TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 11

11998 Local Improvement Initiative Program - Objections

2Sign By-law Variance Request - First Floor Wall Signage and Roof Level Signage - Trimark Trust and Steel Art Signs - 5140 Yonge Street - North York Centre

3Proposed Parking Prohibitions - Wedgewood Avenue - North York Centre

4Proposed Stopping Restrictions - Hilda Avenue, Adjacent to Newtonbrook Secondary School - North York Centre

5Availability of Grants and Programs from Federal and Provincial Ministries for the Acquisition of Lands for Parks and Community Related Purposes at the Northwest Corner of Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard - Black Creek

6Feasibility Study - Yorkwoods Community Centre - Black Creek

7Zoning By-law Amendment - Garland's Bush - Lawrence Park Community - West of Midenhall Road - Exemption to R3 Zoning - North York Centre South

8Proposed Pay Parking - Civic Garden Centre - North York Centre South

9Subdivision Application UDSB-1235 - Graywood Developments Limited - Proposed Residential Subdivision - Proposed Road Allowances - Ferrand Drive and Rochefort Drive - Don Parkway

10Sign By-law Variance Request - Signage Systems - 1825 Wilson Avenue - North York Humber

11Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application UDZ-97-12 and UDSP-97-042 - Edilcan Development Corporation - 16, 18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng Avenue - North York Centre

12Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application UDOZ-98-04 and UDSP-98-015 - Oxford Hills Developments Corporation - 16, 18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng Avenue - North York Centre

13Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-12 - Tak On Developments Ltd. - 221 Finch Avenue East - North York Centre

14Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application andPart Lot Control Exemption By-law Application UDOZ-98-01 and UD 54 98 11 REL - B.Y. Group Ltd. - 111 Barber Greene Road - Don Parkway

15Temporary Use By-law Application UD52-98-01 - Alysse Fogel - 31 Foursome Crescent - North York Centre South

16Traffic Management Plan - St. Lucie Drive - North York Humber

17Commemorative Street Name - Beverly Hills Drive - North York Humber

18Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 11

OF THE NORTH YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on October 14, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Milton Berger, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

1

1998 Local Improvement Initiative Program - Objections

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 18, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

This report is to inform Council of the responses to advertising for the projects included in the 1998 Local Improvement Initiative Program, to seek Council's approval for the six projects which may now proceed and to advise of the cancellation of the remaining five projects.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications, Impact Statement:

The estimated cost of these projects was included in the 1998 Capital Works Program of the Transportation Department as North York Local Improvement Projects. The cancellation of the work on Fenn Avenue will result in the release of $40,000.00 in funding previously committed.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the local improvement projects for the construction of asphalt pavements with curbs in the following locations be approved:

(a)Alfred Avenue from Dudley Avenue to the west end;

(b)Greenfield Avenue from Dudley Avenue to 62 metres west;

(c)Maplehurst Avenue from Willowdale Avenue to the west end;

(d)Stafford Road from Betty Ann Drive to Ellerslie Avenue;

(e)Wimpole Drive from Bayview Avenue to Forest Heights Boulevard; and

(f)York Downs Drive from Almore Avenue to Yeomans Road; and

(2)the following local improvement project for the construction of asphalt pavements with curbs be cancelled in response to objections from affected owners:

(a)Fenn Avenue from York Road to south limit of 31/32 Fenn Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The 1998 Capital Budget includes the proposed construction of 8.5m asphalt pavement with curbs in eleven locations under the Initiative Plan of the Local Improvement Act. Four of these eleven projects were previously cancelled by Council in response to requests from the local Councillors. For the remaining seven locations, notice of Council's intent to construct and specially assess was given by newspaper advertising and by mail to affected landowners in accordance with provisions of the Local Improvement Act. The Act provides that work as a local improvement may be undertaken, unless a majority of the owners representing at least one-half of the value of the lots that are liable to be specially assessed, petition against the work.

There are insufficient objections from owners for the six locations listed under Recommendation (1). Council may proceed to undertake these works.

All owners have petitioned against the construction of a pavement with curbs on Fenn Avenue. This project should be cancelled as Council is unable to proceed with this work during the next two years under the Initiative Plan.

The attached Appendix summarizes the responses to the works in the seven locations.

Conclusions:

None

Contact Name:

Anita Wu 395-6716

Finance Department

(A copy of the Appendix referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

2

Sign By-law Variance Request -

First Floor Wall Signage and Roof Level Signage -

Trimark Trust and Steel Art Signs - 5140 Yonge Street -

North York Centre

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on November 25, 1998.)

The North York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the three signs proposed for the first floor of 5140 Yonge Street (east elevation) be approved;

(2)two signs on the north and south side of 5140 Yonge Street be approved;

(3)the size of the south facing sign be amended to 30 feet long by 4'10" in height; and

(4)the illumination be such that it not disturb residents of the existing condominiums or those condominiums presently under construction.

The North York Community Council reports for the information of Council having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to develop a criteria for the illumination of signs as part of the review of the Sign By-law currently under way.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (October 2, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Ms. Filo Costa, Project Manager for Trimark Trust, for a variance from the Sign By-law to permit the erection of four wall signs, one on the south and three on the east elevation of the first floor of 5140 Yonge St. (See attached drawings). The sign facing south will be an illuminated sign 90 feet long by 4 feet in height, for an area of 360square feet. The signs facing east will consist of one illuminated 30 foot by 4 foot sign with an area of 120 square feet, and two non illuminated signs over the entrance doors each 10 feet by 2 feet 4 inches in width with an area of approximately 23 square feet. The total area of signage on the east side is proposed to be 160 square feet.

Recommendation:

It is recommended the request for a minor variance from the sign by-law be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The building is located in an O3 zone and the sign by-law limits the area of wall signage in such zones to an aggregate area of 161.5 square feet. A site specific by-law number 28421 permits commercial uses in that zone and it would follow that the provisions of Section 5.2.3.1 of the Sign By-law for wall signage in a commercial zone should be applied. Section 5.2.3.1 of the Sign By-law would permit a cumulative sign area 20 percent of the wall area visible from any direction for the first storey, for a sign area of 530 square feet. The proposed signage of 360 square feet on the south elevation, and 160 square on the east elevation would comply if the requirements of the sign by-law in a commercial zone are applied, and a variance would not have been required.

The Ward Councillors have been notified of this request and have been provided with a copy of the report and attached plans.

Conclusions:

It is the opinion of this department that the proposed signs would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area and that the intent of the sign by-law would not be compromised by the erection of these signs. As a condition of the issuance of a sign permit, however, we would request the approval of the Director of Civic Projects to assure that any specific limitations put forth in the Development Agreement have been complied with.

________

(A copy of the plans and drawings referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

Ms. Filo Costa, Project Manager, Trimark Trust, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

The North York Community Council also submits the following report (October 2, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations concerning a request by Gene Mordaunt of Steel Art Signs, for a variance from the sign by-law to permit the erection of two wall signs, of identical size, to be placed at the 24^th storey level on the south and north elevations of the "Petro Canada Building" located at the south west corner of Yonge Street and Park Home Avenue.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for a minor variance from the sign by-law be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Gene Mordaunt of Steel Art Signs is requesting permission to erect two wall signs on the north and south wall faces of the top storey of the building. One sign will be placed flush to the top of the parapet at the 24^th floor on the south elevation and the other flush to the top of the parapet on the north elevation. Both signs have an area of 544.5 square feet.

The building is located in an O3 zone and the sign by-law limits the area of wall signage in such zones to an aggregate area of 161.5 square feet. A site specific by-law number 28421 permits commercial uses in that zone and it would follow that the provisions of Section 5.2.3.1 of the Sign By-law for wall signage in a commercial zone should be applied. Section 5.2.3.1. of the sign by-law would permit a cumulative sign area per storey of 15 percent of the wall area visible from any direction, for signage on storeys other than the first storey, with a sign area of 653.25 square feet. The proposed signage on both elevation would comply if the requirements of the sign by-law in a commercial zone are applied, and a variance would not have been required.

The Ward Councillors have been notified of this request and have been provided with a copy of the report and attached plans.

Conclusions:

It is the opinion of this department that the proposed signs would not have a negative impact on the surrounding area and that the intent of the sign by-law would not be compromised by the erection of these signs. As a condition of the issuance of a sign permit, however, we would request the approval of the Director of Civic Projects to assure that any specific limitations put forth in the Development Agreement have been complied with.

________

(A copy of the plans referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

A.Councillor Filion, North York Centre, moved that:

(1)the three signs on the first floor of 5140 Yonge Street (east elevation) be approved;

(2)(i)the two signs on the north and south side of 5140 Yonge Street be approved; and

(ii)the approval of the two signs on the north and south side of 5140 Yonge Street be for a period of two years;

(3)the illumination be such that it not disturb residents of the existing condominiums or those presently under construction; and

(4)the sign on Mel Lastman Square not be approved but that Trimark Trust be permitted to erect a temporary sign for one week prior to and one week after its opening in 1998.

B.Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, moved that the size of the south facing sign on 5140Yonge Street be amended to 30 feet long by 4'10" in height.

A recorded vote on part (1) of motion A. by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Sgro, Li Preti, Feldman, Flint, Gardner, Chong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Augimeri, Berger, Filion

ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Minnan-Wong

Carried

A recorded vote on part (2)(ii) of motion A. by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri, Chong, Filion

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Gardner, Shiner, King

ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Minnan-Wong

Part (2)(ii) of motion A. by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, was declared by the Chair to be lost.

A recorded vote on part (4) of motion A. by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri, Flint, Filion, King

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Shiner

ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Minnan-Wong

Part (4) of motion A. by Councillor Filion, North York Centre, was declared by the Chair to be lost on a tie vote.

A recorded vote on motion B. by Councillor Gardner, North York Centre, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Sgro, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Shiner, King

AGAINST:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Augimeri, Flint, Filion

ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Minnan-Wong

Carried

3

Proposed Parking Prohibitions -

Wedgewood Avenue -

North York Centre

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 2, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To install parking prohibitions on both sides of Wedgewood Avenue.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the parking restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

That Schedule VIII of By-Law No. 31001, of the former City of North York, be amended to prohibit parking on both sides of Wedgewood Avenue, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from a point 91.5 metres east of Yonge Street to Tobruk Crescent.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, parking is prohibited at any time on the north side of Wedgewood Avenue, from Yonge Street to Tobruk Crescent, and on the south side, from Yonge Street to a point 91.5 east of Yonge Street. On the remaining portion of the south side of Wedgewood Avenue, to Tobruk Crescent, parking is permitted for up to a maximum of three hours.

Discussion:

Residents of Wedgewood Avenue have advised staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services, that vehicles are being parked for extended periods of time within the area where parking is permitted for up to three hours. Despite numerous requests to the Toronto Police Services, enforcement for illegal parking has proven ineffective.

We have been advised by Councillor Filion's office that the results of a recent survey of the residents of Wedgewood Crescent, conducted by his office, support the installation of the parking prohibitions.

Conclusions:

Staff of this division supports amending the parking restrictions on both sides of Wedgewood Avenue, from Yonge Street to Tobruk Crescent.

Contact Name:

Mr. Michael Frederick, Director of Operations

395-7484.(telephone); 395-7482 (facsimile)

mjfreder@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)

4

Proposed Stopping Restrictions - Hilda Avenue,

Adjacent to Newtonbrook Secondary School -

North York Centre

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 2, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To implement "No Stopping 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday", restrictions on Hilda Avenue, adjacent to the Newtonbrook Secondary School.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the stopping restrictions are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that stopping be prohibited between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of Hilda Avenue, from a point 47 metres north of Moore Park Avenue to the southerly limit of Greenbush Road.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Currently, parking is prohibited on the east side of Hilda Avenue, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from Steeles Avenue West to the southerly limit of the school property. From the south limits of the school property to Moore Park Avenue, parking is prohibited at anytime. On the west side of the street, parking is prohibited at any time from Steeles Avenue West to Greenbush Road, and stopping is prohibited at anytime from Greenbush Road to Moore Park Avenue.

Discussion:

A review of the historical traffic data for Hilda Avenue would indicate that parking has been a concern for quite some time. Although numerous parking changes have been implemented, as parking/stopping behaviours change, additional demands for amendments to the restrictions are made. With the installation of additional parking/stopping restrictions on Hilda Avenue, motorists have shifted to adjacent roadways in an attempt to find suitable parking. With the displacement of parked vehicles to other locations within the community, there have been numerous requests to impose parking restrictions on adjacent roadways.

However, despite numerous requests for enforcement, the Toronto Police Services have indicated that more effective enforcement could be provided if stopping were prohibited on both sides of Hilda Avenue, adjacent to the Newtonbrook Secondary School.

Conclusions:

Staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services, support amending the existing stopping regulations on Hilda Avenue, as was supported by the local residents.

Contact Name:

Michael Frederick, Director of Operations

395-7484 (telephone); 395-7482 (facsimile)

mjfreder@city-north-york.on.ca (E-mail)

5

Availability of Grants and Programs from Federal and

Provincial Ministries for the Acquisition of Lands for Parks and

Community Related Purposes at the Northwest Corner of

Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard - Black Creek

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

As directed by North York Community Council at its meeting held on July 22, 1998, this report is to advise Council on the availability of grants and programs from identified Ministries for the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes at the northwest corner of Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report back to North York Community Council at a future meeting when the final outstanding response from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is received, only if the information received is favourable towards acquiring lands for parks and community purposes; and

(2) the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism will provide the two local Councillors with a copy of the letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing when it is received.

