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
NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 2
1Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application OZ-88-40 - R. G. Thwaites - 15 Cameron Avenue Ward 10
- North York Centre
2Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-88-37Seneca College of Applied Arts and TechnologyWard 10 -
North York Centre
3Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application andSubdivision Application UDOZ-97-34 & UDSB-1232
-Romeo Di Battista - 665 Trethewey Drive Ward 6 - North York Humber
4Appeal of Muzzle Order - Ms. C. Stott -4005 Bayview Avenue, No. 318 Ward 12 - Seneca Heights
5Appeal to Muzzle Order - Ms. Miriam Mirshahi -740 York Mills Road, Suite 706 Ward 9 - North York Centre
South
6Fence By-law Variance Request - Swimming Pool Enclosure -32 Windhill Crescent - Ward 6 - North York
Humber
7Fence By-law Variance Request - 132 Groton Street -Ward 8 - North York Spadina
8Fence By-law Variance Request - 801 Willowdale Avenue -Ward 10 - North York Centre
9Sign By-law Variance Application - Gould Outdoor Advertising -3628 Weston Road - Ward 6 - North York
Humber
10100 Percent Smoke-free Work Places and Food Courts -By-law to amend City of North York By-law No.
32931, as Amended
11Fence By-law Variance Request - 134 Groton Street -Ward 8 - North York Spadina
12Fence By-law Variance Request - Swimming Pool Enclosure -30 Florida Crescent - Ward 6 - North York
Humber
13Fence By-law Variance Request - 12 Kemp Square - Ward 6 - North York Humber
14Renaming of Gary Park - Ward 6 - North York Humber
15Designation By-laws - The Joseph Shepard House/Dempsey Brothers Store, 250 Beecroft Road - Ward 10
-North York Centre and Jolly Miller Tavern, 3885 Yonge Street -Ward 9 - North York Centre South
16Encroachment - 388 Broadway Avenue -Ward 9 - North York Centre South
17Parking Prohibitions - Brooke Avenue between Kelso Street and Clyde Avenue - Ward 9 - North York
Centre South
18Parking Prohibitions - Ashwarren Road -Ward 8 - North York Spadina
19Temporary Road Closure - Harlandale Avenue -Ward 10 - North York Centre
20Stopping Prohibitions - Wilmington Avenue -Ward 8 - North York Spadina
21Parking Prohibitions - Hobart Drive -Ward 12 - Seneca Heights
22Parking Prohibitions - Gordon Baker Road -Ward 12 - Seneca Heights
23Parking Restrictions - Eddystone Avenue -Ward 7 - Black Creek
24All Way Stop Control - Driftwood at Laskay Crescent (East Leg) -Ward 7 - Black Creek
25Community Festival Event - Armenian Community Centre -Canada Summer Fest 1998 - 45 Hallcrown
Place -Ward 12 - Seneca Heights
26Committee of Adjustment - UDCA-97-687 -Holy Ghost Banner Church of God Inc. - 49 Eugene Street
-Request for Staff Attendance at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - Ward 8 - North York Spadina
27Application for Part Lot Control Exemption (UD54-07-01-REL) -Tak-On Developments Ltd. - 142 Finch
Avenue East -Ward 10 - North York Centre
28Application for Part Lot Control Exemption (UD54-97-08-REL) -Galina Langer - 340 Riverview Drive -Ward
9 - North York Centre South
29Application for Part Lot Control Exemption (UD54-97-09-REL) -1209786 Ontario Inc./Broder Development
Group -3330 Bayview Avenue - Ward 10 - North York Centre
30Industrial Zoning Review By-law Appeals - Application to the Ontario Municipal Board for Approval of North
York By-laws 33091,33092 and 33093 - Ward 6 - North York Humber and Ward 8 - North York Spadina
31UDLD-96-63 - Ralph and Ada Reichmann -214 Strathallan Wood and 409 and 415 Glencairn Avenue
32Other Items Considered by the Community Council.
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 2
OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on February 18, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998
1
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
OZ-88-40 - R. G. Thwaites - 15 Cameron Avenue
Ward 10 - North York Centre
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the North York Community Council
for further consideration.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendation contained in the following report (September 4, 1997) from the Commissioner of
Planning and the memorandum (February 4, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons
that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the applications submitted by R. G.
Thwaites regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment for 15 Cameron Avenue be refused.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on February 18, 1998, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 4, 1997) from the Commissioner of
Planning:
Summary:
The proposal is to convert and expand an existing single dwelling residence to allow an office building. The site located at
15 Cameron Avenue is within a designated stable residential area immediately adjacent to the North York Centre.
The application was recommended for refusal by staff and the Planning Advisory Committee in January 1989 and on
February 1, 1989 respectively; but was deferred sine die by Council on March 8, 1989. A copy of the 1989 report and
Council minutes are attached (see Schedule 'F').
In the intervening period, the City has reviewed and changed the official plan policies for the area south of Sheppard
Avenue in the Downtown secondary plan (Official Plan Amendment No. 393). None of these changes affected the subject
property. The site remained outside of the Downtown plan boundary. OPA 393 was subsequently referred to the Ontario
Municipal Board and a hearing held between April and June of this year. The City is awaiting a decision from this hearing.
Over the last year, the City has reviewed its policies for the city centre (both Downtown and Uptown secondary plans) and
has proposed a consolidated document with some policy changes. The new document is titled the North York Centre
secondary plan (Official Plan Amendment No. 447). A public meeting for this proposed secondary plan has been scheduled
for September 10, 1997. There are no proposed policy changes affecting the subject lands. The site remains outside of the
North York Centre boundary.
The proponent, Mr. Thwaites, requested that his file be kept open during this period of review, and now wants his
application to be reconsidered.
The proposed office development is not in conformity with the City's existing and proposed development strategy for the
North York Centre and the adjacent stable residential areas. It would be a non-residential intrusion into an existing
established residential neighbourhood. There has been no change in the planning strategy for this residential neighbourhood
since the City's last review of this application in 1989.
Recommendation:
The application be refused.
3.0 Proposal:
The proposal is to establish a C.9 specific development policy for the lands in the official plan and to zone the property to
allow for the expansion and conversion of an existing single residential dwelling to permit an office use in addition to the
existing RD-1 and R6 permitted uses.
The proponent wants to add onto the east side of an existing residential dwelling to create a office building with a gross
floor area of 285.84 m² (3,076.75 ft²) at a 0.36 FSI. The proposed lot coverage would be 23.74 percent.
The backyard would be paved to provide a parking area with 13 spaces. Access to the parking area would be from Cameron
Avenue (see Schedule 'B'). The existing unattached garage would be demolished.
The proposal is to create an office building with a residential type facade (see Schedules 'C' and 'D'). The intent is to have
the proposed office building fit in with the existing residential streetscape on the lands to the north and west.
No retail or medical office uses are proposed.
We have confirmed with the applicant that he has not changed his initial concept for the development of the site, since our
last review of his application in 1989.
4.0 Location and existing site:
The site is located at 15 Cameron Avenue. It is one lot west of Yonge Street on the south side of Cameron Avenue (see
Schedule 'A').
The property contains a house with a separate garage. There is a driveway to the garage and some landscaping. There is a
block fence along the east boundary of the lot.
The lands are bounded on the north by Cameron Avenue and residential dwellings on the north side of the street, on the
east by a Petro-Canada gas bar with a convenience store and donut shop concession, on the south by single residential
dwellings fronting onto Franklin Avenue, and on the west by a single residential dwelling.
The adjacent house on the west is on the City's list of historically significant buildings and is known as the Frank
Carmichael House (see Schedule 'G'). It is used as a residence.
The house at 16 Cameron Avenue on the north side of the street is leased and is used as a residence. It is owned by the
adjacent property owner with a commercial building at the northwest corner of Yonge Street and Cameron Avenue. A
portion of the backyard of 16 Cameron Avenue is used as parking area for the adjacent commercial building. The parking
area appears to be a nonconforming use to the existing R7 zoning.
The site is on the edge of a stable residential neighbourhood and adjacent to a commercial strip along Yonge Street.
5.0 Background:
This application was submitted on April 14, 1988 by Mr. Thwaites , the current property owner. The application was
recommended for refusal by staff in January 1989 and the Planning Advisory Committee on February 1, 1989. The basis for
the refusal was that the proposal would destabilize the adjacent residential neighbourhood, that new commercial lands
should be located on arterial roads as directed by the City's official plan, and that its approval would be precedent setting
for other residential properties along the Downtown boundary. Council deferred the matter sine die on March 8, 1989 (see
Schedule 'F').
In the intervening period, Mr. Thwaites waited until the finalization of the south Downtown planning area review was
completed for the lands south of Sheppard Avenue to Highway No. 401 on both sides of Yonge Street, since it might affect
his lands. During the review, the City examined the boundaries of the Downtown area and the associated land use
designations. This review resulted in the Council approving Official Plan Amendment No. 393. The amendment did not
change the Downtown secondary planning area boundary on the west side of Yonge Street. In addition, there were no
changes to the land use designations or policies for the lands adjacent to the west boundary.
OPA 393 was subsequently referred to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing. This was held from April to June of this
year. The City is awaiting the decision. However, Mr. Thwaites' property was not an issue at the hearing; and consequently,
the decision will not affect his lands.
The City has recently completed a review of the Downtown and Uptown secondary plans for the City's commercial centre.
Staff have recommended that there be some policy changes to these two documents in order to have some consistency in
development requirements with the two adjacent secondary plan areas and to update the policies to reflect Council's current
development strategy for the City centre. The two secondary plans and the policies agreed to by Council in OPA 393 have
been consolidated into one document to be known as the North York Centre secondary plan. A public meeting on this
proposed document has been scheduled for September 10, 1997. The proposed boundary of the consolidated North York
Centre secondary plan does not change on the west side of Yonge Street, and the proposed policies do not include the lands
outside of the boundary in the abutting stable residential areas. Accordingly, the applicant's land is not affected by the
proposed policies in the North York Centre secondary plan.
Mr. Thwaites is now in the same situation as he was in 1988 when he submitted his application. His lands are immediately
adjacent to the North York Centre boundary. His property is in a designated residential area.
The existing residential dwelling is currently leased for residential purposes only. Mr. Thwaites considers his house to be in
a state of disrepair, and he does not want to repair, renovate, or build a new house. He lives in another house in the same
neighbourhood on Franklin Avenue.
6.0 Planning Controls:
This application was submitted under The Planning Act, 1983, as amended.
6.1 Official Plan:
The lands are designated Residential Density One (RD-1). The RD-1 districts are intended to be areas of predominantly low
rise ground oriented housing such as detached and semi-detached dwellings. Public facilities and amenities, community
institutions and minor commercial uses which are ancillary to the residential use or which serve the local residential
population are permitted. The proponent's office proposal would not comply with these policies.
The site is adjacent to the existing Downtown (proposed North York Centre) lands (see Schedule 'E'). There is no proposal
to amend the Downtown (North York Centre) boundary along this segment of the west side of Yonge Street in order to
incorporate the applicant's lands into the secondary plan area. The policies of the existing and proposed secondary plans do
not apply to the proposal. Subject to Part D.2, Section 3.14.12 , the City is not considering any new policies for the lands
outside and adjacent to the secondary plan boundary.
6.2 Zoning By-law:
The lands are zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling Sixth Density (R6). This zone permits one-family detached dwellings
and accessory buildings, and some institutional and recreational uses subject to conditions.
An office use is not a permitted use.
7.0 Other Comments:
As there has been no change in planning policy or development strategy for the subject site, the proposal has not been
recirculated since our initial review. The following comments were submitted previously.
7.1 External
The Metropolitan Planning Department notes that the proposal could set a precedent adding to the uncertainties of land use
relationships at the North York Centre boundary. Proximity to the boundary does not justify extension of the city centre.
See attached Schedule 'H'.
The Ministry of Transportation is not affected by the proposal. See attached Schedule 'I'.
Consumers Gas has no objections. See attached Schedule 'J'.
Bell Canada has no objections. See attached Schedule 'K'.
North York Hydro has no objections. See attached Schedule 'L'.
7.2 Internal
Fire Department has no objections. See attached Schedule 'M'.
Public Works Department has no objections subject to their standard conditions. See attached Schedule 'N'.
Traffic Department (now Transportation Department) concurs with Metropolitan Planning Department comments. Should
the proposal be approved, the driveway access width onto Cameron Avenue would have to be increased to 6.1 metres. See
attached Schedule 'O'.
8.0 Public Consultation:
There has been no further public consultation on the subject application since its initial review.
A community consultation meeting was not required.
There has been extensive public consultation on the south Downtown planning area review and the resultant Official Plan
Amendment No. 393. The public also had the opportunity to express their point of view at the recent Ontario Municipal
Board hearing on this amendment.
There has been significant public involvement including workshops in the preparation of the proposed North York Centre
secondary plan (proposed Official Plan Amendment No. 447). A public meeting has been scheduled for September 10,
1997.
9.0 Planning Issues:
9.1 Commercial Development Strategy in the North York Centre and Adjacent Areas
The development strategy in this area of the City is to encourage commercial uses in the North York Centre particularly in
the designated prime frontage areas along Yonge Street, Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue. The subject property is not
within one of these areas designated for commercial uses.
Mr. Thwaites' property does not satisfy all of the requirements in the City's official plan (Part C.5, Section 2.7.0)
concerning the expansion of a commercial area. The lot does not have frontage on an arterial road.
The City's development objective is to ensure the stability of the existing low density adjacent residential areas abutting the
city centre. These areas are intended to be for predominantly low rise ground oriented housing with minor commercial uses
which are either ancillary to the residential uses or which serve the immediate local population. The stable residential areas
and the commercial core are meant to be separate but complementary to each other. Permitting an office use as an
exception to the residential zoning on the subject property would not be in keeping with this strategy.
9.2 Transitional Area between Core Commercial Uses and Residential Uses
The City's proposed strategy is to allow mixed use development (residential and non-residential) but with a 50 percent
residential limitation for some lands adjacent to the city centre core including the Yonge Street/Sheppard Avenue subway
node. The remaining portion of the city centre properties would be generally for residential uses with gradually deceasing
densities moving from the core area to the established residential communities adjacent to the city centre boundary. To
allow for a better change between these uses, transitional areas separating the residential and non-residential uses by
allowing a mix of both are proposed at strategic locations. The adjacent Petro-Canada property to the east is in one of these
transitional areas.
Although very close, the subject site is not within the area designated for mixed-use development and is still outside the
city centre boundary.
In addition, the City's strategy is to have a clearly defined edge. Being outside of but adjacent to the boundary does not
justify a boundary extension. A hard edge protects the stable residential area.
Mr. Thwaites' lands are adjacent to this hard edge but within the stable residential area.
9.3 Precedent Setting
To permit an office use within an existing stable residential area will create a precedent. The lands to the north and south of
the site are also adjacent to the same city centre boundary and a mix of existing commercial uses including a gas bar and a
service station. Should this proposal be approved and a non-residential use be allowed to encroach into the same stable
residential community, it will not be long before non-residential development applications are received from other property
owners. This could encourage piecemeal development, defeat the purpose of having a hard-edge boundary and subvert the
current strategy to conserve, protect and enhance the existing stable residential neighbourhoods.
9.4 Frank Carmichael House
The Frank Carmichael house at 21 Cameron Avenue has been listed although not yet designated as a home of historical
significance. This house is on the property immediately to the west of the subject site. It would be preferable to have this
house preserved within a residential setting with no adjacent commercial encroachments.
