City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules


		City of Toronto Council and Committees
		All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
		TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES AND OTHER COMMITTEES As Considered by The Council of the City of Toronto on May 13 and 14, 1998 NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPORT No. 5 1 Parent Safety Program and North York Children's Safety Village 2 Sign By-law Variance Request -Dr. Arthur Kamin - 5460 Yonge Street -North York Centre 3 Sign By-law Variance Request -Gould Advertising - 3889 Keele Street -North York Spadina 4All Way Stop Control -Plunkett Road at Anthia Drive/Cabana Drive -North York Humber 5 Parking Prohibitions - Park Home Avenue -North York Centre 6 Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Kingsdale Avenue North York Centre 7 Temporary Road Closure -Mildenhall Road and Cheltenham Avenue -North York Centre South 8 Parking Prohibitions -Mossgrove Trail, Rothmere Drive and Mildenhall Road East -North York Centre South 9 Temporary Road Closure - Cortleigh Boulevard -North York Centre South 10 Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Longmore Street - North York Centre 11 Sign By-law Variance Request - Apex Financial Consulting Services - 22 Glen Park Avenue -North York Spadina 12 Report - Industrial Zoning Review, By-law Appeals -UD43-IND - Supplementary Report No. 1:Steeles West Market, North York Spadina 13 Report - General Zoning By-law Amendment - UD43-HSK -Supplementary Report No. 1 -All North York Community Council Wards 14 Request for Three Curb Cuts/Driveway Entrances - 2 Suncrest Drive at Glenorchy Road - North York Centre South 15 Sale of Portion of Fennimore Park - Part of Block "A", Plan 6450, North York -North York Humber 16 1998 Membership in Ontario Traffic Conference 17 Encroachment - 10 Amos Crescent - North York Spadina 18 Quit Claim of Easement - 5 Glen Park Avenue -North York Spadina 19 Sign By-law Variance Request - Michael A. Cohen -619 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Spadina 20 Addendum Report to the Environmental Study Report for the Downtown Plan, South of Sheppard Avenue -Transportation Infrastructure Requirements -September 1996 - North York Centre 21 User Safety - McGlashan Road - Walkway to Yonge Street -North York Centre South 22 Traffic Calming - Speed Humps 23 Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan -Bayview Village - Seneca Heights 24Driveways - 325 Hollywood Avenue - North York Centre 25 Community Festival Event -Maon Noam-Jewish Cultural & Education Network - Harryetta Gardens - May 13, 1998 - North York Spadina 26 Community Festival Event - Franco-Fete, 1998 -Francophone Cultural Activities -June 19, 1998 to June 21, 1998 - Mel Lastman Square 27 Other Items Considered by the Community Council City of Toronto REPORT No. 5 OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL (from its meeting on May 6, 1998, submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair) As Considered by The Council of the City of Toronto on May 13 and 14, 1998 1 Parent Safety Program and North York Children's Safety Village (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council reports having endorsed the following two programs and recommends that: (1)Council give consideration and appropriate support to the Parent Safety Program and the Children's Safety Village; and (2)Canada Lands be requested to incorporate in their lands a provision for a Children's Safety Village. The North York Community Council reports having requested: (a)staff to identify potential sites that may be utilized for a Safety Village, based on the information contained in the presentation by Police Constable Torrence; (b)staff to provide assistance to 31 Division with negotiating any agreements with potential site owners, including representatives of the Federal and Provincial Governments should there be government-owned sites available; and (c)service clubs in the former City of North York to assist in this initiative. The North York Community Council heard a presentation from Police Constable Talbot Torrence, Badge No. 6271, Toronto Police, 31 Division, with respect to the subject programs. The North York Community Council submits the following information regarding the two subject programs: Parent Safety Program The Parent Safety Program was started in Edmonton, Alberta by a group comprised of all areas of the community. It is a co-operative effort shared by the community members, police, schools and city. The goal of the program is to encourage non-confrontational solutions to school safety concerns. The mission statement of the program is 'We will assist and encourage the community to provide a safe environment by choosing safety over convenience'. The program objectives are: -to promote community-based partnerships which encourage non-confrontational solutions to provide a safe school environment; -to encourage and support the school's implementation of the parent safety program; and -to evaluate the effectiveness of the Parent Safety Program by measuring the change towards safer behaviour. This program has been implemented in London, Ontario and is sponsored by the Canadian Automobile Association in Ontario. At the time of writing there are approximately half of the City of London's Schools participating in the program. Scarborough is currently experimenting with the program and has pilot programs initiated at three schools. The goal of four schools participating before the end of the current school year is hoped to be achieved. Funding for the program in the Scarborough area has been through the federal government. In the 31 Division area we have two schools in each of old North York and York areas who have been identified as suitable for running a pilot of the program. The North York schools are Derrydown Public School and St. Fidelis Separate School. A traffic study at these locations has been scheduled by Toronto Roads North York Branch. There is a city-wide release of the Parent Safety Program scheduled for the fall of 1998. This is intended to be a uniform program across the City of Toronto. We are presently involved in an enforcement program in the school areas and when this program has been mentioned there has been a strong interest shown by the schools. North York Children's Safety Village A Safety Village is an educational centre specifically designed for students from the elementary grades where the students receive classroom instruction and have the opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge in a safe environment. It is an innovative community project aimed at reducing preventable traffic accidents and enhancing the education of older students in the area of drug awareness. The idea for the North York Children's Safety Village evolved from a discussion on children's safety and how 31 Division could enhance partnerships within their own community. Preliminary investigation into existing Villages as well as those presently in the planning stage have provided invaluable information on land acquisition, funding, curriculum and how to see the project from the initial stages through to fruition. The North York Children's Safety Village would be a non-profit organization with registered charitable tax status. The Village would be completely funded and maintained through community donations. Presently there are 90 elementary schools, 20 middle schools and 8 junior high schools within the North York Board of Education. In addition, there are 49 elementary schools within the Separate Board, 8 schools within the Board of Jewish Education, 3 Christian Schools and 2 elementary schools within '3 District' which fall under the Toronto Board of Education for a total of 180 schools. If we were to incorporate the 77 schools within 2 District, this would result in a grand total of 257 schools within North-West Field Command. While at the Safety Village, students are given classroom instruction immediately followed by hands on training in a controlled and secure environment. The philosophy behind the Scarborough Children's Safety Village is 'tell me and I'll forget; show me and I may remember; involve me and I will understand'. This philosophy would be carried through to the North York Children's Safety Village and as such, is a win-win situation. During the summer months, the Safety Village could also be used as a day camp and classroom space could be made available to community organizations such as Brownies, Girl Guides, Scouts or other groups. The facility could also be used by service organizations who are providing the funding for donation as well as elder abuse seminars and traffic safety. There are presently four existing Safety Villages in Ontario - Durham, Peel, Halton and Waterloo. In the planning stages are the Scarborough and York Region Villages. Scarborough Children's Safety Village The City of Scarborough donated three acres of land on McCowan Road south of Eglinton Avenue and construction is due to commence during the summer of 1998 with the grand opening in December 1998. This will be the first fully enclosed Safety Village with maximum accommodation for students and an estimated cost of approximately four million dollars. Peel Children's Safety Village The Peel Children's Safety Village was launched in 1994 and consists of two classrooms and a Safety Village on approximately 2.2 acres of land situated at Highway 410 and Steeles Avenue West in Brampton. Halton Police Children's Safety Village The Halton Police Children's Safety Village is located on Bronte Road north of the QEW in Oakville. It has been in existence for 11 years and as such is one of the oldest. It is much smaller in comparison to the existing Villages. The North York Children's Safety Village would be beneficial to the children and establish a valuable and permanent partnership with members of the community. The total land required would be 3-4 acres. Interactive learning through practical application in a safe environment will assist the students in absorbing the new material. It gives the children the opportunity to enjoy themselves and interact with uniform police officers while providing them with the necessary safety tools they need to grow up safely in our community. As a non-profit organization built by the community for the community, everyone wins, especially the children. 2 Sign By-law Variance Request - Dr. Arthur Kamin - 5460 Yonge Street - North York Centre (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April16, 1998) from the Chief Building Official/Building Commissioner, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Dr. Arthur Kamin for a variance from the sign by-law to permit a wall sign that exceeds the permitted area to be located above a second storey punched window on the north elevation of the building. Recommendation: It is recommended that: (1)The request be approved as a minor variance from the sign by-law. Council Reference/Background/History: In a letter dated March 5, 1998, Arthur Kamin is requesting permission to erect a wall sign having a sign area of 10.7 square feet above a second storey punched window at the north east corner of a mixed use building. The sign will be oriented to face southbound traffic on Yonge Street. Section 5.1.1. of Sign By-law No. 30788 permits one identification sign not exceeding 4.3 square feet in sign area in a residental zone indicating the name of a lawful business or profession located therein. The proposed sign is 10.7 square feet in sign area and therefore contravenes the by-law. Although the building is located in a residential (RM6) zone it is a mixed use structure consisting of business and personal services uses on the ground floor and residential use on all other floors. The proposed sign is the only one proposed for the north elevation of the building and if in a commercial zone would be permitted to be 15 percent of the wall area visible from any direction. The sign is less than 1 percent of the wall area and as such will not have a negative impact on the surrounding area particularily since the property directly to the north is used as a parking lot for the No Frills store further north. Conclusions: It is the opinion of this department that the variance is minor in nature and that the intent of the sign by-law has not been compromised by the erection of this sign. Therefore it is recommended that this request be approved as a minor variance from the sign by-law. 3 Sign By-law Variance Request - Gould Advertising - 3889 Keele Street - North York Spadina (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 10, 1998) from the Chief Building Official/Building Commissioner, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Just Cole of Gould Outdoor Advertising, for a variance from the sign by-law to permit an illuminated off premise roof sign oriented to face north & south bound traffic on Keele Street. Recommendation: It is recommended that: (1)The request by Just Cole of Gould Outdoor Advertising, be approved as a minor variance from the sign by-law. Council Reference/Background/History: In a letter dated February 4, 1998, Just Cole, of Gould Outdoor Advertising, is requesting permission to erect an illuminated off premise "Billboard" roof sign oriented to face north & south bound traffic on Keele Street. The sign will be approximately 510 feet of an existing roof sign located on the same side of the street. Section 5.3.1.1. of North York Sign By-law No. 30788 permits off premise roof signs having a maximum sign area of 250.8 square feet to be erected on the roof of an industrial building provided that no such roof sign will be closer than 750 feet from another roof sign on the same side of the street. Although the proposed sign is well within the area limitations set fourth in the by-law it is closer than 750 feet from an existing roof sign on the same side of the street and therefore does not comply with the requirements of the sign by-law. The applicant contends that although the site and the surrounding area is zoned industrial the actual use more closely resembles that of a commercial zone and as such relief from the by-law is appropriate. Since the sign by-law permits roof signs in commercial zones to be within 500 feet of each other, when erected on the same side of the street, the sign would comply. A visit to the site by our staff confirmed that the land use in the community does more closely resemble that of a commercial zone rather than an industrial zone and that the proposed sign would not be out of place. In our view there would be no negative impact on the surrounding community resulting from it and the intent of the sign by-law would not be jeopardized if it were erected at the proposed location. Conclusions: In view of the above, we recommend that this request be approved as a minor variance from the sign by-law. 4 All Way Stop Control - Plunkett Road at Anthia Drive/Cabana Drive - North York Humber (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: To install an all way stop control, to improve pedestrian and motorist safety, at the intersection of Plunkett Road at Anthia Drive/Cabana Drive Source of funds: All costs associated with the installation of an all way stop control are included within the 1998 operating budget. Recommendation: This department recommends that Schedules XVIII and XIX, By-law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to require traffic to stop on all approaches to the intersection of Plunkett Road at Anthia Drive/Cabana Drive. Council Reference/Background/History: Councillor George Mammoliti has received numerous complaints from local residents who are concerned with the traffic operations and pedestrian safety at the intersection. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification: Currently, eastbound and westbound traffic on Anthia Drive and Cabana Drive is required to stop for northbound traffic at Plunkett Road. The configuration of the roadways forms a 'T' type intersection. Observations by a member of staff have indicated that the majority of the motorists approaching the intersection are hesitant, as traditionally, vehicles on the through street are not required to relinquish right-of-way to vehicles on the single leg approach. In this instance, although northbound motorists on Plunkett Road have the right-of-way, they are yielding to traffic on Anthia Drive or Cabana Drive. This activity is creating a dangerous situation for both motorists and pedestrians entering this intersection. Due to the high number of pedestrians crossing at this intersection and the confusion for motorists, this department supports the installation of an all way stop control to increase the level of safety for both motorists and pedestrians at this intersection. Conclusions: In view of motorist and pedestrian safety, this department supports the installation of an all way stop control at the intersection of Plunkett Road at Anthia Drive/Cabana Drive. Contact Name: Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484 5 Parking Prohibitions - Park Home Avenue - North York Centre (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: To extend the limit of the "No Parking Any Time" prohibition on the south side of Park Home Avenue, west of Beecroft Road. Source of funds: All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget. Recommendation: It is recommended that Schedule VIII, of the former City of North York By-law No. 31001, be amended to prohibit parking at any time on the south side of Park Home Avenue, from the westerly limit of Beecroft Road to a point 60 metres westerly thereof. Council Reference/Background/History: Currently, parking is prohibited at any time on the south side of Park Home Avenue, from Beecroft Road to a point 30 metres west of Beecroft Road. West of a point 30 metres west of Beecroft Road, parking is prohibited between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Discussions: Staff of this department have been advised by Mr. Cann, resident of Park Home Avenue, that after 6:00 p.m. and all day on weekends, vehicles are parked on the south side of the roadway. These vehicles, which are parked slightly over 30 metres west of Beecroft Road, significantly impede the use of the eastbound shared thought/right turn lane at the Park Home Avenue/Beecroft Road intersections. To improve traffic operations and to reduce potential conflicts between eastbound and westbound traffic on Park Home Avenue, parking should be prohibited within 60 metres of Beecroft Road. Conclusions: In view of the above, this department would support an amendment to the parking regulations on south side of Park Home Avenue. Contact Name: Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations, at 395-7484. 6 Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Kingsdale Avenue North York Centre (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: To amend the existing three hour parking limit on the north side of Kingsdale Avenue, between Willowdale Avenue and Longmore Street, to "No Parking, 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday". Source of funds: All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998operating budget. Recommendation: It is recommended that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001 be amended to prohibit parking on the north side of Kingsdale Avenue, from the easterly limit of Willowdale Avenue to the westerly limit of Longmore Street. Council Reference/Background/History: Currently, parking is prohibited between 8:30 a. m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from John McKenzie Gate to Willowdale Avenue. East of Willowdale Avenue, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours. Discussion: This department has been advised by local residents that when vehicles are parked on both sides of the roadway, two way traffic cannot be maintained. Numerous requests to the Metropolitan Toronto Police for enforcement of illegal parking activities have proven ineffective. Also, the majority of residents on this section of the road are in favour of the proposed parking restrictions. Conclusions: In view of the above, this department supports amending the current parking regulations, as requested by the residents. Contact Name: Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484 7 Temporary Road Closure - Mildenhall Road and Cheltenham Avenue - North York Centre South (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: To temporarily close Mildenhall Road, between Rochester and Buckingham Avenues, and Cheltenham Avenue from St. Ives Crescent to Mildenhall Road to permit the Lawrence Park Community Athletic Association to conduct their annual Community Picnic on Saturday June 6, 1998. Source of funds: With the exception of a $50.00 application fee, all costs associated with the temporary closure are included within the 1998 operating budget. Recommendation: That permission for the temporary closure of Mildenhall Road and Cheltenham Avenue be granted and that the appropriate By-Law be enacted by Council. Council Reference/Background/History: It should be noted that the above event has been conducted at this location for the past 19 years, without any serious incidents. Discussions: A request has been received from Mr. William Best, on behalf of the Lawrence Park Community Athletic Association, to temporarily close Mildenhall Road, between Rochester and Buckingham Avenues, and Cheltenham Avenue from St. Ives Crescent to Mildenhall Road to vehicle traffic. This closure is required to accommodate their annual Community Picnic. In accordance with the former City of North York Procedural By-Law No. 24733, the appropriate agencies and departments have been contacted for comments. There have been no objections to the closure, subject to the applicant adhering to the following conditions. CThe applicant shall ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles. CFurther, that the organizer be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could interrupt the program as planned. Conclusions: This department recommends that the appropriate by-law be enacted to ensure that Mildenhall Road and Cheltenham Avenue be closed to vehicular traffic on Saturday, June 6, 1998, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Contact Name: Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, at 395-7484. 8 Parking Prohibitions - Mossgrove Trail, Rothmere Drive and Mildenhall Road East - North York Centre South (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: To modify/amend the existing traffic by-law entries to match the posted restrictions. Source of funds: All funds associated with amendments to the traffic by-law are included within the 1998 operating budget. Recommendation: It is recommended that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to allow for the coordination of the entries between the traffic by-law and signs posted on specific roadways. Council Reference/Background/History: Regular operational maintenance. Discussion: As a result of regular maintenance, several locations were identified where the specific by-law entries did not match the posted signs. To allow for proper enforcement of the restrictions, the traffic by-law must be amended. Conclusions: This department supports the amendments to the traffic by-law in order to facilitate proper enforcement. Contact Name: Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484. 9 Temporary Road Closure - Cortleigh Boulevard - North York Centre South (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: To temporary close a portion of Cortleigh Boulevard in order to conduct their annual Victoria Day Street Party and fireworks display. Source of funds: With the exception of a fifty dollar application fee received from the applicant, all costs associated with the temporary closure are included within the 1998 operating budget. Recommendation: That permission for the temporary road closure of Cortleigh Boulevard on May 18, 1998 be granted, subject to the applicant's compliance with procedural By-law No. 27433, and that the appropriate By-law be enacted by Council to temporary close Cortleigh Boulevard. Council Reference/Background/History: Similar events have been conducted at this location for the past five years, without incident. Discussion: Our investigations have determined that the proposed closure would not adversely affect the surrounding road system. The Toronto Police Services and the local Councillors have no objections to the temporary road closure of Cortleigh Boulevard. Furthermore, local home owners and/or tenants, by virtue of their signatures affixed to the application form, have indicated their support of this event. In accordance with the Procedural By-law No. 24733, I have requested comments from the Toronto Fire Chief and he advises that he would not object to this closure provided the following conditions are adhered to: (1)that the fireworks display set-up area be located 30 metres (100 ft) from property and people; (2)that the fireworks display set-up area is not located near overhead wires; and (3)the temporary road closure policy requires that the applicant shall ensure that the area to be barricaded off is clear of parked vehicles and any obstacles that would interfere with the movement of emergency vehicles. Further, that the organizers be made aware that should an emergency arise, it could well interrupt the event as planned. Conclusions: In view of the above, this department recommends that the appropriate By-law be enacted to ensure that Cortleigh Boulevard from Alexandra Wood to Proudfoot Avenue be closed temporary on Monday May 18, 1998, from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.. Contact Name: Mr. Michael Frederick, 395-7484 10 Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Longmore Street - North York Centre (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: To amend the existing three hour parking limit on both sides of Longmore Street, between Spring Garden Avenue and Alfred Avenue, to "No Parking 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday". Source of funds: All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget. Recommendation: It is recommended that Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001be amended to prohibit parking from 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Longmore Street, from the northerly limit of Spring Garden Avenue to Alfred Avenue. Council Reference/Background/History: Currently, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours on the above noted section of roadway. Discussion: This department has been advised by local residents that when vehicles are parked on both sides of the roadway, two way traffic cannot be maintained. Numerous requests to the Metropolitan Toronto Police for enforcement of illegal parking activities have proven ineffective. Also, the majority of residents on this section of Longmore Street are in favour of the proposed parking restrictions. Conclusions: In view of the foregoing, this department supports amending the current parking regulations, as requested by the residents. Contact Name: Michael Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484 11 Sign By-law Variance Request - Apex Financial Consulting Services - 22 Glen Park Avenue - North York Spadina (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April24, 1998) from the Chief Building Official/Building Commissioner, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Gerald A. Oxman, of Apex Financial Consulting Services, for a variance from the sign by-law to permit a directional ground sign that exceeds the permitted area to be located on City property. Recommendation: It is recommended that: (1)The request be approved as a minor variance from the sign by-law. Council Reference/Background/History: In a letter dated March 26, 1998, Gerald A. Oxman, of Apex Financial Consulting Services, is requesting permission to erect an illuminated ground sign having an area of 24 square feet on City property just north of the sidewalk between the property line and the sidewalk at 22 Glen Park Avenue. Section 4.1. of Sign By-law No. 30788 permits one directional sign for places of worship to be erected on highways provided that the sign area does not exceed 5.1 square feet. The proposed sign is 24 square feet in sign area and therefore contravenes the by-law. The proposed directional sign, if erected on private property in a residential zone, could have a sign area of 21.5 square feet. In order to save an existing stand of Mountbatten cedars forming a high hedge along the lot line, the applicant wishes to locate the sign on City owned property directly south of the hedge. Since the hedge obscures the church from public view, the sign serves to provide direction to the public who wish to access the facility. The sign will be placed on the strip of land between the front property line and the sidewalk and will be oriented parallel to the hedge and visible to east and westbound traffic on Glen Park Avenue. Although the sign will be moved approximately 2 feet south of the lot line and closer to the street it will be well back from the curb and should not present a hazard for motorists or pedestrians. As required by section 4.1.6. of the sign by-law, the Trustees of Grace Tabernacle have entered into an agreement made on February 24^th 1998 with the City of Toronto to indemnify and save harmless the City from any liability relating to the erection of the sign. Conclusions: It is the opinion of this department that the variance is minor in nature and that the intent of the sign by-law has not been compromised by the erection of this sign. Therefore it is recommended that this request be approved as a minor variance from the sign by-law. 12 Report - Industrial Zoning Review, By-law Appeals - UD43-IND - Supplementary Report No. 1: Steeles West Market, North York Spadina (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April15, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: This is further to North York Community Council's direction, adopted by Council at its March 1998 meeting, regarding proposed modifications to North York's Industrial Zoning by-law amendments. The attached modification, relating to the Steeles West Market site, is recommended for endorsement and forwarding to the Ontario Municipal Board. Source of Funds:Not applicable. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1)Council endorse the proposed modification referred to as Schedule F, and attached to this report, and forward same to the Ontario Municipal Board; and (2)the Ontario Municipal Board be requested to expeditiously approve By-laws Nos. 33091, 33092 and 33093, with the modification endorsed per (1) above and the modifications endorsed by Council at its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, save and except for specific matters under appeal that remain outstanding. Council Reference: A previous report, dated February 4, 1998, addressed the appeals to By-laws Nos. 33091, 33092 and 33093, which are the Industrial Zoning by-law amendments that had been passed by North York Council on September 17, 1997. Technical modifications were proposed to resolve the concerns of four out the five appeals that were still outstanding. At its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, Council adopted the recommendation of North York Community Council (from its meeting of February 18, 1998), which adopted the recommendations of the above-noted report, "subject to the deletion of Schedule 'F' relating to the Steeles West Market, in order that Councillor Moscoe may have an opportunity to meet with staff and the applicant to review their objections." Comments: Councillor Moscoe has now met with staff and the owner of the Steeles West Market site; and understands and agrees with the wording of "Schedule F". The schedule, which is also attached to this report, contains revised wording proposed for exception MC(68)(H) found in Bylaw 33093. The proposed modification clarifies that the maximum gross floor area of retail stores and personal service shops is 22,720 square metres, which had been permitted in a 1986 site specific bylaw (No. 30043), and restates the permission for outside sales areas and limitations on the size of retail units from By-law No. 30043 in keeping with the context of the new industrial zoning framework. Conclusion: Schedule "F", which deals with the site of the Steeles West Market, and which had been deleted from the recommendations considered by North York Community Council regarding the appeals to the Industrial Zoning bylaw amendments, is now recommended for approval based on consultations with Councillor Moscoe. Contact Name: Alan Theobald, Senior Planner Phone: 395-7166 Fax: 395-7155 Schedule "F" Revision to Subsection 64.33(68) in Item 8 of By-law 33093, passed the 17th day of September, 1997. 64.33(68)MC(68)(H) EXCEPTION REGULATIONS (a)Outside sales and outside display of items for sale is permitted, provided that the outside sales and display occupies a total area no greater than 2,750 m². (b)Subject to clause (c), the maximum gross floor area of retail stores and personal service shops shall be 22,720 m². (c)The maximum gross floor area of office uses shall be 6,000 m², provided that the maximum gross floor area of retail stores and personal service shops cited in clause (b) is reduced by an amount equal to the gross floor area of office uses. (d)Where the total gross floor area devoted to retail stores and personal service shops exceeds 5,000 m², the following shall apply to the excess above 5,000m²: (i)the first ten individual retail stores or personal service shops shall each have a maximum gross floor area of 186 m²; and (ii)the maximum gross floor area of each individual retail store or personal service shop beyond the ten cited in sub-clause (i) shall be 1,858 m². 13 Report - General Zoning By-law Amendment - UD43-HSK - Supplementary Report No. 1 - All North York Community Council Wards (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April23, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning: Purpose: When the General Zoning Amendment was considered, North York Community Council requested that one item dealing with sidewalks around apartment dwellings not be removed from the zoning by-law, and that three items be referred back for a full report. This report provides the additional information requested by Community Council. Source of Funds: Not Applicable Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1)Community Council determine that under Subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice is required; (2)Community Council recommend amendment of the General Zoning By-law Amendment By-law in accordance with the following: (a)the setbacks set out in Section 36, the General Provisions for O zones, be moved to the O1 and O3 zones; (b)the exception for Don Mills Arena be moved to Section 64.37; (c)the schedules for the RM6(79), C1(74) and C1(75) zones be added to Section 64; (d)the reference to schedule C1(75) be corrected to a reference to schedule C1(74) in the C1(74) exception zone; (e)the C1(74) exception zone outdoor amenity space requirement be changed to 1.5 m²per unit; and (f)the reference in the O3(2) zone to uses permitted by Section 64.39 be replaced with a reference to uses permitted by Section 39. Background: On April 1, 1998, North York Community Council considered the General Zoning Amendment report. Community Council deferred three items for a further report. The by-law (minus the deferred items) was enacted by City Council on April 16 1998, as By-law No. 169-1998 . This report is a general description of the deferred items. Discussion: Garbage Containers in Commercial Zones Section 22.8 of By-law No. 7625 requires that for commercial buildings near residential zones, all outside garbage containers or receptacles be built recessed into the rear wall, or be screened by a minimum 2.4 metre high brick wall. By-law No. 32641, which was recently approved by the Ontario Municipal Board (October 22, 1997) has a regulation repealing Section 22.8. The recommendation in the previous General Zoning Amendment report to repeal Section 22.8 is no longer necessary, as this provision has already been repealed. Section 22.8 was added to the zoning by-law in 1979, prior to when the site plan process was first enabled by the Planning Act in 1983. There are now better options for dealing with garbage containers than those prescribed by Section 22.8. The site plan approval process gives an opportunity to consider the location, materials, and access to the garbage receptacle among other things. The site plan approval process enables better solutions to be found on a site specific basis. Repeal of the General Provisions for Open Space Zones A principle set out in the review of the zoning by-law was that general provisions for each zoning category would be eliminated over time, by relocating regulations to either the General Provisions for all Zones, or to each individual zone. The only operable regulations left in the General Provisions for Open Space Zones are (1)the yard setbacks (Section 36.2); and (2)the exception for yards for Don Mills Arena (Section 36.4.1). It is recommended that the setback regulation be relocated to each O zone, and that the exception be relocated to the exception section. The recommended changes will not change the application of any of the regulations that currently apply to Open Space Zones. -Yonge Norton Centre By-law No. 33027 was passed on July 9, 1997 creating five separate exception zones for this site, by consolidating two site specific by-laws for the area. By-law No. 33027 as proposed should have had schedules for the RM6(79), C1(74) and C1(75) zones, but in error they were not attached to the implementing by-law. There have been two building permits issued for these exception zones but they were based on previous site specific zoning. The schedules for the RM6(79), C1(74) and C1(75) exception zones contain the relevant residential property lines. Without these schedules the building height regulation only limits the maximum number of storeys; it does not directly limit the height as was Council's intent. In addition, in the C1(74) exception zone the requirement for outdoor recreational amenity area is 1.5m² in total. It was intended that the 1.5 m² requirement be per unit. Also in the C1(74) exception zone is a reference to schedule C1(75) that should be corrected to a reference to schedule C1(74). In the O3(2) exception zone (also part of the Yonge Norton development), the reference to uses permitted by Section 64.39 should have been a reference to Section 39. As written, the O3(2) zone does not permit a park or other station, building or yard operated by the City. For the sites that are zoned O1(16) and O3(2) there is no need for a schedule to be added to the exception. The three exception schedules should be enacted in order to limit the height of any future development in these three exception zones. In this way any new building would be developed in accordance with Council's intent. Conclusions: The O zone provisions that apply should be relocated to the O1 and O3 zones in the case of the yard setbacks, and to the exception section in the case of the exception. These proposed changes have no impact on the application of the O Zone regulations. The schedules for the RM6(79), C1(74) and C1(75) exception zones should be added to the By-law to ensure that any future Building Permits issued for this site are consistent with Council's intent. The wording changes proposed for the C1(74) and O3(2) zone should also be made. There is no changes recommended for Section 22.8 dealing with garbage receptacles as that provision has already been repealed from the zoning by-law. Contact Name: David J. Douglas, Planner Phone: 395-7136Fax: 395-7155 (A copy of the General Zoning By-law Amendment and schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.) 14 Request for Three Curb Cuts/Driveway Entrances - 2 Suncrest Drive at Glenorchy Road - North York Centre South (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (March 18, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, North York Civic Centre, not be adopted and that the request for three curb cuts/driveways for 2 suncrest Drive be approved: Purpose: Mr. Guido Ronchin, of Radius Design Group Limited, has requested approval for three curb cuts/driveway entrances for 2 Suncrest Drive. Source Funds: There are no City funds required with respect to this matter. Recommendations: It is recommended that the policy of the former City of North York Council, which reads in part, as noted, be upheld. "That when the frontage of a property exceeds 69 feet or the frontage and flankage of a corner lot exceeds 69 feet, the owner be permitted two curb cuts not to exceed a total of 30 feet." Council Reference/background History: By Resolution of Council 89-57 the former City of North York Council on September 20, 1989, approved Works Committee Report 17, Clause 5, without amendment. The recommendation approved in part reads: "That when the frontage of a property exceeds 69 feet or the frontage and flankage of a corner lot exceeds 69 feet, the owner be permitted two curb cuts not to exceed a total of 30 feet." Number 2 Suncrest Drive is a single family dwelling located at the north east corner of Glenorchy Road and Suncrest Drive. The frontage on Suncrest Drive is approximately 24m and the flankage on Glenorchy Road is approximately 29m. The property is currently serviced with 3 curb cuts/driveway entrances. A 6.0m curb cut on Glenorchy Road services a garage and two curb cuts/driveway entrances on Suncrest Drive, measuring 4.5m and 5.1m form a circular driveway. The existing curb cuts/driveway entrances were granted under a former department policy. A building application has been approved for the demolition of the existing single family dwelling and the construction of a new house. On a site plan received under Building Application No. B98-0507 the applicant is proposing three driveways to service the new single family dwelling. A 6.25m driveway on Glenorchy Road to service a garage and two 3.5m driveways on Suncrest Drive to act as a circular driveway for a total of 13.25m, approximately 43 feet. By policy of the former City of North York Council, two curb cuts, not to exceed a total of 30 ft. (9.1m) is permitted. Comments And/or Discussion And/or Justification: The number and size of driveway entrances for residential properties are regulated to limit front yard hard surfaces, to encourage the utilization of on-street parking, to ensure that there is sufficient boulevard space for snow storage, and to control access for safety reasons. Excessive front yard hard surfaces eliminates green space and results in increased quantity and speed of storm water runoff contributing to the erosion of receiving streams and lower water quality. Conclusion: In view of the policy of Council restricting the number of driveways per single family dwellings it is advised that no action be taken. Contact Name: Dominic Gismondi, P. Eng., Director of Roads and Sidewalk Operations, 395-6239. The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 26 of Report No. 4 of the North York Community Council, headed "Request for Three Curb Cuts/Driveway Entrances - 2 Suncrest Drive at Glenorchy Road - North York Centre South": City Council, at its meeting held April 16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 26 of Report No.4 of the North York Community Council, headed "Request for Three Curb Cuts/Driveway Entrances -2Suncrest Drive at Glenorchy Road - North York Centre South". Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred back to the North York Community Council for further consideration. 15 Sale of Portion of Fennimore Park - Part of Block "A", Plan 6450, North York - North York Humber (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services: Purpose: To declare the lands surplus to the needs of the City and that the appropriate notice be given that the City intends to sell the property. That the City accept the "Offer To Purchase" from 12008128 Ontario Limited, attached as Appendix"B". Financial Implications and Impact Statement: The "Offer to Purchase" provides for the sale of City lands at a purchase price of $30,000.00. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1)Council declare that the subject lands are surplus to the needs of the City and the appropriate notice be given that the City intends to sell this property; (2)the City accept the "Offer to Purchase" from 12008128 Ontario Limited, attached as Appendix "B" and the Deputy Commissioner of Finance and Deputy Treasurer and the City Clerk be authorized to execute same; (3)proceeds from the sale be credited to account No. 007-435-000-8340; and (4)the appropriate City officials be authorized to do all things necessary to finalize this matter. Background: The owner of 325 Eddystone Avenue (the adjoining industrial property), in July 1993, requested to purchase or lease 18,062 square feet of the adjoining parkland. In order to accommodate extra truck loading and turning, existing parking needed to be relocated, resulting in the request for land. On October 6, 1993, by Resolution No 93-36, Council recommended a 30 year lease at a rent of $12,400.00 per annum along with fencing and buffering; all of which was conditional upon approval of a minor variance. On October 20, 1993, by Resolution No. 93-37, Council approved a $30,000.00 up front payment, an annual rental of $10,416.00, no rental payments for the first three years and a maximum leased area of .32 acres (13,939 square feet). On May 12, 1995, the Ontario Municipal Board found in favor of the City, concerning the minor variance to the Official Plan as required to implement the proposed lease. Approval was conditional upon (i) site plan approval, (ii) a 1.0 metre high chain link fence along the perimeter at the expense of the company. The owner approached staff with a view to purchase a substantially reduced area, from 13,939 square feet to 2,230 square feet. Parks and Recreation staff indicated a preference to selling the reduced area rather than leasing the larger area. Comments: Based on recent sale transactions for industrial land in this area, the valuation of this land is $10,000.00. However, given the strategic importance of this parcel to the purchaser he has offered to pay $30,000.00. A portion of the purchase price, approximately $2,800.00, will be use to fence the site. We are of the opinion that the purchase price is fair and above the market value of the land. Contact Name: Rudi Pestl, Telephone: 395-6846, Fax: 395-6703 (cs98026.wpd) The North York Community Council reports having received the following communication (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 5 of Report No. 3 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Sale of Portion of Fennimore Park, Part of Block "A", Plan 6450, North York File No. 93-044-40 LA29 - North York Humber": City Council, at its meeting held April 16, 1998, had before it Clause No. 5 of Report No.3 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Sale of Portion of Fennimore Park, Part of Block "A" Plan6450, North York File No. 93-044-40 LA29 (North York Humber - Ward 6)". Council directed that the aforementioned Clause be struck out and referred to the North York Community Council for consideration. (A copy of Appendix B referred to in the foregoing report, the location map and Schedule A attached to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.) 