Background:

1.0Subject Lands:

The subject lands are located at the northwest corner of Finch Avenue West and York Gate Boulevard. The applicant has submitted applications to amend the zoning by-law and a plan of subdivision comprising of 220 units of freehold townhouses and apartment buildings, with a unit count of 775 units, along the Finch Avenue West frontage. A report on the above noted applications, was adopted by North York Community Council at its meeting held on Wednesday July 22, 1998.

2.0Meeting of North York Community Council July 22, 1998:

At its meeting held on July 22, 1998, North York Community Council adopted the following recommendations:

"The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to:

(a)consult with the appropriate officials of the provincial Ministry of Natural Resources; the Ministry of Community and Social Services; and the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation; and the appropriate officials of the federal Ministry of Canadian Heritage/Parks Canada; and

(b)report back to the Community Council meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, on grants and programs which may be available through these agencies that would enable the acquisition of these lands for parks and community related purposes."

3.0Consultation:

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism contacted the above noted Ministries enquiring about grants and programs for the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes (see attached Schedules A, B, C and D).

Staff of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism have also made follow up phone enquiries to these Ministries regarding the status of our request for information.

Comments and Discussion:

4.0Information Received:

At the time of writing this report, three Ministries contacted have formally responded in writing. Staff from the remaining Ministry verbally acknowledged receipt of our letter and have advised that they would be forwarding our request to another Ministry for response.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage / Parks Canada forwarded our response to the Office of the Secretary of State (Parks) for response. The Executive Assistant to the Secretary of State (Parks) response (see attached Schedule E) advises that the North York lands in question would not qualify for inclusion in the programs for which Parks Canada is responsible.

In a letter from the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation (see attached Schedule F), the Minister advises that the Province has not provided capital assistance for such purposes for quite a number of years, and currently has no plans to do so in the future. The Minister suggests use of the appropriate sections of the Planning Act which enable municipalities to secure parkland and facilities for community related purposes.

An official from the Ministry of Community and Social Services has verbally advised staff from this Department that they do not have any grants nor programs for the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes. However, they have taken the liberty of forwarding our inquiry to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for review and a formal response. Staff have called the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and were advised that a response is forthcoming. At the time of writing this report no written response from the Ministry has been received.

In a letter from the Minister of Natural Resources (see attached Schedule G), the Minister advises there are no grants nor funding programs available through the Ministry of Natural Resources to fund municipal parkland acquisitions.

Conclusions:

The three Ministries that have responding in writing to date, have all advised that there are no grants or programs available through their Ministries for the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes.

Staff from Economic Development, Culture and Tourism will continue to pursue information from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing regarding the availability of grants and programs available for the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes.

If the correspondence received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing identifies grants or programs available for the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes, the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism will report back to North York Community Council as soon as that information is available. However, if the information received from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing advises that no grants nor programs are available for the acquisition of lands for parks and community related purposes through their Ministry, then the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism will advise the two local Councillors by providing them with a copy of the letter.

Contact Name:

Tim Park, Land Use Planner

Phone: 395-0221Fax: 395-7886

(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

6

Feasibility Study -

Yorkwoods Community Centre -

Black Creek

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends:

(1)the adoption of the following report October 1, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(2)that the public consultation meeting be held at the Yorkwoods Community Centre; and

(3)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report back to the North York Community Council on November 12, 1998.

Purpose:

This report seeks further direction from Community Council regarding authority provided to the Committee on Community, Race and Ethnic Relations to undertake a $30,000.00 feasibility study for the development of a Centre for Ethno-Cultural Development and Learning.

Source of Funds:

Through the adoption of Report No. 10, as amended in Clause 24, of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee at Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, approval was given to release $30,000.00 from an allocation of $80,000.00 which had been previously approved in the 1998 Capital Budget for demolition and park development on the Yorkwoods site. These monies, however, were to be released only upon both Councillors' consultations with their communities to endorse the study. Their respective efforts in this regard had differing outcomes and monies are therefore not able to be released by the Treasurer in compliance with the amended motion that was approved.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Parks and Recreation staff immediately convene a public consultation meeting to get community input into the question "should the existing building be a) retained for community uses other than recreation, or b) demolished and the green space/outside play amenities upgraded?";

(2)if a) is their preference, "should the feasibility study be undertaken within the conditions previously approved by Council?";

(3)if b) is their preference, Council's prior approval to demolish and redevelop the site at a cost not to exceed $80,000.00 be carried out; and

(4)the appropriate staff be authorized to carry out all things necessary to give effect thereto.

Background/History:

In 1997, monies were approved by North York Council to build a new recreation facility in Oakdale Park just 0.25 kilometers south of Yorkwoods Community Centre in the Jane/Finch Area (AppendixI). In 1998, City of Toronto Council approved $80,000.00 to demolish the Yorkwoods building/outdoor pool and develop the 1.0 acre site as a park with a children's play structure, plantings, furnishings and upgrades to the existing outdoor sports pad. The recommendation to demolish the site was made based on an architectural assessment commissioned in 1993, and on a 1996 study of parkland in the community.

In June of 1998, Councillor Li Preti made a deputation to Budget Committee seeking approval to allocate $30,000.00 out of an approved Capital Budget to undertake a study to determine, whether it is feasible to retain the Yorkwoods building, whether capital core and program funding is available from sources other than the City of Toronto to sustain it, and whether a Centre for Ethno-Cultural Development and Learning through the Faculty of Education, York University, is viable and warranted. It should be noted that we have been advised by York's Dean of Education that "it would be impossible for the University to share in any way in the costs of maintenance, renovations or ongoing upkeep of the Yorkwoods Community Centre". Subsequent approval from Council was given for the feasibility study to be conducted through the Community, Race and Ethnic Relations Committee on the condition that both Councillors garner support in the community. There appears to be support for further study regarding the use of the site, but Councillor Augimeri's consultation identified community opposition regarding the source of funding. Their concern is that if further study supports the position that the building is not usable or sustainable, the funds remaining in the Capital Budget ($50,000.00) would be insufficient to demolish the structure and to provide the necessary outdoor amenities.

Comments:

The architectural assessment completed by J and R Engineering indicated that the thirty-three year old building and the outdoor pool require major work over the next few years, totalling an estimated $198,600.00 (at 1993) costs). The building is beyond its useful life for public recreation purposes, and has restrictions for other uses, e.g. no parking, inaccessibility to persons with physical disabilities.

Staff completed a review of the parkland in the Jane Heights Residential Community. Yorkwoods Community Centre, outdoor pool and park area, is 1.0 acre in size. The footprint of the new Oakdale building, pool, and associated parking will consume some 1.25 acres of the available space at Oakdale Park. Even if the Yorkwoods site is retained as open space, there will be a net reduction overall in open space in the neighbourhood of 0.25 acres. This would impact a community which is already deficient in open space by 12.81 acres.

The Oakdale Community Centre is in the final stages of development with an anticipated completion date of October 31, 1998. During the design stage of the Oakdale project in 1997, feedback from the community supported reverting the Yorkwoods site to open space upon completion of the new Oakdale, as there was some opposition to taking away green space at the Oakdale site. Concerns were satisfied at the time through staff's recommendation to demolish Yorkwoods and therefore, only slightly reduce the net green space in their neighbourhood.

Conclusions:

Due to conflicting outcomes of the two Councillors' consultations with their communities, the Treasurer is unable to release monies for the feasibility study. In order to provide further direction regarding this centre, direct consultation between staff and the community is warranted.

Contact Name:

Gary W. Stoner

District Lead - North

Parks and Recreation Division

Telephone: 395-6190Fax: 395-0105

E-mail: gwstoner@north-york.on.ca

________

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (September30, 1998) from Mr. Barry Rieder, Jane Finch Community Minister, Network of Community Based Organizations, forwarding comments regarding the study.

(A copy of Appendix I referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

7

Zoning By-law Amendment - Garland's Bush -

Lawrence Park Community - West of Midenhall Road -

Exemption to R3 Zoning - North York Centre South

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following Resolution from Councillor Flint, North York Centre South:

WHEREAS the residential subdivision known as Garland's Bush, which generally comprises Registered Plan 4458 west of Mildenhall Road, has substantially different lot dimensions and built-character than most of the Lawrence Park Residential Community in which it is located; and

WHEREAS many of the lots in Garland's Bush have much larger frontages than the lots in the blocks to its north, and have larger lot areas than in the blocks to the south, resulting in a lower density of development within Garland's Bush compared to the community around it; and

WHEREAS Garland's Bush and the community around it currently have the same "R3" zoning; and

WHEREAS the Housing Policies of the Official Plan for the former City of North York contain Specific Residential Land Use Policies for the RD-1 designation, which includes this area, stating,

"In many areas, the Residential Density One (RD-1) designation has been applied to lands developed with residential lots substantially larger than the typical residential lots historically developed in the City ... resulting in a lower density of development in these areas. It is the intent of this Plan that the existing low density of such areas shall be maintained and that no new lots be created by severance which have lot sizes substantially smaller than the general lot size in the surrounding area.";

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Director of Community Planning - North District study and report on the suitability of a zoning bylaw amendment to establish an Exception to the R3 zoning for the Garland's Bush area to bring the zoning regulations such as lot frontage, lot width, and lot area, more in line with the existing lot configurations and the existing built form.

8

Proposed Pay Parking - Civic Garden Centre -

North York Centre South

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 5, 1998) from Councillor Joanne Flint, North York Centre South, and Councillor Milton Berger, North York Centre South:

On July 30th, Toronto Council directed the Ward 9 Councillors to continue discussion with regular user groups of the Civic Garden Centre to gather pertinent information, consult with local residents' associations and put forth recommendations to Toronto Council in October. (Appendix 'A')

To date, non-profit user groups that together involve over 12,500 volunteers have been identified (Appendix 'B'), including The Garden Club of Toronto, Milne House Garden Club, Ontario Rock Garden Society whose representatives have met with Parks staff and local Councillors over the pay parking initiative.

Thousands of volunteers are repeat users of the parking lot. To provide a relief system for them from having to pay would be cumbersome and costly. It would also result in considerably reduced revenue projections.

Many user groups report that a significant number of their members are seniors. Meetings are held during the days and evenings and on weekends. The Civic Garden Centre booking schedule indicates almost full capacity use (Appendix 'C'). Organizations have contributed countless hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to the care and improvement of the park. A recent example is the Toronto Garden Club's establishment of The Teaching Garden - at a cost of $350,000.00. This amount was raised by the club members with no government assistance. The Teaching Garden is open to the public free of charge and is very popular with school groups.

Other significant facts are:

1.the original Wintario Grant that provided funds to establish the Civic Garden Centre in early 1960's was obtained on the premise that the facility would be a centre for the community;

2.the Edwards family, who gave the land to the City for a park clearly expected their legacy to be enjoyed by citizens at no cost (Appendix 'D');

3.there is no commuter parking problem, and this park has not been identified as a location to promote TTC use. The proposed pay parking scheme is solely to produce general revenue for the Parks Department;

4.the majority of users are not tourists from out of town, but City of Toronto taxpayers. Many live in apartment buildings and enjoy the green open space of the park. They are not wealthy. Many come as families; and

5.there is a minor spill-over parking problem on summer weekends when up to 70 wedding parties per weekend are permitted to use the park to take photographs. The permit fee is currently being reviewed.

As per Council's direction, the Presidents and/or representatives from three adjoining ratepayer associations: Glenorchy, South Banbury and Don Mills Residents Association have been consulted. Their concerns focus on the principle of the public having to pay to use public open space, and the potential for spill-over parking problems for their neighbourhoods. (See letters attached)

Motorists will go to great lengths to avoid paying to park vehicles. Residents in Lawrence Park in the vicinity of Sunnybrook Health Science Centre experienced such a severe spill-over parking problem (including blocked driveways, litter, traffic congestion) that "No Parking Anytime" restrictions had to be installed. This prohibition directly affects residents and their guests and has left many property owners feeling as though they are paying an onerous price for Sunnybrook's pay parking scheme.

Conclusion:

Civic Garden Centre acts as a community centre for groups and individuals whose focus is horticulture, the environment and education. Thousands of volunteers contribute to the financial viability of the Centre through special events and projects. The care and improvement of the park and its facilities that volunteers have contributed has saved the City hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It is costly and difficult to single out the many volunteers of the Centre for relief of parking fees. In any event, they form a large percentage of the users of the parking lot. Therefore, estimates of revenue depend on volunteers and are inflated. Free use of passive park space is an expected norm in our society and the Edwards family members clearly expected their legacy to be enjoyed by citizens at no cost. The suburban location of Civic Garden Centre and Edwards Gardens makes it awkward to access by public transit. Based on experience of Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, it is expected that a pay parking scheme would create a spill-over problem for local residents.

The spirit of people and events at Edwards Gardens and the Civic Garden Centre is educational, inclusive and gracious. Pay parking is seen as a revenue generation scheme that violates this spirit and provides no benefit to the park or its users or volunteers.

Recommendation:

That Edwards Gardens be removed from the list of City parks identified by the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department for pay parking.