9.5 Site Layout
If this application was to proceed, a site plan application would be required. In the City's preliminary review of the
proposal, there are layout concerns. These matters would be dealt with in more detail in the review of any site plan
application.
The driveway and the parking area require the following changes:
(1) 6.0 m(19.6 ft.) driveway;
(2) 6.0 m(19.6 ft.) parking aisle;
(3) 5.5 m(18.1 ft.) parking stall length and a 2.7m(8.8 ft.) parking stall width;
(4) the western strip along the driveway must be landscaped; and
(5) the residual perimeter parking area must be landscaped.
A detailed landscape plan which shall include details on a privacy fence and exterior lighting, a detailed grading/drainage
plan to ensure that the parking area does not create offsite drainage problems, and revised building elevations providing
further articulation to reduce the perceived mass of the building will be required for further review.
10.0 Conclusion:
The proposed office development is not in conformity with the City's existing and proposed development strategy for the
North York Centre and the adjacent stable residential areas. It would be a non-residential intrusion into an existing
established residential neighbourhood. This would defeat the purpose of having a hard-edge boundary between the city
centre and the existing stable residential neighbourhood.
If the application is approved, it would set a precedent. This could probably result in similar non-residential applications
being submitted on other properties in the designated stable residential area on the west side of Yonge Street in the general
area south of Sheppard Avenue.
There has been no change in the planning strategy for this residential neighbourhood since our last review of this
application in 1989. There have been two recent planning reviews. The strategy for this neighbourhood has been further
confirmed to be for residential uses only.
The application should be refused.
The North York Community Council also submits for the information of Council the following memorandum
(February 4, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning:
On September 10, 1997, the North York Planning committee recommended that a public meeting for this application be
scheduled; and further, that staff make available at the public meeting, a draft official plan amendment and a draft zoning
by-law to permit office uses as an exception to the existing R6 zone.
Copies of the draft official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment are attached.
________
A staff presentation was made by Nimrod Salamon, Senior Planner, Planning Department (North York Civic Centre).
The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:
(i) (January 21, 1998) from Erin O'Reilly, 28 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario, in support of the application;
(ii) (January 22, 1998) from Tom McKinley, 67 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario, M2N 1C9, in support of the
application;
(iii) (January 22, 1998) from N. Sayce, 45 Johnston Avenue, North York, Ontario, in support of the application;
(iv) (January 23, 1998) from Gord Westall, 175 Churchill Avenue, North York, Ontario, M2N 1Z3, in support of the
application;
(v) (January 23, 1998) from Billy Weltman, 41 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario, indicating no opposition to the
application;
(vi) (January 23, 1998) from O. & G. Tingsen, 149 Franklin Avenue, North York, Ontario, indicating no opposition to the
application;
(vii) (January 24, 1998) from Hugh & Sue Molyneux, 183 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario, in support of the
application;
(viii) (January 25, 1998) from Ray G. Thwaites, (applicant) identifying four properties in the area that have evolved into
non-residential uses; from General Office to Medical Practices or just additional retail parking for the Yonge Street strip;
(ix) (January 25, 1998) from O & G. Tingsen, 148 Franklin Avenue, North York, Ontario, and E.. J. Manning, 59 Cameron
Avenue, North York, Ontario, indicating no opposition to the application;
(x) (January 27, 1998) from Mike Vuksanovic, 36 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario; Lisa and Kourtis Dimosthenis,
93 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario; Occupant, 32 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario; Occupant, 27 Cameron
Avenue, North York, Ontario, indicating no opposition to the application;
(xi) (January 27, 1998) from Occupant, 33 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario, indicating no opposition to the
application;
(xii) (January 29, 1998) from Ray G. Thwaites, (applicant) requesting a clarification of the by-laws allowing the
Petro-Canada site to evolve into a 24 hour gas bar, convenience storey and Tim Horton's; and the by-laws allowing
commercial medical uses for the site at 16 Florence Avenue and commenting on the merits of his proposal;
(xiii) (February 2, 1998) from Jack Irwin, Manager, Real Estate Development, Petro Canada, 3275 Rebecca Street,
Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6N5, in support of the application;
(xiv) (February 5, 1998) from Hilla Schmitz, 18 Cameron Avenue, North York, Ontario, in support of the application; and
(xv) (February 17, 1998) from P. M. & M. G. Callahan, 54 Franklin Avenue, North York, Ontario, MAN 1B6, in
opposition to the application.
Mr. R. G. Thwaites, the applicant, appeared before the North York Community Council and commented on the history
related to these lands and the number of commercial uses that have been established in the area since he purchased his
property. He also explained the merits of the application and the reasons for approving the proposed office building as an
interim use.
(A copy of the 1989 report, Council minutes, schedules, draft official plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment
referred to in the foregoing reports is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
2
Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-88-37
Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology
Ward 10 - North York Centre
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports (January 8, 1998 and February 3, 1998) from the Acting
Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons that the proposal, as modified, is an appropriate use of the lands,
recommends that:
(1) the applications submitted by Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology regarding Official Plan and
Zoning Amendment for 43 Sheppard Avenue East, be approved, subject to the recommendations contained in the
reports (January 8, 1998 and February 3, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, with the following
additional conditions:
(a) Conditions Nos. 1 and 6 of the North York Public Works Department as outlined in Schedule "M" attached to
the report (January 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning be deleted;
(b) the comments (February 17, 1998) of the North York Transportation Department be incorporated into the
report (January 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning; and
(c) the North York Community Council express to the Board of Governors of Seneca College of Applied Arts and
Technology its disappointment in the manner in which Seneca College has dealt with the rezoning application with
regard to the premature appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board and its apparent intention not to comply with
North York's Official Plan.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on February 18, 1998, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (January 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner
of Planning:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide recommendations for the proposed development of the property at 43 Sheppard
Avenue East, located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue East, east of Yonge Street. The applicant, Seneca College, is
seeking a base level of zoning on the property which would allow for redevelopment of the site. A 1988 application
submitted by Seneca College has been evaluated to determine whether a proposal of this nature on this site could satisfy the
development principles put forward in this report. A report on this matter is being brought forward at this time because the
application is the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing commencing March 2, 1998. It is necessary for Council to
take a position on the matter prior to the hearing.
There are two primary issues which remain outstanding for this application. Transportation certification remains to be
secured by the applicant to the satisfaction of the City. Staff will report further on this at the statutory public meeting.
Secondly, an issue remains between the applicant and the City with respect to the appropriate mix of residential and
non-residential uses which the by-law should permit at this location. Staff are seeking authorization to continue discussions
prior to the commencement of the OMB hearing in an effort to secure an appropriate Mixed Use employment and
residential zoning consistent with Council policy.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) notice be given of the Statutory Public Meeting;
(2) staff be authorized to report on the status of the traffic certification of the application at the statutory public meeting;
(3) provided that transportation certification is approved staff be authorized and directed to appear before the Ontario
Municipal Board concerning the private appeals made by Seneca College in support of the following Recommendations:
Zoning By-law
(a)(i) staff be directed to perfect an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached
as Schedule"N" to this report and support it before the Ontario Municipal Board;
(ii) Council request that the Ontario Municipal Board approve such a by-law only after the City has notified the Board that
Seneca College has executed a site plan agreement with the City. This is an amendment to the existing site plan approval,
for a four storey building, as amended herein (ref. no. UDSP-90-109) and the matters described in Schedule "F" of this
report. The concept plan and existing site plan approval together form a master site plan approval. Each phase will be
subject to separate detailed site plan approval;
(iii) prior to Board Order for the zoning by-law comes into effect, the Owner shall pay to the City in cash or certified
cheque, the Yonge Centre Development Charges in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time; and
(iv) the Owner shall pay to the City in cash or in certified cheque, on or before Building Permit issuance, the City-wide and
Hydro Development Charges and the Sewer and Water Services Development Charge, and the Sheppard Subway
Development Charge, in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time.
General
(b) the applicant shall satisfy:
(i) the conditions of the Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department as set out in Schedule "G";
(ii) the conditions of the Toronto Transit Commission as set out in Schedule "J";
(iii) the conditions of the North York Transportation Department as set out in Schedule "K";
(iv) the conditions of the North York Parks and Recreation Department as set out in Schedule "L"; and
(v) the conditions of the North York Public Works Department as set out in Schedule "M";
(4) staff be authorized to finalize technical modifications to the draft by-law consistent with the intent of this report and
continue to discuss alternative proposals with Seneca College prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing; and
(5) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The subject property is located in the Downtown of the North York Centre and is subject to the policies of Part D.1 and D.2
of the Official Plan. Council has adopted an amendment to this Secondary Plan, the North York Centre Secondary Plan
(OPA 447), which is now before the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval.
A base pre-zoning will allow Seneca to address responses to its Request for Expressions of Interest Phase 1 Proposal Call
document for the property development of the site. The site is vacant and has been temporarily expropriated for use as a
construction staging area and for the installation of temporary tiebacks for the construction of the Sheppard Subway until
approximately 2001.
In 1988 the College made application for approval of Official Plan Amendments and Rezoning to permit a 23 storey office
building and a new 4 storey college facility. This application was not perfected by the applicant and has not been replaced
with a new development application. The applicant has, however, provided revised statistics for what it seeks to achieve in
its zoning.
For the purposes of this report, the 1988 development concept is taken as a demonstration plan of the most intensive use of
the property which could occur. Based upon an analysis of this concept, and the revised statistics submitted by the
applicant, staff have developed urban design principles and performance standards appropriate to the development of this
property. In the absence of new plans and drawings, the Department has relied upon current performance standards for
development in the North York Centre, as these have been reflected in comparable sites within the Downtown and as they
have recently been endorsed by Council in its adoption of OPA 447 - a new Secondary Plan for the North York Centre.
1.0 Proposal
At this time, a zoning by-law amendment to achieve a base level of zoning and master site plan are being considered. The
application proposes a zoning by-law amendment in order to permit a change in the zoning to C1 (87), General Commercial
site specific exception which would allow the following uses:
(1) apartment house dwellings;
(2) multiple attached dwellings;
(3) business and professional offices;
(4) banks;
(5) branches of financial institutions;
(6) hotel;
(7) day nursery;
(8) retail and service commercial uses ancillary or accessory to another permitted use;
(9) college;
(10) university;
(11) school;
(12) commercial school; and
(13) commercial recreational uses.
The applicant's proposed zoning will allow a maximum gross floor area of 43,017.64 m2 (463,053.17 sq.ft.) on the site
representing a density of 4.5 FSI. No Special Density Incentives have been requested as part of the proposal. The original
1988 application did not include residential uses, however, residential uses have now been added to the proposal. The
applicant is proposing that the residential component have a maximum floor area of 43,017.64 m2 and a maximum unit
count of approximately 400 dwelling units.
A concept plan has been submitted, for the purposes of a master site plan approval, which shows 2 buildings, one 26
storeys in height and the other 4 storeys in height (Schedule "C"). The concept plan is being used to test a potential
development scenario for the site against the principles of development in this report.
Table 1 below describes the proposed site statistics.
| Total Site Area |
9,559.475 m2 (102,900.69 sq.ft.) |
| Lot Frontage |
76 m (250 ft.) |
| Gross Floor Area - TOTAL |
43,017.64 m2 (463,053.17 sq.ft.) |
| Dwelling Units |
up to 400 |
| Residential Density |
up to 421 uph/ 170 upa |
| Floor Space Index |
4.5 |
| Parking proposed |
387-603 assuming all commercial uses
463-649 assuming all residential uses |
| Parking required |
387-448 assuming all commercial uses
400-480 assuming all residential uses |
Discussion:
1.0 Location and Existing Site
The 0.95 hectare (2.35 acre) site is located on the south side of Sheppard Avenue East, east of Yonge Street and is located
near the intersection of two arterial roads. The subject site has a frontage of 76 metres (250 feet) and a depth of 125 metres
(410 feet). It is located on both the existing Yonge Subway Line and the future Sheppard Subway Line, which is expected
to open in 2002. The site is also located in close proximity to the interchange between Yonge Street and Highway 401.
At present, the site is vacant. Previously, it was occupied by the Sheppard Campus of Seneca College. The building on the
campus has been demolished and the site is used as a construction staging area and for the installation of temporary
tiebacks for subway construction until approximately 2001.
A mix of commercial uses and a vacant lot surround the site which is located near to the southeast corner of Yonge Street
and Sheppard Avenue East. A vacant lot is located to the south, two office buildings to the east, and the Willowdale Plaza
to the west. The remaining three corners of the Yonge Street/Sheppard Avenue East intersection are occupied by a
commercial/residential development on the northeast corner (the Sheppard Centre), and vacant lots on both the northwest
and southwest corners.
2.0 Context
In 1988, Seneca College submitted an official plan amendment, zoning amendment and site plan applications to permit
office, retail, daycare and community college uses. Permission for residential uses was not requested at that time. In 1990,
revised plans were submitted in response to comments from City Departments and agencies. Since that time, there have
been changes in Official Plan policy and, most recently, in the applicant's development intentions for the site. The applicant
now hopes to achieve base zoning which will permit greater land use flexibility and will permit up to 100 percent
residential uses or 100 percent commercial or any combination of mixed use.
The original site plan application for a new college on a portion of the site was approved (December 18, 1990) based on the
historic zoning of the property. At this time, applications for rezoning as well as the existing site plan approval as amended
by the concept plan and attached urban design principles are being considered.
3.0 Planning Controls
3.1 Official Plan:
The Mixed Use designation in the existing Official Plan for the Seneca lands allows mixed commercial, residential, hotel,
open space, recreational, institutional, entertainment and cultural uses at a density of 4.5 floor space index. This designation
did not limit the gross floor area for residential or commercial uses.
The lands are affected by Amendments to the Official Plan adopted by Council to repeal and adopt and new North York
Centre Plan (OPA 447).
A discussion of the current and proposed official plan policies of the Official Plan affecting this property is attached as
Appendix "A".
Council's longstanding commitment, as set out in the Official Plan, is that the Downtown be developed for primarily
employment uses and that the Uptown be developed primarily for residential uses. A strong employment component in this
location is preferred, as supported in the existing Official Plan and confirmed in OPA 447.
3.2 Zoning By-law
The site has an M2 and MOF(H) zoning. The M2 Industrial (Inside Storage) zone permits residential, public, community,
automotive, industrial and institutional uses. The MOF(H) Industrial Office Holding zone permits an office use, with
certain restrictions. On September 17, 1997, the property was zoned to C1 which permits residential, certain commercial
and institutional uses. The Zoning Amendments have been enacted but are not yet in force. The zoning for the site is shown
on Schedule "B".
4.0 Other Department Comments
The application was circulated in April 1989 and March 1990. Confirmation of the March 1990 comments, or revisions to
those comments, were requested in November 1996 prior to the commencement of the hearing in May-June of 1997 with
respect to OPA 393. The application was circulated again in September 1997 to a limited number of departments and
agencies.
The following is a description of the most recent and pertinent comments received from circulated agencies and
departments.
The Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department (Schedule "G") advise that opportunities for the provision of affordable
housing should be considered so that at least 25 percent of new residential units are affordable. Approval of this application
is subject to confirmation that this development is included in the plan for allocation of the trunk relief sewer capacity. The
Traffic Impact Study and the supplementary analysis submitted by the applicant are insufficient to address the concerns of
the Metropolitan Transportation Department.
