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

SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 10

1Parking Prohibition on Savarin Street Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

2Parking on Cosentino Drive Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

3Stop Sign on Suraty Avenue at Kencliff Crescent Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

4Stop Sign on Wetherby Drive at Shaddock Crescent Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

5Parking in Front of Golf Road Junior Public School and Tecumseh Senior Public School Scarborough Golf Club Road Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

640 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit on Waldock Street Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

7Request for a 40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limiton Bellefontaine Street and Southlawn Drive Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

8Heavy Truck Prohibition on Neilson Road and Passmore Avenue Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

9Bus Passenger Shelter Installations Progress Avenue between Milner Avenue and Sheppard Avenue (Aspen Ridge Homes Subdivision) Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

10Restricting the Standing of Vehicles on Belmore Avenue near 31 Townley Avenue Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

11Traffic Concerns on Scarden Avenue Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

12Part Lot Control Exemption Application PL98007Winburn Investments Inc., Warden Avenue and St. Clair Avenue, Clairlea Community Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

13Request for Direction, Ontario Municipal Board Appeal Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z97047Sevendon Holdings Limited, 1900 Eglinton Avenue East Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

14Request for Direction, Minor Variance Appeal - A252/97Andre Adams, 128 Scarboro Avenue Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

15Request for Fence Exemption Marie de Billancourt, Robert French, 361 Lawson Road Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

16City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application W98009Road Allowance Linking Metropolitan Road and Continental Place Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

17Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z95032Aspen Ridge Homes (Markham Gardens) Incorporated South of Sheppard Avenue, East of Markham Road Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

18Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ98003Bozian Holdings Inc. (Brimell Toyota) 5060 Sheppard Avenue Marshalling Yard Employment District Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

19Legal Department Practice on Files WithoutIn-House Planning Support Caroline Huaping Chiang, 43 Alanbull Square Juhan Holdings Limited, 5739-5745 Finch Avenue East 1248161 Ontario Limited, 255 Blantyre Avenue

20Other Items Considered by The Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 10

OF THE SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on October 14, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

1

Parking Prohibition on Savarin Street

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July9, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4, subject to adding a recommendation (3), as follows:

"(3)the Director, Transportation Services, District 4, be requested to review the parking situation on Savarin Street in twelve (12) months' time and report back to The Scarborough Community Council if further action is required.":

Purpose:

To address the need for a parking prohibition on a portion of Savarin Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $800.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the parking prohibition signs are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget Account No. 20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Road and Traffic Services received a petition signed by 15 of the 18 homes on Savarin Street from Danforth Road to house number 20 Savarin Street. One of the homes not represented in this petition was vacant at the time. In the petition, a No Parking Anytime prohibition is requested to prevent a "continuous ongoing problem of numerous autos being parked on Savarin Street on a 24 hour basis".

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Savarin Street is located between Danforth Road and McCowan Road, north of Eglinton Avenue. Beyond a 30 metre corner restriction at the signalized intersection of Danforth Road and SavarinStreet, parking restrictions are not posted on this street.

Staff have conducted investigations during regular working hours and observed the occasional vehicle parked on Savarin Street. It would seem probable that, like many other streets, the parking demand may increase in the evenings and on weekends.

Conclusions:

As a clear majority of residents west of house number 20 Savarin Street support a No Parking Anytime restriction in front of their homes, we can support the petitioners request.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

SavarinBothDanforth 160 metres eastAnytime

StreetRoadof Danforth Road

2

Parking on Cosentino Drive

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 22, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to amend the parking restrictions on a portion of Cosentino Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $300.00 (approximate) funds associated with the removal and installation of the parking restriction signs is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be adopted; and

(3)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

As a result of a petition presented by businesses on the east section of Cosentino Drive, staff investigated the feasibility of removing some of the 60 minute parking restriction on a portion of the road. The specific request of the petitioners was to replace the 60 minute parking restriction with a 12 hour parking restriction that would apply between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Staff also examined restricting parking on the curve in Cosentino Drive due to the concerns of an area business with trucks negotiating the turn.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Cosentino Drive is an industrial road located to the southeast of the intersection of Midland Avenue and Progress Avenue. A No Parking Anytime restriction is posted on the south and east side of the street, while a 60 minute parking restriction is posted on the north and west side. This latter restriction was installed in 1991 due to Toronto Transit Commission commuters parking on Cosentino Drive and then walking to the Midland RT station.

We do have concerns with the suggested installation of a 12 hour parking limit in an industrial area where off-street parking does exist. What could potentially happen is that the road could become a "parking lot" during the day. There are currently no industrial/commercial areas in District 4 (Scarborough) where such long duration parking is allowed.

We also caution that the reason why the existing 60 minute parking was installed on Cosentino Drive was due to commuters parking on this street and walking to the Midland RT station. A 12 hour limit would legalize this parking.

Nonetheless, as the area businesses do support removal of the 60 minute parking limit, we propose that this limit be removed and the area remain unsigned. This area would then fall under the 3 hour parking limit. This limit is only enforced on request, therefore, customers will be provided with ample time to park on the street if off-street parking is not available.

The owner of Grant Iron & Steel expressed a concern with vehicles parked on the curve in Cosentino Drive which complicates truck movements. We recommend the installation of a short section of NoParking Anytime to assist trucks in negotiating this curve.

Conclusion:

Although we can not support a 12 hour parking limit, removal of the 60 minute restriction should satisfy the needs of the area business and their customers. Restricting parking on the curve in Cosentino Drive will also assist truck manoeuvres.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Parking for Restricted Periods"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4Column 5

Maximum

TimesPeriod

HighwaySideFromToor DaysPermitted

Cosentino North and MidlandProgressAnytime60 Minutes

DriveWestAvenueAvenue

Appendix 2

"Parking for Restricted Periods"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4Column 5

Maximum

TimesPeriod

HighwaySideFromToor DaysPermitted

Cosentino North Midland220 metresAnytime60 Minutes

DriveAvenueeast of

Midland

Avenue

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Cosentino North and220 metres east250 metres east Anytime

DriveWestof Midland Avenueof Midland Avenue

3

Stop Sign on Suraty Avenue at Kencliff Crescent

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 15, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install an eastbound stop sign on Suraty Avenue at Kencliff Crescent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $150.00 (approximate) funds, associated with the installation of the stop sign is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

(1)the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be approved; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the request of an area resident, staff investigated the need for an all-way stop control at the intersection of Kencliff Crescent and Suraty Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The intersection of Kencliff Crescent and Suraty Avenue is in the residential community west of McCowan Road and north of Lawrence Avenue. Both streets are low volume local residential roads. At present, this is an uncontrolled "T" type intersection.

Although the all-way stop control warrants are far from being satisfied, a stop control is recommended on Suraty Avenue to define the right-of-way. This stop sign will also stop motorists behind the sidewalk on the west side of the road and will make this intersection uniform with the other intersections in the area which also have stop signs on the minor streets. Some tree trimming will be required to provide appropriate visibility of this sign.

Conclusions:

A stop sign is recommended on Suraty Avenue at Kencliff Crescent for area uniformity and to clearly define the right-of-way at this intersection.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations

Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

IntersectionStop Street

Suraty Avenue and Suraty Avenue

Kencliff Crescent

4

Stop Sign on Wetherby Drive at Shaddock Crescent

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 25, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install a northbound stop sign on Wetherby Drive at Shaddock Crescent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $150.00 (approximate) funds, associated with the installation of the stop sign is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the stop sign identified in Appendix 1 of this report be approved; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the request of an area resident, Road and Traffic Services investigated the need for an all-way stop control at the intersection of Wetherby Drive and Shaddock Crescent, and for a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit on Wetherby Drive.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The intersection of Wetherby Drive and Shaddock Crescent is in the residential community between Brimley Road and Danforth Road just north of Eglinton Avenue. Both streets are low volume local residential roads. At present, this is an uncontrolled "T" type intersection.

Although both the all-way stop control warrant and the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit warrant are far from being satisfied, a stop control is recommended on Shaddock Crescent at Wetherby Drive to define the right-of-way. Sight lines are slightly restricted by hedges in the area of the intersection.

Conclusions:

A stop sign is recommended on Shaddock Crescent at Wetherby Drive to clearly define the right-of-way at this intersection.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844

Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

IntersectionStop Street

Shaddock Crescent and Shaddock Crescent

Wetherby Drive

5

Parking in Front of Golf Road Junior Public School

and Tecumseh Senior Public School

Scarborough Golf Club Road

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 25, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To address the need to amend the parking/stopping restrictions in the area of Golf Road Junior Public School and Tecumseh Senior Public School on Scarborough Golf Club Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $500.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the stopping restriction signs is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the parking regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be rescinded;

(2)the stopping regulations identified in Appendix 2 of this report be approved; and

(3)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the request of the Board of Education and the Densgrove Park Community Association, staff investigated parking and pedestrians crossing in the vicinity of Golf Road Junior Public.School and Tecumseh Senior Public School on Scarborough Golf Club Road.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Golf Road Junior Public School and Tecumseh Senior Public School have a continuous frontage along a portion of the west side of Scarborough Golf Club Road, just north of Lawrence Avenue. A pedestrian crossover is located at the north end of the school property at Par Avenue. Scarborough Golf Club Road in this area has a signed 50 kilometre per hour speed limit and appropriate signs exist advising motorists of the schools and the pedestrian crossover.

The west side of the road, along the frontage of the schools, is signed as "No Parking, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" along with a school bus loading zone. On the opposite side of the road, a "No Parking Anytime" prohibition is posted.

Traffic Operations - On-Street Parking Observations

Many motorists choose to obey the existing parking restrictions and/or the school bus loading zone along the front of the schools. The following table shows the results of these observations:

This table shows that most of the parking is occurring within the Golf Road Junior Public School parking lot/loop. Although three motorists in the morning and in the afternoon are indicated as parking on the school side of the road, they did avoid parking within the school bus loading zone. It is encouraging to note all but one motorist obeyed the one-way signs installed on Board property and properly used the loop design of the parking lot as intended.

Pedestrian Crossing Observations

Staff also recorded the volume and location of pedestrians crossing by the schools on Scarborough Golf Club Road. The following tables show these observations:

These tables show that, fortunately, most pedestrian crossings are taking place at the pedestrian crossover (PXO). It should be noted that, during the busiest times of school generated pedestrian activity, an adult crossing guard is on site to augment the safety of this pedestrian crossover. Although the tables above do show several mid-block crossings, that occurred through adequate gaps in traffic, pedestrians should always be encouraged to make use of the existing traffic controls. Nonetheless, it should also be stressed that, no conflicts were recorded between any pedestrian and motorist during our studies.

Collision History

In addition to the studies outlined above, a thorough four-year collision review of this area (fromJanuary 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996) revealed that only two collisions have been reported within the immediate area of the schools.

Of these two collisions, one occurred in 1994 at a private drive just south of Par Avenue. In this collision, that occurred on a Saturday afternoon, one of the drivers was reported as "had been drinking". Fortunately, only minimal injuries resulted from this collision and charges were laid against driver at fault. The remaining collision occurred in 1996 and involved packed snow road conditions. No injuries or charges came about as the result of this collision.

Conclusions:

Replacing the existing "No Parking, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" signs with "No Stopping, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" signs along the front of the schools will prevent all cars from loading and unloading along this section of road. Motorists will then use the off-street loop/parking lots or proceed to other lower volume area roads. This restriction is appropriate on a four lane road such as Scarborough Golf Club Road due to the traffic volumes on this street. Furthermore, very few motorists are currently stopping in front of the school, so the impact of these restrictions will not be severe. No additional on-street parking amendments are required as motorists are obeying the posted restrictions.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to Be Rescinded

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Scarborough WestLawrenceChandler7:00 a.m to

Golf ClubAvenueDrive6:00 p.m.

RoadMonday to

Friday

Appendix 2

"No Stopping"

Prohibition to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

Scarborough WestLawrenceChandler7:00 a.m to

Golf ClubAvenueDrive6:00 p.m.

RoadMonday to

Friday

6

40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit on Waldock Street

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 25, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To address the need for a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit on Waldock Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $600.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the speed limit signs are available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit identified in Appendix 1 of this report be approved; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Transportation Services received a request from the area Councillor, on behalf of a resident of Waldock Street, to investigate speeding and stop sign disobedience on this street.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Waldock Street is located between Galloway Road and Poplar Road. Eastview Junior Public School, Eastview Park, and a school crossing exist on Waldock Street. Appropriate School Area signs are posted in advance of this school.

40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit Warrant:

The justification for the introduction of a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit on a roadway in the former City of Scarborough is based on a technical warrant established by Road and Traffic Services, and adopted by the former Scarborough Council. Waldock Street does not meet all of the necessary requirements for a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit mainly due to the fact that the 85 percentile speed exceeds 50 kilometres per hour and the minimum distance between controls is slightly less than the requirement.

