(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install a northbound stop sign on Arden Crescent at Rockelm Road (south intersection).

Funding Sources:

The $150.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of this stop sign are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of a resident of Arden Crescent, Road and Traffic Services investigated the need for a northbound stop sign on Arden Crescent at Rockelm Road (south intersection).

Discussion:

The intersection of Arden Crescent at Rockelm Road is located in the community to the north of St. Clair Avenue, and to the east of Pharmacy Avenue. Staff have conducted traffic investigations and determined that a northbound stop sign would be beneficial at this "T" type intersection. This stop sign would clearly define the right-of-way at this location. The installation of this stop sign will not require the trimming or removal of any trees in the area of the sign.

Conclusions:

The installation of a northbound stop sign on Arden Crescent at Rockelm Road (south intersection), will improve traffic operation at the intersection by defining the right-of-way.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-5061,

Fax: 396-5681,

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2

Intersection Stop Street

Arden Crescent and Arden Crescent

Rockelm Road (south intersection) (Northbound)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1) amending the report dated March 16, 1998, from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, by:

(a) deleting from Recommendation No. (2), the words "and stopping", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2) the parking regulation identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted;"; and

(b) deleting Recommendation No. (6) and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendation No. (6):

"(6) a copy of this report be sent to the Toronto Catholic School Board requesting the Board and its staff to consider off street option(s) to accommodate the parents picking-up and dropping-off their children, these options include but not limited to expanding the parking lot, additional short term parking spaces, an additional driveway, and the installation of a turning loop, busing the children to school, staggering school dismissal times, and report back to Scarborough Community Council before September 1, 1998, on these options.";

(2) deleting from the recommendation of the Scarborough Community Council the recommended new Recommendation No. (9); and

(3) adding to the recommendation of the Scarborough Community Council that the following new recommendations be added to the report dated March 16, 1998 from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

"(9) the new parking signs and stop control be installed before September 1, 1998;

(10) staff, parents and children of Our Lady of Wisdom School, in conjunction with the Toronto Police Service, be requested to participate in the Safety Program initiated by the Toronto Police Service specifically for dealing with issues of traffic safety near schools; and

(11) the Director and staff in Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, from time to time, monitor the situation until the end of the year and report back to Scarborough Community Council with his findings in January 1999.";

so that the recommendations embodied in the report dated March 16, 1998, from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, shall now read as follows:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the current parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2) the parking regulation identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted;

(3) the stop control identified in Appendix 3 of this report be rescinded;

(4) the stop control identified in Appendix 4 of this report be adopted;

(5) the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly;

(6) a copy of this report be sent to the Toronto Catholic School Board requesting the Board and its staff to consider off-street option(s) to accommodate the parents picking-up and dropping-off their children, these options include but not limited to expanding the parking lot, additional short term parking spaces, an additional driveway, and the installation of a turning loop, busing the children to school, staggering school dismissal times, and report back to Scarborough Community Council before September 1, 1998, on these options;

(7) the Toronto Catholic School Board be requested to meet with the Toronto Fire Department to discuss whether there is enough room on the west side of the school for staff parking in order to convert the present parking lot on the east side of the school to a pick-up zone for students arriving and departing by car;

(8) the Police Service be invited to monitor the situation on a daily basis over the first four weeks and, thereafter, from time to time until the end of the school year;

(9) the new parking signs and stop control be installed before September 1, 1998;

(10) staff, parents and children of Our Lady of Wisdom School, in conjunction with the Toronto Police Service, be requested to participate in the Safety Program initiated by the Toronto Police Service specifically for dealing with issues of traffic safety near schools; and

(11) the Director and staff in Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, from time to time, monitor the situation until the end of the year and report back to Scarborough Community Council with his findings in January 1999." )

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, subject to adding thereto the following recommendations:

"(7) that the Toronto Catholic School Board be requested to meet with the Toronto Fire Department to discuss whether there is enough room on the west side of the school for staff parking in order to convert the present parking lot on the east side of the school to a pick-up zone for students arriving and departing by car;

(8) that the Police Service be invited to monitor the situation on a daily basis over the first four weeks and, thereafter, from time to time until the end of the school year; and

(9) that a community information meeting be held prior to the passing of the Bill, and in the event concerns are raised, that staff report such concerns to City Council, and further, that the Toronto Catholic School Board be requested to report on any possible on-site solutions directly to City Council."

Purpose:

To address the need to install parking/stopping restrictions on White Abbey Park near Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School and an all-way stop control at the intersection of Japonica Road and White Abbey Park.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the parking restriction signs are contained in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.

The funds associated with the installation of the stop signs are contained in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the current parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2) the parking and stopping regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted;

(3) the stop control identified in Appendix 3 of this report be rescinded;

(4) the stop control identified in Appendix 4 of this report be adopted;

(5) the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly; and

(6) a copy of this report be sent to the Toronto Catholic School Board requesting the Board to consider off street option(s) to accommodate the parents picking-up and dropping-off their children, these options include but not limited to expanding the parking lot, additional short term parking spaces, an additional driveway, and the installation of a turning loop.

Background:

At the request of the principal of Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School, Road and Traffic Services conducted parking and traffic studies by the school on both Japonica Road and White Abbey Park. The issue of compromised pedestrian safety as parents dropped-off and picked-up their children in front of this school, was subsequently examined. Furthermore, at the request of Chris and Mary Stewart of 37 White Abbey Park, we also examined their parking concerns as well as concerns with motorists not stopping for the stop signs at Japonica Road and White Abbey Park.

Discussion:

Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School is located north of Ellesmere Road and east of Pharmacy Avenue. Both Japonica Road and White Abbey Park are residential roads with appropriate signs in place to warn approaching motorists of the school area ahead. Currently, along the north/school side of Japonica Road, there is a 30 minute parking limit that applies between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. On the south/opposite side of Japonica Road there is a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction. These restrictions were installed in 1994.

Along the west/school side of White Abbey Park there is a "No Parking, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday" restriction. Along the opposite/east side of this road however, there are no posted parking restrictions.

Traffic Operations - On-Street Parking Observations:

The following table shows the results of the our parking observations:

KEY: ^ indicates a private vehicle - these vehicles have also been included as being parked on the north side of Japonica Road. Only school buses may park within the defined limits of a school bus loading zone.

This table shows that most parents/guardians prefer to park directly abutting the school grounds, despite the existing "No Parking, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction on White Abbey Park. Also, as shown by this table, some motorists did choose to park on the 'opposite' side of Japonica Road and White Abbey Park. This practice of parking on both sides of the street can congest the roadway and severely restrict regular through traffic. Fortunately, at this location this was not as significant as many other school locations. This may be in part due to the fact that the police were present during part of the study as well as the week preceding this study.

This table also shows that some motorists choose to use the school parking lot to pick-up/drop off their children. The traffic associated with the school's parking lot, because it lies within the property limits of the school, must be managed by the school board. This also applies to the installation of any off-street looping facilities.

We should emphasize that the safety of the children both walking and being driven to school is paramount. We also have to realize that in today's society parents will continue to drive their children to school. As such, with our recommendations we are attempting to make the area as safe as possible under the current situation. We should strongly emphasize that in our experience, when no legal parking alternatives are given, motorists tend to simply ignore the signs and park wherever curb space is available. It is for this reason that we do not support restricting stopping on both sides of Japonica Road or White Abbey Park.

Pedestrian Crossing Observations - Japonica Road and White Abbey Park

Road and Traffic Services staff also recorded the volume and location of pedestrian crossings by the school on both Japonica Road and White Abbey Park. Our study revealed a number of pedestrians crossing the road, the majority of which crossed at the intersection of Japonica Road and White Abbey Park. Specifically, in our two study hours, of the 100 pedestrians crossing both Japonica Road and White Abbey Park, 67 crossed at the intersection.

Traffic Operations at the Intersection of Japonica Road and White Abbey Park

Concern has also been expressed by Mr. Stewart about motorists failing to stop for the existing northbound and eastbound stop signs at Japonica Road and White Abbey Park. During our Monday, March 2, 1998 study we recorded the number of motorists disobeying the stop signs by travelling through at speeds in excess of 5 km/h and the number of U-turns/3 point turns. Again, the results were somewhat skewed due to the police presence; however, a previous study in 1994 did reveal a higher level of "high" speed (> 5 km/h) disobedience. The results are as follows:

These results clearly indicate that the police presence in the area has curtailed the incidents of stop sign violations. We do acknowledge that there are other motorists who did not bring their vehicles to a complete stop, or in other words performed a slow rolling stop; however, our table is intended to point out the flagrant violations.

Currently, the stop signs are for motorists northbound and eastbound at the intersection of Japonica Road and White Abbey Park. This unusual situation does create some confusion amongst motorists and pedestrians. Although we would normally suggest that the northbound stop sign be removed and a westbound stop sign be added to define the right-of-way at this intersection, once a stop sign has been in place for numerous years, travel patterns are established. To remove the northbound sign may confuse motorists, which would be especially dangerous with children crossing.

What we are therefore recommending is that an all-way stop be placed at this intersection in an effort to eliminate some of the confusion. Crosswalk lines will supplement this all-way stop.

Collision History

In addition to the studies outlined above, Road and Traffic Services conducted a three-year collision review of the area (from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996) that revealed that two collisions have been reported during this time period, both of which occurred in 1994. One of these occurred at the intersection of Japonica Road and White Abbey Park involving a westbound and a southbound motorist and the other collision occurred near the intersection of Crossland Road and Japonica Road. Neither collision occurred during school admission or dismissal times.

Conclusions:

Road and Traffic Services recommends "school side parking/opposite side no stopping" on White Abbey Park to complement this signing already in place on Japonica Road and improve the safety for school children both crossing the road and alighting from stopped vehicles. Specifically we are recommending:

1. Installing "30 Minute Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" signs along the school/west side of White Abbey Park along the side of Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School. The intent of these restrictions will be to permit private vehicle passengers direct access the school without having to cross in front of through traffic. These permissive parking restrictions will replace the existing "No Parking, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction. If the "permitted parking" change is approved, there will be sufficient room for approximately 16 private vehicles to park temporarily on White Abbey Park.

2. Installing a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction along the opposite/east side of White Abbey Park directly across from Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School. The purpose of this restriction will be to discourage passengers from boarding or alighting on this side of the road and subsequently from crossing in front of through traffic. These revised parking restriction times attempt to reflect typical hours of school operation and are intended to consider the occasional on-street parking needs of area residents during "non-school" hours. This "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., Monday - Friday" restriction will also help to maintain two lanes of traffic movement by these schools.

These revised parking restriction times attempt to complement the existing parking restrictions on Japonica Road in front of the school, as well as approximately 70 other school areas that have adopted the similar "school side parking/opposite side no stopping" restrictions. By approving these sign changes, a consistency of school area signing is becoming established.

Considering the increase in the school's population with the addition of French Immersion, we are also requesting that the Toronto Catholic School Board consider off street options to accommodate the parents picking-up and dropping-off their children. These options include but are not limited to expanding the parking lot, additional short term parking spaces, an additional driveway, and the installation of a turning loop. These actions will help to mitigate the congestion on the road and will complement the on-street signing being proposed.

Furthermore, we recommend that the intersection of Japonica Road and White Abbey Park be converted to an all-way stop to eliminate any confusion that may be created with the current stop sign configuration.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-5061; Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

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

- Ms. Mary Gomes, Principal, Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School, who tabled a petition containing 161 signatures in support of the staff recommendations;

- Ms. Nina Adamo, Chairperson, School Advisory Council;

- Ms. Mary Stewart, who tabled a 16 signature petition from area residents in opposition to the staff recommendations;

- Mr. Christopher Stewart;

- Ms. Sheenagh Murphy; and

- Ms. Marie Ferreira.

(A copy of the two petitions was distributed to all Members of Scarborough Community Council and the original thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Highway Side From To Times or Days

White Abbey West Japonica 122 metres north of 7:00 a.m. to

Park Road Japonica Road 6:00 p.m.

Monday to

Friday

Appendix 2

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Highway Side From To Times or Days

White Abbey East Japonica North Limit of 8:00 a.m. to

Park Road White Abbey Park 4:00 p.m.

Monday to

Friday

"Parking for Restricted Periods"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5

Maximum

Times Period

Highway Side From To or Days Permitted

White West Japonica North Limit 8:00 a.m. to 30 minutes

Abbey Park Road of White 4:00 p.m.

Abbey Road Monday to Friday

Appendix 3

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Rescinded

Column 1 Column 2

Intersection Stop Street

Japonica Road and Japonica Road

White Abbey Park (Eastbound)

White Abbey Park and White Abbey Park

Japonica Road (Northbound)

Appendix 4

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2

Intersection Stop Street

Japonica Road and Japonica Road

White Abbey Park

White Abbey Park and White Abbey Park

Japonica Road

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (April 9, 1998) from Councillor Norm Kelly, Scarborough Wexford:

As per the recommendation passed by the Scarborough Community Council on April 1, 1998, a community meeting was held on April 7, 1998, at Our Lady of Wisdom School Library. In attendance were: Councillor Kelly, Councillor Tzekas' Constituency Assistant, Parking Enforcement Supervisor, the School Principal, the President of the School's Parents Association, parents of students, and the residents of White Abbey Park with spokesperson Douglas Leggat.