________

(A copy of the Appendices and letters referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:

(i)(October 13, 1998) from Ms. D. Susan Gibson, President, The Garden Club of Toronto, on behalf of 472 volunteers members of the Garden Club of Toronto, in support of the recommendation that the Civic Garden Centre be removed from the list of facilities that are identified for pay parking;

(ii)(October 8, 1998) from Mr. J. Winters, expressing his opposition to the pay parking proposal;

(iii)(October 8, 1998) from Ms. Mara Arndt, in support of Council's rejection of pay parking at the Civic Garden Centre/Edwards Gardens;

(iv)(October 5, 1998) from Ms. Mary Wahl, Glenorchy Residents Association, expressing objections to the proposal;

(v)(October 5, 1998) from Ms. Anna Leggatt, Chairman, Ontario Rock Garden Society, in support of the recommendation that the Civic Garden Centre be removed from the list of facilities that are identified for pay parking;

(vi )(September 30, 1998) from Mr. Ken Dunsmore, President, Don Mills Residents Inc., expressing objections to the proposal and forwarding a survey of the origins of visitors to Edwards Gardens; and

(vii)(September 28, 1998) petition from approximately 58 residents of the South Banbury community expressing their concerns with the pay parking proposal.

9

Subdivision Application UDSB-1235 -

Graywood Developments Limited -

Proposed Residential Subdivision - Proposed Road Allowances -

Ferrand Drive and Rochefort Drive - Don Parkway

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends approval of the 18.5 metre wide road allowances for the subject plan of subdivision internal roads as outlined in the following report (October 5, 1998) from the Director, Engineering Services, Districts 3 and 4:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request Council's direction regarding the owner's request for an exemption from the former City of North York Public Road Policy to permit 18.5 metre wide road allowances within the proposed plan of subdivision. The policy requires a minimum road allowance of 20.0m.

Source of Funds:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.Council give direction with respect to the owner's proposal to provide only 18.5 metre wide road allowances for the plan of subdivision internal roads; and

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

Discussion:

We have received the following communication dated September 9, 1998 from Mr. Harold Reinthaler, P. Eng., O.L.S. on behalf of the applicant for the proposed plan of subdivision:

"In the above-captioned subdivision internal local roads are proposed with a right-of-way width of 18.5m. As a result, we wish to request from the Community Council an exemption from the existing Roads Standards and Policies."

The proposed plan of subdivision is situated on the lands bound by Ferrand Drive to the east, west and north, and Rochefort Drive to the south. It has not yet received the draft plan approval from the City.

The draft plan of subdivision, submitted by Graywood Developments Ltd., indicates 8.5 metre roads on 18.5m road allowances on all proposed streets within the plan. The former City of North York Council Policy on Public Roads requires 20.0m minimum road allowances except that reduced road allowances of 18.5m may be permitted, but only for the roads that are minor loops or that end in a cul-de-sac, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Public Works. The major concern of the Works and Emergency Services Department is that within the subdivision plan, 20.0m minimum width road allowances are required whereas the applicant proposes reduced road allowances of 18.5 metres throughout the plan even though they are not minor loops. The use of reduced road allowances of 18.5m within the subdivision plan may increase long term maintenance and replacement costs for City infrastructure and for utility company plants.

The applicant has provided written correspondence from the Toronto Hydro Electric Commission and Consumers Gas Co., indicating no objection to the proposed 18.5 metre road allowances. It is also expected that Bell Canada and Rogers Cablesystems will have no objection.

Conclusion:

The department requests Council's direction on the applicant's request for exemption from the former City of North York Public Roads Policy to permit 18.5m, rather than the required 20.0m, road allowances within the proposed plan of subdivision.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Raffi Bedrosyan, P. Eng.

Chief Development Engineer

Tel: 416-395-6307

Fax: 416-395-0349

E-mail: rbedrosy@city.north-york.on.ca

10

Sign By-law Variance Request -

Signage Systems - 1825 Wilson Avenue -

North York Humber

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends that the following report (October 14, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official, not be adopted and that the request by Signage Systems for a minor variance from the Sign By-law be approved subject to the maximum size of the sign being 250 sq. ft. per side.

Purpose:

Evaluate and make recommendations regarding a request by Bob Muir of Signage Systems for a variance from the sign by-law to permit the erection of a ground sign at the above noted location. Refer to attachment for details.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for a minor variance from the sign-bylaw be refused.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Bob Muir of Signage Systems is requesting permission to install a ground sign 31'-3" x 16'-0" in size at the above noted location. This proposed ground sign will replace an existing 7' x 14' double-sided pylon sign located at the rear of the property facing Highway 401. There is also an existing ground sign, 24 sq.ft. in aggregate area, facing Wilson Ave.

The property is located in a MC zone and has a frontage of 69.95 ft. The sign by-law stipulates that the minimum street frontage to permit the erection of a ground sign is 80.0 ft and only one ground sign is permitted on a lot which has a street frontage between 69.95 ft. and 150.3 ft. The sign by-law also limits the aggregate area of such ground sign to 75.3 sq. ft..

The request from Bob Muir of Signage Systems encompasses the following variances from the sign by-law:

-the property where the sign is to be erected does not meet the minimum street frontage;

-the aggregate area of the proposed ground sign is 500 sq. ft. compared to the maximum recommended sign area of 75.3 sq. ft.; and

-the property would have two ground signs where none would be allowed.

The ward councillors have been notified of this request and have been provided with a copy of the report with the attached plans.

Conclusions:

It is the opinion of this department that the proposed ground sign would not meet the intent of the sign by-law and that the requested minor variances should be refused.

Contact Name:

Magda Ishak., P. Eng.Tel:(416) 395-7555

Manager, Plan ReviewFax:(416) 395-7589

________

(A copy of the plans referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (October 9, 1998) from Mr. Bob Muir, Account Executive, Signage Systems, forwarding a copy of the Ministry of Transportation permit.

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

-Mr. Bob Muir, Account Executive, Signage Systems; and

-Mr. John Ruberto, Stephenson's Rental.

11

Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application

UDZ-97-12 and UDSP-97-042 -

Edilcan Development Corporation -

16, 18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng Avenue - North York Centre

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following reports (July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, and Supplementary Report No. 1 (September 22, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Edilcan Development Corporation regarding Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application for 16, 18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng Avenue, be approved, as set out in the referenced supplementary report:

The North York Community Council reports for the information of Council having requested the applicant, Edilcan Development Corporation, to continue to work with City staff on the acquisition of parkland to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement up to the time of the issuance of the building permit.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following Supplementary Report No. 1 (September 22, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to table a revised draft by-law for the Public Meeting on the Edilcan application and to report on revised recommendations from the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department with respect to park requirements. Edilcan Development Corporation is seeking zoning on their property, located at 16, 18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng Avenue, which would allow for redevelopment of the site. A report on this proposal was received by the North York Community Council on July 22, 1998. The public meeting is scheduled for the October 14, 1998 North York Community Council meeting.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application be approved with the revised conditions attached as Appendix1 to this report.

Background:

Technical modifications have been made to the draft by-law consistent with the intent of the report considered at the July 22, 1998 meeting of North York Community Council. A revised by-law has been prepared which ensures consistency in the use of certain words, corrects the maximum parking requirements for this development, and now includes the minimum lot area required for development of the properties.

Revised comments have been received from the Economic Development Culture and Tourism Department (see Schedule "B") which recommend the acceptance of cash in lieu of parkland.

Discussion:

The draft by-law which was appended to the staff report which was received by Community Council on July 22, 1998, has been revised by making a minor change to the definition of "private recreational amenity space" and by standardizing its use throughout the by-law. In addition, "residential units" have been changed to "dwelling units" [Subsection (f)] and the word "regulations" has been changed to "provisions" [Subsection (n)].

The parking requirements have been corrected so that the maximum parking space per dwelling unit is 1.3 plus the visitors requirement.

The maximum building height permitted has been revised to 48.0 metres to reflect the height of the proposed building.

City staff requested that the applicant purchase 30 Byng Avenue, a portion of which will be used for the Uptown Service Road and the widening of Byng Avenue. The sale of this property to Edilcan is conditional upon approval of the rezoning application. The conditions of approval direct that the City Solicitor be satisfied that the conveyance of 30 Byng Avenue to the City has been adequately secured prior to the enactment of the zoning.

Conclusions:

The revised by-law attached as Schedule "A" to this report reflects minor revisions to the by-law for this application. This by-law, along with the report received by Community Council on July 22, 1998, should be considered at the statutory public meeting for this application on October 14, 1998.

Contact Name:

Gwen Manderson, Senior Planner

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416)395-7117

The North York Community Council also submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of a proposed development of the properties at 16, 18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng Avenue, located east of Yonge Street and south of Finch Avenue East. The applicant, Edilcan Development Corporation, is seeking to amend the Zoning By-law to permit one 14 storey residential apartment building with 136 units, having frontage on Byng Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following:

(1)staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any zoning by-law the following conditions have been satisfied:

Zoning By-law

(a)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached as Schedule "O" to this report has been perfected;

(b)the Owner has paid to the City in cash or certified cheque, the Yonge Centre Development Charges in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time;

(c)a 2.933 metre widening along the Byng Avenue frontage has been conveyed to the City free and clear of all encumbrances; and

(d)the relevant portion of a lot identified on a Plan of Survey prepared by Paul Kidd Surveyors Ltd., dated and signed by the Surveyor on January 16, 1998, as Lot 51, R.P. 2282, be conveyed to the City free and clear of all encumbrances for the Service Road;

General

(e)the Owner has made arrangements satisfactory to the Acting Commissioner of Planning and to the Parks and Recreation Division to fulfill the conditions set out in Schedule "K"; and

(f)the Owner has acknowledged and agreed that prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, the following condition will be required to have been met:

(i)that they shall pay to the City in cash or certified cheque, on or before Building Permit issuance, the City-wide and Hydro Development Charges, the Sewer and Water Services Development Charge, and the Sheppard Subway Development Charge, in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time; and

(2)prior to enactment of the zoning by-law, the Acting Commissioner of Planning shall have granted site plan approval with the conditions generally described in Appendix "B".

Background:

The subject property is located in the Uptown of the North York Centre and is subject to the policies of Part D.1 and D.3 of the Official Plan. Council has adopted an amendment to this Secondary Plan, the North York Centre Secondary Plan (OPA 447), which is now before the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval.

In March 1997, Edilcan Development Corporation submitted applications for a zoning amendment to increase the permitted residential density on their site and for site plan approval. At that time, the site consisted of 16, 18, 20 and 26 Byng Avenue. The proposed development of these lands relied upon the use of the municipal laneway for site access for service vehicles. This would limit future options for the laneway, however, when there is redevelopment of the Yonge Street properties adjacent to the lane.

The property at 30 Byng Avenue is identified in the Environmental Study Report for the Uptown Service Road and Associated Road Network as required to implement the service road. Given the site's location relative to this section of the Uptown Service Road, and the expectation that development will contribute to the road infrastructure, a revised site plan (dated February 27, 1998) was submitted on March 10, 1998 (and subsequently on June 19, 1998) which now includes 30 Byng Avenue. The property at 30 Byng Avenue was acquired by the applicant in order to provide additional land to resolve its site access and servicing concerns, and contribute to the infrastructure for the Uptown Service Road.

1.0Proposal

The application proposes a zoning by-law amendment in order to permit a change in the zoning to permit a residential apartment house dwelling.

The applicant's proposed zoning will allow a maximum gross floor area of 12,151.1 m² (130,797.63 sq.ft.) on the site representing a density of 3.75 FSI. Table 1 below describes the proposal statistics.

*Includes lands to be conveyed for the Service Road and the widening of Byng Avenue.

Two site plans have been submitted for this site which shows an interim scenario (Schedule "D") and an ultimate scenario (Schedule "C") for site access. This development site abuts a section of the Uptown Service Road. The site can be developed before the adjacent section of the service road is constructed. The ultimate point of access for the development will be onto the service road. Until it is constructed however, interim access from the site will be onto Byng Avenue.

2.0Location and Existing Site

The site is located on the north side of Byng Avenue, east of Yonge Street and south of Finch Avenue East. At present, the site is occupied by five single family detached dwellings. A mix of residential and commercial uses surround the site. A condominium townhouse complex with approximately 17units is located to the north, single family detached dwellings and a vacant lot are to the south forming a future phase of the Tridel Northtown site, single family detached dwellings are to the east, and a municipally owned laneway and commercial uses fronting onto Yonge Street are located to the west.

To the east of the site, on lands occupied by single family detached dwellings, several properties are identified in the Environmental Study Report for the Uptown Service Road as required for the construction of the Uptown Service Road.

3.0Planning Controls

The application has been submitted under the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990.

3.1Official Plan

The Uptown Residential-One (UR-1) designation in the Official Plan allows commercial, residential, institutional, recreation, public parks. The total of all commercial uses on a site or portion of a site in this district shall not exceed 20 percent of the gross floor area attributable to the site or portion of the site. The density permitted is 3.75 FSI.

The lands are affected by an amendment to the Official Plan adopted by Council to repeal and adopt a new North York Centre Secondary Plan (OPA 447). OPA 447 does not change the designation of the site. An official plan amendment is not required for this site.

3.2 Zoning By-law

The site is zoned One Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone R4 which permits one family detached dwellings and incidental accessory buildings, certain home occupations, recreational, institutional and accessory uses. The zoning for the site is shown on Schedule "B".

3.3Site Plan

The Site Plan approval process is required by Council to proceed concurrently with the rezoning process for the City Centre development applications. The applicant submitted a Site Plan application which has been processed with the rezoning application and has provided detailed drawings to enable evaluation of the application in the context of the environment and urban design objectives of OPA447. The Acting Commissioner of Planning is delegated authority to approve site plan drawings and conditions of approval and is prepared to do so with Community Council consideration of this report. Urban design considerations are outlined in Appendix "A" and the recommended conditions of Site Plan approval are listed in Appendix "B".

