TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 7

1Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits: MacDonald Street, Lake Crescent, Heman Street

2Removal of Parking Prohibition: Enterprise Road

3Proposed Change of Yield Sign to a Stop Sign: Ashley Road at Royal York Road

4School Zone Safety: Thistle Down Boulevard/Calstock Drive

5Marie Curtis Park Playground Equipment Upgrade

6Alderwood Memorial Park Playground

7Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

8City of Toronto & Hullmark Developments Ltd. Dedication of Land as View Green Crescent

9Zoning Code Review - Supplementary Report No. 3File No. Z-2001B

10Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Scarlett Gate Developments, 542 Scarlett Road - File No. Z-2262

11Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code Simcoe Construction, 505 The West Mall - File No. Z-2245

12Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning Code Jaqueline Gaudaur, 2801 Bloor Street West - File No. Z-2270

1315 Tidemore Avenue - Court Application

14City of Toronto & A. Mantella & Sons Dedication of Certain Lands as "Monogram Place"

15City of Toronto & Noseworthy Et Al Dedication of Certain Lands as "Ardua Street"

16Special Occasion Permit - Centennial Park

17Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 7

OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

1

Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits: MacDonald Street,

Lake Crescent, Heman Street

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June24,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme on MacDonald Street, LakeCrescent and Heman Street, between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are allocated in the 1998 Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the south side of MacDonaldStreet between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue;

(2)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the south side of LakeCrescent between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue;

(3)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the south side of HemanStreet between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue; and

(4)the appropriate by-law (Attachment No. 1) be amended accordingly.

Background:

Frequently, the Transportation Department receives requests from the residents of Vanevery Street, MacDonald Street, Albani Street, Elma Street, Murrie Street, Lake Crescent, Symons Street, Struthers Street, and Heman Street, between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue, inquiring about the feasibility of parking permits for these streets. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Discussion:

In 1995, the City of Etobicoke, Transportation and Engineering Planning Division, polled the residents of these streets to solicit public opinion (Attachment No. 3) regarding the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme. At that time, only the residents of Hillside Avenue between Royal York Road and Dwight Avenue were in favour.

In March 1998, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Division again received several requests from the residents of Vanevery Street, MacDonald Street, Elma Street, Murrie Street, Lake Crescent, Symons Street, Struthers Street, Heman Street and Albani Street regarding the introduction of the programme. Staff polled the affected residents of these streets to solicit public opinion on this matter (Attachment No. 4). The following chart summarizes the results of these polls.

The results indicate that the residents of MacDonaldStreet, LakeCrescent and HemanStreet are now in favour of the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme.

Conclusions:

The On-Street Parking Programme provides an excellent alternative source of parking for those residents who do not have or cannot provide adequate parking facilities on their property. This programme continues to meet with the approval of those residents directly affected by it and should continue to be introduced through the public consultative process.

Based on the staff investigation of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents who reside on MacDonaldStreet, LakeCrescent, and HemanStreet between RoyalYorkRoad and DwightAvenue, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T.,

Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419, Fax 394-8942

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting June 24, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Removal of Parking Prohibition: Enterprise Road

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June24,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To propose the removal of the parking prohibition on the south side of Enterprise Road from a point 350.0metres east of Martin Grove Road to a point 74.0 metres east thereof.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the current parking prohibition on the south side of Enterprise Road be amended to allow on-street parking from a point 350.0 metres east of Martin Grove Road to a point 74.0 metres east thereof; and

(2)the appropriate by-law (Attachment No. 1) be amended accordingly.

Background:

The Transportation Department is in receipt of correspondence from Mr. Jonathan Cole, owner of the properties located at 27 - 39 Enterprise Road, requesting that the parking prohibition currently in effect in front of these properties be rescinded to allow for short-term on-street parking. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Comments:

Enterprise Road, at this point, is a two-lane roadway, with treated shoulders approximately 3.0 metres wide. Due to the width of the shoulders the re-introduction of parking on the south side of Enterprise Road would in no way affect traffic flow on the roadway or compromise traffic safety.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination, Council's endorsement of this matter contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T.,

Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting June 24, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

3

Proposed Change of Yield Sign to a

Stop Sign: Ashley Road at Royal York Road

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June24,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To propose the conversion of the existing yield sign to a stop sign at the intersection of Ashley Road and Royal York Road.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the regulatory signage and the required changes to the pavement markings are contained in the Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the existing yield sign on Ashley Road at the intersection of Royal York Road be replaced with a stop sign; and

(2)the attached by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.

Background:

The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division has received a request from the Toronto Transit Commission's Safety Committee to convert the existing yield sign to a stop sign at the intersection of AshleyRoad at RoyalYork Road. This request is the result of concerns with respect to the accident frequency at this location. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.

Comments and Discussion:

At intersections where it is found that the normal right-of-way does not provide safe, convenient, and efficient traffic movement and that a stop regulation is too restrictive, a yield sign can be an effective traffic control device.

At the intersection of Ashley Road and Royal York Road this has been the case since RoyalYorkRoad was assumed from The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in 1987; however, since that time, Royal York Road has been reconstructed to include a northbound left turn lane and a southbound bus bay. TTC drivers have reported numerous "close calls" with vehicles leaving Ashley Road as they proceed southbound from the bus bay into the curb lane on Royal York Road. Traffic staff has witnessed a number of these occurrences during site visits.

(1)Accident Analysis

An accident analysis for a three-year period revealed an average of one reportable accident per year at the intersection of Ashley Road and Royal York Road. All accidents were of the angle type, with one being preventable with the conversion to a stop control.

(2)Intersection Description

Through Street: Royal York Road

Speed Limit: Ashley Road

50 km/h; Royal York Road 50 km/h

Lane Configuration: Ashley Road

One lane in each direction with an eastbound left turn lane

Royal York Road:

One lane in each direction north of the intersection; and two lanes of traffic in both directions south of the intersection.

Parking Regulations:Ashley Road

No Parking Anytime, both sides from Royal York Road and The Kingsway;

Royal York Road - No Parking Anytime, both sides

Sidewalks: Both sides of through and stop streets.