Despite the fact that the 40 kilometres per hour warrant is not achieved at this location, we do have some serious concerns with some of the speeds which motorists are travelling on this 8.5 metre residential road in front of the school and a playground.

Traffic speeds and volumes along Waldock Street east and west of Havenway Gate were recorded on Tuesday, July 14, 1998. The results are as follows:

The *85 percentile is the speed at or below which most motorists feel comfortable travelling on a given section of roadway considering traffic volumes and surrounding conditions.

We should mention that Coronation Drive, located immediately north of Waldock Drive and similar in nature currently contains a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit.

Collision History:

A review of the collision history on Waldock Street between Galloway Road and Poplar Road reveals one reported collision over the past three years for which we have all collision reports, January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996. This collision occurred in 1995 and did not involve speeding or pedestrians.

Conclusions:

Based on the nature of Waldock Street, we believe it would be appropriate to reduce the speed limit to 40 kilometre per hour to signify the area as a school zone.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Investigations

Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

HighwayFromTo

Waldock StreetGalloway RoadPoplar Road

7

Request for a 40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit

on Bellefontaine Street and Southlawn Drive

Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August 28, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To address the need for a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit on a portion of Bellefontaine Street and on Southlawn Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $800.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the speed limit signs are available in the Road and Traffic Services 1998 Budget Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the 40 kilometre per hour speed limits identified in Appendix 1 of this report be approved; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Road and Traffic Services received a request from a resident of Bellefontaine Street to investigate speeding on this street.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Bellefontaine Street and Southlawn Drive are located immediately east of Kennedy Road, just north of Huntingwood Drive. Lynnwood Heights Junior Public School is located in the area where Bellefontaine Street and Southlawn Drive meet. Appropriate School Area signs are posted in advance of this school.

40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit Warrant:

The justification for the introduction of a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit on a roadway in the former City of Scarborough is based on a technical warrant established by Road and Traffic Services, and adopted by the former Scarborough Council. Southlawn Drive and a portion of Bellefontaine Street meets the necessary requirements for a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit based on the following criteria:

-traffic volume;

-speed characteristics;

-pavement width;

-minimum distance between controls;

-horizontal curve; and

-elementary school frontage.

Speed Study:

Automatic 24-hour speed studies conducted on Wednesday, June 3, 1998 on Bellefontaine Street and Southlawn Drive revealed that most motorists travelled at or below the existing 50 km/h speed limit; however, cases of excessive speeding were recorded on both roads. The results of our two studies is as follows:

Collision History:

A review of the collision history on Bellefontaine Street between Bellbrook Road and Southlawn Drive, and on Southlawn Drive reveals one reported collision over the past three years for which we have all collision reports, January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996. This collision occurred on Bellefontaine Street in 1995 and did not involve speeding or pedestrians.

Conclusions:

Based on the fulfilment of the 40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit Warrant, a reduced speed limit is recommended on Southlawn Drive and the portion of Bellefontaine Street between Southlawn Drive and Bellbrook Road. Continuing this reduced speed limit throughout the entire length of Bellefontaine Street is not recommended as we specifically wish to emphasize to motorists the reduction of speed near the school.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.c

Appendix 1

"40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit"

Regulation to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2HighwayFromTo

BellefontaineBellbrook Southlawn

StreetRoadDrive

Southlawn KennedyBellefontaine

DriveRoadStreet

8

Heavy Truck Prohibition on Neilson Road

and Passmore Avenue

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 22, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To address the need to restrict trucks on Neilson Road, north of Finch Avenue and on Passmore Avenue, east of Tapscott Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $300.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the heavy truck prohibition signs is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the heavy truck prohibitions identified in Appendix 1 of this report be approved; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Transportation Services staff noticed an increase in the number of heavy trucks using Neilson Road, north of Finch Avenue and Passmore Avenue, east of Tapscott Road since the roads were surface treated in 1997. This does cause us some concern as the pavement is not to a standard to accommodate these vehicles without causing damage to the roads.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Neilson Road, north of Finch Avenue and Passmore Avenue, east of Tapscott Road are in an industrial area and provide access to only a few properties. Neilson Road, south of Finch Avenue, currently contains a heavy truck prohibition that applies from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

It is our intention to replace the surface of these two roads this year, however, we have concerns that the continuance of this truck traffic will damage the new road surface. By preventing heavy trucks on these roads, we can preserve the roads until the Tapscott Industrial lands are developed and then constructed to accommodate heavy trucks.

Conclusions:

As these are industrial roads, they are not currently included in our by-law. As such, we recommend that both of these portions of Neilson Road and Passmore Avenue be included under a heavy truck prohibition. Finch Avenue and Tapscott Road provide a convenient route that can easily accommodate any overflow of heavy truck traffic.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

Appendix 1

"Heavy Truck Prohibition"

Prohibition to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3

HighwayFromToTimes or Days

Neilson FinchPassmore Anytime

RoadAvenueAvenue

Passmore TapscottNeilsonAnytime

AvenueRoadRoad

9

Bus Passenger Shelter Installations

Progress Avenue between Milner Avenue and Sheppard Avenue

(Aspen Ridge Homes Subdivision)

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To provide for the installation of two bus passenger shelters on the west side of Progress Avenue between Milner Avenue and Sheppard Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The costs associated with the installation of two bus passenger shelters have been provided in the subdivision agreement of Aspen Ridge Homes (Markham Gardens) Inc. for the development of lands on Progress Avenue between Milner Avenue and Sheppard Avenue.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that two new bus passenger shelters be installed on the south-west corner of Sheppard Avenue and Progress Avenue, and on the northwest corner of Milner Avenue and Progress Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Transportation Services received a request from the Markham Gardens Management Office, on behalf of the Markham Gardens Townhouse Corporation, for a bus passenger shelter on the northwest corner of Progress Avenue and Milner Avenue. Staff have also recognized the need for a bus passenger shelter on the southwest corner of Progress Avenue and Sheppard Avenue opposite the Scarborough Community Complex, 5138 Sheppard Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Many of the residents of Markham Gardens, located on the northwest corner of Progress Avenue and Milner Avenue, are transit users; therefore, a bus passenger shelter would facilitate their complex, as well as the adjoining residential and business communities.

In addition to this location, staff have recognized the need for a bus passenger shelter on the west side of Progress Avenue south of Sheppard Avenue, opposite the new Scarborough Community Complex. A bus shelter at this location will serve the Community Centre, the residential community now under construction, and TTC patrons transferring from the Sheppard Avenue bus route to go to the Scarborough Town Centre. Although boarding counts are not yet available for this section of roadway, it is assumed that in the near future on-passenger usage will exceed the minimum required warrants of 50 persons boarding per day.

Conclusions:

Although ridership counts have not been established for these locations, based on the potential usage, a bus passenger shelters is recommended for the northwest corner of Progress Avenue and Milner Avenue; and the southwest corner of Progress Avenue and Sheppard Avenue. We should again mention that money for these shelters are provided for in the subdivision agreement of Aspen Ridge Homes Inc.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton. Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

(Councillor Feldman, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause in that the bus passenger shelter installations are in the vicinity of a property which he owns at Milner Avenue and Morningside Avenue.)

10

Restricting the Standing of Vehicles on

Belmore Avenue near 31 Townley Avenue

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 5, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To investigate the need to amend the parking restrictions on a portion of Belmore Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $200.00 (approximate) funds associated with the removal and installation of the parking/ standingrestriction signs is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No.20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the standing regulations identified in Appendix 1 of this report be approved; and

(2)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.

Council Reference/Background/History:

As a result of a petition signed by some of the residents near the intersection of Belmore Avenue and Townley Avenue, staff investigated the feasibility of removing some of the parking restrictions on a portion of the road. The specific request of the petitioners was to replace the No Parking Anytime restriction with a No Standing restriction on Belmore Avenue along the north side of the street at 31Townley Avenue. The complaint is that students from Wexford Collegiate Institute are congregating around parked cars in the area.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Belmore Avenue is a residential road located between Pharmacy Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue, north of Lawrence Avenue. Access to Wexford Collegiate Institute is provided at the east end of Belmore Avenue. A No Parking Anytime restriction along with a 60 minute weekday parking restriction is posted on the north side of Belmore Avenue and a No Parking Anytime restriction is posted on the south side. These restrictions were installed in 1971 due to employees from a local car dealership parking on the road.

We reviewed the parking situation on numerous occasions in October and November 1997 and did not observe any on-street parking abuse. We visited this location again in October 1998 and did not observe any vehicles during the daytime at this location. Given these findings, we did not recommend installing any additional parking/standing restrictions. Under the No Parking restriction, even standing a vehicle is not allowed, unless temporarily for the purposes and while actually engaged in loading and unloading merchandise or passengers. Therefore, it was felt that the existing parking restriction would allow for effective enforcement simply by contacting the police. At that time, we recommended that "if modifications to the existing parking restrictions are considered necessary by a majority of area residents, Road and Traffic Services would request a petition from these residents detailing the particulars of the desired change."

We have since received a petition, signed by a number of residents in the area, supporting the installation of a No Standing Anytime restriction on the north side of Belmore Avenue only in the area of 31 Townley Avenue. Any parking taking place in this area is obviously sporadical.

Conclusions:

As this No Standing Anytime restriction will only impact one resident, and there is the support of the majority of neighbours in the immediate area, we can support amending the existing signs to replace the No Parking Anytime restriction with a No Standing restriction on Belmore Avenue east of Townley Avenue.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton, Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

E-mail: clayton@city.scarborough.on.ca

11

Traffic Concerns on Scarden Avenue

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 23, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4, subject to the following amendments:

(1)strike out recommendation (1) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)an all-way stop control be installed at the intersection of Scarden Avenue and Arkona Drive/Heaslip Terrace;" and

(2)add the following recommendation (4):

"(4)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly.",

so that such recommendations shall now read as follows:

"It is recommended that:

(1)an all-way stop control be installed at the intersection of Scarden Avenue and Arkona Drive/Heaslip Terrace;

(2)turn restrictions not be installed to restrict access to Scarden Avenue;

(3)the Toronto Police Service, 42 Division, receive a copy of this report and provide a period of concentrated enforcement on Scarden Avenue; and

(4)the appropriate by-law be amended accordingly."

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (January 23, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4:

Purpose:

To address the concerns of petitioners relating to speeding and traffic volumes on Scarden Avenue, and request that the Toronto Police provide speed enforcement on this road.

Funding Sources:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)additional all-way stop controls not be installed for traffic on Scarden Avenue;

(2)turn restrictions not be installed to restrict access to Scarden Avenue; and

(3)the Toronto Police Service, 42 Division, receive a copy of this report and provide a period of concentrated enforcement on Scarden Avenue.

Background:

Road and Traffic Services received a petition, on behalf of residents living on or near Scarden Avenue, requesting the installation of all-way stop controls at all of the intersections on Scarden Avenue. In addition, the petition requested that all turns be prohibited onto Scarden Avenue from Warden Avenue and Birchmount Road during both the morning and evening rush hours. Road and Traffic Services initiated a series of traffic studies relating to speeding vehicles and traffic infiltration.

Discussion:

Scarden Avenue is a residential collector roadway located between Arkona Drive and Birchmount Road, immediately north of Highway 401. A 40 kilometre per hour speed limit is posted on this road with an all-way stop located on Scarden Avenue at Marlbank Road/Heaslip Terrace. Traffic control signals exist at the intersections of Scarden Avenue and Birchmount Road and Arkona Drive and Warden Avenue.

All-Way Stop Control:

The justification for the installation of an all-way stop control is based on a technical warrant established by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), and adopted as the City Policy by the former Scarborough Council.

Traffic studies conducted on Wednesday, September 10, 1997 on Scarden Avenue at the following five intersections produced the following results which illustrate that the warrant's vehicle volume requirements are not satisfied at these locations:

The table indicates the warrant's vehicle volume requirements are not satisfied and in most cases the vehicle volume split percentage are not met, therefore, all-way stop controls are not warranted at these intersections.

All-Way Stop Control Integrity:

When used at the right location and under the right conditions, the stop sign is one of the most valuable and effective control devices available to the Traffic Engineering Profession. Therefore, it is important that the City maintain the integrity of the All-Way Stop Control Warrant to ensure driver compliance. The following outlines the main reasons why the installation of unwarranted all-way stop controls is not recommended.

(1)Most motorists are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it does result in flagrant violations. In such cases, the stop sign can create a false sense of security in a pedestrian and an attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two attitudes can and often do conflict, ultimately making the intersection less safe for both pedestrians and motorists.