Discussion:

4.0Other Department Comments

The application was circulated to departments and agencies in August 1997. In March 1998, a revised application was circulated to a limited number of departments and agencies. The following is a description of the most recent and pertinent comments received from circulated agencies and departments.

The Planning Department, Central Office, have no objections to the application. The applicant is to apply noise attenuation measures in the construction of the building and prospective purchasers and lessees are to be notified of the potential of noise and vibration intrusion. All conditions of approval are being fulfilled through conditions of site plan approval. (Schedule "H")

The Toronto Catholic School Board objects to the development proposal due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at its schools. (Schedule "I")

The Toronto District School Board, North York Office, advises that students emanating from the proposed development can not be accommodated at McKee Public School, Cummer Middle School or at Earl Haig Secondary School and that alternative accommodation arrangements will be required. (Schedule "J").

The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, Parks and Recreation Division advises that the applicant shall make an on-site parkland dedication or at the discretion of the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation the applicant can provide an off-site parkland dedication (within 0.8 km of the development site). (Schedule "K")

The Works and Emergency Services Department (Transportation) advises that the Department concurs with the findings and conclusions of the Traffic Impact Study prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant. Since the timing for the section of the Service Road, north of Byng Avenue to Finch Avenue East is not known, the applicant has prepared an Interim and Ultimate access scenario. All conditions of approval are bing fulfilled through the draft by-law and conditions of approval for site plan. (Schedule "L")

The Works and Emergency Services Department (Public Works) advises that interim trunk capacities are available for future development. The allocation of Interim Sanitary Trunk capacity for this development is subject to Council approval of this application. Available municipal services for this development include water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. Land is to be conveyed to the City for the widening of Byng Avenue (2.933 metres) and for the Service Road. An addendum to these comments advises that the solid waste arrangement for both the interim and ultimate alternatives is satisfactory. The conditions are fulfilled through conditions of site plan approval. (Schedule "M")

5.0Community Consultation

A community meeting was held on May 12, 1998. The minutes for this meeting are attached as Schedule "N". The residents who attended the meeting raised questions related to comprehensive block development, and implementation and timing of the Uptown Service Road. A discussion of these issues follows in Section 6.0 Planning Issues. Correspondence has also been received from 3 residents/landowners in the area regarding this application (Schedule "P").

6.0Planning Analysis

The application proposes a residential land use which is permitted in the Official Plan . The site abuts the Uptown Service Road between Byng Avenue and Holmes Avenue. The following is a discussion on the development of these lands, including land use, the service road, traffic certification, comprehensive block development,, urban design and affordable housing.

6.1Land Use and Density

The residential land use and gfa proposed by the applicant conforms with the Official Plan, and can be accommodated under the Long Range Development Levels set out in the Official Plan.

Should Council enact the zoning for this property, there is interim sanitary trunk capacity available which will be allocated to this development.

6.2Transportation Planning

6.2.1Uptown Service Road

At the community meeting, there was concern from residents regarding the timing of the construction of the Service Road and the traffic in the area. This question was raised at the June24,1998 Community Council meeting during consideration of the UDZ-96-30 (Harry Snoek). At that meeting, Community Council directed that staff bring forward a plan for the Service Road. The report is scheduled for the Community Council meeting of July 22, 1998.

The Uptown Service Road is planned to accommodate the ultimate levels of development permitted by the Uptown Plan. Any new development must demonstrate that the traffic generated by the development can be accommodated in the existing road network. If the traffic cannot be accommodated, a functional section of the Service Road is required. The Traffic Impact Study submitted by the applicant has been reviewed by the Transportation Department. It shows that the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing road network.

A portion of the Edilcan site will be conveyed to the City for the Service Road.

6.2.2Jog elimination

Both the existing Official Plan and OPA 447 include site specific policies (Part D.3, Section 6.5 and Uptown Site Specific Policy 13.4) which identify that a jog elimination will be implemented at the intersection of Yonge Street/Kempford Avenue /Byng Avenue. This requirement has the effect of widening Byng Avenue in front of the Edilcan site. A 2.933 metre widening is required along the Byng Avenue frontage.

6.2.3Traffic Certification

It is the policy of Council not to approve a rezoning for a development having more than 5,000 m² of total floor space (including transfers and incentives) unless a traffic certification is completed and acceptable to Council and in accordance with the policies of the Official Plan.

Traffic certification has been provided by the applicant and is attached as Schedule "L". The Transportation Department has reviewed the Traffic Impact Study which accompanies this certification and concurs with its results.

6.2.4Municipal Laneway

Immediately west of the site is a municipally owned laneway, which is part of a laneway system in the North York Centre. Its purpose is to provide truck access for loading and unloading of goods and merchandise for commercial uses fronting onto Yonge Street. The proposed development will not affect the functioning of the existing lane.

6.3Comprehensive Block Development

In order to determine whether development of the Edilcan site would preclude development of the remainder of the block (Yonge Street, Holmes Avenue, Kenneth Avenue and Byng Avenue) it was analysed in relation to the development potential allowed on it by OPA 447.

Concept plans with viable options have been developed for illustrative purposes which test the potential for the block to develop, assuming the application is approved. These plans demonstrate that the application does not preclude development in the remainder of the block.

Residents at the community meeting questioned the need for comprehensive block development. Specifically, there were concerns regarding 19, 21 and 23 Holmes Avenue, located north of the proposed development, adjacent and west of the Service Road and east of the existing condominium townhouses. A portion of each of these lots is to be conveyed to the City for the Service Road or the realignment of Holmes Avenue to intersect with the Service Road. These lots may not realize their full development potential because of the existing condominium block which is expected to remain for the foreseeable future.

6.4Urban Design

The applicant has provided detailed drawings to enable evaluation of the application in the context of the environment and urban design objectives of OPA 447. The proposal generally conforms to the urban design policies of the Official Plan. The proposed residential building has a stepped roofline treatment and defined building podium which provide a positive streetscape and built form treatment.

6.5Community Services and Facilities

Parkland

The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, Parks and Recreation Division, has calculated the parkland dedication requirement using the OPA 447 standard of .6 hectares per 560 dwelling units which results in 1,457 m². Given that the site is less that 1 hectare in size, a 10 percent cap was applied, limiting the requirement to 324 m². The applicant is looking for an off site parkland dedication to satisfy this requirement. In the absence of an off site dedication, the City retains the right to require a 5 percent cash-in-lieu parkland dedication.

Schools

The Toronto District School Board has advised that students emanating from this development can not be accommodated and that alternative accommodation arrangements will be required.

The Toronto Catholic School Board objects to the development proposal due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at its schools which would normally serve this area.

Council has adopted a report which recommends that the City and the School Boards work together to develop a new protocol to address new residential development applications in the future in a way which recognizes that schools are an important element of the neighbourhood.

On-site Amenity Space

It is appropriate that residential development of 100 dwelling units or greater be required to provide a minimum of 1.5 m² per dwelling unit of private indoor and outdoor recreational space. Council has implemented this performance standard in recent approvals within the North York Centre and has proposed this standard as a matter of policy within the Official Plan.

The applicant has provided both private indoor and outdoor recreational space and has exceeded the amounts normally required in both cases. The private indoor recreational space required, based on the 1.5 m² standard, is 204.0 m². The applicant is proposing 230.0 m². The private outdoor recreational space required, based on the 1.5 m² standard, is 204.0 m². The applicant is proposing800 m².

6.6Affordable Housing

A minimum of 25 percent of the dwelling units are to be constructed in accordance with Council policy regarding affordable housing. The amending zoning by-law will contain a clause to implement this policy.

Conclusions:

The Edilcan proposal to develop the properties on Byng Avenue with one 14 storey residential building is appropriate development which is consistent with the policies of the Uptown Plan and the policies in Official Plan Amendment 447. The applicant is contributing land for the future Service Road. This will assist the City in achieving the infrastructure objectives of the Secondary Plan.

In accordance with Council policy, a Site Plan application has been processed concurrently with the rezoning application. The applicant has provided detailed plans and drawings that demonstrate the proposal satisfied the urban design objectives of the Uptown Plan.

Contact Name:

Gwen Manderson, Senior Planner

Telephone No.:395-7117

Fax No.:395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing reports is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:

(i)(September 30, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Gordon, advising of her opposition to the application; and

(ii)(undated) from Mr. Bert Yu Hsiang, expressing his concerns.

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

-Ms. Shirley Gordon who spoke in opposition to the application. Her primary objections with respect to the service road and increased noise and traffic. She was also concerned about her property being isolated and undevelopable given the location of the proposed service road.

-Mr. Jim Morwood who spoke in opposition to the application. His primary concerns were with respect to the lack of comprehensive development and the fact that no attempts were made to include his property and others on Holmes Avenue. He was also concerned about the City not encouraging the developer to incorporate additional properties. The extension of the ring road was also of concern to him and he was of the opinion that no development should occur until such time as the ring road is in place.

-Mr. Sal Vitiello, architect, on behalf of the applicant, who commented on the merits of the application. During his submission he indicated that the applicant concurred with the recommendations contained in the staff reports. He also stated that in March of 1997, planning staff requested the applicant to consider comprehensive development. In doing so, the applicant proceeded to acquire the property municipally known as 30 Byng Avenue, a portion of which would be used for the Uptown Service Road and the widening of Byng Avenue. Insofar as the concerns raised by the property owners on Holmes Avenue were concerned, he explained that the reasons for not incorporating them was because the blocks are too small.

-Mr. Barry Horosko, Bratty and Partners, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, who indicated that the applicant has attempted on three separate occasions to acquire property in the vicinity of their development in order to fulfill their parkland dedication requirement. However to date no agreement has been reached with any of the property owners. The Parks and Recreation Division has now recommended that the applicant be subject to a 5 percent residential cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment and the applicant would be amenable to that. In light of the request to search for properties in the area that can be used for parkland he suggested that a condition could be imposed by the Community Council that the applicant continue to work with City staff on the acquisition of parkland to satisfy the parkland dedication up to the date of the issuance of the building permit.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 23, 1998) from Mr. James Morwood, regarding the proposed development by Edilcan Development Corporation at 16,18, 20, 26 and 30 Byng Avenue.)

12

Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application

UDOZ-98-04 and UDSP-98-015 -

Oxford Hills Developments (Horsham) Inc. -

24, 26, 36, 38 and 44 Horsham Avenue - North York Centre

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following reports (July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre, and Supplementary Report No. 1 (September 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Oxford Hills Developments (Horsham) regarding Zoning Amendment and Site Plan Application for 24, 26, 36, 38 and 44 Horsham Avenue, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced supplementary report and subject to the following:

(1)that Recommendation (1) (b) of the supplementary report be amended to read as follows:

"the Owner has paid to the City in cash or certified cheque or other means acceptable to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, the Yonge Centre Development Charges in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time.";

(2)that the requirement relating to the 6 metre strip of land referred to in Recommendation (1) (c ) of the supplementary report be incorporated as part of the site plan agreement; and

(3)that the requirements of the Park and Recreation Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, referred to in Recommendation (1) (d) of the supplementary report be fulfilled prior to final approval of the site plan by the the Director, Community Planning, North District.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following Supplementary Report No. 1 (September 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to table a revised draft by-law for the Public Meeting on the Horsham application and to report on revised recommendations from the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department with respect to park requirements . The applicant is seeking zoning on the lands located at 24, 26, 36, 38 and 44 Horsham Avenue, which would allow for redevelopment of the site for 16 townhouses. A report on this proposal was received by the North York Community Council on July 22, 1998. The public meeting is scheduled for the October 14, 1998 North York Community Council meeting.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application be approved with the revised conditions attached as Appendix1 to this report.

Background:

Technical modifications have been made to the draft by-law consistent with the intent of the report considered at the July 22, 1998 meeting of North York Community Council. A revised by-law has been prepared which clarifies the recommended parking standard and revises the building envelope to reflect the revised building setbacks from Horsham Avenue.

Revised comments have been received from the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department (see Schedule "B") which recommend the acceptance of cash in lieu of parkland.

Discussion:

The draft by-law which was appended to the staff report which was received by Community Council on July 22, 1998, has been revised by making a minor clarification to the parking standard so that it reads "A total of 25 parking spaces shall be provided of which 4 parking spaces shall be for the use of visitors". In addition, the applicant has submitted a revised site plan to reflect the building setback conditions of site plan approval.

Conclusions:

The revised by-law attached as Schedule "A" to this report reflects minor revisions to the by-law for this application. This by-law, along with the report received by Community Council on July 22, 1998, should be considered at the statutory public meeting for this application on October 14, 1998.

Contact Name:

Nimrod Salamon, Senior Planner

North York Civic Centre

Telephone: (416)395-7134

The North York Community Council also submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Acting Commissioner of Planning, North York Civic Centre:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend the approval of the proposed development of the properties at 24 to 44 Horsham Avenue. The applicant is seeking to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a 16 unit 3 storey freehold townhouse development.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the following:

(1)staff be directed to do all things necessary to ensure that at the time of the enactment of any zoning by-law, the following conditions have been satisfied:

(a)an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached as Schedule "F" to this report has been perfected;

(b)the Owner has paid to the City in cash or certified cheque, the Yonge Centre Development Charges in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time;

(c)a 6 metre strip of land at the west end of the site as shown on Schedule "C" has been conveyed to the City free and clear of all encumbrances; all necessary easements as may be required to provide access to the development site shall be granted to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor until such time as the Uptown Service Road is constructed;

(d)the Owner has made arrangements satisfactory to the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department (Parks and Recreation Division) and Acting Commissioner of Planning to fulfill the conditions as set out in Schedule "G";

(e)the Owner has acknowledged and agreed that prior to the issuance of any building permit, the following condition will be required to have been met:

(i)that they shall pay to the City in cash or certified cheque, on or before building permit issuance, the City-wide and Hydro Development Charges, the Sewer and Water Services Development Charge, and the Sheppard Subway Development Charge, in accordance with Council policy as amended from time to time; and

(f)the Owner has submitted a letter of undertaking stating that the new townhouse lots will not be conveyed until the zoning by-law is in force;

(2)prior to enactment of the zoning by-law, the Acting Commissioner of Planning shall have granted site plan approval with the conditions generally described in Appendix "B";

(3)at the appropriate time, a by-law releasing part lot control on the site shall be brought forward; and

(4)prior to releasing part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have:

(a)submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land, the City will be advised in order that the part lot control exempting by-law may be revoked; and

(b)prepared a maintenance agreement for the common features of the development, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, all of which will form part of the undertaking to the City.