Criticism by the residents of White Abbey Park regarding the introduction of the east-side "No Stopping" parking prohibition on White Abbey Park north of Japonica Road was voiced at the meeting. Upon consulting with the Director of Road and Traffic Services Division about maintaining the existing parking regulation on the east-side of White Abbey north of Japonica Road, he concurred that there's no objection.

I, therefore, recommend that:

(a) Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report dated March 16, 1998, from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, be amended by deleting the words "and stopping", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(2) the parking regulation identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted"; and

(b) Recommendation No. (9) of the Scarborough Community Council be amended by deleting the words "that a community information meeting be held prior to the passing of the Bill, and in the event concerns are raised, that staff report such concerns to City Council, and further," so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(9) that the Toronto Catholic School Board be requested to report on any possible on-site solutions directly to City Council.".

Thank you for your assistance.)

(Councillor Shaw, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared her interest in the foregoing Clause, in that her daughter is a student at Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School, and she is a Member of the school's Parent-Teacher Advisory Council.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install a stop sign on Guildhall Drive at Ellington Drive.

Funding Sources:

The $150.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of this stop sign are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of an area resident, Road and Traffic Services investigated the need for a stop sign on Guildhall Drive at Ellington Drive.

Discussion:

The "T" intersection of Guildhall Drive and Ellington Drive is located in the community in the northwest quadrant of Lawrence Avenue and Warden Avenue. Ellington Drive is a residential collector road and Guildhall Drive is a minor local residential roadway.

Staff have conducted traffic investigations and determined that a stop sign would be beneficial at this intersection. This stop sign would clearly define the right-of-way and stop motorists behind the sidewalk that exists on the west side of Ellington Drive. The installation of this stop sign will not require the trimming or removal of any trees in the area of the sign.

Conclusions:

The installation of a stop sign on Guildhall Drive at Ellington Drive, will improve traffic operation at the intersection and have little impact on boulevard landscaping.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-5061,

Fax: 396-5681,

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2

Intersection Stop Street

Guildhall Drive and Guildhall Drive

Ellington Drive

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To address the need for parking/stopping restrictions on Dunmurray Boulevard adjacent to Pauline Johnson Junior Public School.

Funding Sources:

The $1,000.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the parking/stopping restriction signs are contained in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account Number 20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the stopping regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2) the parking and stopping regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted; and

(3) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of former Scarborough Councillor Ron Watson, on behalf of the principal of Pauline Johnson Junior Public School, Road and Traffic Services conducted traffic studies in the area of this school. The issue of pedestrian safety was examined due to a number of vehicles dropping off and picking up children adjacent to the school.

Discussion:

Pauline Johnson Junior Public School is located on Dunmurray Boulevard to the southwest of Birchmount Road and Huntingwood Drive. Dunmurray Boulevard is a residential roadway with appropriate signs in place to warn approaching motorists of the school area ahead. Currently, there is a "No Stopping, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday - Friday" restriction as well as a School Bus Loading Zone along the southeast/school side of Dunmurray Boulevard. On the northwest side of Dunmurray Boulevard there are no posted parking restrictions.

Parking Observations

Most motorists, when given an option, chose to park along the east side of Dunmurray Boulevard in front of the school. The following table shows the results of these observations:

This table shows that most parents/guardians either ignored the existing stopping restrictions and parked directly against the school or instead chose to use the school's parking lot to park temporarily. Some motorists also parked on the west or opposite of the school side of the road and in so doing, severely restricted the travel portion of the roadway to regular through traffic.

Pedestrian Crossing Observations

Road and Traffic Services staff also recorded the volume and location of pedestrian crossings by the school. Fortunately, no conflicts were recorded between pedestrians and motorists during our studies. The following tables show our observations:

These tables reveal that pedestrian traffic crossing Dunmurray Boulevard is quite light. In addition, although not shown on these tables, many pedestrian movements were associated to those vehicles waiting along side the school and therefore, these pedestrians did not cross over Dunmurray Boulevard.

Collision History

In addition to the studies outlined above, Road and Traffic Services conducted a four-year collision review by the school (from January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1996). No collisions have been reported on Dunmurray Boulevard during this time.

Conclusions:

Alterations to existing on-street parking restrictions along Dunmurray Boulevard would make them more consistent with recent changes to a number of other schools in Scarborough. Essentially, these alterations involve emphasising 'school side' parking and discouraging even 'brief stopping' on the opposite side of the road. This is done by erecting a 30 minute parking limit between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. from Monday to Friday on the southeast side of the road, while posting a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" restriction on the northwest side of the road. If properly adhered to, these restrictions will create sufficient room for approximately 20 vehicles to park temporarily. The school principal has indicated her support for these recommendations.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-5061

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Highway Side From To Times or Days

Dunmurray East Eaglestone Groomsport 7:00 a.m. to

Boulevard Road Crescent 6:00 p.m.

(North Leg) Monday to

Friday

Appendix 2

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Highway Side From To Times or Days

Dunmurray West Eaglestone Groomsport 8:00 a.m. to

Boulevard Road Crescent 4:00 p.m.

(North Monday to

Intersection) Friday

"Parking for Restricted Periods"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5

Maximum

Times Period

Highway Side From To or Days Permitted

Dunmurray East Eaglestone Groomsport 8:00 a.m. to 30 minutes

Boulevard Road Crescent 4:00 p.m.

(North Monday to Friday

Intersection)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To address the concerns of petitioners relating to pedestrian crossing assistance and a northbound bus shelter on Birchmount Road at Merryfield Drive.

Funding Sources:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) traffic control signals or a pedestrian crossover not be installed on Birchmount Road at Merryfield Drive;

(2) a bus shelter not be installed at the northbound bus stop on Birchmount Road and Merryfield Drive; and

(3) staff continue to review the on-passenger usage at the northbound bus stop for possible installation of a bus shelter in the future.

Background:

Road and Traffic Services received a 61 signature petition, on behalf of Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) patrons, requesting the installation of a "pedestrian crosswalk signal and bus shelter" at the intersection of Birchmount Road and Merryfield Drive. Road and Traffic Services investigated both of these issues.

Discussion:

The intersection of Birchmount Road and Merryfield Drive is located between Ellesmere Road and Lawrence Avenue. The west side of the road is industrial while the east side of the road is residential. Traffic control signals exist 410 metres to the north at Laura Secord Drive and 480 metres to the south at Lawrence Avenue. A bus stop exists on both sides of the road and a bus shelter is located on the west side for southbound buses.

Traffic Control Warrants

The justification for the installation of traffic control signals (TCS) and pedestrian crossovers (PXO) is based on technical warrants established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO). The analysis of these warrants is based on data compiled from an eight-hour traffic study.

On Thursday, January 22, 1998, staff conducted an eight-hour traffic study at the intersection of Birchmount Road and Merryfield Drive. This study, to effectively monitor vehicular and pedestrian movements, was conducted from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Application of the required eight-hour study data to the respective MTO Warrants revealed that the minimum traffic volume requirements for the installation of either traffic control signals or a pedestrian crossover are not presently satisfied. A brief summary of our findings as they pertain to each of these Warrants is as follows:

Traffic Control Signal Warrant

To warrant the installation of traffic control signals, compliance levels of 100% are required in one of the above categories or 80% in each.

These findings indicate that there is insufficient vehicular traffic entering the intersection on the minor road, Merryfield Drive and No. 1406 Birchmount Road driveway, to satisfy the Traffic Control Signal Warrant at this time.

Pedestrian Crossover Warrant

To warrant the installation of a pedestrian crossover, compliance levels of 100% are required in both of the above categories.

The PXO Warrant provides an adjustment factor for senior citizens, unassisted children and handicapped pedestrians. However, during our eight-hour study, only adults or youths crossed Birchmount Road in this area.

Our study results revealed that out of these 60 pedestrians crossing Birchmount Road, 80% or 48 pedestrians were generated by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) bus stops located at this intersection. The majority of these pedestrians (40) crossed between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. from the east side of the road to the west side.

Investigation staff specifically noted that with good sight lines of approaching vehicles and adequate gaps in the traffic flow on Birchmount Road, most pedestrians did not experience any difficulties in crossing Birchmount Road in this area.

Collision History

A three-year review of the reported collision history at the intersection of Birchmount Road and Merryfield Drive reveals the following statistics:

Note: Collisions preventable by traffic control signals are those involving traffic which, under signalized conditions, would otherwise move on completely separate signal phases, and theoretically would not conflict.

Bus Shelter

Currently, new bus shelter locations are determined by on-passenger counts supplied by the TTC. Our Bus Shelter Program requires an on-passenger count of 50 or more people per day at a location before it will be considered for a bus shelter.

The most recent count information received from the TTC indicates that the bus stop located at the intersection of Birchmount Road & Merryfield Drive for northbound travel does not meet this requirement. An on-passenger count conducted on Wednesday, April 30, 1997, revealed a total of only 11 people boarding buses at this bus stop. We observed similar on-passenger usage during our January 22, 1998 pedestrian crossover study.

Therefore, based on this low on-passenger count, a bus shelter is not warranted at this location.

Conclusions:

In summary, based on the results of our investigations, neither traffic control signals nor a pedestrian crossover is warranted at the intersection of Birchmount Road & Merryfield Drive at this time.

Please note that many other similar locations exist throughout Toronto that do not meet the minimum requirements for the installation of additional traffic controls. Therefore, at these locations, we can only encourage motorists and pedestrians to wait until a suitable safe gap occurs in the traffic flow to safely enter or cross the major road.

A bus shelter for northbound travel at this intersection is not warranted at this time. However, we will review the on-passenger updates as we receive them from the TTC.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-5061

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director, Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install a stop sign on Charity Road at Safari Street.

Funding Sources:

The $150.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of this stop sign are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of a resident of Charity Road, Road and Traffic Services investigated the need for a stop sign southbound on Charity Road at Safari Street.

Discussion:

The intersection of Charity Road and Safari Street is located in the community to the south of Eglinton Avenue and to the west of Midland Avenue. At present, the northerly extension of Charity Road, where it intersects with Benjamin Boulevard, is controlled by stop controls for both northbound and southbound traffic.

Therefore, in an effort to maintain area uniformity, as well as clearly defining the right-of-way at the intersection of Charity Road and Safari Street, a stop control is proposed for this location. The installation of this stop sign will not require the removal or trimming of trees.

Conclusions:

The installation of a stop sign on Charity Road at Safari Street, will improve traffic operation at the intersection by defining the right-of-way.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works and Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-5061,

Fax: 396-5681,

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2

Intersection Stop Street

Charity Road and Charity Road

Safari Street

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To investigate the need for a stop sign on Newmains Court at Evenwood Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The $150.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of this stop sign are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of a resident of Clossen Drive, Road and Traffic Services investigated the need for a stop sign southbound on Newmains Court at Evenwood Avenue.

Discussion:

The intersection of Newmains Court and Evenwood Avenue is located in the community to the north of Lawson Road and to the west of Centennial Road. Newmains Court is an undeveloped residential road with only one house constructed thus far.

Staff have conducted traffic investigations and determined that a stop sign would be beneficial on Newmains Court at Evenwood Avenue. This stop sign would clearly define the right-of-way at this location. The installation of this stop sign will not require the trimming or removal of any trees in the area of the sign.

Conclusions:

The installation of a stop sign on Newmains Court at Evenwood Avenue will improve traffic operation at the intersection by defining the right-of-way.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road & Traffic Services, Works & Environment, Scarborough District

Phone: 396-5061

Fax: 396-5681

Email: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2

Intersection Stop Street

Newmains Court Newmains Court

and Evenwood Avenue

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install a stop sign on Piperbrook Crescent at Ling Road.

Funding Sources:

The $150.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of this stop sign are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Background:

Road and Traffic Services staff investigated the need for a stop sign on Piperbrook Crescent at Ling Road due to the recent development of a residential community to the southeast.

Discussion:

The intersection of Piperbrook Crescent and Ling Road is located to the east of Morningside Avenue, south of Lawrence Avenue. Ling Road connects to both arterial roadways, therefore, a stop control on Piperbrook Crescent at Ling Road is considered necessary. It is anticipated that the stop control will be in place prior to the completion of a new residential development, located on the southeast extension of Piperbrook Crescent.

A stop sign at this intersection will also clearly define the right-of-way and stop motorists behind the existing sidewalk. The installation of this stop sign will not require the trimming or removal of any trees in the area of the sign.

Conclusions:

The installation of a stop sign on Piperbrook Crescent at Ling Road, will improve traffic operation at the intersection by defining the right-of-way.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works & Environment, Scarborough District

Telephone: 396-5061

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2

Intersection Stop Street

Piperbrook Crescent and Piperbrook Crescent

Ling Road

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install a stop sign on Bush Gate at Bush Drive.

Funding Sources:

The $150.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of this stop sign are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of Councillor Faubert, on behalf of a resident of Bush Drive, Road and Traffic Services investigated the need for a stop sign westbound on Bush Gate at Bush Drive.