(2)The City has an obligation to provide services in an environmentally conscious manner. The installation of unwarranted stop controls not only undermines the MTO All Stop Control Warrant but contributes to unnecessary fuel consumption and higher levels of noise and air pollution. These pollutants most specifically impact those residents in the immediate vicinity of the intersection.

(3)The All-Way Stop Control Warrant is incorporated in the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Therefore, as the installation of all traffic controls is governed by this Manual, the installation of an unwarranted control could potentially place the City in a position of liability if it was determined to be a factor in a collision

Intersection Characteristics:

If all-way stop controls were installed on Scarden Avenue, motorists would now be required to stop in the front of homes in the area of the intersection.

We are bringing this to your attention as we have, in the past, received requests from residents for the removal of stop signs in front of their homes. Some residents feel that these controls will not only adversely effect the appearance of their homes but they will also lose some privacy due to vehicles continually stopping in front of their homes.

Turn Restrictions:

An origin/destination study conducted on Wednesday, September 10, 1997 at two enter/exit points to this area, Arkona Drive at Warden Avenue and Scarden Avenue at Birchmount Road, revealed a significant number of motorists using Scarden Avenue and Arkona Drive as a through route between Warden Avenue and Birchmount Road.

Our study results, in detail, are illustrated in the attached tables and a brief summary is as follows:

However, automatic 24-hour traffic counts conducted at the two main enter/exit locations on Scarden Avenue over a two-day period substantiate that this road, even with a high percentage volume of through traffic, is still functioning within the guideline volumes suggested for a residential collector roadway being between 1500-3500 vehicles/day. Our study results are as follows:

We must emphasize that when considering the restriction of through traffic on a road, it is very important to note the following:

(1)Any control which discourages through traffic will have an equally adverse effect on travel routes for local residents as there are no exceptions to the restriction for residents.

(2)Any restriction installed to eliminate through traffic on a road will transfer this traffic to other roads in the area. For example, if a turn restriction is installed on Scarden Avenue, the traffic volume would likely be transferred to Cass Avenue, Carncastle Gate or other residential roads in the community.

(3)Traffic controls tend to set precedents. Residents perceive actions taken for one road as a warrant for similar actions on their road. Consequently, these controls can transform an area into a traffic maze and reduce the aesthetic quality of the area or motorists may develop "creative" alternatives to circumvent the restrictions.

Therefore, based on the existing through traffic volumes, the 24-hour vehicle volumes and the above reasons, turn restrictions are not recommended at the intersections of Warden Avenue and Arkona Drive and Birchmount Road and Scarden Avenue.

Speeding:

Automatic 24-hour speed studies conducted on Scarden Avenue at two locations over a two-day period revealed that most motorists travelled within a "tolerable speed range", 1 kilometre per hour to 50 kilometre per hour for this 40 kilometres per hour speed limit roadway. However, cases of excessive speeding were recorded.

Our study results, in detail, are illustrated in the attached graphs and a brief summary is as follows:

As this request was prompted due to speeding and through traffic on Scarden Avenue, we must take this opportunity to emphasize that the All-Way Stop Control Warrant specifically states that it should not be used as a speed control device or as a means of deterring the movement of through traffic in a residential area.

Police enforcement is still the best means for controlling motorists' speeds. Therefore, since cases of excessive speeding were recorded, selective police enforcement of the 40 km/h speed limit on Scarden Avenue has been requested.

Collision History:

A review of the collision history on Scarden Avenue reveals six reported collisions over the past five years, January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1996. A brief summary is as follows:

Although any type of collision is regrettable, we must highlight that six reported collisions over five years are not considered an excessive number of collisions based on the function of Scarden Avenue as a residential collector roadway.

Conclusions:

In summary, based on our study results and city policy, all-way stop controls are not warranted on Scarden Avenue. In addition, turn restrictions are not recommended at the intersections of Warden Avenue and Arkona Drive and Birchmount Road and Scarden Avenue to restrict the movement of traffic on Scarden Avenue during the morning and evening rush hours at this time. We believe that this measure would greatly inconvenience area residents in this community.

However, since cases of excessive speeding were recorded, selective police enforcement of the 40kilometre per hour speed limit on Scarden Avenue should be requested.

Contact Name:

Gary H. Welsh, P.Eng.,

Director, Road and Traffic Services, Works & Environment Department,

Telephone: 396-5061,

Fax: 396-5681,

E-mail: welsh@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of City Council, the following communication (October 9, 1998) received from Councillor Norm Kelly:

I am asking for your support for the installation of 3-way stop signs at the intersection of Arkona/Scarden/Heaslip, in Scarborough Wexford, as recommended by staff.

I have held two public meetings on traffic concerns in that area, at which City Staff (GaryWelsh/Bruce Clayton/Richard Noehammer) were present and supported the three-way stop signs which would alleviate confusion at this intersection. Both meetings (March 11 and June 10 of this year) were held at Lynngate Junior Public School. Over 1,640 flyers were distributed and a hundred residents, collectively attended.

Nearby residents support the installation of the stop sign and are beginning to ask why this long overdue safety feature has not been installed yet. So, your support is important.

12

Part Lot Control Exemption Application PL98007

Winburn Investments Inc., Warden Avenue

and St. Clair Avenue, Clairlea Community

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

Winburn Investments Inc. is one of two builders involved in the construction of the Warden Woods subdivision at Warden Avenue and St. Clair Avenue. The development consists of single-family, semi-detached and street townhouse dwellings. In order to facilitate the conveyance of individual semi-detached dwelling units, Winburn Investments Inc. has filed an application for Part Lot Control Exemption.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council enact a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law with respect to Lots 36 to 43 and 49 to 61 on Registered Plan 66M-2312;

(2)the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law shall be repealed one (1) year from the date of the passing of the By-law;

(3)all conveyances which occur after the exemption from Part Lot Control shall be in accordance with Reference Plan(s) approved by the Director Community Planning, East District prior to the plan(s) being deposited in the Land Registry Office, and generally in accordance with the lots as laid out in Registered Plan 66M-2312 as shown on Figure 1; and

(4)City Council authorize such unsubstantive, technical, stylistic or format changes to the by-law as may be required to properly carry out the intent of this resolution.

Background:

The subject lands are designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan providing for detached, semi-detached and street townhouse dwellings.

They are zoned to permit one Two-Family dwelling per parcel having a minimum frontage of 15metres (50 feet) on a public street and a minimum area of 495 mē (5,330 square feet).

The proposed lotting shown on Figure 1 conforms to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Comments:

(1)Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, 1990, authorizes Council to adopt a by-law exempting lands within a registered plan of subdivision from part lot control. This method of land division allows lot lines to be established after the foundations for the homes are pored thereby avoiding a potential problem of party walls of attached dwelling units being built which do not coincide with predetermined lot lines.

(2)The approval of reference plans for the proposed lot divisions prior to their registration on title will ensure that the deposited plans reflect Zoning By-law requirements and Council's approval.

Conclusions:

The lifting of part lot control on the subject lands will facilitate the implementation of a lotting scheme approved by the former Scarborough Council.

Contact Name:

Jayne Naiman

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7040

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: naiman@city.scarborough.on.ca

13

Request for Direction, Ontario Municipal Board Appeal

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z97047

Sevendon Holdings Limited, 1900 Eglinton Avenue East

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report seeks direction from Council as to the City's position and the City Solicitor's role at a pending Ontario Municipal Board hearing on a current appeal as further detailed below.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council direct the City Solicitor to support the owner's proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment before the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to the above property, subject to the following conditions:

(1)that the owner revise the proposed By-Law Amendment to incorporate a Holding Provision (H) for the 4,645 mē (50,000 square feet) of commercial space which has not been addressed by the supporting Traffic Impact Study;

(2)that the location and implementation of the new public road through the subject property be finalized to the satisfaction of the City prior to the conclusion of the Municipal Board hearing;

(3)that the owner enter into an agreement with the City to pay the appropriate Transportation System Improvement (TSI) Charge, including the dedication of the lands for the new public road, prior to the conclusion of the Municipal Board hearing; and

(4)should any of the above Conditions not be met, that the City Solicitor recommend the proposed By-Law Amendment be revised to incorporate a Holding Provision (H) for the entire 27,870 mē (300,000 square feet) of commercial space requested by the owner.

Background:

This application was submitted to the former City of Scarborough in September, 1997 and is seeking to implement a Mixed Employment Zone (ME) on the subject property providing for up to 27,870mē (300,000 square feet) of commercial uses, including a large food store. The owner subsequently appealed the application to the Ontario Municipal Board, citing Council's lack of decision on this file within 90 days of submission. This appeal was consolidated with the food-related appeals of Official Plan Amendment 965 (OPA 965) and four related Zoning By-Law Amendments which were approved by Council at the conclusion of the Golden Mile Land Use Review.

The Municipal Board hearing for all these matters is scheduled to commence on November 9, 1998. This report is being brought forward at this time to provide the City Solicitor with the City's formal position on this appeal and direction for his role at this hearing.

The property was developed with a 31,175 mē (335,600 square foot) former industrial building which is presently utilized as the head office and warehousing facilities of Knob Hill Farms, as well as a wholesale cash-and-carry operation. While a Site Plan Control application was not submitted, the owner filed a preliminary Concept Plan as illustrated on Figure 2. This Concept Plan proposes to convert 9,290 mē (100,000 square feet) of the existing building to a Knob Hill Farms supermarket and to develop two additional buildings with 13,700 mē (147,500 square feet) of retail space.

This Concept Plan lead to some uncertainty regarding the By-law Amendment filed by the owner at the Municipal Board given that the existing building is larger than the amount of space requested under the proposed Mixed Employment zoning. The owner has recently amended the proposed By-law, and the application filed with the City, to request a total of 49,760 mē (535,600 square feet) of Mixed Employment uses, with the permitted commercial uses restricted to a total of 27,870 mē (300,000 square feet) of space.

The Concept Plan proposes to develop a new north-south public road through the property connecting Eglinton Avenue and Ashtonbee Road. The southern portion of this road, running from Comstock Road to Eglinton Avenue, and the signalized intersection at Eglinton Avenue are now operational. This new road is the key component of the package of transportation system improvements required to support additional commercial land uses throughout the Golden Mile.

Scarborough Council also instituted a Transportation System Improvement (TSI) Charge in the Golden Mile for all rezoning applications seeking to implement the new commercial uses provided for through OPA 965. This charge ensures that the necessary capital improvements are adequately provided by the appropriate owners/applicants and equitably financed by all benefiting parties. This charge applies to the current application.

Scarborough Community Council considered a Preliminary Evaluation Report regarding the subject application on February 18, 1998. Community Council directed that staff convene a Public Meeting to consider the application, subject to two conditions:

(1)that staff conclude the review of the supporting Traffic Impact Study and finalize the location and implementation of the new north-south road and other site access arrangements; and

(2)that the applicant submit a Site Plan Control application for the proposal for consideration by Community Council at the same time as the By-Law Amendment application.

Comments:

(1)A Public Meeting to consider this application, with a subsequent approval of a By-Law Amendment by Council, has not been convened as the above conditions have not been met to date. Staff from the Community Planning Division are of the opinion that, in this instance, the appropriate and efficient mechanism to have Council's position considered by the Municipal Board lies in the City supporting the owner's proposed By-Law Amendment presently before the Board. Staff from the City's Legal Division concur with this opinion.

(2)The Traffic Impact Study submitted in support of the application concludes that the traffic generated by a 9,290 mē (100,000 square foot) Knob Hill Farms supermarket, the existing office, warehousing and cash-and-carry functions and 13,935 mē (150,000 square feet) of additional commercial space can be accommodated on the subject property with the expanded transportation system identified through the Golden Mile Land Use Review. Staff from the Transportation Planning Division have reviewed this report and concur with this conclusion.

The report, however, does not address the remaining 4,645 mē (50,000 square feet) of commercial uses requested in the revised application. A technique is available to support the additional commercial zoning in the absence of appropriate supporting documentation. The By-Law before the Municipal Board can be further revised to contain a Holding Provision (H) which may subsequently be removed upon the owner demonstrating the availability of sufficient transportation and/or servicing improvements necessary to accommodate the additional space.

(3)The owner has declined to undertake the expense associated with the submission of a formal Site Plan Control application until such time as the permission for food uses in the Golden Mile has been resolved at the Municipal Board. Notwithstanding this, staff are of the opinion that it is appropriate for Council to provide the City Solicitor with the City's position on the proposed zoning prior to November 9, 1998.

(4)The location and implementation of the new public road through the subject property has yet to be finalized. Staff have been advised, however, that drawings illustrating this will be submitted for the City's approval in the near future. The City's support of the By-Law before the Municipal Board should therefore be conditional upon these plans being finalized to the satisfaction of the City prior to the conclusion of the Board hearing.

