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

EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 9

1Request to Rename a Portion of William Morgan Drive to Patriarch Bartholomew Way

2Recognition of the Former Borough of East York's Flag and Crest as the Registered Symbols of the Community of East York

3Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87of the former Borough of East York submitted by Burger King at 62-66 Overlea Boulevard

4Obstructed Sightlines and Parking Concerns Adjacent to 50 Cosburn Avenue

5Traffic Concerns at Sammon Avenue and Glebemount Avenue

6Removal of a Disabled Parking Space Adjacent to 64 Gledhill Avenue

7Application for an Exemption of Land from the Provisions of Part Lot Control with Respect to 930-952 Millwood Road

8Fence Height Exemption Request at 28 Ferris Road

9Fence Height Exemption Request at 274 Rumsey Road

10Public Meeting Held Under Section 34 of The Planning Act with Respect to an Application for a Temporary Use By-law Amendment Submitted by G-Tek Automotive Corp. Regarding 26 Cranfied Avenue

11Public Meeting Held Under Section 34 of the Planning Act with Respect to Zoning By-law Amendments to Permit Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps in the Front Yard of Properties

12Public Meeting Held Under Section 34 of the Planning Act with Respect to Zoning By-law Amendments to Permit Community Festivals in Certain Areas of Ward One, East York

13Penalty Charges in Connection with the Tax Accounts at 980 and 994 Coxwell Avenue

14Street Vending Applications Submitted by Mr. Carrado Saloniain the Vicinity of Wicksteed Avenue/Brentcliffe Road and Bermondsey Road/Cranfield Road

15Street Vending Application Submitted by Mr. Tony Ivanovin the Vicinity of East York Collegiate at Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road

16Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 9

OF THE EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on June 24, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Michael Prue, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998

1

Request to Rename a Portion of William Morgan Drive to

Patriarch Bartholomew Way

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

The East York Community Council recommends that the proposed by-law to rename a portion of William Morgan Drive east of the north/south portion of William Morgan Drive to Patriarch Bartholomew Way be enacted by Council:

The East York Community Council reports having given notice of the proposal to change the name of William Morgan Drive and having held a public meeting on June 24, 1998, to hear any person who claimed to be adversely affected by the proposed by-law and who applied to be heard.

The East York Community Council submits the following communication (June 9, 1998) from Mr. Steve Pliakes, Newmarket:

"My name is Steve Pliakes, past Vice-president and past Secretary of my church, St. Clement of Ohrid, Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral Church, 76 Overlea Blvd., East York.

I am opposing the renaming of that portion of public highway William Morgan Drive, to PatriarchBartholomew Way.

I wish to be placed on the agenda for June 24, 1998."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (undated) from Mr.Anthony F. Krings, Scarborough:

"I like to express my objections to the renaming of William Morgan Drive to PatriarchBartholomewWay, for the following reasons:

Mr. Bartolomew is not a canadian citizen and to my knowledge has never done anything which would be of a benefit to this country.

The decision to rename a public street to honor a leader of a religious group will certainly result in other groups to demand the same privilege and have Toronto streets named after their respective leaders.

The people now living on William Morgan Drive would be greatly affected, as they would have to notify their friends, etc. of the change and also force them to scrap their present stationary. These people should agree 100% before the changes can be made.

Further, I do not agree, that this a matter for East York Community Council to decide."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 11, 1998) from Dr. Andy Plukov, President, Macedonian Human Rights Movement of Canada, Toronto:

"I am writing to you on behalf of the Macedonian Human Rights Movement of Canada regarding the proposed renaming of a portion of William Morgan Drive. Please be advised that our organization objects to the proposal and plans to have representatives attend the meeting planned for June24,1998 in order to present our concerns to Council. The following are some of the concerns which will be raised at the Council meeting:

1.St. Clement of Ohrid Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, which has been in existence for over 30 years, has applied in the past to have William Morgan Drive renamed and has been refused;

2.The fact that the proposed renaming involves the Patriarch of the Christian Orthodox Church raises both religious and political concerns which must be addressed.

Please contact my office if there are any changes regarding the date and time of the meeting."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 11, 1998) from Mr. Vlade Grozdanovski, President, United Macedonians, Markham:

"I am writing to you on behalf of the United Macedonians Organization of Canada regarding the proposed renaming of a portion of William Morgan Drive. Please be advised that our organization objects to the proposal and plans to have representatives attend the meeting planned for June24,1998 in order to present our concerns to Council.

Please contact my office if there are any changes regarding the date and time of the meeting."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 11, 1998) from Mr. Risto Cackirovski, President, The Association of Refugee Children from Aegean Macedonia, Scarborough:

"I am writing on behalf of the Association of Refugee Children from Aegean Macedonia regarding the proposed renaming of a portion of William Morgan Drive. Please be advised that our organization objects to the proposal and plans to have representatives attend the meeting planned for June24,1998 in order to present our concerns to Council. The following are some of the concerns which will be raised at the Council meeting:

1.St. Clement of Ohrid Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral, which has been existence for over 30years, has applied in the past to have William Morgan Drive renamed and has been refused;

2.The fact that the proposed renaming involves the Patriarch of the Christian Orthodox Church raises both religious and political concerns which must be addressed.

Please contact my office if there are any changes regarding the date and time of the meeting."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 6, 1998) from Dr. Tom Pashby, Dr. Tom Pashby Sports Safety Fund, Toronto:

"Please accent my strong objection to removing the name of William Morgan from any section of the street so named.

Bill Morgan was a builder of our town of Leaside and as a 48 year resident find it necessary to maintain our past.

Nothing against the Orthodox Greeks they are good citizens, however, leave Bill Morgan's as it has been."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 10, 1998) from Mr. Tony Gelmanovski, Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral "St. Clement of Ohrid", Toronto:

"Recently I was "leafing" through a local community newspaper and happened to notice an article "Renaming Street in Honor of Greek Patriarch".

Reading further into the article, we was both surprised and shocked to learn that the street in question is William Morgan (Originally it was to be Overlea Blvd.)

I was surprised because there was no notice given of the name change and shocked because of the article sheet which was chosen for the name change.

As a member of the Congregation of "St. Clement of Ohrid" Macedonian Orthodox Church and also the Executive Secretary of the Church Council, I found that the choice of either street for re-naming shows a great lack of respect for the Macedonian Church and the Macedonian Community in the Greater Toronto Area (aprox. 120,000). Most people are aware of the deep division between the Greeks and Macedonian resulting from the oppression of our people in Northern Greece. Most Orthodox people are also aware that this same Patriarch is the head of an organization which does not recognize the Macedonian Church in Macedonia and throughout the rest of the world.

In fact on his recent trip to Toronto, The Patriarch snubbed the Macedonian Community and our Religions leaders by not inviting as to the Mass at Maple Leaf Gardens.

Why should we support and honor someone who puts politics before people? Many will claim that the re-naming of William Morgan is appropriate because the Greek Orthodox Metropolis is located at the end of William Morgan. But ask that we keep in mind that the Metropolis moved to this location only 7 months ago whereas "St. Clement of Ohrid" has been located at its present location and has been part of the local Community for over 35 years.

If anything, the street in question should be named after same aspect of the Macedonian Church or the Macedonian culture - failing this, leave the name as it is!"

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 11, 1998) from Ms. Ivana Venderis:

"I am writing to you in regards to the proposed renaming of a portion of William Morgan Drive. I am strongly opposed against this name change because Patriarch Bartholomew has nothing to do with Canadians or Canadian history. The community as a whole cannot identify with him and he does not affect our lives in any way.

The honour of naming a street after someone should go to Canadians who have contributed to our society and with whom we can all identify. Patriarch Bartholomew has little or no meaning for those of us outside the Greek community. Some people will find the name of the street quite offensive, such as the Macedonian community. Patriarche Bartholomew does not recognize the MacedonianOrthodox Church, which happens to be conveniently located on William Morgan Drive. This name change would only highten tensions between Macedonians and Greeks.

I am sick and tired of politicians trying to buy votes from ethnic minorities. Instead of promoting unity amoung us, they promote hostility and disunity. Immigrants came to Canada to begin new lives and leave old world conflicts. We are being forced by politicians to resume conflict here, just so they can get a vote. This behaviour is disgraceful. They are completely ignorant to the historical backgrounds of all Canadian immigrants. We want to be Canadians first and foremost.

Before the decision is made, I hope the council considers doing what is best for community as a whole."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 24, 1998) from Archpriest Nicolas Boldireff, Christ the Saviour Russian Orthodox Cathedral, Toronto:

"I wish to lend my personal support and that of my three hundred families of the Russian Orthodox community to the naming of the Street in honour of the Spititual Leader of 300 million Orthodox Christians His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 23, 1998) from +Seraphim, Bishop of Ottawa and Canada, Diocese of Canada Orthodox Church in America, Spencerville:

"I am authorising Archpriest John Kalouras of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto (Canada) as president of the Eastern Orthodox Clergy Association, to bring this letter to the attention of the pertinent authorities.

I am a bishop of the Orthodox Church, to with the Archdiocese of Canada of the Orthodox Church in America, a sister diocese to the Metropolis of Toronto. I, being a concelebrating brother bishop of His Eminence Metropolitan SOTIRIOS of Toronto, take the liberty of expressing my concern and opinion in the absence of His Eminence.

I have been informed that a certain controversy has been stirred up surrounding the matter of the naming of a small portion of Overlea Drive as Patriarch Bartholomew Way. I am told that some persons wish to make a political matter out of this naming. I consider it to be a shame that the politicising of this action of good will on the part on the City of Toronto should be debased in such a fashion. Why should a territorial dispute elsewhere in the world tarnish a very good deed?

The Patriarch of Constantinople is not a political person. In fact, his position in the Republic of Turkey makes it impossible and even dangerous. He is, rather, a religious leader. He is, in terms of honour, the most senior bishop in the Orthodox world, which numbers over three hundred million souls. In Canada live about half a million Orthodox, and over half of these live in Toronto. While Patriarch Bartholomew is often compared with Pope John Paul II of Rome, he does not have any of the political associations. His prestige and his influence amoung Orthodox Christians and others is, however considerable. In the light of all this, it was a wonderful, appropriate, and correct gesture on the part of the City of Toronto to undertake this small token of esteem, recognising the position of this man who brought a great deal of joy, as well as honour, to our country during his recent visit. I most respectfully ask the Authorities of the City of Toronto to retain the name of this road as designated in his honour."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 23, 1998) from His Worship Mayor Robert Morrow, Hamilton:

"Please excuses the handwritten letter.

May I respectfully offer support on the naming of a street in your Municipality which will honour Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and his wonderful recent pastoral visit to our country.

The Patriarch visited Hamilton as well and we will have a park and a street named after him here.

Although Hamilton is smaller than Toronto, we too have a diverse community which has in its make up all the world's peoples, languages & religious & ethnik groups. In this case, we honour not only the Patriarch but all of his Orthodox followers - Greek, Ukrainians, Serbs, Romanians, Antiochans, Bulgarians, Russians, Arabs and others.

All other groups can and must be recognized and protected as well. I saw to it that such was the case when the Macedonian Orthodox Archbishop visited here some years ago and I know that East York took steps to do so in your part of Toronto and wants to continue doing so in the True Canadian Spirit of inclusiveness and compromise.

Without intruding, I hope, in another community's matters because I believe we are all in this together. I believe that the commitment made by both our cities must stand and, as we have both done in the past, we can find ways to include all others as well."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communications (June 23, 1998) from Mihajlo J. Doder, Rector, All Serbian Saints Serbian Orthodox Church, Toronto:

"I am writing you concerning the plan to rename a portion of William Morgan Dr. to PatriarchBartholomew Way and ask that you read this message to those whom it may concern.

Whereas His All-Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew the is first-among-equals among the various heads of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches and thus holds a primacy of honour among Orthodox Christians who number over 300,000,000, we applaud the decision to rename a portion of WilliamMorganDrive in his honour. This is not only an honour for Greek Orthodox Christians, but for the whole Orthodox Church.

We, Serbian Orthodox Christians, who received Orthodox Christianity from the disciples of the venerable brothers, Sts. Cyril and Methodius, missionaries of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, revere the See of Constantinople as our Mother Church and consider this recognition as an ecclesiastical, and not a political or nationalistic recognition."

The East York Community Council also submits for the information of Council the following Clause 9 embodied in Report No. 7 of the East York Community Council as adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting on May 13 and 14, 1998 regarding a request to rename a portion of William Morgan Drive to Patriarch Bartholomew Way:

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

Purpose:

To report to the May 6, 1998 East York Community Council on the request from Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto to rename a street in East York in honour of the visit to Toronto from His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew on May 30 and 31st, 1998.

