TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 12

1Proposed Installation of a Stop Sign Control, Hill Heights Road at Crown Hill Place

2Removal of Parking Prohibition - Fima Crescent

3Introduction of Parking Prohibition - Monkton Avenue, Lothian Avenue, Springbrook Gardens

4Introduction of Parking Prohibition - Iron Street

5Removal of Parking Prohibition - Tamarisk Drive

6Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits - Manitoba Street, Milton Street and Wesley Street

7Declaration as Surplus - Closed Laneway North of Bloor Street West Between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road

8793470 Ontario Limited347 Royal York Road - File No. Z-2021

9Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

10Request for Exemption from Part Lot Control, Zanini Developments4185 Dundas Street West

11Places of Worship in Industrial Zones

12Dedication and Naming of Public Highway - Martin Grove Road

13Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code Fieldgate Apartments, 2 Triburnham Place - File No. Z-2255

14Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - 1051234 Ontario Limited,7 McIntosh Avenue - File No. Z-2264

15Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 12

OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on November 12, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Elizabeth Brown, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

1

Proposed Installation of a Stop Sign Control, Hill Heights Road at

Crown Hill Place

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October26, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the installation of a stop sign control on Hill Heights Road at Crown Hill Place.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)all way stop controls not be erected at the intersection of Hill Height Road at Crown Hill Place;

(2)a stop sign control be erected on Hill Heights Road at Crown Hill Place; and

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

Background:

The Transportation Services Division - District 2, received correspondence (Attachment No. 2) from Ms. Maria Martin, 8 Crown Hill Place, Apartment204, through Councillor Irene Jones, Lakeshore-Queensway, to investigate the feasibility of erecting all-way stop controls at the intersection of Hill Heights Road at Crown Hill Place. A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

Currently the intersection is uncontrolled, and right-of-way is established by the normal (basic) right-of-way rule. The rule, as stated in the Highway Traffic Act, Section 135 (1) & (2) is "every driver approaching an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection that has entered it from an intersecting highway", and, "when two vehicles enter an intersection from intersecting highways at approximately the same time, the driver on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right". Given the complainant's concerns, it would seem that there have been incidents of non-compliance of this rule at the subject intersection.

To address Ms. Martin's concerns the following information was obtained:

1)Manual Turning Movement counts at the intersection of Hill Heights Road at Crown HillPlace between the hours of 7-9 a.m. and 3-5 p.m.; and

2)Review of the three year (1995-1997) accident history.

Comments:

The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario has provided the following warrants for the installation of all-way stop controls on roads and streets considered to be either arterial or major collector streets:

a)A total of vehicle volume on all intersection approaches must exceed 350 for the highest hour recorded; and

b)A volume split should not exceed 75/25 for a three-way control.

A.Manual Turning Movement Count

Date: Tuesday, September 22, 1998

It was observed during the manual traffic counts that:

(1)the peak hour turning movement volume (4 p.m.-5 p.m.) was recorded to be 131 vehicles, 219 vehicles (63%) short of the minimum 350 vehicles required to satisfy the volume warrant;

(2)during the peak hour (4 p.m.-5 p.m.) 72 pedestrians crossed Crown Hill Place at the intersection of Hill Heights Road.

(3)when conflicting traffic movements approached the intersection at approximately the same time drivers were often confused with assigning the right-of-way.

The vehicle volume within the intersection of Hill Heights Road and Crown Hill Places does not warrant the installation of all-way stop controls, however the vehicular and pedestrian volumes do warrant the installation of a stop control on Hill Heights Road.

B) Accident History

A review of the accident history for the intersection of Hill Heights Road and Crown Hill Place revealed no reportable accidents in the last three years (1995-1997).

Conclusions:

The installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of Hill Heights Road and Crown Hill Place are not warranted, however the introduction of a stop sign control on Hill Heights Road at Crown Hill Place would assign right-of-way and provide safe, convenient and efficient traffic movement at this intersection.

Contact Name:

Kevin Akins, Traffic Technologist,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

(416)394-6046; Fax: 394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

2

Removal of Parking Prohibition - Fima Crescent

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October22,1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the removal of a parking prohibition on the south side of Fima Crescent from Belvia Road to a point 61.0 metres west thereof.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the current parking prohibition on the south side of Fima Crescent be amended to allow on-street parking from Belvia Road to a point 61.0 metres west thereof; and

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

Background:

The Transportation Services Division is in receipt of correspondence from Mr. Donovan Goss, forwarded on behalf of Robert Awnings and Signs, and Philip Utilities Coromar/Philip Utilities Uniflow, requesting that the parking prohibition currently in effect on the south side of Fima Crescent be amended to allow for short term on-street parking (Attachment No.2). A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

Comments:

Fima Crescent is a two-lane roadway with treated shoulders approximately 3.0 metres wide. Parking is prohibited on the south side of Fima Crescent from Belvia Road to the west limit of the road. Parking is permitted on the north side of the street for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is zoned Industrial, Class 2.

Due to the width of the shoulders and the low volume of traffic that utilizes this section of Fima Crescent, the re-introduction of parking on the south side of Fima Crescent between Belvia Road and a point 61.0 metres west thereof, would in no way affect traffic on the roadway or compromise traffic safety.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

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

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

3

Introduction of Parking Prohibition - Monkton Avenue,

Lothian Avenue, Springbrook Gardens

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October26,1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Monkton Avenue between Van Dusen Boulevard and the south limit of the road; both sides of Lothian Avenue between Van Dusen Boulevard and a point 114.0 metres south thereof; and both sides of Springbrook Gardens between Islington Avenue and the east limit of the road.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on east side of Monkton Avenue between Van Dusen Boulevard and the south limit of the road;

(2)parking be prohibited on the west side of Monkton Avenue between Van Dusen Boulevard and the south limit of the road, between 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday;

(3)parking be prohibited on the east side of Lothian Avenue between Van Dusen Boulevard and a point 114.0 metres south thereof;

(4)parking be prohibited on the west side of Lothian Avenue between Van Dusen Boulevard and a point 114.0 metres south thereof, between 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday;

(5)parking be prohibited on both sides of Springbrook Gardens between Islington Avenue and the east limit of the road, between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

(6)the appropriate by-law (Attachment Nos. 1 and 2) be amended accordingly.

Background:

The Transportation Services Division - District 2, received a request from Councillor Irene Jones (Lakeshore-Queensway) for the implementation of a "No Parking" prohibition on Springbrook Gardens, Monkton Avenue and Lothian Avenue south of Van Dusen Boulevard (Attachment No. 3).

The affected residents of Monkton Avenue, Lothian Avenue, and Springbrook Gardens were polled by letter to verify this request (Attachment Nos. 4, 5, and 6). The following table summarizes the results of the letter poll.

A map of the area is Attachment No. 7.

Comments:

Monkton Avenue is a two-lane roadway; stopping is prohibited on both sides of the street between the metered zone south of Bloor Street West and Meadowvale Drive. Parking is prohibited on the east side of the street between Meadowvale Drive and Van Dusen Boulevard; parking is prohibited on the west side of the street between Meadowvale Drive and Van Dusen Boulevard between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street between Van Dusen Boulevard and the south limit of the road for a maximum period of three hours.

Lothian Avenue is a two-lane roadway; stopping is prohibited on both sides of the street between the metered zone south of Bloor Street West and Meadowvale Drive. Parking is prohibited on the east side of the street between Meadowvale Drive and Van Dusen Boulevard; parking is prohibited on the west side of the street between Meadowvale Drive and Van Dusen Boulevard between the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Parking is prohibited on both sides of the street from a point 119.0 metres south of Springbrook Gardens to a point 94.5 metres south thereof between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday. Parking is permitted on both sides of the street between Van Dusen Boulevard and a point 119.0 metres south of Springbrook Gardens for a maximum period of three hours.

Springbrook Gardens is a two-lane roadway; parking is permitted on both sides of the street between Islington Avenue and the east limit of the road for a maximum period of three hours.

Land use in the immediate area is predominantly residential.

The primary factor contributing to the high incidence of on-street parking on Monkton Avenue, Lothian Avenue, and Springbrook Gardens is the close proximity of these streets to the commercial establishments on Bloor Street West, and the commuter traffic utilizing the TTC At most times, any weekday, both sides of Monkton Avenue and Lothian Avenue south of Van Dusen Boulevard and Springbrook Gardens are being utilized, normally in excess of the three hour maximum limitation. Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

Complying with this request would be in keeping with the policy of accommodating the wish of the majority of residents on any local street, unless the introduction of the new regulations is foreseen to create a traffic hazard.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2

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

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-7 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

4

Introduction of Parking Prohibition - Iron Street

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October22,1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Iron Street from Belfield Road to a point 152.5 metres north thereof.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited on both sides of Iron Street between Belfield Road and a point 152.5metres north thereof; and

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

Background:

The Transportation Services Division is in receipt of correspondence from CKF Inc, 30 Iron Street forwarded on behalf of the businesses on Iron Street who are directly affected by the number of vehicles that park on both sides of Iron Street north of Belfield Road (Attachment No. 2). These businesses are requesting the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Iron Street between Belfield Road and a point 152.5 metres north thereof.

There are four businesses on this section of Iron Street. Three are in favour of prohibiting parking on this section of Iron Street, while one is opposed to the proposal.

Currently long-term parking is occurring on both sides of Iron Street. A map of the area is Attachment No. 3.

Discussion:

Iron Street is a two-lane roadway; parking is permitted on both sides of the street for a maximum of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is zoned Industrial, Class 2.

A staff review has found that excessive long-term parking occurs on both sides of Iron Street between Belfield Road and a point 152.5 metre thereof, many without license plates. Periodic police enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

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

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Removal of Parking Prohibition - Tamarisk Drive

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October26,1998) from the Director of Transporation Serivces, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the removal of the parking prohibition from the east side of Tamarisk Drive from Humber College Boulevard to a point 51.0metres north thereof.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with the removal of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the current parking prohibition on the east and north side of Tamarisk Drive be amended to allow on-street parking from Humber College Boulevard to a point 51.0 metres north thereof; and

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

Background:

In December 1997, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Department, received a petition from Mr. Tranquillo Musso forwarded on behalf of the residents of Tamarisk Drive requesting the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of Tamarisk Drive through the curve section of the roadway, north of Humber College Boulevard. In April 1998, a report was submitted to Etobicoke Community Council for the approval of this parking prohibition (Attachment No. 2).

In July 1998, the Transportation and Engineering Planning Department received a petition from the residents of Tamarisk Drive (Attachment No. 3) who were directly affected by this prohibition. They requested that this parking regulation currently in effect on Tamarisk Drive, in front of their properties, be rescinded to allow for short-term on-street parking. Most of these homeowners were not represented on the original petition.