(5)As noted previously, the Golden Mile TSI Charge applies to any rezoning of the subject lands for commercial uses. The City's support of the By-Law before the Municipal Board should therefore be conditional upon the owner entering into an agreement with the City to pay the appropriate TSI Charge, including the dedication of the lands for the new public road, prior to the conclusion of the Board hearing.

Contact Name:

Neil Cresswell, MCIP, RPP; Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-4927; Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: Cresswel@city.scarborough.on.ca

14

Request for Direction, Minor Variance Appeal - A252/97

Andre Adams, 128 Scarboro Avenue

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that City Council:

(1)strike out the recommendation contained in the following report; and

(2)direct the City Solicitor to attend any Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to Minor Variance Application A252/97.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (September 18, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report seeks direction from Council as to the City Solicitor's role at the pending Ontario Municipal Board hearing on a current appeal, as further detailed below.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council direct the City Solicitor not to attend any Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to Minor Variance Application A252/97.

Comments:

Chris T. Fairhead on behalf on Andre Adams has applied to the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto for a variance from the provisions of the Highland Creek Community Zoning By-law No.10827, as amended, to permit two single-family dwelling lots to each have a minimum lot area of 491 mē (5,289 square feet), whereas the Zoning By-law requires single family dwelling lots to have a minimum lot area of 696 mē (7,500 square feet).

The owner has appealed the July 15, 1998 decision of the Committee of Adjustment which refused a minor variance to permit two single-family dwelling lots each having a minimum lot area of 491mē (5,289 square feet) whereas the Zoning By-law requires single-family dwelling lots to have a minimum lot area of 696 mē (7,500 square feet).

The owner also submitted a consent application in support of the minor variance application. The consent application proposes to divide the property into two lots:

(1)Part 1, the parcel to be conveyed would have a frontage of approximately 16 metres (53 feet) and a lot area of approximately 520 mē (5,598 square feet); and

(2)Part 2, the parcel to be retained would have a frontage of approximately 15.2 metres (50 feet) and a lot area of approximately 491 mē (5,289 square feet).

On August 10, 1998, the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings refused the application (attached is a copy of the decision).

The owner has appealed the consent application.

The appeal raises no issues of significant concerns to the Corporation to warrant expenditure of the City's limited resources on a Board Hearing.

Contact Name:

Theo Lawrence, Planner

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7038

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: lawren_t@scarborough.on.ca

15

Request for Fence Exemption

Marie de Billancourt, Robert French, 361 Lawson Road

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that City Council:

(1)strike out the recommendation contained in the following report;

(2)approve the application by the owners of 361 Lawson Road to permit a board on board fence at a height of 3.1 metres on the east and west side lot lines; and

(3)permit the applicant's street yard fence on the east property line to remain at the existing 1.35 metres.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (September 13, 1998) from the Director of Municipal Standards, Scarborough:

Purpose:

The applicants are seeking approval to allow the existing side lot line fences to remain as constructed. The fence along the west property line is of board on board construction of approximately 2 metres in height with a 1.2 metre lattice attached on top for an overall height of 3.1metres. This portion of fence runs for a distance of approximately 6.7 metres along the westerly lot line. Owing to its height, the fence has been stabilized with the use of two by fours attached to the top of the fence and the underside of the eaves of the house. A similar fence in height and construction is located on the east side lot line.

In addition to the screens noted above, the fence on the easterly lot, located in the front yard exceeds the permitted height of 1.2 metres by .15 metres.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)not approve the application by the owners of 361Lawson Road to permit a board on board fence at a height of 3.1 metres on the east and west side lot lines; and

(2)permit the applicant's street yard fence on the east property line to remain at the existing 1.35metres.

Background/History:

Acting upon the receipt of a complaint, an inspector visited the property in September 1997 and, after speaking with the owners, inspected the fence. The fence on both side lot lines was found to exceed the maximum height of 2 metres in the vicinity of the house. As a result of these findings, a notice of violation dated September 29, 1997 was issued. A letter from the owners was received on October3, 1997. This letter outlined the reasons for the construction of the screens including a desire for privacy and the elimination of views into the abutting properties; the screening of abutting porch lights as well as to protect from pesticide use.

The subject property is a well maintained single family home. Pride of ownership is evident in the extensive gardens, statues and architectural applications. All of which, set the property apart from abutting homes. The fence screens and framework erected to support them, which is the subject of the application, provide a basis for plant growth to flourish and from this point of view, the structures complement the existing landscaping.

While the existing screens might be seen to complement the applicant's property, the same cannot be said for the abutting property owners, particularly those on the west side of the property. The view from the westerly neighbour's porch is that of a wooden wall. Owing to a hedge on the easterly neighbour's side, the impact although evident, is not as great.

The purpose of staff's evaluation of fence exemption requests is to identify potential safety issues created by non-complying fences. In this case, no safety issues are evident with respect to the erected screens while the front yard fence height is minor and not considered to pose a sight line problem with vehicles exiting properties.

While the applicant's desire for privacy is understood, there are other methods which might achieve the same effect without the use of the screens. Consideration could be given to the use of opaque glass in the applicant's windows in the vicinity of the existing screens or window coverings could be utilized to block views while allowing light penetration.

Justification:

Section 14 of By-law 24945 as amended, provides that any person may apply for an exemption to any provision of the by-law.

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, District Manager

(416) 396-7071, (416) 396-4266 Fax Number

byng#u#b@city.scarborough.on.ca

Mr. Christopher Thiesenhausen, representing the applicant, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter. The Community Council also received a communication from Ms. Marie de Billancourt in support of this application, and a document containing photographs, a copy of which was provided to all Members of Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

16

City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application W98009

Road Allowance Linking Metropolitan Road

and Continental Place

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

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

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated June 19, 1998, from the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommends that the report of the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (June 19, 1998) from the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Scarborough Official Plan, specifically Schedule"C", the Roads Plan, to identify a new road connection linking the eastern terminus of Metropolitan Road southerly to Warden Avenue through Continental Place, as shown.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(A)Official Plan:

amend Schedule "C" of the Official Plan, the Roads Plan of the former City of Scarborough, by identifying a new 23 metre (75 foot) road right-of-way connection linking the eastern terminus of Metropolitan Road southerly to Warden Avenue through Continental Place, and by amending Schedule "A" of the Official Plan, the Land Use Plan, to also reflect the proposed road; and

(B)authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Official Plan amendment as may be required to properly carry out the intent of this resolution.

Background:

In September 1997, the Council of the former City of Scarborough considered a preliminary report on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications for the vacant Ontario Hydro lands on the east side of Warden Avenue south of Metropolitan Road. (Those lands were declared surplus by Hydro in 1996 and subsequently tendered for sale. The applications propose commercial development on the Warden frontage with industrial and vehicle service and repair uses toward the rear. A Public Meeting on the applications is also scheduled on this agenda.)

Council at that time saw an opportunity to develop a new road in the area that could provide frontage for the proposed industrial user on the former Hydro corridor and additional frontage for other vacant lands in the vicinity in the future. The City already owns a 24 metre (80 foot) wide strip that runs between 41 Metropolitan Road (iCom Information and Communications Inc.) and 100 Metropolitan Road (Zellers Inc. Distribution Centre) southerly from the eastern terminus of Metropolitan Road to the eastern extremity of the Hydro corridor adjacent to the CP rail line.

With the concurrent applications on the former Hydro lands, there is an opportunity through conveyance to extend this strip to facilitate a looped connection to Warden Avenue through Continental Place, as has already been informally presented to staff by the owners of land surrounding Continental Place, Pensionfund Realty Ltd. (Morguard Investments Ltd.). Council therefore, in directing the normal processing of the applications on the Hydro corridor, further directed that an amendment to Schedule "C", the Roads Plan of the Official Plan, be initiated to identify such a new road link in the Plan.

The Official Plan designates most of the subject lands General Industrial Uses permitting industrial, office, education and training, recreation, technical research and development, and subordinate incidental retailing. The eastern end of Continental Place is also designated High Performance Standards permitting possible use, siting, landscaping, parking, exterior materials, signs and screening limitations. The area north of the Hydro corridor is also designated to permit Vehicle Service and Repair Uses. The remainder of the land is Ontario Hydro Corridor, providing for the primary transmission of the public utility, with limited secondary uses permitted which include parking lots, walkways, bikeways, gardening plots and recreational uses.

The subject lands have various zoning under the Employment Districts Zoning By-law. The lands south of the Hydro corridor on Continental Place are Industrial (M) permitting industrial uses, offices, educational and training uses and day nurseries. The same uses are permitted under the General Industrial (MG) zoning north of the corridor, together with open storage. Additionally, Vehicle Service Uses (VS) zoning permits vehicle repair and service garages, sales and service station uses north of the corridor. The Public Utilities (PU) zoning on the former Hydro corridor permits public utilities, pipelines and horticulture. Public streets are permitted in all zones.

Comments:

(1)This City-initiated application was circulated to various agencies, none of whom have expressed concerns. Statutory Public Notice has been provided to all assessed persons within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property. Notice of the City's initiative was also provided to affected abutting owners (Ontario Hydro, iCom, Zellers, Pensionfund and CPR) who have not responded with concerns to date.

(2)The current City ownership north of the former Hydro corridor is 24 metres (80 feet) in width. Transportation staff advise that given the function of this road, a 23 metre (75 foot) right-of-way will be sufficient for the proposed future road..

(3)There are benefits to considering this road connection. This would complete a collector road system for this portion of the Employment District and improve traffic operations on Warden Avenue, particularly for the intersection with Metropolitan Road which provides the only means of egress to Warden Avenue for most businesses on that street. In addition, this road would provide approximately 915 metres (3,000 feet) of additional frontage to enable redevelopment and intensification opportunities for the adjacent properties, which would assist in promoting needed business development in this City.

(4)The September 1997 direction of the former City of Scarborough Council was for an amendment to the Schedule "C" Roads Plan. Most people consulting the Official Plan, however, generally refer to the various Secondary Plans and rarely the Roads Plan. To better inform parties interested in the planning for this portion of the Employment District in future, I feel it appropriate that the Ellesmere Employment District Secondary Plan also be modified to reflect the proposed new road connection, in the same manner as "proposed roads" are indicated in the Neilson and Rouge Employment District Secondary Plans.

Contact Name:

Rod Hines, Principal Planner

Phone: (416) 396-7020, Fax: (416) 396-4265,

E-Mail: hines@city.scarborough.on.ca

17

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Z95032

Aspen Ridge Homes (Markham Gardens) Incorporated

South of Sheppard Avenue, East of Markham Road

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

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

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated June 22, 1998, from the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, recommends that the report of the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough, be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(1)Recommendation (A) Block 2:

(1)Permitted Uses:

(a)insert the words "which shall not permit the preparation of food for consumption off the premises" following the words "retail stores"; and

(b)add the words "and parking for the Scarborough Community Complex";

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(A)Block 2:

(1)Permitted Uses: Apartment Residential (A) Zone and Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) including retail stores which shall not permit the preparation of food for consumption off the premises, personal service shops, financial institutions, business and professional offices and parking for the Scarborough Community Complex;"

(2)Recommendation (A) Block 2:

(2)Development Standards:

strike out the words "may be provided" in (2.7) and insert in lieu thereof the words "shall be provided on Block 2, to a minimum of sixty (60) spaces";

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(A)Block 2:

(2)Development Standards:

(2.7)parking for the Scarborough Community Complex shall be provided on Block 2, to a minimum of sixty (60) spaces;".

The Scarborough Community Council also reports, for the information of City Council, having requested that the City Solicitor report directly to City Council, at its meeting to be held on October 28, 1998, providing a legal opinion as to whether the City may be attracting liability with respect to the density transfer inherent in this application.

Recorded votes:

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned amendment (1) (a), which was moved by Councillor Balkissoon:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Mahood, Shaw - 8

Nays:Councillor Kelly - 1

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned amendment (1) (b), which was moved by Councillor Balkissoon:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Kelly, Mahood, Shaw- 9

Nays:Nil

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned amendment (2), which was moved by Councillor Balkissoon:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Kelly, Mahood, Shaw-9

Nays:Nil

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned request that the City Solicitor report directly to Council, which was moved by Councillor Altobello:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Kelly, Mahood, Shaw-9

Nays:Nil

Upon the question of the adoption of the report, as amended:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Berardinetti, Duguid, Kelly, Shaw -6

Nays:Councillors Balkissoon, Cho, Mahood -3

In addition to the aforementioned amendments, Councillor Balkissoon moved the following:

(1)that the City and the Landowner approach the Ontario Municipal Board for clarification on the density transfer issue; and

(2)that the Bills enacting this application not be presented to City Council pending resolution of this matter.