Source of Funds:

Costs are estimated to be approximately $5,000.00, including advertising and registration fees. It is recommended that these costs be included in the budget for the visit to Toronto by His All Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(i)a portion of William Morgan Drive east of the north/south portion of William Morgan Drive be renamed to Patriarch Bartholomew Way;

(ii)Council authorize Staff to proceed with the necessary advertising to enact the recommended street name change as required by the Municipal Act, Section 210, Chapter 105;

(iii) Council designate the June 24^th East York Community Council meeting to hear any person who claims that he/she will be adversely affected by the proposed street name change and who applies to be heard; and,

(iv)That Council authorize the appropriate by-law to give effect hereto.

Background:

The Mayor's Office received a request from Metropolitan Archbishop Sotirios of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto to rename Overlea Boulevard in honour of the upcoming visit of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Toronto on May 30 and May 31st, 1998. Archbishop Sotirios has requested that Toronto honour this visit with a permanent memorial, on behalf of all Orthodox Christians in Canada. The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto has recently moved its offices to 86 Overlea Boulevard.

Discussion:

The renaming of Overlea Boulevard to Patriarch Bartholomew Boulevard would require a significant number of businesses to change their addresses including the approximately 70 businesses in the East York Town Centre. Furthermore, the Canadian head offices for Coca-Cola Ltd and the Salvation Army are also located on Overlea Boulevard. A complete list of businesses which would be affected is included as Appendix "A". Given the significant impact of changing the name of Overlea Boulevard, Councillor Prue has proposed that a small portion of William Morgan Drive be renamed to Patriarch Bartholomew Way. The section proposed is the eastern most portion of William Morgan Drive which provides vehicular access to #86 Overlea Boulevard. Renaming this portion of William Morgan Drive would provide the opportunity for the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto to change their address to Patriarch Bartholomew Way.

There are no businesses or residential addresses which front onto this section of William Morgan Drive. However, staff recommend that notice of the proposed change be distributed to residents and businesses within 120 metres of William Morgan Drive to determine public opinion on the proposed change.

Statutory Requirements

The Municipal Act outlines the procedures for changing the name of a road. Section 210, Chapter 105 states that:

(A)A by-law changing the name of a highway has no effect until a copy of it, certified under the hand of the clerk and the seal of the corporation, has been registered in the proper land registry office.

(B)Before passing a by-law for changing the name of a highway,

(i)notice of the proposed by-law shall be published at least once a week for four successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the municipality, and

(ii)the council shall hear any person who claims that he will be adversely affected by the by-law and who applies to be heard.

Funding Implications

A notice of street name change must be advertised in the Toronto Star for 4 consecutive weeks at a cost of between $3,000.00 and $5,000.00. Additionally, there is a charge of $200.00 to register the street name. These funds are typically borne by the applicant.

Schedule

The following is the proposed schedule of Community Council meetings, Council meetings and other important events which are required to enact the proposed name change:

DateEvent

May 6, 1998Report to East York Community Council recommending name change.

May 13,14,15, 1998Report to Toronto Council.

May 19, 1998Advertising begins.

May 30,31, 1998Visit to Toronto by Patriarch Bartholomew.

June 16, 1998Advertising ends.

June 24, 1998East York Community Council - mandatory public hearing to hear any person who claims to be adversely affected.

July 8,9,10, 1998Toronto Council, final approval.

Since the Patriarch's visit occurs during the approval process, staff will install temporary signs in the area advising of the proposed name change. A special custom street name sign could also be made available as a gift to the Patriarch.

Conclusions:

The proposal by the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto to rename Overlea Boulevard to rename Patriarch Bartholomew Way would have a significant impact to the businesses which have Overlea Boulevard addresses. Councillor Prue, in consultation with Archbishop Sotirios, has reviewed streets in the vicinity of Overlea Boulevard in an effort to find an alternate street suitable for renaming. Based on this review, it is recommended, as an alternative, that a section of William Morgan Drive be renamed to Patriarch Bartholomew Way. No businesses or residents currently have an address on this section of William Morgan Drive, therefore, the overall impact should be minimal. The Municipal Act requires that the proposed street name change would need to be advertised once a week for 4 weeks in a Toronto Daily newspaper prior to a public meeting to hear any person who feels that they would be adversely affected by the proposed street name change. The estimated cost for advertising and registering the new street name would be approximately $5,000.00.

Contact Name:

Peter Bartos, P.Eng.

Transportation Engineer

East York District 778-2225

APPENDIX A

Business Addresses on Overlea Boulevard

AddressName

16Claremont Camera

28Beallor & Partners

36Chesapeake Ltd.

42Coca-Cola Beverages Ltd.

42Coca-Cola Bottling Ltd.

4588 Jewellery & Watches Company

45A Touch of Art

45Alpha Laboratories Inc.

45Bank of Montreal

45Baskin-Robbins Ice Cream

45Bata Shoe Stores

45Bi-Way Stores Ltd.

45Bijou Accessories

45Black Photo Corporation

45Bowlerama Thorncliffe

45Brewers Retail Inc.

45Chu, Dr. Michael W.

45Cohen, Dr. Milton

45Coles - The Book People

45Cotton Collectibles Inc.

45Dahl's Portrait Studio

45Dominion Save-A-Centre

45Dunkin Donuts

45East York Chiropractic Clinic

45East York Diagnostic Ultrasound

45East York Hearing Aid Centre

45East York Medical Health Centre

45East York Sewing Centre

45Easy T's

45Five Star Printers

45Flora, Dr. F.Q.

45Gisela's Skin Care

45Hallmark Cards Shop

45Hutchinson, Dr. Viven & Dr. Tony Lorch

45Japan Camera Centre

45Key King

45Kozerawsky, Dr. W. J.

45Krystal Fashions

45Laura Secord Ltd.

45Leo & Maria's Deli

45Mail & Stuff

45Matta, Dr. Roberto B.

45Movies for You

45National Trust Company

45Ninja Japan

45Norman Simpson Shoes

45Nutra Foods

45Open Window Bakery Ltd.

45Optical Factory

45Panorama Industries Inc.

45Parker's Cleaners

45Pizza Pizza

45Precision Time

45Radio Shack

45Reitman's

45Runner's Line Ltd.

45Scott's Hospitality Inc.

45Shopper's Drug Mart

45St. Clair Paint and Paper

45Style Barber Shop

45The Becker Milk Company

45The Flower Emporium

45The Toronto-Dominion Bank

45Thorncliffe Banquet Centre

45Thorncliffe Custom Tailor

45Thorncliffe Dental Care

45Thorncliffe Neighbourhood Office

45Thorncliffe News Stand

45Thorncliffe Park Shoe Repair

45Thorncliffe Physio Therapy

45Ticket & Info Shop

45Treats Muffins and Cookies

45Veronese

45Weinryb, Dr. Calvin

45Zellers Inc.

50Calefaction Systems Ltd.

50National Access Controls

50O'Hara Systems Inc.

50Oriole Business Systems Ltd.

50Sudata Consulting

56A Buck or Two

60East York Meals on Wheels

60Royal Bank of Canada

61Mr. Lube

65C Pas Systems Inc.

65Carriers Travel International

65Commemorative Services of Ontario

65Goldlist Development Corporation

65Insurex Canada Inc.

65Multi-Health Systems Inc.

65Overlea Cafe

65The Communication Group Inc.

65Throncliffe Overlea Dental Centre

65Thorncliffe Pharmacy

65Word and image Design Studio Inc.

--------

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

-Mr. Steve Pliakes, Newmarket;

-Dr. Andy Plukov, Toronto;

-Mr. Tom Gelmanovski, Executive Secretary, St. Clement of Ohrid Macedonian Orthodox Cathedral Church, Toronto;

-Father Peter Avgeropoulos, Toronto, representing the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto;

-Father Iskander Younes, representing the Antiochian Orthodox Church;

-Mr. Bill Fatsis, representing the Hellenic Canadian Congress;

-Mr. Spyros Flengas, representing the Hellenic Canadian Federation of Ontario;

-Mr. Costas Menegakis, Toronto;

-Dr. Tasos Karantonis, President,The Greek Community of Metro Toronto;

-His Grace Bishop Yurij, Ukranian Orthodox Chuch;

-Father John Koulouras, President, Eastern Orthodox Clergy Association

-Mr. Vasil Alexiou, East York;

-Mr. Walter Steriovski, Scarborough;

-Mr. Tomy Tzuntzuro, Scarborough;

-Ms. Lilly Pliakes, Newmarket;

-Mr. Michael McCleery, East York;

-Ms. Marylin King, Toronto;

-Mr. Nicola Belcevski, Toronto;

-Mr. Bill Nicholov, Macedonian Human Rights Association of Canada, Toronto;

-Mr. John Papadakis, East York; and

-Ms. Tina Athanasakos, Thornhill.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map

2

Recognition of the Former

Borough of East York's Flag and Crest as the

Registered Symbols of the Community of East York

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

The East York Community Council recommends as follows in accordance with the following communication (June 9, 1998) from Councillor Michael Prue, East York:

(1)that the flag of the former Borough of East York be the flag of the Community of EastYork and;

(2)that the seal and crest as well as other registered symbols of the former Borough of EastYork be adopted as the symbols of the Community of East York:

The East York Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to prepare appropriate reports necessary to give effect to the adoption of a flag and symbols for the community of EastYork.

The East York Community Council submits the following communication (June 9, 1998) from Councillor Michael Prue, East York:

It is my understanding that the Community Council of Scarborough recommended to Toronto City Council that

"The flag of the former City of Scarborough be the flag of the Community of Scarborough" at its meeting of 4 March 1998.

This motion was subsequently approved by the Toronto Council.

I am hereby requesting that a similar item be placed on our Community Council agenda that:

1.The flag of the former Borough of East York be the flag of the Community of EastYork; and

2.The seal and crest as well as other registered symbols of the former Borough be adopted as the symbols for the Community of East York.

3.Such other reports as may be necessary be requested to give effect to these resolutions.

--------

Mr. John Papadakis, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

3

Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87

of the former Borough of East York submitted by

Burger King at 62-66 Overlea Boulevard

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

The East York Community Council recommends:

(1)approval of a variance to former Borough of East York Sign By-law No. 64-87, as amended, to allow the installation of a pylon sign for the exclusive use of Burger King at 62-66OverleaBoulevard not to exceed 20.55 square metres (221.34squarefeet) in size nor shall the sign exceed 6.0 metres in height;

(2)that one pylon sign be situated on the property at 62-66 Overlea Boulevard; and

(3)that the following report (June 10, 1998) of the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, be received:

Purpose:

To report to the June 24, 1998 East York Community Council regarding a request to allow the installation of one pylon sign for the exclusive use of Burger King on the above property.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the request to install the proposed pylon sign for the exclusive use of BurgerKing, at 62-66 Overlea Boulevard, be denied.

Background:

The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-laws where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would maintain the general intent of the by-law.

Discussion:

The Sign By-Law No. 64-87, as amended, presently in force in the Community of East York in the City of Toronto, regulates signage for properties and buildings in accordance with the zoning designation of the areas where the properties are located and further in accordance with the specific use of the buildings on the properties.

The property on which the Burger King building is situated is within an area designated "BusinessCentre Zone "BC", in Zoning By-law No.1916.

The Sign By-law regulates signage in this area in Section 4.2. titled "Commercial Zones" and specifically subsection 4.2.1.c), which deals with plazas.

A "Plaza", for the purposes of this by-law, is a group of commercial establishments, whether or not under one ownership, having a common parking area and where the individual establishments are accessed directly from the exterior of the building.

The property at 62-66 Overlea Boulevard is proposed to have three buildings when fully developed. One building is for Burger King, one for Country Style Donuts and one for multiple tenants. The property has a common parking area and the individual establishments are accessed from the exterior of the buildings. The development, therefore, is a plaza.

Under subsection 4.2.1.(c), the following regulations apply for plazas:

1.One pylon sign for the whole plaza may be erected in the front or side yards, a minimum of 0.45 metres ( 1'-6") from any street line;

2.the aggregate area of the sign may not exceed 12.0 square metres (129.17 square feet); and

3.the height of the sign may not exceed 6.0 metres (19.68 feet).

The applicant is proposing to erect one pylon sign, facing Overlea Boulevard. This sign, as indicated by the owner of the property, Orfus Realty, in a letter received June 7, 1998, will be used exclusively by Burger King. The property owner has also forwarded to us another letter, dated May 22, 1998, requesting advice as to whether the City will allow or not the installation of a second pylon sign for the use of all the remaining tenants in this plaza.

