horizon with appropriate transition to Sheppard Avenue;

-urban design and built form considerations are to determine if the design of the development is appropriate;

-transportation impacts and the provision of adequate hard and soft services need to be assessed to determine the feasibility of development;

-redevelopment of this site should seek 100 percent replacement of the existing rental housing with units which are of a similar type, size and level of affordability as currently provided at this location.

Throughout this report, Principles adopted by Council are box highlighted.

The primary consideration in determining the appropriateness of the redevelopment of this site is achieving a development that meets the principles of land use, site organization, built form and infrastructure capacity. In addition to this consideration, the community benefits that can be achieved serve to further enhance the proposal and the adjacent neighbourhood.

Density

The final determination of an appropriate distribution of density on the site should be dependant upon a final consideration of feasibility of development and the site organization, built form and transportation considerations described [in the March 1999 Principles Report] and detailed further in the urban design criteria of Part C.4 of the Official Plan.

This guiding principle on density adopted by Council as the principle to evaluate this application was that the final density be based upon feasibility of development and site organization, built from and transportation consideration. The gross density on the table lands that is supported by staff is 2.6 FSI based upon fulfilment of the other principles of the March 1999 Principles Report. This density includes the density for the new roads and parkland which is standard practice in the City when the developer is supplying the land, but does not include the valley lands to be conveyed. While a site's size and organization can generate a variety of built forms, it is important to note that densities in the range of 2.0 to 3.0 are not uncommon in North York. The approval of a new apartment house dwelling on a existing rental housing site at 1 Canyon Avenue on Sheppard Avenue West near the Bathurst Street intersection ( UDOZ-97-48) at 2.9 FSI is a recent example. The benefits that were achieved on this site included conveyance of the valley lands to the TRCA, a $50,000.00 contribution to recreational space in the existing rental building and the retention of the rental building for a minimum of 15 years. Another example of intensification is a mixed use development at Eglinton Avenue and Sloane Avenue (UDOZ-91-20) which abuts low density residential land and was approved in 1994 at a density of 2.25 FSI primarily for residential uses. No additional benefits were secured through a Section 37 agreement in this case. A further example of a recently approved intensification development is an apartment hotel development at Bathurst Street and Glen Park Avenue (UDOZ-97-45) which was approved at a density of 3.5 FSI abutting a low density area.

Residential Intensification:

Intensification of existing residential land is encouraged in the North York Centre, identified subcentres, some specific arterial roads and on infill or redevelopment sites. This policy enables the City to accommodate additional housing that is responsive to the housing needs of existing and future residents and fosters more efficient use of existing and planned infrastructure.

As this site is located on an arterial road, the appropriateness for redevelopment and residential intensification must meet the criteria to guide the redesignation of the residential lands to a higher density in addition to the general development criteria of Part C.4 of the Official Plan. The criteria in Section 5.0 of Part C.4 specifically guide the redesignation of residential lands to a higher density.

While the Principles Report of March 1999 further refined the development criteria for this specific site, the broader criteria found in Section 5.0 of Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan were generally addressed. A key criterion was the net community benefit of this proposal which is discussed in detail below:

On lands now developed with residential use where intensification of the site is proposed, the ability of the proposed development to result in a net benefit to residents in terms of on-site facilities and improvements to amenities. Council may secure the net benefit(s) through various techniques such as an agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. Council may require the provision of on-site amenities to supplement municipal services.

This proposal includes a number of opportunities to improve existing amenities both on and off site. The applicant has proposed to provide the following benefits in terms of on-site facilities and improvements to amenities:

-conveyance of all of the lands below the top of bank to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority

-connect the valley lands both physically and visually to the new and existing community

-provide a 2,060 m² public park abutting Easton Road

-contribute $200,000.00 for the improvement of park facilities in the Lansing Community

-provide a pathway and bridge to the Earl Bales valley walkway and park in partnership with the City

In addition to these on-site facilities and improvements to amenities the applicant has also proposed:

-a new public street network on the site

-replacement of 320 of the existing 416 rental apartment units with new apartment units of similar rents and similar mix of unit types

This benefits package represents a significant net benefit to existing residents of the community and future residents as well.

In addition the unique location and size of the site allows for the achievement of the following criterion:

The suitability of the size and configuration of an assembly of land proposed for redevelopment such that it does not impede the ability of the remnant lands to develop in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Plan.

The site is composed primarily of the existing apartment site and the valley lands. The addition of the eight single family detached dwellings on Easton Road completed the site. This site is unique compared to other parcels along Sheppard Avenue as it is very large and has considerable depth (approximately 200 m). The site is self contained, bordered by natural ravines and public roads. Its existing multiple residential character has remained self-contained for over 30 years adjacent to a single family detached area. The part of the parcel which will not be developed will be conveyed to a public authority either as valley land or local park land. These lands will be designated to reflect their public use offering no further development lands of this type in the immediate area. Further development of the type proposed would not be appropriate given the size of the surrounding lots and the low density residential uses. The pattern of ownership in the low density area to the east and south remains fragmented in multiple ownership and functioning well as one family detached homes.

As discussed earlier in the report the proposal does not destabilize adjacent stable residential lands. This is an exceptional site not found elsewhere in the low density residential area. A survey of the abutting area shows that a large majority of the households are owner occupied and no pattern of assembly has been established. Given the existing pattern of development and the prices of homes, a large land assembly is unlikely. In addition, there was a recent review of the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area policies which determined the current policies of the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area are appropriate including limiting development to lots fronting onto Sheppard Avenue West which are generally the size of a typical single depth lot.