The Metropolitan Separate School Board objects to the development proposal and zoning by-law amendment due to the
lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at St. Edward Catholic School (JK-8), Ecole elementaire catholique
Sainte-Madelien (JK-8), Brebeuf College and Loretto Abbey Catholic Secondary Schools. (Schedule "H")
The North York Board of Education has advised that the cumulative student yield from this and other development
applications will create accommodation pressures at Hollywood Public School and Bayview Middle School. Students
emanating from the proposed development can not be accommodated in Earl Haig Secondary School and may be
accommodated at other Board facilities. (Schedule "I")
The Toronto Transit Commission is supportive of plans to redevelop the site to a higher density, although there are several
details of the subway project in this area which may affect the design. (Schedule "J")
The North York Transportation Department (Schedule "K") has reserved final consideration on this application until the
final traffic certification of this proposal has been provided and accepted by the Department. The status of the applicant's
Transportation Impact Statement and certification will be reported upon at the statutory public meeting.
The North York Parks and Recreation Department has advised that a parkland contribution will be required. If the
application is approved subsequent to adoption of a new parkland dedication by-law for the new City of Toronto, the new
parkland dedication by-law shall apply. If the application is approved for non-residential uses only, it will be subject to a 2
percent cash-in-lieu parkland dedication. Any leased or commercial space will be included in the 2 percent calculation. If
Council so chooses to approve a mixed use development on these lands, the residential portion will be subject to an off-site
land dedication or cash-in-lieu parkland dedication payment. Additional outdoor amenity space is required in the form of
common outdoor space for residential and non-residential development and private outdoor recreational space for
residential development. (Schedule "L")
The North York Public Works Department has advised that the sanitary sewage of the proposed development discharges
into the Metro Don Trunk Sewer. Metro has advised that the Don Trunk System is at capacity and that there are interim
trunk capacities available for future development. The allocation of the Metro Interim Sanitary Trunk capacity for this
development is subject to Council approval of this application. (Schedule "M")
5.0 Community Consultation
A community meeting was held on September 11, 1997. The minutes for this meeting are attached as Schedule "O". The
primary concern of residents who attended the meeting related to traffic impacts on the nearby neighbourhood. Residents
voiced concern over the potential traffic impacts of the development, both during construction and once completed,
specifically, how traffic would be kept out of the area. A discussion on traffic and transportation issues follows in section
6.2 of this report.
6.0 Planning Issues
6.1 Land Use
6.1.1 Land Use Mix
The primary outstanding issue between the applicant and staff relates to the land use mix, in particular the percentage of
residential uses to be permitted on the site.
In the Official Plan, the Downtown is to be developed for primarily employment uses. The preference for this site is for a
strong employment component, as supported in the existing Official Plan and confirmed in OPA 447. Consequently, the
proposal by the applicant for full residential permission on this site is not supported and the draft by-law attached as
Schedule "N" does not include such permission, but rather limits the residential component to no more than 50 percent of
the total permitted gross floor area.
The land use plan for the Downtown as stated in OPA 447 intends that the nature of the Downtown be a mixed use area
with significant commercial nodes in the vicinity and between the Sheppard and North York stations on the Yonge Subway
and Sheppard Subway. The subject site is within the Downtown and in very close proximity to these subway stations. The
purpose in limiting the residential uses on this and other sites is to ensure that an adequate supply of land for employment
uses is provided at key locations, thereby contributing to the establishment of a significant commercial node in this area.
The development application submitted by the applicant for either an entirely residential or for an entirely commercial
development can be accommodated under the Long Range Development Levels set out in the Part D.1 Secondary Plan at
such time as the Ontario Municipal Board's Order, approving Official Plan Amendment 393, comes into effect.
Should Council enact the zoning for this property, there is available sewage capacity which can be allocated to this
development.
6.1.2 Commercial
Street related retail and service commercial uses are encouraged along arterial roads. The Seneca College site is considered
a prime frontage area on an arterial road. Street oriented commercial uses and other uses contributing to the animation of
the street are appropriate on lands abutting the Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue sidewalks. The applicant is proposing
that 2,230 m2 or 5 percent of the total GFA permitted on the site be ground floor retail.
6.1.3 Community Services and Facilities
Schools
The North York Board of Education has advised that the anticipated student population can be accommodated.
The Metropolitan Separate School Board has objected to the proposal due to the lack of permanent facilities and
overcrowding at its schools. The MSSB has been granted Leave to Appeal the Decision of the Ontario Municipal Board
with respect to Official Plan Amendment 393 to the courts. It had requested that lands be set aside for school purposes
south of Sheppard Avenue and this request was denied at the OMB.
Community Facilities
It is appropriate that residential development of 100 dwelling units or greater be required to provide a minimum of 1.5 m2
per dwelling unit of private indoor recreational space. Council has implemented this performance standard in recent
approvals within the Downtown and has proposed this standard as a matter of policy within the official plan.
On-Site Amenity Space
It is appropriate that non-residential development having a gross floor area of 1,000 square metres or greater be required to
provide a minimum common outdoor space area equal to 4 percent of the non-residential floor area or 10 percent of the lot
area attributable to the non-residential uses, whichever is greater. Similarly, residential development of 100 dwelling units
or greater can provide a minimum of 1.5 m2 per dwelling unit of indoor and private outdoor recreational space. These are
performance standards which have been reflected in recent approvals in the Downtown and in the absence of a specific
development design by the applicant, it is appropriate to secure these performance standards in the base zoning of this
property.
6.2 Traffic Certification
It is the policy of Council not to approve a rezoning for a development having more than 5,000 square metres of total floor
space (including transfers and incentives) unless a traffic certification is completed and acceptable to Council and in
accordance with the policies of the Official Plan. It must be shown that:
(a) traffic resulting from the development will not significantly contribute to reducing the level of service on nearby arterial
roads and their intersections with local and collector roads to below a generally acceptable level;
(b) the project can be accommodated by the existing and planned transportation infrastructure;
(c) the project will not increase local residential road traffic significantly;
(d) the project provides enough parking so that occupants and visitors will be unlikely to disrupt off-site roadways and
unaffiliated parking areas, but does not provide so much parking as to discourage achievement of the transit modal split
targets of this plan; and
(e) the site layout provides adequately for the movement needs of visiting pedestrians, automobiles and commercial
vehicles without disrupting bordering streets and properties.
The theoretical capacity provided by major improvements to the Metropolitan Toronto roads and transit networks that may
be identified in the future shall be excluded when undertaking the certification until all necessary approvals have been
secured and the timing of construction assigned.
The Seneca College application has a total floor space greater that 5,000 square metres, consequently traffic certification is
required. For the Seneca lands, road requirements associated with the development in order to achieve its planned density
and use will be prescribed by the traffic certification. At this time, traffic certification has not be granted for the application.
It will be addressed in a separate report to be forwarded to the February 17, 1998 statutory public meeting of the
Community Council.
As of the date of the writing of this report the applicant has not certified the Transportation impacts of this development to
the satisfaction of the City. This must be settled prior to the commencement of the OMB hearing or the City will be
required to present a case before the Board that the application is premature and should not be approved at all.
The applicant and staff are confident that transportation certification can be successfully demonstrated by the further
analysis which has been requested of the applicant. Staff will report on this specific requirement of the Downtown Plan as
it relates to this property at the time of the statutory Public Meeting.
6.3 Urban Design
The proposed drawings show how the property can be developed with one potential development scenario which
accommodates the proposed uses. The demonstration plan and accompanying urban design principles forms part of a
Concept Plan approach to reviewing rezoning applications consistent with the recent approach for the CIBC and Samsor
development applications. The Concept Plan approach:
(1) retains and supplements the existing development approvals that apply to the site. The rezoning application has been
accompanied by drawings which show how the site can be developed. The drawings show a potential development scenario
which can be used to arrive at urban design principles that will achieve an appropriate development scenario for the site.
The drawings and principles are to be secured on title to create a master site plan approval which directs future site plan
applications;
(2) provides sufficient detail in terms of building location, heights and open space areas to ensure conformity with OPA
447 and the existing Downtown Plan including the community impact criteria; and
(3) provides the opportunity to identify important urban design principles which will be used to guide the review of any
subsequent detailed site plan application for the site. The urban design principles will form part of the site plan agreement
that will be registered on title. The urban design principles are based on the demonstration drawings as well as the
principles contained in OPA 447 and OPA 393.
The drawings are attached (refer to Schedules "C","D" and "E") and have the following characteristics:
(a) the largest building mass is located towards Sheppard Avenue to provide a strong streetscape presence;
(b) another building is located on the south portion of the site; and
(c) access to the site will be from Sheppard Avenue.
Given the preliminary and conceptual nature of the demonstration drawings, design and layout principles have been
prepared that could be incorporated into future site plan applications. However, the building design and site layout that is
proposed can be modified to accommodate appropriate design elements to achieve the principles listed below. A more
detailed description of the principles can be found in Schedule "F". Any site plan approval should incorporate these
principles to ensure that subsequent detailed site plan submissions are consistent with the urban design elements that have
been recommended as part of OPA 447 and OPA 393. The following urban design principles are to guide future site plan
applications:
(i) definition of the street edge and a strong street presence along Sheppard Avenue;
(ii) an appropriate transition in height towards Sheppard Avenue;
(iii) appropriate outdoor amenity areas; and
(iv) accommodation of the technical requirements regarding servicing and fire routes.
6.3.1 Pedestrian Comfort
Prior to by-law enactment, the applicant shall submit confirmation that an appropriate pedestrian comfort level can be
achieved regarding shadow, overview, wind and drifting snow and that the proposal should not significantly reduce the
amenities of sunlight and privacy enjoyed by neighbouring properties. A detailed and final assessment to address specific
components of the site based on the design principles set out in this report will be necessary for subsequent site plan
applications.
6.4 Affordable Housing
The addition of residential uses precipitates the need to ensure that a minimum of 25 percent of the dwelling units are
constructed in accordance with Council Policy regarding affordable housing. The amending zoning by-law will contain a
clause to implement this policy.
Conclusions:
It is necessary for Council to take a position on this matter prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing schedule for
March 2, 1998.
Base zoning can be achieved on this property which allows for development of this site.
Staff's evaluation of the applicant's proposal has determined that this type of proposal as modified by these
recommendations could satisfy the principles of development required for a Downtown Development. Re-zoning of the
property, allowing the owner to respond quickly to vacating of the site by the TTC staging crew, is in the public interest
allowing redevelopment to proceed expeditiously with the Subway Station construction.
The performance standards which staff are recommending for this parcel are based on the locational attributes and merits of
the site. They make use of the development conventions found in recent Downtown approvals and recently adopted Council
policy. In the absence of a specific alternative mix of uses which achieves the objective of securing a strong employment
focus at this strategic location at Yonge Street and Sheppard Avenue, these standards are appropriate.
The primary outstanding issue between the applicant and the City is the percentage of residential uses on the site. It is the
City's goal to achieve a strong employment component and mixed use presence at this location as contemplated by the land
use plan contained in OPA 447. Staff will continue to discuss this aspect of the proposal with the applicant and are
prepared to evaluate options which can achieve this goal. At the time of the statutory public meeting staff will report on any
alternative development scenarios.
Contact Name:
Planner: Gwen Manderson
Telephone No.: 395-7117
Fax No.: 395-7155
The North York Community Council also submits for the information of Council the following report (February 3,
1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise the Community Council of the status of the traffic certification for this proposed
development, the status of discussions on alternative development scenarios, and to recommend a revised by-law for the
Seneca application.
Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology is seeking zoning on their property, located at 43 Sheppard Avenue East,
which would allow for redevelopment of the site. A report on this proposal was received by the North York Community
Council on January 21, 1998, at which time staff were directed to give notice of a statutory public meeting for the February
18, 1998 meeting of the North York Community Council.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) this report be received for information; and
(2) provided that adequate transportation certification is provided and reported upon at the statutory Public Meeting, the
revised implementing zoning by-law, attached as Schedule "A" to this report, be considered by the Community Council at
the statutory public meeting.
Background:
When this proposal was reported on at the January 21, 1998 meeting of the Community Council, two primary issues which
were outstanding for this application were identified. Firstly, transportation certification had yet to be secured by the
applicant to the satisfaction of the City. Secondly, there was an issue between the applicant and the City with respect to the
appropriate mix of residential and non-residential uses which the by-law should permit at this location. Staff are to report
on the status of the traffic certification of the application at the statutory public meeting and to continue to discuss
alternative proposals with Seneca College prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.
Technical modifications to the draft by-law consistent with the intent of the report considered at the January 21, 1998
meeting have been reviewed. A revised by-law has been prepared which affects the maximum building heights and reduces
certain yard setbacks.
Discussion:
Seneca submitted their traffic impact study in September 1997 and supplementary information on January 22, 1998. This
supplementary information is presently being reviewed by Transportation staff. At the time of the writing of this report, the
issue of traffic certification had not been settled. Without certification, the application remains premature.
Staff have met with the applicant and at the present time there are no alternative development scenarios which have been
submitted by the applicant.
A draft by-law was appended to the staff report which was received by the Community Council on January 21, 1998. This
by-law has been revised so that the building height is now expressed as a maximum height in metres (100 metres above
grade), rather than as the number of storeys permitted. This is consistent with the way in which maximum height is limited
in Official Plan Amendment 447. The side and rear yard setbacks have been reduced from 1.0 metre to 0.0 metres. Setbacks
will be defined at the time of site plan approval by urban design standards and guidelines discussed in the original staff
report. The front yard setback remains at 4.0 metres. Both the maximum heights and yard setbacks are shown on the
schedules attached to the by-law (Schedule "A").
Conclusions:
Staff have attempted to resolve the outstanding issues between the City and the applicant regarding traffic certification and
land use mix. The application is premature without traffic certification. Land use mix on this site continues to be a planning
issue.
Contact Name:
Planner: Gwen Manderson
Telephone No.: 395-7117
Fax No.: 395-7155
________
A staff presentation was made by Gwen Manderson, Senior Planner, Planning Department (North York Civic Centre.
The North York Community Council reports also having had before it the following communications:
(i) (February 16, 1998) from D.P. Floyd, Commissioner, Metro Transportation, 55 John Street, Stn. 1170, 17th Floor,
Metro Hall, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3C8, outlining their requirements.
(ii) (February 17, 1998) from Jim S. Kinrade, Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, 5100 Yonge
Street, North York, Ontario, M2N 5V7, indicating that a signed traffic certificate by the applicant's consultant can now be
prepared and advising that the Department has no objection to the request for an adjournment of the Ontario Municipal
Board hearing for a four month period
(iii) (February 16, 1998) from Patrick J. Devine, Solicitor, Goodman and Carr, Suite 2300, 200 King Street West, Toronto,
Ontario, M5H 3W5, commenting on the recommendations contained in the two staff reports dated January 8, 1998 and
February 3, 1998.
The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council:
(a) Ms. Sharolyn Vettese on behalf of the Yonge Street Area Ratepayers' Association
Ms. Vettese indicated that the Yonge Street Area Ratepayers' Association has participated in the creation of the Secondary
Plans for this area. In her opinion, the Plan provides for development to proceed in an orderly fashion while protecting the
stable residential area. The proposal put forward by the applicant would change that flexibility and would affect further
developments. She further indicated that the applicant should abide by the Plan adopted by the former North York Council.
(b) Mr. Patrick Devine, Solicitor, Goodman and Carr, on behalf of Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology
Mr. Devine explained the merits of the application and the history related to these lands. He indicated that this application
was filed in 1988. However as a result of negotiations for the service road, the application did not proceed forward. Under
the provisions of the Planning Act, you can appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board within 90 days, if no recommendation
has been made. In this case, the file has been open for the past 9 years.
He further indicated that Seneca College participated and supported the City's initiatives in the Downtown Secondary Plan
(OPA's 277, 293 and 321) and continues to support the current designation along with the range of uses that are permitted.