The ten (10) affected residents of Tamarisk Drive were polled by letter in September of this year, to obtain their opinion on the proposal outlined in the most recent petition (Attachment No. 4). There were six (6) respondents to the poll: five (5) were in favour of the proposal and one (1) opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 5.

Comments:

Tamarisk Drive is a two-lane roadway; parking is prohibited on both sides of the street from Humber College Boulevard to a point 51.0 metres north thereof. On all other sections of Tamarisk Drive, parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Conclusions:

Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents, Council's endorsement of this matter would be appropriate.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

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

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-5 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

_____

Mr. T. Florio appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the foregoing matter.

6

Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits - Manitoba Street,

Milton Street and Wesley Street

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October26,1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 2:

Purpose:

To propose the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme on Manitoba Street between Royal York Road and Wesley Street; Milton Street between Melrose Street and Algoma Street; and Wesley Street between Portland Street and Melrose Street; and to propose a set fine for the contravention of Chapter 183 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code.

Funding Sources:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the north side of Manitoba Street between Royal York Road and Wesley Street;

(2)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the west side of Milto nStreet between Melrose Street and Algoma Street;

(3)parking be prohibited on the east side of Milton Street between Melrose Street and Algoma Street;

(4)the On-Street Permit Parking Programme be introduced on the east side of Wesley Street between Portland Street and Melrose Street;

(5)parking be prohibited on the west side of Wesley Street between Portland Street and Melrose Street;

(6)the appropriate by-laws (Attachment Nos. 1, 2 and 3) be amended accordingly; and

(7)the City Solicitor be requested to submit the appropriate set fine application to the Office of the Attorney General of Ontario for the contravention of this by-law.

Background:

Over the past five years, the Transportation Services Division - District 2 and the Area Councillors, have received requests from the residents of Manitoba Street, Melrose Street, Milton Street and Wesley Street enquiring about the feasibility of implementing the On-Street Parking Permit Parking Programme for these streets (Attachment Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7). Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly medium density residential. A map of the area is Attachment No.8.

Discussion:

A)Introduction of On-Street Permit Parking Programme

In June 1998, the Transportation Services Division received petitions (Attachment Nos. 9 and 10) from the residents of Milton Street between Melrose Street and Algoma Street, and from the residents of Wesley Street between Portland Street and Melrose Street requesting the introduction of the On-Street Permit Parking Programme on these streets.

Staff polled the affected residents of Manitoba Street, Melrose Street, Milton Street, and Wesley Street to solicit public opinion on this matter (Attachment Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14).

The attached chart summarizes the results of these polls (Attachment No. 15). As you can note, the response from the public to our poll was poor, however, given the level of expression of interest through the petitions, and the more positive response to the programme by those who did respond, staff concluded that the On-Street Permit Parking Programme can be implemented on the following street sections:

(a)Manitoba Street between Royal York Road and Westley Street

(b)Milton Street between Melrose Street and Algoma Street

(c)Wesley Street between Portland Street and Melrose Street

B)Set Fine Application

In 1989, Council for the City of Etobicoke, enacted By-law No. 1989-261 (Attachment No. 16); thereby introducing the On-Street Permit Parking Programme in Etobicoke.

When this by-law was initially approved, consideration was being given to changing the fine structure for the offenses associated with on-street permits. As a result of the fact that there was ongoing discussions regarding this matter, the original By-Law No. 1989-261, approved by Council, was never forwarded to the Office of the Attorney General of Ontario for set fine approval. It has been brought to our attention that this matter now needs to be formalized. Therefore, it is requested that Council incorporate the following clause into Chapter 183, Article V, of the Municipal Code.

"No person shall park on the streets at the side and at the locations and times set out in Schedule A unless a valid permit is displayed according to the terms of this Article."

Conclusions:

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

Based on the staff investigation of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents who reside on Manitoba Street between Royal York Road and Wesley Street; and Wesley Street between Portland Street and Melrose Street, and the petition from the residents of Milton Street between Melrose Street and Algoma Street, Council's endorsement of the recommendations contained herein would be appropriate.

Additionally, the enactment of this amendment to Chapter 183 of the Municipal Code will ensure that the fine structure for this by-law meets with the criteria necessary to receive approval from the Office of the Attorney General of Ontario.

Contact Name:

Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,

Transportation Services Division - District 2.

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

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-16 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Declaration as Surplus - Closed Laneway North of Bloor Street

West Between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October28,1998) from the Manager of Realty Services, Etobicoke-York District:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested the Manager, Realty Services, Etobicoke-York District, to examine the provisions of the proposed lease and submit a further report to the Community Council, and prior to renewal to ensure that the lease is in accordance with the original lease.

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Manager of Realty Services, Etobicoke-York District:

Purpose:

To respond to concerns raised by local area residents regarding the proposed sale of a former public laneway.

Financial Implications:

One-time revenue would have been generated from the proposed sale. However, renewal of the existing lease will provide some ongoing rental revenue.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the property described as Parts 4 and 5 on Plan 64R-11289, formerly in the City of Etobicoke, now City of Toronto, being the remainder of the closed laneway north of Bloor Street West between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, comprising an area of approximately 464 m² (4,994 sq. ft.), not be sold;

(2)the opposition to the proposed sale by the residential property owners in the area be noted for future reference;

(3)steps be taken to renew the lease of the former laneway to the abutting owners for parking for a term of ten (10) years at a rent to be negotiated by the City's Realty Services staff; and

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

Background:

On June 19, 1984, Metropolitan Council adopted Executive Committee Report No. 17, Item No.38, authorizing the sale of Block W-28 - west side Kingsmill Road to east side Kings Lynn Road, to Bloorhill Properties Limited (who were also acting for Lorne Reynolds Holdings Limited regarding their interest).

According to that report, "negotiations were conducted with the owners involved and as a result, an acceptable offer has been received from Bloorhill Holdings Limited, owners of Nos.2842,2844and2846 Bloor Street West, who are also acting on behalf of Lorne Reynolds Holdings Limited, owners of No. 2848 Bloor Street West, for the purchase of the Metropolitan-owned lands" under certain conditions, including "the retention by the Metropolitan Corporation of a permanent sub-surface easement".

A copy of the above-referenced Metropolitan Toronto report is attached.

Pursuant to By-law 1985-264, The Corporation of the City of Etobicoke adopted changes to the Zoning Code to allow parking of automobiles on the land at the rear of 2842, 2844, 2846, and2848Bloor Street West in conjunction with the adjacent residential and commercial uses, subject to certain conditions. That by-law also permitted the development of a single family dwelling at 9Kings Lynn Road on the lot that was severed by Bloorhill Properties from the land they purchased from Metro.

Please refer to the attached copy of By-law 1985-264.

A landscaping and parking plan was approved and implemented at the expense of the owners of the Bloor Street properties. See the plan attached hereto.

Subsequently, City of Etobicoke Council enacted By-law 1986-221 to stop up and close portions of the lane shown on Plan 2314, and for the sale and lease of certain parts of the lane.

A copy of By-law 1986-221 is also attached for reference.

Portions of the former lane between Prince Edward Drive and Kings Lynn Road, and between KingsmillRoad and Kingscourt Drive were offered for sale to the abutting owners.

The portion of the lane between Kings Lynn Road and Kingsmill Road, which is the subject of this report, was leased to the adjoining owners pursuant to Clause 11 of the Fifteenth Report of the Boardof Control, 1986, adopted by Council at its meeting held on June 2, 1986. Please refer to the attached memorandum dated June 4, 1986, which summarizes the recommendation. Bloorhill Properties Ltd. and Lorne Reynolds Holdings are abutting owners on both sides of the lane by virtue of their purchase of former Metropolitan Toronto land north of the lane that was deemed surplus to TTC subway requirements as mentioned earlier.

The lease term ran from September 1, 1986, to August 31, 1996, and is presently on an overholding basis from month-to-month. The last rent payment covered from September 1, 1996, to August31,1997. A request for an extension of the lease was not received from the tenants and; consequently, the lease was allowed to lapse.

When the portfolio of City-owned properties was reviewed for purposes of identifying surplus properties for possible sale, the subject land was included as a potential target for disposal. Discussions with Bloorhill Properties regarding their possible interest in purchasing were initiated around October of 1997. Due to activities related to the amalgamation with the new City of Toronto, the matter of the lease renewal or sale was given a low priority.

Comments:

Pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Act, property owners abutting a public highway or public lane are entitled to a right of first refusal to purchase a surplus road allowance or laneway.

In accordance with Municipal Act requirements, public notice of the intent to stop up, close, and sell by way of publishing in a local newspaper for four consecutive weeks is required. The required notices were published in the Etobicoke Guardian with the first ad appearing on October 3, 1998.

As a result of the publication of the notice, several calls and letters were received from local area residents as well as from the President of The Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association. All were in opposition to the proposal to sell the lane based on historical controversy relating to the lane dating back some eleven years, as well as current and ongoing concerns about the potential redevelopment of the Bloorhill Properties and Lorne Reynolds Holdings site. The concern revolves around potential negative impacts on the surrounding community.

Conclusion:

Staff were of the view that a restrictive covenant precluding any development on the former lane could have been included as a condition of the proposed sale, and would have addressed any misapprehension regarding redevelopment. However, in light of the vehement opposition to the proposal to sell the surplus lane due to concerns about the possible redevelopment implications, it is suggested that the sale of the lane not be pursued. Alternatively, the expired lease should be renewed for a further ten (10) years based on a rental structure to be negotiated between Realty Services staff and the two abutting owners.

Contact:

F. G. Bedard

Manager, Realty Services, Etobicoke-York District

Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895

(Copies of the attachments referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following communications:

-(October 19, 1998) from Mr. B. Robertson, Etobicoke, advising of the community's opposition to disposal of the subject property; and

-(October 23, 1998) from Ms. M. Campbell, President, Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association, opposing sale of the property.

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

-Mr. B. Robertson, Etobicoke; and

-Ms. D. J. Miller, Etobicoke.

8

793470 Ontario Limited

347 Royal York Road - File No. Z-2021

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November12,1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To respond to a request by the applicant to revise the conditions to approval adopted by Etobicoke Council on September 22, 1997, requiring the confirmation that necessary approvals have been secured from the Toronto Separate School Board prior to the adoption of an amending by-law, and that such condition be deferred until the Site Plan Approval stage.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that Condition 2. iii), with respect to the Toronto Separate School Board be deleted and that a new Condition 5. vii) be added, requiring that confirmation of approval being secured from the Toronto Separate School Board be satisfied at the Site Plan Approval stage, thereby allowing the necessary Zoning By-law to be enacted.