Land Use: Royal York Road

East side R1 Residential (First Density)

Northwest side R3 Residential (Third Density)

Southwest side CL (Limited Commercial Zone) Humbertown Shopping Plaza

Conclusions:

Traffic conditions at the intersection of Ashley Road and Royal York Road comply with the Ministry of Transportation, Ontario guidelines and warrants for yield sign control. However, consideration must be given to its suitability in relation to traffic volume, speed, visibility, sight distance and collision record of the intersection. Therefore, to better facilitate the TTC operation in this area and improve safety at the intersection, the conversion to a stop control is recommended.

Contact Name:

Don Pardoe,

Construction Traffic Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8422; Fax: 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting June 24, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

School Zone Safety: Thistle Down Boulevard/Calstock Drive

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June24,1998) from the Commissioner of Works, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To introduce the necessary by-law amendments to improve traffic conditions within the school zone on Thistle Down Boulevard in front of St. John Vianney Catholic School and on Calstock Drive at the rear of the school.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the Transportation Department's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that

(1)a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition be installed on both sides of Thistle Down Boulevard between Bankfield Drive and Alhart Drive/Bridgenorth Crescent;

(2)the "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the south side of CalstockDrive between Alhart Drive and Buckhorn Place be changed to a "No Stopping, 8:00a.m. to 5:00p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition; and

(3)the appropriate by-laws (Attachments 1 and 2) be amended accordingly.

Background:

Concerns have been raised by the Principal and the Parents Association of St. John Vianney Catholic School, 105 Thistle Down Boulevard (Attachment No. 3) regarding the traffic congestion and parking conditions on Thistle Down Boulevard during the commencement and dismissal of classes each day. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.

Discussion:

Thistle Down Boulevard is a two-lane roadway. St. John Vianney Catholic School is located on the south side of Thistle Down Boulevard between Bankfield Drive and Alhart Drive/Bridgenorth Crescent. The parking and stopping regulations on Thistle Down Boulevard are as follows:

(i)"No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" on both sides of ThistleDownBoulevard from a point 30.5 metres west of Judhaven Road to a point 82.0 metres east of Judhaven Road;

(ii)"No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" on the south side of ThistleDownBoulevard from a point 28.4 metres west of Alhart Drive to a point 40.5 metres west thereof;

(iii)"No Parking Anytime" on the south side of Thistle Down Boulevard between Bankfield Drive and a point 36.6 metres east thereof;

(iv)"No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" on the north side of ThistleDownBoulevard from a point 14.0 metres west of Alhart Drive and a point 31.3metres west thereof.

Calstock Drive is a two-lane roadway. Parking is currently prohibited on both sides of CalstockDrive, between Alhart Drive and Buckhorn Place, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00p.m., Monday to Friday.

Parents were observed parking within the pedestrian crossover on Thistle Down Boulevard, making it impossible for motorists to see the crossing guard and the children crossing the street. In order to provide protection for the pedestrians using the pedestrian crossover, it has been suggested that a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition be installed on both sides of Thistle Down Boulevard between Bankfield Drive and Alhart Drive/Bridgenorth Crescent.

The "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the south side of Calstock Drive will be changed to a "No Stopping, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition in order to provide a designated short-term, Kiss and Ride stopping zone, on the north side of Calstock Drive at the rear of St. John Vianney Catholic School.

It has been recognized that a safe area for parents to stop, drop off and pick up their children from school is necessary. By providing a designated area for parents to stop, drop off and pick up their children and by eliminating the use of one side of the street with the proposed by-law amendments, the need for children to cross the street is eliminated. This will measurably reduce vehicular/pedestrian conflicts and improve pedestrian safety within the school zone.

The affected residents of both Thistle Down Boulevard and Calstock Drive were polled by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 5). Although the respondents from CalstockDrive are opposed to the proposed changes to the parking/stopping regulations, the current conditions at this school are critical and these changes should be implemented notwithstanding the results of the letter poll.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable support of St. John Vianney Catholic School Parents Association, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T.,

Parking Co-Ordinator, Transportation and Engineering Planning

(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-5, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting June 24, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

5

Marie Curtis Park Playground Equipment Upgrade

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June24,1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To respond to the request to upgrade the play equipment at Marie Curtis Park through our Joint Playground Cost Sharing Policy.

Source of Funds:

$10,000.00 in funds has been made available for this project by the former Metro Parks Department.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council receive this report;

(2)approve the funding up to a maximum of $10,000.00 for the upgrade to the play equipment at Marie Curtis Park; and

(3)pending Council's approval and the community's fund raising, installation of this equipment is projected for the fall of 1998.

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Marie Curtis Park currently has very old outdated equipment. The community is interested in participating in upgrading the park and have organized themselves for this purpose. Until this year, the Park has been maintained by the former Metro Parks Department who have agreed to make $10,000.00 available to be matched by the community's fund raising initiatives. This partnership with the former Metro enables us to offer this program since our funds in the former Etobicoke have been depleted.

Conclusion:

Our Parks staff have met with the Marie Curtis Community Group and fully support this project. The proposed structure will meet both City and C.S.A. standards. Upon Council's approval and funds being raised by our community partners, the appropriate designs, details, equipment selection and competitive procurement process will be initiated. As a part of this process, the Community will be made aware of this project and input from local residents will be encouraged.

Contact Name:

Paul G. Ronan, Director, Parks and Forestry, Etobicoke Region

Telephone Number: 394-8505; Fax: 394-8935

6

Alderwood Memorial Park Playground

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1)Recommendation (2) of the following report (June24,1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, Etobicoke District, be amended to read:

(2)approve a $40.000.00 per year funding allotment in our Development and Improvement Budget for the continuation of the former City of Etobicoke Playground Upgrade Policy; and

(2)the adoption of the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, Etobicoke District, as amended:

Recommendations 1 and 2 were carried on the following recorded vote:

Yeas:E. Brown, M. Giansante, I. Jones, B. Kinahan, G. Lindsay Luby, D. O'Brien and B. Sinclair -7

Nays:D. Holyday - 1

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, Etobicoke District, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Council identifying a park in each Ward that could be improved under the Joint Playground Cost Sharing Policy, and that the report include a map indicating those parks that have already been improved under the programme.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Parks and Recreation Services, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To respond to the request to upgrade the play equipment at Alderwood Memorial Park through our Joint Playground Cost Sharing Policy.