The low density area has well defined boundaries to the north with the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area, to the east with the North York Centre boundary and to the west with the existing apartment site. Council has never amended the boundary of the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area. Along the North York Centre boundary attempts to alter the boundary of the North York Centre Secondary Plan by even one lot have been refused by the Ontario Municipal Board. Based on current Council policies, any attempt to assemble lands and break the pattern of single family dwellings on these interior streets would be contrary to the Official Plan and not supported.

With the site organization and design of this development, the relationship with the surrounding residential community can work well in a manner that preserves the existing stable single family dwelling area and enhances and rejuvenates the existing apartment site.

Transportation

From a transportation perspective, the site is well situated with direct access to the adjacent arterial and local road network, an existing signalized intersection and surface transit service providing a connection to the Yonge Subway and the future Sheppard Subway. The site is located on the arterial road Sheppard Avenue West and located approximately 1.2 km from the Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue intersection which is the location of the Yonge subway and future Sheppard subway station connection. There is public bus service at Sheppard and Easton approximately every 7 minutes during peak periods.

The applicant is also proposing new public streets through the site which connect to the existing streets of Bogert Avenue and Poyntz Avenue, plus an additional north/south street which connects to Sheppard Avenue West.

A review of the traffic requirements associated with the development was undertaken by transportation staff in conjunction with the required traffic impact studies prepared by the applicant's consultants. The initial submission reviewed by transportation staff and presented to the community proposed direct access to Sheppard and Easton Avenues, and future public road connections to Poyntz and Bogert Avenues which allowed for continued use of the existing grid road network. The transportation assessment undertaken concluded that traffic associated with the development could be accommodated on the existing roads from a capacity perspective. In order to address community concerns with respect to potential traffic infiltration from the development using the adjacent local roads, a monitoring proposal was recommended to identify increases in traffic at specific stages relating to build out of the development, taking into account the current disruption in traffic patterns which occur as a result of the Sheppard Subway construction. At that time, and if deemed required by the community, physical mitigative measures could be explored and implemented at the expense of the applicant

In response to community concerns the applicant has subsequently revised the access arrangement for the development restricting all traffic movements solely to Easton and Sheppard Avenues, primarily through physical channelization prohibiting use of the local road network as shown on Schedule "D6". The applicant's traffic consultant has demonstrated that sufficient capacity is available at the signalized intersection of Sheppard and Easton Avenues to accommodate the total traffic generated from the development. The proposed access to the site as modified is acceptable in this regard. The traffic impact of the development on the local roads will be less than under the current conditions, where access to the grid road network is available for the existing site. Traffic generated by replacement of these units will now be directed exclusively towards Sheppard Avenue West as a result of the physical restrictions. Given that traffic infiltration is no longer a concern for the community the recommendation with respect to monitoring of the local roads is not a requirement for this development.

Comments from the Transportation Services Division are contained in Schedule "I" and further elaborate with respect to the specific access design, conveyance required along Sheppard Avenue frontage, intersection improvements, parking and loading requirements, streetscape and permits. Compliance with these requirements must be adhered to at Site Plan Control.

With respect to overall parking for the site, the applicant is proposing to provide a total of 1,677 spaces whereby 1,757 spaces would be required with respect to by-law conformance, a shortfall of 80 spaces. The applicant has proposed a reduction in parking for the rental component of the development, however maintaining the required parking ratio for the condominiums as set out in Zoning By- law No. 7625. The reduction for the rental use is based on information the applicant's consultant has obtained for the existing rental building relating the number of parking spaces which are currently being leased (285) compared with the number of leased units (407) spaces. In light of the community's concern with respect to adequate parking on site, and to avoid the occurrence of on street parking of visitors, the Transportation Services Division requires that all parking conform with the parking standards as set out in Zoning By-law No. 7625 unless further information is presented prior to commencement of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing to substantiate a lower parking rate which will not result in off site parking.

The Replacement of the Existing Rental Housing Units

Background

The Principles of Development Report indicated that rental housing is a significant part of the City's housing market constituting half of all housing units. Rental demand is currently very strong as reflected in the 0.9 percent vacancy rate. This demand will likely remain strong as there is little new supply of rental apartment units. In addition, the number of condominium units available for rental is declining. Between 1997 and 1998, the number of condominium units available for rent in the City decreased by more than 5 percent. More importantly, the need for rental housing is strongest for those households with low to moderate incomes and tenants at the lowest incomes are least able to cope in a constrained housing market.

Official Plan policy statements intended to preserve the rental housing stock were adopted by the majority of the former municipalities that comprise the City of Toronto, including the City of North York. In attempting to preserve rental housing, these policies recognize the importance of maintaining a balanced mix between the rental and freehold forms of tenure.

Policies of the City of North York:

The City of North York Official Plan contains policies in Part C.4, Housing, which promote the preservation, maintenance and upgrading of viable housing and in particular call for the retention of rental housing. The policies affecting this application are:

"Section 2.6.1 - Tenure

Council recognizes rental accommodation as an essential type of housing tenure for a large portion of North York residents. Council also recognizes the importance of freehold tenure. It is the policy of Council to encourage a well-balanced mix of both of these forms of tenure.