Council Reference/Background/History:

1.0Proposal:

The application proposes an amendment to the zoning by-law and site plan approval to permit the construction of a 16 unit, 3 storey freehold townhouse development. A statistical breakdown of the proposal is set out below:

2.0Location and Existing Site:

The site is located on the north side of Horsham Avenue just west of Canterbury Place and has an area of 0.28 hectares. The lands comprise 5 residential lots with a single detached dwelling on each lot.

On the abutting lands to the north fronting Hounslow Avenue is a townhouse development of 15 units. To the west and south of this site are single detached dwellings. Directly east of the site is a 2 storey Children's Aid facility and church. To the north-east at the corner of Horsham Avenue and Yonge Street is a 22 storey apartment building and 4 storey stacked townhouses.

3.0Planning Controls:

3.1Official Plan:

The site is located within the Uptown of the North York Centre. The site is designated Uptown Residential 2 which permits residential uses at a maximum density of 2.6 FSI as shown on Schedule"A". Commercial uses are not permitted. The proposal conforms with the Official Plan and no Official Plan amendment is required.

3.2Zoning:

The site is zoned R4 (One Family Detached Dwelling Fourth Density Zone) which generally permits single detached dwellings as shown on Schedule "B". The applicant has requested a zoning change to RM1 exception to permit townhouses.

3.3Site Plan:

The Site Plan approval proceeds concurrently with the rezoning process for the North York Centre development applications. The applicant has submitted a Site Plan application and has provided detailed drawings to enable evaluation of the application. The Acting Commissioner of Planning is delegated authority to approve site plan drawings and conditions of approval and is prepared to do so with Community Council consideration of this report. Site plan considerations are outlined in Appendix "A" and the recommended conditions of Site Plan approval are listed in Appendix "B".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

4.0Other Department Comments:

This section summarizes significant comments received from the departments and agencies to which the application was circulated.

The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department (Parks and Recreation Division) has indicated that the application is subject to an on site parkland dedication of 170 square metres. The Division is discussing with the applicant opportunities to acquire off site land for parks in the area. In addition, the applicant will be required to execute a Tree Preservation Agreement prior to the enactment of the by-law. The comments are outlined in Schedule "G".

The Works and Emergency Services Department (Public Works) has indicated that this application will form part of the sanitary sewer allocation upon enactment of the zoning by-law. The applicant is to convey to the City lands for the future Uptown Service Road. A number of Public Works conditions are discussed in Schedule "H". All conditions of approval are being fulfilled through conditions of site plan approval.

The Works and Emergency Services Department (Transportation) has recommended a parking mix of 21 resident parking spaces plus 4 visitor spaces. There are several comments regarding site plan issues which are outlined in Schedule "I". All conditions of approval are being fulfilled through the draft zoning by-law and conditions of site plan approval.

The Public Health Department has advised that there are no outstanding Public Health requirements pertaining to this site. Their comments are attached as Schedule "J".

The Toronto District School Board has advised that the anticipated students from the proposed development can be accommodated at the elementary and secondary schools serving this development, however they cannot be accommodated at Willowdale Middle School and alternative accommodation arrangements will be required for those students. Their comments are attached as Schedule "M".

The Toronto Catholic School Board has indicated that while the Board does not object to the proposal, it has concern regarding the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at the two secondary schools serving this development. Their comments are attached as Schedule "N".

5.0Community Consultation:

A community consultation meeting was held on April 22, 1998 attended by approximately 45 people. The following is a summary of the key issues that arose from the meeting:

• Need for visitor parking spaces on the site to alleviate concerns of on-street parking.

• Safety concerns relating to the Horsham/Canterbury intersection due to the speed of cars as well as the unusual road configuration.
• Impacts during construction - work hours and truck parking.

• How to ensure maintenance and upkeep of common areas.

• Construction of the Service Road is uncertain.

• Provide for a well articulated building.

• Ensure that houses to the west do not need to change their street address due to the proposed infill development.

A further meeting was held with residents, planning and transportation staff on June 4, 1998 to address the above concerns. Key questions that were addressed at that meeting, in addition to those expressed previously, were:

• There was a consensus among the residents that 25 parking spaces should be provided of which 6 would be for visitors.

• The City should examine intersection improvements at Horsham Avenue and Canterbury Place in order to address safety concerns.

• The location of truck parking during construction should be determined.

This report discusses ways in which the overall supply of parking has been increased to meet these community concerns. In addition, the Works and Emergency Services (Transportation and Public Works staff) are in the process of preparing a report on the improvement of the Horsham and Canterbury intersection as a local road improvement.

Also arising out of the community meeting, the owner of 50 Horsham Avenue and the applicant have entered into discussions with respect to the fencing of this property during the construction period and until such time as their property is acquired for construction of the service road. Conditions of site plan approval have addressed the requirements for 1.8m construction fencing and the applicant and the property owner are discussing more permanent fencing options that may be desirable.

The question of the implementation of the Uptown Service Road was raised at this community meeting and also at the June 14, 1998 meeting of Community Council during its consideration of UDZ 96 30 (Harry Snoek). At that meeting, Community Council directed that staff bring forward a plan for the service road. This report is scheduled for the July 22, 1998 Community Council agenda.

6.0Planning Issues:

6.1Land Use:

The proposed townhouses are in keeping with the permitted uses of the Official Plan designation on the site.

6.2Density:

The maximum permitted density on the site is 2.6 FSI. The proposed development is at a density of 1.1 FSI.

6.3Site Context:

The Official Plan permits a maximum height equal to 70 percent of the distance from the Relevant Residential Property Line (RRPL) for the east half of the site, and equal to 50 percent of the distance from the RRPL for the west half of the site. The proposal for 3 storey townhouses represents a lower height than the maximum permitted under the Official Plan and would have a similar height to the existing townhouses on the abutting lands to the north (Schedule "E"). The proposed townhouses complement the existing development to the north with the townhouse units located along the front and garages and a driveway along the rear of the property. Final site plan drawings will also coordinate the grade considerations of the two development sites and the way in which both can effectively access the Uptown Service Road in the future.

6.4Urban Design:

The applicant has provided detailed drawings to enable evaluation of the application in the context of the environment and urban design objectives of OPA 447. The proposal generally conforms to the urban design policies of the Official Plan. The proposed townhouses provide a good transition to the stable residential area to the west. The proposal also provides a positive streetscape and built form treatment.

6.5Transportation:

6.5.1Service Road:

The Uptown Service Road is planned to accommodate the ultimate levels of development permitted by the North York Centre Plan for the Uptown. The applicant will be required to pay Yonge Centre Development Charges, a portion of which is allocated for the construction of the Service Road.

Part of the site is located in the Uptown Service Road. The Transportation Department has advised that the applicant is required to convey a 6 metre wide strip of land along the west side of the site to the City, as shown on Schedule "C". The lands will be held by the City until such time as the remainder of the lands to the west are obtained for the Service Road. The owner is to enter into an easement agreement with the City permitting temporary driveway access to this development from Horsham Avenue until the Service Road is constructed after which the temporary driveway will be removed and access obtained off the Service Road. The Transportation Department has recommended that the proposed future driveway be not less than 6.0 metres from the north property line so that adequate driveway spacing is attained along the Service Road.

6.5.2Parking:

The City Centre Parking Policy for residential uses is minimum 1 space to maximum 1.4 spaces per dwelling unit of which 0.1 spaces per dwelling unit is for visitors. For this development application, this parking rate results in a maximum of 22 parking spaces of which 1 space is for visitors. At the community meetings, residents expressed concern that a lack of sufficient visitor parking might result in on-street parking. Some of the concerns stem from the existing townhouse development to the north on Hounslow Avenue where it appears that some of the units were occupied before all the garages and visitor spaces were completed.

The North York Centre Parking standard applies to all residential units without differentiation as to the type of residential development. The proposed development is for freehold townhouses and there are no opportunities for shared parking between uses. Transportation staff is recommending that a total of 25 parking spaces be provided of which a minimum of 4 spaces are for visitors. This is reflected in the draft by-law (Schedule "F"). The consensus of the residents at the community meeting was that a total of 25 parking spaces should be provided of which 6 spaces should be set aside for visitors.

In order to ensure that no townhouse unit receives occupancy prior to the unit's parking space and garage being constructed, a condition has been included in the Site Plan Recommendations (Appendix"B") that sets this out.

6.5.3Intersection Improvements:

At the community meetings, residents raised questions surrounding the road configuration at Horsham Avenue and Canterbury Place (Schedule "B"). Their concerns relate to the design of the intersection and the speed of traffic.

It should be noted that the road configuration has been in existence for quite some time. The application has little bearing on the road operation at this location. Notwithstanding, in light of the residents bringing their concerns to the attention of staff, a review of the collision records has been undertaken. There is only one incident reported over a three year period. This does not necessarily warrant the redesign of the intersection. However, as the area will be undergoing construction associated with the development, staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department are reviewing the possibility of a redesign of the intersection which, if approved, could occur within the 1999 construction year.

6.6Release of Part Lot Control and Maintenance of Common Areas:

The applicant is requesting release of part lot control in order that the proposed townhouse development may be conveyed into 16 separate dwelling units.

On October 18, 1995 Council adopted policy recommendations regarding the approval requirements for part lot control exemption. The policy requires that the applicant submit a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land the City will be advised in order that the exempting by-law may be revoked. The letter of undertaking shall also state that the new townhouse lots will not be conveyed until the zoning by-law is in force.

A number of residents questioned how common areas are to be maintained on the site. The proposed development is freehold townhouses but to be served by a common driveway. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the City requiring the unit owners to jointly maintain the common elements (mutual driveway, drainage, hard services) and requiring mutual easements giving mutual rights-of-way to again access over other unit owners lands. This agreement is to be registered on title guaranteeing that the owners and their successors will be responsible for the provision, construction, maintenance and repair of the common elements. The applicant has indicated that an association will be created for this development of 16 owners with an agreement registered on title as to its operation and maintenance of common driveway areas of the development.

It is recommended that prior to release of part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have prepared a maintenance agreement for the common features of the development, satisfactory to the City Solicitor. This has been included in the recommendations of this report.

6.7Community Services and Facilities:

6.7.1Parkland:

The Parks and Recreation Division has calculated the parkland dedication requirement using the OPA 447 standard of .6 hectares per 560 dwelling units which results in an on site parkland conveyance of 170 square metres. Parks staff are working with the applicant to acquire an off-site parkland dedication. In the absence of an off-site dedication, the City retains the right of 5 percent cash-in-lieu. This site is adjacent to the West Willowdale Community which is indicated in the Parkland Acquisition Strategy as having a parkland supply of 1.32 hectares per 1,000 population, which is above the 1 hectare per 1,000 population parks standard.

6.7.2Private Amenity Space:

The applicant proposes to provide a small private outdoor recreational space area for each of the 16 proposed freehold townhouses. The private and common outdoor recreational space will be perfected through the site plan approval process.

Conclusions:

The proposal to develop the lands on the north side of Horsham Avenue just west of Canterbury Place with a 16 unit 3 storey townhouse development is appropriate development which is consistent with the policies of the North York Centre Plan. The proposal complements the existing townhouse development on the abutting lands to the north and provides a good transition to the residential lands to the west. The applicant is contributing lands for the future Service Road.

Works and Emergency Services Department staff are examining options for improvements to the Horsham and Canterbury intersection that will address existing traffic concerns brought forth by area residents.

In accordance with Council policy, a Site Plan application has been processed concurrently with the rezoning application. The applicant has provided detailed plans and drawings that demonstrate the proposal satisfies the urban design policies of the North York Centre Plan.

Contact Name:

Nimrod Salamon, Senior Planner

Phone: 395-7134Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing reports is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it communications (October 13, 1998 and September 29, 1998) from Mr. Eli Levy, the most recent of which indicated that his concerns with the builder had been resolved and he was withdrawing his objections to the project.

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

-Mr. Steve Mullins, who expressed concern with respect to the future extension of the ring road. In his opinion, the City must insist that the developers acquire the necessary lands for the extension of the service road otherwise this service road will never be completed. At the present time traffic is increasing primarily because the flow of traffic is northerly. The service road is needed in order to facilitate this flow of traffic to Finch Avenue. The service road also re-confirms and re-establishes the boundary between the residential area and the redevelopment area.

-Ms. Joanne Barnett, Planning Consultant, on behalf of the applicant, who addressed the concerns raised. During her submission she pointed out that one of the conditions of approval is that the applicant convey a 6 metre strip of land at the west end of the site to the City until such time at the Uptown Service Road is constructed.