Background:

On September 22, 1997, Etobicoke Council approved, subject to fulfillment of conditions, the application submitted by 793470 Ontario Limited for amendment to the Official Plan from Industrial to High Density Residential and to the Zoning Code from Industrial (M) to Fourth Density Residential (R4) to permit the development of an 11- storey, 135-unit condominium apartment building at 347 Royal York Road.

Official Plan Amendment No. 60-97 was approved by Etobicoke Council on October 6, 1997.

The applicant has further completed all other requirements to be fulfilled prior to rezoning, including the signing of an agreement with the Toronto Public School Board.

The applicant has not, however, been able to reach an agreement with the Toronto Catholic School Board. The applicant advises that the Catholic School Board has asked that the financial contribution to the Board be secured by the posting of a Letter of Credit, which will be drawn upon at the time of the issuance of a building permit(s) for the development. While the amount of the contribution is not disputed by the applicant, this arrangement is unsatisfactory as the funds will be frozen for some time, perhaps years, until the development proceeds. This is also not consistent with the agreement reached with the Public School Board who did not require the posting of a Letter of Credit, but instead require payment prior to the issuance of building permit(s).

Conclusion:

The applicant's request is considered reasonable and is consistent with current practice, and would allow the necessary zoning by-law to be enacted by Council.

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP, Planner, West District

Tel: (416) 394-6004; Fax: (416) 394-6063

9

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (November12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, be adopted; and further

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to attend at the Ontario Municipal Board for the purpose of seeking an adjournment of an appeal relating to 16 Tremblay Drive (Application No. A344/98ET) as the owner will be out of the country:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There will be financial costs associated with the appeals involving 189 Rexdale Boulevard and 165Islington Avenue.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that legal and staff representation be provided for the appeals regarding Application No. A-305/98ET, 189 Rexdale Boulevard, and A-262/98ET, 165 Islington Avenue, and that legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding Application No. A-286/98ET, 399 Lake Promenade, and A-307/98ET, 282 Rimilton Avenue and A-320/98, 391 Renforth Drive.

Comments:

The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:

i)Address: 189 Rexdale Boulevard

Applicant:William Muller

Appellant:Patrick Di Monte, Solicitor for the applicant.

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:Proposed variances to Sections 304-34, 304-31G, 304-36B.(1), 304-20B, 304-20C, 304-36G.(1), 304-20D and 304-20E of the Zoning Code with respect to permitted uses, landscaping, parking and setbacks requirements in order to recognize the operation of a stand alone car sales centre on 1037.13m² (11,164 sq.ft.) of the west portion of the front yard of the subject lands, including the establishment of a freestanding sales trailer and freestanding washroom facility on the lands.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Comments:The subject site is currently being used for the storage and parking of miscellaneous items and vehicles such as trailers, boats, derelict auto-parts, house-trailers, dump trucks etc. The applicant's proposal requires a total of eight variances from the general provisions of the Zoning Code and the Supplementary Regulations for Stand Alone Vehicles Sales and/or Rental Establishments. The supplementary regulations were enacted in 1997, providing for such operations to be permitted only in accordance with locational criteria and site specific standards (as now set out in the Zoning Code). The proposed used car sales operation from a sales trailer located in the front portion of the property is inappropriate and contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Therefore, legal and staff representation is warranted.

ii)Address: 399 Lake Promenade

Applicant:Ver Gacanin, Alberto Macedo and Armandina Macedo

Appellant:Ver Gacanin, Alberto Macedo and Armandina Macedo

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:The property is occupied by a duplex dwelling with an illegal basement apartment and the applicant wishes to legalize the basement unit and make additions to the existing structure. The Multiple Residential Long Branch (RM1) zone does not recognize duplex units with basement apartments (Section 330-25 of the Zoning Code) and therefore, structural alterations are not permitted (Section 330-6[1] of the Zoning Code). Relief is also sought to permit outdoor stairs to be located 0.8m (2.6 ft.) from the side lot line whereas Section 330-26B.(6)(b) of the Zoning Code requires a minimum setback of 1.8 m (5.9 ft.).

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Comments:The Multiple Residential Long Branch (RM1) zone permits duplexes and triplexes but does not recognize a duplex with a basement unit. As the application does not involve substantive planning matter, legal and staff representation is not warranted.

iii)Address:165 Islington Avenue

Applicant:Eugenia Biedrzycka

Appellant:Eugenia Biedrzycka

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:To legalize and maintain the use of single detached dwelling as a lodging house for seven lodgers. A lodging house is not listed as a permitted use on the site, which is zoned Second Density Residential (R2) (New Toronto).

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Comments:As lodging houses are not listed as a permitted use in the Second Density Residential (R2) (New Toronto) zone, applicable Official Plan policies require that the proposed facility be evaluated on the basis of an application for site-specific by-law amendment, rather than minor variance. Therefore, legal and staff representation is warranted.

iv)Address:282 Rimilton Avenue

Applicant:Porfirio and Madalena Da Silva

Appellant:Porfirio and Madalena Da Silva

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB.

Application:To permit the construction of a new single detached dwelling on a vacant lot. The dwelling would be set back 6 m from the front lot line and 7.17 m from the rear lot line, while the required minimum setbacks are 7.99 m and 8.38 m, respectively. The dwelling would have a gross floor area of 220.86 m² (0.6floor space index), while a maximum floor area of 147.39 m2 (0.4 floor space index), is required by the by-law.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Comments:The proposed dwelling would be situated on a relatively shallow lot severed earlier in 1998, and is similar in scale, character and setbacks to existing dwellings in the vicinity. Therefore, legal and staff representation is not warranted.

v)Address:391 Renforth Drive

Applicant:Bogdan and Bozena Jakubowski

Appellant:Bogdan and Bozena Jakubowski

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB.

Application:To permit the construction of a new two storey addition to an irregular shaped corner lot which would result in an average rear yard setback of 5.89m (20 ft). The Zoning Code requires an average rear yard setback of 8.08 m (27 ft) for the subject site.

Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.

Comments:As the subject site is an irregular shaped corner lot, staff are of the opinion that legal and staff representation is not warranted.

Conclusion:

The subject appeals were reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that appeal items (i) and (iii) involve substantive planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is warranted for these appeals.

As items (ii), (iv) and (v) do not involve substantive planning issues, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is not warranted for these appeals.

Contact Name:

Richard Kendall, Principal Planner

Tel: (416)394-8227, Fax: (416)394-6063

10

Request for Exemption from Part Lot Control, Zanini Developments

4185 Dundas Street West

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To review a request for exemption from Part Lot Control.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the request for exemption from part lot control be approved and that staff be authorized to forward the draft bill to City Council for adoption.

Background:

In June, 1998, the property located on the south side of Dundas Street, east of Prince Edward Drive, was rezoned, under By-law 328-1998, from General Commercial (CG) and Second Density Residential (R2) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the development of 36 freehold townhouse units on a private road. The proposal has received delegated site plan approval and applications have been received for building permits.

Proposal:

The applicant is requesting exemption from part lot control in order to create separate parcels for the townhouse units. Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. are copies of a location plan and site plan.

Comment:

The project has been reviewed during the rezoning and site plan control approval processes. Financial securities are required to be posted prior to the issuance of building permits to ensure completion in accordance with the approved plans. The lifting of part lot control is requested in order to permit the sale of the individual units.

The staff in Community Planning, the Fire Department, Building Standards and City Works Services have reviewed the application and have no concerns with the requested exemption. Urban Development staff are satisfied that sufficient public notice for the project was given in connection with the application for rezoning and that further public notice is not warranted.

Conclusion:

An exemption from part lot control for the project is considered appropriate for the orderly development of the land.

Contact Name:

Jacquelyn Daley,

Planner, Community Planning

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

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-2 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

11

Places of Worship in Industrial Zones

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To review the financial and land use implications of Zoning By-laws which permit Places of Worship in industrial zones.

Financial Implications:

This report assesses the impact on the City's tax base of permitting Places of Worship in industrial zones due to their tax exempt status.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)Places of Worship continue to be permitted in industrial zones in the Etobicoke Zoning Code.

(2)the Provincial Tax Assessment Office be requested to review their approach to the assessment of large new religious centres with substantial accessory uses to determine if any parts thereof should be assessed separately as a tax generating use.

(3)the Etobicoke Zoning Code be reviewed and compared with the Zoning By-laws of the former municipalities of the City to assure that consistent and adequate parking standards for Places of Worship are applied throughout the industrial zones of the City.

Background:

On March 23 and 24, 1998, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before it a request from the Etobicoke Community Council directing the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to examine by-laws that permit church uses in industrial zones because of the impact on the tax base. The Committee referred the matter to the Commissioner for consideration as part of the 1998 City Planning Work Program.

Staff have reviewed the by-law provisions for such uses and the approaches of other former municipalities in the City and note that many of the former municipalities have recently amended or are considering amendments to their Zoning By-laws to permit Places of Worship in industrial zones/employment districts. As the fiscal concern about Places of Worship locating in industrial zones appears to be a localized issue, the Executive Director of Planning has directed this report to the Etobicoke Community Council for consideration.

Discussion:

Place of Worship Defined:

Recently, the term "church" has been replaced in City zoning documents with the term Place of Worship in order to reflect the multi-denominational character of the City. A Place of Worship is generally defined as lands or buildings used for religious assembly and worship by an association which is a charitable organization permanently organized for the advancement of religion and for the conduct of religious worship, services or rites. Such facilities often include accessory uses related to the operation such as, auditoriums, gymnasiums, cafeterias, day care facilities, nursery schools, private schools, meeting rooms, administrative offices, and residences for clergy.

Zones Permitting Places of Worship:

A review of City zoning by-laws indicates that although Places of Worship are generally permitted in all residential zones and most commercial zones, the same does not apply to industrial zones/employment districts throughout the City. For these zones, a distinctive pattern exists with the former three inner municipalities of East York, Toronto and York generally not permitting Places of Worship in industrial zones and the three outer areas of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough permitting Places of Worship in most industrial zones/employment districts, subject to certain conditions. A more detailed description of the zoning regulations for the six former municipalities is described in Table 1, attached.

In the former City of Etobicoke, Places of Worship have been permitted uses in industrial zones since the 1940's. A recent review of the industrial provisions of the Zoning Code completed in 1995, maintained the as-of-right status of Places of Worship in industrial zones.