Source of Funds:

There are no funds available at this time.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council receive this report;

(2)approve a $20,000.00 per year funding allotment in our Development and Improvement Budget for the continuation of the former City of Etobicoke Playground Upgrade Policy; and

(3)pending approval of these funds, Alderwood Memorial Park playground upgrade be a priority for installation in 1999.

Council Reference/Background/History:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments:

The former City of Etobicoke has previously funded this programme through a Capital Reserve Account Number 60007. The funds in this account are now depleted after seven very successful community playground upgrades.

We currently have two formal requests before us, one from the Alderwood Memorial Park Community and one from a group representing the Marie Curtis Park Community. The Marie Curtis Park proposal is being funded through a former Metro account and, pending Council approval and community funding, may be constructed in the fall of 1998. The other formal request is that of the Alderwood Memorial Park Community which request, pending Council's approval of funding, will be given priority for installation in the spring of 1999.

Conclusion:

Our Parks staff fully support the Alderwood Memorial Park project and pending Council approval of funds, Parks staff will assist this group in equipment selection and competitive procurement of the playground structure.

Council approval of $20,000.00 yearly funding will allow at least two communities each year to partner with the City in this very successful programme. All formal requests will be handled on a first come, first basis until funding is exhausted. This programme will give children the opportunity to enjoy modern and challenging play spaces.

Contact Name:

Paul G. Ronan, Director, Parks and Forestry, Etobicoke Region

Telephone Number: 394-8505; Fax: 394-8935

7

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial impact.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding 3and5 Birchview Boulevard, and 26-36 Advance Road and 127 and 128 Judge Road.

Comment:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

(i)Address:3 and 5 Birchview Boulevard (Kingsway-Humber)

Applicant:1184112 Ontario Limited

Appellant:1184112 Ontario Limited

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:The applicant proposes to enclose the covered patios located along the south wall of each semi-detached dwelling which would result in a combined gross floor area of 432.2 m² (4,652.31 sq. ft.). A variance to By-law 1997-133 is required which limits the gross floor area for both dwellings to a maximum of 410 m² (4,413.34 sq.ft.).

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Staff Recommendation:No legal and staff representation.

(ii)Address: 26-36 Advance Road and 127 and 128 Judge Road

(Lakeshore-Queensway)

Applicant:Dimpflmeier Bakery Limited

Appellant:R. John Bridges

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:The applicant proposes to maintain and to legalize an existing entrance canopy and an existing overhead door, both of which were installed without a building permit.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Approved

Staff Recommendation:No legal or staff representation

Conclusion:

The subject appeals were reviewed by staff, and legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is not recommended.

Contact Name:

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP

Director of Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8216, Fax:(416)394-6063

8

City of Toronto & Hullmark Developments Ltd.

Dedication of Land as View Green Crescent

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends:

(1)the enactment of a by-law to establish certain lands as a municipal highway within the City of Toronto, to be known as View Green Crescent; and

(2)receipt of the following communication (May27,1998) from the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District:

Enclosed please find a draft Bill regarding the above matter. We also enclose Mr. Bedard's letter regarding dedication of same. Kindly include the Bill on the agenda for the next Community Council.

(Copies of the enclosures referred to in the foregoing communication were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council Meeting of June 24, 1998.)

9

Zoning Code Review - Supplementary Report No. 3

File No. Z-2001B

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, recommends as follows:

(1)that the draft by-law attached to the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May 6, 1998) regarding amendments to Chapters 304 and 320 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, be approved; and

(2)that the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development (May 6, 1998) be adopted:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June 24, 1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder:

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To clarify certain provisions of the Zoning Code pertaining to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a public meeting be held to discuss the proposed amendments and in the event of approval, the by-law attached as Exhibit No. 1 be adopted.

Comments:

In December, 1996, the former Etobicoke Council enacted a series of by-laws to consolidate the definitions and industrial zoning provisions between the former Township and the three Lakeshore municipalities. In working with the Zoning Code, staff have identified an incorrect reference to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities in the text of the Class Two Industrial (I.C2) provisions. Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities are only permitted in Class Three Industrial (I.C3) zones, with certain site specific exceptions, and on lands zoned Class Two Industrial (I.C2) in the former Town of New Toronto. However, the wording of Section 304-34 of the Zoning Code refers to both (I.C2) and (I.C3) zones.

The Supplementary Regulations for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities, Section 320-24.3F of the Zoning Code, contains a reference to industrial provisions which were previously deleted. This reference should be corrected.

The specific amendments as contained in the draft by-law attached as Exhibit No. 1, are discussed below.

Sections 1 and 2 of the by-law clarify the reference to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities as a permitted business use in the Class Two Industrial (I.C2) zone in the former Town of New Toronto.

Sections 3 and 4 of the by-law serve to clarify the requirements for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities in Class Three Industrial (I.C3) zones, while section 5 of the by-law corrects a reference in the Supplementary Regulations section of the Zoning Code, to the former industrial provisions which no longer exist.

Conclusion:

The attached draft by-law is intended to implement the technical amendments discussed in this report and ensure that the requirements for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities are consistent with the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to approve such uses.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner, Development and Design Division

Tel: (416)394-8227

_____

Exhibit 1

Draft By-law to amend Chapters 304 and 320 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.That Section 304-34A of the Zoning Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "waste-recycling facilities, except such uses shall not be permitted on lands identified as I.C2 on the zoning maps referred to in Chapters 330 and 340 of the Zoning Code.".

2.That Section 304-35A. of the Zoning Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "waste-recycling facilities; industrial" from in front of administrative offices.

3.That Section 304-35 of the Zoning Code is hereby amended by adding the following subsection C.

C.Waste disposal/recycling facilities:

A.Separation Distances

Waste disposal/recycling sites shall maintain a minimum separation distance of one hundred (100) metres from any lands zoned for Residential, Institutional, Open Space, Waterfront or Agricultural purposes.

B.Location on certain roads:

Waste disposal/recycling facilities shall not be permitted to abut the following roads:

Martin Grove Road from Dixon Road to Berry Creek

Rexdale Boulevard from Highway No. 27 to Kipling Avenue

C.Building type:

When any building or structure is used or maintained for use as a waste disposal/recycling facility as defined in this chapter, no other use in addition thereto shall be permitted within the said building or structure. Said building or structure shall be fully enclosed.