On the basis of the submitted documents, staff have summarized the items which are not in compliance with the requirements of the Sign By-law:

a)the Sign By-law allows one pylon sign for the whole plaza and not for the exclusive use of one tenant;

1.one pylon sign is applied for, but there is indication, in the owner's second letter, that permission will be sought in the future to install a second pylon sign on the property for the use of the remaining tenants. This is contradictory;

c)the overall height of the proposed sign is 7.62 metres (25.00 feet), which exceeds by 1.62metres (5.32 feet) the permitted height of 6.0 metres (19.68 feet);

d)the aggregate area of the proposed sign is 20.55 square feet (221.34 square feet), which exceeds by 8.85 square metres (92.03 square feet) the permitted area of 12.0 square metres (129.17 square feet).

Conclusion:

Staff are of the opinion that this request for variance from the Sign By-law requirements is not consistent, is not minor and as such does not maintain the general intent of the Sign By-law. Staff do not support the requested variance.

Contact Name:

Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos, Manager,

Plan Review, (416) 778-2239.

--------

Mr. Jeff Weinman, Burger King Restaurants of Canada Inc., Etobicoke, appeared before the EastYork Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Site Plan Burger King

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Site Plan Burger King

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Site Plan Burger King

4

Obstructed Sightlines and Parking Concerns

Adjacent to 50 Cosburn Avenue

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June5,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

Purpose:

To report to the June 24, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council on implementing a "NoParking Anytime" zone adjacent to the underground parking access at 50 Cosburn Avenue.

Financial Implications:

The proposed work can be accommodated in the Current Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1) Schedule VIII of By-law 92-93, as amended, entitled "To regulate traffic on roads in the Borough of East York" be further amended to provide a "No Parking Anytime" zone on the north side of Cosburn Avenue, from a point 61.9 metres east of LoganAvenue to a point 80.3 metres east of Logan Avenue; and,

(2)The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to give effect thereto."

Background:

The Works and Emergency Services Department received a phone call from Mr. John Saridis, 50Cosburn Avenue, apartment 617, on February 27, 1998, advising that sight lines from the access to the underground parking at 50 Cosburn Avenue were being obstructed by parked vehicles on either side of the access ramp. He is concerned about the safety of vehicles egressing onto Cosburn Avenue when they cannot see oncoming traffic.

Discussion:

The north side of Cosburn Avenue is regulated by a "No Parking, 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", and "No Stopping, 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday" zone. Furthermore, there is a "No Standing" zone between Logan Avenue and a point 61.9 metres east of Logan Avenue. The underground parking access for 50 Cosburn Avenue is located east of the "No Standing" zone, as illustrated in the attached plan.

An investigation conducted by Works and Emergency Services staff revealed that vehicles parking adjacent to the underground parking access restrict the sight distance for vehicles exiting the underground parking garage onto Cosburn Avenue.

The implementation of a "No Parking Anytime" zone on Cosburn Avenue, from a point 61.9 metres east of Logan Avenue to a point 80.3 metres east of Logan Avenue would eliminate two parking spaces. A review of parking on a typical day indicates that adequate parking is available for area residents. Therefore, the implementation of this proposed "No Parking Anytime" restriction should not significantly impact parking in the area.

It should be noted that in August 1995, East York Council approved a "No Parking Anytime" restriction on Gamble Avenue adjacent to an apartment driveway access because of a similar concern received from a resident.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that a "No Parking Anytime" zone be implemented on the north side of CosburnAvenue, adjacent to the underground parking access for 50 Cosburn Avenue, to provide a safe sight distance for residents exiting the parking garage. The resultant removal of two on-street parking spaces is not expected to significantly impact parking in this area.

Contact Name:

Peter Bartos, P.Eng.

Transportation Engineer

778-2225

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Parking on Cosburn Avenue

5

Traffic Concerns at Sammon Avenue

and Glebemount Avenue

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June5,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

Purpose:

To report to the June 24, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council on the proposed installation of all-way "Stop" signs on Sammon Avenue at Glebemount Avenue.

Financial Implications:

The proposed work can be accommodated in the Current Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)The appropriate By-laws be amended to provide all-way stop control at the intersection of Sammon Avenue and Glebemount Avenue; and

(2)The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to give effect thereto."

Background:

The Works and Emergency Services Department received a letter from Ms. Elizabeth Potter, 706Sammon Avenue, dated February 13, 1998, requesting that all-way stop control be implemented at the intersection of Sammon Avenue and Glebemount Avenue.

Discussion:

The intersection of Sammon Avenue and Glebemount Avenue is an offset intersection, where the Glebemount Avenue approaches are offset by 8.75 metres. Traffic is currently regulated by "Stop" signs on Glebemount Avenue. This intersection is illustrated in Appendix A.

Staff conducted a traffic volume study at this intersection on a typical day to determine the feasibility of implementing all-way stop control. The all-way stop warrant illustrated below, shows that the warrant is met. Therefore all-way stop control at this intersection is justified.

Staff also studied the reported collisions at this intersection, and found one reported collision for the period of January 1, 1997 to December 31, 1997. This collision was of a type susceptible to correction by all-way stop control.

Conclusions:

Traffic studies conducted by staff indicate that all-way stop control at the intersection of SammonAvenue and Glebemount Avenue is warranted. It is recommended that the appropriate By-laws be amended to provide all-way stop control at this intersection.

Contact Name:

Peter Bartos, P.Eng.

Transportation Engineer

778-2225

(A copy of the diagram entitled "Proposed All Way Stop Control at Sammon Avenue and Glebemount Avenue", was forwarded to all members of the East York Community Council with the agenda of the East York Community Council meeting of June 24, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Division, East York Office.)

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (February13,1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Potter, East York:

"I am requesting a 4 way stop at the corners of Glebemount and Sammon Ave. It's a very busy spot. There is a 2 way north and south, but the cars just fly across and I have seen many a near bad accident there, as children have to cross that corner going to school.

Hoping you can solve this problem as it's not just cars but all the big trucks use it."

--------

Mrs. Elizabeth Potter, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

6

Removal of a Disabled Parking Space

Adjacent to 64 Gledhill Avenue

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June1,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

Purpose:

To report to the June 24, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council on the proposed removal of a disabled parking space adjacent to 64 Gledhill Avenue.

Financial Implications:

The proposed work can be accommodated in the Current Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)Schedule 'E' of By-law No. 34-93, entitled "To provide for disabled person parking permit holders", as amended, be further amended to remove an alternate side disabled parking space on the east and west side of Gledhill Avenue from a point 70.0 metres north of King Edward Avenue to a point 76.0 metres north of King Edward Avenue;

(2)Schedule 'A' of By-law No. 20-96, entitled "To provide for overnight permit parking on Borough Streets", as amended, be further amended to reestablish this parking space for overnight permit parking; and,

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto."

Background:

The Works and Emergency Services Department received a telephone call from Ms. Vangie Pedias, 64 Gledhill Avenue, on May 19, 1998, advising that the disabled parking space adjacent to her residence is no longer required because her father, Konstantinos Pedias, for whom the disabled parking space was granted, has passed away.

Discussion:

Gledhill Avenue is regulated by alternate side parking and overnight permit parking. During the months of February, April, June, August, October and December, the disabled parking space has been located in front of 64 Gledhill Avenue, while during January, March, May, July, September and November, the disabled parking space has been located directly across the street in front of 67Gledhill Avenue.

The removal of this disabled parking space will add one overnight permit parking space to GledhillAvenue. There are presently 52 available overnight parking permits on Gledhill Avenue between Lumsden Avenue and King Edward Avenue, and for the most recent permit period, parking permits were sold out.

Conclusions:

Since the existing alternate side disabled parking space on Gledhill Avenue is no longer required, it is recommended it be removed and reinstated for overnight permit parking.

Contact Name:

Peter Bartos, P.Eng., Transportation Engineer, 778-2225

7

Application for an Exemption of Land

from the Provisions of Part Lot Control

with Respect to 930-952 Millwood Road

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

The East York Community Counil recommends the adoption of the following report (June9,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

Purpose:

This report to the June 24, 1998 East York Community Council concerns a request by Oxford Hills Developments Inc. for an exemption of their 27,321 square foot (0.667 ac.) parcel of land from the provisions of part lot control.

Recommendations:

(1)That pursuant to Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, The City Of Toronto Council enact the By-law which is attached to this report as Schedule "1", and which exempts the lands at 930-952 Millwood Road from the provisions of part lot control;

(2)That pursuant to the Ontario Regulation 476/83, upon the enactment of the By-law the Clerk be directed to forward it to the Commissioner of Planning of the former Metropolitan Toronto;

(3)That upon the enactment and approval of the By-law by City of Toronto Council, the CitySolicitor for the East York Office be directed to register the By-law on title;

(4)That the owner and his Solicitor be required to provide an undertaking that they will advise the City Solicitor for the East York Office immediately upon the conveyance of each of the lots;

(5)That pursuant to Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, immediately upon the conveyance of each lot, the City Solicitor for the East York Office be directed to bring forward a By-law to repeal the part lot control exemption;

(6)That the Solicitor be directed to register the By-law described in recommendation No. 5 contained in the report of the Commissioner of Development Services for the East York Office dated June 9, 1998, on title;

(7)That the owner be required to enter into an Agreement which is substantially in accordance with that attached as Schedule "A" to the By-law which is attached to the report of the Commissioner of Development Services for the East York Office dated June 9, 1998, as Schedule "1 ", and which sets out the following:

i)conditions related to part lot control;

ii)a requirement compelling all of the owners sharing the use of the laneway to enter into an agreement requiring the conveyance, maintenance, and repair of reciprocal easements or rights-of-way for the purpose of ingress and egress and for the purpose of the construction, operation maintenance and repair of all services and utilities and cost sharing for the lands to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor for the East York Office; and

iii)requirements for maintaining fences, lighting and landscaping where required on individual lots, and organization of functions such as garbage collection; and,

(8)That the City of Toronto Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and Clerk be authorized to execute the Agreement required through recommendation No. 7 in the report of the Commissioner of Development Services for the East York Office dated June 9, 1998, and that the City Solicitor for the East York Office be directed to register that Agreement on title.

Background:

The site is located on the east side of Millwood Road some 70.0 m ( 230.0 ft.) west of Laird Drive. In June, 1997, Council approved a site specific rezoning and site plan proposals to facilitate the development of these lands for 26 townhouses. Staff's original report on these applications advised Council that this was to be a freehold development and that the owner intended to apply for a part lot control exemption in order to allow this division of lots.

The provisions for the removal of part lot control are set out in Section 50(7) of the Planing Act. They permit municipalities to authorize conveyance of land by the passage of a By-law to suspend the operation of part lot control. Part lot control normally applies to all lands within a registered plans of subdivision and it prevents future landowners from any further subdivision and conveyance of their lots.

This method of land division is typically used in developments of semi-detached dwellings and townhouses where it is easier to draw lot boundaries after the final detailed design of the dwellings has taken place. It also represents a more expeditious method of land division than a plan of subdivision or Committee of Adjustment. It is particularly appropriate where no new public roads are required.

The 26 townhouses in this proposal have for the most part been sold with a closing date of late June1998. To facilitate their transfer their current owner has to be able to show that they are separate entities. The by-law attached to this report will create these lots while the agreement which implements the recommendations will ensure that:

•the requirements of the Planning Act concerning the by-law's approval and registration are carried out;

•Part Lot Control is reinstated once the conveyance of these lots has been arranged. This is required to prevent any further land subdivision by future landowners; and,

•any owner sharing common facilities/services is required to enter into an agreement to ensure that these common facilities are properly maintained, etc.

Comments:

The attached Agreement ensures that municipal funds are not spent on the maintenance of any private facilities/services required to service this project. It does so by requiring those owners with shared facilities/services to enter into an agreement to ensure that such facilities/services are maintained at their own expense.

The report was prepared in consultation with East York's Transportation and Engineering Services Division and the City Solicitor for the East York Office.

Conclusion:

Staff believe that the City's interests have been adequately secured via the attached agreement. Therefore, we recommend that this application for the exemption from part lot control be approved.

Contact Name:

Jean Besz,

Senior Planner East York Community Office

(416)778-2045

(416)466-9877

planning@borough.eastyork.on.ca

--------

Mr. Ken Slater, Oxford Hills Developments Inc., Richmond Hill, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

--------

Bill No.

City of Toronto

By-law

"A by-law pursuant to the provisions of Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, to exempt certain lands being Lots 822, 823, 824, 825 and 826 on the north easterly side of Millwood Road, Plan 2120, in the City of Toronto (formerlyBorough of East York).