13

Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-12 -

Tak On Developments Ltd. - 221 Finch Avenue East -

North York Centre

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (September 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Tak On Developments Ltd. regarding Zoning Amendment for 221 Finch Avenue East, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 19, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this final report is to provide appropriate conditions of approval for this application.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this application be approved subject to the following conditions:

(1)the R6 zoning on the property be amended to RM2(19);

(2)the RM2(19) zoning exception be amended by deleting section (b) and replacing it with the following:

"(b)(i)the minimum lot frontage shall be 7 metres for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 15 metres for each semi-detached dwelling or duplex dwelling; and

(ii)for property zoned RM2(19) at 221 Finch Avenue East, the minimum lot frontage shall be 7 metres for each semi-detached dwelling unit and 14.5 metres for each semi-detached dwelling;

(3)prior to enactment of the zoning by-law, the applicant shall: (i) submit a landscape plan satisfactory to the Director, Community Planning, North District, specifically addressing site and streetscape improvements in accordance with Secondary Plan guidelines, required Finch Avenue widening, and preservation of existing trees; and (ii) convey all required road widenings along Finch Avenue East;

(4)the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division as set out in Schedule F; and

(5)at the appropriate time, Council approve a by-law for exemption from part lot control in accordance with the conditions and policies adopted for part lot control exemption. Prior to releasing part lot control on the site, the applicant shall have submitted a letter of undertaking stating that upon the sale or transfer of the last parcel of land, the City will be advised in order that the part lot control exempting by-law may be revoked.

Background:

Proposal:

The application proposes an amendment to the zoning by-law to permit a semi-detached dwelling on the site, as shown on attached Schedule C. Pertinent site statistics are set out below:

* based on required Finch road widening of 5.1 metres

Location and Existing Site:

The site is located on the south side of Finch Avenue East, between Wilfred Avenue and Estelle Avenue. This portion of Finch Avenue is developed with predominantly single-family, detached dwelling uses. Immediately west of the site is a place of worship and immediately east is a one-storey detached dwelling.

Planning Controls:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Central Finch Residential One (CFR-1) within the Central Finch Secondary Plan, which permits single and multiple-unit residential uses, in addition to parks uses, and places of worship. The Central Finch Secondary Plan encourages redevelopment and intensification of land uses in order to promote a mixed use area between Bathurst Street and Bayview Avenue. On Finch Avenue East, the Plan particularly encourages small multiple-unit residential buildings fronting onto Finch Avenue east of Willowdale Avenue. The maximum density permitted by the CFR-1 designation, for sites with a frontage of less than 30 metres, is 1.0 FSI.

Zoning:

The site is zoned One-Family Detached Dwelling, Sixth Density Zone (R6), which permits single-family residential uses.

Comments and Discussion:

Other Department Comments:

The Works and Emergency Services Department, Technical Services Division comments are attached as Schedule E.

The Works and Emergency Services Department, Transportation Services Division, notes that a total of 4 parking spaces are provided in conformity with by-law requirements. Further, a widening of 5.0 and 5.1 metres respectively along the westerly and easterly limit of the property is to be conveyed to the City for the required 36 metre Finch Avenue right-of-way. The applicant had shown a 4.87 metre conveyance. Additional comments are attached as Schedule F.

No objections were received from any of the departments and agencies circulated.

A community consultation meeting was not required for this application.

Planning Issues:

Land Use and Density

The proposed development meets the land use and density objectives of the Central Finch Secondary Plan.

Building Height

The Plan requires an overall building height of the lesser of three storeys or 10 metres, and requires that the height of any building shall not exceed 70 percent of the horizontal distance separating the new building from the nearest stable residential property line. With a proposed height of 3 storeys and 10 metres, and a rear yard setback of over 18 metres (61 ft.), the proposal falls within the building height and angular plane policies of the Plan.

Zoning Provisions

In October 1997, zoning exception RM2(19) was created in the context of a similar rezoning application at 142 Finch Avenue East. This exception (attached as Schedule H) is intended to apply to all semi-detached and duplex dwelling redevelopment within the Central Finch Secondary Plan area, with provisions set out for gross floor area, building height, and lot coverage maximums; and lot frontage, lot area, yard setbacks, and required parking minimums. With design modifications to the side yard setbacks, and to the front yard setback (from 5.7 metres to 6.0 metres minimum), the subject property can meet all of the RM2(19) provisions, except for minimum lot frontage.

RM2(19) requires a minimum frontage of 15.24 m and 7.6 m for each unit and dwelling respectively, but due to the narrowing of the lot from front to back, a minimum of 14.5 m and 7.2 m respectively can be provided for each dwelling and unit respectively at 221 Finch Avenue East. It is recommended that the RM2(19) standards be rounded to 15 m and 7 m respectively so that the exception can be used more easily within the Central Finch corridor. An amendment to the lot frontage requirement, of 14.5 m at this location, can be recognized in the RM2(19) exception for this lot only.

With the exception of side yards, the applicant is proposing zoning standards which are consistent with those permitted and proposed for recent semi-detached dwelling developments in the Central Finch Plan area (see Appendix 1).

The configuration of the property is such that it has a 15.92 m (52 ft.) frontage along Finch Avenue, which narrows to 10.7 m (35 ft.) at the rear of the lot. The applicant has proposed side yard setbacks of 0.91 m (3 ft.) at the widest part of the units at the front of the dwelling (see Schedule C). Notwithstanding the above, a minimum side yard setback of 1.2 metres (4 ft.) should still be maintained. This standard is the minimum that has been applied to semi-detached dwellings along Finch Avenue and other areas, and is the minimum setback required for detached dwellings in small lot zones. A reduced setback is not appropriate. A letter also was received from the owner immediately east (225 Finch Avenue) requesting that a 1.8 m (6 ft.) setback be maintained (ScheduleG).

5.4Urban Design

In order to ensure the site plan and landscape treatment along Finch Avenue is implemented in accordance with the Secondary Plan provisions, it is appropriate to have the applicant submit a landscape plan to the satisfaction of the Director, Community Planning, North District, prior to enactment of a zoning by-law. This plan will also reflect the required Finch Avenue conveyance, and should ensure the preservation of existing trees on site as far as possible.

Conclusions:

The proposal to permit a semi-detached dwelling on this site is consistent with the intent of the Central Finch Secondary Plan and is recommended for approval.

Contact Name:

Anthony Rossi, Planner

Phone: 395-7100; Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules and Appendix 1 referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

_________

No individuals appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

14

Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application and

Part Lot Control Exemption By-law Application

UDOZ-98-01 and UD 54 98 11 REL - B.Y. Group Ltd. -

111 Barber Greene Road - Don Parkway

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (September 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by B.Y. Group Ltd. regarding Official Plan and Zoning Amendment for 111 Barber Greene Road, be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report:

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 19, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend approval of the Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Part Lot Control Exemption applications to permit 29 townhouses at the corner of Barber Greene Road and Overland Drive, as shown on Schedule C.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the applications be approved subject to the following:

Official Plan Amendment

1)the North York Official Plan be amended to:

a)redesignate the site from Industrial to Residential Density Two (RD2); and

b)include the site within the Don Mills Residential Community;

Zoning By-law Amendment

2)the Zoning By-law be amended to zone the site RM1(24) to permit only multiple attached dwellings units and accessory uses, subject to the following exceptions:

a)maximum of 29 multiple attached dwelling units shall be permitted;

b)maximum lot coverage for all buildings shall be 30 percent;

c)the minimum yard setbacks and minimum distance between buildings shall be as shown on Schedule C;

d)maximum building heights shall be 8.8 metres and 9.2 metres for 2 and 3 storey units respectively in the locations, as shown on Schedule C;

e)a minimum of two parking spaces shall be provided per dwelling unit;

f)the minimum lot area, lot frontage and landscaping provisions shall not apply;

g)the front wall of the multiple-attached dwelling units facing Barber Greene Road and the Private Lane may project a maximum of 1.5 metres into the required front yard, provided that the projection has a maximum width of 4 metres; and

h)the Neighbourhood Map (Schedule Q) shall be amended to include the site within the Overland neighbourhood;

Part Lot Control Application

3)a by-law for the release of part lot control shall be enacted when the following conditions have been met:

a)the applicant has deposited a reference plan reflecting this proposal with the Registry Office; and

b)the applicant has agreed to advise the City upon the sale or transfer of the lands so that the exempting by-law can be repealed; and

General Conditions

4)during the site plan review, the applicants shall ensure that the conditions listed on ScheduleP to this staff report are resolved.

Background:

Proposal

The applicant has proposed 29 townhouse units as shown on Schedule C. The development would consist of a combination of 2 and 3 storey units. Along the Barber Greene frontage, 12 units with driveway access are proposed to access directly onto the street, 5 units would front onto Overland Drive and the remaining 12 units would front onto a private lane. The applicant has indicated that they will be proceeding with a condominium application for the 12 units which front onto the private lane. The remaining units which are proposed to front onto existing public streets are to be freehold with the lots being created by a release of part lot control. Site statistics are as follows:

The applicant has referred both the Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendments to the Ontario Municipal Board for a hearing on the basis that Council did not make a decision on the applications within 90 days. The application was originally submitted on January 20, 1998.

Official Plan and Zoning:

The site is designated Industrial by the North York Official Plan and is zoned M2, MOF(H) by By-law No. 7625. A recent City-wide industrial review applies new industrial policies and rezones the lands to M1. The recent Official Plan Amendment and zoning by-law amendment are awaiting approval by the Ontario Municipal Board. The proposal requires an amendment to both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law to permit residential uses.

The lands also lie adjacent to the Central Don Mills Secondary Plan which includes the residential community of Don Mills and divides the area into four discrete low density residential neighbourhoods.

Comments For Other Departments and Agencies:

The following is a summary of relevant comments received from City departments and outside agencies received for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law applications:

Works and Emergency Services (Works) advise they have no objection to the proposal provided that their conditions attached as Schedule F are complied with.

Parks and Recreation Division advise that a 5 percent-lieu payment will be required at the time of building permit application. The applicant will be required to execute a Tree Preservation agreement prior to by-law enactment (Schedule G).

Works and Emergency Services (Transportation) advise that the traffic generated by the townhouse proposal would have a minimal impact on the existing roadway network, and that the change from industrial to residential would eliminate industrial truck traffic (Schedule H).

Public Health have no objections to the proposal provided their conditions as set out in Schedule I are met.

Canadian National Railway has indicated that they require a minimum 15 metre setback from the railway in conjunction with a safety berm (Schedule J).

GO Transit commented that if a connection between its Richmond Hill line and the CP North Toronto Subdivision line is developed, then the adjoining track could be used. However, this is only an alternative route and North York has already identified lands in the for this purpose at 39 and 45Greenbelt Drive.

The School Boards have indicated that students from the proposed development can be accommodated (Schedule K).

Community Consultation:

A community consultation meeting was held on May 4, 1998, which approximately 50 persons attended. Following the Open House, two working group meetings were held in which specific issues and revisions to the plans were discussed. In general, the issues expressed by the group were as follows:

Density the proposed density of development was too high and the setbacks were not reflective of the existing community.

Building Heightshould be restricted to 2 storeys, reflecting the surrounding development.

Traffic and Parkingthe proposal would result in increased traffic congestion and on-street parking problems.

Streetscapetoo many driveways on Barber Greene Road.

Parklandparkland should be provided within the community to serve the increase in units.

Soil Restorationcould the soil be cleaned to an appropriate level for residential development?

A summary of comments from that meeting is appended to this report (Schedule L) as are written comment forms and letters received from the residents (Schedules M and N).

As a result of the open house and working group sessions, the applicant revised the proposal as follows:

• reduced the number of townhouse units from 31 to 29;
• redesigned the building layout so 5 units now face Overland Boulevard so that the number of units fronting onto Barber Greene is reduced from 15 to 12;
• reduced the height of the buildings to 9.2 metres in accordance with the applicable RM1 zone standards;
• reduced the number of 3 storey buildings from 17 to 12 with the 3 storey units mainly located along the private lane;
• twinned the driveways to reduce the number of connections to Barber Greene Road and increase green space;
• reduced Floor Space Index (Gross Floor Area/Lot Area) from .6 to .55, resulting in a unit density of 37.4 units per hectare (15.1 units per acre); and
• narrowed the entrances of the private laneway and the added decorative brick on that laneway to signify it is for private, not for public use and to allow for more landscaping area.

Discussion:

Land use

Based upon a review of the relevant Official Plan policies, a change from Industrial to Residential is appropriate for this site for the following reasons:

• a logical and defined edge separating the proposed development from the existing office use to the south will be created by the private lane, fencing and buffer strip;

• the viability of the remaining employment lands will not be impacted given the location of the site on the periphery of the industrial area and the creation of a new boundary at the south edge of the site; and

• parkland and hard services, such as transportation and sewer capacity are available to serve this proposal.