D.Outside storage:

No outside storage, including storage in parked trucks or enclosed containers, shall be permitted.

E.Fencing of yards:

Yards abutting a street where trucks manoeuvre, weigh-in and load/unload and where waste and/or recycled materials are handled shall be enclosed by a two-and-four-tenths-metre-high solid metal, wood or masonry fence. If constructed of wood or metal, the fence is to be painted and maintained. The location of such fencing shall comply with subsections 304-36B, C(1) and (2), and D(1) of the Zoning Code.

F.Permitted locations:

(1)Lands zoned Class Two Industrial (I.C2) as identified on the Zoning maps referred to in Chapter 350 of the Zoning Code.

(2)5 Brydon Drive

(3)67 Shorncliffe Road

(4)260 New Toronto Street

4.That Sections 320-24.3 and 350-30.3 of the Zoning Code are hereby deleted.

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June17, 1998) from Mr. D. K. Horgan, Candevcon Limited:

We represent U-Pak Disposals Limited who own two (2) properties located at 255CarrierDrive and 15 Tidemore Avenue in Etobicoke. Both of these properties are zoned Class Two Industrial Zone (IC2) under the Etobicoke Zoning By-law.

U-Pak Disposals (1989) Ltd., a company affiliated with U-Pak Disposals Limited, currently operates a waste disposal and recycling business at 255 Carrier Drive.

U-Pak Disposals Limited purchased the property located at 15 Tidemore Avenue in 1997 for the purpose of developing the property for a waste disposal/recycling facility. In May 1998 Candevcon Limited, on behalf of U-Pak Disposals (1989) Ltd., endeavoured to submit a building permit application for a recycling facility at the 15 Tidemore Avenue property and the application was refused. This matter is now the subject of a legal proceeding by U-Pak Disposals Limited against the City of Toronto et al.

On behalf of U-Pak Disposals Limited and U-Pak Disposals (1989) Ltd. we hereby object to the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code in so far as it affects the usage of the properties located at 255 Carrier Drive and 15 Tidemore Avenue, Etobicoke, for wast disposal and/or recycling facilities. In the event the Council adopts the amendment as proposed, we would require that site specific exemptions be given to the subject properties. We advise that we also intend to make oral representation at the Public Meeting scheduled for June 24, 1998.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June18, 1998) from Mr. P. Douglas Petrie, of Willms & Shier, Barristers & Solicitors:

This submission relates to the Notice of Public Meeting on the above matter scheduled for 2 p.m. on June 24.

The Notice of Public Meeting and the Zoning Code Review - Supplementary Report No. 3 (with attached draft by-law) only came to our attention yesterday afternoon incidental to a conversation on another matter with one of the Councillors. My clients are upset that these or any proposed changes to the zoning by-law in relation to such a controversial and contested land use in this municipality could be deliberated by you without individual notice to potentially affected ratepayers and publication of the notice in one of the major newspapers.

Background

I am writing on behalf of my clients (see attached lists), two groups who have formed in opposition to the establishment of waste transfer/recycling facilities at 63 Medulla Avenue and 90ShorncliffeRoad. The facilities at these two locations have been established for some time and continue to operate in flagrant contravention of the zoning and contrary to the Environmental Protection Act. These uses of land are not in keeping with a desirable trend in development for the neighbourhood, and are causing significant local nuisance effects to their neighbours.

My clients, together with your staff and Councillors Jones and Kinahan, successfully opposed a minor variance to establish the 63 Medulla Avenue facility (Committee of Adjustment File No. A-31/98ET). My clients hope they can count on you again in the near future.

There are rezoning applications for both of these locations (Z-2265 and Z-2253) currently being processed by your staff. My clients' submissions in opposition to those applications will be sent to you shortly.

Applications for certificates of approval for both locations have been filed with the Ministry of the Environment (A 680283 and A 680288). You have been copied with my clients' submissions opposing those applications (dated January 21, 1998 and April17,1998).

Zoning Code Review Re Waste Disposal recycling Facilities

I have reviewed the Supplementary Report No. 3 with its draft by-law, and have spoken with the report's author, Richard Kendall, and with Molly Sutherland.

From this, we understand, and rely on the representation, that the proposed changes are supposed to be technical (housekeeping) in nature and not intended to make substantive changes to the by-law.

Sections 1 to 4 of the draft by-law are simply "messaging" what has always been the case, that the Supplementary Regulations prevail over the list of permitted uses for I.C2 and I.C3 to the extent of any conflict.

So long as these or any other changes to the Zoning Code do not detract from current prohibitions of, and restrictions on, these types of facilities as found in 320-24.3, Supplementary Regulation for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities, my clients are not opposed to those changes.

I note that the Staff Report states: "there are no financial implications". While this may be true of these technical amendments, this is far from the case with renegade waste operations, with which I am sure you already have a great deal of experience. When you receive my clients' submissions on the two rezonings referred to above, you will begin to appreciate not only the impact on the neighbours but the impact on this municipality in trying to enforce its by-laws and deal with environmental issues dumped in its lap by the Ministry of the Environment.

_____

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

-Mr. D. Gibson, representing the owners of 123 East Side Drive, seeking clarification of the intent of the by-law and the implications, if any, for his clients.

-Mr. D. C. Kerr, seeking clarification with respect to the intent of the by-law, particularly as it might pertain to the outside storage of tires.

-Mr. D. Horgan, on behalf of U-Pak Disposals Limited, currently operating a waste disposal and recycling business in a Class Two Industrial Zone (I.C2), seeking confirmation of his client's status as a lawful non-conforming use.

