TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 2

1Assembly Hall Project Former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital Grounds

2Millwood Park Playground Upgrade

3Payment in Lieu of Parking Cara Foods, 2955 Bloor Street West

4Appointment of Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer 1116

5City of Toronto - Ontario Hydro and Timwen Partnership North-West Corner of Dundas Street West and Aukland Road

6Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

7Street Naming - South Side of Queen Elizabeth Way West of Park Lawn Road

8Terms of Reference - Kingsway/Bloor Street District Urban Design Review

9Demolition Control By-law 1997-183 - 12 Kingsway Crescent

10Amendment to Etobicoke Zoning By-law 1997-55Shell Canada Limited, 677 Burnhamthorpe Road

11Expansion of the Mimico GO Station Parking Facilities

12D. Sud & Sons, Westway Plaza 1735 Kipling Avenue - File No. Z-2246

13Amendments to the Official Plan and Etobicoke Zoning Code -Former City of Etobicoke - West Side of Islington Avenue, Between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive - File No. Z-2256

14Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on February 18, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

1

Assembly Hall Project

Former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital Grounds

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends to Toronto City Council that the Steering Committee and the Advisory Committee be established and that the staff be authorized to take the necessary action and further that Councillors Giansante, Jones, Sinclair and Kinahan be the Etobicoke Community Council representatives on the Advisory Committee;

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:

(1) having requested the Acting Commissioners of Parks and Recreation, Etobicoke to report back to the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council with recommendations for the citizen representation on the Steering and Advisory Committees; and

(2) having requested the Acting Commissioners of Parks and Recreation, Etobicoke to identify a full-time staff position for this facility in the 1999 operating budget, and that this position be flagged in the 1998 operating budget for the Parks and Recreation Department, Etobicoke Division.

(3) having received the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Acting Commissioners of Parks and Recreation, Etobicoke, and the communication dated February 18, 1998 from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway;

Purpose:

To address the request from the Etobicoke Community Council Report No.1 that the Acting Commissioners of Parks and Recreation forward a report summarizing the history of this project and advising on Terms of Reference and membership for a proposed Advisory Board for this facility.

Source of Funds:

A funding request in the amount of $3.1 million has been included in the 1998 Capital Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information purposes.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In preparation for the former City of Etobicoke assuming ownership of the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital Assembly Hall, the Parks and Recreation Services Department, in June 1996, requested the services of a multi-disciplinary consultant team to study the feasibility of restoring the Assembly Hall. In September of 1996, following a proposal call, the former City of Etobicoke, engaged Graeme Page & Associates (Arts Management Consultants) and Philip Goldsmith & Company Ltd. Architects. The project was overseen by a Steering Committee consisting of staff and members of Council of the former City of Etobicoke and representatives from the community and special interest groups. A range of public input was included in the study process.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As detailed in the final 1997 consultants report, the ($3.1 million) cost to restore the Assembly Hall for general use is relatively modest and compares very favourably with the cost of new construction.

The 11,250 square foot building built in 1898 is well located for public and private functions. Its history, architecture, and site features contribute to its appeal as a rental facility for commercial uses, as well as not-for-profit activities. Its size is ideal for a wide variety of cultural and community-based events. The building's operating costs are projected to be affordable, assuming reasonable and achievable volumes of usage. Finally, the surrounding grounds lend themselves to seasonal outdoor programming which will expand as community use of the facility and the park intensifies.

The second-floor auditorium is likely to be used for a wide variety of community-based activities and private functions such as weddings and receptions, fundraising galas and dinners, a film series, public forums, school year-end celebrations, and other special events, as well as concerts, theatrical presentations, and art and craft exhibitions. The ground-floor meeting rooms can accommodate smaller scale versions of all the activities listed above, as well as meetings of existing cultural and community groups.

The former City of Etobicoke required that the plan for restoration of the facility be predicated on its ability to cover its operating costs. Projections indicate that the Assembly Hall will require a modest level of subsidy to avoid having property tax levied on the facility by maintaining an on-site staff presence. Apart from this single staff position, the facility is expected to cover all of its fixed and variable costs, including small capital repairs and maintenance by the third year of operation. By its fifth year, surpluses are projected to begin accumulating in a Building Renewal Fund which will protect the City from major capital repair costs fifteen or twenty years after the initial restoration.

Taken together, these attributes make the restoration project equally appealing to the former City of Etobicoke and to the general public.

It is the recommendation of staff that a Steering Committee and a Public Advisory Board be created to ensure that this project evolve in a manner suitable to all stakeholders and that development processes are clear to all involved.

The Steering Committee should be formed with representatives from a cross section of functional expertise and jurisdictional responsibility. The Committee should act as a co-ordinating and design review committee that will be responsible primarily for ensuring that the Assembly Hall project is developed and managed in a manner that is consistent with the original goals and objectives endorsed for this site by the former City of Etobicoke.

The Advisory Board, to be appointed by Council, should be comprised of members which represent a wide variety of interests, i.e., the arts, heritage, recreational facility users, area rate payers, special interest groups and area Councillors. The Board should provide input to the Steering Committee on matters dealing with the potential uses and programming of the Assembly Hall. The Advisory Board members should continue in this function after project completion to advise staff on community program issues and the activities of the new facility.

Conclusions:

The Assembly Hall and its immediate surroundings have been recognized by the former City of Etobicoke and Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation as being significant elements in the history and formation of the Lakeshore Grounds. An amount of $3.1 million dollars has been included in the 1998 Capital Budget allocation for this project.

Copies of the entire consultants report for the Committee members to review are available through the Etobicoke Civic Service Centre.

Contact Names:

Franco Lora - Tel: (416)394-8765, Fax: (416)394-8935

Co-ordinator of Planning and Policy,

Toronto Parks and Recreation, Etobicoke Office

Mark Edelman - Tel: (416)394-8514, Fax: (416)394-8935

Manager of Park Planning and Development,

Toronto Parks and Recreation, Etobicoke Office

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (February 18, 1998) from Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway:

The Assembly Hall lies at the very heart of South Etobicoke, and has served as a Lakeshore community centre for most of a century.

It was originally constructed using patient labour in 1897 to provide the residents of the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital with a recreational facility and a place to come together as a community; as such, it served as a place of healing, celebration and worship. In the earliest days, the second floor of the Assembly Hall was used for performances and dances by the residents of the Psychiatric Hospital - and on Sundays the chairs were turned to face the chapel at the south end so the residents could worship.

From the beginning, the Psychiatric Hospital Site has been a therapeutic focus in the Lakeshore: "For the past 100 years it has been distinctive. The site has been deliberately planned, built, planted and maintained with a number special purposes in mind. It has been a therapeutic landscape, a place for agricultural production and a place for recreation."¹

During the economically depressed years of the early 1930's, the Assembly Hall was the only facility of sizeable proportions in New Toronto, and as such it was often loaned out by the Hospital to the community for fundraising, and has at various times hosted boxing and wrestling events. In 1921, Harvey "Daddy" Henderson, a much loved attendant employed at the hospital, was laid in state at the Assembly Hall for three days following his death; in the late 1920's, it was in the Assembly Hall that the residents of Mimico, New Toronto and Long Branch celebrated the "double tracking" of the Lakeshore street car by the TTC. In one of its last theatrical uses, December 1969, students of St. Teresa's School performed Dickens A Christmas Carol and A Charley Brown Christmas for the entertainment of staff and patients.

Since the closing of the hospital in 1975, the hall has been used predominantly by film makers who were primarily responsible for the deterioration of the interior, while bureaucratic indifference, the impact of nature and the ravages of vandalism have threatened the fabric of the building.

One hundred years has passed and the Lakeshore community is desperately in need of a centre, a place where they can gather to celebrate. In response to this community identified need, three separate studies have reached the same conclusion. From The South Etobicoke Cultural Strategic Plan,² the lack of facilities was identified as a priority: "In terms of facilities for cultural interests, South Etobicoke looks positively anaemic when compared to other communities of similar size." The lack of exhibition and gallery space, the absence of theatre space for community scale performances and the need for outdoor amphitheatre spaces for the park were all well documented.

The conclusion in The Lakeshore Grounds: Master Design and Implementation Plan reinforces this: "The former Assembly Hall should be refurbished to meet a variety of local cultural needs. This is an important location because of the proximity to Lakeshore Boulevard West and the resulting high level of visibility. It is proposed that the area be designated as a main park activity centre and that the exterior area be designed to include a multipurpose pedestrian plaza with seating areas, a playground (design inspired by artists) and a sculpture garden."³

The third report, Lakeshore Assembly Hall, Final Report is the culmination of the community's hopes. Under the direction of a broadly based Steering Committee, Graeme Page Associates and Philip Goldsmith & Company Ltd. Architect, were commissioned to carry out a feasibility study. A thorough review of previous research, interviews with potential users and focus groups of local residents of South Etobicoke confirmed the value of returning the hall to the community: "Once restored, the Assembly Hall could go a long way toward meeting the immediate and longer term needs expressed by many of the organizations and individuals who reside in the area."⁴

Throughout, two things have been abundantly clear. First, the Assembly Hall is recognized by this community as a landmark and it must be preserved. Second, the renovated facility must be user friendly, offer flexibility and accessibility, and be sustainable.

