City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules


		City of Toronto Council and Committees
		All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
		TABLE OF CONTENTS REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES AND OTHER COMMITTEES As Considered by The Council of the City of Toronto on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL REPORT No. 11 1Don Valley Brickworks Naming a Room in Honourof Dr. A.P. Coleman 2Implementation of a Disabled Loading Zone Adjacent to 975 Cosburn Avenue 3Proposal for All-Way Stop Control at the Intersections of Woodmount Avenue and Springdale Boulevard and at Woodington Avenue and Springdale Boulevard 4Proposed Traffic Control Plan 870 Pape Avenue 5Application by Upper East Side Riverdale Inc. for an Exemption of Land from the Provisions of Part-Lot Control - 870 Pape Avenue 6Enforcement Matters Concerning 210 Linsmore Crescent 7Public Meeting Held in Accordance with the Planning Act with Respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment Application Submitted by Paul B. Jefferyin Connection with 1150 Woodbine Avenue 8Public Meeting held in Accordance with the Planning Act with Respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications Submitted by Threegees Development Corporation in Connection with 11 Curity Avenue 9Request to Mount on City Property a Memorial Plaque in Honour of Mr. Percy Gibbons 10Reduction of Hydro Services in the East York Community 11Discharge of Lien252 Torrens Avenue 12Discharge of Lien55 Sibley Avenue 13Other Items Considered by the Community Council City of Toronto REPORT No. 11 OF THE EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL (from its meeting on July 22, 1998, submitted by Councillor Michael Prue, Chair) As Considered by The Council of the City of Toronto on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 1 Don Valley Brickworks Naming a Room in Honour of Dr. A.P. Coleman (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism: Purpose: The purpose of this report is to obtain approval for naming a room in Building No. 1 at the DonValley Brick Works the "A.P. Coleman Room" in recognition of the important role played by Dr. Coleman in the interpretation and understanding of the geological significance of the site. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: There is no financial impact associated with the proposed naming of the room. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1)the room at the north end of the second floor of Building No.1 at the Don Valley BrickWorks be named the "A.P. Coleman Room" in recognition of the important role played by Dr. Coleman in the interpretation of the geological significance of the site; and (2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto. Background: The Don Valley Brick Works site was opened to the public on October 19, 1997 after an extensive planning and construction process. The Master Plan that guided the regeneration of the site articulated the themes that define the legacy of the Brick Works: geology; natural history and regeneration; and industrial history. The interpretation of the site has been based on presenting these themes to visitors and specialized study groups in a variety of ways. The department of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has established an Operating and Programming Committee to advise on the future operation and development of the Brick Works. The Committee has been looking for ways to highlight the important geological aspects of the site. As part of this process, the Committee has expressed its desire to name a room on the second floor of Building No. 1 the "A.P. Coleman Room" in recognition of Coleman's role in publicizing the site's geological features. The Committee is also attempting to secure private funds to locate a geological display in the room to coincide with a major geological conference being held in Toronto in October1998. Arthur Philemon Coleman was one of Canada's most famous geologists. He was born in Lachute, Canada East, obtained his PhD in 1881 from Breslau University, and then began a long teaching career as Professor of Geology and Natural History at Victoria University, Cobourg. Dr. Coleman went on to become Head of the University of Toronto's Department of Geology from 1901 until 1922. Dr. Coleman's contributions to geology have been significant. His work changed the ideas about the history of the Earth by disproving the accepted notion that one major glaciation had been followed by a slow warming of the climate. At the North Slope at the Brick Works site, Coleman identified warm climate fossils between two levels of glacial deposits and concluded that there had been at least two fairly recent glaciations. Coleman's initiative and his subsequent work have made the BrickWorks a geological site of international importance. Conclusions: The naming of a room at the Brick Works in recognition of the work of A.P. Coleman is a fitting way to highlight the geological importance of the North Slope and will form a useful part of the interpretation of the main themes associated with the site. Contact Name: Terry Nicholson Tel. No. 392-4166 2 Implementation of a Disabled Loading Zone Adjacent to 975 Cosburn Avenue (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends as follows: (1)that the "Disabled Pick-up/Drop-off Only" zone adjacent to 975 Cosburn Avenue be limited to one parking space; (2)that one disabled parking space be installed adjacent to 975 Cosburn Avenue should there be sufficient space available after staff have determined the space needs for the revised "Disabled Pick-up/Drop-off Only" zone; (3)that should this disabled parking space be installed, then usage is permitted to any vehicle with a legal disabled parking permit; (4)that the appropriate by-laws be amended to give effect thereto; and (5)that the following report (June 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, be received: The East York Community Council reports for the information of City Council having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report after undertaking a statistical review to determine whether further space adjacent to 975 Cosburn Avenue is required for the "Disabled Drop-off/Pick-up Only" zone. Purpose: To report to the June 24, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council on concerns about disabled parking zone adjacent to 975 Cosburn Avenue. Financial Implications: The recommended changes can be accommodated in the existing Operating Budget. Recommendations: "It is recommended 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 975 Cosburn 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 8:00a.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." Background: East York Community Council, at its meeting of May 27, 1998, requested the Interim Functional Lead - Transportation to report to the June 24, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council 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 5:00 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. The Community Council also requested information on addressing the disabled parking needs for the resident at 974 Cosburn Avenue. Discussion: In a letter to this office dated February 2, 1998, Mr. Russell Dawes, representing the ChristadelphianEcclesia Church at 975 Cosburn Avenue, requested that the current "DisabledParking Only" signage adjacent to the church be changed to a Disabled Loading Zone, seven days a week, or, if this was not possible, to have the Disabled Loading Zone in effect on Wednesdays between 5:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., and Saturdays and Sundays, 24 hours per day or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The present time restrictions for this disabled parking area are 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. which were derived to allow residents of the street to park in the area overnight. Initially, staff recommended that the time restrictions for the proposed disabled loading zone be the same as the existing restrictions. However, following the meeting of the East York Community Council on May 27, 1998, it appears that some area residents are not comfortable with these restrictions. Therefore, staff are prepared to recommend that the existing disabled parking area be replaced with a disabled loading zone on Wednesdays between 5:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00p.m., and Sundays between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. The location of the parking area proposed for change is illustrated in Appendix 'A'. With respect to the disabled parking needs of the resident at 974 Cosburn Avenue, we will investigate the feasibility of implementing a disabled parking space upon receipt of a written request from the resident accompanied by a photocopy of both sides of their Disabled Parking Permit issued by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. Conclusions: To allow the area in front of 975 Cosburn Avenue to be available for members of the church, and to address concerns of the adjacent residents, we recommend replacing the existing disabled parking zone with a disabled loading zone effective on Wednesdays between 5:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., Saturdays between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., and Sundays between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. This change will keep the zone clear for boarding or discharging disabled persons, but will prohibit parking by all vehicles, including those with a disabled parking permit. Upon receipt of a written request for a disabled parking space from the resident of 974CosburnAvenue, accompanied by a photocopy of both sides of their Disabled Parking Permit issued by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, this office will investigate the feasibility of implementing a disabled parking space in the vicinity of their home. Contact Name: Bryan Muir, Transportation Technologist East York District 778-2227 bmuir@borough.eastyork.on.ca -------- The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing: Mr. David Middleton, East York; and Mr. Russell Dawes, East York, on behalf of the Christadelphian Ecclesia Church. 3 Proposal for All-Way Stop Control at the Intersections of Woodmount Avenue and Springdale Boulevard and at Woodington Avenue and Springdale Boulevard (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July7,1998) from the Director of Transportation and Engineering Services, East York: Purpose: To report on the proposed introduction of all-way stop control at the intersections of WoodmountAvenue and Springdale Boulevard and Woodington Avenue at Springdale Boulevard. Source of Funds: The funds associated with the installation of all-way stop control at these two intersections can be accommodated within the current 1998 Operating Budget. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1)The appropriate By-laws be amended to provide all-way stop control at the intersection of Woodmount Avenue and Springdale Boulevard; (2)The appropriate By-laws be amended to provide all-way stop control at the intersection of Woodington Avenue and Springdale Boulevard; and, (3)The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the appropriate action to give effect thereto. Council Reference/Background/History: The Works and Emergency Services Department received a request from Mr. Anthony Ali, 115Woodmount Avenue, through Councillor Case Ootes' office for the installation of all-way stop control at the intersection of Woodmount Avenue and Springdale Boulevard. A preliminary review of the area indicated that Woodmount Avenue and Springdale Boulevard and Woodington Avenue and Springdale Boulevard are the only two remaining intersections in the neighbourhood which do not have all-way stop control. For this reason, staff reviewed the applicability of all-way stop control at both intersections. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification: Staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department completed a comprehensive review of the installation of all-way stop control at the intersection of Woodmount Avenue and SpringdaleBoulevard and Woodington Avenue and Springdale Boulevard. This review included an analysis of recent traffic turning movement counts at both intersections, a review of the historical collision history as well as a review of the appropriateness of all-way stop control, given the traffic characteristics of the neighbourhood. The application of recent turning movement counts at both intersections to the East York all-way stop warrant reveals that both intersections do not satisfy the warrant criteria. Both intersections are less than 60 per cent. warranted. One reportable collision occurred at the intersections of Woodington Avenue and Springdale Avenue, between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 1997, which would have been susceptible to correction with all-way stop control. A field investigation by staff revealed, however, that the above-noted intersections are the only two intersections not controlled by all-way stops in the neighbourhood bounded by Sammon Avenue, Coxwell Avenue, Woodbine Avenue and Danforth Avenue ( the intersection of Sammon Avenue and Glebemount Avenue was approved for all-way stop control by East York Community Council on June 24, 1998). Within an area such as this, where all-way stop control is prevalent, the motorist perceives a reasonable expectation that similar controls exist throughout the neighbourhood. A field review conducted by staff confirms that the expectation for east/west motorists on SpringdaleBoulevard is that north/south motorists also must stop at these two intersections. For this reason, notwithstanding that the volumetric and collision warrants are not satisfied, the introduction of all-way stop control at these two intersections is prudent based upon sound traffic engineering judgement. A diagram showing the location of all-way stop control in this neighbourhood is attached for reference. Conclusions: Although the technical all-way stop warrant criteria are not met at the intersections of WoodmountAvenue and Springdale Boulevard and Woodington Avenue and Springdale Boulevard, the prevalence of all-way stop control in the immediate area give the motorist the reasonable perception that all intersections are under all-way stop control. For this reason, staff recommend the installation of all-way stop control at these two intersections. Contact Name: Peter Bartos, P.Eng., Transportation Engineer, East York District Tel. No. 778-2225 4 Proposed Traffic Control Plan 870 Pape Avenue (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the Director of Transportation and Engineering Services, East York: Purpose: To report on the proposed parking restrictions, stop control and one-way street designations for EastYork Avenue, Macphail Avenue and the associated laneways which form part of the 870PapeAvenue development located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Pape Avenue and Mortimer Avenue. Source of Funds: Funds have been secured from the developer for the costs associated with the erection of the required signage. Recommendations: It is recommended that: (1)Schedule VIII of East York By-law No. 92-93 be amended to prohibit parking anytime on the east side of the lane west of East York Avenue between MortimerAvenue and the lane south of Macphail Avenue; (2)Schedule VIII of East York By-law No. 92-93 be amended to prohibit parking anytime on the east side of East York Avenue from Mortimer Avenue to MacphailAvenue; (3)Schedule VIII of East York By-law No. 92-93 be amended to prohibit parking anytime on both sides of the lane west of Pape Avenue between Mortimer Avenue and the lane north of Macphail Avenue; (4)Schedule VIII of East York By-law No. 92-93 be amended to prohibit parking anytime on both sides of the lane north of Macphail Avenue, between EastYorkAvenue and Pape Avenue; (5)Schedule VIII of East York By-law No. 92-93 be amended to prohibit parking anytime on the north side of Macphail Avenue between the lane west of EastYorkAvenue and Pape Avenue; (6)Schedule VIII of East York By-law No. 92-93 be amended to prohibit parking anytime on the south side of Macphail Avenue from a point 32 metres west of PapeAvenue to the lane west of East York Avenue; (7)Schedule VIII of East York By-law No. 92-93 be amended to prohibit parking anytime on both sides of the lane south of Macphail Avenue from Pape Avenue to the lane west of East York Avenue; (8)Schedule XII of East York By-law 92-93 be amended to designate the lane west of East York Avenue between Mortimer Avenue and the lane south of Macphail Avenue as one-way southbound; (9)Schedule XII of East York By-law 92-93 be amended to designate East York Avenue between Macphail Avenue and Mortimer Avenue as one-way northbound; (10)Schedule XII of East York By-law 92-93 be amended to designate Macphail Avenue between Pape Avenue and East York Avenue as one-way westbound; (11)Schedule XIX of East York By-law 92-93 be amended to provide stop control for westbound motorists on Macphail Avenue at the lane west of East York Avenue; (12)Schedule XIX of East York By-law 92-93 be amended to provide stop control for southbound motorists on the lane west of Pape Avenue at the lane north of Macphail Avenue; and, (13)Schedule XIX of East York By-law 92-93 be amended to provide stop control for westbound motorists on the lane north of Macphail Avenue at East York Avenue. Council Reference/Background/History: In October, 1997, East York Council approved a development consisting of 80 townhouse style units at the southwest corner of Pape Avenue and Mortimer Avenue. A Plan of Subdivision has been registered and construction has begun. In advance of the completion of the project, it is necessary to pass By-laws dealing with parking restrictions, one-way street designations, and stop signs which were developed during the planning of this project. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification: The development at 870 Pape Avenue consists of two public streets and four public lanes serving the garages for the townhouses. The streets are named East York Avenue and Macphail Avenue. EastYork Avenue is the north/south street within the development and has access from MortimerAvenue. Macphail Avenue is the east/west street and has access to Pape Avenue. The original site circulation plan provided two-way lane access at the westerly lane accessing MortimerAvenue. The residents on the north side of Mortimer Avenue appealed the development to the Ontario Municipal Board on the basis that motorists leaving the site via this laneway would shine their headlights into their homes at night. East York staff met with representatives from the developer and the residents and agreed to change the street circulation plan of the development to allow for only southbound access at the westerly lane. Given the relatively low traffic volumes generated by this development, adequate access/egress to the site can be maintained. Since these roads are designated as public highways, however, staff may modify the access arrangements at any point in the future to address operational or safety concerns. To this end, staff will monitor traffic operations in this area after full build-out of the development. The proposed site circulation plan is shown graphically in a map attached to this report. This map also indicates the proposed parking restrictions and area stop controls. Conclusions: It is necessary at this time to submit a report recommending amendments to various East York By-laws for parking and traffic controls associated with the development at 870 Pape Avenue. The costs associated with the installation of the proposed parking and operational signage will be borne by the developer. Contact Name: Peter Bartos P.Eng. Transportation Engineer East York District 778-2225 5 Application by Upper East Side Riverdale Inc. for an Exemption of Land from the Provisions of Part-Lot Control - 870 Pape Avenue (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July10,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York: Purpose: This report to the July 22, 1998 East York Community Council concerns a request by UpperEastSide Riverdale Inc. for an exemption of a portion of the lands at 870 Pape Avenue from the provisions of part-lot control. Source of Funds: N.A. Recommendations: 1.That pursuant to Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, that City Council enact the By-law which is attached to this report as Appendix "A", and which exempts the lands forming Block 7 of Registered Plan 66M-2325 at 870 Pape Avenue 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 Council, the City Solicitor for the East York Office be directed to register the By-law on title to the property known as Block 7 of Registered Plan 66M-2325. 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 City Solicitor for the East York Office 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 30, 1998, on title to the newly created properties. Background: The site is located on the south-west corner of Pape and Mortimer Avenues. In the summer and fall of 1997, the former East York Council approved a site specific official plan amendment, rezoning, plan of subdivision and site plan, to permit the development of these lands for 78 semi-attached and townhouse units. The plan of subdivision was undertaken to establish the municipal streets and major blocks of land. It was the developer's intention to apply for the removal of part-lot control to establish the titles to the individual lots for each housing unit. In fact, this was a condition of draft plan approval. The provisions for the removal of part-lot control are set out in the Planing Act. They permit municipalities to authorize conveyance of land by the passage of a By-law to suspend the application of part-lot control. Part-Lot control normally applies to all lands within a registered plan of subdivision. The reinstatement of part lot control following the conveyance of land 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 or after the demising walls between units have actually been constructed. It was the developer's intention to apply for the removal of part-lot control on all of the units in the project at the same time. They are now requesting that part-lot control be removed on only one block of land at this time. In the future, they will likely apply for removal of part-lot control on the other blocks. Discussion: The by-law attached as Appendix "A" to this report will create these lots while the undertaking which implements the recommendations will ensure: �that the requirements of the Planning Act concerning the By-law's approval and registration are carried out; and, �that 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 without further municipal approval. Usually on applications for the removal of part-lot control, staff recommend that the City enter into an agreement with the developer regarding conditions that the applicant must satisfy before part-lot control is lifted. However, in this case, the site is part of a registered plan of subdivision and is under site plan control. Any major issues regarding the development of the site have been secured through the City's existing subdivision and site plan control agreements with the developer. Conclusions: Staff believe that the City's interests have already been adequately secured through the existing subdivision and site plan control agreements. Therefore, we recommend that this application for the exemption from part-lot control be approved. Contact Name: David Oikawa, Director of Planning (East York) 778-2049 466-9877 (fax) doikawa@borough.eastyork.on.ca -------- Appendix A Draft By-law for the lifting of Part-Lot Control on Block 7 of Registered Plan 66M-2325 at 850 Pape Avenue Authority: East York Community Council Report No. _____(___), July 22, 1998 Intended for first presentation to Council: July 29, 1998 Adopted by Council: 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 Block 7 of Registered Plan 66M-2325 at 870 Pape Avenue, in the City of Toronto (formerly Borough 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 Block 7 of Registered Plan 66M-2325 at 870 Pape Avenue, but only for the purpose of: a)conveying the whole of one or more parts shown on the plan attached hereto as Schedule "1" (hereinafter called the "Plan"); and, b)conveying the whole of one part shown on a reference plan to be approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services as may be required to identify easements and encroachments. 