10

Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code - Scarlett Gate

Developments, 542 Scarlett Road - File No. Z-2262

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (May27,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:

(1)the application submitted by Scarlett Gate Developments regarding a zoning by-law amendment for 542 Scarlett Road, be approved;

(2)the following report (i) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May 27, 1998) with respect to the application be adopted, as amended by the addition of the following to Condition 3(ii) therein:

"the planting of shrubs on the 15' retaining wall, and, if possible, resiting of the buildings even further easterly"; and

(3)the following report (ii) from the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District (June 25, 1998) be received for information:

(i) (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, with respect to a proposal to amend the Zoning Code with respect to the property located on the west side of Scarlett Road, north of La Rose Avenue from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) to permit the development of 12 freehold townhouses; and

(ii)(June 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District, commenting on the implications of a shared underground parking garage:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District, on June 24, 1998, to submit a report to the Etobicoke Community Council at a continuation of the public meeting on June 25, 1998, on the matter of a shared underground garage in a freehold townhouse development.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June 24 and June 25, 1998 in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder:

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

To review a proposal to amend the Zoning Code with respect to the property located on the west side of Scarlett Road, north of La Rose Avenue from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) to permit the development of 12 freehold townhouses.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Scarlett Gate Developments be the subject of a public meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

In 1964, By-law No. 14,583 was passed which rezoned the property from Second Density Residential (R2) to Limited Commercial (CL) which limited development to a neighbourhood gasoline service station. The site was most recently occupied by a Petro Canada Station which was demolished in October, 1992. The site is vacant.

In December, 1997, an application was submitted by Scarlett Gate Developments for the development of 14 townhouse units. In an attempt to address the concerns of staff, the applicant has submitted numerous revised plans. In May, 1998, a revised plan for 12 townhouse units was submitted to the City for review. These plans are the subject of this report.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The rectangular site is located on the west side of Scarlett Road, north of LaRose Avenue (ExhibitNo.1). The grade of the site rises approximately 5.5 m (18.0 ft) from the street, up towards the rear property line. The rear yard of the residential properties backing onto the site are supported by a gabion retaining wall.

Surrounding lands to the north, south, east and west are zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and are all occupied by single detached dwellings, with the exception of the lands adjacent to the westerly portion of the northerly lot line, which are vacant. The property situated at the northwest corner of Scarlett Road and LaRose Avenue is zoned Sixth Density Residential (R6) and is occupied by a 13 storey apartment building (Exhibit No. 1).

Proposal:

Scarlett Gate Developments has requested a rezoning from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) to permit the development of 12 condominium townhouse units with a single level underground garage.

The project would consist of three townhouse blocks. Block 'A', containing five units, would be oriented towards Scarlett Road. Blocks 'B' and 'C', containing four and three units, respectively, would be situated towards the rear of the property. Vehicular access to the site would be provided via a single driveway from Scarlett Road at the north portion of the frontage. The driveway would lead directly into the underground garage, for access to parking areas. A service area and visitor parking for two cars would be provided at-grade to the south of the garage ramp and driveway. Walkways would provide pedestrian access to each of the units at-grade. The driveway and all walkways would be heated to reduce snow removal requirements (Exhibit No. 2).

Each dwelling would be approximately 217 m² (2,340 sq. ft.) in size and contain three levels of living space plus a basement level. The basement of each unit would have access to two tandem parking spaces in the underground garage. Block 'A' would be approximately 10.7 m (35ft.) in height and Blocks 'B' and 'C' would be approximately 9.7 m (32 ft.) in height (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4).

The following is a summary of information relevant to this application:

Official Plan:

High Density Residential

Zoning:

ExistingLimited Commercial (CL) as amended by By-law No. 14,583

ProposedFourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G)

Site Area0.25 ha(0.61 ac)

Units12

Density48 uph9.4 upa

G.F.A.:2 608.6 m²8,079.6 sq.ft. (excluding basement)

F.S.I.1.0

Coverage869.5 m²9,359.5 sq.ft.34%

LOS1 344.0 m²14,467.1 sq.ft53%

Paved Area323.5 m²3,482.2 sq.ft.13%

Parking:

Required: owner: 23 spacesProvided:owner: 24 spaces

visitor: 5 spacesvisitor: 2 spaces

total: 28 spaces total: 26 spaces (shortfall 2 spaces)

Comment:

Official Plan:

The site is designated High Density Residential in the Etobicoke Official Plan. This designation permits all housing types, including apartments and townhouses. Development is limited to a maximum density of 185 uph (75 upa) with a floor space index of 2.5. The proposal would result in a density of 48 uph (19.4 upa) and corresponding floor space index of 1.0. Staff have evaluated the application based on the criteria established for considering High Density Residential proposals, as contained in Section 4.2.19 of the Plan, and are of the opinion that the proposed use generally satisfies those criteria. A review of the Metropolitan Official Plan has not identified any City-wide issues.

Zoning Code:

The property is zoned Limited Commercial (CL), as amended by By-law No. 14,583, which limits use of the property to a neighbourhood gasoline service station only. In the event of approval, staff suggest that By-law No. 14,583 be repealed and that the site be rezoned to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) which would provide for the proposed townhouse dwelling type. Site specific development standards should be incorporated into the amending by-law to reflect the approved plans.

Land Use and Site Design Considerations:

The site is located in an area designated for High Density Residential development with direct access to Scarlett Road which has been identified as a Metropolitan Arterial Roadway in the Etobicoke Official Plan. Public transit is available on Scarlett Road. The Works Department has not identified any concerns with respect to the capacity of the local roadway system to support the development. The Health Department, Fire Department and Parks and Recreation Services have not identified any concerns with providing services to the project.

Comments have not been received from the Toronto Public School Board or the Toronto Separate School Board.

The three-storey height of the proposed townhouses, up to a maximum of 10.7 m (35 ft.), would be only slightly greater than the maximum building height of 9.5 m (31 ft.) permitted for the adjacent single detached dwellings. In addition, the proposed minimum sideyard setback of 1.3 m (4.2 ft.) would be comparable with the 1.2 m (3.9 ft.) minimum sideyard setback required for detached dwellings. Block 'A' would maintain a setback of 11.7 m (38.3 ft.) from Scarlett Road which would be in line with the street wall established by the adjacent detached dwellings. Blocks 'B' and 'C' would be situated at the rear of the property. In order to prevent the opportunity for views and overlook into the adjacent rear yards and to reduce the mass of the end walls, it is recommended that no windows be provided on the end wall elevations of the units and that hipped roofs be incorporated into the design of the project (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4).

The applicant is proposing internal walkways to provide at-grade pedestrian access to each of the units, allowing for approximately 53% of the site, including walkways and areas occupied by retaining walls, to be devoted to landscape open space. A children's play area would be located adjacent to the northerly lot line, between the waste enclosure and the ramp to the underground garage.