Section 2.6.3 - Retention of Rental Housing

Rental accommodation is recognized by Council as an essential form of housing tenure for many residents of North York. Council encourages the retention of existing rental housing, particularly market affordable rental housing. In this regard, it is the intent of Council to:

1)discourage the demolition or renovation of housing which would reduce the number of dwelling units available; and

2)apply the requirements of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, (RHPA) Council's condominium conversion policy set out above, and other applicable legislation in considering applications to demolish, convert, renovate or sever rental property or part, thereof.

Section 2.6.4 - Replacement of Housing

When considering applications which have the effect of removing existing multiple residential housing from the market, Council shall require where appropriate, that at least the same number of units be replaced through the redevelopment project and, where possible, that the units are made available at the same level of affordability."

Policies of the Former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto

Policy No. 125 of the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan states that it is the policy of Council to "encourage investment in new private rental housing and the preservation and maintenance of existing rental housing to support provincial and federal policies in this regard."

Current Policies of the Amalgamated City of Toronto:

At its meeting held on April 15, 1999, City Council adopted new Official Plan policies (OPA 2 - an amendment to the Metropolitan Official Plan) respecting the conversion and demolition of rental housing. These new policies resulted largely in response to the coming into force in June 1998 of the Tenant Protection Act (TPA). The TPA repealed the RHPA, which enabled the former municipalities to regulate the conversion and demolition of rental housing. The TPA does not require municipalities to consider proposed changes to rental properties. However, municipalities can adopt Official Plan policies that reflect the municipality's objectives related to maintaining and increasing the supply of housing including rental units.

The overall objective of OPA 2 is to maintain and replenish the supply of residential buildings, particularly rental buildings. This objective is accomplished by permitting the conversion of rental buildings to condominium only when the vacancy is at or above 2.5 percent for the preceding two year period. The policy provides an exception for high-end rent apartments and equity co-operatives that can meet the listed criteria. The overall objective is also to be achieved by seeking the retention of rental units, by means available to the City including the acquisition or leasing of a property where units are at risk of being demolished, and the replacement of rental units where demolition is proposed in connection with an application for redevelopment. Such is the case with this application.

The policies related to the demolition of rental housing adopted by Council are:

"It is the policy of Council:

135.4to seek the retention of rented residential units, except where the whole or part of a building which contains such units is in the opinion of the Chief Building Official structurally unsound, and to consider, where appropriate, acquiring or leasing a property where such units are at risk of being demolished.

135.5(a)when considering redevelopment applications involving the demolition of rented residential units, to seek the replacement of the demolished rental units with rental units of a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability in the new development, and/or alternative arrangements, which in the opinion of Council are consistent with the intent of this policy; and

(b)when considering such applications in the context of an increase in height and/or density, to secure such replacement units and/or alternative arrangements through an appropriate legal agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act."

Rental housing replacement in context of an increase in height or density is not viewed as a bonus in the form of increased density allocated to the site above and beyond what might be considered appropriate. Section 37 agreement is a tool to secure on title all community benefits one of which is the security of the continued rental tenure at similar rents.

The Proposal

The application proposes to demolish all 416 existing rental units on the site. As a result the applicant was asked to address replacing the rental units with a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability, in accordance with the requirements of Section 135.5(a) of OPA 2, as described above. The applicant has provided the following offer in terms of replacement of the existing rental units:

1.The construction of a new rental building containing 320 units representing 77 percent of the existing units.

2.The new building will contain a mix of units types in proportion to the mix of unit types found in the existing building resulting in the following totals:

11bachelors

1241 bedroom

1532 bedrooms

323 bedrooms

3.The average unit size by type will be:

450 square feetbachelor

630 square feet1 bedroom

825 square feet2 bedroom

1,050 square feet3 bedroom

4.Rents for the replacement units will be determined as follows:

The average rent of the various unit types (Base Rent) will be calculated at the time of the Ontario Municipal Board decision approving the application. The Base Rent will be the maximum rent charged to tenants occupying units in the new building for a period of ten years subject to any permitted rent guideline increases except for increases permitted because a unit becomes vacant.

5.The replacement rental units will be within a new rental building, as opposed to a building registered as a condominium, provided that at the time the applicant applies for a building permit for the rental building, the property tax rate which applies to a rental building is equivalent to or less than that of a condominium building. Under the new multi-residential class (for apartments) adopted by Council in October 1998, the tax rate is equal to the residential rate which applies to condominium and single family homes and supports this provision becoming a permanent feature of the regulations. Currently, the property tax rate applying to multi-residential buildings is limited to a period of eight years. It is anticipated that the new tax rate will be become a permanent feature of the regulations governing property taxes. If that is not the case, if the property tax rate for a rental building increases such that it is greater than the rate that would apply to a condominium, alternative measures will need to be negotiated and secured on a long term basis by way of a Section 37 Agreement.

6.At the present time, the applicant has made preliminary proposals respecting the phasing of construction and a rehousing strategy which needs to be negotiated and discussed with the existing tenants and finalized prior to the commencement of any Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The conditions of approval outlined in this report recognize this situation and could be assisted by an Ontario Municipal Board appointed Mediator. The draft Official Plan indicates the phased construction of this property shall ensure that prior to the demolition of any existing rental units, there is a phased plan of construction of the replacement rental units which is fully integrated with a re-housing strategy acceptable to Council and secured on title in a Section 37 agreement.