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, the Council of a municipality may by by-law provide that Subsection 50(5) of the Act does not apply to certain lands within a plan of subdivision designated in the by-law;

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

1.That subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 does not apply to the following lands located within a plan of subdivision:

ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcels or tract of land and premises situate, lying and being in the City of Toronto (formerly Borough of East York) and being composed of Lots 822, 823, 824, 825 and 826 on the north easterly side of Millwood Road and Lots 827, 828 and 829 on the northerly side of Millwood Road, Plan 2120, SAVE AND EXCEPT those portions of said Lots 827, 828 and 829 acquired by the Borough of East York (formerly Town of Leaside) for the widening of Millwood Road, but only for the purpose of:

a)conveying the whole of one or more parts (except for the conveyance of the parcels set out in subsections (c) through (I) below, which shall only be conveyed in the manner set out therein) shown on the plan attached hereto as Schedule"1" (hereinafter called the "Plan");

b)conveying the whole of one or more parts shown on a reference plan to be approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development as may be required to identify easements and encroachments; or

c)conveying Parts 17 and 18 on the Plan, which parts shall only be conveyed together as one parcel;

d)conveying Parts 19 and 20 on the Plan, which parts shall only be conveyed together as one parcel;

e)conveying Parts 21 and 22 on the Plan, which parts shall only be conveyed together as one parcel;

f)conveying Parts 23 and 24 on the Plan, which parts shall only be conveyed together as one parcel;

g)conveying Parts 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 on the Plan, which parts shall only be conveyed together as one parcel;

h)conveying Parts 13 and 14 on the Plan, which parts shall only be conveyed together as one parcel; and

i)conveying Parts 1, 15 and 39 on the Plan, which parts shall only be conveyed together as one parcel.

2.That this by-law shall not come into effect until:

i)it has been approved by the approval authority or its delegate, if required, pursuant to the Planning Act;

ii)the Agreement attached hereto as Schedule "A" has been executed and registered on title;

iii)the 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland referred to in the attached Schedule "A" has been paid; and

iv)this by-law has been registered on title.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D.

________________________ ___________________________ Mel LastmanNovina Wong,

MayorCity Clerk

--------

Appendix "A" to the Draft By-law

Draft Part Lot Control Exemption Agreement

THIS AGREEMENT made this 30th day of June, 1998.

B E T W E E N:

Oxford Hills Developments (1997) Inc.

(hereinafter called the "Owner")

of the First Part;

- and -

City of Toronto,

(hereinafter called the "City")

Of the Second Part;

- and -

Royal Bank of Canada,

(hereinafter called the "Encumbrancer")

Of the Third Part.

WHEREAS the Owner represents that it is the registered owner of the lands described in Schedule "A" annexed hereto, which lands are hereinafter referred to as the "Lands";

AND WHEREAS the Owner represents that the Encumbrancer is the only additional party having any interest in or claim against the Lands;

AND WHEREAS the Owner has applied to the appropriate governmental authorities and agencies for the designation of the Lands as not being subject to part lot control pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended, to permit the creation of 27 lots, 26 of which will contain 1 townhouse unit on each such lot, and 1 lot which will contain an office commercial building, a copy of the plan showing the proposed lots being attached hereto as Schedule "B" (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan");

AND WHEREAS as a condition of site plan approval for the project the City required that an agreement be entered into regarding therein;

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in condition of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledge, the parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows:

1.The Owner hereby agrees that following the enactment of a part lot control exempting by-law by the Council for the City pursuant to Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 and following approval thereof by the Council for the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and registration thereof on title, none of the Lands shall be conveyed or otherwise dealt with except in accordance with the Plan and any description for such conveyance shall be comprised of the whole of one or more parts as shown on the Plan. Conveyance of less than the whole of a part as shown on the Plan shall not be permitted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Owner acknowledges and agrees that Part 27 on the Plan shall only be conveyed together with Parts 25, 26, 28 and 29 on the Plan as one parcel and that Part 24 on the Plan shall only be conveyed together with Part 23 on the Plan as one parcel and that Part21 on the Plan shall only be conveyed together with Part 22 on the Plan as one parcel and that Part 20 on the Plan shall only be conveyed together with Part 19 on the Plan as one parcel and that Part 17 on the Plan shall only be conveyed together with Part 18 on the Plan as one parcel and that Part 14 on the Plan shall only be conveyed together with Part 13 on the Plan as one parcel and that Part 39 on the Plan shall only be conveyed together with Parts 1 and 15 on the Plan as one parcel.

2.The Owner hereby agrees that any conveyance of any portion of the Lands shall comply with the development standards set out in By-law No. 82-97.

3.The Owner hereby agrees that the conveyance or other disposition of any of Parts 1, 15 and 39 on the Plan (hereinafter called the "Private Laneway") shall be made subject to a right-of-way, as described below, in, over, along and upon the part so conveyed or disposed, in favour of all of the owners of Parts 2 through 14 inclusive, and Parts 17 through 38 inclusive, all on the Plan (hereinafter called the "Lots") and the conveyance or disposition of the Lots shall be made together with a reciprocal right-of-way in, over, along and upon all of the Private Laneway. The rights-of-way described in this section, which shall be appurtenant to each of the Lots and to which the Private Laneway is subject, shall be granted to the owners or occupants from time to time, of each of the Lots, in common with all of the owners or occupants from time to time, of the other Lots, and shall be made for the purposes of providing ingress and egress for pedestrians, vehicles and any equipment normally associated with or incidental to a residential dwelling and for all other purposes normally associated with or incidental to residential living. The rights-of-way described herein shall be comprised of the whole of the Private Laneway shown on the Plan and shall be in a form satisfactory to the City's Solicitors. No other easements shall be conveyed over the Lands, except easements to Bell Canada or other public utilities, unless approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development for the City and, if required by the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development for the City, such further easements shall be described in accordance with the Plan. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the reservation and conveyance of a right-of-way described above with respect to Part 1 on the Plan shall be for the purposes of pedestrian ingress and egress only.

4.The Owner hereby agrees that the only means of vehicular ingress and egress to the Lands shall be from Millwood Road via the Private Laneway or directly from a public highway.

5.The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees that the Owners of the Lots shall enter into a reciprocal use, maintenance and cost sharing agreement with each other with respect to the Private Laneway, in a form satisfactory to the City's Solicitors, providing for the following:

(a)The owners from time to time of Parts 1, 15 and 39 shall be made responsible for the maintenance, care and operation of the lights to be located on Parts 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 38 on the Plan. This shall include ensuring that the lights operate continuously as contemplated in the original plans and that they are maintained, repaired and replaced as necessary by that owner. This obligation to operate and maintain shall include the payment of such utility charges as are necessary to permit the continued operation of same. The agreement shall also provide for the reservation or conveyance of an easement over Parts 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 38 on the Plan (which for the purposes hereof shall constitute the servient tenement), for the lighting purposes set out herein, in favour of the owners from time to time of Parts 1, 15 and 39 on the Plan (which for the purposes hereof shall constitute the dominant tenement);

(b)The removal of snow and ice;

(c)maintenance, repair and replacement of greenspace and all landscaping;

(d)The clearing of loose garbage, debris and dirt from the Private Laneway surface and generally keeping the Private Laneway and the surface thereof in a good state of repair and in a clean and clear condition.

6.The Owner agrees that the entering into of each Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the registration on title of each Deed/Transfer of Land for the Lots shall be made conditional upon the purchaser agreeing to enter into the form of agreement approved by the City pursuant to paragraph 5 and further agreeing that their disposition of their Lot shall be made conditional upon all subsequent purchasers being required to enter into or assume the obligations of the agreement approved by the City pursuant to paragraph 5.

7.Any services to be located on, over or under the Private Laneway, including the Private Laneway itself, shall be private services and the City shall have no responsibility to maintain, repair or replace same. Notwithstanding this, the Owner acknowledges and agrees that all roads, laneways, water service, storm and sanitary sewers, hydro or other municipal services located thereon, thereover or thereunder (hereinbefore and hereinafter called the "Services") shall be designed and constructed to municipal standards and specifications and shall be designed, constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the City. The Owner shall submit all engineering drawings and plans for such services to the City for approval prior to commencing construction of same and shall construct such services in accordance with the approved plans, specifications and drawings.

8.The Owner shall enter into such agreements and shall convey such easements to TorontoHydro as may be required by Toronto Hydro for the purposes of constructing, repairing and replacing the hydro service to be located on, over or under the Private Laneway and the Lots. Such easements shall be in a form satisfactory to Toronto Hydro's Solicitors and shall be granted without cost and expense to the City, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances and shall be obtained and registered at the expense of the Owner.

9.The Owner acknowledges and agrees that waste and recycling collection by the City for the Lots on the Lands shall occur at curbside. The Owner further agrees that garbage collection for the office/commercial building block shall occur in a manner which is satisfactory to the Director of the Operations Division for the City of Toronto, at the Owner's expense.

10.The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to pay to the City a 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland payment in lieu of parkland dedication. Such amount shall be calculated as of the day the Agreement is executed and is to be paid to the Treasurer for the City by cash or certified cheque immediately upon execution of this Agreement.

11.The Owner agrees that this Agreement shall be registered on title to the Lands in the local Land Registry Office in which the Lands are registered.

12.The Owner acknowledges that where this Agreement obliges the Owner to perform any work, or do anything, it is to be done at the Owner's expense and not at the City's expense.

13.The Owner and Encumbrancer hereby consent to the registration of this Agreement on the title of the Lands.

14.The Encumbrancer hereby postpones her interest to this Agreement and further, acknowledge and consent to all the terms, covenants and conditions hereof in the event that they, or any one of them, should obtain control, possession or equitable ownership of the Lands.

15.The Owner shall release, indemnify and save harmless the City from and against all proceedings, debts, actions, causes of action, suits, claims and demands whatsoever which may arise directly or indirectly by reason of this Agreement or the Owner undertaking the matters herein referred to, including claims by third parties for injury or property damage. In the event that arrangements are made for waste and/or recycling materials collection from the Private Laneway in the future, the parties agree that the release and indemnity set out herein shall apply to any property damage or wear and tear to driveways, access locations, sidewalks or any of the property of the owners of the Parts on the Plan arising from the City's waste and recycling materials collection equipment or personnel.

16.The parties hereto hereby covenant and agree that this Agreement shall be binding upon them, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns.

17.If a Court of competent jurisdiction should declare any section or part of a section of this Agreement to be invalid or unenforceable, such section or part of a section shall not be construed as being an integral part of the Agreement or having persuaded or influenced a party to this Agreement to execute the same, and it is hereby agreed that the remainder of the Agreement shall be valid and in full force and effect.

18.This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and such counterparts together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

19.In construing this Agreement, words in the singular shall include the plural and vice versa and words importing the masculine shall include the feminine, and the neuter and vice versa, and words importing persons shall include corporations and vice versa. In the event of any conflict or ambiguity in the Site Development Plans or Schedules to this Agreement, the decision of the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development for the City shall be final and binding.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the individual parties hereto have hereunto set their hands and seals and the corporate parties hereto have hereunto affixed their corporate seal as attested to by the hands of their proper officers in that behalf duly authorized.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED)City of Toronto

In the presence of

Authorized to be executed by By-Law )

No. _____, passed by the Council of) Per: c/s

the City of Toronto, at its meeting)

hold on ___________________.) Per: c/s

)

)

)Oxford HillsDevelopments(1997) )

) Per: c/s

) Name:

) Position:

)

) Per: c/s

) Name:

) Position:

)

)I/We have the authority to ) bind the Corporation.

)

)

)Royal Bankof Canada

)

)

) Per: c/s

) Name:

) Position:

)

)

) Per: c/s

) Name:

) Position:

)

) I/We have the authority to )bind the Bank.

--------

Schedule "A" to the Draft Agreement

(Legal Description)

ALL AND SINGULAR that certain parcel or tract of land and premises situate, lying and being in the City of Toronto (formerly Borough of East York), and being composed of Lots 822, 823, 824, 825 and 826 on the north easterly side of Millwood Road and Lots 827, 828 and 829 on the northerly side of Millwood Road, Plan 2120, City of Toronto (formerly Borough of East York).

SAVE AND EXCEPT those portions of said Lots 827, 828 and 829 acquired by the Borough of EastYork (formerly Town of Leaside) for the widening of Millwood Road.

As previously described in Instrument No. TB249492.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Schedule "1"

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Schedule "B" ("Plan")

8

Fence Height Exemption Request at 28 Ferris Road

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June3,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

Purpose:

To report to the June 24, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council on a request for a fenceheight exemption from Mrs. Margaret Mauzeroll of 28 Ferris Road.