The College has also participated in and supported the City's South Downtown Secondary Plan Review (OPA 393)
initiatives.
In addition he stated that there was a fundamental agreement with the mix of uses prior to OPA 447. This site under the
approved Official Plan policies had that flexibility. There was no limit under the Official Plan for 100 percent commercial,
residential and institutional. It was only as a result of OPA 447 that a limit of 50 percent residential was placed on this site.
That policy has not been approved by the Minister. He further stated, that the governing Official Plan is the Plan that is in
effect as of the date of the application. In his opinion, he believes that they have a solid case.
Mr. Devine further indicated that Seneca College is not the developer of the lands. Seneca College embarked on a proposal
call and they narrowed the selection to two developers. By the end of March they will have selected one developer and will
bring forward and will discuss the specific proponents with staff.
In concluding he indicated that they hope to reach an amicable solution. At the present time, the impasse is centered
around the limitation of the residential to 50 percent.
________
(The various appendices referred to in the foregoing reports are on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
3
Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application and
Subdivision Application UDOZ-97-34 & UDSB-1232 -
Romeo DiBattista - 665 Trethewey Drive
Ward 6 - North York Humber
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the North York Community Council
for further consideration.)
The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact,
conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports (February 16, 1998 and December 30, 1997) from the
Acting Commissioner of Planning, and for the reasons that the proposal, as modified, is an appropriate use of the
lands, recommends that the applications submitted by Romeo DiBattista regarding an Official Plan and Zoning
Amendment and Plan of Subdivision Application for 665 Trethewey Drive, be approved, subject to the
recommendations contained in the following report (February 16, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning,
with the following additional conditions:
(1) lot 99 be opened to allow for construction vehicle entry and then closed and the land conveyed to the City;
(2) the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services report on
a public lane policy for the City of Toronto;
(3) the deletion of Subsection (3.1);
(4) prior to the adoption of the amending by-law, the applicant, and staff of the North York Planning and Parks and
Recreation Departments be requested to develop an alternative park design with a view to achieving a park of not
less than 3 acres with no residential units backing onto it;
(5) the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services continue
to explore opportunities to improve access and address operational traffic issues in the area which will not
negatively impact on the residential area to the north; and that construction traffic to the site be required to use
Industry Street;
(6) staff of the North York Planning Department review the appropriateness of the industrial zoning immediately
adjacent to the site, in consultation with the Black Creek Task Force, and report to the next meeting of the North
York Community Council scheduled to be held on April 1, 1998;
(7) the Interim Functional Lead for Transportation be requested to review the possibility of redesigning the Black
Creek Drive/Trethewey Drive intersection so that it can accommodate left turns; and
(8) should signal lights be deemed necessary on Trethewey Drive at either one of the entrances to this development
within five years from the start of construction, that the cost of such signal lights shall be borne by the applicant.
The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on February 18, 1998, with appropriate
notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (February 16, 1997) from the Acting
Commissioner of Planning:
Purpose:
This report provides an update on the applicant's revisions to the subdivision plan and responds to the Community
Council's request for additional information regarding transportation matters arising from its meeting held on January 21,
1998. Revised recommendations are provided below. Any changes from the previous recommendations are shaded.
Funding:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) The Official Plan designation be amended to Residential Density Two (RD-2) and Local Open Space (LOS) and Part
D.11 of the North York Official Plan be deleted;
(2) The zoning on the property be amended to Multiple-Family Dwellings First Density Zone (RM1) exception and Open
Space Zone (O1), subject to the following provisions:
(2.1) In addition to the uses permitted in an RM1 zone, the following uses are also permitted:
(a) one-family detached dwellings;
(b) semi-detached dwellings;
(c) home office uses provided such uses are within a dwelling;
(2.2) A maximum of 535 units shall be permitted, of which there shall be a minimum of 125 one-family, semi-detached
dwelling units or a combination thereof;
(2.3) The minimum Lot Frontage shall be as follows:
(a) 9.0 metres for one-family detached dwelling units;
(b) 7.0 metres for semi-detached dwelling units;
(c) for multiple attached dwelling units, 7.0 metres, provided the parking is accessed from a public street and 5.4 metres,
provided the parking is accessed from a private lane;
(2.4) The minimum Lot Area shall be as follows:
(a) 210m² for one-family detached dwelling units;
(b) 180m² for semi-detached dwelling units;
(c) 160 m² for multiple attached dwelling units;
(2.5) The minimum yard setback for each dwelling shall be as follows:
Front Yard 3.0 metres
Front Yard to garage which faces a front lot line 5.5 metres
Side Yard for 2-storey one-family detached 1.2 metres and 0.6 metres,
dwellings provided the 0.6 metre yard setback abuts a minimum yard setback of 1.2 metres on the adjacent lot
Side Yard for 3-storey one-family detached 1.5 metres and 0.6 metres,
dwellings provided the 0.6 metre yard
setback abuts a minimum
yard setback of 1.5 metres on the adjacent lot
Side Yard for all other 2-storey buildings 1.2 metres
Side Yard for all other 3-storey buildings 1.5 metres
Rear Yard 6.0 metres
Rear Yard abutting, but not including, a 12.0 metres
3.0 metre wide private lane
Rear Yard for sites abutting an industrial zone 12.0 metres;
(2.6) The maximum building height shall be 3 storeys for all dwelling units;
(2.7) Each multiple attached dwelling shall not contain more than 8 dwelling units;
(2.8) A minimum of 2 parking spaces of a minimum size of 5.5 metres long and 2.7 metres wide shall be provided for each
unit. Tandem parking shall be permitted and one space shall be unenclosed. Parking will be permitted within 3.0 metres of
the street line;
(2.9) Accessory garages shall be a maximum of 1 storey and shall be a maximum width of 3.0 metres;
(2.10) Where a private lane exists at the rear of the lot, an accessory building may be located within 1.0 metre of the rear
lot line;
(2.11) The yard setback between a dwelling unit and an open railway corridor shall be not less than 30 metres;
(2.12) Lot coverage, floor area and landscaped area requirements shall not apply;
(3) The Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc., dated February 3, 1998, be approved, subject
to Schedule "C1" - Redlined Plan and the following conditions:
(3.1) The applicant carry out the following prior to draft approval of the plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the
appropriate City Transportation Official:
(a) the design of the block of land required by the North York Transportation Department to enable a future extension of
Industry Street along the east boundary of the subdivision;
(3.2) The owner provide the City with a letter of credit to construct the road where Lot 99 is presently shown on the plan;
(3.3) The owner provide at their cost fencing on lots which abut the park to the satisfaction of the appropriate City Parks
and Recreation Official;
(3.4) Prior to the registration of the Plan, the applicant will:
(a) provide landscaping detail for the lots which abut the industrial uses and agree in the subdivision agreement to provide
the necessary landscaping;
(b) evaluate options to ensure that the long term maintenance of the buffer area is achieved and provide buffer and wall
details to the satisfaction of the appropriate City Works Official in consultation with the local Councillors;
(3.5) The Standard Conditions of Approval for Subdivisions, attached as Schedule "D" to the Recommendations Report;
(3.6) The conditions of the North York Transportation Department, attached as Schedule "E" to the Recommendations
Report and Schedule "E" to this report;
(3.7) The conditions of the North York Public Works Department, attached as Schedule "F" to the Recommendations
Report;
(3.8) The conditions of the North York Parks and Recreation Department, attached as Schedule "G" to the
Recommendations Report;
(3.9) The conditions of the North York Public Health Department, attached as Schedule "H" to the Recommendations
Report and Schedule "F" to this report;
(3.10) The conditions of Metropolitan Toronto, attached as Schedule "I" to the Recommendations Report and Schedule
"G" to this report, with a review of the requirement for a pedestrian connection via public lands from the new subdivision
site prior to the registration of the plan;
(3.11) The conditions of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, attached as Schedule "J" to the
Recommendations Report;
(3.12) The conditions of the Canadian Pacific Railway, attached as Schedule H" to this report;
(3.13) The conditions of the Canadian National Railway, attached as Schedule "N" to the Recommendations Report;
(3.14) The conditions of Bell Canada, attached as Schedule "O" to the Recommendations Report or those of another duly
authorized licenced telecommunications company;
(3.15) The conditions of Consumers Gas, attached as Schedule "P" to the Recommendations Report;
(3.16) The conditions of North York Hydro, attached as Schedule "Q" to the Recommendations Report; and
(4) The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect hereto.
Council Reference:
On January 21, 1998, North York Community Council received a Recommendations Report on an Official Plan and Zoning
By-law amendment and conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval to permit 520 townhouse and semi-detached
dwelling units and a public park. Included in that report, were conditions that the applicant incorporate revisions to the
plan.
The North York Community Council directed that (see Schedule "I"):
(1) a statutory public meeting be held;
(2) an information session be held prior to the statutory public meeting;
(3) the Planning and Transportation Departments report on road access between the industrial area and the subdivision and
the feasibility of requiring a financial contribution from the applicant for an industrial road to Trethewey Drive;
(4) the Transportation Department report on changes that would be required if the recommended allowance for tandem
parking was eliminated;
(5) Councillors in the adjacent City Ward to the south be involved in the consultation.
Discussion:
1) Information Session:
An Open House was held on February 9, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. at Brookhaven Public School. Representatives of the applicant,
staff and Councillors were present to respond to comments and questions. Representatives of both Councillors Nunziata
and Saundercook were in attendance at the Open House.
The community continued to express general support for the significant reduction in the number of residential units and the
ownership housing which will be promoted. The central park location was also supported and interest was expressed in
exploring opportunities to open up and provide additional access points in the northern portion.
A subdivision connection at the present termination of Industry Street (i.e. Lot 99) was generally favoured. Some people
wished to see the connection opened immediately, while others thought that it should be opened in the future when
industrial traffic has been reduced. A direct connection from Industry Street to Trethewey Drive along the eastern boundary
of the site raised a concern of potential traffic infiltration through the existing neighbourhood to the north via Brookhaven
Drive. The Black Creek Business Area Association also dealt with the transportation issues at their meeting of January 9th,
1998. The Association is in favour of a connection via Block 98 (now Lot 99). The Black Creek Business Area Association
were not in favour of a connection along the eastern edge of the site from Industry Street to Trethewey Drive.(see Schedule
"J").
2) Industrial Road from Industry Street to Trethewey Drive/Tandem Parking:
Comments from the Transportation Department are attached as Schedule "D" to this report.
3) Revised Plan:
As requested in the Recommendations Report, the applicant submitted revised plans (see Schedule "C"). A redlined plan is
attached as Schedule "C1", with the following revisions included with the staff recommendations to reflect the new plan:
Park:
To provide for a public promenade to the new park for the existing and new residents, the applicant has added a 3.0 metre
strip of land along the east edge of the right-of-way of Street "1" from Trethewey Drive to the northwestern edge of the
park.
The applicant has also provided openings at the northeast edge of the park. To ensure sight vistas, adequate access and
visibility for the new park, a reconfiguration at the northeast edge to delete Block 44 and provide a minimum of 20 metres
between lots is recommended. Further to increase the park opening at the northwest corner of the park, Block 39 and Lots
40 through 43 should be shifted 5.0 metres to the east. These revisions are reflected on the redlined plan.
Road Pattern:
The road pattern through the subdivision has been modified by the applicant to provide a more direct connection from the
future access to Industry Street and the connection via Block 98 (now Lot 99) has been widened to 20 metres. The applicant
has also added a cul-de-sac turning circle area at the termination of Street 3, which meets the Public Works standard, while
staff has identified Lot 99 on the redlined plan as a block to be dedicated to the City of Toronto, rather than shown as a
residential lot.
To reflect staff's recommendation that the laneways in the northern portion of the site be private, they have been designated
as Blocks 137 through 139 on the redlined plan.
Unit Mix:
At the applicant's request, one-family detached dwellings in addition to semi-detached units are also permitted within the
recommended RM1 Zone. These units will complement the variety of units to be built with a minimum of 125 one-family
and/or semi-detached types. A minor increase in the number of residential units overall is recommended from 520 to 535 as
a result of the shift in housing types and street frontage.
4) Outstanding Concerns of Applicant:
The applicant has identified the following outstanding concerns outlined in their letter dated February 9, 1998 (see
Schedule "K" to this report) which are not recommended by staff:
(1) the laneways for the units adjacent to Trethewey Drive are proposed to be public;
(2) a block of land required by the Transportation Department for an easterly connection between Industry Street and
Trethewey Drive is not proposed;
(3) block 98 (now lot 99) is shown on the revised plan as a residential lot to be held by the applicant in trust for a specific
period of time until compatible land uses are built on the adjacent lands;
(4) the applicant proposes to construct sidewalks on only one side of the streets;
(5) the applicant has concerns with the Standard Conditions of Approval for Subdivision (see Schedule "D" to the
Recommendations Report) regarding the form of securities for services and the review period for the conditions of draft
subdivision approval; and
(6) the applicant also wishes to reduce the caliper of the street trees from 100mm to 75mm and the corresponding
protection zone.
Conclusions:
The approval of the application to construct a maximum of 535 new homes in a residential subdivision with a public park,
with conditions, based on a revised plan is recommended in this Supplementary Report. Changes to the recommendations
in the previous Recommendations Report have been reflected in bold in this report and a redlined plan is included. A Draft
Official Plan Amendment (Schedule "A") and Zoning By-law (Schedule "B") reflecting the recommendations are attached
to this report.
Contact Name:
Alan Binks, Planner
Phone: 395-7100 Fax: 395-7155
________
A staff presentation was made by Alan Binks, Planner, Planning Department (North York Civic Centre).
The North York Community Council reports also having had before it the following communications:
(i) (January 26, 1998) from Richard P. Quance, Fellows, McNeil, Barristers-at-Law, Suite 216, 111 Richmond Street West,
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2G4, on behalf of Universe Investments, property owner of 1533 Jane Street, indicating that prior
to any consideration or approval being given, that it be determined that there will be no need for any encroachment or
expropriation of any of the lands belonging to Universe Investments and that there are no other adverse consequences to
Universe Investments; and that the applicant satisfy any and all concerns with respect to increased traffic flows which will
likely result from the contemplated development;
(ii) (January 29, 1998) from Jeanette Nevers, 1540 Jane Street, Apartment 508, Toronto, Ontario, M9M 2R7, commenting
on the existing schools, churches and commercial facilities in the area; and
(iii) (February 13, 1998) from Angelo Sangiorgio, Superintendent of Planning and Facilities, Toronto Catholic School
Board, 80 Sheppard Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario, M2N 6E8, objecting to the application in light of the fact that a school
site, suitably sized and located with the subdivision has been omitted.
The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council:
a) Ms. Emma Jackson on behalf of the Black Creek Business Area Association
Ms. Jackson indicated that there has been discussions between the applicant and the Black Creek Business Area
Association. The Association is pleased with the discussions that have taken place with the applicant thus far and would
like this application to come to fruition, as soon as possible.
b) Mr. Denis Olerenshaw
Mr. Olerenshaw commented on the potential traffic problems in the area as a result of large developments. He also offered
some suggestions to improve the traffic situation such as connecting Industry Street to the proposed development directly.
This is part of the approved plan for Bridgehome 2000. The proposal to connect Industry Street was supported by the Black
Creek Association.