The units in Blocks 'B' and 'C' would be provided with a reduced rear yard of approximately 4.5 m (14.7 ft.) in depth, directly adjacent to retaining walls approximately 4.57 m (15.0 ft.) in height. In addition, a 1.8 m (6 ft.) privacy fence is located on the top of the retaining wall, along the rear yard of the abutting residential properties to the west, for a combined height of 6.4 m (21 ft.). Staff have anticipate that these areas would receive limited amounts of sunlight and have limited useability.

The location of the children's play area, adjacent to the northerly lot line, between the garbage room and the underground garage ramp, will be reviewed during the Site Plan Control process.

A truck turn around and visitor parking area is proposed adjacent to Scarlett Road. This would result in over 50% of the site frontage being devoted to paved driveway, parking and service areas with no opportunity to screen service functions from the street. Pedestrian access to a number of the units in Block 'A' would require individuals to cross the service/parking area. In addition, a 1.5 m (4.9ft.) wide pedestrian walkway leading to Blocks 'B' and 'C' would be located directly adjacent the loading area and waste enclosure.

The proposal for a townhouse development on the site is considered satisfactory from a land use perspective, however, staff have concerns that the limited size of the property in combination with the number of units proposed, would result in a less than desirable site layout with respect to walkway connections, private rear yard amenity space, suitable children's play area and the location of parking and service areas.

The applicant is aware of staff's concerns and has submitted a number of revised plans in an attempt to address these outstanding issues. Further review of these elements will be undertaken as part of the Site Plan Approval process.

Agency/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plan submitted in support of this application, no objections have been expressed by the following departments:

Fire DepartmentToronto Hydro

Toronto Transit CommissionBell Canada

Health Department

Comments from The Toronto Public School Board and The Toronto Separate School Board remain outstanding.

The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has verbally advised that they are satisfied with the parking supply and driveway layout subject to compliance with City standards with respect to corner radii. It is anticipated that formal written comments would be made available at the time of the public hearing.

The Development Engineering section of the Works Department has advised that the applicant would be required to address storm water management and may be subject to a cash-in-lieu contribution. The site plan as submitted does not contain sufficient grading information to evaluate the proposal adequately. In the event of approval, a separate grading plan is to be submitted indicating existing and proposed elevations, drainage patterns and facilities, deed restrictions to convey surface drainage, and major storm overflow facilities. All driveways and boulevard areas are to be reinstated in accordance with City standards. Access to waste management facilities as proposed is satisfactory. The applicant has submitted an environmental report for peer review to determine the suitability of the site for residential purposes (Exhibit No. 5).

Parks and Recreation Services has advised that design details for the children's play should be submitted for review. In the event that a satisfactory design can not be implemented, a contribution of $7,500.00 would be required to upgrade facilities in a local park. The applicant would also be subject to the payment of 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and provide boulevard planting to the satisfaction of the Forestry Division (Exhibit No. 6).

Given the limited number of units, Urban Development staff are of the opinion that the provision of an affordable housing component is not warranted.

Tenure:

In April, 1998, the applicant advised that, given the proposed common elements and facilities, the project would be developed as a condominium. In recent discussions the applicant has expressed an interest in developing the project as a freehold development. Staff of the Urban Development and Works Departments continue to have concerns regarding the long term suitability of freehold developments utilizing common facilities such as roadways and underground services. In particular, the degree of common elements and services that would be involved in the development of the subject project, such as an underground garage, waste enclosure, heated driveway and walkways and a children's play area, does not lend itself to the freehold style of ownership. Staff recommend that the proposal would more appropriately be dealt with under the provisions of the Condominium Act through the registration of a condominium corporation.

Community Meeting:

On May 12, 1998, seven area residents attended a community meeting to review the proposed plans. Those in attendance supported the proposed townhouses. Concerns were raised following the meeting regarding the adequacy of school accommodation.

Conclusions:

It is the opinion of Urban Development staff that the application for townhouses would generally satisfy the Official Plan criteria for considering development in a High Density Residential designation. However, staff have concerns that the limited size of the property in combination with the number of townhouse units proposed would result in a less than desirable site design. Staff are of the opinion that a redesign of the project would be required to adequately address these issues which may result in a reduction in the number of units. However, in the event of approval the following conditions should apply:

Conditions to Approval:

1.Fulfilment of the following conditions prior to the enactment of an amending by-law:

(i)Submission of revised plans indicating a redesign of the site layout and a reduced number of units to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

(ii)Receipt of favourable comments from the Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department.

(iii)Confirmation of the condominium tenure of the application.

(iv)Confirmation from the Works Department that the environmental report submitted by the applicant is satisfactory.

(v)Signing of a Development Agreement and the payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation execution and registration of same, if required by the Works Department.

2.The amending by-law shall repeal By-law No. 14,583 and rezone the lands from Limited Commercial (CL) to Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) and shall provide development standards to include: floor space index, building height, setbacks, coverage, parking, landscaping, internal sidewalks and a maximum number of units.

3.Further detailed consideration of the proposal under Site Plan Control to include inter alia:

(i)Signing of a Site Control Agreement, which may include indemnity clauses, and payment of necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and registration of same, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

(ii)Submission of a landscaping plan detailing fencing, curbing, grading, retaining walls, street trees, planting, and tree preservation methods for trees on abutting properties, to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control, and posting of an appropriate financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans.

(iii)Provision of on-site services, including storage of waste and recyclable materials, the provision of stormwater management facilities or cash-in-lieu payment, submission of a grading plan, the signing of agreements, and the posting of financial guarantees, if required by the Works Department.

(iv)Confirmation that the site decommissioning and cleanup has been carried out to the satisfaction of the Works Department in accordance with Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines, if required.

(v)Submission of building elevations incorporating a hipped roof design and no windows on the exterior end walls.

(vi)The developer to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of issuance of building permits and five percent cash in lieu of parkland dedication.

(vii)A construction site management plan to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control.

(viii)Details of garage illumination and security measures to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and the Toronto Police.

(ix)Submission of design details for a children's play area to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation, or the payment of $7,500.00 to upgrade facilities in a local park, if required.

(x)Confirmation that the site plan is satisfactory to the Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department.