Financial Implications:

The applicant has submitted the non-refundable fee of $200.00 for the exemption request to be heard, as is required by the by-law.

Recommendations:

That the exemption request be granted and that staff be instructed to bring forward the appropriate by-law amendment to City Council.

Background:

On May 5, 1998, an area resident complained about a high fence being built in the front yard of 28Ferris Road. An inspection was conducted and it was confirmed that a fence/screen had been built in the front yard of 28 Ferris Road and that the fence/screen exceeded the height permitted by FenceBy-law No. 81-89.

The fence in question is totally on private property in the front yard. It was built in conjunction with other landscaping improvements at the property. The fence consists of a sixteen foot length of framed lattice work which ranges in height from 6' 5" to 7' 2" from the grade of the front yard.

The By-law restricts the height of fences in front yards to a maximum height of 0.9 metres or 3 feet.

Enforcement action was taken and the property owner has now applied for an exemption.

Comments:

The applicant's reason for wanting the high screen/fence is for landscaping purposes and for some protection from a dog that is resident in the adjacent house. There are no obstructions of vision which may impede safety for the neighbour using the abutting driveway. In our discussions with the complainant, it appears that there is less concern with the fence itself but rather they felt that they should have been given the opportunity to comment on the type and height of fence before it was constructed.

Staff have reviewed the application and have no objections to a fence height exemption.

Conclusions:

A fence/screen which exceeds the permitted height for fences in front yards has been erected at 28Ferris Road. Staff have no objection to allowing the fence, as it is now constructed, to remain.

Contact Name:

Michael Vince

Manager of By-law Enforcement

778-2220

The East York Community Council submits the following communication (June 10, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. P. Glen, East York:

"This letter is to protest the encroachment and the blocking of our view of the neighbourhood, by the next door neighbour, Margaret Mauzeroll of 28 Ferris Rd.

She has erected a 6'6" fence on her front yard on the property line, which is against the borough by-laws. Without consent from us, she has also erected a privacy fence along the East side of her house. This privacy fence was not measured and now it sits totally on our property, as well the fence is crooked.

This fencing issue arose because she extended her house sideways and without thinking of how to get into her own backyard. Her extension on the West side leaves her about 1' to get into her backyard, absolutely no thought was put into a walkway. Her property is now the only property in this neighbourhood which has a backyard entrance on the East side.

The privacy fence issue started as a result to the entrance of her backyard adjacent to our backyard, which contains our two dogs. Every time she used the East side entrance, it would aggravate our dogs who would naturally bark at anyone coming down the East side of her house or towards our backyard. Once, she had invited a male guest, James Hoskins, over and the Doberman puppy was in the backyard by himself and when he saw or smelt or even heard them coming, he started baking at them. Her guest, James Hoskins, then through a cup of hot coffee all over our dog.

I heard a yelp, went outside to see what had been thrown, and all I smelt was coffee and the dog was soaked. I then went next door and knocked on her gate, she asked who it was, I told her and she said come in. I went in and was about to ask him why he did what he did and he then verbally and physically assaulted me, April Glen. I have been under my doctor's care ever since! After I got free I did go into the house and call the police.

On Saturday June 6, 1998 we opened the side door to let the dogs out at 9:30 a.m.. Much to our surprise, our chain-link fence was no longer there, including the Wild Morning Glory Vines which covered half of our chain link fence. She had her son-in-law remove it without our permission and or our knowledge and just didn't care about tearing out the Morning Glory's. Once I asked her what she thought she was doing, she just tried to get away from me without answering. When I finally did get her to stop, she told me that she was putting up her privacy fence. She said it like she was a proud peacock!

I did confront her about the dogs and how they weren't properly contained in my backyard. She told me that that was my problem. I then called the police. The police told her that because she took the fence down, that she would be held partially responsible for the dogs running loose. The police seemed to calm both parties down, but then her daughter showed up with the grandchildren. The daughter then stated that they were putting up the fence, so that they wouldn't have to see our ugly faces anymore. (However, the language was a lot more colourful.)

A temporary fence was put up and the privacy fence was finished the next day. As you know who I am, you also know that I like a different front garden, as past pictures that I once took for the Mayor's Blooming Contest will show. In the years that I took the photo's with Bori, I have never seen a front garden with 14 trees on it! These include 4 White Birch, 4 Evergreens, 4 Japanese Bloodgood Maples and 2 Fruit Bearing trees. These may all look great now, but within a few years it won't be a garden, but it will be a forest! This will eventually cause problems for backing out of our driveway. Again, she is not thinking of the future.

We will have photographs on hand of our objections, mostly the property line, our view of the neighbourhood and the front garden. We would like for her to bring the front fence down to by-law level, so that we may enjoy the view of the neighbourhood, including across the street, seeing as this neighbourhood is a Neighbourhood Watch area! And as for the privacy fence that is totally on our property, we would not mind if she kept that as well, as long as it is on her property and not ours! In other words, she must move it.

So being that both of us were born and raised in East York, Peter born in 1949 and raised in this house since 1952, and April born in 1959 and raised in East York and then moving into this house in 1978. We have never had any problems with any of our neighbours, ever!

We think that it is fair to say, that we are both very well established in the community and in the neighbourhood. We volunteered our time and services to the community for the past eight years. We would like you to view the property before you make a decision, just in case the photograph's are not conclusive enough. We will promise to keep both of our dog's in the house, when you decide to view the property."

--------

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

-Mrs. April Glen, East York;

-Mr. Dave Gould, East York;

-Mr. James Hoskins, East York;

-Mrs. Margaret Mauzeroll, East York;

-Ms. Joann Tzogas, East York;

-Ms. Debra Robinson, East York; and

-Ms. Helene Kanaris, East York.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

28 Ferris Road Fence Location

9

Fence Height Exemption Request at 274 Rumsey Road

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June2,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

Purpose:

To report to the June 24, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council on a request for a fence height exemption from 858982 Ontario Inc. for the property at 274 Rumsey Road.

Financial Implications:

The applicant has submitted the non-refundable fee of $200.00 for the exemption request to be heard, as is required by the by-law.

Recommendations:

That the exemption request be granted and that staff be instructed to bring forward the appropriate

by-law amendment to City Council.

Background:

On August 22, 1997, a resident of East York, who lives three blocks away from the property at 274 Rumsey Road, complained about a fence which was very close to the public sidewalk and that was six feet high. An inspection was conducted and the fence was found to be almost two feet behind the public sidewalk and the fence was 6' 8" in height.

It was determined that the setback from the sidewalk was greater than that required by the by-law which requires fences to be set only one foot. On the other hand the height of the fence exceeds the 3 feet allowed by the by-law.

This location is a corner lot. The Zoning By-law deems the shortest dimension of a property to be the front lot line. The building at 274 Rumsey Road faces onto Eglinton Avenue East. Essentially, what is the legal front yard actually acts as the side yard of the property. Unfortunately, since the Zoning By-law deems the area to be the front yard, Fence By-law No. 111-92, respecting fences on road allowances, restricts the height of such fences to three feet.

Comments:

The applicant has advised that they do not intend to add to the length of fence that is there. It would seem that the configuration of the building on the site causes the zoning-defined front yard to be a side yard. Thus, the fence constitutes a technical breach of the by-law.

Conclusions:

Staff have no reasons for refusing this exemption request and view it as a technical breach of the by-law due to property configuration and there is no objection to allowing the fence.

Contact Name:

Michael Vince

Manager of By-law Enforcement

778-2220

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (May 18, 1998) from Ms. Riva Kirsh, East York:

"Thank you for your letter dated May 5, 1998. In connection therewith, this will serve as our request for an exemption of the By-Law pertaining to the fence abutting 274 Rumsey Road.

We are enclosing our cheque for $200.00 to cover your costs as requested.

This request is being made, to set out that this fence:

(a)provides for privacy particularly in view of the fact that our corner house has no back yard and adjoins an intersection with heavy vehicular and pedestrian traffic (i.e. Rumsey Road and Eglinton Avenue East);

(b)prevents the cross access taken by those who routinely walk and cycle across our front lawn, to and from Eglinton Avenue East and Rumsey Road;

(c)provides additional protection and security from vehicle accidents; (we refer to a major vehicle accident at the intersection of Rumsey Road and Eglinton Avenue East resulting in two cars careening onto the front lawn metres away from the front steps).

This is to point out further that the surrounding shrubbery and foliage to this wrought iron fence is decorative and it enhances the aesthetics of our neighbourhood.

Lastly, there are several examples of wooden fences in the immediate vicinity of equivalent or greater size (i.e. on the South West corner of Eglinton Avenue East and Rumsey Road; and on the South East corner of Eglinton Avenue East and Rumsey Road). Other fences are shown on the enclosed List. There is also a hedge on the North East corner of Eglinton Avenue East and Rumsey Road.

I trust the aforegoing will be satisfactory in respect of our exemption request. In the meantime, please contact me should you have any questions. Thanking you in advance for your time.

--------

List of Properties

272 Rumsey Road

267 Rumsey Road

712 Eglinton Avenue East

221 Hanna

674 Eglinton Avenue East

663 Eglinton Avenue Eeast

662 Eglinton Avenue East (at Donlea Drive)

*This is a list of properties in the immediate vicinity to 274 Rumsey Road with fences of equivalent of greater size; This list is not meant to be exhaustive."

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Fence Location at 274 Rumsey Road

10

Public Meeting Held Under Section 34 of The Planning Act

with Respect to an Application for a Temporary Use

By-law Amendment Submitted by G-Tek Automotive Corp.

Regarding 26 Cranfied Avenue

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

The East York Community Council, after considering the deputation and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (June10,1998) of the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends the adoption of the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

The East York Community Council reports having held a statuatory public meeting on June24, 1998, in accordance with Section 34 and Section 39 of the Planning Act, and appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

Purpose:

This report to the June 24, 1998 East York Community Council provides Council with Staff recommendations on the application for a Temporary Use By-law amendment at 26 Cranfield Road.

Source of Funds:

No financial implications.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Council:

(1)Approve the application to temporarily amend zoning by-law No. 6752 permitting the continuance of the existing automotive repair shop for a renewable two year period;

(2)Enact the requisite zoning by-law amendment; and,

(3)Authorize Planning Staff to prepare a collateral agreement to secure site improvements.

Background:

Introduction:

G-Tek Automotive Corp. has been operating an automotive repair shop out of this location since March 1993. The applicant has recently applied for a Toronto License for the property and while processing this application was advised that car repairs are not permitted at this location. To rectify this situation, the applicant applied in January 1998 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to legally establish the use.

Staff advised the applicant that this application could not be supported by the department as the completion of an Industrial Lands Review is pending by the Economic Development Department. Furthermore, the Planing Division proposes to review the O'Connor Industrial Areas policies this year. We advised the applicant that until these studies are completed, we would only be prepared to support a Temporary Use Zoning By-law.

Proposal:

The Temporary Use Zoning By-law would allow the applicant to continue operating the garage at 26 Cranfield Road for a renewable two year time period. By the end of that time, the Industrial Area policies should be resolved, enabling a comprehensive re-evaluation of this application.

Official Plan:

The East York Official Plan designates this property "Light Industrial". The policies governing this designation allow primarily manufacturing uses. Motor vehicle repair shops are specifically excluded.

As regards temporary uses, the Official Plan enables Council to pass temporary use zoning by-laws provided it is satisfied that:

-the use can be removed and the site restored to its original condition ;

-the use is compatible with the surrounding land uses;

-adequate parking and access is provided; and

-the use would not have adverse traffic impact.

These issues, as they relate to this site, will be addressed in the comments section below.

The Official Plan also requires that such by-laws be passed for a maximum 3 year renewable time period which may only be extended for up to 6 years.

Zoning By-law:

The property is zoned HPI - High Performance Industrial. This zoning permits its use for manufacturing, warehousing and wholesaling uses, printing establishments, research and development operations as well as technical trade and service uses; however, motor vehicle repair shops are specifically prohibited.

Comments:

Agency Circulation:

The proposal was circulated to the requisite municipal agencies. Comments provided by these agencies included the following:

Economic Development Department expressed support for processing this proposal as temporary use by-law.

Parks Recreation and Operation Department request the provision of front yard landscaping.

Planning Staff have discussed the upkeep and appearance of these premises with the applicant, and he is prepared to make some general improvements to the building's facade and to landscape the front yard and to clean up and re-organize the rear parking area.

We are recommending that this be done via a collateral agreement secured by a $1,000.00 guarantee which can be released once the municipality is satisfied that the required agreed upon improvements have been completed.