Upon the question of the adoption of part (1) of Councillor Balkissoon's motion:

Yeas:Councillors Balkissoon, Cho, Mahood, Shaw -4

Nays:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Berardinetti, Duguid, Kelly -5

The Chair ruled part (2) of Councillor Balkissoon's motion redundant as part (1) lost.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (June 22, 1998) from the former Commissioner of Planning and Buildings, Scarborough:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Malvern Community Zoning

By-law and the Malvern East Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law as they pertain to two blocks of land located within the south-east quadrant of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue, as shown on the adjacent map. The proposed rezoning would permit 326 apartment units and

2,323 square metres (25,000 square feet) of commercial uses on Block 2 and 417 apartment units on Block 3, in accordance with the Official Plan policies for these lands.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council repeal the Malvern East Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law No. 13219, as amended, and incorporate Blocks 2 and 3, Registered Plan 66M-2300, in the Malvern Community Zoning By-law No. 14402, as amended, and zone them as follows:

(A)Block 2:

(1)Permitted uses: Apartment Residential (A) Zone and Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) including retail stores, personal service shops, financial institutions, business and professional offices;

(2)Development Standards:

(2.1)maximum 326 dwelling units;

(2.2)minimum 3 metre (10 foot) building setback from the streetlines; canopies and supporting columns may be erected to the street line;

(2.3)maximum 2,323 square metres (25,000 square feet) of gross floor area for commercial uses;

(2.4)parking to be provided on the following basis:

(a)prior to the operation of the SRT to Sheppard Avenue:

(i)minimum 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided on the basis of 1.2 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors;

(ii)minimum 3 parking spaces per 100 square metres (1,076square feet) of gross floor area for other uses;

(b)when the SRT is in operation to Sheppard Avenue:

(i)minimum 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit on the basis of 1space for residents and 0.2 for visitors;

(ii)minimum 1 parking space per 100 square metres (1,076square feet) of gross floor area for other uses;

(2.5)maximum height 16 storeys (excluding mechanical penthouses);

(2.6)minimum of 1 square metre (10.76 square feet) enclosed recreation space to be provided for each dwelling unit;

(2.7)parking for the Scarborough Community Complex may be provided;

(2.8)general zoning by-law provisions with respect to coverage and building height shall not apply;

(2.9)all provisions of this By-law shall apply collectively to the site notwithstanding its future division into two or more parcels;

(B)Block 3:

(1)Permitted uses: Apartment Residential (A) Zone;

(2)Development Standards:

(2.1)maximum 417 dwelling units;

(2.2)minimum 3 metre (10 foot) building setback from the streetlines;

(2.3)parking to be provided on the following basis:

(a)prior to the operation of the SRT to Sheppard Avenue:

(i)minimum 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided on the basis of 1.2 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors;

(b)when the SRT is in operation to Sheppard Avenue:

(i)minimum 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit on the basis of 1 space for residents and 0.2 for visitors;

(2.4)maximum height 12 storeys (excluding mechanical penthouses) within 30metres (100 feet) of the streetline of Markham Road and 16 storeys (excluding mechanical penthouses) on the balance of the block;

(2.5)minimum of 1 square metre (10.76 square feet) enclosed recreation space to be provided for each dwelling unit;

(2.6)general zoning by-law provisions with respect to coverage and building height shall not apply;

(2.7)all provisions of this By-law shall apply collectively to the site notwithstanding its future division into two or more parcels; and

(C)Miscellaneous:

authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law amendment as may be required to properly carry out the intent of this resolution.

Background:

The subject lands are the two remaining blocks within the Aspen Ridge subdivision that have not been rezoned to implement the Official Plan Amendment approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1994. These lands are designated High Density Residential, at a net density of 150 apartment and townhouse units per hectare (60 units per acre) to a maximum of 1600 zoned residential units. Limited commercial uses are also permitted in this designation.

To date, Blocks 1, 4, 5 and 6 have been rezoned permitting 857 residential units. With the addition of the proposed 743 apartments on Blocks 2 and 3, the number of zoned residential units in the subdivision will total 1600.

Aspen Ridge Homes Inc. started development of the subdivision with the construction of a 154 unit townhouse condominium at the north-west corner of Progress and Milner Avenues. These units are now occupied. Also, an additional 146 townhouses are now under construction on the west side of Progress Avenue, between Rosebank Drive and Orchid Place Drive. In addition, a site plan control application to permit 154 townhouses on the east side of Markham Road, north of Milner Avenue, is under review by City staff. Lands along the east side of Progress Avenue have been developed for a public park and for the Scarborough Community Complex which is nearing completion. Lands along the west side of Markham Road and the north side of Sheppard Avenue have been developed with apartment buildings ranging from 4 to 13 storeys, with the north-west corner of Sheppard Avenue and Malvern Street occupied by a commercial plaza. Two service stations occupy the south-east corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue, and the north-east corner of Markham Road and Milner Avenue.

In support of the rezoning request, the owner has submitted a Site Plan Control application to illustrate how the proposed development is to be accommodated on these two sites.

The recommendations in the Preliminary Evaluation Report, adopted by Council on June 6, 1995, requested the applicant to submit sun/shadow and wind impact studies, detailed site and landscape plans with special attention to be given to the provision of facilities and the landscape treatment on Block 2. Council also directed staff to process the submitted applications in the normal manner and convene a community information meeting in June, 1995.

Over 3000 households and businesses as well as the local community associations, were notified of the community meeting which was held on June 27, 1995. The meeting was attended by approximately 18 residents, the Ward Councillor, the applicant, the project architect and planning staff. Building heights and traffic impact were the two main issues voiced by the speakers. At the Councillor's suggestion, another community information meeting was hosted by staff on November8, 1995 to specifically consider transportation issues related to the proposal. Seven residents and business representatives attended the meeting. Both the traffic consultant and the project architect made presentations. At the request of the attendees, all present at the meeting were subsequently forwarded an updated traffic study addendum.

Comments:

(1)The 326 apartments on Block 2 (Figures 3 and 6) are to be accommodated in three buildings, of 10 storeys, 14 storeys and 16 storeys, with 2,323 mē (25,000 square feet) of retail commercial occupying the ground level. The one storey podium structure will link the residential towers to form an integrated development. All parking, servicing and loading facilities will be accommodated internally within the development, either underground or within the podium structure. The proposed landscape treatment focuses on an outdoor public court at the corner of Progress and Sheppard Avenues, a design which mirrors the landscape approach on the opposite corner, at the Scarborough Community Complex. In addition, a roof garden on top of the commercial space will provide an outdoor amenity area for the enjoyment of the residents.

Block 3 (Figures 4 and 7) will be developed with three buildings, two of which will be 12storeys high with the third one being 16 storeys high. A one storey recreation centre connecting two of the three residential towers, will provide for a continuous building edge along the Markham Road frontage of the property.

The proposed building heights are the result of careful design consideration taking into account the existing community fabric, the residents' concerns, the applicant's development program for both sites and the Official Plan site specific policies permitting a 12 storey height limit within 30 metres (100 feet) of Markham Road and 18 storeys on the balance of the land.

Staff are continuing discussions with the project architect with respect to the site plan details and building elevations, including the design of the roof top equipment screening, to achieve an attractive streetscape consistent with the evolving character of the area.

(2)The application was circulated to various agencies, none which expressed opposition to the proposed amendment. A number of improvements related to transportation, servicing, the provision of parkland, schools and other amenities, were addressed through the subdivision approval process covering the subject lands. Statutory Public Notice has been provided to all assessed persons within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject properties, as well as all individuals who requested in writing to be notified of further meetings to consider the application.

(3)The transportation impact study prepared in 1992 for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing supported the provision of 1950 residential units and 7,432 mē (80,000 square feet) of retail uses. The Official Plan, modified in 1995, provides for a maximum of 1,600 residential units and 4,642 mē (50,000 square feet) of commercial uses. Of this total, 357 apartments and 2,322.5 mē (25,000 square feet) of retail, as well as offices, will be located on Block 1 which is owned by the City. This zoning permission is subject to the holding provision requiring further studies to review, among other matters, the transportation needs required for the development of this block. The updated traffic impact study prepared in 1995 for the current applications, took into account the revised development scenario and incorporated traffic projections for the Scarborough Community Complex. The study concludes that the new subdivision street network and other road improvements in the area that have already been implemented, are sufficient to accommodate traffic based on the proposed total development within the subdivision. It should be pointed out that the recently completed Progress Avenue extension and overpass across Highway 401 as well as the widening of Highway 401, have substantially increased traffic capacity in the area.

Pursuant to an agreement signed by the City, the Chinese Cultural Centre of Greater Toronto and Aspen Ridge Homes, Aspen Ridge is proposing to provide approximately 60 parking spaces on Block 2 for the use of the patrons of the Scarborough Community Complex.

(4)In response to Council's direction, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Studies report prepared by F.H. Theakson Environmental Control Inc., which analysed the impact of sun and wind on the development.

The sun study concludes that in view of existing conditions, with a relatively large portion of the surrounding land occupied by retail buildings and the related parking areas, and given the width of the abutting arterial roads, the shadows cast by the proposed buildings will not detrimentally impact on the present quality of the residential areas in the vicinity. In March and September, when shadows are of average length, the new buildings will cast a shadow in the morning on the lower floors of the apartment buildings to the west of Markham Road and to the north of Sheppard Avenue. By mid morning, the shadow line will clear the residential area, and in the afternoon, it will reach the Scarborough Community Complex and the westerly portion of the townhouses on Block 5. During summer months when the use of the outdoor space is the greatest, the shadow casts are reduced and practically do not affect residential areas outside the subdivision. In December, morning shadows cast by the Block2 development will affect the area to the north of Sheppard Avenue. Staff have reviewed the study and have agreed with the consultant's assessment that the future buildings will not unreasonably affect the existing neighbouring community.

The thrust of the wind study was to analyse the wind velocities and paths that will be created by the new buildings and propose any necessary mitigation measures necessary to achieve a comfortable pedestrian environment within the private and public pedestrian areas adjacent to the proposed development. As long as Block 1 remains vacant, the prevailing westerly and the north-westerly winds will create negative conditions in the vicinity of the buildings. To achieve desirable comfort levels, the architect has introduced a number of design changes such as the continuous canopy along the north and east building walls on Sheppard and Progress Avenues, large canopies over the entrances to all buildings. In addition, large coniferous planting is proposed on Block 1 which requires the City's approval. The proposal is currently under consideration by the Real Estate Division. From a planning perspective, the proposed landscape solution is acceptable. In view of the financial constraints, it is unlikely that the City will proceed with the SRT extension and the complementary mixed use development on Block 1 in the near future. Any substantial development on this land would change the wind impact on the subject land, and further wind studies would have to be undertaken with respect to the potential development on the City block.

(5)The Toronto District School Board, Scarborough Division, has expressed a concern that pupils emanating from this development cannot be accommodated without additional portable classrooms at Burrows Hall Junior Public School, Lucy Maud Montgomery Public School and Lester B. Pearson. This concern reflects the Board's uncertainty with respect to its ability to finance future improvements to the existing school infrastructure. With gradual residential development over a longer period of time than it had been originally anticipated, it is possible that the new students may be accommodated in the local school without additional portables. It should also be pointed out that the proposed apartments are generally smaller than traditional low scale subdivision housing, which could be attractive to adult life style accommodation.

The local school, Burrows Hall J.P. School, is conveniently located within walking distance of the development. As requested by the Board, a pedestrian walkway has been installed through the recently developed park to allow direct and safe access from the subdivision.

Although no comments have been received from the Toronto Catholic District School Board, the Board acquired a 1 hectare (2.5 acre) block of land on the east side of Progress Avenue within the Aspen Ridge subdivision to accommodate the needs of future pupils. At the present time, the Board has no plans for the construction of this new facility, therefore students will be accommodated in the existing local catholic schools.

Conclusion:

The requested zoning by-law amendment would permit these lands to develop in accordance with the applicable Official Plan policies and support the City's objective for intensification in the vicinity of the proposed Scarborough Rapid Transit Extension station. The adjacent park with the Scarborough Community Complex will provide recreational amenities for the future residents. In addition, enclosed recreation space will be provided on the basis of 1 mē (10.76 square feet) per apartment unit. The recommended development standards are consistent with the zoning provisions approved for other residential blocks within the subdivision.