Discussion:

The intersection of Bush Gate and Bush Drive is located in the community to the north of Old Kingston Road, west of Morrish Road. At present, there is a stop control on Bush Gate where it intersects at Morrish Road.

Staff have conducted traffic investigations and determined that a stop sign would be beneficial at this intersection. This stop sign would clearly define the right-of-way at this location as well as providing area uniformity. The installation of this stop sign may require minor trimming of tree branches, however, this can be better determined upon completion of the sign installation.

Conclusions:

The installation of a stop sign on Bush Gate at Bush Drive, will improve traffic operation at the intersection by defining the right-of-way.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road & Traffic Services, Works & Environment, Scarborough District

Fax: 396-5681,

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1 Column 2

Intersection Stop Street

Bush Gate and Bush Gate

Bush Drive

Canadian National Railways Crossing

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To enter into a cost-sharing agreement with Canadian National Railways with respect to the installation of safety warning gates at the CN Rail Crossing on Passmore Avenue between Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

It is estimated that the total cost of the installation of the safety warning gates is $ 83,612.30. Historically, the road authority is responsible for 12.5 percent of the total cost of any new installations, which in this case would be approximately $10,451.54. The balance of the cost will be paid by CN Railways and by Transport Canada (pending grant approval). Currently, there is funding for this provision, included in the 1998 Current Budget under Account Number 20000-70200-72420-542.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the City of Toronto enter into a cost-sharing agreement dated January 5, 1998 with Canadian National Railways to provide 12.5 percent of the cost of the installation of safety warning gates at the Canadian National Railways Crossing on Passmore Avenue between Kennedy Road and Midland Avenue; and

(2) that appropriate City officials be authorized to sign the cost-sharing agreement.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On September 30, 1997, this railway crossing was the site of a fatal incident in which a passenger vehicle was struck by a GO train as the vehicle crossed the railway tracks. In addition, a fatality occurred back in 1991 when a vehicle collided with a train at this crossing. After the first fatality an attempt to install gates at this crossing was unsuccessful due to the close proximity of the railway track switches to the crossing. The significant train activity immediately north of this crossing would have caused the gates to be lowered at times when trains were not actually crossing Passmore Avenue. Since that time this train activity has ceased and it is now possible to install the gates without causing any traffic problems on Passmore Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The installation of crossing gates would be similar to the type existing at many level railway crossings in the city. Crossing gates would provide a safer environment for trains and vehicles to travel at this location.

Conclusions:

This railway crossing has a history of two traffic fatalities which occurred because of collisions with moving trains. The installation of safety gates at this CN Railway crossing will provide an additional safety feature at this crossing. The City will be required to pay approximately $10,451.54 which represents 12.5 percent of the total cost of the installation.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works & Environment, Scarborough District

Phone: 396-5061

Fax: 396-5681

Email: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that Council:

(1) refuse the subject application; and

(2) direct the City Solicitor to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in support of this position.

The Scarborough Community Council:

(1) reports having requested that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, report directly to City Council on April 15, 1998 on the responses received from the two School Boards; and

(2) submits the following report (March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To report further to Scarborough Community Council as directed on February 18, 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the Scarborough Community Council defer consideration of this application until applications for rezoning and draft plan of subdivision are submitted to enable staff to thoroughly assess the impact of the proposed official plan amendment.

Background:

Scarborough Community Council on February 18, 1998, deferred my Preliminary Evaluation Report dated February 5, 1998, to permit consultation with the community and also requested that I obtain comments from the two School Boards and report their response to the April 1, 1998 meeting.

Comments:

(1) It was understood at the Scarborough Community Council meeting on February 18, 1998, that Councillor Ron Moeser indicated his intention to consult with the community regarding this Official Plan Amendment application and the deferral would allow the opportunity to do so. My staff were not invited to participate in any information meetings or sessions in this regard.

(2) I have requested the Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division, and the Toronto Catholic School Board to comment upon the proposed Official Plan Amendment. To date, only the Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division has replied through its Solicitors, Borden & Elliot, whose letter is attached to this report.

The School Board strongly objects to the proposal to reduce the area of the Community Facilities and School designations within the Secondary Plan (OPA No. 858). The Board further requests a copy of the application P98001 and timely notice of all future applications, reports and meetings scheduled with respect to the former Manson Insulation Inc. property.

The Toronto Catholic School Board has not responded to date, however, I will report further upon receipt of its comments.

(3) Solicitors for Yellow Moon Homes, on February 23, 1998, appealed the Official Plan Amendment Application P98001 to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to S.22 (7) (a) of the Planning Act on the basis of failure by the Council of the City of Toronto to give Notice of a public meeting within forty-five (45) days of submission of their client's application. The appeal by Davies, Howe Partners is attached.

(4) PMG Planning Consultants, on behalf of Yellow Moon Homes, on March 9, 1998, submitted a revised draft plan of subdivision to the City and the Ontario Municipal Board. This revised plan reflects the community park and schools sites reductions proposed in Official Plan Amendment application P98001 and is submitted as a revision to draft plan of subdivision No. 55T-95015 already under appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board.

(5) A pre-hearing date at the Ontario Municipal Board has been scheduled on April 27, 1998, with respect to the appealed applications.

Contact Name:

Carl Januszczak, MCIP, RPP.

Principal Planner, Community Planning Division

Phone: (416) 396-7034; Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: januszcz@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Scarborough Community Council also submits the following report (February 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

PMG Planning Consultants has submitted an official plan amendment to amend the General Policy of the Port Union Village Community Secondary Plan which requires that a minimum of 2.6 hectares of land shall be made available for new schools for both the Public and Separate School Boards in combination with a minimum 3.2 hectare community park. The amendment proposes to amend this policy to reduce the minimum area required for new schools to 2.4 hectares and to 2.6 hectares for the community park.

Recommendations:

That the Scarborough Community Council defer consideration of this application until applications for rezoning and a draft plan of subdivision are submitted to enable staff to thoroughly assess the impact of the proposed official plan amendment.

Background:

Council, on September 16, 1997, considered my Preliminary Evaluation Report on applications to amend the zoning by-law and for a draft plan of subdivision submitted by PMG Planning Consultants for the property commonly referred to as the Manson lands. The applications proposed to permit the redevelopment of approximately 9.8 hectares (24 acres) for 26 single detached and 158 street townhouses, including a block for the consolidation of an elementary school site and blocks for park and the Village Common. In considering my report, Council refused the applications as submitted.

Solicitors for Yellow Moon Homes Inc. (the prospective purchasers of the Manson lands) subsequently appealed both the rezoning and draft plan of subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board. To date neither a pre-hearing nor a hearing date has been scheduled.

Comments:

As stated by the applicants the purpose of the Official Plan amendment is to reduce the minimum size of the community park and the school blocks to implement their "modified" draft plan of subdivision. However, until such time as the applicants have filed new rezoning and draft plan of subdivision applications to supplement their requested Official Plan Amendment, it would be premature to consider this application.

Contact Name:

Carl Januszczak, MCIP, RPP.

Principal Planner, Community Planning Division

Phone: (416)396-7034

Fax: (416)396-4265

Email: januszc@city.scarborough.on.ca

Mr. Michael Melling, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners, appeared before the Community Council, on behalf of Yellow Moon Homes Inc., in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Scarborough Community Council also submits the following communication (March 12, 1998 ) from Mr. Rick F. Coburn, Solicitor, Borden and Elliot:

"I have been given for reply a copy of your letter dated March 5, 1998 addressed to the Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division. By way of background, we appeared as counsel for the former Scarborough Board of Education during the lengthy hearing in respect of the Port Union Village Secondary Plan (OPA No. 858) held by the Ontario Municipal Board. The hearing resulted in the designation of certain lands for Community Facilities-Schools within the Plan boundaries, including lands owned at that time by Manson Insulation Inc.

By your letter of March 5, 1998, our client received notice that on February 18, 1998, the Scarborough Community Council considered a Preliminary Evaluation Report by City staff concerning proposed Official Plan Amendment P98001 by 1144070 Ontario Ltd. and PMG Planning Consultants. According to the Preliminary Evaluation Report, and accompanying draft plan of subdivision, the applicants propose to reduce the size of the school blocks designated pursuant to OPA No. 858 from 2.6 to 2.4 hectares. In addition, the applicants propose to reduce the area of the adjoining community park from 3.2 hectares to 2.6 hectares.

A cursory review of the OMB's decision will confirm that both the public and the separate school boards were active participants in the hearing with respect to OPA No. 858. The OMB gave its approval for the Community Facilities-Schools designation after hearing extensive evidence from both school boards regarding the need for a school site of adequate size and configuration. This evidence included architectural and site planning evidence regarding the severe constraints imposed by a site of only 2.6 hectares, and the need for an adjoining park to accommodate school activities. In our submission, any further reduction in the size of the designated area for the school site or the adjacent park will severely compromise the viability of the school site and the ability of the school boards to provide adequate school services.

Accordingly, please be advised that our client strongly objects to the application to reduce the area of the Community Facilities - School designation within OPA No. 858. We respectfully request a copy of the application P98001 and timely notice of all future applications, reports and meetings scheduled with respect to the former Manson Insulation Inc. property."

The Scarborough Community Council also submits the following communication (March 25, 1998 ) from Mr. Peter P. Kole, Senior Co-ordinator of Planning, Toronto Catholic School Board:

"The above-noted Official Plan Amendment Application proposes to reduce the size of the schools and park blocks from 2.6 to 2.4 hectares and from 3.2 to 2.6 hectares respectively.

The location and size of these blocks were designated by OPA No. 858 (Port Union Village Secondary Plan), which was the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing. Evidence was provided by both the separate and public school boards with respect to the need for a school site, and site planning matters pertaining to size, location and configuration.

The purpose of a jointly developed schools/park campus by the City of Toronto (formerly Scarborough), and the separate and public school boards is to maximize efficiencies and reduce the need for scarce resources. This was achieved during the review of OPA No. 858 and further scrutinized during the OMB hearing.

Based on the foregoing, the Toronto Catholic School Board will oppose the current application to reduce the size of the school site and park blocks."

The Scarborough Community Council also submits the following communication (March 26, 1998 ) from Mr. Michael Melling, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners:

"We are counsel to Yellow Moon Homes Inc. Our client has entered into an agreement of purchase and sale in respect of 5241 Lawrence Avenue East, which is the subject of the above-referenced application. We are in receipt of the March 16th, 1998 "Preliminary Evaluation Report No. 2" of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings respecting this matter.

Please be advised that our client objects, in the strongest possible terms, to the report's recommendation. First, our client is opposed to the suggestion that it be required to file new applications for a rezoning and plan of subdivision. As the report itself notes, our client has already filed such applications, which are currently under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board. Second, it is our client's position that a public meeting should be held as soon as possible.

With respect to the first point, the Community Council will be aware from previous correspondence under my signature that our client's Official Plan Amendment ("OPA") application arose out of without-prejudice discussions with City staff of our client's by-law and subdivision applications. During those discussions, we were advised that the staff viewed an OPA application as essential. Our client has never agreed with staff's position. However, in the spirit of cooperation, and in the hope that the discussions could be concluded with a full settlement, our client agreed to file the OPA application. Disappointingly, this concession has now been turned against our client, and the application is being used as the basis for a highly technical and frankly unsupportable procedural objections.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, and our strong view that new applications are unnecessary, I have today sent a letter to the City's solicitor, a copy of which is transmitted herewith, in which I indicate that, in the spirit of continued cooperation, we will recommend to our client that new applications for rezoning and a plan of subdivision be filed so long as the City waives any and all fees associated therewith and agreed to cooperate fully in getting the new applications processed and before the OMB as soon as possible.

With respect to the report declining to recommend a public meeting, I wish to advise the Community Council that it is our client's very strong belief that a public meeting should be called as soon as possible. The OPA application should be presented at it, along with the revised zoning and plan of subdivision, which reflect changes made in response to staff's comments at the without-prejudice meetings. Our client is prepared to cooperate fully in planning and conducting such a meeting.

Our client believes that the City has an obligation to the community to hold a public meeting. This belief is strong enough that, if the Community Council adopts the report's recommendation on April 1st, and declines to call a public meeting, our client will call one itself.

We therefore urge that you reject the report's recommendation and, instead:

1. schedule a public meeting to consider the OPA application and the amended zoning by-law and plan of subdivision; and

2. instruct staff that:

2.1 new zoning and subdivision applications are not required; or

2.2 if such applications are to be required, that the City will waive all associated fees, and will take all possible steps to ensure that such applications are processed and brought before the OMB as quickly as possible.

We are grateful for your kind consideration."

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Building and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

To report to City Council on the responses received from the two School Boards with respect to Official Plan Amendment Application SP98001 as directed by Scarborough Community Council.

Recommendations:

For the information of City Council.

Background:

(1) Scarborough Community Council on April 2, 1998 directed that I report directly to Council on the responses by the Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division, and the Toronto Catholic School Board, with respect to Official Plan Amendment Application SP98001.