Density, Coverage, and Setbacks

With respect to density, coverage and setbacks, the proposal complies with the standards of the applicable official plan policies and is generally consistent with the zoning standards of the RM1 zone as described below:

• the density of the proposed townhouses (.55 FSI/15.1 units per acre) complies with the official plan designation (RD2) on the adjacent lands, which permits up to 18 upa. This is also similar to the density of development existing in the area (.35 to .45 FSI);

• the proposed development has similar coverage per unit (34.7 percent) to the RM1 Zone requirements which permit 25 percent lot coverage per unit, excluding garages. The total lot coverage of the proposed development is 28.3 percent which is less than the existing warehouse which has a total lot coverage of approximately 35 percent;

• the RM1 setbacks have been maintained, or, reduced so as to be sensitive to the surrounding neighbourhood, as follows:

-7.5 metre frontyard setbacks as required in the RM1 zone have been preserved for the units which directly face the existing residential located on the north side of Overland Drive;

-reduced 6.0 metre frontyard setbacks are proposed on the Barber Greene frontage where existing residential is separated by a wider roadway. This represents a 1.5metre reduction from the by-law requirement. As well, some minor building wall encroachments are proposed to accommodate variation in the building facades along Barber Greene Road; and

-other setback reductions are within the interior of the proposal, or face the private lane (reduced rear yards, side yards and front yards) should not impact surrounding residential. They include the following exceptions:

i)front yard (for units facing the Private Lane) - reduced from 7.5 metres to 5.5 metres with some minor building wall encroachments to accommodate variation in the building facades;

ii)rear yards - reduced from 7.5 metres to 6.5 and 6.0 metres

iii)side yards - changed from 8m to 2.7, 2.4, 1.5 and over 10 metres (exterior side yard on Barber Greene Road); and

iv)distance between buildings - reduced from 9.2 metres to 7.5 and 6.0 metres.

The above proposed yard reductions are also generally consistent with recently approved townhouse projects in the District.

Building Heights

The building heights will comply to the applicable official plan policies. Seventeen of the proposed townhouses are two storeys which is the same as development existing in the area. The three storey units have been limited to the centre of the development and along the private lane, away from existing residential. The three storey height at 9.2 metres is consistent with the RM1 zone.

Parking

Adequate parking can be provided for this proposal which meets the zoning bylaw requirements. Four parking spaces are proposed for the 3 storey units and two parking spaces for all other units. Additional visitor parking will be available on the private lane for the condominium units.

Urban Design

The private lane, open space areas and Barber Greene street frontage have been redesigned to fit within the surrounding neighbourhood as follows:

• to address neighbourhood concerns, the applicant proposes to narrow the driveway widths for the private lane at Overland Drive and Barber Greene Road from 8.5 metres to 6.0 metres. Landscaping and decorative paving would then be provided at the entrances to the development to signify it is a private roadway and to screen the roadway from view. Details of the landscaping and paving treatment will be finalized at the time of site plan approval;
• the applicant reduced the number of units from 31 to 29 to provide more open space. The development proposal now has less total lot coverage (28.3 percent) than the existing warehouse (approximately 35 percent) so more open space may be maintained within the new development. To emphasize the open space on the corner of Barber Greene and Overland Drive, substantial plantings are to be provided. The landscaping treatment of this corner will be specifically addressed as part of the site plan application; and

• to create a streetscape which reflects the open space nature of the area, the applicant reduced the number of units facing onto Barber Greene by orienting some of the units onto Overland Drive. Also, a number of driveways that access onto Barber Greene Road have been twinned to create more green space and reduce the amount of hard surfacing.

Soil Contamination

The applicant has submitted a soil's investigation report prepared by a consultant. A peer review of the report and a Record of Site Condition acknowledged by the Ministry of the Environment and verifying that the property is suitable for the proposed residential will be required at part of the site plan approval process.

Conclusions

The redesignation of the subject site from industrial to residential is therefore appropriate and the site design will fit within the context of the area.

Contact Name:

Mavis Urquhart, Planner (North York District)

Phone: 395-7106Fax: 395-7155

(A copy of the Schedules referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it a communication (October6, 1998) from Mr. Ken Dunsmore, President, Don Mills Residents Inc. and Mr. Karl Frank, Chairman, Don Mills Residents Inc. Planning Review Committee, advising of their concerns with the application.

Mr. Julius DeRuyter appeared before the North York Community Council on behalf of the applicant and indicated that the applicant concurred with the recommendations contained in the staff report.

15

Temporary Use By-law Application UD52-98-01 -

Alysse Fogel - 31 Foursome Crescent -

North York Centre South

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (September 24, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, and for the reasons that the proposal is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Alysse Fogel regarding Temporary Use By-law Application for 31Foursome Crescent, be refused:

The North York Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, with appropriate notice of this meeting, in accordance with the Planning Act.

The North York Community Council submits the following report (September 24, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District:

Purpose:

The purpose of this application is to evaluate an application for a temporary use by-law to legalize a professional medical office (dietician's practice) as a home occupation for a period of three years.

Financial Implications:

None

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application be refused.

Background:

The proposal is for a temporary use by-law to permit an existing 19m² dietician's office in a portion of the basement of a two-storey, single detached dwelling for a three year period. The applicant has indicated that a three year temporary use would enable her to continue the business while caring for young children. This application was submitted in response to By-law Enforcement issuing a Notice of Violation dated April 1, 1998, for having a commercial operation on site which is not permitted under the current zoning. The site statistics are as follows:

Site Location:

The site is located at 31 Foursome Crescent, opposite Charo Road. Single detached houses surround the property and it is situated within the interior of a stable residential neighbourhood.

Official Plan:

The lands are designated Residential Density One (RD1) which permits primarily single and semi detached dwellings. The official plan also permits minor commercial uses provided they are ancillary to the residential use and serve the local population.

Zoning By-law:

The property is zoned One Family Detached Fourth Density Zone (R4). A dietician's office (professional medical office) is not a permitted use in the R4 zone.

Department Comments:

The Works and Emergency Services Department indicates that the applicant is to arrange for private waste collection for the business portion of the dwelling (Schedule D).

Transportation Services indicate that all parking associated with the dietician's office is to be contained on the site (Schedule E).

Community Input:

Through petitions, letters and telephone calls to the Planning Department and to the offices of the local councillors, area residents have expressed concerns related to the impact of the business operation on the residential neighbourhood. It is our understanding that the business began operation approximately one year ago on Foursome Crescent and residents have indicated an increase in traffic, safety concerns for local children, insufficient on-site parking, a large volume of clients and other issues listed in the attached correspondence (Appendix "A").

Discussion:

Policy Context for Home Occupations

Council is guided by principles that aim to enhance residential neighbourhoods and ensure that they continue as pleasant and safe living environments. The Official Plan establishes that a minor commercial use may be permitted in a residential neighbourhood provided it is ancillary to the residential use and serves the local population. Given the nature of the dietician's practice as described by the applicant (Appendix B), this proposed commercial use does not primarily serve the local neighbourhood nor can it be considered a minor ancillary use on days of operation due to the client traffic it generates.

During the preparation of housing policies (OPA 377) staff specifically did not recommend professional medical offices as home occupations. A dietician's office is defined as a "professional medical office" under the previous and current zoning by-laws and therefore has never been a permitted home occupation use.

Council removed offices of doctors, dentists and drugless practitioners as permitted home occupation uses from By-law No. 7625 in 1996 recognizing the many changes that had taken place in the health care delivery field over time. These uses no longer serve local residents and their characteristics resemble commercial uses rather than the residential characteristics anticipated by home occupation uses. These businesses draw clients to the neighbourhood and result in a pattern of traffic and visitation that is not typical of residential uses. The only remaining home occupations in the zoning by-law that are permitted as-of-right are teachers of academic subjects or music, provided that only one student is taught at a time.

Impact on the Residential Neighbourhood

Home occupations are not supported where there are impacts generated by the proposed use on surrounding residences. The compatibility criteria outlined in Appendix C were developed by staff as part of the housing policies and have been used to assess the impacts of previous home occupation applications. These criteria have been used as a guideline for the evaluation of this application. The applicant was requested to provide additional information to enable the adequate assessment of the impact of this proposal on the surrounding area (Appendix B).

a)Information Provided by the Applicant Respecting Business Operations

The applicant indicates that the office operates on Mondays from 11:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. and on Wednesdays between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. The applicant works out of the premises and when on vacation an outside associate comes to this home office and covers the practice for approximately 65percent of the usual hours. Client traffic includes 20 to 35 patients per day at approximately 15minute intervals. On average, 2new patients are seen per day for 60minute visits. The business draws 75percent of its clients from the Thornhill area along the Yonge and Leslie Street corridors and 25percent of the clients originate from further south to Eglinton Avenue. Parking is provided on the driveway which accommodates two cars. In addition, overflow parking is accommodated on Charo Road and occasionally on Foursome Crescent.

b)Compatibility Analysis

The characteristics of the dietician's office are such that it is substantially apparent to persons outside the residence as the client traffic is not typical of visitation in an interior residential community and on days of operation it becomes the primary use on the site. The business does not primarily serve the local population as the majority of clients are drawn from elsewhere. The applicant has an outside associate who covers her vacation time, so the business operates similar to a commercial office rather than a home occupation. The business has become a public nuisance based on the strong response of area residents to its operation and the municipality has commenced legal action in response to by-law contravention. The overall impacts of the proposed dietician's office jeopardize the stability of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Temporary Use

Past applications for temporary use bylaws have generally been for interim uses pending future redevelopment of a site or local investment area. Foursome Crescent is located in the interior of a neighbourhood of well maintained single family residential homes between Yonge Street, Bayview Avenue, Highway 401 and York Mills Road. There is no evidence of decline in the area and there are no recent applications in the nearby vicinity requesting redevelopment. The continuation of the proposed medical office use for a three year period could inappropriately establish this use on site. There is also the potential for the business to expand beyond current operating parameters as the applicant sees, on average, two new clients per day. A commercial use for this stable residential enclave is inappropriate, regardless of imposed time frames.

Conclusions:

The introduction of a dietician's office for a period of three years is inappropriate in this stable residential area as the use serves a population well beyond the local neighbourhood. Council removed offices of doctors, dentists and drugless practitioners from the home occupation category in the zoning by-law due to the incompatibility of these types of uses with residential areas. The proposed medical office will impact the stability of this well-established residential neighbourhood. This medical office use can be relocated to other premises within the City which are already zoned for this purpose. Refusal of this application is recommended.

Contact Name:

Mary McElroy

Telephone: (416) 395-7143

(A copy of the Schedules and Appendices referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

________

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following communications:

(i)(October 8, 1998) from Jean Roy forwarding a petition signed by 19 area residents in opposition to the application;

(ii)(October 7, 1998) from Ms. Josephine Cosentino, expressing her concerns with the application;

(iii)(October 6, 1998) from D. Badger, concurring with the staff recommendation of refusal of the application;

(iv)(September 30, 1998) from Mr. John H. Stevens, advising of his opposition to the application;

(v)(September 30, 1998) from Macgregor and Diane Small, advising of their objections to the application;

(vi)(September 29, 1998) from Ms. Merle Lightbound, expressing her views with the application;

(vii)(September 29, 1998) from Mr. Peter Scats, expressing his opposition to the application;

(viii)(September 29, 1998 and September 3, 1998) from Ms. Carolyn J. Hopkins, expressing her concerns and objections to the application;

(ix)(September 28, 1998) from Stephen and Deborah Dunn advising of their opposition to the application; and

(x)(undated) from Ms. Ida Jacobs, advising of her opposition to the application.

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

-Mr. Murray Chusid, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant, who commented on the merits of the application. During his submission he indicated that one of the reasons he believes that there is opposition from both the Planning Department and the neighbours is because this application goes against the traditional suburban view of planning. With advancement in computer technology many people find it easier to work from their home rather than going to the office. In his opinion the City should be conducting a study of this and determining how prevalent this is throughout residential areas. In this particular case his client spends two days a week in her home seeing people for dietician type of advice. This type of use does not create a dangerous situation.

Mr. Chusid requested that this matter be deferred until such time as an appropriate study is conducted by staff. He also pointed out that Community Council could, as a condition of approval, regulate the hours for this dietician's office. He believed however that since there is a trend in the direction of mixed uses and a return of vitality within neighbourhoods, that home occupations uses such as this be studied within a different kind of planning context.

-Mr. Gordon Sterling, Board Member, on behalf of the St. Andrew's Ratepayers Association, who expressed the Association's concerns with the application. During his submission he indicated that prior to submitting this application, the applicant sought the Association's support. The Executive Committee suggested some ideas that would resolve problems with parking, traffic and influx of patients or alternatively look for office space in the nearby plaza. After considerable deliberation the St. Andrew's Ratepayer Association is of the opinion that a professional medical office is not appropriate in their community and support the conclusions of the planning report which states that a dietician's office is inappropriate in this stable residential area. The Association is also concerned about the precedent setting nature of this application.

In concluding Mr. Sterling requested that the Community Council refuse the application; ensure that the existing by-law be enforced and the business operation cease while this application is under review.

-Mr. Gordon Weinstein, on behalf of the Foursome Neighbourhoods; who spoke in opposition to the application. During his submission, Mr. Weinstein indicated that the Association supported the recommendations of planning staff and requested that the Community Council refuse the application. In his opinion the introduction of a business in a stable residential neighbourhood is neither good planning or good sense. He further indicated that a deferral of the application would only allow the applicant to continue her business without the necessary approvals until the study referred to by the applicant's solicitor has been completed. While he was sympathetic to the applicant, he believed that an alternate location should be explored.

-Ms. Jane Stephens, who commented in opposition to the application. During her submission she indicated that since this business has been in operation, the traffic on Foursome Crescent has increased. She has also noted that since some of these patients are running late for their appointments, they speed through stop signs thereby creating a hazardous situation for children living on this street.

Ms. Stephens further indicated that the existing by-law does not allow this type of use and the application should be refused. She also requested that the current by-law be enforced and the applicant be encouraged to look for another location for her business.

-Mr. Mel Schwartz, who spoke in opposition to the application. During his submission he indicated that there is an almost unanimous rejection of this application by the residents. In his opinion, any business that generates client traffic of approximately 20 to 35 patients per day at approximately 15 minute intervals belongs in a commercially zoned setting and not an established residential neighbourhood. He believed that allowing this use would jeopardize the stability of this residential neighbourhood. In his opinion there are real human concerns which go beyond planning concerns. The City should cherish and promote this type of residential community. To defer consideration of this application for a study is merely a delay tactic.