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; and, ii)this by-law has been registered on title. Enacted and Passed this day of , A.D. ________________________ ___________________________ Mel Lastman,Novina Wong, MayorCity Clerk 6 Enforcement Matters Concerning 210 Linsmore Crescent (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out the Recommendations of the East York Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following recommendations: "It is recommended that the proposal made by James Kaspiris and 1083558 Ontario Limited be accepted subject to the following conditions: (a)that the roof slope be similar to the roof slope as shown on the original approved building permit drawings and be lowered by at least 1.14 metres; (b)that payment in the amount of $10,382 plus accrued interest pursuant to outstanding orders be paid to the City on or before August 19, 1998; (c)that an application for a building permit, accompanied by plans and specifications prepared in full compliance with the requirements of the Building Code Act and the provisions of this resolution, be submitted to the Chief Building Official on or before August 19, 1998; (d)that 1083558 and Kaspiris enter into a written agreement with the City on or before August 19, 1998 setting out the terms of the variation of the Order of Mr. Justice Festeryga dated April 21, 1998 satisfactory to the City Solicitor; (e)that all work in accordance with the building permit issued shall be completed within 120 days of the date of such agreement, but any period for the processing of the building permit (i.e. the date of receipt of the application to the date of refusal or approval of the application) shall be excluded from the 120 day period; and (f)that in the event of default, all of the provisions of the Order of Mr. Justice Festeryga shall apply with respect to such default, and the City Solicitor and the Chief Building Official are authorized to seek full compliance with the Orders of Madam Justice Chapnik and Mr. Justice Festeryga dated May 12, 1995 and April21, 1998, respectively.") The East York Community Council recommends as follows: (1)that the following proposal by 1083558 Ontario Limited presented by Mr. Maniates, Architect and Mr. James Kaspiris to lower the roof by four feet to a flat roof be refused; (2)that the deputations by Mr. Maniates and Mr. Kaspiris to the effect that they will not agree to a settlement based on a 1.14 metre reduction utilizing a sloped roof design as per the original approved building permit drawings be acknowledged; (3)that in light of Clauses No. 1 and No. 2 of the aforementioned recommendations, the City Solicitor and the Chief Building Official be authorized to seek full compliance with the Order of Madame Justice Chapnik dated May 12, 1995, and to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Order of Mr. Justice Festeryga dated April21,1998, including the remedies set out in paragraph 4 thereof; (4)that the following confidential report (July 16, 1998) from the City Solicitor, East York, be received: (5)that the following communications be received: (July 9, 1998) and (July 16, 1998) from Mr. James Kaspiris, East York; (July 20, 1998) from Mr. Michael Tziretas, East York; (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Robert Sacco, East York; (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Paraskevo Buczek, East York; (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Salvatore Fisicio and Ms. Jean Fisico, East York; (July 21, 1998) from Ms. Kay Gadakis, East York; (June 21, 1998) from Mr. Tim Cholvat, East York; and (July 20, 1998) from Ms. Lorna Krawchuk, East York: (July 16, 1998) from Mr. Chuck Loopstra, Loopstra, Nixon and McLeish, Solicitors for East York, reporting confidentially with respect to the property located at 210 Linsmore Crescent. The East York Community Council submits the following communication (July 9, 1998) from Mr. James Kaspiris, East York: "I am President of 1083558 Ontario Limited, the owner of 210 Linsmore Crescent. Pursuant to the April 21, 1998 Order of the Honourable Mr. Justice Festeryga, I would ask that this matter be placed on the Local Community Council agenda to be spoken to on July 22, 1998. Should you have any questions with respect to this matter, please feel free to call me at (416)466-1165. I thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 16, 1998) from Mr. James Kaspiris, East York: "I am hereby requesting that my written proposal be submitted to the East York Community Council to be added to the supplementary agenda for consideration on July 22, 1998 as requested by Mr.Loopstra's letter dated July 9, 1998." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 16, 1998) from Mr. James Kaspiris, East York: "As per CM Loopstra's letter dated July 10, 1998, the following is the proposal that I submit for consideration to the East York Community Council: To issue a Building Permit based on the existing plans submitted by Mr. Papapetrou in September1997 to the Building Department at the former Borough of East York Civic Centre. The said permit shall require a roof reduction, at 210 Linsmore Crescent, of 1.219 meters (4 feet) to a flat roof design - an increase of 0.079 meters (4") from the 1.14 meters (3'8") stated in the recent minutes of settlement and in the Papapetrou drawings in addition also we change the roof shingles to a light color. Alternatively, if the above proposal to reduce the height is not accepted, then a monetary penalty be imposed in lieu of lowering the roof. I believe that the above proposal is fair, and most certainly achieves the end-result that the City of Toronto (East York) is seeking. I thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 20, 1998) from Mr. Michael Tziretas, East York; "Please be advised that as a former member of East York Council having been part of the frustrating process to rectify this matter to the satisfaction of the former Borough of East York, I would encourage you to accept the proposal before you today that will lower the roof of the house by four feet - a reduction that exceeds the reduction (three feet, eight inches) agreed upon in the recent minutes of settlement - in order to bring closure to this ongoing and costly matter. The objective, of course, is to lower the roof in accordance with the previous Council's understanding, the East York Committee of Adjustment decision, and the minutes of settlement from September 1997. Moreover, since the design of the (new) roof is regrettably, in my opinion beyond the authority of the City and its zoning by-laws, the focus should be on the physical reduction of the roof as per the minutes of settlement." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 21, 1998) from Mr. R. Sacco, East York: "We, the undersigned residents of Linsmore Crescent, support Mr. James Kaspiris, the owner of 210 Linsmore Cres., in his request to leave the roof of the house as it is, and pay some sort of penalty instead. If the Council cannot accept the above proposal, than we support Mr. Kaspiris' alternative proposal to reduce the existing to a flat roof by 4' - 0", and change the colour of shingle colour of the roof which remains." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Paraskevo Buczek, East York: "We, the undersigned residents of Linsmore Crescent, support Mr. James Kaspiris, the owner of 210 Linsmore Cres., in his request to leave the roof of the house as it is, and pay some sort of penalty instead. If the Council cannot accept the above proposal, than we support Mr. Kaspiris' alternative proposal to reduce the existing to flat roof by 4' - 0", and change the colour of shingle colour of the roof which remains." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 21, 1998) from Ms. Jean Fisico and Mr. Salvatore Fisico, East York: "We, the undersigned residents of Linsmore Crescent, support Mr. James Kaspiris, the owner of 210 Linsmore Cres., in his request to leave the roof of the house as it is, and pay some sort of penalty instead. If the Council cannot accept the above proposal, than we support Mr. Kaspiris' alternative proposal to reduce the existing to a flat roof by 4' - 0", and change the colour of shingle colour of the roof which remains. Please do not cause this street more aggravation having to put up with construction, and a future of looking at a eyesore with a flat roof, just for the sake of a few people on the street who have turned a mistake into a personal vendetta of hate and malicious, vindictive behaviour, for which we will have to pay for, for the rest of our life. Life is too short to carry such a burden of selfishness. Please leave these people alone and lets get on with our lives." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 21, 1998) from Ms. Kay Gadakis, East York: "We, the undersigned residents of Linsmore Crescent, support Mr. James Kaspiris, the owner of 210 Linsmore Cres., in his request to leave the roof of the house as it is, and pay some sort of penalty instead. If the Council cannot accept the above proposal, than we support Mr. Kaspiris' alternative proposal to reduce the existing roof by 4' - 0", and change the colour of shingle colour of the roof which remains." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (June 21, 1998) from Mr. Tim Cholvat, East York: "This is to encourage you to support the order of Madame Justice Chapnik. As you know, this issue has been addressed several times by East York Council, East York Committee of Adjustment and the Courts of the Province of Ontario over the past years. During this time the owners have continually frustrated the process and have shown general contempt for the institutions in place to manage building and development within East York and the Province of Ontario. As an East York Councillor I had to consider this issue on a few occasions. The first time I thought that we could find a middle ground. An agreement was in place to remove a major portion of the roofline that seemed to satisfy all parties. In my opinion, the homeowner did not live up to his end of the agreement. As we progressed through the various times that I considered this issue, I came to conclusion that there is no middle ground. You will hear arguments from the homeowner about fairness of process. You will hear arguments about financial impact. You will hear arguments about the impact on the architectural style. I encourage you to consider fairness of process by reflecting back on the number of times the homeowner has been given a bit of leeway. Every time he has thumbed his nose at the process. I encourage you to consider the financial aspects by reflecting on the amount of money that the homeowner has spent pursuing this matter through the Municipal government and the Ontario Courts. If financial consideration was truly an issue then the homeowner would have been more prudent to settle this years ago. I encourage you to consider the architectural style arguments by reflecting on the impact on the street today. I think you should be considering how the house fits in with its neighbours more than whether the house looks poor with a flat roof. This is a time that our elected officials take a stand against abuse of process and do the right thing. Support the previous position of Madame Justice Chapnick. Don't go down the road of trying to find a middle ground solution. This has gone on long enough." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 20, 1998) from Ms. Lorna Krawchuk, East York: "I understand that the issue of the height of this residence is an issue before this Council once again, and that there is a proposal before you involving a flat roof and no substantial decrease in the building height. After the long history of this project with various Councils of the former Borough of East York, I would urge you to listen to the wishes of the neighbours on Linsmore Crescent, including former Councillor Paul Robinson, and to insist on a substantial lowering of the building." Mr. Denny Maniates submitted for the consideration of the East York Community Council sketches depicting the design in accordance with the Order of Madame Justice Chapnik; the design in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement; and the recent design proposal put forward by Mr. Kaspiris. The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing: -Mr. Denny Maniates, East York; -Mr. James Kaspiris, East York; -Mrs. Doumouras, East York; -Mr. Paul Robinson, East York; -Mr. Brian Barron, President, Ward 2 Property Owners Association of East York, East York; and -Mr. John Papadakis, East York. (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (July 27, 1998) from Mr. C. M. Loopstra, Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish, City Solicitors - East York, respecting enforcement matters concerning 210 Linsmore Crescent, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.) 