(2) Official Plan Amendment Application SP98001 proposes to reduce the planned sizes of the community and neighbourhood park and the combined public and separate school site.

The Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division, has replied through its solicitors, Borden and Elliott, whose letter dated March 12, 1998 is attached to this report.

The Toronto Catholic School Board replied by letter dated March 25, 1998, attached to this report.

Comments:

(1) Both Boards have advised that they will oppose the proposal to reduce the subject planned school and park sites, which were an issue at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in 1994, concerning Official Plan Amendment No. 858 (The Port Union Village Community Secondary Plan).

(2) In the absence of a comprehensive review by staff of a revised draft plan application together with comments from other City agencies and departments, I am unable to comment further with respect to the School Boards' replies.

Contact Name:

Carl Januszczak, MCIP, RPP., Principal Planner, Community Planning Division,

Phone: (416) 396-7034, Fax: (416) 396-4265, E-mail: januszcz@city.scarborough.on.ca.)

(A copy of each of the communications, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

(1) To report to Council on the comments raised at the February 9, 1998 community information meeting; and

(2) to obtain instructions for the City Solicitor regarding the City's position at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for April 20, 1998.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Scarborough Community Council recommend that the Council of the City of Toronto direct the City Solicitor to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the submitted applications on the basis of the following:

A. Official Plan

That the Rouge Community Secondary Plan be amended with respect to the lands located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue, being Part of Lots 1, Concession 2, by deleting from Numbered Policy 17 all references to "a Tourist Information Centre is considered to be a Primary Use" and retaining provision for a Tourist Information Centre as a use. In addition, the Numbered Policy also be amended to permit a service station including a car wash, convenience store and restaurant as a primary use on the property.

B. Zoning By-law

That the Rouge Community Zoning By-law No. 15907, as amended, with respect to the lands located at the northwest corner of Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue, being Part of Lot 1, Concession 2, be amended as follows:

(1) delete the requirement that a service station and car wash buildings only be permitted within 50 metres (164 feet) of the westerly lot line;

(2) delete Subsection 3.1 from the text from Exception Number 3 and replace it as follows:

Notwithstanding the uses permitted in the Office Uses (OU) zone, only the following uses shall be permitted:

- Offices, Places of Worship, Tourist Information Centre, and a Service Station which includes ancillary restaurant and mechanical and automatic car wash uses;

C. Council authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the said Official Plan and Zoning By-law to properly carry out the intent of the resolution;

D. Site Plan Control:

(1) that the concept for the proposed service station development, as generally indicated on the drawing entitled, "Site Plan" (Figure 2) dated February 9, and"Elevation Plans" (Figures 3 & 4) dated February 19, 1998, be supported, subject to the owner and the City entering into and registering on title, the City's Site Plan Control Agreement incorporating the following provisions:

1.1 all refuse storage is to be contained within the buildings;

1.2 site lighting is to be constructed such that the angle of illumination does not extend onto the adjacent public streets;

1.3 all mechanical and other equipment located on the roof must be screened or integrated into the profile of the buildings to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, and any changes to the roofline as denoted on the drawings shall constitute a change to the site plan, which must have prior written approval of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings;

1.4 all work required by this agreement is to be completed within two years from the date the agreement is registered on title;

(2) prior to the issuance of final Site Plan Control Approval, the owner is to revise the site plan to address the following matters:

2.1 revise the stacking lane for the car wash; and

2.2 provide additional landscaping and signage details for the corner of Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue;

(2) Council deem the sign proposed to identify the Community or the City to be located at the corner of Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue to be an Official Sign; and

(3) Council direct staff to hold a further Community Information Meeting with those in attendance at the February 9, 1998 meeting to obtain the community's comments on the site plan revisions.

Background:

Imperial Oil Limited is proposing to develop the vacant .76 hectares (1.8 acres) located at the northwest corner of Sheppard Avenue and Kingston Road with a service station complex consisting of gas pumps, a 230 square metres (2,500 square feet) tunnel car wash and a 200 square metres (2,150 square feet) kiosk building containing a food outlet and tourist information display area at a total density of 12 percent of the area of the lot.

In order to permit the proposed uses the applicants filed applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to remove the provisions which require the owner to construct a tourist information centre as a primary use and to remove the zoning restrictions requiring the service station and car wash buildings to be located a maximum of 50 square metres (160 feet) from the westerly lot line.

Due to Council's failure to make a decision on these applications, the applicant appealed the applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. A full hearing on the three matters is scheduled for April 20, 1998.

The subject site is designated Office Uses in the Rouge Community Secondary Plan and by a Numbered Policy a tourist information centre is permitted as a Primary Use. The tourist information centre is intended to provide information and services for the benefit and assistance of the travelling public with respect to accommodation, food, recreation sightseeing and similar services such as a gift shop and restaurant. Service stations, including a car wash, may be permitted only in conjunction with a Tourist Information Centre.

The land is zoned Office Uses (OU) permitting only Offices, Places of Worship and a Tourist Information Centre. By exception, a restaurant, gift shop, service station and car wash uses are permitted in conjunction with a Tourist Information Centre. The By-law defines a Tourist Information Centre as a centre which provides information for the benefit and assistance of the travelling public with respect to accommodation, food, recreation, sightseeing and similar services.

The site is under Site Plan Control and an application to implement the proposed uses has been submitted.

Council, in considering the Preliminary Evaluation Report on these applications, directed staff to convene a Community Information Meeting and report back to Council regarding the concerns raised at the meeting and to provide Council with recommendations with respect to the further processing of the applications.

Community Information Meeting

A Community Information Meeting was held on February 9, 1998, attended by sixteen members of the public and the Ward Councillors. In summary, the following comments were raised at this meeting:

(1) Concern was expressed that full turning movements should be provided to the site at both driveway locations. Concerns were raised that if a tourist information centre was constructed, a significant volume of traffic may infiltrate into the community. Concern was also raised that the number of traffic accidents may increase at this intersection as a result of this application.

(2) Concern was expressed on site plan matters regarding how garbage would be handled on site and whether there would be sufficient garbage containers to ensure garbage did not blow around the site; adequacy of lighting; potential fumes and spills; on site security measures; noise; and the hours of operation. In addition, the residents indicated that the Landscape Plan should be revised to reflect the importance of the intersection. Signage should also be provided identifying the community name and/or the City of Toronto.

(3) One individual expressed concern that the City would be ill served by another gas bar at what should be a gateway to the City of Toronto. It was suggested that the corner should be used as a tourist information centre such as the one by Shell in Mississauga along Highway 401.

Comments:

(1) The applicant has submitted a traffic study which has been reviewed by Transportation Staff, who have indicated that the proposal will function well with no adverse impact on the surrounding road network. Staff confirm that full turning movements will be permitted at both driveway locations. On site operations have also been reviewed based on a review of other similar sites and staff conclude that the site will operate safely.

(2) The proposed service station and convenience store will operate 24 hours a day. On site surveillance cameras and adequate lighting will be provided to ensure the safety of the patrons and employees. Lighting will be erected in such a manner so as to minimize the impacts on surrounding properties, particularly the condominium building to the north and residential dwelling to the east. On site garbage receptacles and two enclosed garbage rooms will be provided to minimize on-site litter. These matters will be included as part of the site plan control agreement.

The owner has committed to work with the community and staff to improve the landscaping treatment at the corner of Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue. Discussion has occurred with representatives of the applicant and staff regarding improvements/enhancements to the Site and Landscape Plans to address these concerns. At the time of writing this report revised plans had not been submitted but are expected to be submitted prior to the Community Council meeting. Staff will advise Council of the proposed changes.

Signage identifying the community name is proposed to be included on the revised plans. Staff and the applicant are in agreement that the location of a sign identifying either the City or the community is appropriate at this location. My recommendation requires that signage details be provided prior to the final Site Plan Control approval. However, the zoning does not permit a third party sign on this site. As it is not desirable to remove this prohibition, given the proposed nature of the signage, Council could deem the sign to be an official sign, thereby permitting its incorporation into the site plan while still restricting any other form of third party signage.

(3) Council has already made provision for the proposed uses on this site, subject to the provision of a Tourist Information Centre. In the absence of public monies to construct such a facility it is unlikely that such a use will be developed on this property.

Staff recommend that the Tourist Information Centre continue to be permitted as a use. In the event funds become available to the City of Toronto or Imperial Oil to construct a Tourist

Information Centre, the use would be permitted and there would be no need to amend the Official Plan or Zoning By-law. In the interim, the applicant is prepared to provide an area for maps, brochures, et cetera, of events and facilities within the City of Toronto.

(4) In light of the scheduled Ontario Municipal Board hearing date of April 20, 1998, it will be impossible for staff to prepare a Public Notice and Recommendation Report for Council's consideration. It is staffs' opinion that the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments can be supported subject to revisions to the Site Plan.

Contact Name:

Kerri Voumvakis, Manager

Phone: (416) 396-7033

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-Mail: voumvak@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

Harmony Developments I Inc. requests approval of a Draft Plan of Condominium for a 99 unit townhouse complex which will constitute the first phase of a development known as Harmony Village. The project is currently under construction on a site bounded by Sheppard Avenue, Meadowvale Road and Hedge End Road, as shown on Figure 1.

This development represents one of the first examples of the "neo-traditional" urbanism in the Scarborough area. All, but seven units, have direct building presence and pedestrian connections onto the abutting streets, with individual garages accessible through a private lane (Figure 2). A total of 164 parking spaces are provided, including 146 spaces for the residential units and 18 spaces for visitors. Additional visitor parking is provided within the second phase of the project, which is proposed on the north side of Hedge End Road. A Site Plan Control Agreement registered on November 17, 1997 covers the entire Harmony Village project (Figure 3).

The application was circulated to various technical agencies, none of which indicated objections. Agency requirements have been incorporated into the conditions of approval.

The application complies with the Medium Density Residential Official Plan designation and the Zoning By-law provisions applicable to the site.

Recommendations:

That Council support the Draft Plan of Condominium C97062 for Harmony Developments I Inc., with respect to the north-west corner of Meadowvale Road and Sheppard Avenue East, being Blocks 1 and 10, Registered Plan 66M-2308, subject to the following conditions:

(1) plan with changes in red stamped "Recommended" this date (see Figure 2);

(2) the owner to sign the City's Standard Tax Agreement for payment of taxes and local improvement charges;

(3) the owner shall be responsible for distributing the Scarborough "Condominium" brochures supplied by the Works and Environment Department;

(4) the owner to complete all conditions of the site plan approval prior to registration, insofar as it applies to the proposed draft plan, or enter into a Financially Secured Development Agreement with the City secured by a performance guarantee in a form and amount satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to guarantee completion of the site work if the owner chooses to register the condominium prior to the completion of the project;

(5) the owner to make satisfactory arrangements with the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission (Scarborough Office) with regard to water and electrical servicing, including any agreements and/or easements that may be required; and

(6) prior to registration, the owner shall submit the final Condominium Description and Declaration for the approval of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, to ensure access to visitor parking on Block 2, Registered Plan 66M-2308 (Phase 2 of the Harmony Village development) by the owners and visitors of the proposed condominium.

Contact Name:

Anna Czajkowski, Senior Planner

Community Planning Division

Phone: (416) 396-7022

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: czajkows@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends adoption of the following report (March 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

Intracorp Developments (Rouge Hill) Limited is constructing 159 townhouses and

semi-detached units on lands located on the south side of Lawrence Avenue, east of Port Union Road (Figure 1). The subject lots are already established through the registration of the subdivision. This application seeks approval to lift Part Lot Control on 159 lots, thereby allowing the registration of easements for maintenance and encroachment of overhangs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council enact a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law with respect to the following lots on Registered Plan M-2313:

Semi-detached Street Townhouses

Lot No. 70 through 97 and Lot No. 1 through 69 and

Lot No. 126 through 159 Lot No. 98 through 125

(2) the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law shall be repealed one (1) year from the date of the passing of the by-law;

(3) all conveyances which occur after the exemption from Part Lot Control shall be in accordance with the reference plan(s) approved by the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings prior to the plan(s) being deposited in the Land Registry Office; and

(4) that Council authorize any unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the exemption by-law as may be required to give effect to this resolution.

Comments:

Section 50(7) of The Planning Act, 1990, authorizes the lifting of Part Lot Control on lots within a registered plan. Although the semi-detached and street townhouse lots were established as individual freehold parcels on the registered plan, parts of wall elements and roof structures such as eaves and soffits from one unit will encroach upon the adjacent parcel, depending upon the design and siting of adjacent dwellings. Easements for maintenance purposes are necessary to allow access between adjacent dwellings.

There are no Official Plan or zoning concerns raised by this application.

A plan of subdivision has been registered since November 10, 1997. Two Site Plan Control Agreements have been registered on the title of this property, one for five model homes along Lawrence Avenue and another one covering the remainder of the lots. The latter was registered on January 20, 1998.

The preparation of reference plans for these encroachments and easements, reviewed by the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings prior to registration on title, will ensure municipal monitoring and control and will ensure that the deposited plans reflect Council's approval. A technical circulation has been undertaken with no concerns reported to date. No development agreement is required as a subdivision agreement is already in effect.