Contact Name:

Anna Czajkowski, Senior Planner

Phone: (416) 396-7022

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: czajkows@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Mr. David Yeung, area resident:

I refer to the Notice of Public Meeting in relation to the captioned premises and I would like to submit hereby my written comments:

I hereby strongly oppose the intended conversion and rezoning of the subject lands from Agricultural uses to Apartments and Neighbourhood Commercial by the owner (developer of Markham Garden). The following are some of the reasons for my opposition, namely:

1.The density of townhouses and apartments now erected and to be erected by the owner in the Markham Garden project is too high and over crowded and it is, therefore, not appropriate to increase a total 743 apartments in this area which may cause a lot of unforseen social problems; and

2.Save and except the existing small park/playground next to Markham Garden, there was no other park/garden/playground nearby. On each and every holiday, you can see a lot of residents, not only from Markham Garden, but also from the neighbouring lots crowded together in the existing small park/playground to share the limited facilities.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Ms. Jennifer Chan, area resident:

I hereby strongly oppose the rezoning of the subject lands from "Agricultural Uses" to "Apartment" and "Neighbourhood Commercial".

The reasons of my objection to increase a total of 743 apartments in this area are as follows:

1.There are already 300 units of townhouses (both Phase one and Phase two of Markham Garden) on 29 Rosebank Drive and Progress Avenue. The density of these townhouses is already too high. There is no reason the owner should increase the total 743 apartments in the adjacent area.

2.The area is already crowded with high raised condominiums and townhouses at Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue and at Burrows Hall Boulevard. A high density neighbourhood already exists.

3.A huge capacity of educational facilities or schools to be considered for such high population.

4.This may cause social problems in such high density housing.

5.There is no other agriculture area next to Markham Garden.

6.Remember when I put my offer of purchasing my property, the owner only mentioned that phase 2 of Markham Garden to be built in the area. It is, therefore, not suitable for the Council to grant approval to the application for conversion of neighbourhood commercial to help directly or indirectly the owner deceiving consumers.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Mr. Wilmot Procope, area resident:

I am in agreement with the owner of these two blocks of land to have them rezoned; however, I am not in agreement with the proposed uses. The land is too small to fit six apartment buildings. It would be far better to build townhouses. More apartments would create a wall around this newly developed community. Townhouses would give this new neighbourhood a harmonious appearance. With townhouses, there would be less traffic, people, crime and a greater community spirit because each family owns or is responsible for the land their home is on.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Kwok. C. Chan, area resident:

This is an objection to the request to amend the Malvern Community and the Malvern East Agricultural Holding Zoning By-law. This will block off the sunlight coming into my unit at 39 Kimbercroft Court which is facing Markham Road and increase the traffic flow. A 417 apartments is too big and should be reduced.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from Mr. Lorne Ross, Lorne Ross Planning and Development Services:

Please be advised that I have been retained by Aspen Ridge Homes to provide planning services with respect to the above-referenced rezoning applications.

I have been advised by Planning Staff that a concern has arisen with respect to the interpretation of the 'High Density Residential' policies of the Official Plan, more particularly the policy which requires that an owner consent to the transfer or consolidation of density.

The pertinent paragraph of Policy 3.3 reads as follows:

This policy provides for a maximum net residential density of 150 apartment and townhouse units per hectare over the lands so used to a maximum of 1600 units. In order to achieve a variety of building heights and to respond to adjacent uses, this density may be consolidated or transferred within the designated lands, provided that the owner of the lands that the density is transferred from consents to such transfer and provided that the height restrictions set out below are maintained. (Italics are mine)

To interpret this clause in today's context, it is essential to understand the public policy objectives which underlie the densities policy.

When the Board inserted these words into the densities policy, the Aspen Ridge lands were entirely vacant: no streets, no development blocks, no park, no library, no recreation centre. The entire area was zoned for agricultural uses. The City's Plan provided for the consolidation or transfer of densities in order to achieve several very desirable public objectives:

to allow for a variety of building forms and densities across the six proposed development Blocks;

to allow for a variety of building heights across these same Blocks, subject to the specific height policies set out in the Plan;

to achieve a better 'fit', both functionally and aesthetically, with adjacent development, being higher density apartments west of Markham Road and north of Sheppard Avenue, and lower densities of development generally to the East across what is now Rosebank Park.

The Policy, as passed by Scarborough Council, provided flexibility and latitude to subsequent Councils through the passage of zoning By-laws, to achieve both urban design and socio-economic diversity within this emerging neighbourhood, avoiding the possibility of monotonous built forms and a "project" feel for the area.

Everyone knew that the development would proceed through a plan of subdivision. Indeed the Official Plan before the Board required development to proceed through a plan of subdivision. The Board was considering a Draft Plan of Subdivision which proposed a number of development Blocks. It was conceivable that the owner would proceed to sell some or all of these Blocks prior to zoning to different builders/developers. In that circumstance, the City could have been approached by several developers seeking simultaneous rezonings with a very strong possibility of competition for the "available" overall density of 1600 units. The Board, in an abundance of caution, inserted the consent to transfer density policy in all likelihood to deal with such a situation should it have occurred.

It has not.

The Blocks created by the subdivision were not sold to separate builders/developers. No competition has erupted among competing zoning applications from different builders/developers. Aspen Ridge as successor in title to CMS Investments Inc., has proceeded in an orderly fashion to create the Blocks, apply for zoning, secure Site Plan Control approval and construct the housing on Blocks 4, 5 and 6. Block 1, the former Metro now City Block, and Block 7 the Park were zoned at the same time as the first three development Blocks. Aspen Ridge has constructed and is in the process of constructing very high quality townhousing on Blocks 4, 5 and 6 at densities below those provided in the Official Plan. The residual density is therefore available to be consolidated on Aspen Ridge's two remaining Blocks through the rezoning applications, which are before Community Council on October 14th, 1998.

No "consent" is required from the parties who have purchased homes within Block 6 after it was zoned, Site Plan approved and built by Aspen Ridge.

Neither could Aspen Ridge have granted any such "consent" to itself in 1994-95 when these first three Blocks were zoned.

I urge Community Council to adopt the latitude and breadth of interpretation, which is so often urged on municipal Councils in Ontario. It is indeed incumbent on Council to do so when Council recollects the important public policy objectives of variety and diversity which are so clearly the objective of Policy 3.2.

Lastly I would urge Community Council to interpret Policy 3.2 in the context of the important public policy objectives which underlie the entire planning initiative for this emerging neighbourhood: the creation of a lively, intense, diverse and attractive mix of residential plus office, commercial and cultural activities at the intersection of two major arterial roads and a planned terminus for the Scarborough RT.

Blocks 2 and 3 are the last two Blocks within the subdivision still zoned Agricultural. The number of units requested in our application will complete the residential development of the subdivision at 1600 units, which is exactly the total provided in the Official Plan for this neighbourhood.

In conclusion I recommend that Community Council adopt the view that the "consent" portion of Policy 3.2 was adopted by the OMB out of an excess of caution for a situation which has not occurred and is not occurring in the applications made by Aspen Ridge before you on October 14th, 1998.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (July 8, 1998) received from A. Kulenthiran, area resident:

Please find enclosed a copy of your letter. As a resident at the above address, we would like to object to the proposed developments in block 2 and block 3. We have resided at the above address for nearly 12 years.

Over the last 12 years, a vast amount of construction has taken place in and around our neighbourhood. This has resulted in a high density of population in the area. There is a vast number of cars passing through our street at high speeds making it unsafe for our children. There is traffic congestion at the intersection of Sheppard and Malvern during rush hours. Malvern Street and Ormerod Street were never meant to handle such high volume of traffic. People who purchased homes in this area never expected this high density of population.

Further high density developments in block 2 and 3 will only result in more problems. The donut shop at the corner of Sheppard and Malvern attracts a high volume of traffic. During summer, some of the patrons to the donut shop hang around in the parking lot even late at night.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following additional communication (July 8, 1998) received from Ms. Jennifer Chan, area resident:

Upon receipt of your second notice about the same matter as the letter dated July 22, 1998 issued by the City Clerk of Scarborough Community Council, I hereby assert my same status and opinion as the letter wrote to Ms. Margaret O'Neil on July 8, 1998.

I hereby fax the letter to you again in case you did not receive it or you and Ms. O'Neil are from different departments.

In addition to the six reasons stated on my previous letter regarding my opposition to the amendments, there are some more facts I would like the Council to realize:

1.There are more than 450 units of townhouses instead of 300 units on 29 Rosebank Drive and Progress Avenue (as Phase three of Markham Garden is now under construction). The density of these townhouses is really too high.

2.The traffic condition is already busy at Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue. When the proposed subway station to be built on the same location, there will be a severe traffic burden in this area.

3.I really recognize the builder paid a lot of money to buy the land as a representative from Aspen Ridge phoned me to withdraw my opposition. I understand that business is business; however, I assure that everyone should have the sense of social responsibility and also keep the society a harmonious status.

I understand there is a meeting to be held on October 14, 1998. I hope this letter will not be too late for your preparation. If so, I apologize for any inconvenience caused and I appreciate every effort will be made to forward my letter to the meeting.

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following additional communication (July 30, 1998) received from Mr. Iain Singer, area resident:

On July 15th I purchased the above condominium on the north east corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue after noticing the townhouses being built on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, and being advised by the real estate agent that the vacant lot there was going to be more of the same, and after seeing that they were advertising the final phase at $169,000. The prime reasons for the purchase were price, location and the view of the City and the lake. At no time was I ever advised that the lots were to be occupied by high rises. I was therefore very dismayed to see last week a rezoning notice application sign on the south side of Sheppard Avenue talking about 742 apartments, and your fax of the proposed site plan for Block 2 file Z95032, S95026 from Aspen Ridge homes proposing 4, 16, 14 and 10 story buildings that will block my view. And this does not even count the other block for which you did not send a site plan. Yesterday I checked with the sales office for the townhouses and they are not disclosing the proposed high rises with any of their prospective purchasers, and have no information at all publicly posted. When I showed them your fax they said too bad, you missed the public meeting and so can not complain. I also checked last night with the Superintendent of my condo building and they were not aware of the application, and said as far as they know other people are not either (the building is over 50% sold and many of the occupants may not be the registered owners).

Please put me on the mailing list for all matters pertaining to these two lots on the south east corner of Markham Road and Sheppard Avenue so that I can provide my input and/or protests at public meetings and file this letter as a notice of objection. Also please provide, or advise where I can obtain a profile plan of the two lots with the proposed buildings, that would also include 5580 Sheppard Avenue East, and the townhouses, so that I can verify what sightlines are being blocked, what the visual pollution will be, and how sunlight will be affected.

________

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

-Mr. Lorne Ross, Lorne Ross Planning and Development Services, on behalf of the applicant, and with respect to the concerns contained in his aforementioned communication; and

-Mr. Ben Loughlin, area resident, who requested clarification on the type of commercial usage that might be anticipated in this development.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 26, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

In considering the zoning by-law amendment application Z95032 for the property south of Sheppard Avenue and east of Markham Road, Scarborough Community Council at its meeting held on October 14, 1998, requested the City Solicitor to provide a legal opinion directly to Council as to whether the City may be attracting liability with respect to the density transfer by passing the aforementioned zoning by-law.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

For the information of Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In considering the zoning by-law amendment application Z95032 for lands owned by Aspen Ridge (Markham Gardens) Inc. located south of Sheppard Avenue and east of Markham Road, Scarborough Community Council requested that the City Solicitor report directly to City Council providing a legal opinion as to whether the City may be attracting liability with respect to the density transfer referred to in the Official Plan Amendment for this site.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This property has a long and complex history and has been the subject of several Ontario Municipal Board hearings. The by-law currently under consideration deals with the two remaining blocks on the registered plan of subdivision that have not been rezoned to implement Official Plan Amendment789 approved by the Board in 1994. Policy 6.2 of OPA 789 provides for a maximum density of 1600 residential units over the lands which comprise Registered Plan 66M-2300. The policy further provides that "In order to achieve a variety of building forms and heights and to respond to adjacent uses, this density may be consolidated or transferred within the designated lands, provided that the owner of the lands that the density is transferred from, consents to such transfer ..." The issue is whether by approving the proposed zoning by-law without the consent of the subsequent owners of residential units built as earlier phases of the subdivision, the City may be attracting liability.

The entire plan of subdivision except for Block 1 which is owned by the City, Block 7 which is owned by the City and the Chinese Cultural Center of Greater Toronto and Block 8 which is reserved for a future separate elementary school, was developed by one owner, Aspen Ridge. Blocks 1, 4, 5 and6 have previously been zoned for 857 units of which 450 have now been built and are registered as a condominium corporation or are under construction. The rezoning of Blocks 2 and 3 is now under consideration by Council. The 1,600 units approved by the Board was a density maximum and it was intended that the units would be allocated throughout the subdivision to achieve the stated objectives. No specific density numbers were allocated to each block at the time of OPA approval as it is unknown if Aspen Ridge would develop all the subdivision lands. As the lands were developed by way of a plan of subdivision, there potentially could have been different owners of each of the blocks within the plan. In such case, there could potentially have been problems in allocating the approved residential units due to competing interests and therefore, the provision for a consent to avoid future difficulties.