16 1998 Membership in Ontario Traffic Conference (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends that: (1)Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, and Councillor Li Preti, Black Creek, be appointed as the representatives of the North York Community Council on the Ontario Traffic Conference; and (2)the selections be reported to the Administrative Assistant of the Ontario Traffic Conference. The North York Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having had before it a Committee Transmittal (April 21, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on April 20, 1998, concurred with Recommendation No. (2), embodied in the report dated March 31, 1998, from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation, regarding 1998 membership in the Ontario Traffic Conference, viz: "(2)this report be referred to each Community Council for the selection of up to two representatives each for the Ontario Traffic Conference, and that the selections be reported to the Administrative Assistant of the Ontario Traffic Conference." 17 Encroachment - 10 Amos Crescent - North York Spadina (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March4, 1998) from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, which was deferred by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on April 1, 1998: Purpose: The purpose of this report is to consider a request to permit an existing encroachment of a single family dwelling at the above location. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: N/A Recommendations: It is recommended that if the existing encroachment is approved by the City, the encroachment be subject to the following conditions: 1)The owner(s) enter into an encroachment agreement with the City; and 2)The City Solicitor be authorized to do all things necessary. Background: The Public Works Department is in receipt of a letter dated February 23, 1998 from Sheldon Steinberg of Steinberg and Waldman, Barristers and Solicitors on behalf of the vendor Ms. Berg requesting an encroachment agreement for a single family dwelling which is encroaching on an existing storm and sanitary sewer easement located between 10 and 12 Amos Crescent from Waterloo Avenue to Amos Crescent. The former City of North York policy provides for existing and inadvertent encroachments and requires the following for an application to be approved: i)that all encroachments be subject to a legal agreement being entered into between the City and the Owner of the property abutting the encroachment; ii)that such agreement be to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Public Works and be registered on the title of the property abutting the encroachment; iii)that a suitable survey drawing of the lands involved, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor, showing the location of the encroachment, its dimensions and areas, and any significant features and fences pertinent to the encroachment and satisfactory to the Commissioner of Public Works, be provided by the owner, to delineate the encroachment and that such plan be attached to and form part of the agreement; iv)The owner provide confirmation letters from the utility companies that they have no objections to the encroachments prior to entering an encroachment agreement; and v)that the owner pay a one-time administrative fee of $150.00 to the Department of Public Works and a one-time administrative fee of $250.00 to the Legal Department. A Plan of Survey number 64R-5433 dated June 4, 1976 showing the encroachment of the dwelling is currently being held on file. The encroachment onto the sewer easement consists of a portion of the building along the east side extending approximately 0.69 metres wide and 15.71 metres long within the easement. The property has been sold and the closing date is March 10, 1998. Conclusion: There are no conflicts with existing or proposed municipal services, therefore, the Department has no objections to the encroachment subject to the owner entering into an encroachment agreement with the City. Contact Name and Telephone Number: Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering Tel.: 416-395-6235 Fax No.: 416-395-6200 E-mail: sbertoia@city.north-york.on.ca 18 Quit Claim of Easement - 5 Glen Park Avenue - North York Spadina (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following extract from the report (February 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Public Works, relating to 5 Glen Park Avenue, which was deferred by the North York Community Council at its meeting held on April 1, 1998: Purpose: To Quit Claim an Easement at 5 Glen Park Avenue - Instrument No. TB453524. Source of Funds: Legal costs to be charged to North York Surveys and Land Acquisition Account. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City easement at 5 Glen Park Avenue be quit claimed subject to the City assuming no liabilities for any of the physical services (pipes) within the easement and that the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Background: 5 Glen Park Avenue - Instrument No. TB453524. Hollaman Road was closed and a portion of the closed road was sold to Congregation Habonim of Toronto in 1987. The Deed to Congregation Habonim of Toronto included a sanitary easement in favour of the City. The North York Water and Sewer Section has confirmed that the sanitary sewer within this easement can be abandoned. Congregation Habonim of Toronto is requesting a quit claim for expansion purposes. The Department has no objections to the quit claim request subject to the owner's agreement that the City shall not be liable for the pipe within the easement after quit claim. Conclusion: North York Public Works has reviewed and investigated the requests for a quit claim for the above location and has determined that the subject easement is no longer required for City servicing purposes. Therefore, North York Public Works has no objections to quit claiming this easement subject to the City not assuming any further liability to the services within the easement. Contact Name and Telephone Number: Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., Director of Engineering Telephone No.: 395-6235, Fax No.: 395-6200 19 Sign By-law Variance Request - Michael A. Cohen - 619 Lawrence Avenue West - North York Spadina (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April21, 1998) from the Chief Building Official/Building Commissioner, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Michael A. Cohen for a variance from the sign by-law to permit a double sided ground sign that exceeds the permitted sign area to be located on private property facing east & west bound traffic on Lawrence Avenue West directly across from Bathurst Heights Secondary School. Recommendation: It is recommended that: (1)The request be denied as a minor variance from the sign by-law. Council Reference/Background/History: In a letter dated March 31, 1998, Michael A. Cohen is requesting permission to erect a double sided ground sign having a sign area of 24 square feet (each side). Section 5.1.1. of Sign By-law No. 30788 permits one identification sign not exceeding 4.3 square feet in sign area in a residential zone indicating the name of a lawful business or profession located therein. The proposed sign is 24 square feet in sign area and therefore contravenes the by-law. The proposed sign will be used to advertise acupuncture and holistic medicine neither of which is a permitted use in an R4 zone. The proposed sign is to be erected in a small front yard and is almost six times the size permitted by the sign by-law. Conclusions: It is the opinion of this department that the variance is not minor in nature and that the sign would have a negative impact on the surrounding area in particular the adjacent houses. As the intent of the sign by-law would not be served by the erection of this sign, it is recommended that this request be denied as a minor variance from the sign by-law. 20 Addendum Report to the Environmental Study Report for the Downtown Plan, South of Sheppard Avenue - Transportation Infrastructure Requirements - September 1996 - North York Centre (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (April 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre. The North York Community Council reports having requested that staff of the Planning and Transportation Departments, North York Civic Centre: (a)review the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board on the Elihu Pease House; (b)develop a supplementary report as an Addendum to the Environmental Study Report specifically with respect to the Elihu Pease House; and (c)in cooperation with the Historical Board, develop a plan for dealing with the Elihu Pease House. The North York Community Council submits the following report (April 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: The purpose of this report is to introduce an Addendum to the Environmental Study Report entitled "Downtown Plan South of Sheppard Avenue - Transportation Infrastructure Requirements" dated September 1996, and obtain Council's approval to give notice and release the document to the public for a thirty (30) day review in accordance with the requirements of the Class Environmental Assessment. Funding Sources: The amount of approximately $3,500.00 is required for appropriate newspaper advertising. The funds are available in Account No. 005-314-7102. Recommendations: Authorize staff to do all things necessary to proceed with the formal release of the Addendum to the Environmental Study Report entitled "Downtown Plan South of Sheppard Avenue - Transportation Infrastructure Requirements" dated September 1996. Background: In September of 1996, the subject Environmental Study Report (ESR) was completed and filed with the City Clerk of the former City of North York to satisfy the required 30 day public review provision of the Class Environmental Assessment process. The ESR identified the transportation infrastructure needed to support the land use and development levels associated with the City's Official Plan Amendment No. 393 (OPA 393) of the Downtown Plan, south of Sheppard Avenue, and within the context of the ultimate development of the North York Centre. In a letter dated November 29, 1996, the Minister of the Environment advised the City Clerk of being in receipt of several "bump-up" requests of the ESR, but the Minister decided to reserve his decision on the grounds of prematurity. It was his position that the land use issues associated with OPA No. 393 must first be resolved by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). The OMB hearing commenced on April 29, 1997, and concluded on June 5, 1997, with the Board's decision (D.L. Santo, Vice-Chair) released on September 29, 1997. The decision changed the Downtown boundary of the North York Centre Plan, set new development levels, and directed in part, the location of certain road infrastructure. It also approved the applications for Wittington Properties Limited and Anndale Properties Limited and Crestview Investment Corporation (referred to in the OMB decision as "Oakburn" Apartments). As a result of the OMB decision, the transportation infrastructure requirements as outlined in the September 1996 ESR had to be re-evaluated to reflect the Board's decision with the changes and modifications identified. The subject Environmental Study Report Addendum was prepared specifically and to reflect these changes. For continuity, the consulting firm of Cole Sherman and Associates, who completed the original ESR, was retained in the fall of 1997 to complete the necessary evaluation and prepare the addendum. Conclusion: Staff at North York and Metro districts l have worked with the consultants to produce this final document. The Addendum reflects the necessary modifications to transportation infrastructure resulting from the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board of September 29, 1997, and needs to be released for public review to complete the environmental assessment process. . Contact Name: Colin Couper, Director of Transportation Planning, Works and Emergency Services, Transportation, North York Office. Telephone 395-7470, Fax 395-7482, e-mail cwcouper@city.north.york.on.ca. __________ The North York Community Council reports also having had before it a communication (May 4, 1998) from Donalda and Louis Badone, The Elihu Pease House, requesting the Community Council to send the Environmental Study Report back for revision with respect to widening the service road to the south in order to protect the Elihu Pease House and requesting that the City consider purchasing the Elihu Pease House. The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with this matter: -Mr. Louis Badone, owner of The Elihu Pease House; and -Mr. Geoff Geduld, President of the North York Historical Society. (A copy of the Environmental Study Report entitled "Downtown Plan South of Sheppard Avenue - Transportation Infrastructure Requirements", referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.) Councillor Filion declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that he owns property in the vicinity of the area covered by the Environmental Study Report. (Councillor Filion, at the meeting of City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns property in the vicinity of the area covered by the Environmental Study Report.) 21 User Safety - McGlashan Road - Walkway to Yonge Street - North York Centre South (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report(March 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre subject to Recommendation (2) being amended to read "a Local Councillor ....." : Purpose: User safety on the public walkway located on the McGlashan Road road allowance between McGlashan Court and Yonge Street was referred to the North York Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Specifically, issues and concerns with respect to this walkway were submitted by Loretto Abbey Catholic High School and the York Mills Heights Ratepayers Association. The TAC has examined a variety of options for improvement suggested by these two parties. The purpose of this report is to address the status of the walkway between McGlashan Court and Yonge Street and provide an overview of the options considered. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: The cost of the work recommended can be undertaken within the existing maintenance budget of the Parks and Recreation Department. No specific funding requirements are necessary. Recommendations: (1)the Parks and Recreation Department be directed to remove all ground level shrubbery and provide regular tree pruning as required; and (2)Local Councillors convene a meeting with representation from Loretto Abbey and the York Mill Heights Ratepayers Association to discuss the conclusions of this report, and to request Loretto Abbey to consider providing additional school security on the walkway during times when the walkway is used by its students. Background History: In order to determine the magnitude of the pedestrian safety issues raised, it was important to consult with the police for an understanding of the types of problems which were reported to them, and to identify, if any, the situations which could be considered preventable from the point of view of walkway design. On January 8, 1997, the Technical Advisory Committee conducted a special meeting with Sgt. Paul Cocksedge and P.C. John Leahy, Metropolitan Toronto Police, to address concerns regarding the safety of pedestrians on the walkway. It was indicated that over the years there have been a number of complaints and/or incidents reported to the police with respect to 'indecent acts' occurring along the walkway. The subject walkway is located to the south of Loretto Abbey Catholic High School, is used regularly and frequently by a number of the students who attend this school and this unfortunately, has had a tendency to attract an undesirable element into the area. As an overview, the current design and condition of the walkway was discussed. The walkway is approximately 215metres in length, it slopes from McGlashan Court down to Yonge Street where it connects with the sidewalk on a stub end of the McGlashan Road roadway, which in turn provides access to the apartments known as Nos. 3900 and 4000 Yonge Street. The drop in elevation is approximately 30 metres. The length of the walkway combined with the topography of the area requires that the walkway meander with steps at various locations and a stairway at the lower end to connect with McGlashan Road. Based on experience with "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" (CPTED) the police delegates provided a number of suggestions which could be considered and contributed in the discussions of the options suggested by Loretto Abbey and the ratepayers' association . The following items were discussed: i)add more lighting to the walkway, specifically oriented onto the northerly embankment. In addition, the use of shields or deflector devices could be installed on the back of the existing light standards to direct the light towards the walkway which could possibly resolve the concerns of the residents to the south of the walkway, with respect to the light overspill intruding into their windows; ii)plant thorn bushes on both sides of the walkway with rough aggregate(rocks) placed underneath. This would help deter loiterers by creating an uncomfortable environment; iii)widen the walkway from 1.5 to 3.0 metres to increase visibility and provide a sense of open space for pedestrians. Further, straightening the walkway; where possible, may eliminate blind spots; iv)provide better traction on the surface of the walkway by using coarse material. Also, to increase winter maintenance and use of more sand to prevent the walkway from becoming slippery. This would assist individuals in fleeing (running away) from possible confrontation; v)lower the hand rail along the steps at the northerly part of the walkway. The height of the existing railing could create an entrapment area, making an attempt to escape difficult. Also, the hand rail should not be continuous, there should be breaks in the railing at regular intervals; vi)install an opaque fence or a privacy fence at the top of the northerly embankment which would continue along the easterly side of the school property. This would prevent access to the walkway from the rear of the school property; vii)Installation of surveillance cameras at 2 or 3 strategic locations; and viii)installation of emergency telephones or alarm. The cameras and telephones could be connected to security in Loretto Abbey. 911 telephone calls are free. Discussion The suggestions were the subject of extensive debate. As a result of the meeting with the Police, additional relevant information was collected from the appropriate departments and agencies. The TAC has the following comments: i)North York Hydro advise that the 11 lights on the walkway exceed City lighting standards and these lights are more than adequate for this walkway. However, the light distribution patterns of the luminaries may be distorted by various trees on the north side. This may necessitate the pruning of several branches. Hydro advises that reflectors reduce the life span of bulbs and therefore are not recommended. The TAC concurs that when the bulbs burn out, replacement would have to be immediate or consequently this could become another detriment to safety . In many cases, North York Hydro has to rely on the public to inform them that specific light fixtures are in need of maintenance and this may not occur for a number of days. ii)Parks and Recreation Department advise that thorn bushes should not be planted as in its experience, these bushes are too dangerous. Adding bushes may even make matters worse by providing additional hiding places. The Parks Department suggests that the area should be completely cleared of all of the low shrubs. This action has been discussed with the Police who have agreed that this is also an option and that at other locations where this has been done, considerable improvements have been experienced. The Parks and Recreation Department has previously pruned and thinned the trees and shrubbery along the McGlashan walkway to the greatest extent possible. Due to the topography however, pruning can only provide a limited benefit, it does not provide a clear view from one end of the walkway to the other. When necessary, the trees and shrubbery will be thinned on an as required basis. iii)The Engineering Division of the Public Works Department have advised of the cost to widen the existing walkway from 1.5 metres to 3.0 metres. Estimated cost for 206 metres$14, 800.00. The present width of the walkway is 1.5 metres which is to City standards. The removal of all shrubbery is an option which would create an open environment and may discourage prowlers. Therefore the widening should not be considered necessary. With respect to the straightening of the walkway, this is only partially possible. Sight line improvements can be made, albeit with the use of retaining walls. However, the removal of all shrubbery would improve sight lines. Any further straightening would be prohibitively expensive. Estimated cost for straightening (110 m.)$76,000.00. iv)The walkway is constructed with interlocking brick with a relatively rough surface. Winter maintenance is regular providing safety under icy conditions. It would be difficult to prepare a rougher and safe walking surface. v)Engineering Division staff advise that a modest lowering of the handrail would be expensive and further, lowering would actually create a hazard from what should be a safety feature. If a widening/straightening of the walkway is undertaken, then there would be an additional cost for relocation of the handrail. Estimated cost for relocating rail $19,000.00. vi)It is not the City's practice to install privacy fences along walkways due to ongoing liability and maintenance costs. In addition, such a fence would create an entrapment area. However, this has been considered along with the addition of a chain link fence. Installation of a (wood privacy) fence along the northerly limit (embankment) of the walkway ROW Estimated cost of 205 metres$14,300.00. Installation of a (chain link) fence along the rear (easterly) property line of Loretto Abbey. Estimated cost for 271 metres $14,400.00. vii)Surveillance Cameras Existing wooden light poles would be used to mount cameras and string video cable, separate from existing power cabling. Cameras would be powered from the monitoring location. If installed, there would be one camera at each end of the walkway and two at the dogleg, one looking back to each end, allowing overlap and maintaining depth of field (focus). The installation of cameras would require ongoing observation by a security person (i.e.. Loretto Abbey). Quote (KM Video)$13,977.00 viii)Telephone (security company) An emergency telephone would connect via a standard telephone line and it would be possible to gain access through the nearby school (Loretto Abbey) or some other establishment. No other power is provided. The costs, strictly for the installation of a telephone, are as follows: free-standing telephone $2663.00 (or) flush-mount phone $ 963.00 optional blue lamp always on, strobe when in use$ 794.00 The installation of a telephone could encourage pranks, vandalism and would require ongoing upkeep (i.e. Loretto Abbey) and probably be the subject of ongoing maintenance. The estimated cost for both the telephone and surveillance camera is for the hardware and installation only. If either option was to be incorporated , it would require additional manpower to monitor 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The cost for this service is unknown at this time as we do not have a candidate host to take on such responsibility. The installation of either the telephone and surveillance camera may give a false sense of security and in the event of an incident, liability issues may arise. It could also set an unwarranted precedent. Site Investigations Supplementary site investigations have been, and will continue to be undertaken at various times of the year to determine conditions relating to growth of foliage in the context of the safety of the walkway. Caution signs are erected at either end of the walkway, alerting Loretto Abbey students not to travel the walkway alone and to use at own risk. Pedestrian Count A pedestrian count conducted on the walkway between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 11:00a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. identified total of 486 pedestrians trips, the majority of whom were students from Loretto Abbey. Options In the course of our investigations, there were only a limited number of options which could be realistically implemented without changing existing standards for walkways and setting a precedent for other public facilities. With some of these improvements, the perceived benefit cannot be guaranteed. The options available are: 1.Close the walkway and sell surplus land. In terms of public liability, this may be the most appropriate option however, the walkway is well used and should it be closed, then Loretto Abbey Catholic High School and the surrounding community must become involved. 2.Additional Police patrols. We have been advised that due to the history of reports which the police have on file, police patrols have been increased and are regular. It would be difficult to further increase police presence in the area. 3.Remove all ground level shrubbery which may provide hiding places forthwith. As with any action, there is an inherent cost, and with this option, the cost is that of the aesthetics of the walkway. However, there is no question that safety comes first when providing a service to the public and therefore this option is being supported by the TAC. While the closure of the walkway would reduce the potential for dangerous encounters on public facilities in this area, it should be noted that when compared to other walkways throughout North York, this walkway is in relatively good condition and it functions as a convenience for the community at large. The amenities located at Yonge Street such as buses and the subway generate pedestrian use. It appears that the sidewalk system on Wilson Avenue and Yonge Boulevard is not a reasonable alternate pedestrian route should this walkway be closed and therefore, the closure cannot be accepted as a viable option. Staff in conjunction with the Ward Local Councillors, could meet with representatives of Loretto Abbey and the adjacent ratepayer associations to discuss the conclusions of this report and request Loretto Abbey to assist in providing additional security on the walkway during times when the walkway is used by its students. Conclusion Throughout the City, walkways have been provided to satisfy community needs and have been constructed to certain municipal standards. The McGlashan Road walkway meets those standards in every regard, but it is unfortunate that a certain element of society is attracted to the area and in doing so, has brought safety as a concern to a public facility. The topography and location of the McGlashan Road road allowance present difficulties in providing additional safety in the walkway by construction design. The length of the walkway itself is problematic because once at midpoint, the distance to either McGlashan Court or Yonge Street is significant, however, efforts have been made to reduce the blind spots where possible. Again, due to the topography, the walkway cannot be straightened to provide a clear view from one end to the other. Options for improvement to this walkway are limited. Contact Name: Colin Couper, Director of Transportation Planning, Works and Emergency Services, Transportation, North York Office. Telephone 395- 7470, Fax 395-7482, E-mail cwcouper@city.north-york.on.ca. ---------- Councillor Feldman, North York Spadina, declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that he resides in the immediate vicinity of the subject walkway. (Councillor Feldman, at the meeting of City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he resides in the immediate vicinity of the subject walkway.) 