In addition, he suggested that a post-like structure be erected at the entrance of Lot 99 to prevent the drivers of construction
trucks to use Brookhaven Drive.
c) Mr. Richard Quance, Solicitor, on behalf of Universe Investments, property owner of 1533 Jane Street
Mr. Quance expressed concern with the requirements set out by the Transportation Department and his client did not want
any portion of his lands being sacrificed for the road widening.
d) Mr. Steve Diamond, Solicitor, on behalf of Romeo DiBattista
Mr. Diamond, on behalf of the applicant, outlined the history related to these lands and commented on the three
outstanding concerns being the requirement of land for the extension of Industry Street; the dedication of Block 98 (now
Lot 99); and the maintenance of the proposed laneways, which in his opinion, should be made public laneways.
________
(The various schedules referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
4
Appeal of Muzzle Order - Ms. C. Stott -
4005 Bayview Avenue, No. 318
Ward 12 - Seneca Heights
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 30, 1998) from the
Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
To report on an application for an exemption to the dog muzzling requirements of North York By-law No. 32823.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that in the interest of public safety, the request for an exemption to the muzzling requirements of North
York By-law No. 32823 be denied.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Muzzling By-law 32823 on July 10, 1996. The by-law requires a muzzle order to
be issued to the owner of a dog where the Chief Animal Control Officer has reason to believe that the dog has bitten a
person or a domestic animal on two occasions. Where an order to muzzle has been issued, the by-law further requires the
owner to muzzle the dog except when it is on the property of the owner.
Discussion:
The issuance of the muzzle Order to Ms. Stott is based upon the receipt of two separate dog bite incidents to human victims
reported by the Public Health Department. In the first incident, the North York Public Health Department received a report
of a dog bite on June 14, 1997 upon a 12 year old child. Regarding the second incident, the former City of Toronto notified
the North York Animal Centre of an attack involving a bite to a human in Sherwood Park. The bite victim was jogging in
the Park when the dog belonging to Ms. Stott bit the victim; the dog was not on a leash at the time. This incident occurred
on November 29, 1997. The victim reported that the dog owner was very uncooperative and that the dog owner was
identified as a result of information obtained after researching the dog's tag number. On December 8, 1997 a 'Notice to
Muzzle' order was issued, to Ms. Corrine Stott, 4005 Bayview Avenue, No. 318 in the Community of North York.
The North York Animal Centre has a history of complaints regarding dogs owned by Ms. Stott. In addition to the biting
incidents, complaints have been received regarding noise violations (barking dogs), dogs being off leash in parks and dog
licence violations.
Conclusions:
The dog owner appears to have no regard to municipal legislation requirements to control her dogs. The removal of the
muzzle order will only compromise the safety of residents when the dog is not on the property of its owner and accordingly,
it is recommended that the request to grant an exemption to the Muzzle Order dated December 8, 1997 be denied.
Contact Name:
Carl Bandow, Administrator,
North York Animal Centre
Phone: 395-7086 Fax: 395-7090
E-mail: carl@city.north-york.on.ca
A staff presentation was made by Mr. Carl Bandow, Administrator, North York Animal Centre.
Ms. C. Stott appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
5
Appeal to Muzzle Order - Ms. Miriam Mirshahi -
740 York Mills Road, Suite 706
Ward 9 - North York Centre South
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (October 9, 1997) from the Solicitor,
North York Civic Centre, be received and that the application from Ms. Mirshahi for an exemption to the muzzling
requirements of North York By-law No. 32823 be denied:
Correspondence was received by the City of North York's Clerk's Department requesting an appeal hearing of a muzzle
order issued by the City's Animal Centre
The dog in question is a Lhasa Apso, neutered male, beige in colour and registered to Miriam Mirshahi of 740 York Mills
Road, Unit 706. The dog is licensed with the City, number D1273.
A 'Notice to Muzzle' was served on September 3, 1997 by posting the Notice in a conspicuous place upon some part of the
owner's property. The Notice was issued as a result of receiving an animal bite exposure report from the City's Public
Health Department. The incident occurred on July 21, 1997. Positive identification of the dog and owner was not
established by the Animal Centre staff until August 26, 1997. Subsequent to the owner identification, it was established
that this was the second bite by this dog upon a human. There was an incident on January 19, 1997. As a result of this
information, the Animal Centre's Administrator issued a 'Notice to Muzzle' on September 2, 1997. It has been further
determined that the dog bit on July 22, 1996; all three incidents have been bites upon children.
Attached is a copy of the Notice to Muzzle issued to the owner. Further information will be presented to your Committee
with respect to the biting incidents of Ms. Mirshahi's dog.
________
A staff presentation was made by Mr. Carl Bandow, Administrator, North York Animal Centre.
The following persons appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
- Ms. Miriam Mirshahi;
- Mrs. Tina Osmond; and
- Ms. Faith Lewis.
(A copy of the Notice to Muzzle is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
6
Fence By-law Variance Request - Swimming Pool Enclosure -
32 Windhill Crescent - Ward 6 - North York Humber
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report (January 26, 1998) from the
Solicitor, North York Civic Centre, and recommends that no action be taken with respect thereto:
Purpose:
To report on an application to permit the existing swimming pool enclosure to remain as constructed on the property
municipally known as 32 Windhill Crescent notwithstanding that the said enclosure (fence) has been constructed contrary
to North York Fence By-law No. 30901, as amended.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request to maintain the existing pool enclosure as constructed be refused due to a number of
deficiencies that render the enclosure unsafe.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law No. 30901 on July 8, 1992 being a by-law for requiring the owners of
privately owned outdoor swimming pools to erect and maintain fences and gates around such swimming pools.
Discussion:
The subject property is located on the north side of Windhill Crescent and contains one half of a semi-detached dwelling.
An above ground swimming pool was erected in the rear yard approximately 7 years ago without the benefit of a building
permit. An inspection of the pool enclosure revealed the following deficiencies:
(1) the pool is located closer than 1.0m (3.3 feet) to a climbable condition;
(2) the gate to the pool area is not self-closing and self-latching;
(3) the gate is not being locked when the pool area is not in use;
(4) the window in the garage which forms part of the pool enclosure is not secure;
(5) clearance between the bottom of the fence and grade exceeds 50mm (2 inches);
(6) the wire mesh on the fence is greater than 38mm (1 ½ inches); and
(7) the pool structure is within less than 1.2m (4 feet) of the pool fence.
The area By-law Investigator has on occasion, talked to the son of the owners and requested that the parents contact us. To
date the owners have not contacted North York other than to send a letter seeking relief from the provisions of the fence
by-law. Consequently, a 'Notice of Violation' dated September 17, 1997, setting out the deficiencies, was issued to the
property owners. To date none of the deficiencies have been corrected. We are now in the process of laying charges for
failure to comply with the fence by-law.
Conclusions:
In view of the fact that the deficiencies identified pose a safety hazard, it is recommended that the request to maintain the
existing pool and enclosure as constructed be refused.
Contact Name:
David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services,
North York Civic Centre
395-7020, Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North-York.on.ca
7
Fence By-law Variance Request - 132 Groton Street -
Ward 8 - North York Spadina
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 26, 1998) from the
Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
To report on an application to amend North York Fence By-law No. 30901 to permit a fence to remain as constructed on
the property municipally known as 132 Groton Street notwithstanding the said fence does not comply with the fence
by-law.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request to maintain the sheet metal fence on the property be refused inasmuch as the fence has
not been constructed in a workmanlike manner.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law No. 30901 on July 8, 1992 being a by-law for prescribing the height
and description of lawful fences. By-law No. 33006, enacted on May 28, 1997 further amended the Fence By-law to,
among other things, prohibit the erecting or maintaining of fences constructed primarily of solid sheet metal or corrugated
metal panels.
Discussion:
The subject property is located on the west side of Groton Street and contains a single family dwelling. The owner has
erected a 39.63m (130 feet) fence along his north property line. The fence is of chain link construction, varies in height
from 1.20m to 1.52m (4 to 5 feet) and complies with the fence by-law. The owner has also erected a privacy screen
immediately adjacent to the south of his own chain link fence. This fence is constructed of solid sheet metal panels, varies
in height from approximately 2.13m to 2.40m (7 to 8 feet) and is unpainted. The fence has not been constructed in a
workmanlike manner and detracts from the aesthetics of the community.
North York's fence by-law prohibits the erection of sheet metal fences. Section 4.1.4 of the by-law states:
"No person shall erect or maintain or permit to be erected or maintained a fence or any portion of a fence constructed
primarily of solid sheet metal or corrugated metal panels."
Conclusions:
It is therefore recommended that the request to maintain the sheet metal fence on the property known as 132 Groton Street
be refused.
Contact Name:
David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services,
North York Civic Centre
395-7020, Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North-York.on.ca
________
The North York Community Council reports having also had before it the following communications, copies of which are
on file in the City Clerk's Office, North York Civic Centre:
(i) (February 17, 1998) from Frank Di Giorgio; and
(ii) (February 12, 1998) from Egidio Grossi.
Mr. Dan Rita appeared before the North York Community Council on behalf of Mr. Egidio Grossi in connection with the
foregoing matter.
8
Fence By-law Variance Request - 801 Willowdale Avenue -
Ward 10 - North York Centre
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (February 2, 1998) from the Solicitor,
North York Civic Centre, not be adopted and that the application to permit the existing fence to remain as
constructed, be approved:
Purpose:
To report on an application to permit the existing fence located on the north side of the property to remain as constructed
notwithstanding that the height of the fence does not comply with North York Fence By-law No. 30901, as amended.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request to permit the fence to remain as constructed be refused.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law No. 30901 on July 8, 1992 being a by-law for prescribing the height
and description of lawful fences.
Discussion:
The subject property is located on the east side of Willowdale Avenue and contains a single family dwelling. The owner of
the property has erected a wood board fence along his north property line. The fence commences at an accessory structure
located in the north-east corner of the property and terminates in the side yard between 801 and 805 Willowdale Avenue.
The fence is approximately 12.19m (40 feet) long and is approximately 2.96m (9' 9"). A site plan showing the location of
the fence is attached hereto.
Generally speaking, the intent of the fence by-law is to permit 2.13m (7 ft.) fences to be erected on residential properties
with some additional relief available to property owners for a privacy screen. Specifically, section 3.1.3 of the North York
fence by-law states:
"Except as provided in Sub-section 3.1.2,3.1.4, 3.1.5, and 3.1.6 and 3.1.7 no person shall erect, permit, have or maintain on
single residential property a fence greater than 2.13m (7 ft.) In height.".
Furthermore, Section 3.1.7 of the fence by-law states:
"Except as provided in Sub-section 3.1.2 any portion of a fence erected between residential properties, may be increased to
a height not exceeding 2.5m (8.2ft.) provided that the aggregate length of such portion or portions does not exceed 7.2m
(24 ft.) per lot."
Conclusions:
It is therefore recommended that the request to maintain the fence as constructed be refused inasmuch as both the height
and length of the fence (privacy screen) exceed the general intent of the by-law.
Contact Name:
David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services,
North York Civic Centre
395-7020, Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North-York.on.ca
________
The North York Community Council reports having also had before it a communication (November 4, 1997) from Andrew
and Georgiana Diu and Andrew and E. Jeane Hannigan advising that the fence was agreed upon mutually by the owners of
801 Willowdale Avenue and 805 Willowdale Avenue.
9
Sign By-law Variance Application - Gould Outdoor Advertising -
3628 Weston Road - Ward 6 - North York Humber
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (February 5, 1998) from the Chief
Building Official/Building Commissioner not be adopted and that the request by Gould Advertising be approved:
Purpose:
Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Just Cole of Gould Outdoor Advertising, for a variance from
the sign by-law to permit an illuminated off premise "V" shaped roof sign oriented to face north & south bound traffic on
Weston Road.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request by Just Cole of Gould Outdoor Advertising, be denied as a minor variance from the sign
by-law.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In a letter dated August 18, 1997, Just Cole, Gould Outdoor Advertising, is requesting permission to erect an illuminated
"V" shaped roof sign oriented to face north & south bound traffic on Weston Road. The sign will be within 650 feet of an
existing roof sign located on the same side of the street and to the north.
Section 5.3.1.1. of North York Sign By-law No. 30788 permits off premise roof signs having a maximum sign area of
250.8 square feet to be erected on the roof of an industrial building provided that no such roof sign will be closer than 750
feet from another roof sign on the same side of the street.
Although the proposed sign is well within the area limitations set fourth in the by-law it is closer than 750 feet from
existing roof signs to the north on the same side of the street and therefore it does not comply with the requirements of the
sign by-law.
The applicant contends that there will be no negative impact on the surrounding area resulting from the erection of the
proposed roof sign even though it will be closer than 750 feet from another roof sign to the north.
Conclusions:
It is the opinion of this department, that the intent of the sign by-law is not served by the erection of this sign. We therefore
recommend that this request be denied as a minor variance from the sign by-law.
________
Mr. Just Cole, Gould Outdoor Advertising, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter.
10
100 Percent Smoke-free Work Places and Food Courts -
By-law to amend City of North York By-law No. 32931, as amended
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 27, 1998) from the
Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to submit a draft by-law to amend City of North York By-law No. 32931, as amended, to
prohibit smoking in all workplaces and food courts and to exclude tobacco research and testing facilities from the proposed
amendment regarding workplace smoking, for consideration.
Funding Sources Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
N/A
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the draft by-law attached to the report (January 27, 1998) from the City Solicitor be enacted; and
(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
11
Fence By-law Variance Request - 134 Groton Street -
Ward 8 - North York Spadina
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 26, 1998) from the
Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
To report on an application to amend North York Fence By-law No. 30901 to permit a fence to remain as constructed on
the property municipally known as 134 Groton Street notwithstanding the said fence does not comply with the fence
by-law.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the wrought iron/sheet metal fence located on the property be maintained as constructed.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law No. 30901 on July 8, 1992 being a by-law for prescribing the height
and description of lawful fences. By-law No. 33006, enacted on May 28, 1997, further amended the Fence By-law to,
among other things, prohibit the erecting or maintaining of fences constructed primarily of solid sheet metal or corrugated
metal panels.
Discussion:
The subject property is located on the west side of Groton Street and contains a single family dwelling. The owner has
erected a 34.14m (112 feet) fence along his south property line. The westerly 25m (82 feet) of the fence is of chain link
construction and is approximately 1.20m (4 feet) high. This portion of the fence complies with the fence by-law. The
remainder of the fence is constructed of decorative wrought iron, it is approximately 1.82m (6 feet) high and projects
easterly toward the street for a total length of approximately 9.14m (30 feet). This same wrought iron fence has solid metal
panels attached to its south side. The fence appears to be well constructed.
The distance between the fence and the front lot line is approximately 5.48m (18 feet). This area of the property has been
landscaped with bushes and a cedar hedge both of which we feel should be kept trimmed so as not to block the 'line of
sight' for vehicles exiting the property.
Although the wrought iron and sheet metal portion of the fence appears to be well constructed and maintained, it does not
comply with Section 4.1.4 of the by-law which states:
"No person shall erect or maintain or permit to be erected or maintained a fence or any portion of a fence constructed
primarily of solid sheet metal or corrugated metal panels."
Conclusions:
It is therefore recommended that a by-law be enacted to permit the wrought iron and sheet metal fence to be maintained as
constructed subject to:
(1) any landscaping located along the south property line and within 2.40m (8 feet) of the front lot line not exceeding a
height of 0.76m (30 inches);
(2) the fence be maintained in compliance with the fence by-law in all other respects; and
(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Contact Name:
David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services,
North York Civic Centre 395-7020, Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North-York.on.ca
________
The North York Community Council reports having also had before it a communication (February 17, 1998) from Mr.
Frank Di Giorgio, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.