7 Public Meeting Held in Accordance with the Planning Act with Respect to a Zoning By-law Amendment Application Submitted by Paul B. Jeffery in Connection with 1150 Woodbine Avenue (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact and conclusions, recommends as follows: (1)that the Zoning By-law Amendment Application submitted by Mr. Paul B. Jeffery to permit five dwelling units in the semi-detached building at 1150WoodbineAvenue be refused for the reason that the number of proposed units is an inappropriate use of the lands; (2)that the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, be received; (3)that City Council approve an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 6752 to permit three dwelling units in a semi-detached dwelling at 1150 Woodbine Avenue; (4)that the Fire Chief and the Chief Building Official be requested to inspect the site should a building permit application be submitted by the applicant when converting the property at 1150 Woodbine Avenue to the three units as noted in Clause No. 3 of the aforementioned recommendations to ensure the property meets the requirements of the Ontario Fire Code and the Ontario Building Code; and (5)that the following communications be received: (July 9, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth MacLeod and Mr. Paul Wilson; (undated) from Mr. and Mrs. Siagris, East York; (July20, 1998) from Li Hou and Te Wu, East York; and (July 22, 1998) from Ms.CatherineDuBoisson, East York: The East York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July 22, 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: The purpose of this report is to provide the East York Community Council with a staff opinion and recommendations on an application to amend Zoning By-law No. 6752 to permit five dwelling units in a semi-detached dwelling at 1150 Woodbine Avenue. The report is for the East York Community Council's consideration at the public meeting on July22,1998. Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council: (1)refuse the application by Mr. Paul Jeffery to amend Zoning By-law No. 6752 to permit five dwelling units in a semi-detached dwelling at 1150 Woodbine Avenue; and (2)pass an amendment to Zoning By-law No. 6752 to permit four dwelling units in a semi-detached dwelling at 1150 Woodbine Avenue, and that the Zoning By-law amendment require a minimum of four on-site parking spaces with a minimum width of 2.3 metres. Background: Mr. Paul Jeffery submitted an application on behalf of the owner, Tina Soulis, to amend Zoning By-law No. 6752 to permit five residential units in an existing semi-detached dwelling at 1150Woodbine Avenue. The applicant submitted the application in response to by-law enforcement action by the City. Site Description: The site is a 205 m² (2,200 sq. ft.) property located at the northwest corner of Woodbine Avenue and Queensdale Avenue. The site location is shown on the attached Location Map. The property was originally developed with a two-storey detached building that was used for commercial and residential uses. In 1994, the owner converted it into a semi-detached dwelling by constructing another dwelling on the north side of the original house. The lot was subsequently severed to create two properties. The two lots are now known municipally as 1150 and 1152Woodbine Avenue. This application deals with 1150 Woodbine Avenue only. The semi-detached dwelling at 1150 Woodbine Avenue has a floor area of approximately 163 m² (1,760 sq. ft.), plus a 90 m² (960 sq. ft.) basement. Proposal: There are five dwelling units in the house. Two of the units were established legally. The applicant is seeking approval to maintain three units that were established without zoning approval. The five units are shown on the attached floor plans. One of the legal units (Unit 1) is on the second floor, and is approximately 74 m² (800 sq. ft.) in area. The other one (Unit 2) is located on the ground floor, at the rear of the house, and is approximately 40 m² (440 sq. ft. in area). Staff from the Building and By-law Enforcement Division investigated the history of the uses on the site as part of their by-law enforcement action, and are satisfied that these two units were established before the Zoning By-law was passed in 1960. The applicant is seeking to legalize the other three units. Unit 3 is located on the ground floor at the front of the dwelling, and is approximately 48 m² (520 sq. ft.) in area. This unit was previously used for commercial uses, including a tailor and dry cleaning depot, and a business office. The applicant is also seeking permission to maintain two basement apartment units (Units 4 and 5), each of which is approximately 40 m² (430 sq. ft.) in area. The applicant is proposing to provide four parking spaces, including two on-site spaces and two boulevard spaces. The proposed parking spaces are shown on the applicant's Site Plan (attached). Official Plan: The property is located in the vicinity of the boundary between a Low Density Residential designation and a Main Streets Commercial/Residential designation in the Official Plan for the Borough of EastYork. The Interpretation policies in Section 4.1 indicate that the boundaries between designations are approximate and are not intended to define exact locations except where they coincide with clearly recognizable features on the map, such as roads. There is no clearly recognizable feature defining the boundary between the Low Density Residential and Main Streets Commercial/Residential designations in this case. Since the site and the surrounding area are predominantly residential, staff are of the opinion that the Low Density Residential policies should apply in this case. The Low Density Residential policies are in Section 3.3 of the Official Plan. The Low Density Residential policies permit the land to be zoned for ground-oriented housing forms, such as detached, semi-detached and row house dwellings. Other housing forms such as plexes may also be permitted. Section 3.3.8 states, "The zoning by-law shall establish the density and nature of development in Low Density Residential areas based on the prevailing and desired physical characteristics of the area." Section 2.5 of the Official Plan contains general housing policies that encourage intensification of the existing housing stock. Section 2.5.22 permits apartments in detached and semi-detached dwellings and rowhouses in residential areas provided they maintain a minimum of one parking space per residential unit. Zoning By-law: The property is zoned R2A in Zoning By-law No. 6752. The zoning by-law permits one-family detached and semi-detached dwellings, and institutional uses, but not a five-unit dwelling. The Council of the former Borough of East York passed By-law No. 148-97 on October 7, 1997 to permit an accessory apartment unit in a detached or semi-detached dwelling. The by-law does not permit more than one extra dwelling unit, however, so a Zoning By-law amendment is necessary to permit five units in the building. Comments: Circulation: The application was circulated to the usual commenting departments and agencies. The following agencies replied with no concerns. a)Engineering and Transportation Services Division; b)The Building and By-law Enforcement Division noted that the applicant will be required to comply with certain provisions of the Ontario Building Code; c)Fire Department; d)Toronto Hydro; e)Consumers Gas; f)Bell Canada; g)Parks, Recreation and Operations Department; The application was also circulated to the Health Department, the Toronto Board of Education, the Separate School Board, the Police Department, and Rogers Cable. No comments were received. Notice of the Public Meeting: Notice of the Public Meeting was circulated to every owner of land within 400 feet of the site. Planning Comments: Planning staff can only support four residential units in the house for the following reasons: Policy 2.5.22 of the Official Plan permits accessory apartments in semi-detached dwellings, provided they maintain at least one parking space per residential unit. The applicant is proposing four parking spaces, however, two of the proposed spaces would be located on the Queensdale Avenue Boulevard. There is enough room in the rear yard for four parking spaces if the spaces are re-oriented so that they face north (towards the adjacent rear yard). Each space would be approximately 2.36 metres (7' 9") wide instead of 2.40 metres (7' 11") wide, as required by the Zoning By-law. This deficiency is minor, in the opinion of Planning staff and Engineering and Transportation Services staff, and could be recognized in the Zoning By-law Amendment. By providing four parking spaces on-site, the applicant could comply with this Official Plan policy, but only for four dwelling units. Therefore, staff can support four dwelling units, provided four on-site parking spaces are provided. A Site Plan showing this alternative parking layout is attached. The other policies in Section 2.5 of the Official Plan encourage intensification of the housing stock; promote the conservation and maintenance of the existing housing stock; and promote the provision of private rental accommodation. These policies generally support apartments in the house. The property has been used for various commercial uses in conjunction with accessory dwelling units for several years. In the opinion of staff, there will not be any adverse changes to the neighbourhood if the use of the property is changed to four apartment units. Conclusion: The Official Plan housing policies and the Low Density Residential policies generally support intensification of the property with accessory apartments. Staff cannot support the proposal for five units, however, because the proposal does not comply with the Official Plan policy requiring one parking space per unit. Staff are satisfied that the Official Plan policies would support a zoning amendment to permit four dwelling units on the property, if the applicant provides four on-site parking spaces. If Council is satisfied that four dwelling units are appropriate for the property, staff should be requested to prepare an amendment to the zoning by-law to permit four units and to require four on-site parking spaces with a minimum width of 2.3 metres. City Wide Issues: None. Contact Name: Paul Galvin, Planner Phone: (416) 778-2043 Fax: (416) 466-9877 pgalvin@borough.eastyork.on.ca The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 9, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth MacLeod and Mr. Paul Wilson, East York: "Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on this amendment request. We are opposed to granting the above request. We chose to live in this area because it consists of single-family residences, not multiple-family dwellings. This was an important factor for us in choosing a place to live. Granting this amendment request would not only change the immediate population density in the area, but others may choose to take advantage of this amendment, further adding to the population density. A practical example of a problem that would be caused by increased population density is lack of sufficient parking. Already it is very difficult to find parking in the area. Additional families would exacerbate this problem, not only with their own cars, but those of their guests, etc. Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to express our opposition to this amendment request." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (undated) from Mr. and Mrs. Siagris, East York: "This letter is from the household on 1168 Woodbine Ave. We do not at all agree with the request to amend Zoning By-law No. 6752 of the former Township of East York to permit five residential units in a dwelling at 1150 Woodbine Ave." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 20, 1998) from Li Hou and Te Wu, East York: "We hereby oppose to amend Zoning By-law No. 6752 on the above subject." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 22, 1998) from Ms. Catherine DuBoisson, East York: "As the owner and resident of 339 Queensdale Avenue, I would like to express my opinion on the proposed zoning change requested for 1150 Woodbine Avenue. Not only would this further congest a very busy area with more traffic and parking issues, but also invite further multi-tenant situations in an area that presently enjoys single family dwellers who own and therefore have pride of ownership in their property. I strongly oppose this application." -------- The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing: (a)Mr. Paul Jeffery, Architect, on behalf of the applicant, explained the components of the application and supports five units at 1150 Woodbine Avenue. Mr. Jeffery noted that the tenants are currently not utilizing all the parking spaces and the spaces have been well maintained. (b)Ms. Joan Bennett, East York, opposes the application put forth by Mr. Jeffery and feels that the property can only support three parking spaces and not the four proposed by the applicant as the four spaces takes away green space. Ms. Bennett feels a multi-dwelling building with five units changes the character of the area. (c)Mr. Paul Wilson, East York, opposes the Zoning By-law Amendment Application and would like to see the property developed with two units. Mr. Wilson also submitted a letter on behalf of his neighbour Ms.Catherine DuBoisson. (d)Ms. M. Siwy, East York, identified concerns associated with the bedroom in one of the units on the first floor where it appears the exterior bedroom wall is beyond the original wall of the house and enquired whether a permit was issued for the renovation. Ms. Siwy also inquired whether the present owner has any interest in 1152 Woodbine Avenue. Ms. Siwy felt that City staff appears to condone the allowance of illegal apartments and that she supports two units. (e)Mr. John McMahon, East York, expressed concern that four units at 1150 Woodbine Avenue were too many and that specific instruction is needed on how the units are going to be determined. (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it , during consideration of the foregoing Clause the following communications in opposition to the Zoning By-law No. 6752 Amendment application submitted by Mr. Paul B. Jeffery: (i)(July 28, 1998) from Ms. Joan Bennett; and (ii)(July 24, 1998) from M. Siwy.) 8 Public Meeting Held in Accordance with the Planning Act with Respect to Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications Submitted by Threegees Development Corporation in connection with 11 Curity Avenue (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (July10,1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, recommends as follows: (1)the adoption of the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, as amended, by also adopting the following report (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, and subject to also permitting an apparel store use and personal service store use at this property; (2) that, during the site plan approval review, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to recommend, to the applicant, the use of the highest quality of sound proof fencing material for the fence to be installed at 11CurityAvenue; (3)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to take the necessary steps to prohibit heavy trucks from using Northdale Boulevard; and (4)that the following communications (July 20, 1998) from Dr. Warnie and Ms.CaroleRichardson, East York; (July 20, 1998) from the Director of Transportation and Engineering Services; and (July 22, 1998) from Ms. Roslyn Houser, Goodman, Phillips and Vineberg, on behalf of the applicant, Toronto, be received: The East York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on July 22, 1998, in accordance with Sections 17, 22 and 34 of the Planning Act, and appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder. The East York Community Council reports for the information of City Council having requested the City Solicitor to report on Council's authority and impact when commenting to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario in respect of liquor licence applications submitted to the City of Toronto for its comments. The East York Community Council submits the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York: Purpose: This is a report to the July 22, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council. Its purpose is to provide Council with Staff recommendations on an Official Plan amendment and a rezoning applications by Threegees Development Corporation for 11 Curity Avenue. The applicants propose to develop this 0.93 hectare site with an up to 2 000.0 m² (21,530 sq. ft.) single storey mixed use commercial-industrial building that would incorporate a mix of light industrial, office, and specified retail, and service commercial uses. Source of Funds: There are no financial implications. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1.Approve the applications by Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., on behalf of Threegees Development Corp., to develop the premises at 11 Curity Avenue with a mixed commercial industrial building intended for light industrial, retail commercial, office and restaurant businesses; and that this approval be affected by: 1)amending the East York Official Plan to redesignate this site from "Light Industrial" to "Industrial Special Purpose Commercial Site Specific" designation; and, 2)amending Zoning By-law 6752 to rezone the site from "High Performance Industrial" to "Mixed Commercial-Industrial - Site Specific" zoning. Background: Introduction: Information pertaining to this application is contained in Staff's preview report dated June 1, 1998, which is attached to this report as Appendix # 1. It was prepared as an information item for the June15, 1998 Preview Meeting for this application. Proposal: Threegees Development Corporation are the owners of a vacant parcel of land at 11 Curity Avenue. They have applied for a site specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the development of this property with a maximum size of 2 000.00 m² mixed commercial industrial building. They want to use the building for light industrial, restaurant, offices and service commercial businesses. Official Plan: The existing Official Plan designates the property "Light Industrial". This designation allows primarily manufacturing, warehousing and similar such uses. Uses such as retail sales or fast food restaurants are specifically excluded, and require Council`s approval of an Official Plan amendment. Zoning By-law: The East York Zoning By-law 6752 zones the property "High Performance Industrial - HPI Zone". It does not permit either restaurant, office or retail uses. Comments Received From the Public During the June 24, 1998, Preview Meeting: Because this site is located directly across the street from a residential area along NorthdaleBoulevard, staff held a preview meeting to give these residents and others an opportunity to provide their input. Approximately 10 members of the public attended that Preview Meeting. Comments expressed by those in attendance can be summarized as follows. traffic infiltration into the existing residential neighbourhood and particularly NorthdaleBoulevard will be increased. The municipality should prevent this by making Northdale Boulevard into a one-way street; the site and building design should be strictly controlled so as to minimize noise, and light infiltration and ensure proper screening, and landscaping; garbage storage facilities should be located away from any residences; restaurants should not be allowed in proximity to residential neighbourhoods because their hours of operation (i.e. late night closing) will disrupt the resident`s peace; can the municipality control hours of operation of the building's occupants; the fence between the property and Northdale Boulevard should be an extension of the existing fence built by Home Depot; and, any entrances to the site and parking facilities should be restricted to either Cranfield Road or Curity Avenue. Staff Comments: Traffic Impact: The concerns regarding traffic have been reviewed by the City's Engineer. He indicates that Transportation Division staff are currently in the process of obtaining a traffic count on NorthdaleBoulevard. The result of this count will determine the number and origin of cars traversing Northdale Boulevard, and, if need be, will enable the engineers to suggest an appropriate response. This information will be available at the public meeting. Otherwise, the engineer has advised us that the industrial area's road network has sufficient capacity to accommodate any traffic generated by the proposed uses. Location and Design of Site Facilities: As per our previous advice, information on the exact location of the various required site facilities, like garbage storage enclosures, loading areas and light fixtures is not as yet available. This is because the applicant has chosen not to submit a concurrent Site Plan Approval application. It would have enabled us to ensure that the project`s design responds to the public's concerns. Nevertheless, we have attempted to restrict these facilities and thereby mitigate their impact via the Official Plan amendment and the implementing Zoning By-law. Thus the draft Official Plan Amendment (see Appendix #2) is structured to incorporate restrictions on the location and the siting of these various facilities. The Zoning By-law, likewise, will reinforce these measures by mandating features such as fences and restricting the location of any potentially incompatible facilities - including vehicular entrances and parking and loading areas from the southerly area of the site adjacent to NorthdaleBoulevard. Staff are confident that these various measures will enable us to ensure that the eventual design of this development provides an appropriate level of protection. Prohibition on Restaurants and Restrictions on this and Other Uses, Hours of Operation: Staff do not recommend a blanket restriction on all restaurants. Instead we have restricted drive-in and drive-through restaurants and any outdoor food consumption areas associated with restaurants. With respect to hours of operation we do not have the ability to restrict them through zoning. As promised at the Preview Meeting , Planning Staff contacted the municipal By-law Enforcement Section and the Clerk's Department to ascertain whether there are any other municipal by-laws to regulate business closings. They both indicated that the only business whose hours of operation are currently restricted by by-law are gas stations. We have also reviewed the municipality's noise by-law. It does not address the types of concern identified by the public. Nevertheless, we are confidant that the various restrictions on the type of restaurants and on the location of facilities like loading and parking will effectively remove the concerns about noise expressed by various members of the public. Conclusion: In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act, a copy of the proposed amendment to the Municipal Official Plan, must be available at the public meeting. A copy of this document, demonstrating how the Official Plan would be amended and the policies included therein to address the various public concerns is attached as Appendix #2 to this report. The draft Zoning By-law amendment is likewise available and can be obtained from staff on request. Contact Name: Jean Besz, Senior Planner East York District Office (416) 778-2045-tel no. (416) 466-9877-fax planning@borough.eastyork.on.ca -------- Appendix 1 The East York Community Council also submits for the information of City Council the following Preview Meeting report (June 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York: Purpose: This is a report to the June 15, 1998 Preview Meeting of the East York district. It concerns applications by Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., on behalf of Threegees Development Corp. The applicants are asking Council to amend East York's Official Plan by redesignating the lands at 11 Curity Avenue from "Light Industrial" to "Special Policy Area"; and to amend Zoning By-law No. 6752 by rezoning it to a "Mixed Commercial Industrial" (MCI) zoning. They propose to develop this site with an a 1 832.0 m², 1 storey building intended to accommodate restaurants, specified retail and service commercial enterprises and light industrial and office uses. This report provides information regarding the proposal, outlines the relevant planning framework, and sets out some issues which Planning staff will take into consideration in the preparation of our final recommendation report. That report will be presented to the East York Community Council on July 22, 1998 at a Public Meeting . Background: Project Statistics: Site Area6382.0 m²(68,697.5 sq. ft.) Size of the Proposed Building (GFA)1,832.0 m² (19,720.1 sq. ft.) Coverage 29% of the lot Floor Space Index0.29 X the lot area Building Height 1 storey No. of