The former City of North York introduced Places of Worship into some industrial areas in 1988, as a result of recommendations made by the Mayors Task Force on Places of Worship. The Task Force was created as a result of public concern with the development of new Places of Worship in residential areas. The Task Force's final report recommended, among other things, that Places of Worship be permitted in some additional commercial zones and some industrial zones to provide alternate locations for Places of Worship. North York initiated a second study to review the appropriateness of Places of Worship in industrial zones in 1994. A comprehensive study was undertaken which included a public consultation process, a Public Meeting and input from a large number of religious organizations. The study concluded that Places of Worship are generally appropriate uses in industrial zones, and recommended that Places of Worship should be permitted in all industrial zones with certain development provisions controlling maximum building size, separation distances and parking requirements to minimize impact on industrial areas.

The former City of Scarborough reviewed the issue of permitting Places of Worship in industrial zones/employment districts in 1994. Planning studies which resulted in amendments to the City's Official Plan and Zoning By-laws recommended that Places of Worship be permitted in Employment Districts along arterial roads to provide opportunities for the kinds of Places of Worship that are being built today.

Evolution of Places of Worship:

A review of the pattern of existing church development, prior church studies and recent applications within the City for Places of Worship has demonstrated that the use is continually evolving with larger facilities, expanding services and functions and different locational needs. The evolution of Places of Worship can be broken down into four phases and described as follows:

In phase one, lands for Places of Worship were normally set aside during the subdivision process in developing residential communities to serve the local congregation. These lots were on average 0.4hectares (1 acre) in size and developed with the traditional form of churches of the Judeo/Christian faiths which served the local population and required sites internal to the neighbourhood. These facilities were relatively simple in nature with assembly halls, and few accessory uses consisting of basement halls, meeting rooms and perhaps living quarters for the pastor of the church.

The second phase involved the introduction of new Places of Worship into established and mature residential communities. Establishing these facilities often involved new infill development within or at the periphery of the residential community to be served. Site size remained constant and facilities remained relatively single purpose in nature with the religious assembly hall being the main focal point of the facility with some minor accessory uses.

During the third phase, Places of Worship were facing a relative shortage of possible sites within developing residential communities and they were having difficulty establishing new facilities within established residential areas and sites. Therefore, new denominations and smaller institutions at the start-up phase began to seek out and accept diverse, non-traditional sites. Commercial strips and industrial malls or buildings were selected and often leased as low cost alternatives to residential sites. In some cases, religious facilities no longer needed to be located near a residential area as membership was regional in nature and the congregation was drawn from a number of communities. These facilities needed larger sites to accommodate more parking and larger buildings. Accessibility and the traffic capacity of abutting roads also became important site selection considerations.

The current trend in the development of Places of Worship has been large religious centres. These facilities have a regional emphasis and draw their congregation from a large area. The role these facilities play is much more than that of an assembly hall for religious gatherings. They become cultural and ethnic centres for their congregations, providing a wide range of functions, services and accessory uses. Such facilities need large sites with good accessibility. Important site selection criteria for religious centres normally include land cost, accessibility, road traffic capacity, transit, and the size of the site in order to accommodate all buildings and sufficient parking. Accessory uses within such centres, can include, auditoriums, gymnasiums, cafeterias, day care facilities, nursery schools, private schools, meeting rooms, administrative offices, TV broadcasting facilities, residences for clergy, book stores, and financial services. Use of these facilities often occurs throughout the week which extends heavy use periods beyond the traditional Sunday or weekend periods.

Number/Size of Establishments:

Provincial Assessment Data and City of Toronto Employment Survey information would indicate that there are approximately 1, 175 Places of Worship in the City. Approximately 224 or 19 percent of these Places of Worship are located within industrial zones/employment districts, the majority of which are located within the three former municipalities of North York (34 percent), Scarborough (23 percent) and Etobicoke (16 percent).

Information developed for the former City of North York would indicate that the Places of Worship have been growing at a rate of about 6 percent per year from 1986 to 1994. The majority of this new growth (46 percent) has been occurring in industrial zones.

A review of recent applications for Places of Worship in industrial zones/employment districts, as contained in the Planning Applications Tracking System (PATS), would indicate that such facilities are getting larger with a gross floor area of between 198 mē to 16 795 mē (2, 100 sq. ft. to 180,800sq. ft.) and an average gross floor area of 2 800 mē (30,000 sq. ft.). These are being built on larger sites which range in size from 0.3 hectare to 6.0 hectare (1 acre to 15 acres) with an average size of 1.8 hectares (4.5 acres).

The Provincial Assessment Act:

The assessment of lands for tax purposes is a Provincial responsibility. Historically, institutional uses such as Places of Worship, public and separate schools, universities, public hospitals and incorporated, non-profit charitable institutions have been exempt from paying land tax as a result of the benefits they provide to society in general.

The treatment of Places of Worship from a land tax perspective is specifically defined in Section 3 of the Assessment Act (R.S.O. 1990, c. A.31), as amended by Bill 149. The Act states that all property in Ontario is subject to assessment and taxation with certain exceptions. Section 3(3) sets out the following exemption: "A place of worship and the land used in connection with it and a churchyard, cemetery or burying ground owned by a church or religious organization or leased to it by another church or religious organization". In effect, the Act as interpreted by the provincial assessment office exempts Places of Worship and the lands and buildings used in connection therewith from paying any taxes on their lands, provided the lands are owned by the religious organization or they are being leased from a religious organization. The tax exempt status for religious centres, with a number of accessory uses, would still apply unless a defined space is permanently set aside and leased out to a taxable operation.

However, Places of Worship which lease lands from a taxable owner are subject to land tax. Such Places of Worship would be taxed at the residential rate, notwithstanding their location in an industrial or commercial zone, as they are not deemed a business use.

Given the trend towards large religious centres with a multitude of accessory uses and large tracts of land, it may be appropriate to petition the Province to review how these operations are treated from a tax perspective, and to determine if in fact relevant portions thereof should be assessed as a business use which could be taxed. Although such an approach would not likely generate a significant amount of revenue, it could assist the City in reducing the lost tax revenue stream associated with Places of Worship developed in industrial areas.

Cost/Benefit Analysis:

From a purely fiscal perspective, there is a potential cost to permitting Places of Worship in industrial zones/employment districts, as a result of their tax exempt status in certain situations. By occupying land in industrial areas, Places of Worship may be reducing opportunities for the development of tax paying, employment generating activities. Conservative tax estimates based on the former areas of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough would suggest that at a minimum, the City could be losing $50,000 per acre, per year (1996) in tax revenue (excluding school tax portion) from industrial lands which are occupied by tax exempt Places of Worship. However, these estimates assume that the industrial land converted to institutional use would have been occupied or developed by a viable industrial operation, which is not always the case.

The Economic Development Division and Royal LePage estimates that the City currently has 1722000 m² (18,536,000 sq. ft.) of vacant industrial space and 607 hectares (1,500 acres) of vacant undeveloped industrial land upon which to generate employment, industrial development and industrial tax revenues. Given the available supply of industrial land, Places of Worship which locate in industrial areas are not expected to significantly reduce opportunities for other employment activities or become a detrimental drain on the tax base. In addition, given the financial constraints faced by most religious organizations, Places of Worship do not generally compete against industrial businesses for the purchase of prime industrial properties.

The Official Plan policies of the former municipalities recognize the importance of institutions and the role they play in the broader community. Places of Worship provide services and facilities to the general public on a local, city-wide and regional basis much like hospitals, schools and government facilities. More particularly, they provide and serve the broad educational, cultural, recreational, social and religious needs of existing and future residents, workers and visitors. These services augment and have become an important component of the City's social service and educational system.

Many of the new centres developed today are directly linked to existing and newly established and emerging ethnic cultures of the City. In these instances, Places of Worship are making their facilities available for planned activities which benefit and assist these groups.

Although it is not possible to quantify the financial and social benefits that institutional uses provide to the community and City as a whole, there is no question that there is a demand for these valuable services and facilities which are provided to residents of the City by charitable, non-profit organizations without municipal assistance.

Land Use Issues:

As indicated previously, the current trend in Place of Worship development is in large religious centres with an assortment of accessory uses and longer hours of operation extending beyond the typical weekend period. Any change that would prohibit Place of Worship development in industrial areas would likely place a greater emphasis on residential and commercial areas for such development. Accommodating such Places of Worship in residential areas would likely generate significant concerns regarding noise, traffic and parking impacts during large gatherings and special functions. By continuing to permit such uses in industrial areas, the City would be providing appropriate alternative locations which would minimize potential conflicts with residential zones.

The land use issues which normally arise when Places of Worship are proposed in industrial areas are traffic and parking related. Traffic issues regarding road capacity can often be resolved as the transportation grid serving industrial areas is usually quite good and peak use times for Places of Worship do not generally coincide with the peak use time of industrial uses. Parking supply is often an issue because Places of Worship in industrial areas place more emphasis on the car as a mode of transportation. This combined with the regional emphasis of these facilities would suggest that adequate parking provisions are important to prevent parking from spilling off-site. Parking problems associated with Places of Worship may deter other employment generating uses from locating in close proximity or within the same multi-unit industrial building or complex. Therefore it becomes important, especially in industrial areas, that parking requirements are both adequate and consistent throughout the City to limit off-site parking impacts and to deter any over concentration of facilities in areas which have lower parking requirements.

Conclusions:

Places of Worship are permitted by existing Zoning By-laws in industrial zones/employment districts within the former municipalities of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough, subject to certain conditions. Recent trends would suggest that there is a land use demand for Places of Worship in industrial areas, particularly for large religious centres and smaller facilities with a regional emphasis. Under current Provincial legislation, such facilities would be exempt from paying land tax and as such represents a cost to the City, as a result of the loss in potential industrial land tax.

In staff's assessment of the situation, existing Zoning By-laws allow the land use demand for Places of Worship in industrial areas to be met in an acceptable fashion. Staff would not recommend any change to the Etobicoke Zoning Code or any further locational restrictions which would shift the demand for the development of Places of Worship to commercial or residential areas where impacts may be less acceptable. However, in order to ensure existing industrial areas are protected from unacceptable parking impacts, staff recommend a review of existing parking standards in the Etobicoke Zoning Code to assure adequacy and consistency throughout the City. In addition, staff recommend that the Provincial Tax Assessment Office be requested to review their current approach to the assessment of large new religious centres with substantial accessory uses to determine if any parts thereof could be assessed separately as a tax generating use.

Contact Name:

Paul Zuliani, Area Planner,

Community Planning, West District

Telephone: (416) 394-8230, Fax: (416) 394-6063

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (November 12, 1998) from Mr. Christopher J. Williams, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Toronto Airport Christian Fellowship, respecting places of worship in industrial zones in the Etobicoke Zoning Code.)

12

Dedication and Naming of Public Highway - Martin Grove Road

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October16,1998) from the City Solicitor:

Enclosed please find a draft Bill regarding the dedication of the above lands as part of Martin Grove Road together with a disk for same. We also enclose a letter from Mr. F. Bedard, Manager, Realty Services regarding the passage of the Bill for your information. Kindly have the herein Bill presented for the next Community Council meeting. If you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the writer. Thank you for your assistance.