The solutions offered by the consultants of the feasibility study respond well to these needs. The preservation of the external fabric has been achieved as the entrance way, the glass enclosed elevator and the landscaping are all intended to heighten, not obscure the natural beauty of this historical building; the inclusion of an amphitheatre on the east side and the public square on the north are consistent with this. The auditorium creates opportunities for music, dance and theatrical presentations, as well as community events like weddings, banquets and exhibitions. The gallery space on the ground floor, and the supporting services, fill a major gap in South Etobicoke.

The power of symbols is undeniable, and the Assembly Hall has that power. In 1998, the hundredth anniversary of its creation, the city has a chance to return the Assembly Hall to the residents of the Lakeshore. Estimated to cost three million dollars, this is reasonable project at this time; budgeted to break even operationally in three years, this is good value for money for a community centre. Located at a major juncture of the city and the lake, and Assembly Hall has merit across many dimensions: fiscal, social, communal, cultural and historic. Now is the time, during this anniversary year, to assemble the hall.... together.

¹The Lakeshore Grounds: Master Design and Implementation Plan, June 1996

²The South Etobicoke Cultural Strategic Plan, January, 1996

³Ibid

⁴The Lakeshore Assembly Hall as a Cultural and Community Facility, February 1997

2

Millwood Park Playground Upgrade

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Etobicoke:

Purpose:

To gain Council approval for a City/Community Funded Partnership for Playground Upgrade in Millwood Park.

Source of Funds:

The City's commitment of $10,000.00 is available in Etobicoke Reserve Account No. 60007 for Capital Playground Retrofits. The remaining funds as raised by the Millwood Community will be deposited into a City account prior to procurement of equipment.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Etobicoke Community Council recommend to City Council this $10,000.00 funding commitment for approval in keeping with Etobicoke Playground Cost Sharing Policy; and

(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized to undertake the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

On October 30, 1995 the former Etobicoke Council approved a policy on cost sharing for upgrades to playground equipment between the city and local communities. This policy is as follows:

(1) A written indication of interest from the community group be submitted to Administration Committee.

(2) City must approve all designs and equipment must meet Canadian Standards Association guidelines.

(3) All equipment to become property of City of Etobicoke. Maintenance and liability to be assumed by the City of Etobicoke.

(4) The City of Etobicoke will pay up to a maximum of 50 per cent of the total cost to a maximum subsidy of $10,000.00 per park, subject to the availability of funding.

(5) Community funds must be guaranteed prior to equipment being purchased.

(6) The City of Etobicoke will coordinate purchase and installation of all equipment.

Comments:

Since its approval, six local Etobicoke communities have taken advantage of this partnership to upgrade and enhance their local play spaces. Millwood Park currently has very basic equipment such as swings and slides and this opportunity to partner with the City will realize a new structure with adventure play components. The playground will be upgraded in its current location in Millwood Park. The Millwood community intends to raise $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 this winter and spring and together with the $10,000.00 from the City they are hoping to realize an early summer installation. The fundraising for this project has commenced and a strong volunteer group is involved in this initiative.

Conclusion:

Our Parks staff have met with this group and fully support this project. The proposed structure will meet both City and CSA standards and upon Council's approval, and the funds being raised by our community partners, the appropriate design details, equipment selection and competitive procurement processes will be initiated. The City funds for this project are in a special capital account set up for this purpose in 1996.

Although this was a local Etobicoke initiative, the policy of providing funding for these types of community partnerships will be reviewed over the next year and will be the subject of a further report in 1999 to Standing Committee and Council.

Contact Name:

Paul G. Ronan - Tel: (416)394-8505, Fax: (416)394-8935

Director, Parks and Forestry

Toronto, Etobicoke Region

3

Payment in Lieu of Parking

Cara Foods, 2955 Bloor Street West

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke:

Purpose:

The applicant requests that Council exempt the applicant from the Etobicoke Zoning Code requirement of five additional vehicle parking stalls.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Council's approval of this application will provide the City with a $10,000.00 payment-in-lieu of parking and a $200.00 application fee.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council approve this application.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Cara Foods owns the existing Swiss Chalet restaurant located on the south side of Bloor Street West, west of Grenview Boulevard (Attachment No. 1). The applicant proposes to convert 62 m² of vacant floor space into an additional restaurant area that will be known as Toast Cafe. Marlin Travel previously occupied the vacant floor space.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Urban Development Department informed representatives of Cara Foods that the expansion of the existing restaurant would require the provision of five additional vehicle parking stalls. The site cannot provide the five parking stalls, and the applicant has formally requested an exemption from the parking provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, under the terms and conditions of Etobicoke's payment-in-lieu of parking policy (Attachment No. 2).

Transportation Planning staff advised the applicant of the area's overall parking situation and that staff could not recommend approval of any parking variance application made to the Committee of Adjustment. We advised the applicant that the only reasonable recourse was through an application to Council requesting consideration under the terms and conditions of Etobicoke's payment-in-lieu of parking policy.

Transportation Planning staff examined the possible impact that the expansion of this restaurant may have on the parking situation in the immediate area. We have concluded that there are sufficient vacancies in the municipal parking lots immediately to the north of Bloor Street West, within a comfortable walking distance of the subject site, to permit a restaurant facility of this size to operate without detriment to the parking conditions in the area.

In correspondence dated May 13, 1997, The Kingsway Business Management Board expressed their support for the above-noted application (Attachment No. 3).

Conclusions:

It is staff's opinion that the request for exemption to the provision of five additional vehicle parking stalls is acceptable. The five stall parking shortfall will not have a significant impact on parking conditions in the immediate area; therefore, staff is of the opinion that Council can grant the requested exemption for five parking stalls, subject to the usual conditions.

Council has the authority under Section 40 of the Planning Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990, Chapter 13, to require the payment of monies by an applicant where it is considered appropriate to exempt a project from all, or part, of the Etobicoke Zoning Code parking requirements.

Should Council concur with the application of the policy at this location, we will require that the applicant make a payment of $10,000.00 for the five stall parking shortfall before issuance of a building permit.

Contact Name:

Mr. A. Smithies - Tel: (416)394-8412, Fax: (416)394-8942

Manager, Transportation Planning

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of February 18, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Appointment of Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 18, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To amend Etobicoke By-law No. 1980-69 to appoint Mr. Ameen Rauf as a Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Ameen Rauf of the Etobicoke District Parks and Recreation Department be appointed as a Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer; and

(2) Etobicoke By-law No. 1980-69, "A By-law to Appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers", be amended accordingly.

Background:

The Etobicoke Division of the Parks and Recreation Department has requested that Ameen Rauf be appointed a Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer to assist in monitoring the parkland in the community. In the past the designation of By-law Enforcement Officers had routinely been accommodated by Etobicoke City Council through amendments to Etobicoke By-law No. 1980-69.

Comments:

It would be appropriate for Etobicoke Community Council to authorize this appointment. The Solicitor has been consulted with regard to the process of amending a previous City's By-law. The draft amending by-law is attached for referral to Council. It is assumed that a thorough review of Toronto's by-law enforcement procedures will be undertaken for presentation to the Emergency and Protective Services Committee in future, at which time the appointment may be rescinded if determined redundant.

Conclusion:

The Etobicoke Division of the Parks and Recreation Department has requested the appointment of Mr. Ameen Rauf as a Municipal By-law Enforcement Officer. In order to accommodate this request, it will be necessary to amend Etobicoke By-law No. 1980-69, "A By-law to Appoint Municipal Law Enforcement Officers", to provide for an additional appointment.

Contact Name:

John Burrows - Tel: (416)394-8550

Manager of Parks Maintenance

5

City of Toronto - Ontario Hydro and Timwen Partnership

North-West Corner of Dundas Street West and Aukland Road

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and appropriate staff be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on March 12, 1998, in support of the former City of Etobicoke decision to refuse an application for Official Plan Amendment and rezoning for the development of a Tim Horton's/Wendy's restaurant at the north-west corner of Dundas Street West and Aukland Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (February 3, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitors, Etobicoke District:

Recommendation:

That instruction be provided the City Solicitor and staff concerning attendance before Ontario Municipal Board Hearing scheduled for March 12, 1998.

Background:

In 1997, Council for the former City of Etobicoke refused an application for Official Plan Amendment and rezoning required for the development of a Tim Horton's/Wendy's restaurant at the north west corner of Dundas Street and Aukland Road. The lands in question are owned by Ontario Hydro and form part of a utility corridor. Pursuant to the application it is proposed that the site be developed by Timwen Partnership and operated under lease with Hydro.