Mr. Schwartz concluded by requesting the Community Council to support the planning recommendations and the residents.

________

A recorded vote on the recommendation moved by Councillor Flint, North York Centre South, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Sgro, Li Preti, Augimeri, Berger, Flint, Chong, Filion, King

AGAINST:Councillor Feldman

ABSENT:Councillors Mammoliti, Moscoe, Gardner, Minnan-Wong, Shiner

Carried

16

Traffic Management Plan - St. Lucie Drive -

North York Humber

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To install, on a temporary basis, three sets of traffic calming measures along St. Lucie Drive to address safety issues associated with the road alignment.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of the traffic calming measures are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendations:

1.that two gateway narrowing's, and a pinch point, be installed on St. Lucie Drive;

2. that By-law No. 31878, of the former City of North York, be amended to designate the vehicle speed limit on St Lucie Drive and Franson Crescent at 40 km/h; and

3. staff of the Transportation Services Division report back to Council at the completion of the six month trial period.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Staff of the Transportation Services Division of the Works and Emergency Services Department, in accordance with the former City of North York Council Policy for Traffic Calming, has met with the residents of the St. Lucie Drive Community to address the concerns of the residents with respect to vehicle speeds and the overall safety of the community with respect to traffic related issues. A Traffic Work Group, comprised of the residents of the area and staff of the Transportation Services Division, was established to identify the specific concerns and to develop a traffic management plan which will be considered appropriate and acceptable by the community.

Discussion:

Residents of the greater community have, through both the local Councillors and the Transportation Services Division offices, identified a concern for the rate of speed of vehicles and the decreasing level of safety for residents, particularly in the immediate vicinity of 175 St. Lucie Drive, where vehicles have left the roadway as a result of the road alignment. The residents concern for safety was recently further highlighted when a southbound motor vehicle failed to manoeuver the 90 degree curve in the roadway and struck the corner of the house at 175 St. Lucie Drive. Based upon our review of historical collision records, it was confirmed that similar incidents have occurred, with varying degrees of impact.

The Traffic Work Group, in consultation with staff of the Transportation Services Division, have reviewed various locations along the roadway which were identified as problematic locations. Several traffic options were reviewed by the Traffic Work Group. The traffic calming measures which were eventually approved consist of a gateway narrowing (centre island), in advance of the 90 degree curve west of the west leg of Franson Crescent and between Tampa Terrace and Azalea Court. In addition to the gateway narrowing's, it was determined that a pinch point in the vicinity of 110 St. Lucie Drive also be installed. These were designed to positively affect driver behaviour to reduce vehicle speeds and therefore improve pedestrian/resident safety.

In view of weather and time constraints, Councillor Mammoliti, on behalf of the community and the Traffic Work Group, has requested that the Transportation Services Division prepare this report for consideration by the North York Community Council.

Conclusions:

In view of the above, staff of the Transportation Services Division supports the installation of the traffic calming measures, as a means of increasing safety for the pedestrians, motorists and residents.

Contact Name:

Mr. Allen Pinkerton, Supervisor of Traffic Investigations

395-7463 (telephone); 395-7482 (facsimile)

ajpinker@city.north-york.on.ca (E-mail)

17

Commemorative Street Name -

Beverly Hills Drive - North York Humber

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The North York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 13, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 3:

Purpose:

To commemoratively dedicate Beverly Hills Drive in the name of Padre Pio.

Source of funds:

All costs associated with the installation of two street name signs are included within the 1998 operating budget.

Recommendation:

1.that Beverly Hills Drive be commemoratively dedicated to Padre Pio;

2.that the existing and legally designated 'Beverly Hills Drive' street name remain and that the emergency services be advised; and

3.that staff be directed to install the City's historic style street name signs, indicating the commemoration, along with the official street name of Beverly Hills Drive, at the intersections of Beverly Hills Drive with Jane Street and Wilson Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

I have received a request from Councillor Judy Sgro, on behalf of the President of St. Philip Neri Parish Council, Mr. Steve De Biase, that the City of Toronto consider the commemorative dedication of Beverly Hills Drive to Padre Pio in recognition of the endless contributions made by Padre Pio, who is a highly respected Saint in the Roman Catholic Church as well as a special friend of the parish.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Transportation Division has reviewed this request and found it to be similar to two previous request for commemorative dedications. Playfair Avenue was dedicated as Caboto Way and North York Boulevard as Sunset Boulevard. Both these request were approved and installed with no reported concerns.

A copy of the proposed street name sign is attached to this report for your review.

Conclusions:

The Transportation Division supports the request to permanently commemoratively dedicate Beverly Hills Drive to Padre Pio.

Contact Name:

Michael Frederick, Director of Traffic Operations. 395-7484

________

(A copy of the proposed street name sign referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk, North York Civic Centre.)

18

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Sign By-law Variance Request - Pattison Outdoor Signs - 4640 Jane Street - Black Creek.

The North York Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to its next meeting scheduled for November 12, 1998:

(October 14, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official recommending approval of the requested minor variance from North York Sign By-law No. 30788 to permit the erection of an illuminated off-premise roof sign.

Mr. Just Cole, Pattison Outdoor Signs, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-25 - 1240967 Ontario Inc. (Petro Canada) - 3374 Keele Street - Black Creek.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 22, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning Division, North District, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit the construction of a three storey medical office building containing ground floor commercial uses; and recommending that staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.

(c)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-22 - Idels Architect Inc. - 135 Finch Avenue East - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 30, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a three storey, semi-detached dwelling; and recommending that staff continue processing the application in the manner outlined in the report.

(d)Preliminary Evaluation Report - Zoning Amendment Application UDZ-98-21 - Idels Architect Inc. - 129 Finch Avenue East - North York Centre.

The North York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 30, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, reporting on an application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit a three storey semi-detached dwelling; and recommending

(e)Yonge Street, Known as "The Jolly Miller" - Report on RFP Responses - North York Centre South.

The North York Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred the following report to an In Camera meeting at 9:30 a.m., at its next meeting scheduled for November 12, 1998 and that the regular portion of the Community Council meeting commence at 10:30 a.m., and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer to defer any negotiations until a detailed review of the partners involved in Prime Asset Management Corporation is conducted by staff of the Finance Department and Legal Division; and that a report on the review be brought forward to the In Camera meeting.

(October 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer recommending approval in principle to negotiate a lease with a single proponent for the tenancy of the property at 3885 Yonge Street, known as "The Jolly Miller".

________

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

-Mr. Ken Lipson, Principal, Prime Asset Management; and

-Ms. Barbara Wilkes, Management Initiatives Inc.

Councillor Feldman, North York Spadina, declared his interest in the foregoing matter as he resides in the immediate vicinity.

(f)Street Ads on Private Property.

The North York Community Council reports having:

(1)referred the following communication to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to develop a city policy regarding advertising on road allowances and abutting properties;

(2)requested that the policy be developed based on the current sign by-laws of the six former municipalities and that a report be brought back to the respective Community Councils prior to the issue being considered by the appropriate standing committee; and

(3)referred this matter to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to investigate the use of street ad devices at recreation centres and provide a report to the User Fee Committee as soon as possible with respect to the potential for a revenue source for the City.

Mr. Sid Catalano, Director of Legislation, Pattison Outdoor Signs, appeared before the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

A recorded vote on Parts (1) and (2) was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti, Feldman, Berger, Gardner, Chong, Shiner

AGAINST:Councillors Augimeri, Flint, Filion, King

ABSENT:Councillors Sgro, Moscoe, Minnan-Wong

Carried

(August 25, 1998) from Mr. Sid Catalano, Director of Legislation, Pattison Outdoor Signs, requesting the opportunity to address the North York Community Council with respect to the provision of street ad advertising devices at certain locations.

(g)North York Harvest Food Bank.

The North York Community Council reports having received a presentation by Ms.Mary Lynn Trotter, Agency Relations Coordinator, North York Harvest Food Bank, on the work of the North York Basic Needs Action Network - a coalition of agencies and organizations primarily in the north-west section of the former City of North York, whose mandate includes addressing hunger issues.

(h)Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation.

The North York Community Council reports having:

(a)referred the following to the Board of Health:

1.WHEREAS our recreational parks are being overrun by irresponsible dog owners who are allowing their dogs to run loose; and

WHEREAS the responsible dog owner has become increasingly fed up with the conduct of the irresponsible dog owner; and

WHEREAS the irresponsible dog owner has put the City in a very difficult situation; and

WHEREAS it has contributed in the public having less faith is trusting loose dogs; and

WHEREAS the City's enforcement of the dog loose leash by-law should become heightened;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City's Health Department carry out aggressive enforcement of the following by-laws as they relate to dogs and dog owners:

Dog loose leash, stoop and scoop, noise and biting.;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

(i)should an offence be acknowledged by the City's Health Department, the dog owner be given written warning on a first and second offence of the by-law; and

(ii)should a third offence be acknowledged by the City's Health Department, that a fine be set for the dog owner at a minimum fine of $1,000.00;

2.each household in the new City of Toronto be permitted a maximum of two dogs;

3.Part II, Prohibited Animals, Section 3, of the draft by-law be amended to add the Toronto Wildlife Centre to the list of facilities exempt from the prohibition;

4.a new section be added to the draft by-law to read:

"No one shall be permitted to set a snare, leghold, body-gripping or similar trap in the City of Toronto.";

5.Recommendation (4) embodied in the joint report (June 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Medical Officer of Health, as amended by Clause 1 of Report No. 7 of the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, be amended to provide for the following:

"That the off-leash area in Sherwood Park be discontinued pending the fast track evaluation that is currently under way.";

and that this amendment also be forwarded to the Economic Development Committee; and

(b)referred the following submissions to the Medical Officer of Health for a report to the Board of Health:

(i)(October 14, 1998) - recommendations 2. - 6. contained in the joint submission from the Animal Alliance of Canada, Animal Protection Institute, Canadian Alliance for Furbearing Animals and Zoocheck Canada Inc.,

(ii)(October 14, 1998) from Toronto Wildlife Centre; and

(iii)(October 14, 1998) from The Toronto Humane Society.

(September 16, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Board of Health for the City of Toronto Health Unit forwarding the following reports:

(1)(September 1, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health regarding "Policy Directions: Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation", and requesting that it be forwarded to each Community Council to be considered at their October 14, 1998 meeting, and comments be forwarded to the Board of Health by October 23, 1998; and

(2)(August 26, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health and City Solicitor recommending that the attached by-law be forwarded to the Community Councils for consideration at their meetings on October 14, 1998 and that the recommendations from those meetings be forwarded to the Board of Health by October 23, 1998;

The North York Community Council also reports having had before it the following:

(i)(October 14, 1998) from the Director, Animal Alliance of Canada, the Programme Director, Animal Protection Institute, the Director of Canadian Alliance for Furbearing Animals and the Director, Zoocheck Canada Inc., submitting comments on the harmonized animal care and control legislation;

(ii)(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Natalie Karvonen, Executive Director, Toronto Wildlife Centre, submitting comments regarding the new harmonized by-law;

(iii)(October 2, 1998) from Daniela Quaglia, Public Affairs Advisor, the Toronto Human Society, submitting the Toronto Humane Society's responses to the Department of Public Health's Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation and the City of Toronto By-law regarding Animals;

(iv)(August 13, 1998) from Mr. George F. Evens, Managing Director, Creatures, Land, Air, Water Advocacy, advising of their organization.

________

Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, moved that:

WHEREAS our recreational parks are being overrun by irresponsible dog owners who are allowing their dogs to run loose; and

WHEREAS it has contributed in the public having less faith is trusting loose dogs; and

WHEREAS the irresponsible dog owner has now put the City in a very difficult situation; and

WHEREAS the responsible dog owner has become increasingly fed up with the conduct of the irresponsible dog owner; and

WHEREAS it is my belief that there is now a loose dog crisis;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1)the City establish and run a doggie and doggie owner obedience school that would be set up so that the doggie school provide educational opportunities for both the dog and the dog owner as it relates to their own respective behaviour; and

(2)the City provide all dog owners with pertinent information with respect to obedience school when it issues out dog permits;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

(1)the Health Department immediately begin advertising these new initiatives; and

(2)this advertisement be sent to all pet stores and any other establishment known for the breeding and selling of dogs.

A recorded vote on the foregoing motion by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, was as follows:

FOR:Councillors Mammoliti, Li Preti

AGAINST:Councillors Sgro, Augimeri, Feldman, Berger, Flint, Filion, Minnan-Wong, King

ABSENT:Councillors Moscoe, Gardner, Chong, Shiner

The motion moved by Councillor Mammoliti, North York Humber, was declared by the Chair to be lost.

________

The following persons addressed the North York Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance of Canada;

-Ms. Nathalie Karvonen, Executive Director, Toronto Wildlife Centre; and

-Ms. Daniela Quaglia, Public Affairs Advisor, the Toronto Humane Society, who also filed a copy of her deputation with the City Clerk.

(Councillor Feldman, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in Item (e), headed "Yonge Street, Known as 'The Jolly Miller' - Report on RFP Responses - North York Centre South", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he resides in the immediate vicinity.)

(Councillor Miller, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in Item (h), headed "Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he has a financial interest in a company that does business with the Toronto Humane Society.)

Respectfully submitted,

MILTON BERGER,

Chair

Toronto, October 14, 1998

(Report No. 11 of The North York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998.)