(Copy of the Enclosure referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

13

Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code

-Fieldgate Apartments, 2 Triburnham Place - File No. Z-2255

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and for the reason that the proposed amendment is not an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the application submitted by Fieldgate Apartments for an amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the development of 14, two-storey condominium townhouse units to be developed in conjunction with an existing 10-storey rental apartment building municipally known as 2 Triburnham Place, be refused:

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on October14,1998, in accordance with Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act, at which time the Etobicoke Community Council recommended to City Council that the application for amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan to correct a technical mapping error that occurred during the drafting of maps associated with the review of the Official Plan, be approved; deferred consideration of the application for amendment to the Zoning Code; and requested the Director of Community Planning, West District to submit a further report to a continuation of the public meeting on November12,1998, with respect to the staff reports and an Ontario Municipal Board Decision made in 1965 regarding the subject property.

The Etobicoke Community Council continued the public meeting and had for consideration a report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District(September 16,1998) and a supplementary report of the Director of Community Planning, West District (November 12, 1998).

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider an amendment to the Zoning Code to permit the development of 14, two-storey condominium townhouse units to be developed in conjunction with an existing 10-storey rental apartment building municipally known as 2 Triburnham Place. An amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan has also been requested in order to correct a technical mapping error that occurred during the drafting of maps associated with the review of Etobicoke's Official Plan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

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

Background:

The subject property was rezoned from Second Density Residential (R2) to Fourth Density Residential (R4) in 1966 by Zoning By-law 14,915. A 10-storey, rental apartment building (2Triburnham Place), containing 137 units, was constructed in 1967.

On June 25, 1997, the applicant notified Council that the existing apartment building property was designated as "Medium Density Residential" on Map 4, Land Use, of the Official Plan. Staff reviewed this matter and confirmed that the previous Consolidated Official Plan had designated this property as Residential High Density, and that a 'technical' error occurred as part of the 1990 Official Plan review process, which resulted in the site's current designation as Medium Density Residential. In the absence of a formal development proposal by the applicant, Council at its meeting of October 6, 1997, decided that no action be taken.

In December, 1997, an application for an amendment to the Zoning Code was received requesting permission to develop 14, two-storey condominium townhouses on the northerly portion of the property. An amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan has also been applied for order to correct the technical mapping error.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The total site is approximately 1.54 ha (3.80 acres) in size with frontage on two roadways; Burnhamthorpe Road and Triburnham Place (Exhibit No. 1). Access to the property is taken off Triburnham Place. A water feature and circular drive are located at the front of the existing 10-storey, 137 unit rental building, south of which is an above ground swimming pool, located at the southeast corner of the property.

Parking is located in an underground garage accessed by one ramp and on surface parking areas towards the north end of the site directly behind the existing building. The site contains a considerable amount of landscaped open space (62%) and a number of mature trees.

Surrounding zoning categories and land uses are as follows:

North:Second Density Residential (R2) - single detached dwellings

South:Planned Commercial Local (CPL) - local shopping plaza on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Road

East:Second Density Residential (R2) and Planned Commercial Local (CPL) - single detached dwellings and automobile service station

West:Third Density Residential (R3) and Fourth Density Residential Group Area (R4G) - Elmcrest Creek and townhouses beyond.

Proposal:

Fieldgate Apartments are proposing to amend the Zoning Code to permit the development of fourteen condominium townhouse units, 2 storeys in height, to be developed in conjunction with an existing 10-storey, 137 unit rental apartment building for a combined total of 151 units. The applicants propose to sever a portion of the existing apartment site (Block A) to create a smaller development parcel to the north (Block B), adjacent to the neighbouring single detached housing.

Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of the site and elevation plans submitted by the applicant. A summary of site statistics is provided in Table 1. The proposed condominium townhouses would be located at the north end of the property accessed off of Triburnham Place. Each of the townhouses would contain three bedrooms and would be approximately 6 m (20 ft.) in width and 143.5 mē (l, 544.7 sq.ft.) in size. Two blocks of townhouses are proposed: one block of nine units and one block of five units.

Access to the townhouse parking spaces would occur via a new 7.0 m (23 ft.) wide driveway off the Triburnham Place right-of-way. Two parking spaces would be provided for every townhouse, one in the garage and one on the driveway. An additional 5 visitor parking spaces will be provided at-grade near the entrance to the development.

The proposed development of Block B would cause the displacement of some landscape open space and a number of surface visitor parking spaces currently utilized by the existing 10storey apartment building. The applicant proposes to relocate the visitor parking spaces around the driveway system at the front of the building on Block A. A 1.8 m (6 ft.) wood screen fence will be installed along the north property line which would limit the impact on privacy and views for the adjacent residential properties.

Comment:

Official Plan:

The site is designated as "Medium Density Residential" on Map 4, Land Use, of the (1990) Official Plan. Staff have reviewed this matter and confirm that the previous Consolidated Official Plan had designated this property as Residential High Density, and, that a 'technical' error occurred as part of the 1990 Official Plan review process, which resulted in the site's current designation as Medium Density Residential.

As there was no intention to down-designate this property, it is suggested that an amendment to the Official Plan be initiated to restore its rightful designation as High Density Residential which generally permits multiple unit housing of all types to be developed within the range of 70-185uph (28-75 upa) to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. A draft of Parts 1 and 2 of a proposed Official Plan Amendment to rectify this 'technical' error is attached (Exhibit No. 11).

The existing apartment site at 2 Triburnham has been developed at a density of 89 uph (36 upa) with a corresponding FSI of 0.98. As a result of the proposed condominium townhouse development and associated realignment of property boundaries, Block A would exhibit a density of 119 uph (48 upa) and a FSI of 1.32. A density and FSI of 36 uph (15 upa) and 0.52, respectively, would be provided on Block B. The proposal would comply with the low end of the density provisions contained within the Official Plan for Residential High Density.

Residential Intensification Policies:

Section 4.2.17 of the Official Plan provides for the intensification of High Density Residential designations through the provision of additional residential units on apartment sites, provided that the level of development is within the density limits of the Plan. The townhouses would be located on a vacant portion of the site between the existing 10-storey apartment building and the low density residential neighbourhood to the north with sufficient separation from adjacent buildings and surrounding land uses. The project would provide an appropriate transition between the Low Density Residential community to the north and the existing 10-storey building (Exhibit No. 3).

Section 4.2.18 of the Official Plan recognizes the potential for additional residential development at higher densities. Proposals to amend the Official Plan or Zoning Code for these purposes shall be subject to the criteria outlined in Section 4.2.19. Staff have evaluated the proposal within the context of these criteria which have been appended as Exhibit No.4.

Based on this review, staff are satisfied from a land use point of view that the proposal meets the criteria for High Density Residential Development and Housing Intensification. The site is directly adjacent to an arterial roadway with sufficient capacity to support the proposed development. In terms of height, density, floor space index and landscape open space, the project could be accommodated on the site with limited impact on the existing apartment building and surrounding developments. Residents of the proposed development would have access to local social services, retail facilities and parks.

Zoning Code:

The application would require the repeal of Site Specific Zoning By-law 14,915, as it applies to the subject lands, and the introduction of a new site specific zoning by-law. This by-law should provide the necessary exemptions to reflect both the existing and the proposed developments, as well as take into consideration the anticipated land severance application.

Landscape Open Space and Recreational Amenities:

The proposed site plan would allow for 53 percent of Block A and 45 percent of Block B to be devoted to landscape open space, with an average of 51 percent over the combined site. This would be consistent with the landscape percentages associated with other recent approvals for housing intensification. The applicant is proposing to refurbish areas surrounding the existing swimming pool, patio area, and provide a new passive recreation area for the residents of the existing apartment building. Intensified landscaping is also proposed in certain areas around the existing building and water feature.

Notwithstanding these percentage figures, the amount of useable on-site landscape space and recreational amenities on Block A would be only marginally reduced for residents of the existing building. Each Block would be self sufficient in terms of its provision of landscape open space and recreational amenities.

The proposed rear yards of the townhouses would be generally 7.5 m (25 ft.) in depth, with the exception of those units backing onto Elmcrest Creek, where the rear yards would be 10 m (33 ft.) in depth, measured to the long-term stable slope line. (This matter is discussed further in the Valley Impact Zone Section of this report.)

As the site contains a significant number of mature trees, the applicant will be required to submit a tree survey during the Site Plan review process, in the event of approval. The survey shall identify the size, species and health of each tree and indicate which trees are to be preserved, relocated or removed. Tree protection and preservation details will also be required.

Parking and Traffic:

The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has advised that due to the modest scale and limited trip generating potential of the development, a traffic impact study is not required. Transportation staff are satisfied with the driveway layout, traffic circulation and parking supply proposed by the applicant (Exhibit Nos. 5 and 6).

Transportation staff are also satisfied with the location of the proposed driveway which gains access via the northerly end of Triburnham Place, subject to the submission of a report to the satisfaction of the Division regarding the condition of the below grade parking structure and its ability to accommodate the added weight of the roadway and vehicle traffic.

Valley Impact Zone:

Section 6.1.2 of the Official Plan establishes a Valley Impact Zone which includes all land within a valley, from top-of-bank to top-of-bank and all lands in between. In accordance with these policies, all structures, including paved surfaces, are to be located 10 m (33 ft.) from the long term stable slope line.

Toronto Region Conservation Authority staff have concluded that the location of the proposed townhouse units flanking Elmcrest Creek is acceptable, provided that a survey is submitted which identifies the top-of-bank limit and that the site specific by-law prohibits any principal structures within the 10 m (33 ft.) setback and restricts the use of the lands below the top-of-bank to passive recreational (Exhibit No. 7).

TRCA and Parks staff recommend that lands beyond this limit be conveyed to the appropriate public authority, and that such conveyance would not be eligible to offset credit against the associated parkland dedication requirement. Such lands should also be rezoned to Public Open Space (OS), consistent with the valleyland acquisition policy set out in Section 6.1.12 of the Official Plan.

Agency Comments/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, the former Metropolitan Toronto Planning Department, Fire Department, Realty Services and Canada Post Corporation, have expressed no objections.

Comments from Parks and Recreation Services, Toronto Hydro, Toronto Police Department and Bell Canada remain outstanding.

The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that there are existing watermains, storm and sanitary sewers available on Triburnham Place (Exhibit No. 8). Storm water management shall be to the satisfaction of the Works Department.