Evaluation of the Proposed Rental Housing Replacement

1.Number of Units

There exists on the site 416 rental units. Initially, the applicant proposed constructing a new rental building with 140 units and a seniors apartment building with 130 for a total of 270. Without a sponsor for the seniors building, the applicant proposed the construction of 292 new market rental units. Following discussions with staff, the applicant increased the total number of rental units to 320. This number represents 77 percent of the total existing number of units. The goal of the policy in terms of similar number of units is 100 percent. In the case of this application, when all matters of good planning are taken into account, including good urban design and a mix of units together with the expectations of the applicant for the development of this site, and the need for the applicant to erect the rental building as a separate building, the 320 proposed units a is reasonable minimum.

2.Mix of Units

The mix of unit types, that is, bedroom size, is proportional to the current mix within the existing building. This is acceptable as the 2 and 3 bedroom units account for over 60 percent of all the units. These type of units are of benefit because their size make them suitable for families with children.

3.Average Size of Units

The existing building was completed in 1968. Unit sizes at that time were typically larger than today. It would be unreasonable to expect the applicant to build units of identical size. The proposed unit sizes were obtained by surveying existing condominium apartments and a non-profit apartment building in the area as well as two government sponsored non-profits in the former City of Toronto. The proposed sizes are an average of the buildings surveyed. These sizes were also considered appropriate by City Housing Development staff.

4.Rents

The current average rents by unit type in the existing rental building are very similar to the overall City average rents as calculated by CMHC rental market survey conducted every year in October. Initially, the applicant proposed the average unit rent at the time of demolition, which might occur in 18 months to two years from now, plus a 10 percent increase. The concern is that the provision of 'vacancy decontrol' under the Tenant Protection Act, whereby rents may be increased to the level the market might bear once the unit becomes vacant, will permit average rents to increase in dramatic fashion between now and the time of demolition. Consequently, the applicant agreed to establish the average rent level at the time of approval of the zoning application by the Ontario Municipal Board and maintain these levels of rents for a period of ten years following the construction of the new building subject to any annual rent control guideline increase.

5.Securing Rental Buildings

One major deterrent to the construction of new rental buildings is the property tax applying to rental buildings of 7 units or more. The property tax rate is significantly higher than a similar building that is registered as a condominium. The tax rate for the residential property class, to which a condominium building applies, is 1.26 percent and for the multi-residential property class, to which a rental building applies, is 4.65 percent. The property tax rate change is the most significant factor in the improvements of the economics of a rental building project. Consequently, if tax rate change does not become a permanent feature under the Fair Municipal Finance Act regulations, the applicant would like to register the building as a condominium in order to achieve the tax rate benefit. The applicant would agree to sign an agreement whereby all the units would continue to be rented for a set period of time.

Plan of Subdivision

The submission of the Plan of Subdivision by the applicant serves to achieve the new public road network and divide the site into appropriate development blocks. The subdivision process also allows for detailed scrutiny to ensure the site has the ability in terms of existing and planned public infrastructure, services and facilities to accommodate the proposed change. A detailed functional servicing report has been submitted by the applicant to address all of the servicing requirements.

Assessment of Principles of Development

The adopted Principles based upon the broader criteria are assessed in terms of the August 1999 proposal.

Site Organisation

Public access to the valley lands should be provided through the site and from Sheppard Avenue

Poyntz and Bogert Avenues should continue through the site providing both visual and physical access to valley lands.

One of the significant benefits from the redevelopment of these lands is the visual and physical connection of the existing neighbourhood and the proposed development to the views and amenities of the Don Valley lands including Earl Bales Park. The design of the existing building on its large lot blocks views and physical access to the valley on Poyntz and Bogert Ave. Currently the valley is accessible to the neighbourhood only by crossing the Sheppard Avenue West bridge to Don River Boulevard. Residents of the existing apartment currently have a poorly marked path to the valley about 30 metres north of Sheppard Ave.

The August 1999 proposal provides for the extension of the Poyntz and Bogert Ave. approximately 120 metres west of Easton Ave. A new north south street will connect these streets north to Sheppard Ave. These are typical 20 metre wide public right of ways and are proposed as extensions of the existing streets with roads, public sidewalks, lighting and street trees. From this point to the top of the valley view corridors and publicly accessible private streets will extend the sidewalks, lighting and landscape to the proposed walkway at the top of bank.

The March 1999 proposal with buildings over the Bogert Ave view corridor has been modified to open public views to the valley.

A public promenade with views of the valley should be built adjacent to the top of the slope with connections to Poyntz, Bogert and Sheppard Avenues and the Don Valley trail system.

Buildings, above and below grade, should have a 10 metre setback from crest of the valley slope and location of the crest to be determined to the satisfaction of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

The provision of a 10 metre wide setback from the top of bank above and below enhances the stability of the slopes of the valley, preserves the space for existing trees and provides the opportunity for a public path that will connect the sidewalks along Bogert, Poyntz and Sheppard Ave. The applicant has agreed to build this public path and to improve the steps and path into the valley. Money has been provided for a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge to link the site to the significant parkland west of the Don River.

This amenity can be considered equivalent on a smaller scale to the boardwalk in 'the Beach'. In this case each street ends with views to the valley and the sidewalks provide access to a valley side promenade that provides both views and access to the valley. This improved relationship to the Don Valley will be shared by the existing neighbourhood and the development.