22 Traffic Calming - Speed Humps (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (April 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre. The North York Community Council reports having requested staff of the Transportation Department, North York Civic Centre, to conduct an analysis of the results of the implementation of speed humps in the Post Road/Bridle Path area, i.e. the speed of traffic now as opposed to prior to the installation of the speed humps and provide a report to the North York Community Council. The North York Community Council submits the following report (April 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: This report addresses the introduction of speed humps, as devices to be considered in the evaluation of measures to be implemented through the Traffic Calming Policy Source of funds: As approved by City Council for traffic calming measures. Recommendations: 1) that speed humps be included in the evaluation of measures to be used for future traffic calming within the context of the Traffic Calming Policy; 2)that when speed humps are selected as the traffic calming measure for a neighbourhood, they be installed in accordance to the stipulations of the Traffic Calming Policy, as well as the design and technical criteria described in this report; 3)that staff report back with any amendments that will be necessary, to conform with uniform standards and policies, as these are developed on a City-wide basis; and 4)that, through Councillors Feldman and Moscoe offices, staff contact the Torresdale Avenue residents traffic committee to initiate a review of the benefits of installing speed humps on Torresdale Avenue. Council Reference/Background/History: Councillors Feldman and Moscoe have requested that this department submit a report to the North York Community Council, outlining how speed humps can be introduced as traffic calming measures in North York, and specifically addressing their possible installation on Torresdale Avenue. At its meeting of February 18, 1998, North York Community Council discussed at length the matter of vertical changes to the pavement as a traffic calming measure. During the debate there was some confusion regarding the difference between speed bumps and speed humps and the fact that until that time, vertical changes to the pavement had not been included as a possible traffic calming measure. Staff of this department have been monitoring the installation of test sites in other jurisdictions, particularly those with similar weather environments to determine the adequacy of installing speed humps on public roads. These devices have been in use in many jurisdictions throughout the world, however, the most recent experience within municipalities that have similar weather conditions is that of the former City of Toronto which, late in 1997, approved the installation of speed humps on local streets subject to some stringent criteria. Other jurisdictions, such as Ottawa, have initiated the evaluation of speed humps on local streets after significant testing of the devices off-street. In reviewing the experience of the other jurisdictions, it becomes apparent that an important aspect of all speed hump installations, is the need to comply with the technical guidelines and sound engineering standards which were established by the expert practitioners in this field, after significant research. Devices that are installed haphazardly, which incorporate poor design, improper coordination with roadway geometrics, or a poor choice of construction materials, do not achieve the intended speed reduction objectives but more importantly, could create unsafe road conditions. The jurisdictions which have started to install these devices, have also started to gather information and operating experience which can now be used in the evaluation of these devices . Discussion: It is first necessary to clarify the difference between speed bumps and speed humps. While the installation of either type of device has as its prime objective to reduce vehicular speeds through a vertical deviation of the pavement, the impact of their installation is markedly different. This is shown in attached Figure 1. Speed bumps are generally 7.5 to 10 cm in height, and are 0.2 to 0.4 m in width. They result in a sharp vertical movement of a vehicle travelling at slow speeds, which promotes the further reduction of the vehicle's speed to, generally, around 10 km/h. However at higher speeds, the suspension of a vehicle can generally absorb the sudden jolt before the vehicle's body can react. Experience in other jurisdictions has also indicated that street maintenance (snow removal, sweeping, etc.) can be difficult and for this reason, these devices are found principally on private property (roads and parking lots) or in some public laneways. Speed humps also have a typical height of 7.5 to 10 cm, but their width is approximately 4 m. One of the principal elements of a speed hump is the design of the cross-section which takes the form of a sinusoidal curve, shaped as a "wave" as indicated in attached Figure 2. Such a device also has a marked effect on vehicular speed, and while the impact is less abrupt on vehicles and their occupants, it is also felt at higher speeds. For aesthetic reasons and the eventual deformation -over time- of asphalt humps, some jurisdictions install flat-topped humps, using a mix of asphalt and interlocking brick, as shown in attached Figure3. The cost of an asphalt speed hump generally varies between $1500 and $2000. The cost of flat-topped humps is dependent upon the extent of work required to place the interlocking brick. The existing Traffic Calming Policy establishes a process that allows the affected neighbourhood to actively participate in the evaluation of traffic calming measures which will affect their streets. This process ensures that the approval of any traffic calming initiative is derived through community input and consensus building. The successful results of this process are apparent in the various traffic calming measures which have been installed throughout North York. Traffic circles, raised medians, pavement narrowings and gateways, are amongst the measures which were selected by residents, tested and eventually installed as permanent features. Speed humps should therefore be included in this process so that they are designed and placed in accordance with standards that ensure that the devices achieve the objectives sought by the community in a safe and efficient manner. As with any traffic calming device, there are several technical aspects that will govern the feasibility of installing speed humps at particular locations. For example, speed humps are generally not installed on roads that have transit routes operating on them, where the number of travelled lanes is more than two, where the traffic volume exceeds 8000 vehicles per day, or where the gradient of the road exceeds 5 percent. These criteria, and any others of a more detailed or local nature, should be included in the assessment of speed humps as the appropriate traffic calming devices for a particular location. The research that has been conducted on the installation of speed humps, has concluded that generally, a safe crossing speed over the devices is around 30 kph. In the former City of Toronto, the posted speed for streets on which speed humps would be installed, might be set at 30 kph. A reduction of the speed limit to less than 40 kph, generally requires a special Bill and approval by the Province. In other jurisdiction, however, the speed limit has been reduced to an appropriate level, and advisory signs and tabs located at strategic locations to alert drivers. The latter would appear to be the most appropriate course of action for North York, whereby the speed limit is reduced to 40 kph on those sections of streets in which traffic calming has been instituted, and warning signs are installed to alert drivers to the presence of the devices. Concerns with the installation of traffic calming, and particularly speed humps, have been expressed by emergency services within most jurisdictions. The concerns relate to potential delays in response time and the jarring of personnel, victims and material in emergency vehicles. Tests in many jurisdictions, determined that crossings at speeds of up to 30 kph, over properly designed and constructed speed humps, were accepted by drivers of emergency vehicles. Response times are unavoidably increased by the reduction of speed in the sections of roadway with speed humps, however, this impact must be evaluated in the context of the entire trip. While speed humps would be installed exclusively on residential streets, it will be essential to evaluate their installation with staff of the emergency services to ensure that these installations do not affect streets which are considered to be primary emergency vehicle access routes. Torresdale Avenue The concerns of the residents of Torresdale Avenue with regards to speeding vehicles, were addressed by a community traffic committee which, in consultation with staff and the then local Councillor, developed a number of options. One of the options, a narrowing of the road, was tested for some time. Unfortunately, the winding nature of the road created a number of locations where the sight lines of drivers were impaired and made the installation of other traffic measures difficult. The majority of residents requested that the tested traffic calming measures not be made permanent. As a result of the above, the speeding traffic problem has not been resolved and the concern expressed by residents remains. It is the opinion of staff, that speed humps should be tested as they can be installed without the sight lines problems experienced in the previous tests. The residents traffic committee should be reactivated to address this matter. Conclusions: Significant research has been conducted in many jurisdictions throughout the world, to determine the effectiveness of speed humps as traffic calming devices. More recently, tests and research were conducted in jurisdictions with weather conditions similar to those of North York, which provided significant input to address the concerns of the impact on traffic flow and roadway maintenance during the winter. These tests have also concluded that to successfully implement a traffic calming program which includes the installation of speed humps, these devices must be considered for locations where the technical conditions set for their installation will be met, where adopted guidelines for community involvement in the context of an overall traffic management review are complied and, where it is concluded collectively, that the objective of speed reduction through a residential community cannot be achieved by alternative and less restrictive traffic calming or traffic control measures. Speed humps have the potential to address the concerns expressed by residents of Torresdale Avenue regarding speeding traffic, and their traffic committee should be requested to review this matter with staff. Contact Name: Roberto Stopnicki, Works and Emergency Services, Transportation, North York Phone: 395-7480 (A copy of Figures 1, 2 and 3 referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.) 23 Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan - Bayview Village - Seneca Heights (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends that: (1)the report (April 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, be adopted; (2)the cost associated with the installation of the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan not exceed $200,000.00; (3)the median on Burbank Drive be constructed in a manner to facilitate safe passage for bicycles and cars; and (4)Recommendation (3) be amended to read as follows: "(3)that the affected residents be consulted by staff by a door to door survey and be able to participate in the final design and location of the traffic calming measures recommended in this report; and". The North York Community Councils reports having requested: (a)staff of the Transportation Department, North York Civic Centre, in the development of the detailed plan for Bayview Village, to include staff of the Works Department, North York Civic Centre; (b)staff of the Transportation Department, North York Civic Centre, to report to the Bayview Village Association Traffic Calming Working Committee and the North York Community Council on the infiltration of traffic into the Bayview Village community from Bayview Avenue and Finch Avenue during the morning rush hours; (c)staff to establish a Traffic Calming Team comprised of representatives from Transportation, Works and Finance Departments; (d)the Traffic Calming Team to prepare an inventory of traffic calming devices with an assessment of their effectiveness and provide a report for consideration by the North York Community Council; (e)the Traffic Calming Team to design, implement and test traffic calming proposals in specific communities; and (f)staff of the Planning Department, North York Civic Centre, when considering future subdivision developments, to include in their recommendations plans for traffic calming measures. The North York Community Council submits the following report (April 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre: Purpose: This report addresses the results of the test of traffic calming measures in Bayview Village, approved by North York Council on April 16, 1997, with respect to their effectiveness in improving traffic safety in accordance with the Traffic Calming Policy. Source of Funds: All costs associated with the installation of the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan are included within the 1998 capital budget. Recommendations: (1)that the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan, as described in this report, be approved for installation as part of the 1998 Capital Works Program; (2)that funding, which has been included in the Public Works Department 1998 Capital Budget request, for the implementation of the Neighbourhood Traffic Management Plan as described in this report, be approved; (3)that the affected residents be consulted by staff and be able to participate in the final design and location of the traffic calming measures recommended in this report; and (4)that the appropriate staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department, North York District, be directed to design, tender and construct the traffic calming measures as detailed in this report upon approval of the 1998 Capital Budget by Toronto Council. Council Reference/Background/History: North York Council, at its meeting of April 16, 1997, by Resolution Number 97-09 adopted Clause9 of Transportation Committee Report Number 7, dated April 3, 1997. This report recommended a six month test of the neighbourhood traffic management plan proposed for Bayview Village by the appointed traffic work group and supported by staff. In accordance with the Traffic Calming Policy staff were also directed to report back to Council regarding the effectiveness of the test in improving traffic safety. The Bayview Village Association has submitted a request that this matter be brought forward to the North York Community Council for approval of the construction of the plan. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification: On August 5, 1997 the Transportation Department completed the installation of a program to test the traffic calming measures recommended by the Bayview Village Traffic Work Group and supported by the Bayview Village community, as presented to them at a public meeting, and approved by North York Council. These measures consist of "pinch points", "intersection dividers", "traffic circle" and "raised driveable medians", as detailed on Appendix 'A'. Several other types of traffic control measures were suggested by the community and reviewed by the Work Group including speed humps, turn restrictions, stop signs, reduced speed limits, bicycle lanes and continuous police enforcement. For a variety of reasons, as reviewed by the community during the process, these were rejected as viable options for the management of traffic in Bayview Village. Upon installation of the approved plan, some complaints were received by the department and the residents association with respect to the traffic circle implemented at Burbank Drive and Citation Drive. Steps were taken to modify the design of the circle in an attempt to accommodate the residents' concerns. Ultimately however, at the direction of the Work Group and supported by the department, the traffic circle was removed and replaced with intersection dividers. Throughout the test period, the department monitored traffic, responded to residents concerns and made modifications to the location of the measures as was deemed appropriate. Numerous complaints were received regarding the aesthetics of the planters used to simulate the ultimate traffic calming measures. No functional or safety concerns were determined to exist by the department and snow clearing, roadway maintenance, garbage collection and emergency services were carried out throughout the test with no effect on service or safety. Traffic speeds and volumes were recorded throughout the test and indicate that vehicle speeds were reduced by as much as 17 percent as a result of the traffic calming measures. Not all measures were as effective in controlling driver behaviour, for example, vehicle speeds at the pinch points on Foxwarren Drive and Burleigh Heights Drive, increased slightly. This can be attributed specifically to the conditions at each site. In the final implementation of the pinch points at these locations, alterations will be required in order to have a greater effect on reducing vehicle speeds. Throughout the implementation of the traffic management plants, the policy for evaluation and monitoring of traffic calming was followed. The plan was presented to the community and approved by the affected residents, by a direct mail questionnaire, where they were requested to vote on the permanent installation. The results of the questionnaire, determined that 60.3 percent of the affected residents, indicated their consensus for the permanent installation of the plan. Conclusions: The Transportation Department has been active in Bayview Village for numerous years, responding to concerns of vehicle speed, volume and traffic safety. Past studies, confirmed recently by the Toronto Police, have indicated that at least 80 percent of the speeding violations are issued to area residents. Traditional methods in controlling traffic have had only limited and short term effect. Legislated traffic controls or police enforcement have not been effective in addressing driver behaviour to date. The physical measures which are being proposed have shown some success in addressing the speeding problem. Staff will continue to work with the residents throughout the final phases of the process design and installation process. The estimated cost to implement the full traffic management plan in Bayview Village is $350,000. Cost savings could be realised however, if there are opportunities to issue the contract in combination with other approved construction contracts in the area. Funds have been identified in the Public Works Department Capital Works Budget for traffic calming projects which would include this plan, subject to final approval by Council. All City departments, emergency services and commercial establishments have indicated they have no objections with the feasibility of the plan. With early approval, the design, tender and construction of the plan could be undertaken within the 1998 construction season. Contact Name: Michael J. Frederick, Director of Operations, 395-7484 ---------- A staff presentation was made by Mike Frederick, Director of Operations, Transportation Department, North York Civic Centre. The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council: -Mr. Alfred Magerman, on behalf of the Bayview Village Association; -Mr. J. P. Uffem; and -Ms. Chasta Falkenberg. 24 Driveways - 325 Hollywood Avenue - North York Centre (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism: Purpose: The residents of 325 Hollywood Avenue have requested approval of two curb cuts/driveway entrances for the construction of a single family dwelling. On March 23, 1998, a report to the North York Community Council from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works did not support this report, and as a tree was involved, the matter was referred back to the Parks and Recreation Division (Urban Forestry) for a further report. Source of Funds: There are no City funds required with respect to this matter. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1)the applicant be permitted to construct two driveway entrances at 325 Hollywood Avenue in conjunction with the construction of a new single family dwelling; and (2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Council Reference/Background/History: The residents of 325 Hollywood Avenue have requested approval of two curb cuts/driveway entrances for the construction of a new single family dwelling. On March 23, 1998, a report to the North York Community Council from the Deputy Commissioner of Public Works did not support this request citing the policy of the former City of North York Council, which reads in part: "That the curb cut policy for two (2) driveway entrances be for lots 18.3metres (60feet) or greater as long as this total width of the curb cut does notexceed 7.5metres (25 feet) and the 50 percent front yard hard surface requirement of Section7, By-Law No. 7625, is maintained". The matter was referred back to the Parks and Recreation Division (Urban Forestry) on the best method of designing this driveway in order to protect the Silver Maple on the road allowance. This report recommends approval of this request for reasons cited in the following section. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification: There is one large, 47 cm Silver maple on the road allowance in front of this 13.11 metre ( 43 feet) wide lot. This tree has been evaluated as being in 'good' condition (Appendix I). The tree is located 7.4 metres ( 24.7 feet) west of the east property line and 5.71 metres ( 19 feet ) east of the west property line. It is 1.8 metres (6 feet) from the curb. A double width driveway placed on either side of this tree would severely encroach on the required protection zone of 2.8 metres (9.3 feet ) set out from each side of the trunk of the tree. The owner of this property, Mr Firoz Gulamhusein, has proposed two 2.9 metre ( 9.6 feet ) wide driveways with 1.2 metre ( 4 feet ) setbacks from the east and west property lines (Appendix II). The narrow width of these driveways allows for the most optimum protection zone for the tree in question. The requested curb cuts would service the proposed new single family dwelling driveway design and better preserve the large City tree. Other single double-width driveway design options would encroach to a greater extent into the required tree protection zone and increase the likelihood of decline, or possibly death, of the tree. The front yard hard surface requirement of 60 percent would not be exceeded with this design. Conclusions: A double width driveway servicing the proposed new residence would severely encroach on the required tree protection zone for this centrally located tree, regardless of which side of the property the driveway was placed on. The proposed driveway design implementing two narrow driveways set near the edge of the side property lines affords minimal encroachment in the required tree protection area providing a higher degree of protection for the City tree. For this reason, we support this design proposal and its requirement of two curb cuts. Contact Name: Bob Crump Supervisor of Urban Forestry and Environmental Services Tel. No.: 416-395-7991 Fax. No.: 416-395-7937 E-mail:bcrump@city.north-york.on.ca (A copy of Appendices I and II referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.) 25 Community Festival Event - Maon Noam-Jewish Cultural & Education Network - Harryetta Gardens - May 13, 1998 - North York Spadina (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends that the special event being held by the Maon Noam-Jewish Cultural & Education Network be declared a community festival event. The North York Community Council submits the following memorandum from Councillor Mike Feldman, North York Spadina: "I would like the attached special occasion permit request for Maon-Noam Jewish Cultural & Education Network considered at the Community Council meeting on Wednesday, May 6, 1998. I support this application." The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a motion from Councillor Mike Feldman requesting the the North York Community Council approve the Special Occasion Permit request. (A copy of the permit request is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.) 26 Community Festival Event - Franco-Fete, 1998 - Francophone Cultural Activities - June 19, 1998 to June 21, 1998 - Mel Lastman Square (City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The North York Community Council recommends that the special event being held byFranco-Fete,1998, be declared a community festival event. The North York Community Council submits the following memorandum (May 4, 1998) from Jaye Robinson, Interim Lead, Special Events: "On June 19th to 21st, 1998 inclusively, Franco-Fete will be hosting a festival highlighting francophone cultural activities on Mel Lastman Square. The Special Events Office has approved the event and is aware of the organization's intentions of obtaining a Special Occasions Permit to sel beer on Mel Lastman Square. The Special Events Office has met with the organizing committee and is satisfied that the event will be produced in a professional manner and will be very successful. I respectfully submit this memorandum requesting your approval." 27 Other Items Considered by the Community Council (City Council, on May 13 and 14, 1998, received this Clause, as information, subject to adding thereto the following: "Notwithstanding subsection 128(5) of the Council Procedural By-law, the following Resolution embodied in Item (j), entitled 'Best Practices - Development in North York', be adopted by City Council: 'BE IT RESOLVED THAT* should a cheque tendered for development or levy purposes for any reason bounce, that it be reported immediately to the next Community Council meeting;* *AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT* cheques deposited with the City to pay for levies be cashed immediately; *AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT* all deposits for security purposes in excess of $10,000.00 be either certified or in the form of a letter of credit and staff be prohibited from accepting anything less.'") (a)1998 Volunteer of the Year Awards Since 1984, North York has been honouring volunteers annually. 248 extraordinary volunteers have been recognized to date ranging in age from 16 to 91. The winners of this year's awards have given a total of 214 years of service - more than 304 hours per week combined. They help the seniors, organize events for communities, work in the libraries, hospitals etc. There are students who serve as mentors and role models in the schools and with community groups. Mayor Lastman on behalf of the Members of Council and the citizens of the former City of North York congratulated the winners of the 1998 North York Volunteers of the Year Award on their hard work, generosity of gifts of time and for their compassion.. Mayor Lastman, assisted by Councillor Berger, presented the winners with an award. Councillors Feldman and King assisted by introducing the recipients individually. Councillor Berger thanked the members of the Selection Committee, Sue Bowen, Jennifer Tedford, Stacey Roebotham and Joanne Cooper, for their time and effort in choosing this year's winners. (b)Statutory Public Meeting - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-96-30 & UDSP-96-116 - Harry Snoek - 15, 17 and 19 Finch Avenue West - 7, 9 and 11 Lorraine Drive and 11 Blakely Road - North York Centre. The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled to be held on June 24, 1998, and that it be considered as a continuation of the public meeting on that date at 2:00 p.m. in order to obtain reports from the following: (1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development on: (a)whether the lack of conveyance of parkland by the applicant is contrary to the intent of the Official Plan; (b)whether the issue of the shortage of school accommodation should be addressed by the applicant and Council in light of the recent Provincial legislation; and (c)the likelihood of the City's service road being completed under existing policies and whether a change in Council Policy is desirable in order to ensure that the road is built; (2)the Toronto Transit Commission estimating the percentage of transit versus auto use at this location both with and without a direct subway connection; and (3)the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Division, commenting on the request by Councillor Gardner that funding be included in the 1999 Capital Budget for the purpose of acquiring land to build the service road. The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications and report: (March 18, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning forwarding recommendations with respect to the subject application to permit two residential apartment buildings. (May 1, 1998) from Ms. Kara Sutherland, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, forwarding an updated list of the individuals they represent who are objecting to the application; (May 1, 1998) from Mr. William deBacker, President, Edithvale-Yonge Community Association; (April 23, 1998) from Ms. Kara Sutherland, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of various area residents; and (April 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning tabling a draft by-law for the public meeting. The following individuals appeared before the North York Community Council: (a)Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird & Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant who commented on the merits of the application. She also indicated that the applicant concurred with the recommendations contained in the report from the Acting Commissioner of Planning with the exception of 3(e) which should be amended by adding the words, "subject to the existing tenancy"; (b)Ms. Kara Sutherland, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, Solicitor on behalf of various area residents, who commented in opposition to the application. In her opinion approval of this application would preclude comprehensive development in this area and would place the burden of providing the service road on her clients; (c)Mr. John Monita, 8 Lorraine Drive, who commented on the traffic congestion in this area and particularly Lorraine Drive. In his opinion this proposal is contrary to the Specific Development Policy of the Uptown Secondary Plan which states that Lorraine Drive between Blakely Road and Finch Avenue West be closed and incorporated into a comprehensive development that includes the surrounding lands. He therefore requested that the matter be deferred until a financial analysis regarding such a comprehensive development can be provided either by the applicant or the City; and (d)Ms. Betty Kline, 31 Lorraine Drive, who indicated that the applicant had approached her about purchasing her property but she was only given 24 hours to decide. In light of the number of years she has been