Comments:

(1)Impact on Property

The applicant does not propose to make any structural changes to the existing building. However, as noted above, the applicant is prepared to make some general improvements to both the building's facade and the to the front yard. This in turn should improve the appearance of this portion of Cranfield Road.

(2)Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses

G-Tek Automotive Corporation has been in operation at 26 Cranfield Road for 5 years. During this time there have been no complaints regarding the property or the use lodged with the Complaints Administrator of the Development Services Department.

(3)Adequate Parking

G-Tek Automotive Corp. will be demarcating the rear on-site parking area to show the required 9(3x 6 metres) parking spaces and 1 (3.7 x 6 metres) loading space. Based on a parking requirement of 1 space for every 47 m² of GFA, these nine parking spaces will conform to by-law requirements.

(4)Traffic Impact

The traffic impact of this existing business will be nominal given the size of the operation.

Public Input:

Notice of the Public Meeting was circulated to ratepayers within two hundred metres (600 feet) of the subject site. Any comments received as a result of this circulation will be made available at the public meeting.

At the time of this writing, no comments had been received.

Conclusions:

This temporary rezoning, if permitted, would enable the applicant to continue to operate his car repair shop for a two year time period. He then will have an option of applying for an extension of this permission or for the legalization of the operation. By the end of this two year time frame, the Planning Staff should be in a better position to advise the applicant about any Council decision resulting from this area's review.

Contact Name:

Susan Fall, Planning Technician, 778-2040

Appendix 1

Site and Building Statistics:

Lot Area:0.25 Acres

Frontage:60 ft.

Depth:182 ft.

Gross Floor Area:4,414 sq.ft.

West Side Yard:11.88 ft.

East Side Yard:3.02 ft.

Rear Yard:68.63 ft.

Off Street Parking:9 provided in the rear (10 ft. x 20 ft.)

--------

Mr. Tim Mew, Toronto, on behalf of the applicant, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing and advised that he was in agreement with the recommendations contained in the report (June 10, 1998) of the Commissioner of Development Services, East York.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Location Map for 26 Cranfield Road

11

Public Meeting Held Under Section 34 of the Planning Act

with Respect to Zoning By-law Amendments

to Permit Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

in the Front Yard of Properties

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

The East York Community Council after considering the deputation and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendation contained in the following report (June9,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, recommends the adoption of the following report (June 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

The East York Community Council reports having held a statuatory public meeting on June24, 1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

Purpose:

To provide the East York Community Council with a staff opinion and recommendations on a proposal to permit air conditioning units and heat pumps in the front yards of buildings in the EastYork Community Council area.

This report is for the East York Community Council's meeting of June 24, 1998.

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council pass amendments to Zoning By-laws 1916 and 6752 to permit air conditioning units and heat pumps in the front yards of buildings in the East York Community Council area.

Background:

The Zoning By-laws for the East York Community area currently prohibit accessory structures in the front yard of buildings except for certain types such as: stairs, steps, parking pads, driveways, sidewalks and retaining walls.

Discussion:

In the recent past, the East York Community area has experienced a number of Committee of Adjustment applications to permit air conditioning units in the front yards of buildings. This has typically occurred when an applicant wishes to place a unit in the front yard of a brand new building or for an alteration of an existing building which requires a construction building permit. When a property owner places an air conditioning unit in an existing structure, they do not require a building permit. As a result, the zoning by-law prohibition of front yard structures is not caught at the permit stage. In addition, air conditioner installation is a type of home improvement that is not typically investigated by drive-by inspections. As per other types of by-law enforcement, enforcement of this type of zoning by-law infractions is undertaken by staff on a complaint basis.

This has resulting in an unfair situation, in which new construction is being penalized in comparison to the retrofit of air conditioning units on existing buildings.

The rationale for the prohibition of accessory structures in the front yard of buildings is mainly for aesthetic reasons. Planning staff do not have a strong opinion on the aesthetics of air conditioning units placed in the front yard, although clearly, a rear yard location would have less public impact. However, it should be noted that the units are usually small and property owners frequently choose to screen them with shrubs.

From a functional viewpoint, the noise from air conditioning units would likely have a lower impact in the front yard, than in a side yard, where noise could impact on nearby adjacent buildings, or in the rear yard, where noise could disturb neighbouring property owners using their backyards for outdoor activities during the summer months.

Conclusions:

The existing provisions of the Zoning By-law have resulted in a situation in which the restriction of air conditioning units in the front yard of buildings is being enforced on an inconsistent basis. The visual impact of such units is small, and installations in the front yard have lower noise impacts than other locations such as side or rear yards. Therefore staff recommend that the Zoning By-laws for the East York Community be amended to permit air conditioning and heat pump units in the front yard of buildings.

Contact Name:

David Oikawa, Director of Planning (East York)

778-2049, 466-9877 (fax), doikawa@borough.eastyork.on.ca

--------

Ms. Rosemary Rivers, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing and advised that she is in agreement with the placement of air conditioners in the front yard of properties, as her neighbour's air conditioner is located in the backyard near her bedroom window and she finds it very disturbing during the night.

12

Public Meeting Held Under Section 34 of the Planning Act

with Respect to Zoning By-law Amendments to Permit

Community Festivals in Certain Areas of Ward One, East York

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

The East York Community Council, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and the recommendation contained in the following report (June9, 1998) of the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, recommends the adoption of the following report (June9,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York subject to:

(1)limiting the total number of permitted days in a calendar year on any property to 10days; and

(2)implementing a 70 metre set back on the north side of Overlea Boulevard opposite 7and15Overlea Boulevard to provide a buffer zone to the new residential developments located at these addresses:

The East York Community Council reports having held a statuatory public meeting on June24, 1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

Purpose:

To provide the East York Community Council with a staff opinion and recommendations on a proposal to permit Community Festivals in certain portions of the industrial areas in the East York planning area on a permanent basis.

This report is for the East York Community Council's meeting of June 24, 1998.

Source of Funds:

N.A.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council pass amendments to Zoning By-laws 1916 and 6752 to permit Community Festivals in certain industrial areas of the East York planning area on a permanent basis.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Community Festivals are cultural or community events of a temporary nature, conducted by the municipality, or by a registered charitable or a not-for-profit group or organization.

In 1994, Council for the former Borough of East York passed Zoning by-laws 27-94 and 28-94 to permit Community Festivals in industrially zoned lands in the former Borough of East York for a period of one year. These Zoning By-laws were enacted as "temporary use" By-laws to allow the former Borough to determine if such uses were suitable as permanent permitted land uses.

On May 1, 1995, Council for the former Borough of East York passed Zoning By-laws 53-95 and 54-95 to permit Community Festivals as a temporary land use for a further 3 year period. These By-laws expired on May 1, 1998.

Discussion:

The recently expired Community Festival Zoning By-laws (Zoning By-laws 53-95 and 54-95) permit community festivals subject to the following conditions:

- they are restricted to certain portions of the former Borough's industrial areas which do not directly abut residential areas (see Appendices A and B to this report which are maps showing the areas were community festivals were permitted.);

- they are restricted to a total of 12 days in any calendar year on any property; and,

- they must provide a minimum of 1 parking space for every 7.5 sq. m. of gross floor area used for community festival purposes.

Applicants wishing to hold Community Festivals within areas in the former Borough of East York are required to apply for a Community Festival Licence. The licencing procedure controls issues such as: the time; date; duration; the number of attendees; security; the medical, sanitary and lavatory services; garbage services and other matters. These licencing procedures are separate from and in addition to the land use matters addressed in the Zoning by-law.

The East York Community has now had 4 years of experience with Community Festivals. In staff's opinion, this is an adequate time period to assess whether they should be permitted as a permanent land use in the Community.

During the past 4 years there have been some concerns expressed by members of the public regarding the parking and noise impacts of community festivals. The recently expired and proposed ZoningBy-laws incorporate an adequate parking standard for the festivals. Due to the temporary nature of the festivals, if parking demand did exceed the supply of parking as set out in the by-law, this would not be a major inconvenience to the public and property owners in the area.

Noise issues are a valid concern. However noise issues can be controlled through the licencing process. Each Community Festival licence application is evaluated on its own merits and is brought before the Community Council for approval. Frequently the conditions of licence approval contain measures to reduce noise impacts such as restricting the hours of operation and/or prohibiting amplified music during certain time periods.

Conclusions:

The East York Community has permitted Community Festivals on a temporary basis over the past 4 years. No major issues related to the festivals, as a land use, have been reported. Therefore staff recommend that the Zoning By-laws for the East York Community be amended to permit Community Festivals on a permanent basis, subject to the following conditions:

- that they are restricted to certain portions of the former Borough's industrial areas which do not directly abut residential areas (see Appendices A and B to this report);

- that they are restricted to a total of 12 days on a property in any calendar year; and,

- that they must provide a minimum of 1 parking space for every 7.5 sq. m. of gross floor area used for community festival purposes.

Contact Name:

David Oikawa,

Director of Planning (East York)

778-2049

466-9877 (fax)

doikawa@borough.eastyork.on.ca

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (May 22, 1998) from Mr. R. Bohlender, East York:

"Last year I moved from North York into a seniors' apartment on Thorncliffe Park Drive--2nd building south of Overlea Blvd. in East York.

From that moment there has been constant construction noise. Renovation of the apartment building across from me, road repairs, townhouse construction on Overlea, gas station renovation at corner of Overlea & Thorncliffe.

Last Sunday, about 7 a.m. there was what sounded like sand blasting. I telephoned the noise control number at 8 a.m. but did not receive a return call. Early this morning (about 4 a.m.) and continuing until I finally went to sleep hours later, there was the annoying backup signal from construction trucks.

Last summer there were several "festivals" in the neighbourhood spilling over 'til 11 p.m. or midnight. When I telephoned East York noise control I was told these people had a permit.

My objection is not to the festivals but to the incredible noise they create. Why are loud speakers necessary? Loud music and singing (?) And general bedlam kept me off my balcony numerous times last summer and now, according to your NOTICE in today paper, you plan to allow 12 days of this. That covers the whole summer.

I do not have air conditioning and I enjoy sitting on my balcony in the evenings. Now it appears I won't be able to do that--in fact, to drown out the earsplitting noise I must close all doors and windows. Even then, it is impossible to read or sleep until way past midnight when the "festivities" finally peter out.

This is a residential area. Consider the thousands of apartments and condos within hearing distance of the area you have designated for these festivals. Some are seniors' residences.

Why 12 days? Six days spread throughout the summer could be endured but 12 days just makes the weekend a dreaded event.

Last year I suggested to my landlord that tenants should be entitled to reduced rent for lack of "peaceful inhabitation". This summer it appears there will be no peace of your by-laws are approved.

Hopefully the number of days will not be approved and hopefully the cut-off time will be no later than 11 p.m.

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 8, 1998) from James and Velma Carroll, East York:

If these festivals are anything like the Greek one that took place behind the OHIP building and went on for 3 days, or the one held in our schoolyard last year - our vote is a definite no. A lot of people on our street would vote the same way.

The "music" was bouncing off the walls of all the buildings. These things should only be held in a field miles from any residences.

No way do we want a repeat of this kind of festival.

Also in the newspaper notice it says Ward 1 June 24. Is the Thorncliffe one to be held on a different date?

The one last year in our schoolyard was heard by Michael Prue at his house. The noise travels.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix A

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix B

13

Penalty Charges in Connection with the

Tax Accounts at 980 and 994 Coxwell Avenue

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

The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June11,1998) from the Treasurer and Director of Finance, East York:

Purpose:

To consider a request from Mr. R. Shaw, owner of 980 and 994 Coxwell Avenue, requesting waiving of penalties.

Recommendation:

That the owner of 980 and 994 Coxwell Avenue be advised that accumulated penalties can not be waived.

Background:

I have attached for your information, a copy of a letter received from Mr. R. Shaw, owner of properties at 980 and 994 Coxwell Avenue. Mr. Shaw has requested that penalties be waived due to a misunderstanding on the part of the person responsible for paying his tax bills in his absence.

There is no reason for us to waive the penalty charged on this account. Our practice is to consider penalty adjustments if we have made an error in delivering the bill. Clearly, this did not occur and therefore, we have no justification to make any adjustment of the charges levied.

The issue of the assessment appeal will be dealt with in another forum and any adjustment to the taxes will occur as a result of a recommendation from the Assessment Department.

Conclusion:

Based on the facts presented by Mr. Shaw, no adjustment will be made to the penalties charged for non-payment of taxes.