The Toronto District School Board has advised that the students anticipated from the proposed development can be accommodated at Mill Valley Junior School, Bloordale Middle School, and Silverthorn Collegiate Institute, but the Board may be required to make alternative accommodation arrangements for some or all of these students once the local schools reach their capacity (Exhibit No.9). The Toronto Catholic School Board has objected to the proposal due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at Nativity Catholic School (Exhibit No.10). Staff note that neither Board has adopted a Development Charges By-Law on which to base such contributions. In accordance with the practise adopted in the rest of the City, Planning staff do not recommend that such a condition be imposed.

The project would be subject to the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of the building permits, as well as a 5 percent cash-in-lieu of parkland contribution.

Community Meeting:

On February 16, 1998, approximately 40 people attended a community meeting to review the subject proposal. Concerns expressed by area residents related to loss of trees and landscape open space, lack of parking, traffic generation, density, loss of views and privacy, loss of wildlife, and cost of townhouse units.

The concerns related to planning matters have been discussed in this report.

Conclusions:

The subject application has been evaluated within the context of the housing intensification and High Density Residential provisions of the Official Plan. Urban Development staff are of the opinion the proposed development is within the density limits of the Official Plan and would comply with the criteria for housing intensification. In the event of approval, it would be appropriate to incorporate development standards with respect to height, floor space index and density into the amending by-law.

The proposed development would have limited impact on surrounding developments and would provide an appropriate transition between the Low Density Residential community to the north and the existing apartment building. Recreational facilities will be improved for the existing apartment building while the proposed townhouses will enjoy private amenity spaces.

In the event of approval, the following conditions should apply:

Conditions to Approval:

l.Fulfillment of the following conditions by the applicant prior to the enactment of an amendment to the Official Plan and amending by-law:

(i)The submission of a survey which identifies the top-of-bank limit to the satisfaction of the TRCA, Parks and Recreation Services and Urban Development Department. Lands beyond this limit are to be conveyed to the appropriate public authority.

(ii)The submission of a report, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Division, on the condition of the below-grade parking structure and its ability to accommodate the added weight of the roadway and vehicle traffic.

(iii) The signing of a Development Agreement and/or Servicing Agreement and payment of the necessary fees, if required.

(iv)Receipt of comments from, and subject to any requirements of Parks and Recreation Services, Toronto Hydro, Toronto Police Department and Bell Canada .

2.The amending by-law shall provide the appropriate exemptions from, or repeal of, site specific by-laws, and incorporate the following provisions inter alia:

(i)Development of Block A shall be limited to one apartment building with a maximum height of 10-storeys, 137 units, a floor space index of 1.33 and a minimum landscape open space of 53 percent.

(ii)Development of Block B shall be limited to a maximum of fourteen condominium townhouse units, with a building height of 2-storeys, a floor space index of 0.53, and a minimum landscape open space of 45 percent.

(iii)Development standards for Blocks A and B to reflect above and below grade building setbacks and parking requirements.

(iv)Conveyed below-top-of bank lands be rezoned to Public Open Space (OS).

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

(i)Signing of a Site Control Agreement, and payment of the necessary fees associated with the preparation, execution and registration of same.

(ii)Submission of site and landscaping plans detailing fencing, curbing, grading, upgrading recreational facilities for Block A, planting and tree preservation to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and the posting of an appropriate financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the approved plans.

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

(iv)Submission of a parking and construction management plan to the satisfaction of the Works Department.

(v)Submission of necessary legal agreements, maintenance, encroachment or otherwise between the existing rental apartment building and the proposed condominium complex regarding the proposed location of surface parking and circulation for the condominium complex on top of the existing below-grade parking structure to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.

(vi)The developer will be required to pay the prevailing development charges and parkland dedication requirements in effect at the time of the issuance of building permit.

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP, Planner - Central District, Development and Design

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-11 referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

_______

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on October 14, 1998 with respect to the foregoing:

-Mr. J. Dawson, Solicitor for Fieldgate Apartments;

-Mrs. J. Beames, Etobicoke, totally opposed to any development on the subject lands, which she and her neighbours conveyed to the original developer with the understanding that it would not be developed with anything other than the existing apartment building and would be maintained as a buffer zone; noting the major impact on their residences by a road realignment; the negative impact on the value and the reduction in enjoyment of their properties;

-Mr. S. Kleynhans, Etobicoke, opposed to the application and development on the greenspace backing onto his property, which he was assured would remain when he purchased his house;

-Ms. V. Anderson, Etobicoke, opposed to the application, noting that the history of the property dates back to 1965; citing the loss of greenspace and wildlife, increase in traffic, loss of property value, etc;

-Mr. D. Zeraldo, Etobicoke, who stated that in 1965 the abutting owners each sold a portion of their land to the developer of the apartment building, to be retained as green space, pointing out that they would never have done so had they thought it would be used for future development; and

-Mr. I. Noble, asking that the proposal be refused, noting the impact of recent developments on the Etobicoke Creek and the resulting loss of wildlife.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following communication:

-(October 1, 1998) from Ms. M. Copes, Etobicoke, objecting to the proposal because it would cause terrible density in the neighbourhood.

The Etobicoke Community Council further submits the following report (November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To respond to requests from Etobicoke Community Council for additional information regarding the rezoning application by Fieldgate Apartments.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information, and that the conditions to approval outlined in the staff report dated September 16, 1998, be adopted.

Background:

Following a Public Meeting, held on October 14, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council recommended approval of the requested Official Plan Amendment to correct a technical mapping error in the Official Plan. The Community Council deferred consideration of the rezoning application until the reconvening of the Public Meeting on November 12, 1998. Community Council requested staff to bring forward a supplementary report, outlining the site's development history including Etobicoke Council's original consideration of the existing apartment development in 1965, specifically detailing landscape open space provisions, and any Ontario Municipal Board decisions pursuant thereto.

Comment:

Staff have reviewed the municipal historical records, and Ontario Municipal Board files, and submit the following chronology:

June 12, 1964Application submitted by D. R. Dyke Ltd. for amendment to the Zoning By-law to rezone said lands from Residential Second Density (R2) to Residential Fourth Density (R4) to permit the development of two, 10-storey apartment buildings containing 140 units.

February 16, 1965Planning staff report noted that the subject property formed part of a larger assembly which ultimately developed as a plan of subdivision (single family dwellings on Old Burnhamthorpe Road and the east side of Triburnham Place). The staff report further noted that the single family dwellings on the east side of Triburnham Place would form a buffer for the existing (R2) lands to the east. A similar buffer was not proposed at the rear of the existing (R2) properties on the Old Burnhamthorpe Road, instead the proposal included a 36 m (120ft.) wide landscape open space separation. The report goes on to state that residents of the Old Burnhamthorpe Road block have consented to the project (ExhibitNo. 1, original staff report map, 1965).

March 16, 1965A Public Meeting was convened to discuss the application. Planning Board approved an amended application which included, among other matters, that the site specific by-law provide for one, 10-storey apartment building, and a 36 m (120 ft.) landscaped area along the rear lot line of the lots fronting onto Old Burnhamthorpe Road. No objections were recorded.

May 18, 1965Planning Board was in receipt of a letter of objection submitted by the Bloordale Gardens Homeowners Association. The objection related to the prematurity of the zoning by-law being approved in advance of the approval of the comprehensive review and enactment of the Elmcrest Neighbourhood Official Plan (No. 162) of which these lands form a part.

June 7, 1965Site Specific By-law No. 14,915 passed by Council.

October 15, 1965Ontario Municipal Board Hearing is held, presumably the Board agreed with the objection of prematurity and By-law No. 14,915 is dismissed.

January 17, 1966Planning Board does the following:

1)approves Elmcrest Neighbourhood Official Plan Amendment No.162; and

2)reaffirms its approval of the subject application and directs the Clerk to submit an application to the Ontario Municipal Board.

June 8, 1966A second Ontario Municipal Board Hearing is held, at which time By-law No.14, 915 is approved as originally proposed at the Public Meeting of March 16, 1965.

Conclusion:

From the available information on file, it is evident that a landscape open space separation between the existing residences on Old Burnhamthorpe Road to the north of the subject lands and the apartment development, was a component of the approval of the original apartment development. This separation was provided for in the Site Specific Zoning By-law, but was not secured in any other manner to staff's knowledge.

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP, Planner, West District

Tel: (416) 394-6004; Fax: (416) 394-6063

(Copy of Exhibit No. 1 referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to the Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, and copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (November3,1998) from the Anderson Family, Etobicoke:

We are writing to voice our concern over the application by Fieldgate Developments to build 14 townhouses on a small parcel of land directly north of the apartment building on Triburnham Place. This issue will be voted on at the Council meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 12 and we would like you support to defeat the application to build on this greenbelt.

We have lived on Triburnham Place for 14 years and most of the other homeowners have been there longer. Triburnham Place is only about 120 metres long with about 11 houses on the east side and the apartment building, parking lot and green area on the west. The green area behind 2 Triburnham Place was purchased from the homeowners on Old Burnhamthorpe to allow the apartment to be built and the intention was to keep this as a buffer between the large building and the smaller homes. It has been a play area for the children and a diversion from the sight of the apartment and surface parking lot. If this property were to be developed, the closest play area will be south of Burnhamthorpe and the north of Old Burnhamthorpe. Burnhamthorpe is fast becoming one of the busiest east/west routes in Etobicoke and the number of accidents in our area is increasing year by year. These areas have been known to be hangouts for teens and other non-locals and are too far away to allow children to go unattended. The proposed redevelopment of a "passive amenity" area at the front of the apartment will be of no benefit for the residents.

The report from the Planning Dept. did conclude that, subject to a list of conditions, the townhouses could be built. There were a number of important areas that we believe were not adequately considered. Some examples are:

-the length of the proposed townhouse driveways is only 85% of the applicable standards and there is also a need to increase the proposed size of the guest parking spaces to meet the minimum standard. In other words, the property is too small to accommodate this development;

-the fact that this development would add an additional 33 vehicles to a dead end street that is only 120 metres long and already accommodates about 230 vehicles with the only outlet onto Burnhamthorpe;

-the Toronto Separate School Board objects to the proposal; and

-the residents object to the proposal.

We are a small pocket of residents that do not want the city to allow development for development sake. There was a clear understanding that in order to have enough property to allow the apartment to be built, the green area to the north was to be left in tact as a permanent buffer. Otherwise the homeowners would not have sold this piece of their property. We must protect the green areas in Etobicoke as they are becoming extinct.

We have just lost a small green area at the end of the street by Burnhamthorpe due to the recent construction of a mega service station which has also increased traffic flow.

We would like your support on November 12 to defeat the application. If you have not had an opportunity to see the site we would be happy to meet with you to give you a brief 10 minute tour and explain our concerns in more detail. Please contact us to arrange a tour at your convenience.