Conclusions:

The lifting of Part Lot Control on the subject lands will facilitate the implementation of a highly desirable development already endorsed by Council.

Contact Name:

Alicia I. Bulwik, MCIP, RPP.

Senior Planner, Community Planning Division

Phone: (416) 396-7023

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: bulwik@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

Carma Developers Limited intends to construct 53 rear lane townhouses with detached rear yard garages on lands located on the southwest quadrant of Lawrence Avenue and Bridgeport Drive (Figure 1). The subject lots are already established through the registration of the subdivision. This application seeks approval to lift Part Lot Control on 53 lots, thereby allowing the registration of easements for maintenance and encroachment of overhangs.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council enact a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law with respect to Lots 81 to 133 inclusive on Registered Plan M-2292;

(2) the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law shall be repealed one (1) year from the date of the passing of the by-law;

(3) all conveyances which occur after the exemption from Part Lot Control shall be in accordance with the reference plan(s) approved by the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings prior to the plan(s) being deposited in the Land Registry Office; and

(4) Council authorize any unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the exemption by-law as may be required to give effect to this resolution.

Comments:

Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, 1990, authorizes the lifting of Part Lot Control on lots within a registered plan. Although the townhouse lots were established as individual freehold parcels on the registered plan, parts of wall elements and roof structures such as eaves and soffits from one unit will encroach upon the adjacent parcel, depending upon the design and siting of adjacent dwellings. Easements for maintenance purposes are necessary to allow access between adjacent dwellings.

There are no Official Plan or zoning concerns raised by this application.

A plan of subdivision has been registered since September 12, 1995. A Site Plan Control application has been filed depicting house sitting, landscaping and building elevations and it is currently being reviewed by staff.

The preparation of reference plans for these encroachments and easements, reviewed by the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings prior to registration on title, will ensure municipal monitoring and control and will ensure that the deposited plans reflect Council's approval. A technical circulation has been undertaken with no concerns reported to date. No development agreement is required as a subdivision agreement is already in effect.

Conclusions:

The lifting of Part Lot Control on the subject lands will facilitate the implementation of a highly desirable development already endorsed by the former Scarborough Council.

Contact Name:

Alicia I. Bulwik, MCIP, RPP.

Senior Planner, Community Planning Division

Phone: (416) 396-7023

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: bulwik@city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, subject to amending the recommendations to read as follows:

"It is recommended that:

(1) Council direct the City Solicitor not to attend any Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to Minor Variance Application SA13/98; and

(2) Council direct the City Solicitor to attend any Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to Minor Variance Application A365/97 (43 Alanbull Square)."

Purpose:

This report seeks direction from Council as to the City Solicitor's role at pending Ontario Municipal Board hearings on two current appeals, as further detailed below.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council direct the City Solicitor not to attend any Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to Minor Variance Applications A365/97 and SA13/98.

Comments:

(1) Minor Variance Application SA13/98

Joseph Paul Inc. and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 1016

705 Middlefield Road, Unit 112

Tapscott Employment District - Scarborough Malvern

On February 11, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment approved a minor variance application for Unit 112 to permit a 930 square metres (10,000 square feet) Place of Worship for a temporary period of two years with no additional parking provided (as detailed in the decision). Robert Santacroce and General Printing, owners of the above-mentioned condominium unit, have now appealed that decision, as the proposed use would not be compatible with the existing industrial uses of the condominium complex. The Committee of Adjustment has granted similar requests to permit places of worship in multiple-unit buildings. These approvals are consistent with Council's Official Plan Policy wherein applicants are encouraged to apply for minor variance pursuant to the Planning Act for this type of proposal. As this matter relates to dispute among the unit owners of the condominium, the appeal does not raise issues of significance to the corporation to warrant expenditure of the City's limited resources on a Board hearing.

(2) Minor Variance Application A365/97

Caroline Chiang

43 Alanbull Square

Milliken Community - Scarborough Malvern

The owner has appealed the February 11, 1998 decision of the Committee of Adjustment to refuse a minor variance to permit a one storey rear addition having a minimum building setback of 5.1 metres (16.7 feet) from the rear lot line, whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard building setback of 7.5 metres (25 feet) (as detailed in the attached decision). Approval of the variance would have permitted approximately 16.3 square metres (175 square feet) of additional living space for a total building floor area of 201.7 square metres (2,172 square feet). The appeal does not raise issues of significance to the Corporation to warrant expenditure of the City's limited resources on the Board hearing.

Contact Name:

Euken Lui, Planner

(416) 396-7015

(416) 396-4265 Fax Number

lui@city.scarborough.on.ca

(A copy of the material, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of the Scarborough Community Council with the Agenda for the meeting on April 1, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to seek Scarborough Community Council endorsement to proceed with efforts to preserve a significant Red Oak (Quercus rubra) in the Romac Drive Extension (Residential Subdivision No. T96002) road allowance. This Red Oak is one of the most significant and mature trees in Scarborough and adds considerably to the beauty and character of the area. It is situated in the middle of the proposed Romac Drive Extension and its preservation has been the subject of considerable study. The constraints of protecting the tree include increased costs of servicing the site and the long-term viability of the tree.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost of servicing the site in a manner to preserve the Red Oak is $110,000.00. Funding for the preservation of the Red Oak in Residential Subdivision No. T96002, is available from the Tree Reserve Fund, Account No. 71691.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Council approve the plan to preserve the Red Oak (Quercus rubra) on the Romac Drive Extension and authorize the expenditure of the necessary funding, from Tree Reserve Fund Account No. 71691; and

(2) that appropriate City staff be authorized to take the necessary action to proceed with the recommended preservation plan.

Background:

On April 29, 1997, Planning and Buildings received a draft plan of approval from Council for a subdivision (Draft Plan of Subdivision Application No. T96002) which will extend Romac Drive in the Highland Creek Community of Scarborough. The plan of subdivision creates 18 single family lots.

A preliminary tree preservation plan was developed, however, Parks and Recreation found it to be incomplete as it had not considered adequate tree preservation. During the plan review process, a tree preservation plan was resubmitted which recommended the preservation of approximately 35 trees of the 144 identified on the site.

The most significant of these is a four-stemmed, Red Oak (Quercus rubra, approximately 1000 millimetre caliper), originally identified for removal. The tree is recognized as one of the largest, most mature Red Oaks in Scarborough, however it is also located in the middle of the proposed extension of Romac Drive. The remaining trees identified in the tree preservation plan are to be preserved as part of the subdivision.

In discussion with the City staff prior to August 11, 1997, when By-Law Number 25150 had been implemented, it was recognized and confirmed in writing that the applicant had received the building permit before that date and had been legally in a position to remove the tree.

An arborist was retained by the applicant to develop a viable preservation plan for the oak. The arborist made several recommendations for the preservation of the tree, including no excavation in the dripline (a 15 metre radius dripline), the maintenance of all existing topsoil within the road allowance and the curb and gutter system is to be located no closer than three metres from the base of the tree.

In order to preserve the tree, a raised island must be incorporated in the road design. The engineering firm retained by the applicant prepared a total estimated construction cost of $110,000.00 for the road design and implementing the preservation plan. The cost estimate includes the construction of a toe wall on the south side of the tree preservation zone. This cost can be reduced if Parks and Recreation constructs the wall. This cost estimate includes only the engineering costs associated with servicing the site and does not include any of the necessary arboricultural maintenance such as fertilization, pruning, cabling or on-going maintenance.

Servicing is possible despite the preservation requirements of the tree. The use of alternative technology for excavation in the dripline would protect the oak and allow for servicing of individual lots.

Justification:

Due to the significance of the Red Oak in the community of Scarborough, the preservation is justified. Funds are available in the Tree Reserve Fund, Account No. 71691 and the tree's protection will add character and aesthetics to the subdivision.

The projected cost of preservation of this tree has been scrutinized by Works and Environment Department staff and Public Utilities Commission staff and assessed as realistic.

Conclusions:

Site servicing for the proposed development should be carried out in a manner that will preserve the Red Oak. The significant size and excellent condition of this tree is worth the effort in conservation and preservation. The tree would become the responsibility of the City, if preservation were achieved, and all maintenance would ultimately be carried out by Parks and Recreation Forestry Services.

Contact Name:

Tom Tusek, Director

Parks, Planning and Urban Forestry

Telephone: 396-7377

Facsimile: 396-5399

E-Mail: tusek@ city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(a) approved the following report, in principle; and

(b) requested that the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough, submit the agreement referred to therein to Council on April 15, 1998 for final approval.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (March 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report addresses the proposal to operate paddle boat concession on the pond in Milliken Park.

Funding Source:

There are no financial or funding implications

Recommendations:

It is recommended that, following the finalization of the agreement by Law Department, Fun Aquatics commence the operation of a paddle boat concession in Milliken Park.

Background:

In 1997 staff received a proposal by Fun Aquatics to operate a paddle boat concession on the pond in Milliken Park. Subsequently, staff was directed to sample the market and determine the most acceptable vendor. This resulted in a proposal by Active Enviro Products. The comparison between the two proposals indicated that the initial proposal by Fun Aquatics does not place onus on any of our resources and therefore is acceptable.

Please refer to Appendix "A" attached.

Contact Name:

Tom Tusek, Director

Parks, Planning and Urban Forestry Division

Telephone: 396-7377; Facsimile: 396-5399

E-Mail tusek@ city.scarborough.on.ca

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 19, 1998) from the Director, Environmental Services, Scarborough, subject to amending recommendation (1) to read, as follows:

"(1) That no change be made in the policy regarding water service upgrades, pending the outcome of a trial to be conducted in Bridlewood and Terraview Willowfield area as a Local Improvement under Clause 4 of The Local Improvement Act; and"

Purpose:

To respond to Scarborough Council's direction of October 1, 1997 stating "to bring forward a report on a by-law pursuant to Section 220.1 of the Municipal Act to provide water service upgrades".

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No new funding required at this time.

Recommendations:

(1) That no change be made in the policy regarding water service upgrades at this time; and

(2) staff continue to investigate and report back in conjunction with the report on water fees and services in the fall of 1998.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1997, the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission was carrying out its watermain rehabilitation program in Scarborough Wards 3 and 10, now City of Toronto Ward 14 Scarborough Wexford.

The customers in these areas called the City stating that there was not enough pressure in the house. Pressure is not the issue, the volume of water is the real issue. When these homes were built they were not built with more than one bathroom, laundry area or kitchen. Now the homes have two or three bathrooms, a wet bar and maybe even two kitchens. Therefore, the existing service cannot provide enough volume for simultaneous multiple uses.

The former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission has a standard in place that they will take a flow test at the meter. They will measure the volume of water that flows through that point in the house. There is a minimum rate that has been established, and that is three gallons of water per minute. This is at the meter. If the customer does not get the three gallons per minute, then the City will do what is called a blow back of the customers service. This will blow air through the connection at the meter and out through the water main. In most cases the flow does improve but the degree of improvement does vary. If the customer does get three gallons per minute at the meter and they would still like to have a blow back done there is a charge for this service.

In the event that the customer that was not getting the three gallons per minute at the meter and a blow back was done and there is no improvement in the flow of water to the home, the City will dig at the street line and do another flow test. The standard at this point is a minimum of four gallons per minute. If this rate is achieved, then the customer is informed and the customer is told that the problem is on their side of the service connection. In the event that the four gallons is not reached then the City will install a new service connection from the water main to the street line free of charge.

If the flow is above four gallons per minute and the customer still wishes a new service, this is provided at a cost of $2,600.00 between the watermain and the streetline.

The above procedures are the standards that were set by the former Scarborough Public Utilities Commission. All of the other former cities in the new City have similar procedures that they do for the same issues. This is a result of the similarity of the concerns of our customers across the new City.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Water and Wastewater Group under Interim Functional Lead, Mike Thorne, has identified both the level of service provided in the upgrading watermain services and the fee charged for such services as issues to be resolved prior to the 1999 Current Budget. There are sub groups now examining the issue with the expectation that a report covering this issue as well as others will be before City Council in the fall of 1998 which will set a standard policy across the City of Toronto.

Section 220.1(2) of the Municipal Act permits "a municipality to pass by-laws imposing fees or charges on any class of persons", further Section 220.1(11) permits the municipality to "add fees and charges imposed by the municipality under this section to the tax roll for any real property in the municipality all of the owners of which are responsible for paying the fees and charges and collect them in like manner as municipal taxes".

These clauses do not permit the owners to spread the payment over a period of years. The City could however enter into an agreement with each homeowner who requests an upgrade. This procedure would require significant administration costs especially if the agreement were registered on title.

Historically the common method for performing municipal work with the related costs being placed on the tax role of customers is the petition method of the Local Improvement Act. This method however, if successful requires that all residents of the area be involved even those who did not sign the petition. This method does not suit our needs in this case.

It is possible that existing water service piping within the road allowance could be undertaken by the City as a local improvement. Section 4 (1) of The Local Improvement Act R.S.O. 1990 c.L. 26 provides for the construction of water service piping without a petition, by a Council vote of two-thirds of all the members.