12
Fence By-law Variance Request - Swimming Pool Enclosure -
30 Florida Crescent - Ward 6 - North York Humber
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 26, 1998) from the
Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
To report on an application to permit the existing swimming pool enclosure to remain as constructed on the property
municipally known as 30 Florida Crescent notwithstanding that a portion of the fence does not comply with North York
Fence By-law No. 30901, as amended.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the existing chain link fence located on the west and north side of the property be maintained as
constructed.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law No. 30901 on July 8, 1992 being a by-law for requiring the owners of
privately owned outdoor swimming pools to erect and maintain fences and gates around such swimming pools.
Discussion:
The subject property is located on the north side of Florida Crescent and contains a single family dwelling with an
in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard. The pool was installed approximately 20 years ago. The owner recently erected
a new wood fence along his east property line in compliance with the fence by-law. The remainder of the pool enclosure
consists of an existing 1.2m (4 foot) high chain link fence with 5.08cm (2 inch) wire mesh on it. The fence by-law requires
that the wire mesh on the chain link fence be 38mm (1 ½ inches). The majority of the chain link fence is imbedded in a
cedar hedge making access to the pool area more difficult however, there are a couple of gaps in the cedar hedge which are
cause for concern. Accordingly, if the chain link fence is permitted to remain with 5.08cm (2 inch) wire mesh, new hedging
should be planted to fill in the gaps.
Conclusions:
It is therefore recommended that a by-law be enacted to permit the existing chain link fence located along the north and
west property lines to be maintained with 5.08cm (2 inch) wire mesh subject to:
(1) the fence be maintained in compliance with the fence by-law in all other respects;
(2) any gaps in the cedar hedge be planted with new cedar hedging;
(3) the cedar hedge be maintained in a healthy growing condition; and
(4) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Contact Name:
David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services,
North York Civic Centre
395-7020, Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North-York.on.ca
13
Fence By-law Variance Request - 12 Kemp Square -
Ward 6 - North York Humber
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1998) from the
Solicitor, North York Civic Centre:
Purpose:
To report on an application to permit an existing fence to remain as constructed on the property municipally known as 12
Kemp Square notwithstanding the height of the fence does not comply with North York Fence By-law 30901, as amended.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications for the City.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the fence be approved as constructed inasmuch as the height does not adversely affect the abutting
property owner.
Background:
The former City of North York enacted Fence By-law 30901 on July 8, 1992 being a by-law for prescribing the height and
description of lawful fences.
Discussion:
The subject property is located on the north side of Kemp Square and contains a single family dwelling. The owner of the
property has erected a 1.87m (6'2") high board fence along his west property line. The west property line is the common
boundary with the property known as 14 Kemp Square. The fence on 12 Kemp Square comes to within approximately
2.59m (8' 6") of a window located in the east wall of 14 Kemp Square. The height of the fence, where it is directly opposite
the window, extends approximately 0.33m (1' 2") above the window sill and consequently, does not comply with Section
3.1.2 of the fence by-law which states:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this Part, on single residential properties, no portion of a fence erected shall
extend above the sill of any window on an adjacent property, excluding basement windows, that is opposite and within
3.0m (10 ft.) of the proposed fence.".
In this particular case the fence in question is located to the east of the window and is approximately 2.59m (8' 6") away
from it. Given that the sun rises in the east, any impact the fence might have on the property known as 14 Kemp Square is
minimal. An enlarged copy of photograph depicting the location of the fence in relation to the window is attached.
Conclusions:
It is therefore recommended that the request to maintain the fence as constructed be approved subject to:
(1) the fence being maintained in compliance with the fence by-law in all other respect and,
(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Contact Name:
David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services,
North York Civic Centre 395-7020, Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North-York.on.ca
14
Renaming of Gary Park - Ward 6 - North York Humber
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 11, 1998) from
the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation.
The North York Community Council reports having requested the Functional Lead for Parks and Recreation to submit a
report to the North York Community Council outlining a policy for the renaming of parks.
The North York Community Council submits the following report (February 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Parks and Recreation:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council's authority to rename Gary Park (Ward 6) to Wallace C. Swanek Park.
Source of Funds:
There is minimal cost associated with this name change as all park signs will be changed in the future to reflect the new
visual identity of the City of Toronto. In the interim, the present two wooden signs would be replaced at a cost of $500.00.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the park as outlined in appendix I be renamed from the existing Gary Park to the Wallace C. Swanek Park; and
(2) the appropriate City Officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
Councillor Gina Severino was approached early in 1997 by the Swanek family to rename Gary Park to
Wallace C. Swanek Park.
A public meeting to discuss the issue was convened on June 27, 1997 and a presentation regarding the history of the park
and the role of Wallace Swanek was made. Some thirty-five residents attended the meeting and there was considerable
discussion about the park name. A number of residents complained about the timing of the meeting -- being a Friday night
and the start of summer break.
A subsequent public meeting was called on September 29, 1997. Some forty residents attended the meeting including a
large representation of the Swanek family. There was general agreement by those that attended the meeting that the park
should be renamed.
The present policy of the City names parks based on geographic location and street name. There is president set within the
City where outstanding citizens have been recognized for their contribution to the community by having a park named after
them. Silvia Collela and Irving Chapley are two examples.
Historical Justification:
The Swanek family are long-term residents of the Pelmo area. A farm situated on the south side of what is now Queenslea
Avenue was owned in the 1930's and 40's by Felix Swanek, the father of Wallace Chester Swanek.
In the 1940's, at the end of the Second World War, Wallace C. Swanek returned home. He brought with him the "Can Do"
spirit and the enterprising attitude that characterized his life. He convinced his father that there would be many young
families who would be in need of homes and he wanted to be the one to build them. Wallace built his first house at
161 Queenslea Avenue. His second house was built with the foresight of parkland across from it. This house at
165 Queenslea Avenue was for his family. For the next forty-five years, Wallace and his wife Betty raised their family of
thirteen children.
Wallace continued to build all along Queenslea Avenue as well as Deerhurst, Rosemount, Wendell, Walwyn, Academy,
Portage and Limerick. It was during this time, in the early 1950's that he gave to the City his dream, the gift of the parkland.
As a land developer, Wallace was required to set aside some park area. He donated far more property to the City than
required by law. By doing so, the residents enjoy the present day Gary Park. It's now the public place of recreation he
dreamed of for his children, his grandchildren and the growing neighbourhood. Wallace went on to build in other areas in
the west-end of Metro, but the Pelmo area was always home.
Wallace C. Swanek, was born in Poland June 22, 1922 and died in Toronto on March 31, 1985. His wife, Betty, and their
children Nancy, Roy and Lyn-Marie continue to live across from the park at 165 Queenslea Avenue. Their eldest son Brad
Swanek and his family reside at 161 Queenslea Avenue (the first house Wallace built). Peter Swanek lives at 172
Queenslea Avenue, and Dennis Swanek and his family lives at 82 Portage. Larry and Rosemary Swanek run a successful
business at 222 Pellatt Avenue.
The Swanek name has been a part of this community for close to seventy years.
Conclusions:
The Department recommends that the name of Gary Park be changed to Wallace C. Swanek Park to recognize the
contribution Mr. Swanek has made to the Pelmo community.
Contact Name:
Gary W. Stoner, Deputy Commissioner
Parks and Recreation
Telephone: 395-6190 Fax: 395-0105
E-mail: gwstoner@north-york.on.ca
________
The North York Community Council reports having also had before it the following communications in support of the
renaming of the park:
(i) (February 18, 1998) from E. Ferguson, President, Weston Historical Society;
(ii) (February 16, 1998) from Mr. John Kiru, Weston Business Improvement Area;
(iii) Ms. Hilda Pittioni, Treasurer, Club Pelmo Italiano;
(iv) C.K. and Eileen Cruickshank; and
(v) Petition containing 35 signatures.
(A copy of Appendix 1 referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic
Centre.)
15
Designation By-laws - The Joseph Shepard House/
Dempsey Brothers Store, 250 Beecroft Road - Ward 10 -
North York Centre and Jolly Miller Tavern, 3885 Yonge Street -
Ward 9 - North York Centre South
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 4, 1998) from
Beth Hanna, Manager, Culture Branch, Parks and Recreation Department:
Purpose:
North York Council on October 6, 1997, by Resolution No. 97-17, approved the recommendation that the Joseph Shepard
House/Dempsey Brothers Store and the Jolly Miller Tavern be designated as having historical and architectural significance
in accordance with the provisions of The Ontario Heritage Act (R.S.O. 1990) and the recommendation of the North York
Heritage Committee/LACAC.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Council enact the necessary By-laws to provide for the designation of the Joseph Shepard House/Dempsey Brothers
Store, 250 Beecroft Road, and the Jolly Miller Tavern, 3885 Yonge Street, in accordance with the provisions of The
Ontario Heritage Act; and
(2) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Justification:
Both of these properties were considered against the "Guidelines for The Evaluation of Heritage Properties" (approved by
North York Council February 5, 1996) and determined to be worthy of designation on architectural and historical grounds.
The North York Heritage Committee/LACAC recommends that Council proceed with the designation of these properties.
In accordance with the provisions of The Ontario Heritage Act, Notice of Intention to Designate was published in the North
York Mirror and served on the owner of the properties and the Ontario Heritage Foundation. Thirty days were allowed for
objections and no objections have been received.
Conclusions:
It is now in order for Council to enact the appropriate by-laws to designate the Joseph Shepard House/Dempsey Brothers
Store, 250 Beecroft Road and the Jolly Miller Tavern, 3885 Yonge Street. A copy of the designation by-laws are attached to
this report.
Contact Name:
Beth Hanna, Manager
Culture Branch
North York Civic Centre
Office (416) 395-7415, Fax (416) 395-7886
________
Councillor Feldman declared his interest in the foregoing matter as it relates to the Jolly Miller site in that he resides in the
immediate vicinity.
16
Encroachment - 388 Broadway Avenue -
Ward 9 - North York Centre South
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the existing encroachments referred to in the following
report (February 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Public Works be approved, subject to the owner(s) entering
into an encroachment agreement with the City:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to determine if the existing encroachments at the above location should be permitted.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that if the existing encroachments are approved by the City, the encroachments be subject to the
following conditions:
(1) the owner(s) enter into an encroachment agreement with the City; and
(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to do all things necessary.
Background:
The City's policy requires the following for an encroachment application to be approved:
(i) that all encroachments be subject to a legal agreement being entered into between the City and the Owner of the property
abutting the encroachment;
(ii) that such agreement be to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Public Works and be registered
on the title of the property abutting the encroachment;
(iii) that a suitable survey drawing of the lands involved, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, showing the location of
the encroachment, its dimensions and areas, and any significant features and fences pertinent to the encroachment and
satisfactory to the Commissioner of Public Works, be provided by the owner, to delineate the encroachment and that such
plan be attached to and form part of the agreement;
(iv) the owner provide confirmation letters from the utility companies that they have no objections to the encroachments
prior to entering an encroachment agreement;
(v) that the owner pay a one-time administrative fee of $150.00 to the Department of Public Works and a one-time
administrative fee of $250.00 to the Legal Department.
Comments:
The Public Works Department is in receipt of a letter dated November 27, 1997 from Constantine Tsantis, Barrister and
Solicitor, acting on behalf of the owners of 388 Broadway Avenue requesting an encroachment agreement (copy attached).
The existing encroachments onto City property consists of steps, walkway and retaining walls along each side of the
existing driveway and east property line and along the frontage of the property. The retaining walls extend onto the City
road allowance to a maximum distance of approximately 4.48 metres beyond the property line.
The Public Works Department has received a satisfactory survey prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor showing location
details of the encroachments. We have also received utility clearances from Consumers Gas, Bell Canada and Toronto
Hydro.
Conclusions:
There are no conflicts with existing or proposed municipal services, therefore, the Department has no objections to the
encroachments, subject to the owner entering into an encroachment agreement with the City.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Stan Bertoia, P. Eng.
Director of Engineering
Tel.: 416-395-6235
(A copy of the letter (November 27, 1997) from Constantine Tsantis is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York
Civic Centre.)
17
Parking Prohibitions - Brooke Avenue between Kelso Street
and Clyde Avenue - Ward 9 - North York Centre South
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 30, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Transportation:
Purpose:
To amend the existing 60 Minute Permitted Parking restriction on a portion of the north side of Brooke Avenue, between
Kelso Street and Clyde Avenue, to No Parking Any Time.
Source of funds:
The funds associated with changes to the parking regulation and signing are contained within this department's 1998
Current Budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedules VIII and X of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to prohibit parking from 8:00
a.m to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on the north side of Brooke Avenue, from a point 158 metres east of the westerly
limit of Clyde Avenue to the easterly limit of Kelso Street.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The residents of Brooke Avenue, between Kelso Street and Clyde Avenue, had previously submitted a petition to this
department in October of 1997 to permit 60 minute permitted parking on the entire north side of the roadway. With the
concurrence of Councillor Milton Berger, this department recommended that the parking prohibitions on Brooke Avenue
be amended. The City of North York Council, at its meeting of October 6, 1997, adopted this department's recommendation
and all the necessary by-laws were enacted.
Discussions:
Since the installation of the parking restrictions, this department has received a second petition from the residents of
Brooke Avenue. This request, due to the intrusion of vehicles associated with the adjacent commercial properties, was to
prohibit parking from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Of the 16 affected properties, 13 support the proposed
parking amendment.
Conclusions:
In view of the foregoing this department supports amending the current parking regulations, as requested by the residents.
Contact Name:
Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
18
Parking Prohibitions - Ashwarren Road -
Ward 8 - North York Spadina
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 30, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Transportation:
Purpose:
To install parking prohibitions on the south side of Ashwarren Road.
Source of funds:
All costs associated with amending the appropriate by-law and signs are included within this departments 1998 operating
budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedule VIII of the North York Traffic By-Law No. 31001 be amended to prohibit parking at any
time, on the south side of Ashwarren Road, from the easterly limit of Keele Street to a point 164.5 metres easterly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Councillor Feldman had been requested by Mr. Bartuccio to consider the installation of parking prohibitions on the section
of Ashwarren Road which is adjacent to his property at 3715 Keele Street. Mr. Bartuccio has advised that when numerous
vehicles, which include tractor trailer combinations, continuously park along Ashwarren Road, the visibility of his property
or building, by motorists on Ashwarren Road, is limited or restricted. This is particularly of concern to Mr. Bartuccio
during the evenings and overnight when Police may not be able to monitor illegal activities on his property or in the
building. In addition to the concern for safety, when tractor trailer combinations are parked on the roadway early morning
deliveries are impeded.
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the south side of Ashwarren Road, from Keele Street
to Ceramic Road. Parking is prohibited at any time on the north side.
Discussions:
As a result of our investigation, staff of this department has confirmed Mr. Bartuccio's concerns as several vehicles were
parked on the south side of Ashwarren Road. A review of our street location file has revealed that several previous requests
for enforcement of the parking restrictions have been made to the Toronto Police, Parking Enforcement Unit. It would
appear that enforcement alone has been ineffective in reducing the level of on street parking.
Conclusions:
This department supports amending the parking restrictions, as per Mr. Bartuccio's request.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations (395-7484)
19
Temporary Road Closure - Harlandale Avenue -
Ward 10 - North York Centre
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 30, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Transportation:
Purpose:
To temporarily close a portion of Harlandale Avenue for the Toronto Transit Commission's construction of the Sheppard
Subway, Harlandale Avenue emergency ventilation shaft.
Source of funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that a by-law be enacted to provide for the temporary closure of Harlandale Avenue to vehicle and
pedestrian traffic, for the purpose of construction of an emergency ventilation shaft associated with the Sheppard Subway.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), Rapid Transit Expansion Program, requires the temporary closure of Harlandale
Avenue starting immediately to June 1, 1998 in order to accommodate construction of the Harlandale Avenue emergency
ventilation shaft.