Parking SpacesThe proposal will provide upwards of 90 parking spaces. Parking is to be provided based on the requirements set out in Zoning By-law 6752 (see attached By-law excerpt) for each individual use on the site. This means that the number and size of the tenants locating in the proposed facility will be controlled by the available parking. The general location of these parking spaces can be identified via the zoning by-law. The final layout, however will not be determined until the applicant submit the required site plan approval application. Parking Space SizeAs per the requirements of By-law 6752, not less than 2.4 m wide and 16.5 m² in area. No. of Loading Spaces The proposal is required to provide 1 loading space. The precise location and dimensions of that space will be established at the time of Site Plan approval. Site Description: This currently vacant 0.64 hectare (1.58 ac.) property is located on the west side of Cranfield Road between Curity Avenue and Northdale Boulevard. The site is flat and devoid of any significant vegetative cover. Surrounding uses include: across Curity AvenueIndustrial; across Cranfield Road Retail Warehouse (Home Depot); across Northdale BoulevardDetached residences confined to the south-west side of the street; and, on the north east Industrial. Official Plan Status: The property is designated "Light Industrial". The policies governing this designation establish manufacturing, warehousing, laboratory or research enterprises, studios, service and repair of goods manufactured or stored on the premises, technical service uses, public and private recreational facilities and retail sales and offices associated with the primary industrial uses as the primary permitted activities. Uses such as restaurants, freestanding offices and retail stores are not permitted and their introduction here requires an Official Plan amendment. Zoning By-law Status: The land is zoned High Performance Industrial (HPI). This zoning allows: a)Industrial Uses - i)Manufacturing; ii)Warehousing; iii)Assembly of manufactured goods and materials; iv)Printing establishments; v)Research and development; vi)Offices and retail sales accessory to the primary permitted uses and located on the same lot; vii)Wholesaling including limited retail sales provided they are done in conjunction with a primary wholesale or warehousing use and are restricted to no more than 30 % of the two primary uses; and viii)Uses accessory to the foregoing. b)Technical Trade and Service Uses - i)Technical trade and service uses, but not including retail stores, motor vehicle repair shops personal service shops and body rub and massage parlours. Comments: Official Plan Policy Framework: The site is located within an area designated exclusively for industrial purposes. The policies governing how this area is to develop were developed in early 1980's. They were subsequently reviewed via various forums such as the 1992 Mayor's Economic Development Task Force and studies leading up to East York's Official Plan review. The new, 1994 Official Plan reconfirmed these policies. At that time we considered the preservation of East York's industrial assessment to be of paramount importance. Since that time, both the Borough and the industrial sector have undergone some restructuring. The Borough has been amalgamated into the unified City of Toronto. At the same time there has been a continuing trend away from traditional manufacturing and towards mixed employment uses. In this context, it may no longer be so important to maintain the separation of employment uses or to protect our traditional industrial land base. There is growing pressure to open industrial lands to other uses. It may be appropriate to consider suitable diversification. Staff are currently examining this broader issue and expect to report thereon in the fall of 1998. This report will provide policy guidance for future applications. Compatibility: The proposed development, if approved, will locate directly across the street from a residential area along Northdale Boulevard. Since the applicant chose not to submit a concurrent Site Plan application, staff have no way of determining the suitable design transition. However these and other similar considerations concerning the organizational aspects of the proposed development can be set out in design guidelines within the text of the final Official Plan Amendment and via development standards ( i.e. minimum yard setbacks location of parking spaces and of vehicular entrances etc.) to be included in the zoning by-law amendment. Staff anticipate that the input from the public consultation at the preview meeting will provide comments on this matter. Site Plan Approval: The proposed development is subject to Site Plan approval. It will resolve various site design issues such as building design, and landscaping, and it will address the functional aspects of the project such as garbage disposal, parking, screening, lighting etc. The applicant chose not to apply for that approval at this time. However, no development can take place until this process is completed. Access, Parking and Loading Facilities: Vehicular access to the site is proposed via 2 access driveways from Cranfield Road. No access is shown from either Curity Avenue or from Northdale Boulevard. Our Transportation Engineer is satisfied with the proposed access locations. As previously indicated, parking for this project will be determined based on the parking requirements for each individual use set out in the Zoning By-law. Based on the information submitted with the application (ref. the attached Site Plan Drawing), the site is capable of accommodating upwards of 90 parking spaces as well as the one required loading facility. If this application is approved, the general location of the proposed parking and loading areas will be set out in the zoning by-law schedule appended to the text of the amending by-law. Servicing: The servicing aspects of this proposal were reviewed by the Municipal Engineer. He indicates that the existing infrastructures - sewers and water mains - are adequate to accommodate this proposal. Contact Name: Jean Besz, Senior Planner East York Community Office (416) 778-2045 (416) 466-9877 planning@borough.eastyork.on.ca -------- The East York Community Council also submits the following draft Official Plan Amendment and draft By-law entitled "Appendix 2: Amendment Number 13 to the Official Plan for the Former Borough of East York" : Appendix 2 Amendment Number 13 to the Official Plan For the Former Borough of East York Part One - Preamble, does not constitute part of this Amendment. Part Two - The Amendment, consisting of the text contained therein and the map attached thereto and designated as Schedule "A", constitute Amendment No. 13 to the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York. Part One Preamble 1.Title This is Amendment No. 13 to the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York. Only that part of this Amendment entitled "Part Two - The Amendment" constitutes Amendment No13 to the Official Plan for the Borough of East York Planning Area. 2.Purpose The purpose of this Amendment is to redesignate a 6 382.0 m2 parcel of land located at 11CurityAvenue from "Light Industrial" to "Industrial Special Purpose Commercial" designation, and to permit its use for a range of light industrial, and specified commercial and office uses. 3.Location The lands affected by this Amendment are outlined in a heavy black line identified as "Area Subject to Amendment" on Schedule "A" attached hereto, and are located on the west side of Cranfield Road between Northdale Boulevard to the south and Curity Avenue to the north. Their municipal address is 11 Curity Avenue. 4.Basis The lands affected by this amendment are currently designated "Light Industrial" in the Official Plan for the Borough of East York Planning Area. This designation generally restricts their use to manufacturing type uses. In the past East York placed considerable emphasis on maintaining the exclusivity of the municipality's industrial designations. The last several years however, have seen industrial enterprises moving away from traditional manufacturing and towards a more diversified, mix of employment uses. This has resulted in an increase in the number of applications for non-industrial uses. The City is gradually introducing various measures to respond to this trend. To date, these have included the introduction of a broad range of non-industrial uses along sections of O'Connor Drive and the expansion of the floor space devoted to retail sales permitted in association with manufacturing, warehousing and wholesale uses. The feasibility of further, similar area wide modifications is currently under review. This review will conclude in the latter part of 1998. This application is being considered in advance of the review because it does not represent a radical departure from the uses already permitted in the Official Plan and previously sanctioned nearby (i.e.Home Depot). Part Two The Amendment 1.All of this part of the document entitled "Part Two" - The Amendment" consisting of the following text and the attached Schedule "A", constitute Amendment No. 13 to the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York. 2.The lands affected by this Amendment are shown on Schedule "A" to this Amendment as "Area Subject to Amendment". 3.Map 2, Predominant Land Use to the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York, is hereby amended by redesignating certain lands located on the west side of Cranfield Road between Curity Avenue and Northdale Boulevard, and indicated as "Area Subject to Amendment"on Schedule "A" to this amendment, from "Light Industrial" to "Industrial Special Purpose Commercial - Site Specific" designation. 4.Map 7 - Special Policy Areas of the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York is hereby amended by identifying certain lands located on the west side of Cranfield Road between Curity Avenue and Northdale Boulevard, indicated as "Area Subject to Amendment" on Schedule "A" to this Amendment as: Special Policy Area 26, as shown on Schedule "A" to this Amendment. 5.The text of the Official Plan for the East York Planning Area is hereby amended by adding a new Section 3.15.26, immediately following Section 3.15.25, as follows: "3.15.26 - Special Policy Area 26 3.15.26.1Notwithstanding the "Industrial Special Purpose Commercial" policies of Section 3.8, the lands designated as Special Policy Area 26 on Map 7 of this Plan, known municipally as 11 Curity Avenue, shall only be developed with a 1 storey maximum 2 000.00 m² gross floor area industrial commercial building, in accordance with the policies contained in Section 3.15.26. 3.15.26.2The policies applicable to the to the development or redevelopment of the lands identified as "Special Policy Area 26", shall be implemented by means of the powers conferred upon Council by all applicable statutes and in particular as follows: a)An implementing Zoning By-law which shall: i) be site specific; ii)specify the range of permitted and excluded uses; iii) set out detailed development standards including those governing the placement and the size of any rooftop mechanical enclosures; iv)require the erection on the south limit of the property of an eight metre continuous solid visual and noise attenuation barrier; and, v)otherwise implement all the policies set out in Section 3.15.26 of this Plan. b)Site Plan approval and Site Plan Development Agreement which shall ensure that: i)all vehicular entrances to the site are provided from Cranfield Road and that the "mouth" of these entrances - between the street and the property line is differentiated from the rest of the driveway through the use of different texture paving material; ii)the roof top mechanical equipment is appropriately located, sized and screened so as to not be obtrusive; iii)the site and building design ensure that the yard and building wall facing or adjoining the residential street to the south excludes such utility structures, or external features as may be specified in the implementing zoning by-law; iv)the required screen fence between the site and the residential street to the south approximates the design of the existing screen fence separating the residential area and the adjoining property to the east; and, v)the site is appropriately landscaped and lit. Draft By-law Authority:East York Community Council Report No. Intended for first presentation to Council: Adopted City Of Toronto By-law No. 1998 To adopt Amendment No. 13 to the Official Plan for the former Borough of East York Affecting the Lands Located on the West Side of Cranfield Road Between Northdale Boulevard and Curity Avenue. The Council of The City of Toronto Hereby Enacts as follows: 1.That the attached Amendment No. 13 to the Official Plan for the former Borough of EastYork consisting of Part Two of the accompanying document, is hereby adopted pursuant to Planning Act, 1990. Enacted And Passed this day of A.D. 1998 Case Ootes,Novina Wong, Deputy MayorCity Clerk The East York Community Council also submits the following report (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York: Purpose: This is a report to the July 22, 1998 meeting of the East York Community Council. Its purpose is to correct a reference to fence height in Section 3.15.26.2 iv). The number that should appear in this line should be 3.65 m., rather than 8 m . Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council: 1.authorize the correction of the fence height contained in Part Two of Section 3.15.26.2. iv) of the Official Plan for the 11 Curity Avenue Official Plan and Zoning By-law applications from 8.0 m to 3.65 m. The East York Community Council submits the following communication(July 20, 1998) from Dr. Warnie and Ms. Carol Richardson, East York: "With regard to the above requested Zoning By-law Amendment, as previously mentioned in the initial information report, this development would locate directly across the street from a prime residential area, more specifically, Northdale Boulevard, of the Parkview Hills neighbourhood. The initial, and, quire apparent reluctance of the "developers" to submit a detailed "site plan" makes it very difficult for the residents of our neighbourhood, and indeed, for the City of Toronto, to determine with any degree of certainty, exactly what is intended by the Threegees Corporation. Particularly perplexing to the residents of Northdale Boulevard, is the requested amendment which would see the vacant land removed from a category which specifically designates it as "high industrial," to a less specific category which will, upon revision, serve to accommodate a restaurant. A restaurant, in our opinion, would present a totally different set of problems that would not arise with the other proposed changes, ie. specified retail, light industrial and other office uses. For example, a restaurant could very easily involve extended hours, a liquor license, (if not immediately, then certainly in the future), and the scattering of organic waste, which then attracts animals from the ravine to a residential area which is home to many young children. In essence, a restaurant can undergo many changes which may be miles removed from its original intention and its initial market driven purpose; owners change and clients change. If you do nothing else in perusing this letter, think of the impact a potential liquor license has on the evolution of a very vibrant, very active, family oriented community. It changes everything! In closing, and, in summary, in consultation with many of our neighbours, we are unwilling to support a potentially unsettling and disruptive environment, in the form of a restaurant, within a 'stone's throw' of our front doors and yards. We are in favour of progress but adamantly opposed to chaos, which we feel will be the net result if a restaurant is built on that particular location." Thank you for your time." The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (July 22, 1998) from Ms. Roslyn Houser, Goodman, Phillips and Vineberg, Toronto, on behalf of the applicant: "We are the solicitors for Threegees Development Corporation, the owner of the above-noted property. Our client's applications for official plan amendment and re-zoning will be considered this evening at a public meeting scheduled for 7:30 p.m. We have reviewed the final report prepared by Planning Staff along with a draft by-law implementing the recommendations contained within that report. While we generally concur with the recommendations of staff and the form of the by-law, we request the following two changes: 1.We believe it would be appropriate to permit drive-through restaurants provided there is a sufficient setback from the residential area to the south of the site. We would therefore suggest that the restaurant restrictions in Section 8.C3d(ii)(1)(b) be reworded as follows: -Restaurant Drive-In -Restaurant drive-through other than a Restaurant drive-through which is wholly contained within 40 metres of Curity Avenue -Any outdoor food consumption area associated with a Restaurant use. 2.We understand that through an oversight, the by-law as drafted would preclude apparel stores and personal service stores. Staff had advised that they would concur with the following additional permitted uses in Section 8.C.3d)(ii): (c)apparel store; (d)Personal Service store. We trust this is satisfactory." The East York Community Council also submits the following report (July 20, 1998) from the Director of Transportation and Engineering Services, East York District: This memorandum is in response to comments received from local residents at the preview meeting for the proposed development at 11 Curity Avenue. Residents on Northdale Boulevard, east of Denvale Road have expressed concern that motorists from outside the Parkview Hills area are using Northdale Boulevard as a by-pass to O'Connor Drive and that the proposed development at 11 Curity will add infiltrating traffic to their street. Staff have conducted traffic counts to determine the traffic volumes on Northdale Boulevard and have reviewed this information in the context of the local street system. We have concluded that traffic volumes on Northdale Boulevard are within acceptable limits given the expected function of this road. Furthermore, the proposed development at 11CurityAvenue is not expected to result in an increase in traffic on Northdale Boulevard from outside the Parkview Hills area. The Parkview Hills area has 3 access points serving an estimated 770 homes. St. Clair Avenue, Northdale Boulevard and Glenshaw Crescent are the 3 access points into Parkview Hills. A recent traffic count indicates that Northdale Boulevard carries approximately 950 vehicles on a typical day. This volume is well within accepted traffic engineering guidelines for a local residential street given the number of houses and expected vehicular trip generation and distribution for the Parkview Hills area. This is particularly true for a street which serves as an access point to the community. The volumes do not indicate that motorists from outside the Parkview Hills area are using Sandra Road, Doris Drive, Denvale Road and Northdale Boulevard as a by-pass to O'Connor Drive. To further investigate the possibility of northbound traffic from outside the Parkview Hills area using Northdale Boulevard to cut through the neighbourhood, staff conducted a traffic count at Sandra Road and St. Clair Avenue to determine the number of motorists using Sandra Avenue and DorisDrive. The count revealed a total of 35 motorists made the left turn from O'Connor Drive, and used Sandra Road as access to Doris Drive during the afternoon peak period of 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.. Given the number of homes which are typically accessed from Doris Drive, the 35 motorists are thought to be residents of the neighbourhood and not infiltrating motorists. Traffic on Northdale Boulevard has been an issue with local residents as well as with the residents on Doris Drive and Denvale Road since 1953. Barriers have been erected and removed a number of times on Northdale Boulevard and Hollinger Road since then in an effort to dissuade workers in the industrial area from using Parkview Hills streets as a bypass to O'Connor Drive. In 1994, as part of the Home Depot development, Northdale Boulevard was permanently closed at Cranfield Road. Some residents have suggested that the median island on Northdale Boulevard which prohibits straight through access to Hollinger Road be reconstructed to allow one-way northbound traffic movements from Northdale Boulevard to Hollinger Road. Staff have not had an opportunity to formally review the impacts of this proposal in advance of this public meeting. However, given that traffic from outside the Parkview Hills area is not expected to use Northdale Boulevard to access the proposed development at 11 Curity Avenue it would be inappropriate for the developer to fund any changes to Northdale Boulevard which are not the result of development impacts. The vast majority of trips destined to the site will originate outside of the Parkview Hills area and will access the development from O'Connor Drive from the east and Cranfield Road and Hollinger Road from the north. Given the very minor impact that this development will have on traffic volumes on NorthdaleBoulevard it is more appropriate that this existing concern of local residents be investigated by staff as part of our internal work program. Contact Name: Jean Besz, Senior Planner East York District Office (416) 778-2045-tel no. (416) 466-9877-fax planning@borough.eastyork.on.ca Councillor Ootes declared his interest in the portion of application whereby the applicant requests an apparel store as a permitted use at 11 Curity Avenue in that his spouse is the owner of an apparel store in the vicinity of the applicant's property. -------- The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing: (a)Mr. Mark Noskiewicz, Goodman, Phillips and Vineberg, Barristers and Solicitors, Toronto, on behalf of the applicant, expressed support with respect to the recommendations contained in the staff report dated July 10, 1998, and corrected by the staff report dated July 21, 1998. Mr. Noskiewicz has also requested drive through or drive in restaurants and outdoor patios associated with a restaurant use, apparel store and personal service store as permitted uses; (b)Ms. Carole Richardson, East York, expressed concern with respect to the installation of a fence which wouldn't prohibit noise adequately. Ms. Richardson is opposed to the establishment of any type of restaurant at this location and the hours of operation and clientele which may be associated with a restaurant use; (c)Ms. Dorothy Attwells, East York, clarified that Northdale Boulevard is currently a one way street. Ms. Attwells also expressed concern with respect to debris and garbage currently present on the vacant lot and submitted a photograph confirming this matter; and (d)Ms. Carmela Healey, East York, expressed concern with respect to the heavy trucks utilizing Northdale Boulevard and is also opposed to any type of restaurant use at this location and specifically a 24 hour restaurant operation. (Councillor Ootes, at the meeting of City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his wife owns a clothing business within the notice area of the subject property.) 