With regards to the portion of the water service on private property, meaning the portion between the property line and the wall of the building, it appears that the Local Improvement Act under s.4(2) may also provide similar authority as for the municipal side, however it requires consent from the homeowner.

The proposed process would be as follows: define area or group of customers, advertise possible upgrade, write consent of homeowners, Works and Emergency Services Department submit to Council successful areas, Council votes (i.e. two-thirds), pass by-law, Works and Emergency Services Department issue tender for work, fund by Local Improvement, amounts due would be placed on tax role. There are a number of logistics to be worked out in this process such as inspection, plumbing permits, work inside the dwelling, temporary supply etcetera. These would be in addition to the aforementioned process.

The City Law Department has reviewed this report.

Conclusions:

The Municipal Act permits the City of Toronto to put the cost of water service upgrades on the taxes of the serviced properties, but does not permit these charges to be spread over time. To accomplish this, The Local Improvement Act Section 4(1) could be used but significant administrative costs would result, therefore, the procedure should remain unchanged until there is a review of the water service policies for the entire City of Toronto to ensure a fit with the procedures for water services in general.

Contact Name:

R. T. Quinn,

Director, Environmental Services

Phone 396-7113

E-mail rtquinn@city.scarborough.on.ca

Martin Bugden,

Water Construction & Maintenance Manager

Phone 285-2002, E-Mail mbugde@spuc.org

The Scarborough Community Council also submits for the information of City Council, the following Resolution which was adopted by the Council of the former City of Scarborough at its meeting held on October 1, 1997:

"WHEREAS Scarborough Public Utilities Commission is currently undertaking necessary construction activity in Ward 3 and Ward 10 to improve the quality and flow of the existing watermain system; and

WHEREAS there are a number of residents in the City of Scarborough who wish to have their water services upgraded to increase the flow volume; and

WHEREAS it is possible to provide such upgraded services by means of the Local Improvement Act, which Act sets out provisions for petitions by impacted ratepayers and does not permit ratepayers to upgrade services on an individual basis; and

WHEREAS ratepayers who wish to upgrade their water service should be permitted to do so on an individual basis in a quick and easy manner at a cost that is fair and equitable to all ratepayers; and

WHEREAS Section 220.1 of The Municipal Act, as amended by Bill 26, provides that a municipality may pass by-laws dealing with fees or charges on any persons for services or activities provided; and

WHEREAS Section 220.1 could be used to provide requested services to ratepayers who want water service upgrading at a cost that is fair and equitable to all ratepayers; now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commissioner of Works and Environment, in consultation with the Law Department and the Scarborough Public Utilities Commission, be directed to bring forward a report on a by-law pursuant to Section 220.1 of The Municipal Act to provide water service upgrades."

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 12, 1998) from the Director, General Legal Services and Administration, Scarborough:

Purpose:

Bow Vista Homes Limited entered into a Development Agreement with the City of Scarborough to develop the lands located at 6269 Kingston Road. All departments have completed the acceptance form for the above development. The services installed with respect to this agreement can now be assumed by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the services installed pursuant to the Development Agreement dated the 11th day of July, 1994, with Bow Vista Homes Limited, be accepted;

(2) on payment of the outstanding accounts, the Legal Services Department be authorized to release the performance guarantee with the exception of a cash deposit in the amount of $2,000.00 as set out in the attached report; and

(3) the City Clerk and Treasurer be authorized to sign any release or other documentation necessary to give effect of this acceptance.

Background:

All departments have completed the development acceptance for the development located at the south-west corner of Kingston Road and Meadowvale Road (Part of Lot 76, Registrar's Compiled Plan 9887) with the following proviso:

$2,000.00 be retained as cash deposit for the maintenance of the retaining wall constructed along the south limit Part 7.

The services installed for this development could now be accepted.

Contact Name:

Anna Kinastowski, Director

General Legal Services & Administration

(416) 396-7739

(416) 396-4262 Fax Number

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report dated March 9, 1998 from the Commissioner, Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommends that the report of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings Scarborough, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on April 1, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (March 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Kennedy Park Community Zoning By-law based on a request to introduce an ancillary commercial use to the primary residential use. The applicant requests permission to use approximately 20 square metres (220 square feet) of the basement of the existing single-family dwelling at 808 Midland Avenue for a beauty salon business.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council amend the Kennedy Park Community Zoning By-law, as amended, with respect to 808 Midland Avenue, being Part of Lot 7, Registered Plan 1697, as follows:

additional Permitted Use: Beauty salon; and

a maximum of 20 square metres (220 square feet) of the house may be used for a beauty salon.

Background:

(1) The subject property is situated on the west side of Midland Avenue, south of Eglinton Avenue and is within the Kennedy/Eglinton Intermediate Centre.

The site is bounded by single-family dwellings to the east and south, and a Senior Citizens apartment to the west. Properties to the north of the applicants', including a bungalow at

810 Midland Avenue, are zoned Highway Commercial and permit a variety of uses such as: Automobile Service Stations, Funeral Homes, Hotels and Motels, Libraries and Art Galleries, Limited Retail Shopping, Places of Worship, Professional and Business Offices, Recreational Uses.

(2) The Intermediate Centre Policies provide for Office/Residential and Institutional, Senior Citizens' Residential and Recreational Uses in this area, and also provide the following direction for the full development of the Intermediate Centre:

(1) up to 10,000 office jobs;

(2) a mix of medium and high density dwelling units;

(3) up to 9,200 square metres (100,000 square feet) of retail commercial uses with a library;

(4) transportation and public uses including a subway, rapid transit and bus station; and

(5) recreational and institutional uses.

(3) The site is zoned Apartment Residential, permitting Apartment buildings, Day Nurseries, Group Homes, Nursing Homes and Senior Citizen Homes. The site is under site plan control.

The applicant's property and the two properties to the south, contain single-family dwellings whose construction predates the Zoning By-law. These bungalows have a legal non-conforming status. These three properties and lands to the west were zoned Apartment Residential in 1961, and were intended to develop with apartment buildings. The land to the west developed with the Seniors apartment building about 12 years ago. The three properties fronting on Midland Avenue and containing three single-family dwellings have remained. The lots have depths of approximately 40 metres (130 feet).

The By-law requires a minimum driveway width of 3 metres per lane.

(4) The applicant has submitted a drawing indicating that up to six parking spaces can be accommodated in the rear yard, which is presently accessed via an existing 3 m (10 feet) driveway.

(5) In 1997, the applicant submitted a minor variance application to the Committee of Adjustment to permit a 17.4 square metres (188 square feet) beauty salon within the existing single-family dwelling. The Committee refused the application, because the request for a beauty salon would establish a commercial activity which is not permitted on this property and would not be compatible with the adjacent land uses.

(6) This rezoning application has been processed under the "election break process" and a Preliminary Evaluation Report has not been previously reported to Council. All members of the former Scarborough Council were advised of this application. Planning staff have discussed the proposal with the Councillors for Scarborough City Centre.

The application was circulated to technical agencies and departments for their comments. There were no comments or objections raised to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment by the reporting agencies.

To date, we have received one telephone call from a resident of the Seniors building, in support of the application.

Comments:

(1) The proposed beauty salon in the basement of the existing house would provide convenience and service to the residents and pedestrians within the Intermediate Centre, including the near-by Seniors apartment building. The proposed beauty salon will be separate from the dwelling and will have its own separate entrance, which is at-grade for easy access. The proposed use will not conflict with or cause undue impact on existing uses in the area and supports the policies of the Kennedy/Eglinton Intermediate Centre.

Because the size of the proposed beauty salon requested by the applicant is limited in floor area to a maximum of 20 square metres (220 square feet) in the basement of the house, and also because the existing bungalow will continue to be used for residential purposes, there is limited potential for the use to significantly expand and impact the community.

(2) The land has been zoned for Apartments for the past 35 years, but it has not developed for its intended use. The limited lot depth of 40 metres (130 feet) may be a constraint in developing the subject site and the two other properties to the south with conventional apartment buildings. There is redevelopment potential in the area with other building forms that can achieve the kinds of densities anticipated for the Kennedy/Eglinton Intermediate Centre. However, it is possible to accommodate interim uses that are compatible and complementary with other uses in the area, until such time as redevelopment takes place. The proposed beauty salon in the basement of the house is considered to be compatible and complementary.

(3) The proposed 20 square metres (220 square feet) beauty salon would require one parking space based on the By-law requirement of three spaces per 100 square metres of service uses gross floor area, in addition to the one parking space required for the residential component. The applicant indicates that most of the rear yard is gravelled and can accommodate up to six vehicles, with enough space left over for a garden.

Because of the anticipated limited demand for parking in the rear yard of this home, the existing 3 metre (10 feet) driveway is considered to be sufficient to accommodate vehicle movements to the site.

(4) In order to establish the beauty salon, the applicant would be required to submit a building permit application and meet building code requirements and site plan requirements.

Conclusions:

The proposed beauty salon in the basement of the existing house will provide convenience and service to the community and will maintain the intent of the Official Plan. By limiting the size of the use, Council can ensure that the floor space of the beauty salon will remain subordinate to the existing residential use. Providing for a limited interim use of the site, will not jeopardise the long-term redevelopment potential of the site, and will help maintain the viability of the area. There is ample space in the rear yard to accommodate all the parking requirements for the existing dwelling and the proposed use.

Contact Name:

Aristotle Christou, Senior Planner

(416) 396-5228

(416) 396-4265 Fax No.

christou@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following communication (March 14, 1998) received from Edna Martin; an exact duplicate of which was also received from the following persons:

Ines Ortega, Solidad Alix, Rick Harwick, Jovita Dayot, Madle Linnett, Evelyn Webster, Kim Lang, Elsie Handson, Cathy Davidson, Peter Manza, Greta Capronis, Jim Capronis, Lynda Hood, John Hood, Marion Coyell, Paul Stevenson, Choonja Kang, Zully Kang, Mastaka Inui, Eun Jung Jeong, Yang Choi, Nam Kyu Lee, In-young Kim:

"This is concerning the Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97042.

The opening of a Beauty Salon at 808 Midland Avenue would be a good acquisition for our community, especially for the senior citizens of Town Haven Place. On the contrary, I don't see what harm could come from such a small business.

I am, therefore, in favour of the Zoning Amendment."

Mr. Fernando Machado, the applicant, appeared before the Scarborough Community Council in support of the foregoing recommendations of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated), author unknown, submitting comments regarding Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97042, Elisa and Fernando Machado - 808 Midland Avenue, Kennedy Park Community - Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre.)

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report dated February 17, 1998 from the Commissioner, Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommends that the report of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings Scarborough, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on April 1, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (February 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Malvern Community Zoning By-law, for the commercially zoned property at 1825 Markham Road (north of Verne Crescent as shown on Figure No. 1), to permit additional commercial uses as set out in the recommendations below.

Permission to use up to 33 percent of the building's floor area for non-office uses (including the additional uses proposed), an increase from the present limit of 16 percent, is also recommended.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(a) Council amend the Malvern Community Zoning By-law No. 14402, as amended, with respect to the lands located at 1825 Markham Road, being Block A, Registered Plan Number M-1914, as follows:

Zoning By-law:

Additional Permitted Uses:

- Business and Office Services;

- Retail Uses;

- Day Nurseries;

- Educational and Training Uses; and

- Personal Service Shops.

Gross Floor Area:

- 33 percent of the total area of all buildings may be used for non-office uses;

- the floor area used for food preparation is limited to a maximum of 15 square metres; and

(b) Council authorize such unsubstantive, technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law as may be required to give effect to this resolution.

Background:

Preliminary Evaluation

Scarborough Council, on April 29, 1997, considered a Preliminary Evaluation Report and directed that the Planning and Buildings Department, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, host a Community Information Meeting to discuss the proposal with the Community. A Community Information Meeting was conducted in June 1997.

Subsequent to the Community Meeting, staff submitted Preliminary Evaluation Report Number 2 which recommended the continued processing of the file with a target date for the Public Meeting of Scarborough Council for September 1997. At the Planning and Buildings Committee meeting, the Ward Councillor requested Committee to delete the September 1997 target date to allow additional time for the processing of this application. Committee agreed to the Ward Councillor's request, which was adopted by Scarborough Council on June 24, 1997.

On January 21, 1998, Scarborough Community Council considered Preliminary Evaluation Report Number 3 and directed that the Public Meeting, for consideration of this file, be held on April 1, 1998.

Comments:

The owner of the subject property wishes to expand the current range of permitted uses. Although the site currently enjoys commercial zoning (see Appendix 'A'), the applicant advises that there have been difficulties in renting/leasing vacant space because the existing range of permitted uses is tightly limited. In addition to offices, the Zoning By-law currently permits up to 16 percent of the building's gross floor area to be utilized for dispensing pharmacies, financial institutions, optical stores or stores for the sale of medically required or prosthetic devices.