While the walkway has not been designed at this stage it should in principle be broad enough for comfortable public use, hard surfaced for year round use, appropriately landscaped to preserve existing trees and enhance its comfort and celebrate the views. The pathway will need to meet the design requirements of TRCA and the City. It is an objective of the design to provide accessibility to the public sidewalks of Bogert, Poyntz and Sheppard Ave without the use of stairs. These improvements will be designed as part of the site plan approval for Block 1. They will be built by the applicant and maintained by the City to ensure its long term public accessibility.

If it forms part of the final design for development, the community centre and/or dedicated public parkland should be located in a manner that enhances its public prominence.

There was not a demonstrated need to pursue the community centre proposed in April 1999. The current proposal provides a 0.21 ha. public park on the table land in addition to the dedication of the valley lands for conservation and recreation purposes.

The proposed park location is at the east end of Block 3 between the existing neighbourhood and the site. Its location, surrounded on three sides by public streets enhances its public visibility, accessibility and its apparent size by visually adding the space of the street to the park.

The applicant will also improve the park with features such as play ground equipment. The park design will be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture.

Existing trees on the site should be, where possible, preserved and incorporated into the street and open space design.

The current proposal is laid out and organized in a manner that allows for the preservation of many existing mature trees on the site. The trees that can be preserved include:

-Existing trees in the valley lands, on the slopes of the valley and in the 10 metre top of bank setback. These lands are being given to the TRCA and the preservation of these trees and wood management comes to public control. These trees are the most significant mature trees on the property and will become part of a significant environmental asset.

-Existing trees along the southern edge of site will be in incorporated into the rear yards of the proposed townhouses. These trees are an important part of enhanced views and privacy between the site and the adjacent existing houses as described in detail below.

-Existing trees on land dedicated for the public park. The demolition of the four existing houses will leave a small collection of trees as the base planting for the new park.

-A mature group of Austrian Pines along Sheppard Avenue will be in the Sheppard Avenue right of way as a result of road widening. These can be preserved if no further widening of Sheppard Avenue is proposed.

The existing trees located adjacent to the existing building would be damaged in the demolition process and will not be preserved. Similarly small clumps of mature trees in the courtyard of the existing apartment will also not be able to be preserved. In general, the proposed development will result in a substantially improved landscape character for the site through tree preservation and the addition of new street trees as well as new landscaping on private lands. These will be secured through the subdivision and site plan approval process.

Built Form

New buildings facing Easton Avenue will respect the setbacks, height and landscape character of the existing houses on the east side.

The new development provides equivalent heights and significantly larger setbacks than the existing context for houses on east-side of Easton Road. The existing houses on Easton Road face Bogert or Poyntz Avenues. Easton Road is the side street for these houses and typically has 1.8 metre setbacks from the property line. The typical height of existing houses is one and a half storeys. Existing zoning limits new houses or renovations to 8.5 metres or two storeys.

The August 1999 proposal has had considerable improvements to the relationships to Easton Road from the first applications. The current proposal has three storey townhouses or apartments along Easton Road with large setbacks. Most of the Easton frontage is the edge of the new public park that forms the end of Block 4. The edge of this park is a 3 storey apartment, 35 metres from the Easton Road right of way. On the north block a 3 storey base of an apartment is proposed with a 6 metre setback from Easton Road.

New buildings along the south property line will respect the setbacks, height and landscape of the existing houses south of the site.

The proposed development improves the relationship of the site to the rear yards of existing Gwendolen Crescent houses south of the site. Currently a resident and visitor parking lot, garbage storage and main access road are directly north of the rear fences of these houses. The proposal replaces these noisy and unsightly uses with private rear yards of three storey townhouses. It is recommended that these townhouses be setback 9.5 metres from the property line. In this set-back the mature trees that are part of the site can be preserved and additional planting can be provided to enhance the views and privacy of this rear condition for both existing and proposed townhouse development.

The three storey height for the new townhouses with the 9.5 metre setback meets the 45 degree angular plane from the rear property line of the neighbours to the south. Building under this line minimises overlook, privacy and shadowing issues for the existing properties from the new development.

Careful consideration has been given to the massing and built form of the proposal so as not to impact the existing low density area. The new development will serve to improve the relationship between the site and the existing single family homes and promote the stability of the residential neighbourhood as outlined in criteria 10 of Section 5.0, Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan.

Buildings should be located and organized to define and support public streets and open spaces and all buildings will front onto an existing or proposed public street.

The development is proposed using traditional urban design with public streets and parks dividing the land into blocks. Buildings are organized along the edges of the blocks giving spatial definition to the public street and creating an open space in the centre of the block. Individual buildings take their address and have entrances from the public streets. The uses of the buildings and in particular the ground floor uses and a fine grain of entrances supports pedestrian activity and helps ensures a safe and legible street system. Private or shared residential uses in the block such as parking access and recreation uses are organized in and around the open spaces in the centre of block. This helps integrate the new development into the existing context.

To further integrate new apartments into existing streets of single family houses, grade accessible apartments at the base of the apartments will be encouraged at the site plan approval stage.

Buildings on new blocks should be massed in a manner that defines the adjacent streets and open spaces with an appropriate scale and to provide good pedestrian comfort.

The August 1999 proposal represents a significant lowering of the height of buildings to achieve better scale of definition for the public streets and open spaces and to improve the environmental quality of these spaces. The average height of buildings has been reduced from 14 to 10 stories and setbacks increased to enhance street proportions as described below.