Density was allocated to each block as it was rezoned and Aspen Ridge as the owner would have consented to the density then so allocated. It is inappropriate to interpret the OPA provision to require subsequent individual owners of the units within the Blocks to consent to a transfer of density to the Blocks currently under consideration. As the density maximum has to yet been met, this is really an allocation of density rather than a transfer of density. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine any liability which the City might potentially be exposed to in approving the zoning by-law. If individual unit owners feel aggrieved by Council's action, the appropriate forum is an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to the Planning Act. The appellant has the option of raising the issue of conformity with the Official Plan as a matter to be decided by the Board.

Conclusion:

The risk of liability resulting from the City enacting the zoning by-law is minimal. An aggrieved owner could, however, appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Contact Name:

Anna Kinastowski

Director, Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law.)

18

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ98003

Bozian Holdings Inc. (Brimell Toyota) 5060 Sheppard Avenue

Marshalling Yard Employment District

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

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

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on thefinding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated September22,1998, from the Director, Community Planning, East District, recommends thatthe report of the Director, Community Planning, East District, be adopted, subject to the following amendments:

(1)Recommendation (A) Zoning By-law, (2) Development Standards:

(a)add the following new Development Standard (c):

"(c)gross floor area of any individual Restaurant shall not exceed 465square metres (5,000 square feet);

and renumber the remaining Development Standards accordingly; so that such recommendations shall now read as follows:

"(2)Add the following Development Standards:

(a)gross floor area of all buildings shall not exceed 0.75 times the area of the lot;

(b)gross floor area of all Retail Stores, Restaurants, Personal Service Shops and Financial Institutions shall not exceed 0.25 times the total built gross floor area, shall be restricted to the ground floor and be located within 120metres (400 feet) of Sheppard Avenue;

(c)gross floor area of any individual Restaurant shall not exceed 465square metres (5,000 square feet);

(d)minimum street yard setback 3 metres (10 feet);

(e)minimum rear yard setback 7.5 metres (25 feet);

(f)minimum side yard setback 3 metres (10 feet);

(g)all uses shall be subject to the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning By-law; and

(h)ground and wall signs which are non-accessory shall be prohibited."

(2)Recommendation (B) Other Matters:

(a)strike out the words "a financially-secured agreement" in the first line of the paragraph and insert in lieu thereof the words "an agreement"; and

(b)add the following to the end of the paragraph:

"In addition, the owner is to submit a Letter of Credit prior to the issuance of a building permit in order to secure the aforementioned transportation improvements.";

so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(B)Other Matters:

Prior to the enactment of the Zoning By-law, the owner is to enter into an agreement which is to be registered on title with the City of Toronto, which requires the owner to make satisfactory arrangements with the Director of Transportation Services, in consultation with the Director of Community Planning, East Office, regarding vehicular access to the site. The agreement shall ensure that the owner provide physical barriers (raised concrete islands) and all necessary pavement markings to ensure that through traffic is prohibited from travelling southbound from the subject site. In addition, the owner is to submit a Letter of Credit prior to the issuance of a building permit in order to secure the aforementioned transportation improvements."

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October 14, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (September 22, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Employment Districts Zoning By-law (Marshalling Yard Employment District), for the lands located on the north side of Sheppard Avenue west of Markham Road, as shown on the adjacent Figure. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would delete the Agricultural Zone (AG) and add a Mixed Employment Zone (ME) in order to permit Day Nurseries, Educational and Training Facility Uses, Financial Institutions, Industrial Uses, Offices, Personal Service Shops, Places of Worship, Recreational Uses, Restaurants and Retail Stores.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(A)Zoning By-law:

amend the Employment Districts Zoning By-law Number 24982 (Marshalling Yard Employment District), as amended, with respect to the lands located at 5060 Sheppard Avenue, being Part of Lot 19, Concession 3, 64R-4429, as follows:

(1)that the existing "Agricultural Zone (AG)" be deleted and replaced with a "Mixed Employment Zone (ME)" which permits the following:

-Day Nurseries;

-Educational and Training Facility Uses;

-Financial Institutions;

-Industrial Uses;

-Personal Service Shops;

-Places of Worship;

-Recreational Uses;

-Restaurants; and

-Retail Stores;

(2)add the following development standards:

(a)gross floor area of all buildings shall not exceed 0.75 times the area of the lot;

(b)gross floor area of all Retail Stores, Restaurants, Personal Service Shops and Financial Institutions shall not exceed 0.25 times the total built gross floor area, shall be restricted to the ground floor and be located within 120 metres (400 feet) of Sheppard Avenue;

(c)minimum street yard setback 3 metres (10 feet);

(d)minimum rear yard setback 7.5 metres (25 feet);

(e)minimum side yard setback 3 metres (10 feet);

(f)all uses shall be subject to the minimum parking requirements of the Zoning By-law; and

(g)ground and wall signs which are non-accessory shall be prohibited.

(B)Other Matters:

Prior to the enactment of the Zoning By-law the owner is to enter into a financially secured agreement which is to be registered on title with the City of Toronto, which requires the owner to make satisfactory arrangements with the Director of Transportation Services in consultation with the Director of Community Planning, East Office regarding vehicular access to the site. The agreement shall ensure that the owner provide physical barriers (raised concrete islands) and all necessary pavement markings to ensure that through traffic is prohibited from travelling southbound from the subject site.

(C)Miscellaneous:

Authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law amendment as may be required to properly carry out the intent of this resolution.

Background:

On September 3, 1991, the Council of the former City of Scarborough refused applications for official plan and zoning amendments and for site plan control approval to permit a 4-storey office building with an automobile dealership on the ground floor and basement.

The applicant has advised that it is the owner's intent to build an office building, which could also be used for training facilities with street related ground floor retail and restaurant uses.

The subject property is L-shaped having an area of approximately 1.62 hectares (4 acres) and a frontage of 76.3 metres (250 feet) on Sheppard Avenue. The rear lot line is 137.2 metres (450 feet) in length. The lot is currently vacant, with no significant vegetation.

A conceptual site plan has been submitted in support of this application depicting a 11,458 square metre (123,337 square feet) 3 storey building with 385 parking spaces (Figures 2 and 3). The proposed density is 0.71 times the lot area. Proposed tenancies are not known at this point as the owner is marketing this vacant site.

The lands are designated General Industrial Uses with High Performance Standards permitting all industrial, scientific, technical research and development, training and industrial facilities, offices, recreational uses, manufacturing and warehousing uses and ancillary retail commercial uses. The lands are subject to the Business District Policies of the Official Plan, which require that when considering zoning amendments to permit offices, sufficient road capacity, a reasonable level of public transit and compatibility with neighbouring uses are to be considered. Under these policies, the Office Uses designation applies, thus permitting Commercial Uses (Retail Sales and Services) as a secondary use to offices, as well as business services, social service uses and educational facilities. The Plan also establishes a maximum height of 12 metres (39 feet) for office buildings on lands designated for industrial uses.

An Agricultural Zone (AG) applies to the subject lands which permits Berry Crops, Day Nurseries, Field Crops, Flower Gardening, Grazing of Livestock, Orchards and Tree Crops.

A Preliminary Evaluation Report was before Scarborough Community Council on April 29, 1998 at which time it endorsed the processing of the application subject to Staff convening a Community Information Meeting, the owner submitting a traffic study, the applicant submitting more details on the proposed uses and that the Public Meeting be targeted for the fourth quarter of 1998.

Community Information Meeting

A Community Information Meeting was held on July 6, 1998, attended by one member of the public and the Ward Councillors. The resident which attended the community information meeting indicated his support for the proposal and his desire that the development proceed as quick as possible.

Comments:

(1)The application was circulated to various agencies, none of which have expressed concern. Statutory Public Notice has been provided to all assessed persons within 120 metres (400feet) of the subject property;

(2)Staff in the Preliminary Evaluation Report indicated that the owner was required to prepare a traffic study. However, upon further discussions with Staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department it was determined that the owner would not be required to prepare a traffic study given that sufficient background information exists to properly assess the impacts of this development;

(3)One of the Ward Councillors has requested that the proposed driveway entrance to the site not be aligned with Scunthrope Road to the south. In an effort to encourage motorists to utilize the arterial road network, it is recommended that through traffic be prohibited from travelling southbound from the subject site. Physical barriers and signage are proposed to be used to force motorists to turn left or right onto Sheppard Avenue at the signals. Staff propose that prior to the enactment of the Zoning By-law the owner is to make satisfactory arrangements with the Director of Transportation Services in consultation with the Director of Community Planning, East Office regarding vehicular access to the site; and

(4)In order to control the amount of retail and restaurant uses, Staff propose to restrict the amount of this space to 0.25 times the total built gross floor area and restrict the location of these uses to the ground floor. In addition, it is proposed that these uses be located within 120 metres (400 feet) of Sheppard Avenue.

Conclusions:

The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment is appropriate as it would provide the owner the ability to construct an office building with secondary retail and restaurant uses. Development of this vacant parcel brings an opportunity to enhance both the City's employment and tax bases and to provide for substantial street scape improvements along Sheppard Avenue at this prominent location. I recommend that Scarborough Community Council support the request to amend the Zoning By-law.

Contact Name:

Victor Gottwald, Acting Senior Planner

Community Planning Division

Phone: (416) 396-7023; Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: gottwald@city.scarborough.on.ca

--------

Ms. Elizabeth Howson, Macauley Shiomi Howson Limited, the applicant, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and expressed support for the staff recommendation, including the proposed amendment.

19

Legal Department Practice on Files Without

In-House Planning Support

Caroline Huaping Chiang, 43 Alanbull Square

Juhan Holdings Limited, 5739-5745 Finch Avenue East

1248161 Ontario Limited, 255 Blantyre Avenue

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

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of Recommendation (1) in the following report (October 2, 1998) from the City Solicitor, viz:

"that $25,000.00 be allocated to the Legal Department from the Corporate Contingency Account to retain planning witnesses with respect to the pending Ontario Municipal Board appeals on 5739 and 5745 Finch Avenue East and 255Blantyre Avenue."

The Scarborough Community Council reports having referred the issue respecting 43 Alanbull Square back to the City Solicitor with the request that he report further to the Scarborough Community Council with a full accounting for the time period between April 16 and July 16, 1998, as to why the Legal Department did not identify to the Scarborough Community Council, the City Council, nor the local Councillors, the issue of funding and the lack of planning evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing with respect to 43 Alanbull Square.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (October 2, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The Law Department is reporting, as directed, on the Municipal Board's decision for 43 Alanbull Square and is seeking the direction of Council on two other similar matters.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

$25,000.00 to be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account for the retention of outside planning witnesses.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1)that $25,000.00 be allocated to the Legal Department from the Corporate Contingency Account to retain planning witnesses with respect to the pending Ontario Municipal Board appeals on 5739 and 5745 Finch Avenue East and 255 Blantyre Avenue; or

(2)in the alternative, that Council direct the City Solicitor to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the pending appeals.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of September 16, 1998, Scarborough Community Council directed the City Solicitor to report to the October 14, 1998, Community Council meeting regarding the lack of planning evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing for 43 Alanbull Square.

The Law Department became involved in this file as a result of Council's reversal of the Planning Commissioner's recommendation that a lawyer NOT attend at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The Planning Commissioner made this recommendation to Community Council because the planner who reviewed the file was of the opinion that the variance constituted good planning and therefore should have been granted. When Council reverses the recommendations of the Planning Department and instructs a solicitor to attend at a Municipal Board hearing, the solicitor is unable to call City planning staff to provide evidence and therefore, the chances of success before the Board are greatly reduced. In the past, solicitors from the former Scarborough Law Department routinely attended at the Ontario Municipal Board on minor variance appeals without planning evidence as was the situation in this case. It should be noted that the current account allocated for outside planners is overspent due to a major Municipal Board hearing in the spring of 1998 which required the retention of outside planners and traffic consultants.

The Ontario Municipal Board is awarding costs more frequently against parties who call no evidence and therefore, Scarborough's former practice can no longer be supported by the Legal Department. After a review of the practices of the former municipalities, the attached reports from the City Solicitor were considered by Council at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998. Due to budgetary considerations, funds for outside planners are to be allocated from the Corporate Contingency Account until such time as Budget Committee and Council determine the appropriate budget location for these funds in the operating budget.

Council has recently instructed the City Solicitor to attend at the OMB contrary to the recommendations of the Planning Department on the following two properties:

(1)1248161 Ontario Limited, 255 Blantyre Avenue.