9 Request to Mount on City Property a Memorial Plaque in Honour of Mr. Percy Gibbons (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends: (1)that the request by the Dieppe Men's Fastball League to mount a memorial plaque in honour of Mr. Percy Gibbons on the back of the scorebooth at Dieppe Park be permitted, subject to the Acting Commissioner of Parks, Recreation and Operations, East York, approving the final design and location of the plaque; (2)that the Dieppe Men's Fastball League be held financially responsible for the total cost of the plaque and its installation; and (3)received the following communication (July 20, 1998) from Mr. Joe Murchison, President, Dieppe Men's Fastball League, East York: "We recently bereaved the passing of Percy Gibbons. Percy was involved with the Dieppe Park Men's Fastball League for over 30 years as a coach, manager, trainer and most recently our roving good will ambassador. Everyone at the park knew Percy as he was always here helping out in some capacity. It is the intention of the Dieppe Park Men's Fast ball League and friends of Percy Gibbons to hold a memorial benefit night benefit double header on Wednesday, August 5th. The purpose of this benefit is to raise funds for the purpose of purchasing a memorial plaque to the memory of Mr. Gibbons. We would like to mount this plaque on the back of the score booth where Percy always parked his vehicle. We would appreciate your consideration to give us permission to mount this plague on City property." -------- Mr. Joe Murchison, President, Dieppe Men's Fastball League, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing. 10 Reduction of Hydro Services in the East York Community (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends as follows: (1)that the Toronto Hydro Commission be requested during its consultation and negotiations, to create an office within the East York Civic Service Centre which is electronically linked to the District Office in Scarborough in order to serve walk-in customers from the East York Community; (2)the East York Community Council reports for the information of the City Council having requested the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission to report to the East York Community Council on the services provided to the walk-in customers at the former local Hydro Offices prior to amalgamation and which are currently no longer being provided to walk-in customers; (3)that the aforementioned position be conveyed to the East York Community Council; and (4)that the following communication from Mr. Gordon Crann (July 22, 1998) be received: (July 22, 1998) from Mr. Gordon Crann, advising the East York Community Council of his personal experience with respect to the reduction in walk-in service at the former East York Hydro-Electric Commission building at 175 Memorial Park Avenue. The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing: -Mr. Gordon Crann, East York; and -Mr. John Papadakis, East York. 11 Discharge of Lien 252 Torrens Avenue (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the City Solicitor, East York Office: Purpose: The purpose of this report is to authorize the discharge of a Lien registered as Instrument No.A593248. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: None. Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council: (1)Authorize that the Lien registered as Instrument No. A593248 be discharged from title. (2)Authorize the Solicitors for East York to prepare and register on title the required document. (3)Authorize the City Clerk to execute such document on behalf of the City. Background: The owner of the property at 252 Torrens Avenue, James George, has fulfilled all of the obligations pursuant to the Lien registered as Instrument No. A593248. The Treasurer and Director of Finance has confirmed that the lien amount has now been paid in full. Mr. Castlemore, solicitor for Mr.George, has requested that this Lien be discharged. Comments: The lien was originally registered as a result of a loan made pursuant to the Housing Development Act. The lien has been paid off and therefore should be discharged. Conclusions: It is our opinion that it is appropriate for the said Lien to be discharged. Contact Name: Quinto M. Annibale Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish Tel. 416-746-4710 Fax 416-746-8319 qannibale@loonix.com 12 Discharge of Lien 55 Sibley Avenue (City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.) The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July22,1998) from the City Solicitor, East York Office: Purpose: The purpose of this report is to authorize the discharge of a Lien registered as Instrument No. EastYork 26690. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement: None. Recommendations: It is recommended that City Council: (1)Authorize that the Lien registered as Instrument No. East York 26690 be discharged from title. (2)Authorize the Solicitors for East York to prepare and register on title the required document. (3)Authorize the City Clerk to execute such document on behalf of the City. Background: The owner of the property at 55 Sibley Avenue, Sarah Jarrick, has fulfilled all of the obligations pursuant to the Lien registered as Instrument No. East York 26690. The Treasurer and Director of Finance has confirmed that the lien amount has now been paid in full. Comments: The lien was originally registered as a result of a loan made pursuant to the Housing Development Act. The lien has been paid off and therefore should be discharged. Conclusions: It is our opinion that it is appropriate for the said Lien to be discharged. Contact Name: Quinto M. Annibale Loopstra, Nixon & McLeish Tel. 416-746-4710 Fax 416-746-8319 qannibale@loonix.com 13 Other Items Considered by the Community Council City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, received this Clause as information, subject to striking out and referring Item (c), entitled "Request for Alternate Side Overnight Permit Parking on Airdrie Road between Heather Road and Bessborough Drive: Traffic Poll Results," embodied in this Clause, back to the East York Community Council for the hearing of deputations.) a)The 2008 Toronto Olympic Bid. The East York Community Council reports having received the following report (July7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism: (July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, outlining the public consultation process related to Toronto's bid to host the 2008 Olympics and recommending that the report be received for information. -------- Ms. Nina Gesa, Olympic Office, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing. b)Parking Restrictions on Randolph Road between McRae Drive and Markham Avenue Submission of a Petition. The East York Community Council reports having referred the petition (June 22, 1998) from Mr. Gary Clanfield, East York, with approximately 22 signatures on behalf of residents in the vicinity of Randolph Road between McRae Drive and MarkhamAvenue to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for a report on the parking concerns and requests of the residents as outlined in the aforementioned petition: (June 22, 1998) from Mr. Gary Clanfield, East York, submitting a petition with approximately 22 signatures on behalf of residents in the vicinity of Randolph Road between Mc Rae Drive and Markham Avenue requesting that the parking restrictions within this block be lifted and recommending that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report on the concerns and requests of the residents as outlined in this petition. c)Request for Alternate Side Overnight Permit Parking on Airdrie Road between Heather Road and Bessborough Drive: Traffic Poll Results. The East York Community Council reports having received the following report (July6,1998) from the City Clerk: (July 6, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising of the results for the traffic poll conducted with respect to the implementation of alternate side overnight permit parking on Airdrie Road between Heather Road and Bessborough Drive and recommending that the report be received for information. d)Issuance of Building Permits. The East York Community Council reports having: (1)received the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; (2)received the verbal report from the Chief Building Official: (July 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, responding to questions raised at the June 24, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council, regarding issuance of building permits and recommending that the report be received for information. e)Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests in Planning Matters. The East York Community Council reports having received the following communication (July 14,1998) from the City Clerk: (July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising of the policy to establish guidelines for determining City-wide interests in planning matters and a protocol for routing City-wide planning matters through the political decision-making structure and requesting that comments from the Community Councils on this matter be forwarded directly to City Council on July 29, 1998. f)Political Structure in East York East York By-Election. The East York Community Council reports having received the following report (July16, 1998) from the City Clerk: (July 16, 1998) from the City Clerk, advising the East York Community Council that CityCouncil at its meeting on July8,9and10, 1998, adopted a Resolution authorizing the use of voting machines and advance votes in the East York By-election to fill the third Councillor position for Ward One - EastYork. g)Garbage Collection on Donlands Avenue. The East York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on problems and liability concerns associated with the collection of garbage by Canadian Waste Services Incorporated in the areas of the East York Community formerly known as Wards 3 and 4: -------- Mr. John Papadakis, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing. h)Road Condition of Rivercourt Boulevard and Stag Hill Drive. The East York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the timeline proposed within the Capital Works Plan for the resurfacing of Rivercourt Boulevard and Stag Hill Drive: -------- Mr. John Papadakis, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing. i)Public Notification for Cash-In-Lieu of Parking Applications. The East York Community Council reports having: (1)advised the Urban Environment and Development Committee to consider the following position put forth by the Community Council: (i)that the City consider implementing a policy whereby cash-in-lieu of parking applications be circulated to all residents and businesses within a 60 metre radius of the property noted within the application; (ii)that a comprehensive review/analysis be undertaken throughout the Cityof Toronto with respect to the parking space costs for cash-in-lieu of parking; (2)received the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York; and (3)received the following communications: (July 20, 1998) from Ms.Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association Incorporated, EastYork; (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Ian Cameron, East York; and (July22,1998) from Ms. Maryaleen Trafford, East York: (July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, responding to a request from the East York Community Council regarding the feasibility of establishing public notification procedures for cash-in-lieu of parking applications and recommending that the report be received for information. (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Ian Cameron, East York, expressing concern with the minimal notification undertaken for cash-in-lieu of parking applications and the parking space costs associated with cash-in-lieu of parking. (July 20, 1998) from Ms. Carol Burtin Fripp, President, Leaside Property Owners' Association Incorporated, East York, advising of the Leaside Property Owners' Association's support of the general principles outlined in Mr. Cameron's letter. (July 22, 1998) from Ms. Maryaleen Trafford, East York, commenting on the current policy respecting cash-in-lieu of parking applications. -------- The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing: -Mr. Ian Cameron, East York; and -Ms. Maryaleen Trafford, East York. j)Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications submitted by Katmandu Investment Corporation in connection with 1590 O'Connor Drive. The East York Community Council reports having: (1)requested the City Clerk and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to schedule a public meeting to be held on September16,1998, for the O'Connor Employment Area Study and the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications submitted by Katmandu Investment Corporation in connection with 1590 O'Connor Drive; and (2)received the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York: (July 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Development Services, East York, providing a status report on the application by Katmandu Investment Corporation for the OfficialPlan and Zoning By-law Amendments at 1590 O'Connor Drive and the O'ConnorEmployment Area Study and recommending that this report be received for information. k)Garbage Collection in the Laneway behind 1677 Bayview Avenue. The East York Community Council reports having received the following report (July15,1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services: (July 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, responding to a request from the East York Community Council with respect to problems associated with the collection of garbage in the laneway behind 1677 Bayview Avenue and recommending that the report be received for information. Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL PRUE, Chair Toronto, July 22, 1998 (Report No. 11 of The East York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998.)
		Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links