The urban design approach for this site, places building mass at the edge of block where it defines public streets and creates private open spaces within the block. The spatial and environmental quality of these spaces is determined in part by the proportion of these spaces i.e. the relative height of the walls to the width of the space. The lower the walls and wider the space the more open and undefined the space will feel, and also the more sunlight the space will have and the more it will be open to winds. The taller the walls, the more enclosed the space feels, and sheltered from sunlight and wind. In this development we have balanced these extremes.

The proportion and scale of each of the streets proposed in the development is described as follows:

Poyntz Avenue Extension - is a street 20 metres wide with 5 metre setbacks on the south, adjacent the townhouses, and a 2 metre setback to the north with a 6 storey building base rising with step backs to 8 and 10 storeys. This is a significant reduction of the height from the April 1999 scheme which had three storey town houses with 8 and 10 storey buildings at the property line. (Schedule "E1")

Bogert Avenue Extension - The south side is defined by a six storey base building setback 6 metres that rises to 10 storeys. The north side is defined by a six storey base that rises to 8 and 10 storeys. This is a significant reduction from the March 1999 submission that had 10 and 12 storey buildings with no setback from the property line. West of the new street, the two towers over looking the ravine rise to 19 storeys from a two storey base that helps to deflect winds from these taller building elements. (Schedule "E2")

Sheppard Avenue West - Buildings are built to the new Sheppard property line ranging from 9 to 5 metres from its current location. due to a required road widening. The buildings rise from 3 storeys base and then step back 3 metres to 8 storeys. This is a considerable improvement to the March 1999 application that had 8 and 10 storey buildings rising directly from the property line. (Schedule "E1")

Easton Avenue - This relationship been described in the previous sections. (Schedule "E1")

New Street - This is a typical 20 metre street with 5 metre setbacks on the east rising to 10 storeys. On the west the buildings rise to 10 storeys with an 8 metre setbacks on the west except for the foot print of the towers which rise to 19 storeys with a 4 metre setback. This is a substantial improvement from March 1999 which had 12 storey buildings on the east and west side with 7 metre setbacks. (Schedule "E2")

Building heights and massing should minimize excessive shadowing, wind or snow drifting effects within the block, along the streets and within open space areas, in keeping with the Pedestrian Comfort Guidelines in the Official Plan. The wind conditions in outdoor areas of this development should be compatible with outdoor activity. This should be determined by a wind study, which should be required for this development, as outlined in the Pedestrian Comfort Guidelines in the Official Plan.

A set of sun/shadow diagrams for the August 1999 proposal have been attached for September 21, at 10am, 12pm,2 pm and 4 pm and are attached as Schedules "G1" through "G4". These diagrams show insignificant impact on the surrounding streets and the proposed public park.

A study will have to be submitted by a qualified microclimate specialist to confirm appropriate wind conditions have been achieved at the site plan stage. The massing and street layout has used "building mass concepts for wind control" outlined in the Official Plan.

The tallest buildings should be located adjacent to the largest open spaces, being Sheppard Avenue West and the valley.

To minimize the negative scale and shadow impacts of the massing on the existing neighbourhood, the development steps away from the existing smaller scaled houses located north, south and east of the site. Two nineteen storey towers are proposed adjacent the valley in Block 1, with the appropriate setback from the top of bank. The two towers are proposed to flank Bogert Avenue extension at a point furthest from existing houses on Easton Avenue, Sheppard Avenue West and Gwendolen Crescent.

The point tower closest to widened Sheppard Avenue West is 62 metres from the properties on Roy Crest Avenue. This represents a building height which is 90 percent of the separation distance and accommodates a 43 degree angular plane. The point tower closest to Easton Road is 152 metres from the closest properties on Easton Road. This represents a building height which is 37 percent of the separation distance and accommodates a 19 degree angular plane. The point tower closest to Gwendolen Crescent is 79 metres from the closest properties on Gwedolen Crescent and accommodates a 35 degree angular plane.

The towers are proposed as point towers with floor plates of approximately 23 metres square. The relatively small plate of these apartments and the diagonal orientation of these minimizes the impact of the shading of these on the neighbourhood and the valley. This improves the relationship between the new development and the existing single family homes.

Along Sheppard Avenue West 8 storey buildings have been proposed in the August 1999 proposal with 3 storey podiums. This 3 storey podium creates a good relationship between the new development and the commercial buildings in the Sheppard Avenue Commercial Area to the east. A step back of 3 metres is proposed and then buildings rise to eight storeys. These will have minimal shadowing impact on the rear yards of the properties north of Sheppard Avenue West as shown in the shadow diagrams.

The first building site after crossing the bridge along Sheppard Avenue from the west is a significant landmark site. The building massing and landscape at this site should celebrate this important transition point where Sheppard Avenue crosses the Don River.

The August, 1999 proposal provides an opportunity to reinforce this important place in Toronto's city pattern where an important arterial road, Sheppard Ave crosses the main branch of the Don River with a deep valley, high bridge and spectacular views. The large setbacks at top of the valley and the wide Sheppard Ave right of way at the bridge provide opportunity for a significant open space and planting. The details of these and the integration and character of the adjacent building will be secured in the Site Plan approval stage for the development of Block 1.

The streetscape treatment of the new streets should provide pedestrian amenity and should extend the character of the existing local streets in order to integrate the site with the neighbourhood.

The final design of the streetscapes for new streets on the site has not been completed but include extending the pattern of roads, sidewalks, street trees and furniture into the redevelopment site. With the provision of street furniture and lighting, the new development can be integrated into the existing context. Those parts of Bogert Avenue and Poyntz Avenue that are privately owned but publicly accessible will extend the public elements of streetscape design on the site to promote comfortable and safe public access.