The application was supported by municipal planning staff but opposed by local residents.

Following the Council decision to refuse the application the owner and developer appealed the matter to the Municipal Board. A site plan application for the project has also been referred to the Board for hearing.

We have been notified that the hearing of this matter will be convened on March 12, 1998.

We are writing to request your instructions concerning attendance by the solicitor at this hearing.

________

The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received the following communications in support of the attendance of the City Solicitor and staff at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on March 12, 1998, regarding an appeal of a decision by the former City of Etobicoke to refuse an application for Official Plan Amendment and rezoning for the development of a Tim Horton's/Wendy's restaurant at the north-west corner of Dundas Street West and Aukland Road:

- (February 16, 1998) from Ms. Christina M. W. Edgar; and

- (February 16, 1998) from Mr. G. Rallis and Ms. A. Bicci.

6

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke:

Purpose:

To advise Toronto Council of a number of Committee of Adjustment Decisions which have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and to recommend whether legal and staff representation is warranted.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There will be financial costs associated with those appeals which are recommended for legal representation.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Legal and staff representation be provided for the appeals regarding 12 Kingsway Crescent, 2777 Kipling Avenue, 1392 Islington Avenue, 657 Evans Avenue, 340-350 Mill Road, and 30-68 Old Mill Terrace; and

(2) Legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding 46 Edgehill Road, 9 Appleby Court, 44 Waxham Road, 14 Barford Road, 37 Herne Hill, 4 Dominion Road, 2275 Lake Shore Boulevard West, 60 Mimico Avenue, 3039  Lake Shore Boulevard West, and 41 Robin Hood Road.

Comment:

It should be noted that rather than reporting at the time of notice of appeal by the Ontario Municipal Board, staff will report on appeals following receipt of the appeal. This should avoid the problems of differences in timing between the notice of the hearing and the Council agendas.

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(i) Address: 46 Edgehill Road (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant: Robert Jones and Joanne French-Jones

Appellant: H. R. Stoneman, J. Stoneman, C. McCulloch and J. Beamish

Hearing Date: March 5, 1998

Application: Proposed variances to Zoning By-law 1992-24 and the Zoning Code to permit the development of a new two-storey detached dwelling with an attached two-car garage. The variances would allow an increase in gross floor area of 52.7 m² (568 sq. ft), and reduced aggregate side yard and front yard setbacks.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Approved.

Staff Recommendation: No legal or staff representation.

(ii) Address: 12 Kingsway Crescent (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant: Janet L. Hilson

Appellant: Janet L. Hilson

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a three-storey single detached dwelling with an attached three-car garage. The requested variances would allow a gross floor area of 768.71 mē (8,274.5 sq. ft.) which exceeds the maximum area permitted by 214.6 mē (2,310.1 sq. ft.), a maximum building height of 10.57 m (34.6 ft.) whereas 9.5 m (31.1 ft.) is permitted, and a rear yard setback of 6.26 m (20.5 ft.) which is deficient by 5.24 m (17.1 ft.).

The property consists of two lots which, if developed separately, could support two houses of approximately 270 mē (2,906 sq. ft.) and 425 mē (4,575 sq. ft.) in gross floor area. The proposed house exceeds this combined gross floor area by approximately 70 mē (753 sq. ft.). In addition, the current design presents a long building elevation to the side street which is about 65 per cent of the lot depth. With modifications, the proposed dwelling could comply with rear yard setback, building length, and gross floor area requirements.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: Legal and staff representation to be provided in support of the Committee's decision.

(iii) Address : 9 Appleby Court (Markland-Centennial)

Applicant: Maria Domaretsky

Appellant: Robert Raymond

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: In order to permit the construction of a new two-storey detached dwelling with an attached four-car garage (below grade), a variance is required to allow a front yard setback of 12.2 m (40.0 ft.) whereas the Zoning Code requires a setback of 18.7 m (61.3 ft.).

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Approved.

Staff Recommendation: No legal or staff representation.

(iv) Address: 2777 Kipling Avenue (Rexdale-Thistletown)

Applicant: Aplomb Properties Inc.

Appellant: Aplomb Properties Inc.

Hearing Date: To be determined by OMB

Application: The applicant proposes to structurally alter parking levels P2 and P3 of an existing eighteen-storey apartment building to accommodate eighteen additional units and a child care facility.

Variances are being requested to Site Specific By-law 1808 and the Zoning Code to permit an increase in the maximum number of dwelling units from 309 to 325; a reduction in required parking from 475 to 390 spaces; a reduction in surface visitor parking from 65 to 23; the introduction of a child care facility as a business use; and a reduction in the minimum required lot area from 21 775 mē (234,392 sq. ft.) to 19 899 mē (214,198 sq. ft.).

A similar application was previously submitted and withdrawn by the applicant prior to a decision by the Committee of Adjustment. Planning staff concluded that given the issues involved, a more comprehensive review and process is required.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: Legal and staff representation to be provided in support of the Committee's decision.

(v) Address: 44 Waxham Road (Rexdale-Thistletown)

Applicant: Felix Rajaratnam and Saroja Rajaratnam

Appellant: Felix Rajaratnam and Saroja Rajaratnam

Hearing Date: To be determined by OMB

Application: A minor variance is requested from the Zoning Code to permit the applicants to finish constructing a basement entrance located 0.1 m (4 inches) from the north side lot line.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: No legal or staff representation.

(vi) Address : 14 Barford Road (Rexdale-Thistletown)

Applicant: Balbir Singh and Baljinder Kaur

Appellant: Balbir Singh and Baljinder Kaur

Hearing Date: To be determined by OMB

Application: To legalize and maintain an existing one-bedroom dwelling unit in the basement of the single family dwelling located at 14 Barford Road.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: No legal or staff representation.

(vii) Address: 37 Herne Hill (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant: Sean and Heidi Register

Appellant: William Alexander

Hearing Date: March 9, 1998

Application: Proposed variance to Section 320.42 E of the Zoning Code to recognize an (unfinished) open and unroofed wooden deck constructed at the rear of the dwelling which projects an additional 3 m (10 ft.) into the required rear yard.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Approved.

Staff Recommendation: No legal or staff representation.

(viii) Address: 1392 Islington Avenue (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant: Charles and Pauline Sammut

Appellant: Charles and Pauline Sammut

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: The applicants propose to divide the site into three lots. The retained lot with frontage on Islington Avenue would be occupied by the existing dwelling. The middle lot would be conveyed for future development of a single family detached dwelling on Fairway Road and the lot abutting the Islington Golf course would be dedicated for a future roadway.

These lands are subject to Site Specific Policy 22 contained in the Official Plan which is currently under review by Etobicoke Community Council. A Public Meeting to consider an amendment for the Zoning Code to increase the minimum lot size and to amend Special Site Policy 22 has been scheduled. The refusal by former Etobicoke Council of an earlier draft plan of subdivision for the subject lot and two abutting lots has been referred to the Ontario Municipal Board. All matters are likely to be considered jointly by the Board.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: Legal representation to be provided in support of the Committee's decision.

(ix) Address: 4 Dominion Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant: Adelaide Anne Bell

Appellant: Adelaide Anne Bell

Hearing Date: March 5, 1998

Application: To construct a 3.66 m (12 ft.) high wooden, lattice, privacy fence to rear of the dwelling located adjacent to James S. Bell Public School, whereas a maximum fence height of 1.9 m (6 ft.) is permitted by the Zoning Code.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: No legal or staff representation.

(x) Address: 60 Mimico Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant: Mario Bellusci

Appellant: Mario Bellusci

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: To convert the covered rear patio of a two-unit dwelling to a bedroom. Permission of the Committee of Adjustment is required for any alterations or additions as the use of the site has lawful non-conforming status under the Zoning Code and Planning Act.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: No legal or staff representation.

(xi) Address: 3039 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant: Antonia Mota

Appellant: Antonia Mota

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: To install a restaurant/bar/donut shop on the main floor of a two-storey commercial/residential building. Thirty-two on-site parking spaces are required under the Zoning Code; none are provided.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: No Legal and staff representation.

(xii) Address: 2275 Lake Shore Boulevard West (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant: 1169777 Ontario Limited

Appellant: 1169777 Ontario Limited

Hearing Date: To be determined by the OMB

Application: To permanently convert 48 mē (520 sq. ft.) of service/loading space to retail/office space.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: No Legal and staff representation.

(xiii) Address: 657 Evans Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant: Laura Christine Slater

Appellant: Laura Christine Slater

Hearing Date: To be determined by OMB

Application: To permit the introduction of a two-bedroom unit in the basement of a duplex dwelling which would result in the building becoming a triplex. The Ontario Municipal Board approved By-law 1995-57 limiting the subject building to a duplex dwelling only.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: Legal and staff representation to be provided in support of the Committee's decision.