_____

The following person appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on November 12, 1998:

-Mr. D. Zeraldo, Etobicoke, who provided the Etobicoke Community Council with a copy of an Offer to Purchase, dated May 27, 1964, which indicates that "the Vendor is to receive a covenant and the restrictive covenant is to be recorded in the deed, setting out that the Vendor must approve the plans of any building to be built on the said lands, and such building must be a detached single family dwelling", the vendor in this case being Mr. Zeraldo.

14

Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - 1051234 Ontario Limited,

7 McIntosh Avenue - File No. Z-2264

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following reports (June 24, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, and (September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning Division, and for the reason that the proposed amendment is an appropriate use of the property, recommends that:

(1)the application for an amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the use of part of a residential property at 7 McIntosh Avenue for six commercial parking spaces to support the existing commercial uses at 624A and 624B The Queensway, be approved; and

(2)the Director of Community Planning, West District, examine the possibility of incorporating an additional parking space, for a total of seven.

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

The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (June24,1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider an amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the use of part of a residential property municipally known as 7 McIntosh Avenue for commercial parking in conjunction with an existing, neighbouring restaurant at 624A and 624B The Queensway.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the application by 1051234 Ontario Limited be the subject of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.

Background:

On September 14, 1989 and March 14, 1991, the Committee of Adjustment (decision numbers A-375/89 and A-68/91) authorized minor variances from the Zoning Code's parking regulations to permit an expansion of a restaurant (Mamma Martino's) at 624 The Queensway (Exhibit No. 2). The decisions permitted a reduction in required parking from 27 spaces to 15 spaces. The applicant made payment to the City for cash-in-lieu of parking for 5 automobile parking spaces. The actual supply of parking available on-site is 10 spaces (7 spaces at the front of the building on The Queensway and 3 spaces at the rear of the building).

In March of 1997, the Ontario Municipal Board approved another variance application which permitted a patio enclosure as well as a further parking shortfall subject to the fulfillment of conditions. These conditions included the construction of a 3.0 m (10 ft.) wooden fence along the east and north property line of the subject property and the "beautification" of the applicant's other property at 620 The Queensway. The fencing has been installed as required; however, the improvements to 620 The Queensway have not been completed.

Site Description and Surrounding Uses:

The subject site is located on the east side of McIntosh Avenue north of The Queensway (Exhibit No.1). It is occupied by a detached single family dwelling and detached two-car garage.

Surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:

North:Second Density Residential (R2) - single family dwellings fronting onto McIntosh Avenue

South:Limited Commercial (CL) - multiple tenancy commercial building fronting onto The Queensway and single family dwellings

East:Second Density Residential (R2) - single family dwellings fronting onto Burma Drive

West:Second Density Residential (R2) - single family dwellings fronting onto McIntosh Avenue

Proposal:

1051234 Ontario Limited is seeking an amendment to the Residential Second Density (R2) zoning to permit the use of part of the residential property at 7 McIntosh Avenue for commercial parking(7spaces) in conjunction with the existing, neighbouring restaurant at624A and624BTheQueensway. The existing dwelling, garage, and driveway are intended to be retained (Exhibit No. 2).

Access to the parking spaces would be provided from McIntosh Avenue via the existing public lane. The lane services the commercial properties fronting onto The Queensway.

Three tandem parking spaces are proposed along the south side of the existing single family dwelling immediately abutting the public laneway; an additional four spaces are proposed in the rear of the subject property (Exhibit No. 3).

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

Official Plan: Low Density Residential

Zoning Code:

Existing Second Density Residential (R2)

ProposedSecond Density Residential (R2) - Site Specific

Site Area: 557 mē(6, 000 sq. ft.)

Retained for373 mē(4, 013 sq. ft.)

Residential Use

Proposed Parking184 mē(1, 987 sq. ft.)(incl. 7 automobile parking spaces)

and Landscaping

Comment:

Official Plan:

The subject property is designated Low Density Residential in the Etobicoke Official Plan which permits a variety of low rise housing forms and retail and office developments up to 1 000 mē (10,764 sq. ft.), of a type, scale and orientation related to residents in the immediate area.

The property abuts a Commercial-Residential Strip designation situated along The Queensway. The Official Plan policies for such designations (Section 4.4.7 - Permitted Uses and Scale) permit the incorporation of adjacent properties, without amendment to the Official Plan, where existing commercial development directly abuts residential uses to the rear without separation by a service lane. Amendments to the zoning may be made provided adequate landscaping and screening are provided to buffer the parking, loading and other such areas from the residential uses.

The application is consistent with the relevant policies and initiatives of the former Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan.

Zoning Code:

The site is zoned Second Density Residential (R2) which limits development to single family dwellings. An amendment to the (R2) zone is required in order to permit commercial parking.

Discussion:

The applicant is proposing to augment the existing parking at 624 The Queensway by using the residential property at 7 McIntosh Avenue for seven commercial parking spaces in the side and rear yards while retaining the single family dwelling (Exhibit No. 2).

The existing single family dwelling will retain its existing driveway and detached garage located at the rear of the property as well as a small area of private yard at the rear. By re-installing the front yard landscaping, the applicant would eliminate one parking space (Space No. 1 on Exhibit No. 3). This would partially screen the parking area and reinforce the residential character and streetscape for the property. This would also allow the applicant to lengthen the tandem spaces in accordance with Zoning Code standards (Exhibit No. 3).

While the current application represents an attempt to provide additional parking a revised site and landscape plan should be submitted and financial guarantees should be posted prior to Council's consideration of a by-law. Lighting details would also be required at this time to ensure illumination is directed away from residential properties.

A comprehensive plan of all of the applicant's land holdings in the immediate area should be submitted to indicate how they will be utilized in the context of staff's recommendation and in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board Decision No. V960436 respecting 620TheQueensway. Such a plan should indicate how all parking and loading areas would function and how screening would be incorporated.

On February 18, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council received a Preliminary Report in connection with this proposal and requested that the Commissioner of Urban Development include, within any subsequent report, comments with respect to the removal of a mature tree on the property and whether all necessary permits have been issued for the use of the enclosed patio area associated with Mamma Martino's Restaurant.

Forestry Division staff advise that a mature tree located on public property had been removed. This tree, however, had been inspected by the Forestry Division and was determined to be dying. The City Solicitor advised that legal action was not warranted in connection with this matter.

With respect to the enclosed patio located on the east side of 624A The Queensway, staff note that construction proceeded under Building Permit No. 82577, issued on April 25, 1997, and that the site remains under inspection.

Agency/Department Circulation:

In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of the application, Fire Department, Development Engineering Works Department, Toronto Hydro, Realty Services, and the Health Department have expressed no concern or objection to this application.

The Traffic and Transportation Section of the Works Department has reviewed the proposal and have advised that Mamma Martino's Restaurant (624A and 624B The Queensway) complies with existing parking requirements by virtue of previous minor variances and payment-in-lieu of parking approvals. The parking that the applicant proposes at 7 McIntosh Avenue will be additional parking which will augment the parking supply in the vicinity of 624 The Queensway (Exhibit No. 4).

Community Meeting:

A community meeting was held on March 26, 1998, at which time approximately 40 area residents reviewed and commented on the proposed application. Residents expressed concerns regarding existing commercial traffic congestion in the area and pedestrian safety, environmental impacts (i.e.,noise, air quality), by-law enforcement practices, effects on property values, and removal of tree(s) on City property.

Conclusion:

It is the opinion of Urban Development staff that the use of a portion of this single family residential lot for six commercial parking spaces to support the existing commercial uses at 624AandBTheQueensway is acceptable. The use could be accommodated with limited impact on adjacent properties and could serve to relieve some of the parking problems currently experienced by the neighbourhood. Staff note that a parking area created in this manner would be consistent with other Council initiatives for the creation of municipal parking lots located within similar land use contexts.

Staff recommend that a landscape plan and financial guarantees be required prior to Council's consideration of the amending by-law. Staff further recommend that lighting details be submitted at this time to ensure that all illumination is directed away from adjacent residential properties.

The applicant should also submit a comprehensive plan of all of his land holdings within the immediate area detailing their current and intended use in the context of staff's recommendation and in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board Decision No. V960436 respecting 620TheQueensway, prior to the approval of the by-law.

It should also be noted that the additional parking spaces proposed are to be used in conjunction with the existing restaurant operation. Any future expansion of the restaurant would have to be evaluated on the basis of the total parking supply required, among other matters.

Conditions to Approval:

1.Fulfillment of the following conditions by the applicant prior to the enactment of the amending by-law:

(i)The applicant shall submit a revised site plan and landscape plan for 7McIntoshAvenue detailing the proposed fencing, lighting, curbing, grading and planting to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control, and shall post a financial guarantee to ensure completion of same.

(ii)The applicant will submit a comprehensive plan of all of his land holdings within the immediate area detailing their current and intended use in the context of staff's recommendation and in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Board DecisionNo.V960436 respecting 620 The Queensway.

2.The Second Density Residential (R2) zoning affecting the property municipally known as 7McIntosh Avenue be amended to include commercial parking as a permitted use, in conjunction with the commercial establishment at 624 The Queensway with development standards to reflect the revised plans.

Contact Name:

Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP

Planner-South District, Development and Design

Tel: (416) 394-6004, Fax: (416) 394-6063

(Copies of Exhibit Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Etobicoke Community Council further submits the following report (September16,1998) from the Director of Transportation and Engineering Planning Division, District 2:

Purpose:

To report on the results of a Parking Occupancy Study conducted along The Queensway between RoyalYork Road and Grand Avenue.

Funding Sources:

There are no funding implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)this report be received; and

(2)the enclosed study entitled "Parking Occupancy Study - The Queensway between Royal York Road and Grand Avenue" dated September 1998, be received.

Council Reference:

At a community meeting held on March 28, 1998, residents of McIntosh Avenue and Burma Drive expressed their concern over the use of local streets for parking purposes by patrons of the retail establishments located along The Queensway. They also indicated that on-street parking was the result of inadequate municipal parking facilities along The Queensway between Royal York Road and Grand Avenue.

The area Councillors requested that this department conduct a formal review of parking conditions in the area, and at its meeting of June 24, 1998, Etobicoke Community Council directed that this report be brought forward for a public meeting.

Discussion:

In response to the requests from the area Councillors and Etobicoke Community Council, this department conducted a detailed review of parking conditions along this section of The Queensway (Attachment No.1). The study, conducted Wednesday, April 1, 1998 and Friday, April 3, 1998, focused on the municipal parking supply, with a review of the vehicle parking conditions on Moynes Avenue, Berl Avenue, McIntosh Avenue and Burma Drive (Attachment No. 2).