Contact Name:

Jacquelyn Daley, Planner, Development and Design

Tel: (416)394-8229, Fax: (416)394-6063

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to provide you with our opinion regarding a shared underground garage in a townhouse freehold development.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding requirements. The possibility exists that there may be future financial implications associated with this matter.

Recommendations:

That this report be received.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on June 24th, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council had before it an application for an amendment to the Zoning Code concerning a freehold townhouse development at 542 Scarlett Road.

The freehold townhouse development would include an underground parking garage accessed from the northeast corner of the property, adjacent to Scarlett Road. Our understanding is that each townhouse unit would have a below grade parking garage, which would allow for the tandem parking of vehicles for the owners of that townhouse unit. The property lines of each townhouse unit would be established. The underground roadway leading to the various parking garages would traverse the property lines. Mutual easements would be created to allow for this traffic movement.

The underground parking garage would be access by way of a reverse slope driveway.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In the past, Council has allowed developments which contain surface private roadways, provided that appropriate Owners' Maintenance Agreements are in place. The proposed development extends the concept of private roadways to create underground private roadways. As a result, two new issues are raised:

1.One full concrete foundation below all the townhouses.

2.Reverse slope driveway.

By introducing one full concrete foundation under all of the townhouse units, each townhouse unit owner is now subjected to an additional risk based on the construction and maintenance quality of that foundation. The failure of the foundation in one area could affect all townhouse unit owners.

The likelihood of foundation failure may be increased, in that the Developer intends to install into the foundation a heating system for snow melting purposes. The heating system would extend throughout the foundation and, once again, if it failed in any one particular area, it would be the responsibility of all parties.

The usual expectation when one buys a freehold piece of property is that the municipality owns the roadway and is responsible for its care and maintenance. We are advised constantly by Developers that a freehold development will generate far more revenue than a condominium development. However, in a private roadway situation, what a freehold purchaser is purchasing into is a "condominium like" situation, without the protection of the Condominium Act. The only protection that would exist would be the various agreements executed among the property owners for easements and maintenance of the interior "common areas".

One unusual feature of this freehold development is the inclusion of a central garbage storage room. Once again, this feature would be expected in a condominium situation.

In this particular development, any knowledgeable purchaser would recognise the development as a condominium, notwithstanding that it is cloaked in the guise of freehold.

With respect to reverse slope driveways, reference is made to the Ontario Building Code. In dealing with drainage, the Code provides that "the building shall be located and the building site graded so that water will not accumulate at or near the building and will not adversely affect adjacent properties." The Code also provides that "unless it can be shown to be unnecessary, drainage shall be provided at the bottom of every foundation wall that contains the building interior." Dealing specifically with garages, the Code provides that "where run off water from a driveway is likely to accumulate or enter a garage, a catch basin shall be installed to provide adequate drainage."

Here, the reverse slope driveway leading into the underground garage will have a catch basin at its base and will have several catch basins along the common travelled area, so as to allow for drainage. The weeping tile located around the foundation will also connect to the same storm water system.

This situation introduces two elements of risk. The catch basins interfere with the integrity of the storm water system and allow for the possible entry of foreign objects into the storm water system. Additionally, the catch basins may introduce more water into the storm water system, resulting in a possible overcharging of the system. Such overcharging could result in basement flooding.

Based on the above, for a number of years, the City has refused reverse slope driveways, in that such driveways fail to meet the minimum standards of the Building Code.

Conclusions:

It is our conclusion that this townhouse development cannot adequately be developed as a freehold development. This development is more suited to condominium development.

Contact Name:

John R. Hart, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, Solicitor

Tel: (416) 622-6601, Fax: (416) 622-4713

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (May31, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. P. Vairo, together with signatures of 22 residents in the area:

We are the owners of 4 Greyswood Court, which is directly abuts 542 Scarlett Road (the "Property") to the west.

I am writing in regards to the proposed development on the Property and the Application for Rezoning/Official Plan Amendment, which we discussed a recent Community Meeting on May 12, 1998. At the meeting, Scarlett Gate Development (the "Developer") provided me with the proposed site plans and elevations for the proposed townhouse complex. I will be bringing with me the said plan at our meeting tomorrow, at which time I would like to discuss with the you the compliance of said plan with the various applicable by-laws.

I have also had an opportunity to discuss this matter with the Developer at my home. The representative of the Developer observed my concerns directly from my backyard. One of the concerns we have relates to the privacy and use and enjoyment of the Property, but there was a substantial green belt (including mature trees) between the gasoline station and our home. As a result, at no time did the existence of the gas station impede with our privacy. In fact, when the gas station was closed, Petro-Canada planted new trees as a result of our complaints.

In our opinion, the proposed development is of such high density and crowded (note the set backs from the property lines) that it materially alters the nature of the existing residential development. We note that other homes to the north of the Property are single family residential homes on large lots. Ultimately, the proposed development in its present form, if permitted, will have an adverse effect on our property value.

The Developer has acknowledge my concerns. He has verbally agreed to plant mature trees, the size and type to be specified by the adjacent property owners, to provide sufficient privacy. The Developer has also agreed to relocate the windows on the third level of the town homes so that the resulting view is not directly towards our homes. We would ask that the Developer agree in writing to said concessions as a condition to the Application. We would be grateful if you could attend to the necessary paper work, so that these conditions can be implemented. We would also like the opportunity to review and receive copies of all documentation in this regard.

We appreciate and thank you for your co-operation and assistance with this matter.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 25, 1998) from Ms. J. Covello and Mr. G. Arrizza:

I am writing in regards to the Scarlett Gate Development at 542 Scarlett Road.

Unfortunately I have not been able to attend any of the meetings thus far. Although I have signed the petition, I feel it is imperative that you know that there is great concern about this development.

These units will increase the already burdened community. Apartments in this area, once occupied by adults only, are now being occupied by families. This has caused an increase in traffic, noise level and demands on community facilities especially Westmount School. This new development will only increase the burden! Scarlett Gate Development will benefit greatly from our well-maintained, exclusive cul-de-sac lots. We will only be taxed with burden from them, especially de-evaluation of our properties.

Specific changes must be made in regards to this development. The units should be displaced at least 3.5 metres eastward from the existing single dwelling homes. The development should be decreased from twelve to ten units. And, it is imperative that a binding agreement, in writing, is given that will commit the developers to plant mature trees and maintain them until they are established.