(xiv) Address: 41 Robin Hood Road (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant: Mark Marian Racansky and Daria Racansky

Appellant: Stanley R. Elsdon

Hearing Date: March 6, 1998

Application: To permit the construction of a new two-storey dwelling, variances are required to permit a building height of 10.06 m (33 ft.) which exceeds the maximum building height of 9.5 m (31 ft), and an aggregate side yard setback of 3.2 m (10.4 ft) whereas 3.66 m (12 ft) is required.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Approved.

Staff Recommendation: No Legal or staff representation.

(xv) Address: 340 and 350 Mill Road (Markland-Centennial)

Applicant: Residential II G.P. Limited

Appellant: Residential II G.P. Limited

Hearing Date: To be determined by OMB

Application: In 1990 By-law 1993-84 was enacted to permit the development of a twelve-storey, 135-unit apartment building on the subject lands. The application to the Committee of Adjustment requested a minor variance from the site specific by-law to permit the development of three blocks of stacked townhouses consisting of 125 units in place of the apartment building.

Staff have concerns with respect to the design, layout and form of the project. By-law No. 1993-84 established detailed standards for the development of the site for one apartment building. Given the specific nature of the by-law, the proposed variance is not in keeping with the intent of the by-law and would result in an undesirable development.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: Legal and staff representation to be provided in support of the Committee's decision .

(xvi) Address: 30-68 Old Mill Terrace (Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant: Old Mill Terrace Residences Inc.

Appellant: Old Mill Terrace Residences Inc.

Hearing Date: To be determined by OMB

Application: A variance to By-law No. 1995-196 is requested to legalize balconies which were recently constructed on the south elevation of an existing townhouse development whereas the by-law specifically prohibits balconies at this location. A variance was also requested to permit roof top satellite dishes which are also prohibited.

The balconies as constructed do not maintain the purpose and intent of the site specific by-law and have a negative impact on the enjoyment of the adjacent properties to the south. Staff have no comment with respect to the satellite dishes.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment: Refused.

Staff Recommendation: Legal and staff representation to be provided in support of the Committee's decision.

Conclusion:

The subject appeals were reviewed and staff are of the opinion that appeal items (i), (iii), (v), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii), and (xiv) do not involve substantive planning issues and, therefore, do not warrant legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board.

As items (ii), (iv), (viii), (xiii), (xv), and (xvi) do involve substantive planning issues, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is warranted for these appeals.

Contact name:

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP - Tel. (416) 394-8216 Fax (416) 394-6063

Director - Development and Design

7

Street Naming - South Side of Queen Elizabeth Way

West of Park Lawn Road

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Etobicoke Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends:

(1) that the newly created "off-ramp" and road allowance from the Queen Elizabeth Way referred to therein be named Legion Road North; and

(2) that the future allocation of street numbers be continuous from those on the existing Legion Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To name a newly created "off-ramp" and road allowance from the Queen Elizabeth Way.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Toronto Council authorize the Solicitor to prepare and present a by-law designating "Mystic Pointe Boulevard" as the new street name for the newly constructed "off-ramp" and road allowance from the Queen Elizabeth Way extending to the limit of the extended Manitoba Street.

Background:

On October 15, 1992, the Ontario Municipal Board conditionally approved the necessary amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Code and granted conditional Site Plan Approval and consent to sever the former 6.05 ha (14.95 ac) McGuinness Distillery site to permit the construction of a phased development consisting of 1,469 residential dwelling units.

The Official Plan amendment outlined necessary transportation improvements including the provision of a north/south road through the site and the construction of an "off-ramp" to be funded by the developer. As part of subsequent phases, funding arrangements will be secured for the construction of an underpass beneath the CNR which will link with the existing Legion Road to the south (Exhibit No. 1).

On July 14, 1995, and July 6, 1996, Etobicoke Council granted Site Plan Control Approval for the application by 153598 Canada Inc. for the Phase I lands subject to the Ontario Municipal Board endorsed conditions. The subject development is currently under construction and Condominium registration has occurred on a portion of said lands.

Comment:

The proposed "off-ramp" and road allowance which are currently under construction will intersect with the Queen Elizabeth Way (Park Lawn Road Exit) at its northerly end and terminate within the subject development site at the extension of Manitoba Street. The "off-ramp" and road allowance will be dedicated to the City. This development and future phases as well as the community to the west will gain direct benefit from this ramp.

The applicant has requested that the newly created "off-ramp" and road allowance be named "Mystic Pointe Boulevard". The name has been found acceptable to the Planning Department for former Metropolitan Toronto who is responsible for administering the Metro Street Name Index.

Contact Person:

Paulo Stellato MCIP, RPP - Tel: (416) 394-6004 Fax: (416) 394-6063

Planner - South District, Development and Design

(A copy of Exhibit No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of February 18, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

8

Terms of Reference - Kingsway/Bloor Street District

Urban Design Review

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke:

Purpose:

To provide Terms of Reference for an Urban Design Review of the Kingsway/Bloor Street District.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the Terms of Reference for the Kingsway/Bloor Street Urban Design Review (Exhibit No. 1) be approved, in principle, subject to further consultation with the Kingsway Park Ratepayers' Association and the Kingsway BIA. Should no further changes be required, the attached Terms of Reference would form the basis for undertaking this review.

Background:

In a report to Etobicoke Council, dated October 6, 1997, staff indicated that, following a meeting with community groups and the BIA, Terms of Reference would be prepared for the Kingsway/Bloor Street District. The purpose would be to develop urban design guidelines for new development/redevelopment that will protect and enhance its distinctive characteristics and the prominence and attractiveness of its main focal points.

The Kingsway/Bloor Street District is designated in the Official Plan as a "Commercial-Residential Strip". Such designations generally recognize the traditional commercial and mixed use "mainstreet" areas that have developed in linear form along major arterial roadways in the City's older areas, as well as identify them as appropriate areas for residential intensification, primarily in the form of apartment units above retail stores. Building heights in these areas are limited to six storeys and are subject to a 45-degree angular plane requirement from any adjoining residential lot line.

Comments:

The focus of this review would be the preparation of specific guidelines for new development/redevelopment which would respect the distinctive character of the area. Such guidelines would enhance existing Official Plan policies and the evaluative criteria currently used in reviewing new development proposals, to encourage a high quality of urban design and building treatment which is sensitive to significant features within this commercial- residential strip and the existing adjoining residential neighbourhoods. This exercise could result in design guidelines dealing with such matters as building setbacks and/or build-to lines, the stepping back of buildings at appropriate levels, and podium and landscape treatments.

Staff have meet with representatives of the Kingsway Park Ratepayers' Association (which has recently merged with the former Thompson Orchard Community Association) and the Kingsway BIA, who have indicated support, in principle, to recognizing the Kingsway/Bloor Street District as an "Area of Special Identity" and developing specific urban design guidelines for this area.

Both community groups have agreed to be part of a Working Committee that will meet, as needed, to examine the relevant issues and to provide guidance and feedback throughout the review process. Representation from both north and south of Bloor Street will be included.

An open house and/or information session(s) will be held to inform interested people and agencies of the review's progress, to explain urban design guidelines proposed for the area, and to solicit comments, prior to a recommendation report being forwarded to City Council for approval and a public meeting being held.

It is anticipated that this review will be completed within six months, depending on staffing commitments and departmental priorities. Staff will include a senior policy planner as project co-ordinator and urban design staff, e.g. architect, landscape architect and urban designer, as needed, to attend meetings and develop design guidelines.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that the Terms of Reference for the Kingsway/Bloor Street Urban Design Review be approved, in principle, subject to further consultation with the Kingsway Park Ratepayers' Association and the Kingsway BIA. Should no further changes be required, the Terms of Reference would form the basis for undertaking this review.

Contact Name:

L. Gary Dysart, Tel: (416) 394-8233 Fax: (416) 394-6063

Principal Planner, Policy and Information Services

(A copy of Exhibit No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of February 18, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

9

Demolition Control By-law 1997-183 - 12 Kingsway Crescent

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke:

Purpose:

To seek Council direction with respect to a request by the owner of 12 Kingsway Crescent to issue a demolition permit in an area covered by a demolition control by-law.

Funding sources, financial implications and impact statement:

There will be financial costs associated with the registering of a notice on title should Council choose to do so.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the demolition permit for 12 Kingsway Crescent be issued when a building permit has been released;

(2) Council impose a condition to the demolition permit requiring the construction of the new dwelling to be substantially completed by two years from the date of issuance of the permits; and further that the sum of up to $20,000.00 be charged in the event of failure to complete the construction within the specified time; and

(3) the City Solicitor be instructed to register notice of the condition on title.