A temporary closure was granted by the Commissioner of Public Works, North York City Centre, subject to the following
conditions:
(1) that emergency services are notified (fire ambulance, police, etc.);
(2) that access to local businesses and deliveries be maintained;
(3) that a "Construction - No Access to Yonge Street" sign be posted on Harlandale Avenue at Beecroft Road; and
(4) the emergency closure is temporary to allow for current construction on Harlandale Avenue and TTC staff must make a
formal application with the Transportation Department, North York Civic Centre, for a proper closure.
Discussions:
Given the extent of construction and excavation, the roadway must be closed to ensure the safety for both vehicle and
pedestrian traffic.
Conclusions:
In view of the above, this department recommends that the appropriate by-law be enacted to ensure that Harlandale
Avenue, from the westerly limit of Yonge Street to a point 25 metres west of the westerly limit of Yonge Street, be closed
until June 1, 1998.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations (395-7484)
20
Stopping Prohibitions - Wilmington Avenue -
Ward 8 - North York Spadina
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 30, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Transportation:
Purpose:
To extend the time limit of stopping prohibitions on the west side of Wilmington Avenue, adjacent to the Hebrew Academy
of Toronto, to 6:00 p.m.
Source of Funds:
The funds associated with changes to the stopping prohibition and signing are contained within this department's 1998
Current Budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedule IX of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to replace the current "No Stopping,
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday" stopping prohibition on the west side of Wilmington Avenue, between Kennard
Avenue and Overbrook Place, to "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday".
Council Reference/Background/History:
Councillor Feldman has received complaints from local residents that, at the time of dismissal of students of the Hebrew
Academy of Toronto, parents park on the west side of Wilmington Avenue, south of Overbrook Place. This parking activity
restricts two way traffic flow on Wilmington Avenue and impacts traffic operations at the intersection of Wilmington
Avenue and Overbrook Place.
Discussions:
Investigations by staff of this department have verified that parents, when stopped/parked after 4:30 p.m. on the west side
of Wilmington Avenue, obstruct southbound traffic flow on Wilmington Avenue by forcing two lanes of southbound traffic
to merge into one, south of the signalized intersection at Overbrook Place.
Conclusions:
In view of the foregoing, this department supports amending the stopping prohibitions to improve operational safety.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484.
21
Parking Prohibitions - Hobart Drive -
Ward 12 - Seneca Heights
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 30, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Transportation:
Purpose:
To amend the existing three hour parking limit adjacent to 64 Hobart Drive, to "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday".
Source of funds:
The funds associated with changes to the parking regulations and signing are contained within this department's 1998
current budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedule VIII of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to prohibit parking from 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south/east side of Hobart Drive, from a point 155 metres southeast of the southerly
limit of Seneca Hill Drive to a point 61 metres east/south thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is prohibited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Hobart
Drive from the southerly limit of Seneca Hill Drive to a point 155 metres southerly thereof. On all other sections of the
roadway, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours.
Discussions:
This department has been advised by a resident that when vehicles are parked adjacent to and in front his residence, two
way traffic and access/egress from his driveway is restricted. Numerous requests to the Toronto Police for enforcement of
illegal parking activities have proven ineffective.
Conclusions:
In view of the foregoing, this department supports amending the current parking regulations, as requested by the resident.
Contact Name:
Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
22
Parking Prohibitions - Gordon Baker Road -
Ward 12 - Seneca Heights
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Transportation:
Purpose:
To amend the existing three hour parking limit on portions of Gordon Baker Road to No Parking Any Time.
Source of funds:
The funds associated with changes to the parking regulations and signage are contained within this department's 1998
current budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedule VIII of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to prohibit parking at any time on the
east side of Gordon Baker Road, from the northerly limit of Finch Avenue East to the southerly limit of Harold Evans
Crescent, and on the west side, from a point 245 metres south of the southerly limit of Harold Evans Crescent to a point
255 metres southerly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on both sides of Gordon Baker Road.
Discussions:
To facilitate the needs of the developments at 111/115 Gordon Baker Road, an exclusive southbound left turn lane was
constructed. Since the construction of the left turn lane, this department has received numerous complaints that vehicles are
being parked on both sides of the roadway, thereby negating the anticipated benefits of the exclusive left turn lane to the
developments and the road users.
Conclusions:
In view of the foregoing, this department supports amending the current parking regulations , in order to improve traffic
operations associated with the recent roadway modifications.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
23
Parking Restrictions - Eddystone Avenue -
Ward 7 - Black Creek
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Transportation:
Purpose:
To amend the parking prohibitions adjacent to No. 66 Eddystone Avenue.
Source of funds:
Funds for the amendments to the parking prohibitions and appropriate signs are provided within the 1998 operating budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedule VIII of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to prohibit parking at any time on the
north side of Eddystone Avenue, from the easterly limit of Jane Street to a point 342 metres westerly thereof.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the north side of Eddystone Avenue, adjacent to #66,
from Jane Street to the west limit of 10 Eddystone Avenue, and along the entire south side of the roadway.
Discussions:
Staff of this department have confirmed that excessive parking is occurring on the north side of the roadway, particularly by
heavy vehicles, thereby restricting access to the driveway and limiting two way traffic flow. Staff of the Toronto Police,
Traffic Support Service, have indicated that the enforcement of the three hour parking limit has been ineffective in reducing
this parking activity and would support the installation of additional parking restrictions.
Conclusions:
In view of the foregoing, this department supports amending the current parking regulations, as requested by area business
owners.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
24
All Way Stop Control - Driftwood at Laskay Crescent (East Leg) -
Ward 7 - Black Creek
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Transportation:
Purpose:
To install an all way stop control to improve pedestrian safety, at the intersection of Driftwood Avenue and Laskay
Crescent.
Source of funds:
Funds for the installation of an all way stop control are included within this departments 1998 Operating Budget.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Schedules XVIII and XIX of North York By-law No. 31001 be amended to require traffic to stop on
all approaches to the intersection of Driftwood Avenue and Laskay Crescent (east leg).
Council Reference/Background/History:
A review of our records indicate that a previous study was completed to determine whether a pedestrian crosswalk was
warranted on Driftwood Avenue, in the vicinity of the Driftwood Public School. Based upon the results of the study, a
pedestrian crosswalk was not recommended. Since the completion of the study, this department has been advised by staff of
the school that student enrollment has increased significantly. In this regard, it was necessary to further review traffic
operations in an effort to provide any necessary improvements.
Discussions:
Currently, southbound motorists on Laskay Crescent are required to stop at Driftwood Avenue. The intersection of
Driftwood Avenue and Laskay Crescent form a "T" type intersection. There is an all way stop control 152 metres to the
west at Stong Court and approximately 700 metres to the east at Driftwood Court. The Driftwood Public School is located
on the south side of the Driftwood Avenue/Laskay Crescent intersection.
Observations by staff of this department have indicated that the numerous children which are crossing the roadway during
the morning and evening peak periods are doing so with a great deal of difficulty. There are no protected areas for the
children to cross Driftwood Avenue.
The results of the most recent all way stop study conducted have indicated that the technical warrants for the installation of
an all way stop control have been satisfied.
Conclusions:
In view of the foregoing, this department supports the installation of an all way stop control sat the intersection of
Driftwood Avenue and Laskay Crescent. The Toronto Police in association with staff of the Driftwood Public School, have
been requested to review for the installation of an Adult Crossing Guard or School Safety Patrol Program, upon installation
of the all way stop control.
Contact Name:
Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484
25
Community Festival Event - Armenian Community Centre -
Canada Summer Fest 1998 - 45 Hallcrown Place -
Ward 12 - Seneca Heights
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that the Canada Day Summer Fest 1998 being held by the
Armenian Community Centre be declared a community festival event.
The North York Community Council submits the following communication (February 10, 1998) from Mr. Ani
Tuysusian, Manager, Armenian Community Centre, 45 Hallcrown Place, North York:
This letter is to advise you of our intention to apply for a liquor license to be utilized at our outdoor function.
1. Dates
Friday July 10 1998 5:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M.
Saturday July 11 1998 4:00 P.M. to 2:00 A.M.
Sunday July 12 1998 2:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M.
2. Location
Armenian Community Centre 45 Hallcrown Pl. North York Ontario. The function will be held in our parking lot located
on the west side of our building. The parking lot will be covered with two large tents approximate measurements are as
follows 40 x 70 feet and 80 x 170 feet. The tent to be installed by a professional company appropriate permits to be
obtained by the contractor.
3. Nature of event
To celebrate Canada Day in the community. We will be serving food & liquor. The event will be open to the public.
Expected attendance over the three days 2500 people.
4. Parking North York's fence by-law prohibits the erection of sheet metal fences. Section 4.1.4 of the by-law states:
"No person shall erect or maintain or permit to be erected or maintained a fence or any portion of a fence constructed
primarily of solid sheet metal or corrugated metal panels."
Conclusions:
It is therefore recommended that the request to maintain the sheet metal fence on the property known as 132 Groton Street
be refused.
Contact Name:
David Roberts, Director of By-law Enforcement Services,
North York Civic Centre
395-7020, Fax 395-7056
E-mail: Dave@City.North-York.on.ca
________
The North York Community Council reports having also had before it the following communications, copies of which are
on file in the City Clerk's Office, North York Civic Centre:
(i) (February 17, 1998) from Frank Di Giorgio; and
(ii) (February 12, 1998) from Egidio Grossi.
Mr. Dan Rita appeared before the North York Community Council on behalf of Mr. Egidio Grossi in connection with the
foregoing matter.
We will have ample parking space at two parking lots located on Hallcrown place.
Trust this meets with your requirements. If you have any questions regarding the above please do not hesitate to call Mr.
Jack Tchakmak at 416-292-2020 or 416-565-8021.
26
Committee of Adjustment - UDCA-97-687 -
Holy Ghost Banner Church of God Inc. - 49 Eugene Street -
Request for Staff Attendance at the Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing - Ward 8 - North York Spadina
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that as requested by Councillor Feldman the attendance of staff
of the North York Planning and Transportation Departments at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing of this
application, be approved.
(February 6, 1998) from Councillor Michael Feldman, forwarding a memorandum from the Acting Commissioner of
Planning advising that it would be appropriate for staff to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing of this application in
order to defend the Committee of Adjustment's decision and uphold the by-law.
27
Application for Part Lot Control Exemption (UD54-07-01-REL) -
Tak-On Developments Ltd. - 142 Finch Avenue East -
Ward 10 - North York Centre
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 14, 1998) from the
Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York:
Purpose:
The purpose of this application is to request exemption from part lot control in order that the two semi-detached dwelling
units may be conveyed into separate ownership.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) this application be approved; and
(2) the draft by-law attached as schedule "C" to the report (February 2, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning,
be approved.
Comments:
The lands were the subject of zoning amendment application UDZ-97-06 which was approved by North York Council on
July 9, 1997. Implementing By-law No. 33111, which was approved on October 6, 1997, permits the re-development of the
lands subject to specific zoning regulations. The development consists of a semi-detached dwelling having a gross floor
area of 254m² and containing 2 dwelling units. The site plan was approved on September 9, 1997 under application number
UDSP-97-136.
The release of part lot control would permit the conveyance of each semi-detached dwelling unit. As required, by a policy
adopted by North York Council on October 18, 1995, the applicant has submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon
the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land the City will be advised in order that the exempting by-law may be revoked.
The Legal Department has advised that the required letter of undertaking has been submitted to their satisfaction.
Conclusions:
This application is consistent with the City's part lot control exemption policy and the required documents have been filed
with the City's Legal Department. The issues regarding this development have been reviewed and all matters of concern to
the City, for the development of the subject lands, are covered by the conditions of site plan approval, the requirements of
Zoning By-law 7625 and the required letter of undertaking.
Contact Name:
Chris Foster, Technician
Phone: 395-7135
28
Application for Part Lot Control Exemption (UD54-97-08-REL) -
Galina Langer - 340 Riverview Drive -
Ward 9 - North York Centre South
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1998) from the
Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York:
Purpose:
The purpose of this application is to request that a parcel of land be granted exemption from part lot control in order that a
portion of the land can be conveyed to the property at 340 Riverview Drive to eliminate an existing encroachment.
Funding Sources Financial Implications and Impact Statements:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) this application be approved; and
(2) the draft by-law attached as schedule "C" to the report (February 2, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning,
be approved.
Comments:
The subject property, being irregular in shape, is developed with a two storey dwelling and abuts the Rosedale Golf Club
lands. The existing deck and balcony, to the rear of the dwelling, encroach onto the Rosedale Golf Club lands. It would
appear that the deck was constructed some time prior to 1984, however, staff were unable to locate any City records with
respect to the construction of the deck. In order to resolve the encroachment and associated side yard setback to the deck
the applicant has negotiated with the Rosedale Golf Club to acquire a 127m² parcel of land abutting their property upon
which the deck is constructed. The release of part lot control would allow for the sale of this parcel.
In accordance with City requirements the applicant has filed a letter of undertaking, to the satisfaction of the Legal
Department, that they will advise the City when the additional lands are registered on title to 340 Riverview Drive in order
that the part lot exemption by-law may be repealed.
Conclusions:
By granting exemption from part lot control, in order to permit the proposed lot addition, an existing encroachment and the
associated non-complying side yard setbacks to the deck would be resolved.
Contact Name:
Chris Foster, Technician
Phone: 395-7135
29
Application for Part Lot Control Exemption (UD54-97-09-REL) -
1209786 Ontario Inc./Broder Development Group -
3330 Bayview Avenue - Ward 10 - North York Centre
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1998) from the
Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York:
Purpose:
The purpose of this application is to request exemption from part lot control in order that the six townhouse units may be
conveyed into separate ownership.
Funding Sources Financial Implications and Impact Statements:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) this application be approved; and
(2) the draft by-law attached as schedule "C" to the report (February 2, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning,
North York, be approved.
Comments:
The lands were the subject of zoning amendment application UDOZ-90-54 which was approved by Council on February
19, 1992. Implementing by-law No. 33113, which was approved on October 6, 1997, permits the re-development of the
lands subject to specific zoning regulations. The development consists of a six unit, three storey, townhouse development.
The site plan was approved on October 2, 1997 under application number UDSP-92-024.
The release of part lot control would permit the conveyance of each townhouse unit. As required, by a policy adopted by
North York Council on October 18, 1995, the applicant has submitted an undertaking advising that the developer
guarantees that the owners of property and their successors in title will be responsible for the construction, maintenance and
repair of the mutual common driveway and that the City will not be required to assume such services at any time in the
future. The applicant has also provided the required letter of undertaking that the City will be advised upon the sale or
transfer of the last parcel of land in order that the exempting by-law may be revoked.
Conclusions:
This application is consistent with the City's part lot control exemption policy and the required documents have been filed
with the City's Legal Department. The issues regarding this development have been reviewed and all matters of concern to
the City, for the development of the subject lands, are covered by the conditions of site plan approval and the requirements
of Zoning By-law 7625. The agreement regarding the private road and the letter of undertaking are in place.