Contact

Glenn Kippen

East York Civic Centre

Finance

Tel: (416) 778-2063

Fax: (416) 778-0109

gkippen@borough.eastyork.on.ca

14

Street Vending Applications Submitted by Mr. Carrado Salonia

in the Vicinity of Wicksteed Avenue/Brentcliffe Road and

Bermondsey Road/Cranfield Road

(City Council, on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on July 29, 1998.)

The East York Community Council reports having directed that the report (June2,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, and the following communications be submitted to the City Council without recommendation:

Purpose:

This is to report to the June 24, 1998, East York Community Council meeting. The applicant would like to obtain a street vending permits for the vicinity of Wicksteed Avenue and Brentcliffe Road, and at Bermondsey Road and Cranfield Road.

Financial Implications:

There is a $200 application fee and a $1,500 yearly permit fee for the right to operate a portable hot dog vending unit in the City's boulevard area. If the boulevard area is not hard surfaced the applicant will be required to pay for the construction of a concrete pad as specified in the By-law.

Recommendations:

"That this report be received for information."

Background:

At the end of last year, the applicant, Mr. Corrado Salonia, applied for hot dog vending permits for the vicinity of Wicksteed Avenue and Brentcliffe Road, and at Bermondsey Road and Cranfield Road.

Since the applications meet the requirements of the street vending By-Law No.18-97, the Borough Clerk was asked to notify owners and occupants within sixty (60) meters of the proposed locations. Letters of objection were received from the owners and occupants near both locations. The applicant was notified of the objections, and the permits were refused on January 14, 1998 as per the By-Law. A letter dated February 13, 1998 was sent by the applicant's lawyer, Mr. Michael M. Doyle, indicating that he had been instructed to appeal the decision and that he would forward a letter of appeal to the Commissioner of Development Services. In April a letter of appeal was received stating the grounds for appeal at both locations.

Discussion regarding the Wicksteed Avenue and Brencliffe Location

The objections raised by the owners and occupants of the Wicksteed Avenue and Brentcliffe Road Area are as follows:

°Mr. Stan Klees and Mr. Walter Grealis, K & G Holdings, 6 Brentcliffe Road, are concerned about the possible illegal parking on their property, as well as their tenant, Donway Restaurant, losing business from a hot dog vender located approximately sixty (60) feet away;

°Mr. Yoon Hyun Cho, Donway Restaurant, 6 Brentcliffe Road, is worried about losing business;

°Mr. R. Benson, 119 Vanderhoof Avenue, is concerned that the intersection is too busy for a hot dog vender;

°Ms. Eileen Oliver, AGL (Assignment Graphics), 109 Vanderhoof Avenue, is worried about the traffic problem, but does not object to the hot dog vending;

°Mr. Paul Benedetto, Kosmor Construction Inc., 154 Wicksteed Ave., is concerned about vehicles parking for the purpose of obtaining a hot dog; and,

°Mr. B. Borsook, Parkhurst, 20 Research Road., is concerned that this may hurt the general appearance and cleanliness of the neighbourhood.

The letter of appeal presents the following arguments to the objections raised:

°the objections by the landlords and owner of the Donway Restaurant suppress healthy competition;

°the area can support another food service; and,

°the potential traffic problem may not be accurate and objective.

The street vending By-Law requires that a portable unit may not be located less than twenty-five (25) meters from any business which sells to the public products that are similar. In this case the vending unit would be located at a of approximately forty-five (45) meters or 150 feet.

We have also considered the impact that the vending activity would have on traffic flow at this intersection, as well as the proximity of the bus stop and do not anticipate any restrictions in flow.

Discussion regarding the Brentcliffe Road and Cranfield Road Location

The objection raised by the owners and occupants of the Bermondsey Road and Cranfield Road Area is as follows:

°Mr. Georges Bouchard, Christie Brown & Co. ( Peek Freans Company), 5 Bermondsey Road, is concerned about traffic flow at the intersection with the potential for a serious accident, as well as, the interference of the business operation when cars stop in the parking lot.

The letter of appeal presents the following arguments to the objections expressed:

°Another hot dog vender has been operating illegally at the intersection. The City would benefit from the permit fee as well as license an individual who has respect for commercial activity as well as the law; and,

°The potential traffic problem is unwarranted since Christie's does not cite any actual traffic problem.

While the traffic flow can be heavy at times with a significant amount of trucks, we do not anticipate any additional restictions since we are aware that a hot dog vender has been doing business illegally at this location for a number of years. It would be simpler for the City to control and regulate a licensed vendor if any complaints should arise.

All permits shall be due for renewal on April 30, 1999 which coincides with the permits issued by the former City of Toronto.

Conclusions:

Since the applications meet the requirements set out in the By-Law, the Municipality notified the people affected in the area. Based on the letters of objection received, both applications were automatically refused as per the By-Law.

The Commissioner is required to report to Council when the applicant appeals a staff decision. If Council sees fit to grant these applications, we shall monitor the vending activity closely, and if there is a problem the permits may be taken away at any time or simply revoked in a year's time.

Contact Name:

Frank Pugliese

Coordinator of Engineering Services

East York Office

Telephone No.:(416)778-2226

Fax No.:(416)466-9877

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (February13,1998) from Mr. Michael M. Doyle, Toronto, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant:

"I am a lawyer representing the applicant, Mr. Corrado Salonia. I have been instructed by Mr.Salonia to forward a notice of appeal to the Commissioner of Development Services so that we may address the relevant committee or council regarding the objections your office has received concerning the two applications."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (April 8, 1998) from Mr. Michael M. Doyle, Toronto, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant:

"Following up to my letter of February 13, 1998 here are the grounds of appeal:

Bermondsey Road

1.The objection from Christie Brown is curious. The letter suggests that Mr. Corrado is already operating at the location and that his patrons have parked in the Christie Brown parking lot. My client advises me that he has not operated on this site in the past. However, assuming this was true, the first objection in the Christie letter, of potential traffic problems seems to be unwarranted. If there has been some individual operating at the location, and Christie's is not able to cite an actual traffic problem (unlike the situation of customers of the present vendor parking on Christie property), then traffic should not be a concern.

2.If there is an individual operating at the proposed location without a valid license, does it not make sense for the city to license an individual who has respect for operating a commercial activity in a lawful manner and for the city to be benefit from the license fee?

Wicksteed Avenue

1.Concerning issues of aesthetics, one should keep in mind that there are littering by-laws in effect and this ground alone has not prevented the issuance of other permits throughout the city. The area is primarily industrial and commercial in nature and it is in the applicant's own best interests to maintain the site in a way which promotes his own activity.

2.The concern of the Donway Restaurant is to be expected. It is not clear what sort of food is sold by the restaurant. A bustling and vibrant commercial area, however, does not arise when one commercial activity attempts to suppress competition not through a better product and service, but through this sort of objection. If the area cannot support another food service, then the applicant would not attempt to renew a license to operate in the area.

3.The objections from K & G Holdings, owners of the building where the Donway Restaurant operates, is also to be expected. However, the letter seems to contradict the suggestion from the owner of the Donway Restaurant that the area cannot support an additional food service. The letter notes that a previous vendor did a steady business, with some resulting traffic problems. Traffic problems should best be explored by your office to best ensure accuracy and objectivity."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (December17,1998) from B. Borsook, Chairman, Parkhurst, Toronto:

"We have received the copy of an application for a street vending permit for the corner of Brentcliffe and Wicksteed for Mr. Corrado Salonia. We must register our objections as we do not feel that this is an appropriate place to have such a vending stand. We feel that this will hurt the general appearance and cleanliness of the neighbourhood."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (December26,1998) from Mr. Stan Klees, East York, on behalf of Ms. Sabina Klees:

"I have power of Attorney to operate K&G Holdings on behalf of my mother Sabina Klees who in partnership with Walt Grealis own 6 Brentcliffe Road.

Some years ago, there was a hot dog vendor at this corner who operated for a short time, possibly a few months.

During that time, the traffic at this corner became dangerous with cars pulling over suddenly and cars making U turns. Often cars would pull into our parking area and walk past the restaurant, which is a tenent in our building, to buy a hot dog. There is no legal parking in this area, therefore anyone wishing to buy a hot dog would have to park illegally or park on private property.

This is also an area that is very well serviced by eating places. As well as the Donway Restaurant in our building, within a block there is a Bellamys Restaurant and also Select Sandwich, all within walking distance.

Meanwhile there have been a number of factories and offices closing in this area. Our tenant, The Donway Restaurant now has to depend on the passing trade and I know that John and Sue are struggling to make ends meet.

I have outlined a few reasons that make it necessary for me to ask that this permit not be granted. I am hopeful that it will not be granted so that the Donway can continue to serve the locals who enjoy sitting down to good nourishing food at a reasonable price."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (December26,1998) from Mr. Walt Grealis, K&G Holdings, East York:

As co-owner of the building at 6 Brentcliffe Road, I wish to respond to your request regarding the application for a vending permit by Corrado Salonia at the corner of Wicksteed Avenue and Brentcliffe Road.

In this building, there is a restaurant that is our tenant. For a number of years, the couple who run the restaurant have served the businesses that are nearby. They serve very good food at a reasonable price and every year there are fewer and fewer customers who work in this area and a number of competitors that have opened up over the years. This couple also extend credit to the workers who come to their restaurant. They barely make a living and would be severely effected if a hot dog vendor was to be allowed approximately 60 feet from their front door.

The location of this building makes it very difficult for this space to be rented for any other endeavour. I therefore have a vested interest in the Donway Restaurant continuing and a personal interest, in that this couple works so hard and are such unusually nice people.

I am very much opposed to this permit being granted for this reason.

Please let me apologize for the lateness of this letter, but because of the postal delays, your letter reached me on December 23rd at a time when our offices were closed for the holidays.

Please give this matter careful consideration for the sake of two very nice people who run the Donway Restaurant."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (December18,1998) from Yoon Hyun Cho, Owner, The Donway Restaurant, East York:

"This letter is regarding the proposed Street Vending application from Mr. Corrado Salonia in connection with a permit for a Vendor's Licence to sell hot dogs and refreshments in the vicinity of 154 Wicksteed Avenue, specifically at the north east corner of Wicksteed Avenue and Brentcliffe Road.

I am the owner of Donway Restaurant, located approximately 30 metres from this site, at 6Brentcliffe Road. As it is, I am having a hard time making ends meet, raising enough money to pay rent for my business. I am in strong opposition to this proposal for a vending permit by Mr. Salonia because it would severely hinder my business and pose great threats to the very livelihood of my business. In fact, the proposed site is less than 50 metres from my restaurant, and as a tax-paying small business owner, this concerns me greatly. I would like to strongly urge you to consider the detrimental effects such a permit in this location would have on my business, and hence, to turn down this unfair proposal for the vending of hot dogs so terribly close to my business. Thank you very much."

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (December22,1998) from Mr. Paul Benedetto, Kosmos Construction Inc., Toronto:

"I am in receipt of a notice for the above noted application. Kosmor Construction Inc. is a property owner in the vicinity of the site of the Application.

I am familiar with the operation of the roads and the intersection at Wicksteed and Brentcliffe. There is a railway siding and bus stop in close proximity to the site of the Application. I am concerned that vehicles parking for the purpose of using the proposed service will do so in a dangerous and illegal manner.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice my concern"

The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (undated) from Mr. Georges Bouchard, Controller, Christie Brown & Co., Toronto:

"This letter is to advise you that the Peek Freans Company strongly objects to the application of Mr.Corrado Salonia for a Street Vending License to sell hot dogs and refreshments at the south west corner of Bermondsey Road and Cranfield Road for several reasons.

This particular corner is extremely busy and has a significant traffic of large transport trucks going through this intersection. We feel that potential patrons of Mr. Corrado parking at this intersection would interfere with the proper flow of traffic and that it would create a potential for serious accidents.

Furthermore, we have notice that Mr. Corrado's patrons also park in the Peek Freans parking lot located at this intersection and therefore interfere with our own operation.

Again, Peek Freans is against this application for security reasons and interference with our business."

--------

Mr. Michael Doyle, Toronto, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

15

Street Vending Application Submitted by Mr. Tony Ivanov

in the Vicinity of East York Collegiate at

Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road

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

The East York Community Council recommends as follows:

(1)that the appeal by Mr. M. Doyle, on behalf of Mr. Tony Ivanov, for a street vending application in the vicinity of East York Collegiate at Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road be denied;

(2)that the following report (June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, be received; and

(3)that the following communications be received:

Purpose:

This is to report to the June 24, 1998, East York Community Council meeting. The applicant would like to obtain a street vending permit in the vicinity of Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road.

Financial Implications:

There is a $200 application fee and a $1,500 yearly permit fee for the right to operate a portable hot dog vending unit in the City's Boulevard area. In this case, the applicant does not have to pay for the construction of a concrete pad since the boulevard area is paved.