Background:

Demolition Control By-law No. 1997-183 was passed in September 1997, in order to prohibit the demolition of the existing single detached dwelling at 12 Kingsway Crescent, located on the southwest corner of Kingsway Crescent and Strath Avenue, until such time as the owner of the lands obtained a building permit to erect a new dwelling on the site (Exhibit No. 1).

The owner of the property, Janet Hilson, has subsequently applied for a demolition permit (B-84286) and a building permit (B-85237).

Comments:

The Planning Act provides that where a building permit for a replacement structure has been issued, Council must release a demolition permit. However, Council may impose a condition on the demolition permit which would require the applicant to construct and substantially complete the new building within a time period of no less than two (2) years from the date of issuance of the demolition permit. If the applicant fails to comply with this condition, Council may impose a penalty of up to $20,000.00 per dwelling unit demolished, to be paid in a manner similar to property taxes. In order to impose this condition, Council would instruct the City Solicitor to register notice of the condition against the title of the property.

The owners of the property had applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a variance to permit an increase in the permitted floor space of the proposed dwelling. This request was refused and the owners have appealed Committee's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Conclusion:

Demolition Control By-law No. 1997-183 was enacted by Council in response to concerns expressed by area residents that the existing dwelling at 12 Kingsway Crescent could be demolished without the assurance that a new dwelling would be constructed and that the property would be left vacant for an extended period of time.

In the event that Council deems it appropriate to impose a penalty notice on the subject lands, Council should establish a time period within which construction of the new dwelling must be substantially completed (no less that two (2) years); and determine the amount of the penalty (no greater than $20,000.00).

Contact Name:

Jacquelyn Daley - Tel. (416) 394-8229 Fax (416) 394-6063

Planner - Central District, Development and Design

(A copy of Exhibit No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of February 18, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

10

Amendment to Etobicoke Zoning By-law 1997-55

Shell Canada Limited, 677 Burnhamthorpe Road

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 5, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

On April 14, 1997, City of Etobicoke Council enacted By-law No. 1997-55 to amend the Supplementary Regulations for Service Stations to permit the operation of a convenience store in conjunction with a service station located at the north-west corner of Burnhamthorpe Road and Old Burnhamthorpe Road.

A review by the Urban Development Department indicates that the legal description shown on Schedule 'A' to By-law No.1997-55 is incorrect. The original Schedule 'A' referred to "Part of Lot C, Concession 2, North of Dundas Street", where the legal description should have read "Part of Lot 1, Concession 1, North of Dundas Street". Therefore, Etobicoke Community Council is requested to authorize the replacement of Schedule 'A' to By-law No. 1997-55. A copy of the amended Schedule with the correct legal description is attached (Attachment No. 1).

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the City Clerk be authorized to replace Schedule 'A' to By-law No. 1997-55.

(A copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of February 18, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Expansion of the Mimico GO Station Parking Facilities

City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion:

"WHEREAS the Transition Team has recommended the consolidation of municipal parking services into a single parking authority to explore opportunities for service agreements with the TTC and GO Transit regarding the operation of mutual parking lots; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto is the owner of the property adjacent to the Royal York GO station; and

WHEREAS there is a major parking deficiency;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Toronto Parking Authority be requested to consider the expansion of the Mimico GO station parking lot."

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following communication (February 8, 1998) from Mr. R. Gullins, President, Lakeshore Ratepayers' & Residents' Association:

In reference to the Royal York GO train station in former town of Mimico we submit this letter of support for expansion of the parking facilities. It is our understanding there is presently an adjacent parcel of land for sale, which can provide additional space for a much-needed expanded parking lot for the station's commuters.

Unanimous agreement of our officers and executive members prompted this correspondence as we all have experienced the chronic shortage of available parking at the station. We all strongly support the use of public transit as an alternative to the use of personal vehicles but acknowledge also public transit must be made convenient for the users including provision of ample parking, preferably free.

In closing, should there be other factors we have not taken into account (i.e., consideration is being given to relocating the station) we will be pleased to be advised of same and submit additional comments.

12

D. Sud & Sons, Westway Plaza

1735 Kipling Avenue - File No. Z-2246

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that, in the event that there is an agreement reached by the area residents with regard to outstanding issues, this matter be forwarded to a future meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council for further consideration.")

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report (January 21, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, recommends that:

(1) the application submitted by D. Sud & Sons regarding a zoning by-law amendment to permit a full range of commercial uses in Building 'D' and to permit restaurant uses in a new Building 'E' fronting Northcrest Road, be refused;

(2) that the 10-year temporary approval, permitted by the Committee of Adjustment, be reaffirmed;

(3) that the truck barriers on the Northcrest Road access points be fitted with a substantial crossbeam instead of a single chain :

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on February 18, 1998 in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (January 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke:

Purpose:

To amend the Planned Commercial Local (CPL) zoning on an existing shopping plaza at Dixon Road and Kipling Avenue, to permit a full range of commercial uses in one Building 'D' and to permit restaurant uses in the new Building 'E' fronting Northcrest Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources or financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by D. Sud and Sons for amendment to the Zoning Code to permit a full range of commercial uses in Building 'D' be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled. It is further recommended that the request to introduce restaurant uses into Building 'E' be refused.

Background:

D. Sud and Sons own the site of the Westway Shopping Plaza located at the south-east corner of Dixon Road and Kipling Avenue (Exhibit No. 1). In 1995, Etobicoke Council passed Official Plan Amendment 29-95 and By-law No. 1995-223 to facilitate expansion of the plaza by adding two buildings (Exhibit No. 2), Building 'D' at the north end of the plaza to be a free standing family restaurant and Building 'E', at the south end of the plaza, to contain a mix of office and retail uses. Restaurant uses were restricted from locating in Building 'E'. Residents on Northcrest Road objected to OPA 29-95 and By-law No. 1995-223. The Ontario Municipal Board dismissed those appeals.

In April 1997, the Etobicoke Committee of Adjustment granted a variance to By-law No. 1995-223 to permit 232.25 mē of Building 'D' to be used for a "convenience restaurant" and 102.19 mē to be used for any of the commercial business uses permitted within the Planned Commercial Local zoning category. One condition of that variance is that the approval is for a term of ten (10) years, expiring on April 30, 2007.

Surrounding Uses:

The surrounding land uses are as follows:

North: Across Dixon Road, high density residential apartment buildings zoned Fourth and Fifth Density Residential (R4) and (R5).

South: Across Northcrest Road, Low density residential, single detached dwellings zoned Second Density Residential (R2).

East: High density residential apartments zoned Fourth Density Residential (R4) and low density residential single detached dwellings, zoned Second Density Residential (R2).

West: Across Kipling Avenue, low density residential, single detached dwellings, zoned Second Density Residential (R2).

Proposal:

The applicants, D. Sud & Sons, are now seeking zoning amendments to allow the complete range of Commercial uses within Building 'D' which were permitted on a 10-year temporary basis by the Committee of Adjustment.

In addition the applicant recently revised the application by requesting that a variety of restaurant uses be permitted in Building 'E' fronting on Northcrest Road, thereby eliminating the prohibition on restaurant uses contained in By-law No. 1995-223. No further changes to the size and location of the buildings are being sought.

The following is a summary of relevant information:

Official Plan Community Retail

Zoning - Existing Local Planned Commercial Local (CPL) with use restrictions

Proposed CPL with use restrictions removed

On Buildings 'D' & 'E'

GFA Building 'D' 318.3 m² 3,426.7 sq. ft.

'E' 2 220.3 m² 23,900.0 sq. ft.

Building Height 2 storey

Comments:

Official Plan and Zoning Code:

The Official Plan, as amended by OPA 29-95, designates the site Community Retail (C) which permits the proposed commercial uses.

The plaza is zoned Planned Commercial Local (CPL) which permits the proposed uses, with some exceptions. In order to permit the full range of commercial uses in Building 'D' on a permanent basis, and the proposed restaurant type uses in Building 'E', an amendment is required.

Staff Comment:

As noted, the Committee of Adjustment approved a wider range of commercial uses on a temporary, 10-year basis in a portion of Building 'D'. Staff have no concerns with permitting the full range of commercial uses in Building 'D' on a permanent basis. However, the proposed addition of restaurant type uses in Building 'E' is of concern.

When the proposed expansion of this plaza was being discussed in 1994-95 leading to the approval of OPA 29-95 and By-law No. 1995-223, concerns were expressed by the community about negative impacts related to restaurant uses. In response, it was noted that the proposed restaurant was to be at the north end of the plaza and was to be a family type restaurant. It was also noted, and agreed to by the applicant, that the City could restrict restaurant uses from locating in the new building (Building 'E') at the southern end of the plaza, thereby removing or minimizing the likelihood of negative impacts on the adjacent low density residential area. Such restriction was included in By-law No. 1995-223.