residing at this address she believed that the time frame given by the applicant was inappropriate. (A copy of the draft zoning by-law amendment and schedules referred to in the foregoing reports is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.) (c)Toronto Transit Commission - Sheppard Subway Bayview Station Bus Loop and Commuter Parking. The North York Community Council reports having adopted the following motion by Councillor Moscoe, North York Spadina: "WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission is in the process of acquiring land to construct the Sheppard Subway; AND WHEREAS the Toronto Transit Commission has, through Johnson Donald Associates, been negotiating a deal to acquire land for the Bayview Station; AND WHEREAS in doing so they are negotiating away the ability of the North York Community Council to ensure that the official plan objectives of the City can be met; AND WHEREAS by negotiating away the easements that will ultimately control whether or not these lands can be developed, or how they can be developed, they are robbing the community and their elected representatives of the leverage necessary to shape the development of this quadrant; AND WHEREAS if the city uses the consensual expropriation route it is clear that any money expended on the expropriation will ultimately be recouped through the sale of the easements and related development rights; AND WHEREAS the interests of the community are better served by retaining the opportunity for the Community Council to shape the development of North York; AND WHEREAS consensual expropriation will allow the land to be acquired without delay to the subway construction schedule and at the same time retain community control of the destiny of the development on these lands and the neighbouring plaza lands; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council be advised that it is the position of the North York Community Council that the land for the Bayview Station be acquired through the consensual expropriation option; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the matter of the comprehensive development of the block bounded by Bayview Avenue, Bayview Mews, Hawksbury Drive and Sheppard Avenue East, be referred to planning staff for a full report to the North York Community Council." The North York Community Council reports having requested that the foregoing motion be conveyed to the Toronto Transit Commission. The North York Community Council reports also having had before it a communication (March 30, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on March 23 and 24, 1998, directed that a copy of the following communications be forwarded to the North York Community Council for consideration: -(February 26, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission; -(March 20, 1998) from Councillor David Shiner, Seneca Heights; and -(March 20, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South. (d)Replacement Housing Guidelines By-law - By-law Number 32892. The North York Community Council reports having received the following report (April 17, 1998) from the City Solicitor North York Civic Centre. The North York Community Council reports having requested that the Ontario Municipal Board decision attached to the report (April 17, 1998) from the City Solicitor be forwarded to the members of the Committee of Adjustment with a request that variances to Council's by-law not be granted except when there are exceptional extenuating circumstances. (April 17, 1998) from the City Solicitor, North York, reporting on successful results of a number of appeals of North York By-law No. 32892 to the Ontario Municipal Board. (A copy of the Ontario Municipal Board Order issued February 20, 1998, referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.) (e)Report - Zoning Strategy - Industry Street - Employment Lands Adjacent to 665 Trethewey Drive - UDSB-1232 and UD43-IND - North York Humber. The North York Community Council reports having referred the following report (April 16, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, back to the Planning Department, North York Civic Centre: (April 16, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on the zoning strategy in the Trethewey Drive - Industry Street - Jane Street area for the employment lands adjacent to the Di Battista subdivision lands at 665 Trethewey Drive and recommending that the report be received for information purposes. (f)Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils. The North York Community Council recommends that an evening public meeting be held at North York Community Council on May 27, 1998, at 8:00 p.m. in order to have community consultation on this issue; and that notification be given to all ratepayer associations and community interest associations. The North York Community Council reports having had before it a memorandum (April 23, 1998) from Councillor Joan King advising that the North York Community Council on April1, 1998, agreed to hold two workshops prior to a public meeting on this issue and recommending that because of time constraints consideration be given to holding a public meeting on May 27, 1998 at 8:00 p.m., and that all interested parties be invited to attend. (g)Humber River Regional Hospital - Church Street Expansion Proposal - North York Humber. The North York Community Council reports having referred the following Notice of Motion by Councillor Mammoliti to the Urban Environment and Development Committee: "WHEREAS the Ontario Government's Health Services Restructuring Commission recommended the closure of Northwestern Hospital and it's merger with Humber River Regional Hospital; AND WHEREAS this will require the expansion of the Church Street site of the Humber River Regional Hospital, which has already submitted a rezoning application to facilitate this expansion; AND WHEREAS the Humber River Regional Hospital is situated in the planning jurisdictions of the former cities of York and North York; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council indicate to the Humber River Regional Hospital that in order to facilitate their rezoning application, community concerns will have to be addressed through a wider consultation process; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council support the establishment of an Advisory Committee composed of the six Councillors representing York Humber, North York Humber and Black Creek, along with representatives from the communities of Keele Street/Eglinton Avenue, Jane Street and Lawrence Avenue, Jane Street and Finch Avenue and a representative of the Humber River Regional Hospital; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that public consultation meetings on the Church Street expansion proposal be held at the York Civic Service Centre and the North York Civic Service Centre; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that leave be granted to introduce this Notice of Motion in accordance with Section 27 of the Council Procedure By-law, and that subsections 28(1) and (2) of said By-law be waived to permit debate of this motion at the Special Meeting of Council to be held on April 28, 1998." (h)By-law Violations - 8 Creston Road - North York Spadina. The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following Notice of Motion by Councillor Moscoe: "WHEREAS there have been numerous by-law violations spanning a twenty year period at 8 Creston Road; AND WHEREAS neighbours on Creston Road have grown frustrated with the ongoing problems experienced with garbage and numerous cats on this property; AND WHEREAS various city departments have attempted to clean up this property through the years without success; AND WHEREAS the owner of the property despite notices of violations and court orders continues to defy the law; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that staff of the Legal Department, North York Civic Centre, prepare a report and recommendations to provide for a permanent solution to this problem; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this report be completed and presented to North York Community Council within six months; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that failing a resolution that the City take steps to take over this property." (i)Purchase of Ontario Hydro Property - Maxwell Street - North York Spadina. The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following Notice of Motion by Councillor Moscoe: "WHEREAS the Parks and Recreation Division of the North York Region has recently been advised of the proposed sale of Ontario Hydro lands; AND WHEREAS this property is in the Bathurst Manor Residential Community which is deficient in parkland by (5.66) hectares; AND WHEREAS this property is primarily table land abutting the valley corridor of the West Don River which is already under the jurisdiction of the City of Toronto; AND WHEREAS on preliminary investigation this property seems suitable for public parks purposes; AND WHEREAS Ontario Hydro has imposed a deadline of May 15, 1998, for the City to express an interest in this property; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that: (1)staff of the Parks and Recreation Department, North York Civic Centre, be requested to contact Ontario Hydro immediately to indicate a desire to enter into discussions with respect to the purchase of the subject property; (2)if negotiations proceed to a conclusion, a further report be submitted to Council through the appropriate Standing Committee, seeking approval to expend funds; and (3)the appropriate City Officials take the necessary action to give effect thereto." The North York Community Council reports also having before it a report (May 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, recommending that approval be given for appropriate staff from Parks and Recreation and Corporate Services to indicate interest in the subject property by May 15, 1998 and to enter into negotiations with Ontario Hydro. (j)Best Practices - Development in North York. The North York Community Council reports having concurred with the following Notice of Motion by Councillor Moscoe: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that should a cheque tendered for development or levy purposes for any reason bounce, that it be reported immediately to the next Community Council meeting; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that cheques deposited with the City to pay for levies be cashed immediately; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all deposits for security purposes in excess pf $10,000.00 be either certified or in the form of a letter of credit and staff be prohibited from accepting anything less." (k)Exemption from Parking Requirements - Mr. and Mrs. Erkoc - 14 Sable Street. The North York Community Council reports having referred the following Notice of Motion by Councillor Sgro to the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, for a further report and for consideration on the overall policy changes which may affect the entire City : "WHEREAS in November 1995, Mr. and Mrs. Erkoc received approval for a partial exemption from the parking requirements for the refurbishing of an industrial unit at 14 Sable Street, to a service station for the repair of vehicle transmissions, provided that an amount of $7,500.00 was paid to the municipality in lieu of three parking spaces; AND WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Erkoc were granted a postponement of the payments for 24months due to the financial hardship incurred by the applicants in purchasing the property and refurbishing it to all the required standards; AND WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Erkoc have indicated that they were advised at the time that this matter could be reviewed in two years, prior to the initiation of payments; AND WHEREAS in the two years since the beginning of operations, the available on-site parking supply of 16 spaces was never fully utilized; AND WHEREAS while cashing of post-dated cheques given by the applicant has been started, Mr. and Mrs. Erkoc have contacted staff to advise that the requirement to pay the full amount still represents a significant financial hardship for the operation of the transmission repair shop; AND WHEREAS Mr. and Mrs. Erkoc have entered into an agreement with their adjacent neighbours at 24 Sable Street to lease three parking spaces when required; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Mr. and Mrs. Erkoc be relieved from the condition to pay the amount remaining for the three parking spaces and that the remaining post-dated cheques be returned." (l)Red Light Violations - Black Creek. The North York Community Council reports having referred the following Notice of Motion by Councillor Peter Li Preti, Black Creek, to: (1)the Police Services Board with a request that they develop a criteria for prioritizing these dangerous intersections and provide a report to Council on which intersections they will be attending over the next six months; and (2)the Commissioner of Transportation, North York Civic Centre, for a report on which intersections should be identified based on the following statistical data: "The priority for the installation of red light cameras, should the Province approve same, or any other measures, be contingent upon: i)ratio of accidents per vehicle; ii)number of red light violations; and iii)actual number of vehicular and pedestrian accidents; at each intersection": (May 6, 1998) from Councillor Li Preti, Black Creek, requesting that consideration be given to identifying the intersections of Keele Street and Wilson Avenue and Jane Street and Finch Avenue as the first and second locations where any measures currently being addressed by the Police Services and City staff to address the problem of red light violations should be implemented. (m)Recommendations Report - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application UDOZ-94-34 -T.W.S. Developments Limited - 797 Don Mills Road - Don Parkway. The North York Community Council reports having received the following report (April 23, 1998) from the Acting Commisisoner of Planning, North York Civic Centre and authorized staff to schedule a public meeting. (April 23, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to permit the residential conversion of the existing vacant office building located at the southeast corner of Don Mills Road and Eglinton Avenue East (Mony Life Building) and submitting recommendations with respect thereto. (n)Final Recommendations Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-97-27 - Shell Canada Limited - 2831 Bayview Avenue - North York Centre South. The North York Community Council reports having received the following report (April 23, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre and authorized staff to schedule a public meeting: (April 23, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, reporting on an application to amend the zoning by-law to permit Shell Canada Limited to redevelop their existing service station site at the southeast corner of Sheppard Avenue East and Bayview Avenue and submitting recommendations with respect thereto. Respectfully submitted, MILTON BERGER, Chair Toronto, May 6, 1998 (Report No. 5 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998.)
		Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links