The application requests permission to allow the following activities: variety store, office services (mailboxes, faxing and photocopying), educational training and adult courses, day nursery, hairdresser, dry cleaning and photo finishing. The owner of the property also wishes to increase the viability of the building by expanding the range of permitted uses, other than offices, to 33 percent of the building's gross floor area (an increase from the present limit of 16 percent). The applicant proposes the expanded range of uses to provide amenities for the existing offices, to serve the abutting residential community, and to enhance the building's leasing opportunities.

The proposed activities fall within the broader categories of retail, personal service, business and office service, and educational and training uses in the City's By-laws. Accordingly, staff recommend that these terms be utilized in the zoning amendment.

Restaurant Use

During the Community meeting of June 1997, there was a concern expressed by the residents regarding the proposal, included in the initial application, for a coffee shop/cafeteria or restaurant use on the subject property. Subsequent to that meeting, the applicant withdrew the request for these activities.

Range of Proposed Uses

The range of uses proposed by the applicant is intended to provide amenities for the existing office uses, as well as to serve the abutting residential community. The proposed additional uses would provide the owner with more flexibility in leasing the existing building.

Variety Store

At the community meeting, there was general support for a variety store in the existing building, however, concern was expressed for the hours of operation and potential for litter. It was recognized by some residents that a variety store would allow local residents a place to pick-up some convenience goods. One resident, who lives next door to the building, was strongly opposed to the variety store proposal. It is the opinion of Planning staff that such a use is reasonable given the location of this building on Markham Road, the influx of new residential development in this area and the lack of such facilities within convenient walking distance of the northerly segment of this neighbourhood.

Such stores often include a minor component for the preparation of food on the premises. To differentiate between this type of establishment and a full scale take-out restaurant, which is not proposed, it is recommended that the size of the food preparation area be limited to ensure that the preparation of food does not become the predominant use. A limitation of 15 square metres (160 square feet) will provide sufficient space for minor food preparation.

Property Upkeep

Planning staff requested Property Standards staff to inspect the subject property and report on the condition of the site. Property Standards staff have visited the site and feel there are no property standards problems at this time. Proper upkeep of the property will be more likely to continue if the building is substantially leased and economically viable.

Parking

Some concern was expressed by the former Ward Councillor and abutting property owner regarding parking. The building consists of a mix of uses which tend to experience peak parking demands at different times of the day. Staff have monitored the parking situation on several occasions and found there is adequate parking available for the proposed range of uses. The highest utilization observed was 35 spaces, or only 56 percent of the 63 parking spaces provided on the site, whereas, the building was 75 percent occupied.

The parking supply of this site is based on the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning By-law for office uses, wherein three parking spaces are required per 100 square metres (1,076 square feet) of gross floor area. The range of proposed uses requested by the applicant also have a minimum parking requirement of three spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area. Accordingly, the amount of parking provided on site meets the requirements of the Zoning By-law and there is no need to provide additional parking for the proposed range of uses.

Conclusions:

It is in the best interests of the property owner, the community and the City that this building be successfully leased. The proposed additional uses would provide the owner with flexibility in renting/leasing. This would also create an opportunity to attract businesses which will serve the adjacent community. Therefore, staff support the request to broaden the range of uses on this property and increase the extent of floor area which can be used for these activities.

Contact Name:

Bill Kiru, MCIP, RPP

Planner, Community Planning Division

(416) 396-7014; (416) 396-4265 Fax Number

kiru@city.scarborough.on.ca

CURRENT PLANNING STATUS

Existing Official Plan Provisions (Figure 4.19):

The subject lands are designated for Office Uses providing for offices. Council may also zone the land for Commercial Uses (retail sales and services) as a use secondary to offices and may zone land for one or more of the following uses, either in addition to or instead of offices:

- business services; and

- social service uses, including but not limited to: day nurseries, libraries, recreational facilities and educational facilities.

The policy also states that "Council shall have regard for the need of such facilities in addition to existing services while recognizing Council's overall and on-going commitment to provide employment opportunities in the City". Council may also restrict the amount of such additional uses.

A Numbered Policy in the Malvern Community Secondary Plan states "notwithstanding the policies applicable to Office Uses, the Office Uses designation as it applies to this site may include business, professional, government and financial offices."

Existing Zoning By-law Restrictions (Figure 1):

The subject lands are zoned Highway Commercial (HC). An Exception in the By-law limits the permitted uses on the subject site to offices, a dispensing pharmacy, financial institutions, an optical store, and a store for the sale of medically required or prosthetic devices. Other than offices, all other uses are restricted to 16 percent of the total gross floor area of the building.

Site Plan Control (Figure 2):

The site is subject to Site Plan Control. At this time, there are no changes proposed for the building or parking and landscaped areas.

Mr. Iftakhar Khan, representing Ansar Investments Limited, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and indicated concurrence with the foregoing recommendations of the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough.

.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following communication (March 24, 1998) received from Mr. John Zinati, Canadian Landing Consultants Inc., addressed to the planner responsible for the foregoing application:

"Thank you for your fax of February 23, 1998.

We have now had an opportunity to review same and wish to raise the following concerns with the application.

Our primary concern is with the proposed uses of Day Nurseries and Educational and Training uses in the building, and their effects on the already limited washroom facilities in the building. There is currently only 1 set of washrooms for each gender on each floor of the building. At the current capacity, especially on the 2nd floor, the facilities are inadequate. We feel that with additional tenants which will involve the presence of numerous individuals and children, such as Educational and Training facilities and Day Nurseries, the demand on the existing facilities would be too great. We believe that any changes to the zoning by-law permitting such uses should also factor in the need for additional washroom facilities. With respect to the Day Nursery, our concern is also that the professional appearance of the building would be diminished by the presence of same. We do not believe that in a professional office building of this size a Day Nursery can be facilitated without the presence of same affecting the other tenants in the building, especially in terms of noise and appearance.

Kindly advise us of any recommendations you may have in regards to the foregoing."

(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council reports, during its discussion respecting the Graywood Investments Limited planning applications referred to in Clause 24, Item (h), of this Report, having adopted the following Resolution:

(1) that the City of Toronto affirm its commitment to the Open Space Uses Official Plan Amendment Number 1001 of the former City of Scarborough respecting Ontario Hydro Corridor Lands;

(2) that the amount of $50,000.00 be set aside by the City to fund the defence of the Open Space designation at the Ontario Municipal Board; and

(3) that the City Solicitor be requested to attend the Pre-hearing Conference on May 1, 1998, and argue stringently against the two Appeals (i.e., Official Plan Amendment Number 1001 and Graywood Investments Limited) being heard together.

(City Council on April 16, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Parking Concerns on Lozoway Drive near

Ionview Public School - Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998, to permit further community consultation:

(March 16, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, recommending that:

(1) the stopping regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2) the stopping regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted; and

(3) the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Ms. Effie Hadzis, area resident, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b) Golf Balls being hit over Scarborough Golf Club Road

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(a) approved the report (January 23, 1998) from the Director of Road and Traffic Services, Scarborough, recommending that Scarboro Golf and Country Club be requested to re-install and repair the existing canopy netting on the east side of Scarborough Golf Club Road before the beginning of the 1998 golf season; and

(b) received the confidential report (March 17, 1998) from the Solicitor, Consultative and Research Services, Scarborough, respecting the foregoing.

Mr. Laird Elliott, President, Scarboro Golf and Country Club, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter, and tabled a Course (layout) Report, a copy of which was provided to all Members of the Community Council and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

(c) St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, Greek Summer Festival

3840 Finch Avenue East - Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(March 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Scarborough Community Council:

(1) schedule a public meeting for consideration of the application for an exemption from By-law No. 24389 at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 1998; and

(2) recommend that Council pass a resolution declaring The 21st Hellenic Festival of The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church to be of "Municipal Significance" and request that the City Clerk issue the appropriate letter to The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

The Reverend Father Nicholas Alexandris, Dean, St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d) The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc.

Annual Festivals - 1385 Warden Avenue - Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report, subject to adding the following to Recommendation No. (2):

"... and further, that St. John's Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Incorporated be requested to implement those actions recommended by S.E. Coulter Associates Limited in their correspondence dated April 14, 1997, to mitigate the effects of the noise to the adjoining neighbourhoods, and:

(i) limit the number of speakers to 4 and the sound to 85 decibels after 11:00 p.m.;

(ii) ensure the availability of rapid communication directly with someone with the authority to deal with unexpected contingencies, equipped with a cellular phone, with the number being given to the neighbours;

(iii) progressively lower the volume of the noise after 11:00 p.m.;

(iv) cease the noise at 12 midnight;

(v) direct the parking to the Price Club parking lot; and

(vi) arrange one community meeting prior to May 6, 1998, with the local community, the Police Service and the Fire Department and the two Ward Councillors, the cost of notification for this meeting to be borne by the applicant.

(March 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough,recommending that Scarborough Community Council:

(1) schedule a public meeting for consideration of the application for an exemption from By-law No. 24389 at 9:30 a.m. on May 6, 1998; and

(2) recommend that Council pass a resolution declaring the Annual Festivals of The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Inc. to be of "Municipal Significance", and request the City Clerk to issue the appropriate letter to The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Mr. Costas Menegakis, representing The Greek Community of Metropolitan Toronto Incorporated, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter, and indicated concurrence in the recommendations, as amended.

(e) Motel Properties Review

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report and requested that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, arrange a meeting with the four Councillors for Wards 13 and 16 to brief them on the status, results and outcomes of these inspections:

(February 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising of a program initiated by the Property Standards Division, Scarborough, to review the condition and current compliance with municipal by-laws of motel properties, primarily along Kingston Road, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(f) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98002

M., M. and P. Diciero, 4 Lochleven Drive, Scarborough Village Community

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(February 27, 1998) Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Scarborough Community Council target a Public Meeting to consider this application prior to the summer recess.

(g) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97045

Goce Kokarevski, 20 Meadowcliffe Drive, Cliffcrest Community

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998:

(March 19, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Council refuse the application by Goce Kokarevski to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the development of the land with three single-family dwellings.

Mr. Nassy Bilkovski, Architect, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and requested deferral of the report.

(h) Preliminary Evaluation Report, Official Plan Amendment Application SP98002

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98001, Draft Plans of Subdivision

ST98002 - ST98004, Ontario Hydro/Graywood Investments Limited

Ontario Hydro Corridor between Warden and Pharmacy, Highway No. 401 to

McNicoll - Sullivan Community and L'Amoreaux Community

Wards 14 and 17 - Scarborough Wexford and Scarborough Agincourt

The Scarborough Community Council reports having referred the following report to the City Solicitor with the request:

(i) that he report further to Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998, with respect to the results of the Pre-hearing Conference and with advice as to how to proceed on this matter;

(ii) that, in view of the pending Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, be requested to report, in camera, in consultation with the City Solicitor, on the Graywood Investments Limited application, and all the reasons why this application does not conform with Official Plan Amendment Application 1001, together with all the concerns expressed by the community; and

(iii) that the Ward Councillors host Community Information Meetings to discuss the proposal and to discuss the concerns raised at the meeting of Scarborough Community Council held on April 1 and 2, 1998, and the concerns raised in the past, such as:

public safety, lot size, parkland, drainage and flooding:

(March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough,

recommending that:

(1) staff process the applications in the normal manner and convene community information meetings in consultation with the Ward Councillors;

(2) the applicant be required to submit transportation, servicing reports and an environmental and ecological survey of the corridor; and

(3) staff submit a further report, not later than the June 24, 1998 meeting of the Scarborough Community Council, on the results of the above reviews and consultations.

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

- Mr. John Bousfield, Bousfield Dale-Harris Cutler and Smith, on behalf of the applicant;

- Mr. Phillip Egginton, President, Bridlewood Community Association;

- Ms. Elaine Brown;

- Mr. Harold Halgate;

- Mr. Brian Aubrey;

- Mr. Eric Pullerits;

- Mr. Mike Boyko; and

- Ms. Elizabeth Hill.

Communications were also tabled from:

- Residents on Kilkenny Drive and Castlemere Crescent;

- Mr. Dave Temesy and Ms. Joan MacIntyre;

- Ms. Ruth Jorgensen; and

- Mr. Paul Craig;

which were distributed to all Members of Scarborough Community Council and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

(i) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan Amendment Application SP98003

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98005 - Knob Hill Farms Limited

Eglinton Community - Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Scarborough Community Council convene a Public Meeting, targeted early in the third quarter of 1998, subject to:

(1) the applicant submitting a Site Plan Control Application to be considered concurrently with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications;

the submitted site/elevation plans providing for windows and access into the building along the Eglinton Avenue frontage, which may be achieved by incorporating such uses as a restaurant along the Eglinton Avenue frontage, resulting in a pedestrian-oriented, animated streetscape;

(2) the submitted site plan addressing the transportation concerns pertaining to vehicular site access and on-site circulation; and

(3) the applicant updating the submitted Transportation Study to address the concerns expressed at the community information meeting regarding the impact the development will have on traffic movements within the community to the north.