When OPA 29-95 and By-law No. 1995-223 were before the Ontario Municipal Board, issues related to concerns about restaurant uses were not discussed, since they had previously been dealt with through the restriction in the By-law, acceptable to the applicant and the community. Given that the previously expressed community concerns about the introduction of restaurant uses in Building 'E' remain valid, staff feel that there is no compelling reason to remove the restriction on these uses.

Agency/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of this application no objections were expressed.

The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department notes that the Dixon Road and Kipling Avenue access driveways should be constructed in accordance with the Site Plan Control approval granted in 1996, and that the 0.305 m reserve along Dixon Road and Kipling Avenue should reflect the new driveway dimensions.

Community Input:

Given that the wider range of commercial uses proposed by this application for Building 'D' had been approved by the Committee of Adjustment in April 1997, the Ward Councillor did not require a community meeting on this proposal.

Conclusion:

The uses proposed in existing Building 'D' are in conformity with the Official Plan and have been previously approved through the Committee of Adjustment, consequently should be supported. However, the restriction on restaurant uses in Building 'E' was included to address community concerns and is recommended to remain.

Should this application be approved, the following conditions should apply:

Conditions to Approval:

(1) Prior to the enactment of an amending By-law, the Kipling Avenue and Dixon Road access driveways should be constructed in accordance with the Site Plan Control approval granted in 1996, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Planning section of the Works Department.

(2) The amending By-law to provide for the full range of commercial uses permitted in the Planned Commercial Local zoning category in Building 'D' adjacent to Dixon Road and reaffirm the restriction on restaurant uses in Building 'E' adjacent to Northcrest Road.

Contact Name:

Ed Murphy, Tel: (416) 394-8234 Fax: (416) 394-6063

Area Planner, Development and Design

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 5, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. J. L. Oke:

Thank you for advising us of the application scheduled for February 18, 1998, concerning the Westway Plaza. We shall attend.

We had assumed the previous 1995-1997 application for the extension of the Plaza or Centre as it is known now, was approved. This was done over the objections of the residents of Northcrest, and the allowances granted would have been considered sufficient.

It is recalled that the building "D" the separate edifice had been approved for a free standing restaurant over the objections of the then A&P. Their objection had been recalled.

In initial discussion we were advised that the "fast food" outlets would not be involved. Shortly after by a miracle a "McDonald Express" appeared. The free standing Family Restaurant after objections withdrawn became a Country Style donut with a Maytag Laundromat.

In the building "A" the original Westway Family Restaurant that had been there for years, had to close out when the lease would not be renewed by D. Sud & Sons. This premises became a Bun Bakery shop.

It is amazing with all the food activity since building permits granted to the then Plaza, that they now want a restaurant not in the older section but in the new building "E".

Our concerns have not altered regarding the restaurant uses in building "E". We do not approve of the intent.

We definitely agree with the Planning Department recommendation that the restrictions should still apply in restaurant uses in building "E".

Proposal 4.2 first paragraph seems that the changes have been already completed and operational as previously noted. Our objections pertain only to the second paragraph and the application to change By-law No. 1995-223 to allow a restaurant.

We respectfully request our registration to objection to any change to restrictions in building "E".

Notification of decisions will be appreciated.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 12, 1998) from Ms. Jean Tomkinson, Ms. Olga Gajdemski, and Ms. E. Marian Senyk:

Thank you for advising us of the application scheduled for February 18, 1998.

It is recalled that the building "D" the separate edifice had been approved for a free standing restaurant over the objections of the then A&P. Their objection had been recalled.

In initial discussion we were advised that the "fast food" outlets would not be involved. Shortly after by a miracle a "McDonald Express" appeared. The free standing Family Restaurant after objections withdrawn became a Country Style donut with a Maytag Laundromat.

In the building "A" the original Westway Family Restaurant that had been there for years, had to close out when the lease would not be renewed by D. Sud & Sons. This premises became a Bun Bakery shop.

Our concerns have not altered regarding the restaurant uses in building "E". We do not approve of the intent.

We definitely agree with the Planning Department recommendation that the restrictions should still apply in restaurant uses in building "E".

Proposal 4.2 first paragraph seems that the changes have been already completed and operational as previously noted. Our objections pertain only to the second paragraph and the application to change By-law No. 1995-223 to allow a restaurant.

We respectfully request our registration to objection to any change to restrictions in building "E".

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 11, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Anthony Vella and Mr. John Vella:

Thank you for advising us of the application scheduled for February 18, 1998.

It is recalled that the building "D" the separate edifice had been approved for a free standing restaurant over the objections of the then A&P. Their objection had been recalled.

In initial discussion we were advised that the "fast food" outlets would not be involved. Shortly after by a miracle a "McDonald Express" appeared. The free standing Family Restaurant after objections withdrawn became a Country Style donut with a Maytag Laundromat.

In the building "A" the original Westway Family Restaurant that had been there for years, had to close out when the lease would not be renewed by D. Sud & Sons. This premises became a Bun Bakery shop.

Our concerns have not altered regarding the restaurant uses in building "E". We do not approve of the intent.

We definitely agree with the Planning Department recommendation that the restrictions should still apply in restaurant uses in building "E".

Proposal 4.2 first paragraph seems that the changes have been already completed and operational as previously noted. Our objections pertain only to the second paragraph and the application to change By-law No. 1995-223 to allow a restaurant.

We respectfully request our registration to objection to any change to restrictions in building "E".

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 10, 1998) from Mr. Earl J. Orr, Ms. Isabel Orr and Ms. Sandra Orr:

Thank you for advising us of the application scheduled for February 18, 1998. It is recalled that the building "D" , had been approved for a free-standing restaurant, but, due to the objections of the A&P (now Dominion) a Country Style Donut and Maytag Laundromat were installed in that building instead.

During our initial discussions, when the applicant was first requesting rezoning for the new buildings, concern was raised about having a McDonald's or some other fast food restaurant going into building "D", which the owner promised would not occur. What they did not tell, at the time, was that McDonald's was going to open an "express" restaurant in the existing building, in a few months. It should also be noted that the plaza did have a "family" restaurant which the plaza owner essentially kicked out by refusing to renew the lease. We now have a Bun Bakery Shop in its place. We do not trust the owners to not put a fast food restaurant in building "E". The plaza still has a major problem with garbage from McDonald's and Pizza Pizza littering the place; fortunately this contained primarily to the plaza itself and not Northcrest Road. If such a restaurant were to go into building "E", given the lack of housekeeping the owner maintains, we can readily perceive this littering to flow onto Northcrest Road.

We fully endorse the Planning Department's recommendation that the restrictions should not be changed in building "E" to allow for restaurant use of any sort.

________

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

- Ms. Irene Catsibris and Mr. Elliot Sud, on behalf of D. Sud & Sons, explained the rationale for the application. They advised that the major interest of prospective tenants has been restaurant related, local residents have expressed an interest in seeing a family-style sit-down facility on the site, the applicant is anxious to upgrade the image left by a previous restaurant in the plaza, and a full range of commercial uses, on a permanent basis, would be more attractive. They also advised that, as the flow of internal traffic has not been as heavy as originally anticipated, they would be willing to consider closing one of the access points from Northcrest Road.

- Mr. Earl Orr reiterated his opposition to any restaurant use on the south side of the site, particularly a fast-food outlet, and also his concerns about increased traffic on Northcrest Road and the difficulty in exiting onto Kipling Avenue.

- Mr. John Vella supported the comments made by the previous speaker, and noted that in spite of assurances to the contrary certain uses have been introduced in the plaza; what is to prevent this from reoccurring.

- Mr. Patrick Devlin supported the comments by the previous speakers and noted that there had definitely been a previous agreement about the restaurant and this issue had therefore not been debated at the earlier hearing.

- Mr. Joseph Barillari, on behalf of Mrs. Antoinette Barillari, requested assurance that any restaurant would not be a licenced facility, and replacement of the required truck barriers at the Northcrest Road access points, a condition required in the previous application.

- Ms. Sandra McMahon expressed concern that the donut shop that has recently opened on the site has become an all-night hangout.

(Copies of Exhibit No. 1 and Exhibit No. 2, referred to in the foregoing report, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of February 18, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

13

Amendments to the Official Plan and Etobicoke Zoning Code -

Former City of Etobicoke - West Side of Islington Avenue,

Between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive - File No. Z-2256

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report dated January 21, 1998 from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, recommends that:

(1) the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, be adopted; and further that the draft by-laws attached to such report respecting the minimum lot area of certain lands located on the west side of Islington Avenue, between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive, be approved; and

(2) that the Etobicoke Community Council be advised of the outcome of the appeal to the OMB by F-F Construction Company Limited.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on February 18, 1998 in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (January 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke:

Purpose:

To review the lot area requirement for certain properties located on the west side of Islington Avenue, between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding sources and financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a Public Meeting be held in connection with the proposed Official Plan and Zoning Code amendments with respect to increasing the minimum size of lots in the area located on the west side of Islington Avenue, between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive. Should Council decide to proceed with amendments, staff should be directed to finalize the draft amendments attached to this report, for adoption by Toronto Council.