Service access and parking ramps should be organized in a manner that minimizes their impact on streets and open spaces. Parking should be provided at the rear of buildings or in underground garages.

The proposed development considerably increases the public amenity for the area by minimizing the negative servicing and parking relationships in the current development. Currently garbage and servicing takes place in full view of public streets or adjacent to existing houses.

Development on this site will place parking for residents and visitor primarily underground. This is indicated on the conceptual site plan and each site will be reviewed at site plan approval stage to achieve this. Garbage pick up and loading will be reviewed and secured at site plan approval stage to minimize its negative impact on the public streets and pedestrian open spaces. The size of this site allows the servicing needs to be met in accordance with criteria 7, Section 5.0, Part C.4 of the North York Official Plan.

A minimum of 1.5 m5 of private indoor recreational space per residential dwelling unit, and a minimum of 1.5 m5 of private outdoor recreational space per residential dwelling unit should be provided for the new development

Each block proposed for apartments has a shared courtyard space defined on two or three sides by buildings and open to a public street on one or two sides. These open spaces would provide the opportunity for the required outdoor amenity space. In general these face west or south and will have adequate sunlight access for comfortable use. The proposed townhouses will have private back yards.

The Zoning By-Law will require a minimum of 1.5 m2 of private recreational space per unit. At site plan approval stage the appropriate location and landscaping of the open spaces and uses in the adjacent building edges would be secured to encourage the safe and comfortable use of these spaces by residents.

Conclusions:

The proposed settlement of these applications represents an opportunity to rejuvenate and revitalize the development site with a housing intensification project that achieves desirable built form and site organization, and provides for the substantial new rental housing of a similar type and level of affordability as the existing units. This application illustrates how new affordable market rental housing can be achieved on a site under the new Official Plan policies regarding rental housing and while realizing a development which meets the criteria for good development under the housing intensification policies of the North York Official Plan.

The community benefits proposed by the applicant in their settlement proposal for:

-the control of all new development traffic away from the stable single family dwelling area to Sheppard Avenue West,

-the conveyance all of the valley lands to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,

-new linkages from the new and existing community to the valley lands,

-a new on-site public park,

-on-site private recreational space,

-a $200,000 contribution for the improvement of local parks within the Lansing Community

-replacement of 77 percent of the existing rental units with similar rents and mix of unit types all serve to make this application advantageous for both the new and existing community.

The option suggested by the applicant as part of the settlement proposal for directing all traffic generated from the new development out to Sheppard Avenue West in response to community concerns about traffic infiltration into the balance of the community while not technically necessary, serves to further illustrate how the application has evolved through the process in response to issues raised.

In conclusion, the settlement proposal by the applicant represents a good development proposal that achieves the objectives of both the North York and Metro Toronto Official Plans.

Contact Names:

Joe D'Abramo, Principal Planner

Policy and Research, City Planning Division

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 395-7120

Fax: (416) 395-7155

Karen Whitney, Senior Planner

Community Planning, North District

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 395-7109

Fax: (416) 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices 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. Karen Whitney, Senior Planner, Community Planning, North District.

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

-Mr. Stephen Diamond, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, advised that the new Official Plan requests developers to provide rental housing and housing intensification. He stated that the density of the development has been reduced to 2.2, and have proposed to provide 249 rental units with rents similar to the existing rental units. The site is very large and has considerable depth, is located 1 km. from the Sheppard Subway; is on a major arterial road and next to a ravine, all of which provide significant public benefits. With respect to the density, he pointed out that densities of 2 to 3 are not uncommon in North York. In addition he advised that the developer would be providing a $200,000.00 cash contribution for improvements to local parks within the Lansing Community and that a parkette would be established at the east end of the site near Easton Road. He further advised that it is realized that traffic is a major concern of the community however it was believed that by directing traffic onto Sheppard rather than permitting traffic to use local streets, the traffic impact of the development would be less than under the current conditions. In closing he stated that the application represents an opportunity to rejuvenate the site with affordable housing.

-Mr. David Sambrook, President, South West Ward Ten Ratepayers Association gave a slide presentation and presented a model of the proposed development to illustrate its configuration, the density, the road design and the impact that the size will have on the surrounding neighbourhood, adding that the large towers would create a wind tunnel. The existing apartment blends in with the existing community while the proposed development does not and will be obtrusive. He commented that the size of the development consisting of 1,165 units of which 320 are to be replacement units is too large for the surrounding neighbourhood and would have a negative impact on the area as a result of the increased traffic, which would be directed onto Sheppard Avenue. He indicated that the traffic channelling will not remain in the long term as the new residents of the development would want it removed because of the inconvenience of getting to the local school and parks. He added that the one benefit of the development to the community of opening up of the valley lands is not the beneficial promenade it is made out to be since the trees will block any view of the valley.

-Mr. John Mayer, who spoke in opposition to the development, gave a slide presentation and commented that the configuration of the development limits public access to the valley and gives the visual message to "keep out - private property". He also felt that the proposed parkette was too small to be of much benefit to the community and expressed concern that during construction of the development, the mature trees could be destroyed and requested that every effort be made to preserve them. (Also filed a written submission which is on file with the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre).