Planning staff are in support of the variance to allow a senior citizens home to exceed the coverage requirements of the site. Council has instructed the City Solicitor to support the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to refuse the variance. Estimated cost of retaining and calling an outside planning expert in support of Council's position; $10,000.00.

(2)Juhan Holdings Inc., 5739 and 5745 Finch Avenue West.

Planning staff recommended that the Malvern Community Zoning By-law be amended to add Day Nurseries, Personal Service Shops and Restaurants on the site. This recommendation was refused by Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998. Estimated cost of retaining and calling an outside planning expert in support of Council's position; $15,000.00.

Conclusions:

The amounts provided above are estimates based on the estimated length of the hearings. Staff have not yet canvassed the profession to determine if an outside planner would be prepared to testify at these hearings in support of Council's position. In particular, it would be important to secure planning evidence with respect to 5739 and 5745 Finch Avenue West as there is an increased possibility of costs being awarded against the municipality where no expert evidence is provided on zoning appeals.

Contact Name:

Brendan O'Callaghan, Solicitor

Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law

Tel: (416) 392-7786

Fax: (416) 392-0005

20

Other Items Considered by The Community Council

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

(a)Preliminary Evaluation Report

Official Plan Amendment Application SP98014

Loblaw Properties Limited, Various Properties

Wards 13 and 14 - Scarborough Bluffs and Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report, subject to adding the following recommendation (4):

"(4)the Director, Community Planning, East District, being requested to negotiate with the landowner to consider Medium Density on these lands.":

(September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council convene a public meeting to consider this application, targeted for the second quarter of 1999, subject to:

(1)all technical agencies concluding the review of the application and the planning report submitted in support of the application;

(2)staff, in consultation with the four Ward councillors, conducting a Community Information Meeting to discus the proposal with the affected property owners and with residents in the abutting Clairlea Community; and

(3)staff providing notice for the public meeting to all owners and tenants within the proposed amendment areas, to all owners within 120 metres (400 feet) of these areas, and to all parties attending the Community Information Meeting requesting notice.

Recorded votes:

Upon the question of the adoption of the aforementioned amendment, which was moved by Councillor Altobello:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Duguid, Kelly, Mahood -6

Nays:Councillor Ashton - 1

Upon the question of the adoption of the report, as amended:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Balkisoon, Berardinetti, Duguid, Faubert, Kelly, Mahood -7

Nays:Councillor Ashton -1

(b)Preliminary Evaluation Report

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98002

1234115 Ontario Limited, 2131 Lawrence Avenue East

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council convene a Public Meeting to consider this application at the December 1998 Community Council meeting.

(c)Preliminary Evaluation Report

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ98026

Mondeo Developments Inc., 740 Ellesmere Road

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that The Scarborough Community Council convene a public meeting targeted for the fourth quarter of 1998, to consider the following:

(1)removal of the Holding Provision (H) to allow development of the single-family and semi-detached dwelling component of the Phase II lands of the Mondeo Community, subject to:

(a)the execution of the Subdivision Agreement; and

(b)staff providing Notice of the said public meeting to all owners and tenants within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property, at the applicant's expense;

(2)convening a public meeting or meetings, targeted for the first quarter of 1999, to consider removing the Holding Provision (H) to allow the development of the live/work and commercial components of this application, subject to:

(a)staff concluding the review of the traffic study and the satisfactory completion of the transportation improvements necessary to accommodate development;

(b)the execution of the Subdivision Agreement;

(c)staff completing the review of the Site Plan control applications for the live/work and commercial components; and

(d)staff providing notice of the said public meeting or meetings to all owners and tenants within 120 metres (400 feet) of the property, at the applicant's expense.

(d)Preliminary Evaluation Report

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ98020

Green Desk Developments Inc., Claresholme Drive

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(September 29, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council convene a Public Meeting to consider this application targeted for the first quarter of 1999; Notice of the Public Meeting to be provided to all assessed persons within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property and the Highland Creek Community Association.

(e)Preliminary Evaluation Report

Official Plan Amendment Application SP98015

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ98027

Shell Canada Limited, 2650 Brimley Road

Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report, subject to:

(1)striking out recommendation (1) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"(1)that Planning staff convene a Community Information Meeting in November, 1998, and the Public Meeting take place at the Scarborough Community Council meeting scheduled to be held on December 9, 1998, at 5:00 p.m.;";

(2)adding the following recommendations:

"(3)that Shell Canada be requested to consider removing the drive-thru facility proposed in this application; and

(4)that the Toronto Police Service be requested to provide a report to Scarborough Community Council on any statistics that may be available to support or justify community concerns respecting crime in the area.":

(September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council convene a Public Meeting to consider this application at the December 1998 Community Council meeting, subject to:

(1)planning staff consulting with the local Councillors regarding the necessity of a Community Information Meeting prior to the December 1998 Community Council Meeting; and

(2)the applicant submitting a Site Plan Control application and a Noise Study, recommending measures which mitigate the noise generated by the drive-thru facility onto abutting residential properties.

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

-Mr. Bruce McLeod, Area Resident; and

-Ms. Sharon Vincent, Vincent Planning and Associates, representing Shell Canada.

(f)Site Plan Control Application S97161

Petro Canada, 70 Guildwood Parkway

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following reports:

(a)(September 22, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council support the approval of Site Plan Control Application S97161, as shown on Figures 2, 3, 4 and 5; and

(b)(August 24, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4, responding to Community Council's request, at its July 22nd meeting, that transportation staff report on access to and impact on Guildwood Parkway traffic as a result of this development, and recommending:

(1)with respect to the specific suggestion of a potential median opening on Guildwood Parkway, immediately west of Rowatson Road, to facilitate left turn movements at the proposed development site, that it not be permitted due to operational safety concerns; and

(2)that Transportation Services staff be directed to conduct additional traffic counts at the intersection of Guildwood Parkway and Rowatson Road during the Fall of 1998, and again, following occupancy of the proposed residential development, and submit a report to Scarborough Community Council regarding appropriate mitigating measures, as required.

(g)Introduction of Works and Emergency Services Directors

Mr. Barry Gutteridge, Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, appeared before the Community Council to advise the Chair and Members of the structure now in place for his Department, to respond to any questions thereon, and to introduce the following senior officials appointed to his staff:

Angelo Bacopoulos, General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services;

David Kaufman, General Manager, Transportation Services;

Michael Price, General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services;

Tom Denes, Executive Director, Technical Services;

Gary Welsh, Director, Transportation Services, District 4;

Dev Tyagi, Director, Technical Services, District 4;

Mario Crognale, Director, Water and Wastewater Services, District 4; and

Ron Gordon, Director, Solid Waste Management Services, District 4.

(h)Site Plan Control Application S96112

Joseph Furfari Investments Limited, 1159 Tapscott Road

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following reports, subject to :

(1)adding the words "such agreement to be approved by City Council" to recommendation (6)", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"(6)a financially-secured agreement to ensure the operation of the plant, including the crusher, in an environmentally acceptable manner so as to minimize the impact upon properties in the vicinity, such agreement to be approved by City Council;"; and

(2)requesting that the City Solicitor consult with the Ward Councillors prior to finalization of the financially-secured agreement:

(a)(August 27, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council support the approval of the final Site Plan Control Application S96112, as shown on Figures 3 and 4 of this report; and

(b)(October 13, 1998) from the Director of community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council support the approval of the final site plan control approval as shown in Figures 3 and 4, subject to the following conditions:

(1)conveyance for nominal consideration of an approximately 3.5 metre (12feet) widening of Tapscott Road;

(2)conveyance for nominal consideration of a maintenance easement 30 metres (100 feet) either side of the watercourse, and a general right-of-way across the entire property to access the easement;

(3)installation of a sanitary sewer connection;

(4)the eastern portion of the site to remain undeveloped for possible future development in conjunction with adjacent lands;

(5)replacement of the words "broken asphalt and broken concrete" on the site plan with "used aggregate stockpile area";

(6)a financially-secured agreement to ensure the operation of the plant, including the crusher, in an environmentally acceptable manner so as to minimize the impact upon properties in the vicinity; and

(7)other standard conditions of site plan control approval as may be deemed appropriate by the Director of Community Planning, East District.

Mr. Adam Brown, Solicitor, representing Furfari Investments Limited, appeared before Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(i)New Applications Received - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 22, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the new applications received during the four-week period ending September 16, 1998, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(j)Site Plan Control Approvals - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 29, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the various Site Plan Control Approvals granted by the Director, Community Planning, East District, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(k)Ontario Municipal Board Hearings - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(September 29, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the status of current appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board and recommending that this report be received for information.

(l)Consent Applications - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(1)received the following report:

(2)requested that the Director, Community Planning, East District report further on the status of the process respecting Committees of Adjustment and the procedure for severance applications:

(September 28, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the various Consent Decisions granted by the Director, Community Planning, East District, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(m)Ontario Municipal Board Decision - Variance Appeal

135 Zaph Avenue, Highland Creek Community

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(October 1, 1998) from the City Solicitor, advising of the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing with respect to an appeal by the owners of 135 Zaph Avenue against the refusal of the Committee of Adjustment to grant a variance from the provisions of the Highland Creek Community Zoning By-law No. 10827, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n)Mixed Use Redevelopment at 3660 Midland Avenue

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(October 13, 1998) from the Managing Director, Economic Development Division, responding to Community Council's request, at its last meeting, respecting the economic development implications of the proposed mixed use development application by BFC Construction Corporation at 3660 Midland Avenue.

(o)Neighbourhood Complaints - Plaza at 261 Port Union Road

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(1)received the following reports; and

(2)requested that:

(a)the Ward Councillors consult further with Sun Life and the residents to explore increasing the height of the fence abutting this Plaza;

(b)the Director, Community Planning, East District, report to Scarborough Community Council on the process necessary to amend the zoning; and

(c)Sun Life explore alternative uses to the Public Garage Uses including considering the rezoning of this site:

(a)(October 1, 1998) from the Director, Municipal Standards, advising of the action taken by the Municipal Standards Division since Community Council deferred this matter; the result of the Fence Viewer's Decision on the appeal by the homeowners and the associated costs; and recommending that this report be received for information; and

(b)(May 28, 1998) from the Director, Municipal Standards , responding to Community Council's request that staff investigate property standards complaints at Ravine Park Plaza, and recommending that this report be received for information.

--------

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

-Mr. Richard Ferrell, Property Management Director, Sun Life; and

-Mr. William Brock, representing residents of Pendermere Parkway, who also tabled a petition and further background information respecting residents' complaints.

(p)Lawrence Avenue East Study

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved a request by Councillor Norm Kelly that a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Community Council, scheduled to be held on Thursday, November 12, 1998, from:

(1)the Director of Community Planning, East District, on the status of the Lawrence Avenue Study; such report to include the beautification of Lawrence Avenue and the interest expressed by Mr. Nasr Keysar;

(2)the Director of Transportation Services, District 4, on the feasibility of One Hour Parking sign restrictions on the north side of Lawrence Avenue from Birchmount Road to Pharmacy Avenue from 6:00 p.m. Fridays to 12 midnight on Sundays.

(q)Presentation by Toronto Arts Council

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received a presentation by the Toronto Cultural Advisory Corporation (Toronto Arts Council) represented by Ms. Anne Collins, President, accompanied by various Members of the Council, together with Councillor Mario Silva and Special Guest speaker, Ms. Doris McCarthy.

(r)Loss of Quorum

Due to a lack of quorum on Wednesday, October 14, 1998, and pursuant to the City of Toronto Procedural By-law No. 23-198, Section 8, the following matters will be considered at the next meeting of The Scarborough Community Council, scheduled to be held on Thursday, November 12, 1998:

(1)Public Meeting under the Planning Act respecting the former Scarborough Transportation Corridor Lands Study, Phase 3, St. Clair Avenue to Eglinton Avenue; and

(2)Public Consultation respecting the Draft Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation and the Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleased Dogs in Parks.

--------

Councillor Altobello declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that he owns property in the area of the Scarborough Transportation Corridor Lands Study, Phase 3.

(Councillor Altobello, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in Item (r), headed "Loss of Quorum", embodied in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the former Scarborough Transportation Corridor Lands Study, Phase 3, St. Clair Avenue to Eglinton Avenue, in that he owns property in the area.)

(Councillor Miller, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in Item (r), headed "Loss of Quorum", embodied in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to the Draft Municipal Animal Care and Control Legislation and the Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks, in that he has a financial interest in a company that does business with the Toronto Humane Society.)

Respectfully submitted,

LORENZO BERARDINETTI,

Chair

Toronto, October 14, 1998.

(Report No. 10 of The Scarborough Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998.)