Background:

On September 8, 1997, Etobicoke Council refused an application by F & F Construction Ltd. for draft plan of subdivision approval to create five lots which complied with the existing (R1) zoning standards and Official Plan (Nos. 1394 and 1396 Islington Avenue). The applicants have appealed Council's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Council further directed Urban Development staff to bring forward an appropriate amendment to the Zoning Code to increase the minimum lot size in the area west of Islington Avenue, between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive (Exhibit No. 1).

Comment:

Official Plan and Zoning Code

The area under review comprises a total of twenty-four (24) lots. The Official Plan (Section 5) designates the subject lands Low Density Residential, subject to Site Specific Policy No. 22 (Exhibit No. 2).

This policy permits the re-subdivision of the lots in these blocks to proceed on an incremental basis, provided that a comprehensive plan is approved that would not jeopardize the rights and enjoyment of owners who chose not to redevelop their lands.

Council's direction to increase the minimum required lot size however, effectively precludes any re-subdivision of these existing lots. The City Solicitor has advised that it would be appropriate to amend the Official Plan to delete Special Site Policy 22.

The lands are zoned First Density Residential (R1) which permits single, detached dwellings on lots having a minimum frontage of 15 m (50 ft.) and lot area of 557 mē (6,000 sq. ft.). The lots fronting on Islington Avenue vary from 12 m (40 ft.) to 28.6 m (94 ft.) in width, with most lots having a frontage of 15 m (50 ft.). The majority of these lots are approximately 119 m (390 ft.) deep. The remaining lots fronting on Fairway Road are more in keeping with the (R1) zoning standards (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4). In order to increase the development standards for these lands, an amendment to the Zoning Code would be required.

Conclusion:

A review of the lots in the area indicates that the majority of the 21 deep lots with frontage on Islington Avenue have an average area of slightly greater than 1800 mē (19,378 sq. ft.). In accordance with the Etobicoke Council direction to increase the permitted lot area requirements for lots within these blocks, the minimum lot area requirement identified in the attached draft by-law is 1800 mē.

In the event that Toronto Council supports the increased lot area requirements, staff should be directed to finalize the amending Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment. Drafts of each document are attached as Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6 respectively.

Contact Name:

Lorna Hahn, Tel: (416) 394-8232, Fax: (416) 394-6063

Planner, Development and Design

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 10, 1998) from Ms. M. Virginia MacClean, Cassels Brock & Blackwell:

We are the solicitors for F-F Construction Company Limited the owners of land located at 1386 and 1388 Islington Avenue, at the north west corner of Islington Avenue and Fairview Road. We are also solicitors for Charles and Pauline Sammut the owners of property located 1392 Islington Avenue.

Our client F-F Construction Company Limited, made an application for draft Plan of Subdivision approval January 29, 1997. The application was in compliance with the provisions of the Official Plan, Site Plan Specific Policy No. 22. In July 1997, after the public meeting to consider our client's proposed draft plan, ratepayers in the area requested an amendment to Site Plan Specific Policy No. 22 similar to the revision before this Committee. This proposed revision was not supported by the Municipal planning staff in part because of a previous OMB decision on a previous subdivision application which had resulted in the policy.

F-F Construction appealed the approval authority's failure to make a decision under subsection 51(34) of the Planning Act and the former City of Etobicoke, Planning and Development Committee, refused the application for approval of the Plan of Subdivision subsequent to the appeal and at the same meeting, directed that amendments to the zoning code which we assume also included the Official Plan amendment, be brought forward.

The Sammuts made an application to sever and the Committee of Adjustment refused the application on November 13, 1997. The Sammut lands abut the lands owned by F-F Construction Company Limited. The decision of the City of Etobicoke, Committee of Adjustment, has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and, we have requested that hearing be combined.

We have been advised that the hearing dates will probably be late March or early April, 1998.

It is our position, on behalf of our clients in the circumstances outlined, that it is premature for the Etobicoke Community Council to make a decision on the proposed amendment. Furthermore, the planning history of the lands would appear to indicate that the proposed amendment may lack planning merit. Any decision on this proposed amendment should take into account the disposition of our clients' appeals by the Ontario Municipal board. Therefore we respectfully request that the consideration of the amendment be deferred until the Ontario Municipal Board has finally disposed of our clients' appeals.

Would you please ensure that we are notified of any disposition of the matter by the Etobicoke Community Council and of the adoption of the proposed Official Plan amendment.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 1, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. D. Holmes:

We are writing you concerning the proposed amendments to lots on the west side of Islington Avenue between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive.

We do support larger lot sizes (minimum 19,000 square feet) which will hopefully retain our quiet neighbourhood in the way we all wish it to remain.

For the record we have been fighting this and other development proposals which include the Perry Avenue road closing since 1984. I have personally collected a file that is now two inches thick. We all would like to see an end to this matter. Your help in this regard would be greatly appreciated by the many long time residents of this area.

P.S. I would appreciate receiving a copy of any addition or change to the official plan affecting this area.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 16, 1998) from J. Robert Hall, Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish:

My family and I live at 15 Orrell Avenue, in very close proximity to the area currently subject to Official Plan Policy No. 22. We have attended numerous meetings over the years on various applications involving these lots.

We strongly support an application to amend the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to increase the minimum size of the lots in the area on the west side of Islington Avenue, between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive. We feel that the minimum lot size should reflect the existing lot sizes of approximately 19,000 square feet.

As both residents of the area and as members of Islington Golf Club, we believe that it is crucial that the integrity of the area be preserved by maintaining the existing size of those lots. Through this amendment process, the residents can be assured that this truly unique area will be preserved.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 15, 1998) from Ms. Marilyn J. Hare:

We would like to go on record that we agree with the amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Code with respect to increasing the minimum size of lots in the area west of Islington Avenue between Orrell and Riverbank.

Please keep me informed of the adoption of mentioned amendment.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 18, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Kircheis:

As owners of the property as per above address we request to be notified of the adoption of the proposed Official Plan amendment.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 16, 1998) from Mrs. Iris Peterson and Mr. Len Peterson:

Thank for your notice dated January 27, 1998.

As residents at this address for some 45 years we welcome wholeheartedly the proposed amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code with respect to increasing the minimum lot size in the area between Orrell Avenue and Riverbank Drive.

We should like to request notification of the adoption of the proposed Official Plan Amendment.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (February 18, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Richard Holdsworth:

Illness has prevented us from joining the Etobicoke Community Council meeting as planned on February 18th, but we send this letter with a neighbour, Iris Peterson.

Anything that can be done to prevent constant harassment by non-resident land sharks of the resident landowners is extremely welcome. We are entirely in favour of the proposed amendment to increase the minimum lot size on these two blocks so that subdivision can no longer be considered as an option here. You have had many a submission from the block residents, including us, to plead our case and we support all the arguments made in them regarding the character of the block and the relationship of the neighbours to each other and to their properties. We therefore trust in your continued support to quash these non-resident speculators by voting for this amendment.

________

The following individuals appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in support of the proposed amendments:

- Mr. Robert Berry;

- Mrs. Iris Peterson;

- Ms. Kim McAulay;

- Mr. Albert Kercheis;

- Mr. Gerald Low;

- Mr. Neil Dundas;

- Mrs. Vera Kercheis; and

- Mr. Paul Hall.

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in opposition to the proposed amendments:

- Mr. Peter Chee, on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Charles Sammut and F-F Construction Company Limited; and

- Mr. Dan Hornibrook.

(Copies of Exhibits No. 1-6, referred to in the foregoing, report, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of February 18, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Community Council Briefing.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following:

Ms. Brenda Glover, Commissioner of Human Resources, gave a presentation regarding the new Property Tax System.

(b) Traffic Concerns - St. George's Road.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District, for submission of a full report on intersection improvements at St. George's Road and Wimbleton Road to the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council; and

(2) recommended to the Kingsway College School and St. George's-on-the-Hill Church that they install appropriate stop signs on their own property, and that they consult with Works Department staff with respect to the installation of a pedestrian crossover and/or a crossing guard on Wimbleton Road:

(January 28, 1998) from Mr. I. Nishisato, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association, respecting the volume and speed of traffic in the vicinity of Kingsway College School at St. George's Road and Wimbleton Road, and the results of a traffic survey undertaken in the area.

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

- Mr. I. Nishisato, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association; and

- Mr. D. Richards, Principal, Kingsway College School.