Recommendations:

" That this report be received for information."

Background:

In February of this year, the applicant, Mr. Tony Ivanov, applied for a hot dog vending permit for the vicinity of Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road, in front of East York Collegiate.

Since Mr. Ivanov's application meets the requirements of the street vending By-Law No.18-97, the Borough Clerk was asked to notify owners and occupants within sixty (60) meters of the proposed vending location. The applicant was given a copy of the all the letters of objection received and the application was denied on March 17, 1998 as per the By-Law.

The City then received a letter, dated April 10, 1998, from the applicant's lawyer, Mr. M. Doyle, stating the grounds for appeal.

Discussion:

The concerns and objections raised by the owners and occupants of the area are as follows:

- Mr. George Christidis and Ms. Freda Christidis, 984 and 986 Coxwell Avenue, feel that the existing food establishments would lose some business to a hot dog vender;

- Mrs. H. Cogionis, homeowner, 2 Treadway Boulevard, is tired of cleaning the garbage on her front yard, created by the East York Collegiate students frequenting the existing shops and another vender would only make it worse;

- Mrs. E. Mathews, homeowner, 422 Plains Road, is also concerned about the litter and would like the hot dog vender restricted to a " specific area " if the permit is granted;

- Mr. Danny Vogiatjis, store owner, 965 Coxwell Avenue, is concerned about cars stopping for a hot dog, pedestrian safety, as well as, the affect this may have on his business;

- Mr. Tony Sortino, Sanfrancisco Foods, 965 Coxwell Avenue, has health concerns about food the venders prepare and sell;

- a petition of objection listing ten (10) names and addresses of businesses in the area, indicates that the businesses are very concerned about the amount of litter on the streets;

- Dr. P. Bender, 957 Coxwell Avenue, is concerned about the unsightly garbage which may be a health hazard.

The applicant's letter of appeal presents the following arguments to the objections and concerns expressed:

- if the shopping area of Coxwell Avenue is littered, than this is a problem for sanitation and garbage removal and it would be unfair to not issue a permit to the applicant on the grounds that there would be more street garbage;

- hot dog venders normally serve pedestrians. If cars were stopping unlawfully than traffic enforcement is available;

- the health concerns are addressed in the standards that all licensed venders must comply with in Toronto;

- restricting commercial activity is not the fairest and most effective way of dealing with a litter problem created by the students.

The street vending By-Law requires that a portable vending unit may not be located less than twenty-five (25) meters from any business which sells to the public products that are similar. In this case the vending unit would be located at approximately forty-four (44) meters or 145 feet.

With respect to the health concerns expressed, the By-Law requires that the vender obtain a certificate from the Medical Officer of Health for the East York Health Unit or from the Medical Officer for another Health Unit in Ontario, indicating that the Portable Vending Unit from which food is served complies with the regulations made under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. In addition, the applicant as well as all persons intended to be working with the Portable Vending Unit are required to show evidence that they have completed a food handler course and that they understand the training received.

It appears that littering is a major concern of the store owners and homeowners of the Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road area. The hot dog vender would not necessarily contribute directly to the amount of litter since he could lose his permit if the boulevard is not kept in a clean and sanitary condition free from grease, papers, rubbish and debris.

The notice that was sent out to the residents of the area includes a plan that clearly indicates the exact location of the proposed vending site. Since the designated area ( 2.32 square meters) is already hard surfaced, paint will be used to mark the exact location.

The permit shall be due for renewal on April 30, 1998 which coincides with the permits issued by the former City of Toronto.

Conclusions:

The application meets the requirements of the By-Law and the people affected in the area were notified. Since letters of objection were received, the application was automatically refused as per the By-Law. The applicant has appealed the decision and the Commissioner is required to report to Council. If Council should decide to grant the permit, we shall monitor the activity of the vendor closely and if there are any complaints the vender may lose his license or the permit may not be renewed next year.

Contact Name:

Frank Pugliese, Coordinator of Engineering Services, East York Office

Telephone No.: (416)778-2226, Fax No.: (416)466-9877

(June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, advising on the status of a Street Vending Application that was submitted by Mr. Tony Ivanov, who applied for a hot dog vending permit in the vicinity of Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road. Objections to this permit were received from the public and the application was denied. A letter has been received from Mr. M. Doyle, the applicant's lawyer stating grounds for appeal. The Commissioner of Development Services, East York, recommends that this report be received for information.

(April 10, 1998) from Mr. Michael Doyle, Toronto, appealing the denial of the street vending application submitted by Mr. Tony Ivanov in the vicinity of East York Collegiate at Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road.

(March 7, 1998) petition from ten business owners of the Olde East York Area expressing their opposition to the application for a street vending permit.

(February 27, 1998) from Dr. P. Bender, East York, opposing a street vendor at Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road.

(February 27, 1998) from Mr. Tony Sortino, San Francesco Foods, East York, expressing opposition to street vending in the vicinity of Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road.

(March 2, 1998) from George and Freda Christidis, East York, expressing their objection to the application from Mr. Tony Ivano in connection with a permit for a vendor's licence at the south east corner of Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road.

(February 26, 1998) from Mrs. H. Cogionis, East York, expressing opposition to the application for a street vending permit in the vicinity of Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road.

(February 28, 1998) from Mrs. E. Matthews, East York, expressing opposition to the application for a street vending permit in the vicinity of Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road.

(Undated) from Mr. Danny Vogiatjis, East York, expressing his objection to a street vending permit in the vicinity of Coxwell Avenue and Plains Road.

--------

Mr. Michael Doyle, Toronto, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

16

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)East York Day Celebrations.

The East York Community Council reports having expressed its appreciation and congratulations to Ms.Jane Gibson and Mr. Mihir Ghosh, Co-Chairs, East York Day in regard to the success of the East York Day celebration which was held on May24,1998.

--------

Mr. Mihir Ghosh, Co-Chair, East York Day, appeared before the EastYork Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(b)Cash-In-Lieu Of Parking Application

submitted by Mr. Lee Yao Shoon

on behalf of Mr. Peter Calandra

regarding 1677 Bayview Avenue: Status Report.

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the problems associated with the collection of garbage in the laneway behind 1677Bayview Avenue;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Clerk to report on implementing appropriate notification procedures with respect to cash in lieu of parking applications, including investigating the feasibility of notifying properties within a specified radius; and

(3)received the following report (June 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York; and

(4)received the following communication (June 23, 1998) from Ms.CarolBurtinFripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association, EastYork; and

(5)received the following communications from Mr. Ian Cameron, EastYork:

The East York Community Council, advises for the information of City Council, having requested appropriate staff to advise the Community Council when parallel planning development processes are being undertaken for a property and whereby one of the processes are under appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

(June 11, 1998) Commissioner of Development Services, East York advising on the status of the approval of the Cash-in-Lieu of Parking application in connection with 1677BayviewAvenue and recommending that the report be received for information.

(June 8, 1998), (June 9, 1998), (June 10, 1998) from Mr. Ian Cameron, East York advising of the construction of the restaurant at 1677 Bayview Avenue.

(June 23, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association, East York, expressing opposition to the Cash-in-Lieu of Parking application in connection with 1677 Bayview Avenue.

--------

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

-Mr. Ian Cameron, East York;

-Mr. Ed O'Connor, Toronto;

-Ms. Maryaleen Trafford, East York; and

-Mr. Peter Calandra, Toronto.

(c)Interim Purchasing By-law Awarding of Contracts.

The East York Community Council reports having received the following communication (June8, 1998) from the City Clerk:

(June 8, 1998) from the City Clerk advising the East York Community Council that CityCouncil has adopted a Resolution with respect to an amendment to Interim Purchasing By-law No. 57-1998 regarding Awarding of Contracts in order to streamline the process for the awards of contracts.

(d)Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment

Applications submitted by Martin Rendl Associates

regarding 86 Overlea Boulevard.

The East York Community Council reports having concurred with the recommendation contained in the following report (June 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York:

(June 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, advising that Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications were received by Martin Rendl Associates, on behalf of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto, to convert the building to primarily an administrative centre for the Greek Orthodox Church of Canada and to also allow one residential suite for the exclusive use of the church's archbishop; a theological school with living accommodations for up to 20 seminarians and uses accessory to the administrative, religious and teaching functions of the church headquarters, including a library, chapel and a museum and recommends that the East York Community Council convene an evening public meeting in the fourth quarter of 1998 and instruct the City Clerk to provide public notice by circulation.

(e)Implementation of a Disabled Loading Zone

adjacent to 975 Cosburn Avenue.

The East York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report (June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, to the July 22, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council:

(June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, advising on the feasibility of replacing the existing "Disabled Parking Only, 9:00 a.m and 11:00 p.m." zone adjacent to 975 Cosburn Avenue with a "Disabled Pick-up/Drop-off Only, Wednesday 5:00p.m. to 11:00 p.m, Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m to 11:00p.m." zone and providing information on addressing the disabled parking needs for the resident at 974 Cosburn Avenue and recommending that:

(1)By-law No. 34-93 of the former Borough of East York be amended to replace the existing "Disabled Parking Only, 9:00 a.m and 11:00 p.m." zone adjacent to 975Cosburn Avenue with a "Disabled Pick-up/Drop-off Only, Wednesday 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m, Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m." zone; and,

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

--------

Mr. David Middleton, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(f)Enforcement Matters concerning

210 Linsmore Crescent.

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1)at the request of Mr. Constantine Alexiou, Solicitor for 1083558 Ontario Limited and Mr. James Kasperis, deferred consideration of this matter to the next meeting of the East York Community Council to be held on July 22, 1998, pending receipt of a revised proposal from 1083558 Ontario Limited;

(2)requested the City Clerk to circulate the revised proposal (if received) prior to the meeting to all interested parties and the City Solicitor;

(3)requested the City Solicitor to report, confidentially, on any revised proposal and attend at the July 22, 1998, East York Community Council Meeting;

(4)received the following report (June 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor, East York; and

(5)received the following communications:

(June 10, 1998) from Loopstra, Nixon and McLeish, Solicitors for East York, reporting confidentially with respect to the property located at 210 Linsmore Crescent.

(April 21, 1998) from the Honourable Mr. Justice Festeryga, Ontario Court, General Division, regarding a decision of the proceedings of the Ontario Court, General Division, concerning 210LinsmoreCrescent.

(May 22, 1998) and (May 29, 1998) from Mr. James Kaspiris, East York, submitting communications outlining a proposal in accordance with the Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Festeryga, OntarioCourt, General Division, with respect to 210Linsmore Crescent and requesting that this matter be considered by the East York Community Council.

(June 23, 1998) from Mr. James Kaspiris, East York, requesting that this item be withdrawn from the June 24, 1998 Community Council agenda.

(Undated) from Mrs. Lorna Clayton, East York, expressing concern regarding 210LinsmoreCrescent.

(June 24, 1998) from Kleanthis and Helen Papaeliou, East York, expressing concern regarding 210Linsmore Crescent.

(June 24, 1998) from Mrs. D. Doumouras, East York, expressing concerning regarding 210LinsmoreCrescent.

--------

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

-Mr. Paul Robinson, East York; and

-Mr. Brian Barron, President, Ward 2 Property Owners' Association of East York, East York.

(g)Issuance of Building Permits.

The East York Community Council reports having:

(1)expressed its concern that the City of Toronto Building Division, East York Community, is in a serious staffing situation and urgently requires staff to perform building permit review and hereby requests an exemption to allow the employment of contract employees or of seconded staff until the end of 1998 to process the work within this Division in a timely manner; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report on the following:

(i)the number of building permit applications outstanding for the City of Toronto Building Division, EastYork Community and the nature of these building permits;

(ii)the resources required to reduce the processing time for building permit applications from eight weeks to four weeks throughout the year; and

(3)received the following memorandum (June 15, 1998) from CouncillorCaseOotes, East York:

(June 15, 1998) from Councillor Case Ootes, East York, advising of telephone calls received from constituents concerned about the length of time it takes for the issuance of a building permit and requesting the Commissioner of Development Services, East York to prepare a report on the possibility of holding night reviews one evening per week to expedite the issuance of permits.

(h)Traffic Problems in the area of Donlands Avenue

and O'Connor Drive.

The East York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on traffic improvements in the area of Donlands Avenue and O'Connor Drive:

(June 19, 1998) from Mr. John Papadakis, East York, with respect to traffic problems in the area of Donlands Avenue and O'Connor Drive.

--------

Mr. John Papadakis, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

Respectfully Submitted,

MICHAEL PRUE,

Chair

Toronto, June 24, 1998

(Report No. 9 of The East York Community Council was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.)