-Mr. Troy Ellenor, who spoke in opposition to the development, expressed concern that the proposed development was too large and that the density would adversely affect the stable residential neighbourhood; adding that there are no other high-rise buildings in the vicinity. With respect to the increased traffic resulting from the development, he suggested "no turning" signs at the intersections of Poyntz and Easton and at Bogert Avenue and Easton. He further suggested that the Community Council amend the development agreement to include physical barriers at Poyntz and Easton and Bogert and Easton, thus creating a ring road to separate the development site and the local area. He also didn't agree with the density comparibles set out in the staff report. (Also filed a written submission which is on file with the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre).

-Mr. Roger Taylor on behalf of the South Ward 9 Ratepayers Association, who spoke in opposition to the development and questioned whether the sanitary sewer had sufficient capacity and whether the increased density of the development would create a situation where the sewer capacity could be exceeded.

-Mr. Ian Robin, who spoke in opposition to the development, indicated that he considered the proposal unreasonable, and believed that it would destabilize the surrounding community. He further commented that the development is on a huge scale, very dense and too close to the neighbouring residential development. He also indicated that the 75m buffer used in the downtown was not used here.

-Mr. Anthony Cribben, South Ward 9 Ratepayers Association, who spoke in opposition to the development, advised that the area is quiet and stable, has a school and a park in the area and stated that he felt the development was not compatible with the existing low density neighbourhood. He expressed the opinion that the area does not need enhancing or revitalizing and that the new development is obtrusive and invasive and advised that he was seeking Council's support to modify the development.

-Mr. Richard Lote, who spoke in opposition to the development, expressed the concern that the proposed development is too dense and could cause a decrease in property values in the area. He questioned where the funds would be obtained to develop the amenities. He then commented that the increased density would destabilize the area and was concerned about school and library capacity in the area.

-Mr. Russell Chapman declined the opportunity to speak and advised that his questions had already been raised.

-Mr. Paul York, on behalf of the Wingreen Court Tenants' Association and Tweedsmuir Tenants' Association advised that many tenants and landlords will be watching the decision made with regard to this development. He commented on the negative social effect and the stress on the present tenants that will be created by the demolition and expressed concern regarding the inability of some tenants to find affordable rental accommodation. He further commented that phasing in replacement units does not work in practice and that a 60 percent replacement is considered unacceptable given the current vacancy rate. In addition he stated that North York Community Council should not set a precedent of demolishing existing rental housing.

-Ms. Joyce Job on behalf of Mr. Mulder of the Bogert Tenants' Association, urged Council not to approve the application, advising that the development would have a negative impact on the community because of the increased density and traffic that would result. She further advised that a burden would also be placed on the school in the area as a result of the increased enrolment. In addition she commented that the tenants want to keep their homes and felt that the new apartments being built will be smaller and more expensive. (Also filed a written submission from the Bogert Tenants' Association, which is on file with the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

-Mr. Morry Smith, Vice-President, Lansing Community Association, who spoke in opposition to the application and who filed a copy of his written submission. He commented that the excessive traffic would destabilize the surrounding residential area and felt that the development should not be approved unless there is a reduction in size and all the rental units are replaced. He also indicated that the new access road onto Sheppard Avenue would be unsafe.

-Mr. Claudio Sirizzotti, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed his concern regarding the seniors in the area, some who have lived there for 25 years. He also expressed concern with regard to the rental rate increases in the new development and the availability of affordable apartments.

-Ms. Heide Albrecht, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed concern about losing her home and advised that many people in the apartment building are single mothers and older people with nowhere else to go. She also advised that the development will destabilize the community and create traffic problems.

-Ms. G. Creutz, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed the concern that the community will be destabilized and the traffic problems will become much worse.

-Ms. Nicolina Brown, who spoke in opposition to the application. She advised that Cameron Public School will not be able to handle the increased enrolment caused by the development.

-Mr. Raul Vomisecu, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed his objection to the increased density and the 19 storey towers.

-Ms. Pedram Moallemian, on behalf of the Kenneth/Sheppard Buildings Tenant's Association, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed the concern that many of the tenants are on a fixed income, and as a result of having to move from their homes, more will be added to the homeless population. He also expressed the concern that existing rental apartments will be demolished and will not be replaced 100 percent. He then suggested that the demolition application be denied, which would set a precedent in the City of Toronto. He then advised that for many children, it is the only home they have known and that many seniors cannot afford rental accommodation elsewhere; adding that it would be preferable if Council refused this development application.

-Ms. Helen Hanson, who filed a note expressing her concerns regarding homelessness and advising that she supports the views of the Lansing Ratepayers Association.

-Ms. Audrey Robins, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed her views and concerns regarding homelessness.

-Ms. Iris Pellew, who spoke in opposition to the application, expressed her concern for the homeless and requested that her home not be destroyed.

-Mr. Slobodan Trivic, who spoke in opposition to the application, and expressed his concerns regarding the homeless, the rental increase, the erosion of the hill and the vibration from the subway.

Recorded Votes:

A recorded vote on Recommendations (1) (2) and (3) and the requested report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services directly to City Council for its meeting scheduled for September 28, 1999, moved by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, as amended by Councillor King's motion to delete the words, "up to a maximum of two years" in Recommendation (1) (i) was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Li Preti, Moscoe, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Shiner, King

AGAINST:NIL

ABSENT:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Augimeri, Berger, Feldman, Minnan-Wong

Carried

A recorded vote on the recommendations, as amended, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Li Preti, Gardner, Chong, Filion, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Moscoe, Flint

ABSENT:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Augimeri, Berger, Feldman, Minnan-Wong

Carried