The Community Council received a communication (March 19, 1998) from the Board of Directors of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 999 respecting the foregoing and expressing concerns regarding entrances onto Landmark Boulevard, a copy of which was circulated to all Members of Community Council and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

(j) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98007

Trustees of St. Stephen's Presbyterian Church, 3817 Lawrence Avenue East

Woburn Community - Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(March 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Scarborough Community Council target a Public Meeting to consider this application prior to the summer recess, subject to:

(1) the application being amended to address setback and parking requirements on the retained parcel (the place of worship fronting onto Lawrence Avenue); and

(2) the lotting configuration being modified to create three lots with consistent frontages on Shoredale Drive.

(k) Preliminary Evaluation Report - Official Plan Amendment Application SP98004

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98011 - First Alliance Church

3250 Finch Avenue East, L'Amoreaux Community

Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending:

(1) that staff process the applications in the normal manner and convene a community information meeting with notice to be provided to assessed property owners and community associations within 120 metres (400 feet);

(2) that Scarborough Community Council convene a Public Meeting to consider these applications during the second quarter of 1998, subject to the applicant:

(a) clarifying whether an increased building height limit is sought under the requested Medium Density Residential designation or whether the current four-storey limitation will be satisfied;

(b) submitting a Site Plan Control application for the proposed development; and

(c) clarifying all proposed uses and their floor areas within the Place of Worship and submitting a parking demand analysis for the overall development.

(l) New Applications Received - all Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising of the New Applications received during the four-week period ending March 10, 1998.

(m) Ontario Municipal Board Hearings - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report and requested that the City Solicitor and the City Clerk report back to the meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998, on a mechanism whereby notification of Hearings and Pre-hearing Conferences may be expedited from Office of the City Clerk for the information of the local Councillors:

(March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising of the New Applications received during the four-week period ending March 10, 1998.

(n) Site Plan Control Approvals - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(March 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising of the various Site Plan Control Approvals granted by the Commissioner.

(o) Consent Applications - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, advising of the various Consent Decisions granted by the Commissioner.

(p) 41st Annual Recreation Recognition Night

Nominations for Individual of the Year, Group of the Year

and Recreation Citations

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(March 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, Scarborough, recommending:

(1) that the nominations for Individual and Group of the Year, attached as Appendix A, and the list of 23 nominations for Citation Awards for 1998, attached as Appendix B, be approved;

(2) that staff be authorized to proceed with the necessary arrangements to facilitate the event; and

(3) that the Chair, Scarborough Community Council, be requested to act as Master of Ceremonies for the event.

(q) Proposed Encroachment Agreement for Metal Fence onto

Natal Avenue Road Allowance - Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998, with the request that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, report on the number of similar encroachments on neighbouring streets:

(February 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, recommending:

(1) that Council permit the owners of 58 Natal Avenue to retain the wrought iron fence in its present location, encroaching on the Natal Avenue Road Allowance, subject to:

(a) entering into a standard encroachment agreement with the City;

(b) payment of the standard administration fee of $350.00 and registration cost of $50.00;

(c) provision of proof of insurance, satisfactory to the City's Manager of Risk and Insurance;

(d) maintenance of the encroachment in good condition; and

(2) that appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Ms. Cathy Tercer appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(r) Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(1) referred the following correspondence to the Interim Contact to co-ordinate a date for a Special Meeting, in consultation with the City Clerk and the Chair, with the request that the Members of the Community Council be notified of the date as soon as possible, and that all Scarborough Community Associations and Business Associations also be notified;

(2) directed that The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team be advised that Scarborough Community Council:

(i) intends to convene a Special Meeting to obtain public input at a date to be determined; and

(ii) in the interim, recommends the adoption of the Special Committee's Recommendations (4) (a) and (c), viz:

"(4) that Community Councils:

(a) be permitted to establish sub-committees; and

(c) be permitted to record votes at meetings":

(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a copy of Clause No. 2 contained in Report No. 3 of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team, for the consideration of Scarborough Community Council and community consultation, and report thereon to the Special Committee.

Committee received a communication on the foregoing matter from Ms. Helen Jensen, a copy of which was circulated to all Members of the Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

(s) Applications under The Rental Housing Protection Act

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding, for the information of Scarborough Community Council, a copy of a Motion adopted by City Council at its meeting held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, wherein Council delegates the authority to Community Councils to give notice and hold any public meeting regarding applications under The Rental Housing Protection Act.

(t) Community Voices of Support

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(i) received a presentation by the Community Voices of Support, as outlined in the following communication; and

(ii) requested that Community Voices of Support work with the Scarborough Community Council to review the potential for a volunteer mobilization initiative targeted on the Milennium Celebrations:

(March 10, 1998) from Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Co-director, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, requesting the opportunity to make a presentation to Scarborough Community Council.

(u) Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97009

Lucky and Tina Hionides, 60 Maybourne Avenue

Clairlea Community - Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report and re-scheduled the Public Meeting under The Planning Act respecting this matter to its meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998 at 7:30 p.m.:

(March 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Council amend the Clairlea Community Zoning By-law, as amended, with respect to 60 Maybourne Avenue, Lot 221, Registered Plan 1859, as follows:

A. Zoning By-law Amendment

(1) Permitted Density:

one single-family dwelling per parcel having a minimum frontage of 7.5 metres (25 feet) on a public street and a minimum lot area of 240 square metres (2,600 square feet);

(2) maximum building ground floor coverage of 40 percent of the lot area;

(3) minimum 0.9 metres (3 feet) side yard setback on the one side and 0.3 metres (1 foot) on the other side;

(4) minimum 6 metres (20 feet) front yard setback;

(5) additional Performance Standards for the existing dwelling on the lot to be retained, 60 Maybourne Avenue:

(5).1 minimum driveway width and parking space width 2.45 metres (8 feet);

(6) all other zoning provisions applying to the property would continue to apply; and

B. that Council authorize any unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law Amendment as may be required to give effect to this resolution.

The Community Council received a 28 signature petition in support of the recommendation contained in the foregoing report, and a 12 signature petition requesting deferral to an evening meeting, a copy of which was circulated to all Members of the Community Council, and the originals of which are on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

(v) Status Report on the Morningside Heights Land Use Study and Related Development Applications - Tapscott Employment District - Morningside

Avenue Extension - The Morningside Tributary Subwatershed Study

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on Thursday, May 28, 1998, at 9:30 a.m., with the request that:

(1) the Commissioner, Works and Environment, Scarborough, in conjunction with the City Solicitor, report on a comparison of the Subwatershed Study versus the Memorandum of Understanding between Save the Rouge Valley System (SRVS), 554056 Ontario Limited, the Neilson Development Corporation, M. & R. Holdings, the Staines Development Corporation and Silvercore Properties Incorporated;

(2) the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, report on:

(i) the appropriate planning process, including defining the public participation process and participants to develop a Secondary Plan for specific policies and designations for either Option 2 or Option 3, specifically relating to high quality housing; and

(ii) the definition of "Executive Housing";

(iii) the means and methods, including financial resources, if necessary, to expedite the acquisition of environmental attributes of the Morningside Heights Study area; and

(iv) any other concerns raised by this meeting;

(3) the Interim Lead, Economic Development, undertake a City-wide review of the impact and implications of rezoning Toronto's last remaining largest greenfield employment area; such review to include the impact on:

- employment;

- assessment;

- long-term supply of land for employment uses;

- trends with regard to rezoning of industrial land to residential over the past 10 years and its impact on assessment/employment;

- financial implications; and

- competitive position to attract and retain business.

The Community Council reports having further directed that the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, convene a Community Information Meeting prior to May 28, 1998, to be held at the Toronto Zoo, the two local Councillors to be invited:

(March 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommending that Council determine its preferred Option from among the three:

Option 1 Acquire Most of Morningside Heights Land Use Study Area for Parkland and Renaturalize the Morningside Tributary;

Option 2 Retain Employment West of the Tributary, Permit Executive Residential East of the Tributary with Significant Natural Area Centred on the Morningside Tributary; and

Option 3 Designate Morningside Heights for Residential Uses with Significant Natural Area Centred on the Morningside Tributary.

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

- Mr. Glenn de Baeremaeker, Chair, Save The Rouge Valley System Incorporated;

- Mr. Fareed Khan, Toronto Real Estate Board;

- Mr. Jim Robb, Friends of the Rouge Watershed;

- Mr. Wm. A. Dempsey, Honorary Secretary, Centennial Community and Recreation Association;

- Mr. Jeffrey L. Davies, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners, representing the Morningside Heights Landowners Group;

- Mr. Michael Melling, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners; and

- Mr. John Kennedy, Marshall Macklin and Monaghan, representing Cedar Brae Golf and Country Club.

The Community Council reports having received:

- communication (March 24, 1998) from Jeffrey L. Davies, Solicitor, Davies Howe Partners;

- communications (April 1, 1998 and March 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Transportation and Works, the Region of York; and

- a copy of the aforementioned Memorandum of Understanding;

all of which were provided to the Members of the Community Council and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

(w) 1998 City Planning Work Program

The Community Council reports having:

(1) received the following communication; and

(2) directed that The Urban Environment and Development Committee be advised of the following requests:

(a) that the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services provide staff support to co-ordinate a Business Creation and Employment Centre at the Scarborough Civic Centre, in conjunction with the Scarborough community and businesses; and

(b) that the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services modify Section (3) (a), entitled: "Community Projects - Local Area Studies and Implementation" of the 1998 Research and Policy Program - Projects, by adding:

"Kingston Road Study - to develop a vision for the revitalization of Kingston Road between the Canadian National Railway at the Guildwood GO Station easterly to Lawson Road; terms of reference to be similar to the first stage of study between Brimley Road and the Guildwood GO Station."

(x) Tabling of Notice of Motion by Councillor Tzekas on

Procedures for Exemption for Festivals

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following Notice of Motion by Councillor Mike Tzekas and directed that it be placed for consideration on the Agenda of the meeting scheduled to be held on May 6, 1998:

"WHEREAS festivals are held throughout the new City of Toronto; and

WHEREAS the Council of the former City of Scarborough had a policy and procedure to balance the needs of festival organizers and the impact on adjoining neighbourhoods; and

WHEREAS it would be beneficial that festivals and those neighbourhoods that adjoin festival sites be dealt with equitably throughout the City;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Scarborough Community Council recommend that Council request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to review and report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommending the appropriate procedures for the consideration of exemption for festivals."

Respectfully submitted,

LORENZO BERARDINETTI,

Chair

Toronto, April 1 and 2, 1998.

(Report No. 3 of The Scarborough Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on April 16, 1998.)

Clause Page

1 Stop Sign on Arden Crescent at Rockelm Road
(South Intersection) - Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs 2618

2 Parking and Traffic Concerns at
Our Lady of Wisdom Catholic School
Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford 2620

3 Stop Sign on Guildhall Drive at Ellington Drive

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford 2630

4 Pedestrian Crossing Protection and Parking Concerns
at Pauline Johnson Junior Public School on
Dunmurray Boulevard
Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford 2632

5 Pedestrian Crossing Protection and Bus Shelter
on Birchmount Road and Merryfield Drive
Wards 14 and 15 - Scarborough Wexford and
Scarborough City Centre 2636

6 Stop Sign on Charity Road at Safari Street
Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre 2640

7 Stop Sign on Newmains Court at Evenwood Avenue
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 2641

8 Stop Sign on Piperbrook Crescent at Ling Road
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 2643

9 Stop Sign on Bush Gate at Bush Drive
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 2645

10 Proposed Addition of Gates at
Canadian National Railways Crossing
on Passmore Avenue - Cost-sharing Agreement
Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt 2646

11 Preliminary Evaluation Report No. 2
Official Plan Amendment Application No. SP98001
1144070 Ontario Limited - PMG Planning Consultants
Port Union Village - Scarborough Highland Creek 2648

12 Preliminary Evaluation Report
P97007/Z97019/S97039 - Imperial Oil Limited

Sheppard Avenue and Kingston Road

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern 2656

13 Draft Plan of Condominium Application C97062
Harmony Developments I Inc., North-West Corner
of Meadowvale Road and Sheppard Avenue
Rouge Community - Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern 2661

14 Part Lot Control Exemption Application SPl98001
Intracorp Developments (Rouge Hill) Limited
Lawrence Avenue/Port Union Road - Port Union Village
Community - Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 2666

15 Part Lot Control Exemption Application SPl98002
Carma Developers Limited, Lawrence Avenue
Port Union Village Community
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 2669

16 Request for Direction - Minor Variance Appeals
SA13/98 and A365/97 - Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern 2672

17 Preservation of Significant Red Oak on Romac Drive Extension
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 2673

18 Paddle Boat Concession in Milliken Park
Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern 2676

19 Water Services Upgrades 2679

20 Acceptance of Development Agreement - Bow Vista Homes Limited
South-west corner of Kingston Road and Meadowvale Road
Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 2683

21 Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97042
Elisa and Fernando Machado - 808 Midland Avenue
Kennedy Park Community - Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre 2684

22 Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97010
Ansar Investments Limited - 1825 Markham Road
Malvern Community - Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern 2691

23 Official Plan Amendment Number 1001 of the
Former City of Scarborough
Respecting Open Space Designation
Ontario Hydro Corridor Lands 2699

24 Other Items Considered by the Community Council 2699