(c) Variances to the Etobicoke Sign By-law.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(February 3, 1998) from the Secretary, Sign Variance Advisory Committee, advising that the Sign Variance Advisory Committee, on February 3, 1998, approved the following applications for variance to the Etobicoke Sign By-law:

(1) an application by Michel S. Manett Planning Services Ltd., on behalf of Kipling Heights Plaza, for variance to the Sign By-law to permit the installation of a continuous fascia sign band, and removal of a restriction on hours of illumination of a second pylon sign on the site;

(2) an application by McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Limited for a variance to the Sign By-law to permit the installation of side and rear wall signs not in compliance with the Sign By-law on their proposed building at 195 North Queen Street;

(3) an application by Wes Surdyka, Architect, for a variance to the Sign By-law to permit the installation of an electronic 0.6 m x 2.5 m display panel in a proposed tenant ground sign at 6931 Steeles Avenue West; and

(4) an application by Jones Neon Displays Limited, on behalf of Business Depot Ltd., for a variance to the Sign By-law to permit a side wall fascia sign on the south elevation at 180 Queen's Plate Drive, exceeding the maximum allowed in the by-law.

(d) City of Toronto - 34 Ballacaine Drive/Ontario Municipal Board Appeal.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication for information:

(January 23, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitor, Etobicoke District, reporting on an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, convened on January 9, 1998, regarding an appeal from a decision of the Committee of Adjustment, advising that the OMB has reserved its decision.

(e) City of Toronto - 45 LaRose Avenue/Ontario Municipal Board Appeal.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication for information:

(January 23, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitors, Etobicoke District, reporting on an Ontario Municipal Board decision pertaining to a zoning appeal by Richview Developments involving 45 LaRose Avenue, advising that the OMB has released its decision; allowed the developer's appeal in part; and directed that the density of the proposed development be substantially reduced.

(f) Kingsway Park Heritage Conservation District.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, providing an update on the progress of the designation of the Kingsway Park area as a Heritage Conservation District.

(g) New Applications for Condominium/Subdivision and Site Plan Approval.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, reporting on condominium, subdivision and site plan approval applications received since the last report was presented to the January, 1998, meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council, and advising that since that report the Department has received three (3) condominium applications, one (1) subdivision application and one (1) application for site plan approval.

(h) 1997 Urban Development Department Report.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, submitting the 1997 Annual Report of the Etobicoke Urban Development Department.

(i) Preliminary Report - Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - 1051234 Ontario Limited, 7 McIntosh Avenue - File No. Z-2264.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) received the following report for information; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, to include in a subsequent report comments with respect to the status of a mature tree on the property and whether all necessary permits have been issued for use of the patio area:

(February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke advising that an application has been received from 1051234 Ontario Limited to amend the Residential Second Density (R2) zoning to permit the use of part of a residential property for commercial parking (seven spaces) in conjunction with an existing neighbouring restaurant at 624 The Queensway.

(j) Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Fima Developments, 2000 The Queensway and 30 Boncer Drive - File. No. Z-2248.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) directed that a public meeting be held to consider the following report; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, to bring forward a report for the public meeting with respect to the requirement for a cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution, as well as a contribution toward public art:

(February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, with respect to an application for amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit an additional 6 874 mē (74,000 sq. ft.) of Special Retail uses on lands at the north-east corner of The Queensway and The West Mall.

(k) Recommendation 21 of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team Pertaining to One Councillor per Ward Representation.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) requested the City Clerk for a report on the following matter, including a review of the issue and the logical steps to be followed; and

(2) requested the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to not deal with the issue of one Councillor per Ward until the communities have been consulted on the issue:

(January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising that Council, in adopting, as amended, the recommendations of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, directed, in part, that Recommendation 21 of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation be referred to the Urban Environment and Development Committee and circulated to the Community Councils for consideration and report thereon to Council.

(l) Public Health Services.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) received the following presentation;

(2) recommended to the Budget Committee and the Toronto Board of Health that they protect the level of funding for public health during the 1998 budget process as much as possible; and

(3) requested the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team to consider the recommendations of the previous Board of Health Liaison Committee with respect to the formation of the new Toronto Board of Health; and

(4) supported a Public Health Advisory Committee for the Etobicoke District:

Ms. Dorothy Wheeler, Concerned Citizens for Public Health, gave a presentation with respect to public health concerns and the fact that Public Health in Ontario has been down-loaded to local municipalities, and to request that the active formal participation by citizens in decision-making about Public Health be ensured.

(m) City of Toronto (Etobicoke) - By-law No. 1997-169/Ontario Municipal Board Appeal.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication for information:

(February 6, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitors, Etobicoke, advising that an appeal filed with the Ontario Municipal Board regarding By-law No. 1997-169, the effect of which is to rezone certain lands north and south of Reading Court and west of Attwell Drive, has been withdrawn and that the by-law will now come into force.

(n) File No. 570.6.6 - Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital/Humber College Area Master Design and Implementation Plan.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(February 4, 1998) from R. Rork, Vice-President, Administration, Humber College, advising that Humber College can now provide endorsement of the consultants' report, Master Design and Implementation Plan for the Humber College/Lakeshore Hospital Lands.

(o) Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Transition Team.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(January 28, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising of communications that were before the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on January 28, 1998 and referral of these communications to the appropriate officials for report to the Special Committee in accordance with the Committee's work plan.

(p) Sir Adam Beck School - Multi-Use Facility.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(February 12, 1998) from the Secretary, Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC, supporting, in principle, a request by a neighbourhood committee for the retention of the original four classrooms, the foyer and stage area of Sir Adam Beck School in the development of a multi-use facility on the site.

(q) CRIME S.C.O.P.E.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) reaffirmed its support of the CRIME S.C.O.P.E. programme;

(2) requested CRIME S.C.O.P.E. to provide the Etobicoke Community Council with an annual report on its activities, together with additional reports as needed; and

(3) received the following presentation:

Ms. C. Micallef, Co-ordinator, CRIME S.C.O.P.E., gave a presentation regarding the past and future activities of CRIME S.C.O.P.E., a community-based organization established to co-ordinate and report to Council on various aspects of crime prevention in the community.

(r) Library Capital Budget.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following presentation:

Ms. J. Milne, Toronto Public Libraries, Etobicoke Area, gave a presentation with respect to the 1998 Capital Budget projects for the Toronto Public Library and, in particular, the Etobicoke Area.

(s) Voluntary Community Service.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following presentation:

The following gave a presentation with respect to Community Voices of Support, a City-wide network of community-based health and social services agencies:

- Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Chair, Community Voices of Support;

- Mr. William Goursky;

- Ms. Delia Dyke; and

- Ms. Pierrette Fargo.

(t) City of Toronto (Etobicoke) - Magdalena's Rest Home,

379 Lake Promenade.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication for information:

(February 13, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitors, Etobicoke District, advising of the completion of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing involving the proposed two-storey addition to the rear of the existing rest home at 379 Lake Promenade, and that the OMB has reserved its decision.

(u) Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision - 57 and 59 Guthrie Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, recommending that no legal or staff representation be provided at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to an appeal of a Committee of Adjustment decision regarding 57 and 59 Guthrie Avenue.

(v) New Application for Site Plan Approval - Deeper Life Christian Ministries International Inc., 20 Rakely Court.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services be requested to examine existing by-laws that give "as-of-right" church uses in Industrial zones because of the impact on the tax base; and

(2) received the following report, with a request to the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke Division to bring forward a further information report to the Etobicoke Community Council at the appropriate time.

(February 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke, advising of receipt of an application for site plan approval by Deeper Life Christian Ministries International Inc., 20 Rakely Court for a proposed 16,795 mē (180,786 sq. ft.) Christian Centre at the south-west corner of Eglinton Avenue and Rakely Court.

(w) Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication for information:

(February 13, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on February 9, 1998, concurred with the recommendation embodied in a report (January 21, 1998) from Councillor Joe Pantalone, Chair, Urban Environment and Development Committee, recommending that the Bell Canada Telephone booth advertising proposal be deferred until the end of 1998 to provide the opportunity to assess the reaction to the installations in Etobicoke and East York in the context of a general assessment of advertising possibilities on the public road allowances.

(x) Legal Matter Pertaining to an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested, in camera, the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services to take the necessary steps to update the background information required by the City Solicitor for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of Item (x), headed "Legal Matter Pertaining to an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing," embodied in the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (February 25, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a confidential report (February 18, 1998) from Mr. Bruce C. Ketcheson, Solicitor, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Barristers, Solicitors, Notaries, providing updated background information required by the City Solicitor.)

(Councillor Balkissoon, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in Item (w), headed "Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising," embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he is on a leave of absence from Bell Canada.)

(Councillor Giansante, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in Item (w), headed "Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising," embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that his wife is an employee of Bell Canada.)

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH BROWN,

Chair

Toronto, February 18, 1998

(Report No. 2 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.)