Contact Name:
Chris Foster, Technician
Phone: 395-7135
30
Industrial Zoning Review By-law Appeals - Application to the
Ontario Municipal Board For Approval of North York By-laws 33091,
33092 and 33093 - Ward 6 - North York Humber and
Ward 8 - North York Spadina
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 8, 1998) from the
Acting Commissioner of Planning, subject to the deletion of Schedule 'F' relating to the Steeles West Market, in
order that Councillor Moscoe may have an opportunity to meet with staff and the applicant to review their
objections:
Purpose:
Technical modifications to North York's Industrial Zoning by-law amendments (September 1997) are proposed in order to
settle four out of the five appeals. No settlement is proposed for the one remaining objection, which relates to Ajax
Precision Manufacturing at 37 Penn Drive.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the letters of objection to North York By-laws Nos. 33091, 33092 and 33093, attached in the Appendix to this report, be
received;
(2) Council endorse the proposed modifications contained in Schedules A, B, C, D, E, and F attached to this report, and
forward same to the Ontario Municipal Board; and
(3) the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to expeditiously approve By-laws Nos. 33091, 33092 and 33093, with the
modifications endorsed per (2) above, save and except for specific matters under appeal that remain outstanding.
Background:
Bylaws Nos. 33091, 33092, and 33093 were passed by North York Council on September 17, 1997 to implement the
revised industrial land use policies adopted as Official Plan Amendment No. 443 on that same day. These zoning bylaws
and the official plan amendment affect lands throughout the entire North York Community.
As of the date of this report, the official plan amendment is still being considered for approval by the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing. Up to the last date for zoning appeals, objections to all three zoning bylaws were filed with the Clerk's
Department with respect to six specific properties in two particular Wards. A copy of the letters, and the notice of passage
of the three Bylaws are attached as an Appendix to this report.
The following objections relate to sites in Ward 6, North York Humber:
Barnet H. Kussner, of Weir and Foulds, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Ajax Precision Manufacturing Ltd.,
regarding 37 Penn Drive.
Peter F. Smith, of Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., Consulting Town Planners, on behalf of First Professional
Management Inc., regarding Crossroads Place.
Howard F. Wood, of Sevendon Holdings Ltd., regarding the Knob Hills Farm site at Weston Road and Knob Hill Drive.
The following objections relate to sites in Ward 8, North York Spadina:
Peter F. Smith, of Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., Consulting Town Planners, on behalf of First Professional
Management Inc., regarding 3685 Keele Street.
Jordan Rose, of Glen Corporation, on behalf of Solray Investments Ltd., regarding the Steeles West Market site.
Murray Goldman, of Construct Building Centres (Caledonia) Inc., regarding 825 Caledonia Road. However, a letter
withdrawing the notice of appeal regarding 825 Caledonia Road was subsequently filed by Mr. Goldman.
Of the remaining appeals, all except for Ajax Precision are technical in nature, to ensure that explicit permissions granted
by older site-specific bylaws are maintained. Two modifications to zoning maps in By-law 33092 and four modifications to
the text of By-law 33093 will deal with these technical issues in a manner that is satisfactory to the appellants and to staff.
The proposed changes are attached to this report as Schedules A to F.
Comments:
Ajax Precision Manufacturing Ltd. is an automotive parts manufacturer which has a plant that primarily does heavy metal
stamping and welding at 37-39 Penn Drive. After considerable discussion at Planning Committee and Council, it was
determined that no exception to the proposed M1 zoning should be granted for this site.
Ajax Precision has objected to the Bylaws because it wants this manufacturing activity to be a permitted use in the zoning.
We will continue discussions with representatives from Ajax Precision, but given that North York Council's direction was
clear in this regard, staff see little opportunity for a settlement prior to an OMB Hearing.
All the other appeals which are outstanding at the time of this report deal with retail sites, and have been filed because
technical improvements to the industrial bylaw amendments are needed to ensure that explicit permissions granted by older
site-specific bylaws are maintained. Staff have discussed these matters with the objectors and concur that the modifications
attached as schedules to this report are appropriate technical clarifications. The proposed changes are described as follows.
Schedule A is the revised zoning map containing Knob Hill Farms, delineating only the part of the site that had been
subject to By-law 28180 as MC(16)(H), and changing the rest of the site to MC(H).
Schedule B is the revised zoning map containing 3685 Keele Street, rezoning it to MC(52)(H).
Schedule C is a revision to exception MC(16)(H), dealing with Knob Hill Farms, to re-state the minimum parking
requirement of By-law 28180.
Schedule D is a revision to exception MC(17)(H), regarding Crossroads Place, to clarify that the gross floor area of 43,380
square metres can be used for retail warehouses, and to re-state the minimum parking rate for retail warehouses, all in
accordance with By-law 31993.
Schedule E provides a new exception, MC(52)(H), relating to 3685 Keele Street, stating the maximum gross floor area for
retail stores and personal service shops is 5,335 square metres, which was permitted by By-law 29717.
Schedule F is a revision to exception MC(68)(H), for Steeles West Market, clarifying the maximum gross floor area of
retail stores and personal service shops is 22,720 square metres, as permitted in By-law No. 30043, and re-stating the
permission for outside sales areas and limitations on the size of retail units (from By-law No. 33043) in keeping with the
context of the new bylaw's framework.
As is the case with similarly zoned lands in North York, because an (H) is assigned to each of the above-noted sites with
MC zoning, the maximum gross floor area of retail stores and personal service shops stated in an exception would be the
amount permitted prior to Council approving an application for lifting the Holding provision, in accordance with policies in
OPA 443.
Conclusions:
Of the five sites that remain the subject of appeals to the Industrial Zoning Amendments adopted on September 17, 1997,
four are to ensure that explicit permissions granted by older site-specific bylaws are maintained. The attached technical
modifications should be considered by the Ontario Municipal Board to address these matters.
No settlement is proposed for the one remaining objection, which relates to Ajax Precision at 37 Penn Drive, given North
York Council's direction at the time of enacting these by-laws. The Ontario Municipal Board should be requested to
approve the industrial bylaws, with the modifications noted above, save and except for specific items directly related to the
Ajax site.
Partial approval of these three bylaws by the OMB will enable the new industrial zoning to be in force for all of the North
York Community excepting the one contentious site, pending the approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 443.
Contact Name:
Alan Theobald, Senior Planner
Phone: 395-7166
Fax: 395-7155
________
The North York Community Council reports also having had before it a communication (February 17, 1998) from Mr.
Barnet H. Kusner, Weir & Foulds, Barristers and Solicitors, advising of the adverse impact of the new by-laws on their
client, Ajax Precision Manufacturing Limited.
(The various schedules and the letters of objection referred to in the foregoing report are on file in the office of the City
Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)
31
UDLD-96-63 - Ralph and Ada Reichmann -
214 Strathallan Wood and 409 and 415 Glencairn Avenue
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The North York Community Council recommends that as requested by Councillor Berger the attendance of staff of
the North York Legal and Planning Departments at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing of this application, be
approved.
(February 16, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning and City Solicitor addressed to Councillor Berger
regarding staff attendance at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing of an appeal to the Committee of Adjustment's Decision
at 214 Strathallan Wood and 409 and 415 Glencairn Avenue.
32
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a) Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application - UDOZ-96-38 - Joseph Sahar - 31 and 33 Wilmington
Avenue - Ward 8 - North York Spadina.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next
meeting scheduled to be held on April 1, 1998 and that it be considered as a continuation of the public meeting:
(February 9, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning forwarding recommendations with respect to the subject
application to permit the existing retirement home and accessory place of worship within the two existing single family
dwellings.
(b) Sign By-law Variance By-law Variance Application - Omni, The Outdoor Company -
305 Finch Avenue West - Ward 10 - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next
meeting scheduled to be held on April 1, 1998:
(February 5, 1998) from the Chief Building Official/Building Commissioner reporting on a request for a variance from the
sign by-law to permit an off premise roof sign oriented to face east and west bound traffic on Finch Avenue West and
submitting recommendations with respect thereto.
(c) Toronto Transition Final Report - "New City, New Opportunities" and
Draft Procedural By-law.
The North York Community Council reports having:
(1) referred the following communication to the Functional Lead for Legal Services for a report back to the North
York Community Council no later than May, 1998, on:
(a) a mechanism to move to one Councillor per Ward during the present term, or at the end of the term, should
Council so desire; and
(b) a mechanism for changing Community Council boundaries; and
(2) requested the Functional Lead for Legal Services to consult with any other person deemed necessary to provide
input into the report:
(January 15, 1998) from City Clerk advising that City Council on January 2, 6, 8 and 9, 1998, adopted as amended the
recommendations of the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team and directed, in part, that Recommendation 21 of the
Final Report pertaining to one Councillor per ward representation be circulated to the Community Councils for
consideration and report thereon to Council.
(d) Withdrawal of Request for Noise Exemption - Mitchell Field Community Centre -
Ward 10 - North York Centre.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication:
(February 4, 1998) from Mr. Rolf Latka, Latka Construction & Management Inc., withdrawing his request for an
exemption to Noise By-law No. 31317.
(e) Parkland Acquisition - North York Community.
The North York Community Council reports having:
(1) recommended that Recommendation (a) embodied in the following report from the Commissioner of Parks and
Recreation be received; and
(2) referred Recommendation (b) to the Budget Committee for consideration during the Capital Budget process:
(February 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation providing information on the results of Phase I of the
Parkland Acquisition Program conducted in the former City of North York during 1997 and seeking Council's authority
through the Capital Budget process to continue with Phase II of the same program as previously approved by North York
Council.
(f) 1998 Public Works Construction Programs.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:
(February 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Public Works, North York, forwarding a list of the construction projects
submitted for the 1998 City of Toronto budget and a summary of the status of 1997 Supplementary Budget projects that
were not completed during 1997.
(g) Quit Claim of Easements - 204 Richard Clark Drive - Ward 7 - Black Creek;
357 Hollywood Avenue - Ward 10 - North York Centre; and
5 Glen Park Avenue - Ward 8 - North York Spadina.
The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report subject to the Quit Claim
Easement for 5 Glen Park Avenue being deferred and considered at the next meeting of the North York Community
Council scheduled to be held on April 1, 1998:
(February 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Public Works, North York, recommending that the City easements at the
subject locations be quit claimed subject to the City assuming no liabilities for any of the physical services (pipes) within
the easements.
(h) Sidewalk (South Side) - Ormont Drive, Signet Drive To Weston Road -
Ward 6 - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having recommended to the Budget Committee the adoption of
Option 1 embodied in the following report from the Commissioner of Public Works whereby Apotex Inc. will be
reimbursed for the full cost of the sidewalk construction on Ormont Drive in the amount of $34,909.17:
(February 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Public Works, North York, providing options when considering
reimbursement to Apotex Inc. for the cost of the construction of a sidewalk on the south side of Ormont Drive between
Signet Drive and Weston Road.
(i) Parking Prohibitions - Garnier Court - Ward 12.
The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report and
communications until its next meeting scheduled to be held on April 1, 1998:
(i) (February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation submitting recommendations with respect to daytime
parking prohibitions on Garnier Court;
(ii) (February 9, 1998) from Dr. Neil Shapera advising he is opposed to the proposed parking ban; and
(iii) (undated) from Mr. Shane Shapera advising he is opposed to the proposed parking ban.
(j) Community Council Procedures.
The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication:
(January 30, 1998) from Councillor Joan King, Seneca Heights, requesting that a list of various types of issues be prepared
which could be dealt with by the appropriate departments without having to be brought to the Community Council.
(k) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application
UDZ-97-49 - Vincent Planning & Development Consultants Inc. -
1675 Jane Street - Ward 6 - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:
(January 30, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to
permit a commercial building on the vacant portion of the site, south of the existing development, and recommending that
the application be referred to the North York Planning Department to continue processing in the following manner:
(a) staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, schedule a community consultation meeting; and
(b) staff prepare a final report evaluating the proposal and provide notice of the statutory public meeting at the appropriate
time.
(l) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment and Subdivision Application
UDOZ-97-52, UDSB-1235 - Graywood Developments - Block Bounded By
Eglinton Avenue East, the Don Valley Parkway, Rochefort Drive and
Ferrand Drive - Ward 11 - Don Parkway.
The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:
(January 28, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to
permit the construction of 216 semi-detached and multiple-dwelling units, and recommending that the application be
referred to the Planning Department to continue processing in the following manner:
(a) staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, schedule a Community Consultation Meeting; and,
(b) staff prepare a final report evaluating the proposal and provide notice of the Statutory Public Meeting at the appropriate
time.
(m) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Subdivision Application
UDSB-1236 - Topview Developments Limited - East Portion
of 2781-2801 Dufferin Street - Ward 8 - North York Spadina.
The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:
(January 28, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an application to permit 14 detached and
semi-detached dwelling units, and recommending that the application be referred to the Planning Department to be
reviewed as discussed in this report and processed in the following manner:
(a) staff, in consultation with the local Councillors, schedule a community consultation meeting; and
(b) staff prepare a final report evaluating the proposal and provide notice of the statutory public meeting at the appropriate
time.
(n) General Zoning By-law Amendment UD43-HSK - All North York Wards.
The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following report:
(February 4, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning reporting on an ongoing initiative to review and improve
the Zoning By-law by identifying and recommending changes which will contribute to fewer variances; improved clarity;
more consistent interpretation and better enforcement of By-law No.7625, and recommending that:
(1) Community Council hold a public meeting to consider the draft General Zoning By-law Amendment By-law attached
as Schedule "A" to the report; and
(2) Community Council recommend enactment of the General Zoning By-law Amendment By-law, with any modifications
considered appropriate; subsequent to the public meeting.
(o) Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application
UDOZ-97-48 - Har-Ru Holdings Limited - 1 Canyon Avenue -
Ward 9 - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following motion by Councillor Flint:
"WHEREAS North York Community Council had before it a preliminary evaluation report at the January 28, 1998
meeting; and
WHEREAS, a motion was adopted at that meeting that a slope stability study be received and reviewed by the North York
Community Council prior to any action being taken with regard to community consultation and the preparation of a
planning report by staff; and
WHEREAS, a geotechnical report which addresses slope stability report has been received from the applicant; and
WHEREAS the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority has reviewed that report and found it to be satisfactory provided
the north east corner of the building is set back an additional 1 to 2 metres from the top of bank (An extract of the
geotechnical study dealing with slope stability and the comments received from the TRAC are on file.);
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Department schedule the community consultation meetings;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to prepare a planning report on the application and provide
notice of the statutory meeting at the appropriate time.".
(p) Joint Project with Metropolitan Separate School Board at
St. Basil The Great College School - Ward 6 - North York Humber.
The North York Community Council recommends to the Budget Committee the adoption of the following report
(February 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, North York:
(February 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation recommending that this project as previously approved
by North York Council be endorsed and included in the 1998 Capital Budget; and staff continue negotiations with the
Toronto District Catholic School Board to complete the necessary agreement(s) pending funding approval.
(q) Speed Bumps on Post Road and Park Lane Circle -
Ward 9 - North York Centre South.
The North York Community Council recommends the following motion (January 21, 1998) from Councillor
Howard Moscoe be received and no action taken with respect thereto:
"WHEREAS North York has had a long standing policy against speed bumps on public roadways; and
WHEREAS that policy was violated without the full knowledge of Council when road resurfacing projects were approved
for Post Road, The Bridle Path, High Point Road and Park Lane Circle in the dying days of North York Council; and
WHEREAS this action violated a long standing understanding that these roads are used as the alternative to completing
Lawrence Avenue East from Bayview Avenue to Leslie Street; and
WHEREAS this action will establish a precedent that will result in similar requests throughout the community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the North York Community Council either take action to have the speed bumps
recently installed on Post Road and Park Lane Circle ground down, or alternatively, advise Toronto Council that it favours
the completion of Lawrence Avenue East from Bayview Avenue to Leslie Street.".
Respectfully submitted,
MILTON BERGER
Chair
Toronto, February 18, 1998
(Report No. 2 of The North York Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 4, 5 and 6,
1998.)