As proud owners and residents of Etobicoke for the past twenty-five (25) years, we are confident that you will be sympathetic to our concerns and agree that these changes are necessary.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 25, 1998) from Mr. H. von Schober:

I attended yesterday's Council meeting in regard to the above-mentioned new development and here is my additional response to this project. As a builder and next-door property owner I value the proposal as it has been presented by the new owners to build 12 freehold units. The proper market price and the nearby neighbourhood consisting largely of Polish and Ukrainian background will create the proper atmosphere for professional investors to settle.

I have given my support to the builder as I feel that his project with a high class approach will keep the riff-raff and the freeloaders at bay. As I have said before I am the next-door neighbour, the very next door neighbour, and I am the only one to feel the impact from this property (limited daylight etc.) Nobody else really could say or complain about this development. Also my real estate value could be affected.

I even have committed myself to buy one unit for my family. Coming back to Scarlett Gate, I feel very strongly that you members should do your utmost and to give this venture the property attention it deserves.

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 25, 1998) from Mr. P. Bottoni:

Please accept my comments regarding this development:

(1)Too high a density for the given lot size.

(2)Location of the back section too close to existing houses.

_____

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on behalf of Scarlett Gate Developments with respect to the foregoing matter:

-Mr. M. Perrira;

-Mr. E. Estreuker; and

-Mr. T. Chlebowski.

The following persons also appeared before the Etobicoke Community with respect to the foregoing matter:

-Mrs. L. Vairo, who was concerned about the setback of the units and the limited room for the backyard area, the placement of windows overlooking her property and consequent lack of privacy, and asked that mature trees be planted to protect that privacy;

-Mr. O. Boni, who was in favour of the proposal;

-Mr. H. von Schober, who was in favour of the proposal.

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-6, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting June 24, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Application for Amendment to the Zoning Code

Simcoe Construction, 505 The West Mall - File No. Z-2245

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (May6,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:

(1)the application submitted by Simcoe Construction regarding a zoning by-law amendment for 505 The West Mall, be approved;

(2)the following report from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May 6, 1998) with respect to the application be adopted, as amended by the addition of the following:

(i)to Condition 3(ii) therein:

"the introduction of enhanced landscaping for The West Mall street frontage, as well as a wooden fence on the south side of the property"; and

(ii)Condition 3(x) as follows:

"Approval subject to the resolution of financial contributions toward the provision of school services."; and

(3)staff explore the issue of a public art contribution, and that this be brought forward at the time of approval of the draft plan of condominium:

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

Recommendations 1, 2 and 3 were carried on the following recorded vote:

Yeas:E. Brown, M. Giansante, D. Holyday, I. Jones, B. Kinahan, G. Lindsay Luby, D. O'Brien and B. Sinclair - 8

Nays:Nil

Purpose:

To consider a site specific proposal to amend the Zoning Code with respect to the property located at the southeast corner of The West Mall and Holiday Drive, from Fifth Density Residential (R5) to Sixth Density Residential (R6) to permit the development of an additional 93 unit, 10-storey residential condominium apartment building on a site containing a 6-storey apartment.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by Simcoe Construction be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

On June 4, 1997, prior to the submission of an application, a community meeting was held to allow area residents and surrounding property owners an opportunity to review a preliminary proposal for the development of an 18-storey, 166 unit condominium apartment building on a site containing a 6-storey, 59 unit rental apartment building. On August 12, 1997, Simcoe Construction submitted a formal application to the City proposing a 14-storey, 120 unit condominium apartment. Following a second community meeting on February 10, 1998, and further discussions with staff, the proposal was revised to a 93-unit, 10-storey condominium building with stepping at the eighth floor. Comments from the community meetings are discussed further in this report.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The rectangular site is located at the southeast corner of The West Mall and Holiday Drive (ExhibitNo. 1). The lands are designated High Density Residential and zoned Fifth Density Residential (R5). The site is occupied by a 6-storey, 59 unit rental apartment building which was built in 1964. The front door to the apartment faces The West Mall and two side doors exist at the north and south ends. The area to the south of the existing apartment building is used for surface parking and parking garages. Access to the site occurs off The West Mall via two driveways at the south end of the site. The building is generally in good condition and the property use officer for this area has confirmed that there are no outstanding work orders which apply to this site.

Surrounding zoning categories and land uses are as follows:

North:Fourth Density Residential (R4) and Planned Commercial Preferred (CPP) - a number of apartment buildings ranging in height from 14 to 19-storeys and the Ramada Hotel

South:Fourth Density Residential (R4) - two high rise, 15-storey apartments .

East:Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) - 3-storey, condominium townhouses.

West:Fifth Density Residential (R5) and Public Open Space (OS) - 5-storey apartment and Broadacres Park.

Proposal:

The applicant has requested a site specific amendment to the Zoning Code from Fifth Density Residential (R5) to Sixth Density Residential (R6) to permit the development of an additional 93-unit, 10-storey condominium building. The proposed building would be situated on a 0.3 hectare

(1 acre) parcel at the south end of the site, where surface and garage parking is currently provided (Exhibit No. 2). The condominium units would consist of 1- and 2-bedroom units with an average size of 78 m² (858 sq. ft.). This parcel would later be severed from the property for condominium registration purposes.

The existing northerly driveway off The West Mall would be maintained as a mutual right-of-way for both properties and would provide access to service areas and the three levels of underground parking. The first level of parking would provide, by way of an easement registered on title, 44 reserved parking spaces for tenants of the apartment in a segregated portion of the garage. It is proposed that tenants of the existing building would exit the garage to the surface by way of a stairwell located at the northwest corner of the garage. The remainder of the first garage level would provide 19 parking spaces for visitors to the condominium. The second and third levels would supply 116 parking spaces for condominium residents. A second driveway would be created off HolidayDrive and would provide access to 21 surface parking spaces for tenants and visitors of the existing apartment. The remainder of the site would be landscaped and a fence would be provided between the properties to the south and east.

Exhibit No. 1 is a key map of the area. Exhibit Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are reductions of the proposed site plan and elevations. A summary of information as provided by the applicant, including a comparison of existing and proposed densities is listed in Table No. 1.

TABLE No. 1