Conclusions:

The study found that the existing municipal parking supply in the area is under utilized, even during peak demand periods. Compliance with existing parking restrictions on the local roads that abut The Queensway's commercial strip is high. While there was evidence of 'spillover' parking on the side streets by patrons attending at the retail establishments along The Queensway, it is a situation that can be remedied by enforcement and/or introduction of parking restrictions during peak periods, should the need arise.

Contact Name:

Allan Smithies - Manager, Transportation Planning.

(416) 394-8412; Fax (416)394-8942.

(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of November12,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council had before it the following communications in support of the proposal:

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. C. Bailey, Etobicoke;

-(October 21, 1998) from Mr. W. Smith, Etobicoke;

-(October 18, 1998) from Mr. A. Clark, Etobicoke;

-(November 10, 1998) from Mr. J. Emmerson, Etobicoke;

-(November 12, 1998) from Mr. G. McNickle, Etobicoke;

-(Undated) from the Cairns family, Etobicoke;

-(Undated) from C. Crawford and J. Crawford, Etobicoke;

-(Undated) from Ms. L. Piovesan, Etobicoke;

-(Undated) from R. M. Harrison Developments Ltd., Etobicoke;

-(Undated) from the Staff, Early Adventures Nursery School & Child Care Centre, Etobicoke; and

-a bound document submitted by the applicant, containing a petition with approximately 912signatures, 34 form letters and 18 individual letters in favour of the proposal.

The Etobicoke Community Council had before it the following communications in opposition to the proposal:

-(October 26, 1998) from Mr. T. Maio, Etobicoke, together with a copy of a petition, with approximately 57 signatures, sent to the Mayor's office in February, 1998 in opposition to the proposed rezoning; and

-(November 12, 1998) from Mrs. M. Holland, Etobicoke.

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

-Mr. B. Morrison, of B. J. Morrison & Associates, on behalf of the applicant

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in opposition to the proposal:

-Mr. T. Maio, Etobicoke, a 43-year resident of the area, expressing concerns about depreciation in property values; increased pollution and noise due to the number of cars; danger for children playing outside because of parking and strangers patronizing the restaurant;

-Mr. J. Gentile, Etobicoke, on his own behalf and that of Mrs. M. Holland, expressing concern about the illegal removal of a City tree, and the work that has already been done on the property; the potential for overcrowding of the parking area; noise and air pollution; and the fear that if approved, further expansion will be requested in the future necessitating removal of the existing house;

-Mr. R. Patel, Etobicoke, concerned about the safety factor of cars coming in and out onto McIntosh Avenue, and the paving of front yard area;

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in support of the proposal:

-Mr. P. Schafft, on behalf of the Board of Directors, Grand Ravine Owners Inc., noting that the provision of additional parking will assist in maintaining the viability of a successful neighbourhood business; will improve the image of the Queensway commercial strip; and endorsed the efforts of the applicant in the community;

-Mr. J. Emmerson, Etobicoke, commending the efforts of the applicant over the past 15 years to establish a first-class restaurant, improving the appearance of the commercial plaza, and providing employment for area residents;

- Mr. F. Kearns, Etobicoke, explaining that the metered parking is on the opposite side of The Queensway, a difficult road to cross, and that this application will lessen the tendency to park on the side streets;

-Ms. J. Richmond, Toronto, commenting that the proposed parking area cannot accommodate as many cars as the opponents have stated, as it would impede the ability of customers to come and go;

-Mr. R. Harrison, Etobicoke, noting that any effort to provide additional parking for customers is worthwhile;

-Mr. J. Capobianco, Toronto, who expressed his support of the application; and

-Mr. D. Racic, Etobicoke, who advised of his own efforts to improve parking adjacent to his property, and offered suggestions to protect the abutting properties on McIntosh Avenue.

15

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Committee of Adjustment for the Etobicoke District.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, and Committee of Adjustment staff to hold a public information/education workshop, to which ratepayer associations and the general community would be invited to participate, and to report back to the Community Council on any specific recommendations arising from the workshop regarding procedures or process, as well as whether there should be any restrictions on membership based on family ties to members of Council which may result in a conflict of interest;

(2)referred the following communication (October 1, 1998) to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, together with the recommendations from the Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, with a request that the Urban Planning and Development Services Department convene a focus group comprised of Chairs of Committees of Adjustment throughout the City, with participation by ratepayer group representatives, to discuss important issues; and

(3)received a submission from the Chair of the Committee of Adjustment, Etobicoke District, on behalf of the Committee, recommending that:

(i)a submission be made to the Provincial government to increase the appeal fee from the current $125.00;

(ii)site visits be mandatory; and

(iii)persons appointed to Committees of Adjustment not be associated with any special interest group or purpose:

(October 1, 1998) from Mr. J. Hartman, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association, requesting Council to initiate a process that would better focus the Committee of Adjustment's decision-making, develop performance measures, and ensure the consistency and credibility of its decision.

_____

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

-Mr. J. Hartman, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association; and

-Mr. R. Bissell, Chairman, Committee of Adjustment, Etobicoke District.

(b)Municipal By-Law Enforcement for the Etobicoke District.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following communication (October 1, 1998) to the Deputy Chief Building Official and the Manager, Municipal Standards, Etobicoke-York District, and to the City Solicitor, for joint report to the Community Council, to include recommendations for a mechanism by which citizens can be heard, and various levels of fines for repeat and long-standing violations:

(October 1, 1998) from Mr. J. Hartman, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association, requesting a renewed commitment to ensuring full compliance with Etobicoke District by-laws and the convening of a workshop for the development of constructive recommendation for a new approach to enforcement.

_____

Mr. I. Nishisato, Past President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the foregoing.

(c)OMB Decision - Park Lawn Cemetery, 2801 Bloor Street West.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)received the following communications (i) and (ii); and

(2)deferred the matter to the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council and requested a further confidential report from the City Solicitor, Etobicoke District:

(i)(October 29, 1998) from Mr. J. Hart, Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, advising that the Ontario Municipal Board granted the motion brought by Park Lawn Cemetery and Kening Properties Limited, which resulted in the dismissal of an Official Plan and Zoning appeal by Ms. J. Gaudaur; and

(ii)(November 10, 1998) from Mr. F. Mills, President, Kening Properties Ltd., forwarding a copy of the Ontario Municipal Board decision and advising of the circumstances surrounding the decision.

_____

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

-Ms. J. Gaudaur, Toronto; and

-Ms. M. Bergman, Solicitor, on behalf of Kening Properties Ltd.

(d)Homeless Youth.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)received a presentation by representatives of the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, and

(2)received the following report:

(November, 1998) prepared by the Community Social Planning Council of Toronto, entitled Surviving the Streets - Street Youth and Squeegeeing in Toronto, outlining the social and economic issues associated with youth on the street.

_____

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

-Mr. B. Worrell, Equally Healthy Kids;

-Mr. W. Goursky, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto; and

-Dr. V. Obedkoff.

(e)Fire Prevention Division - Etobicoke Division.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having

(1)received a presentation by Mr. R. Webb, Chief of Fire Prevention, Etobicoke Division, recognizing the efforts of the law firm of Reble, Ritchie, Ketcheson & Green in providing support, guidance and prosecutions for the fire prevention division of the former Etobicoke Fire Department, in particular, John Reble, John Hart and Mary Howarth; and

(2)requested the Fire Chief to make a presentation to the next meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to Fire Department services in the Etobicoke District.

(f)Introduction of OMG Waste Containers - Kingsway Business Improvement Area.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(October 29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, responding to a request from the Etobicoke Community Council for a report on the location of all waste containers installed by Olifas Marketing Group Inc., an examination of each of the locations in consultation with the Waste Management Division, and whether the agreement with OMG should be terminated.

(g)Toronto Transit Commission 1999 Service Plan.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

1.requested the Toronto Transit Commission to examine alternate routings for the #49 Bloor West and #50 Burnhamthorpe- New Service on Mill Road, rather than operating two ways on Markland Drive;

2.requested the Toronto Transit Commission to defer any implementation of the #73 - Royal York - New Service on LaRose Avenue, until such time as TTC staff has had the opportunity to review the ridership potential, particularly since the service will not be operating on Richview Road;

3requested the Toronto Transit Commission to consult with Transportation Services and the Districts prior to considering changes to bus routing; and

4.endorsed the following report, as amended, and forwarded a copy to the Toronto Transit Committee:

(November 6, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, reporting on the Toronto Transit Commission's 1999 Service Plan and the outcome of community meetings held in Etobicoke District to review and discuss the proposals.

_____

Mr. G. Carr, Chief Engineer, Operations Planning, TTC, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the foregoing to advise that the proposed new routing on Markland Drive has been tested with a bus and that no physical modifications would be required at the intersections. Mr. Carr further indicated that discussions with District 2 staff have led to concurrence that the pavement construction on Markland Drive would accommodate a two-way bus service and that the proposed new service could operate safely.

(h)Sign Variance Procedure for Third Party Advertising Signs per Sign By-law 280-1998.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 12, 1998) from the Deputy Chief Building Official, Etobicoke-York District, regarding the requirements under Interim By-law 280-1998 and the sign variance procedure for third party signs abutting the F. G. Gardiner Expressway, a portion of Eglinton Avenue West, and Highway 27.

(i)New Development Applications for Etobicoke District.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Director of Community Planning, West District, to submit reports to the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to the following site plan applications:

(i)Canadian Waste Services Inc., 5 Brydon Drive;

(ii)Triarch Group Inc., 150 Park Lawn Road; and

(iii)Culmone Associates Ltd., 829 The Queensway; and

(2)received the following reports (i) and (ii):

(i)(November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing a summary of development applications received since October 14, 1998; and

(ii)(November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing a supplementary report on applications received.

(j)Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code - Recycle Plus Ltd.,

63 Medulla Avenue - File No. Z-2269.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1) referred the following report (i) to a public meeting; and

(2)received the following communication (ii):

(i)(November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, reviewing a proposal to amend the Zoning Code to permit the operation of a recycling facility at 63Medulla Avenue; and

(ii)(November 4, 1998) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, Willms & Shier, requesting that the rezoning application be refused and a statutory public meeting not be held.

(k)Preliminary Report - Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code -

Andrei Verbitsky, 10 Fairfield Avenue - File No. Z-2275.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing preliminary comments on the processing of an application to amend the Residential Multiple (RM-1) (Long Branch) zoning of 10 Fairfield Avenue to permit a lodging house.

(l)Preliminary Report - Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code - Storcan Self Storage One Limited, 65 Kelfield Road - File No. Z-2277.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 12, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, regarding an application for amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code to permit a vacant Ontario Hydro site on the south side of Kelfield Road to be developed with a range of industrial uses, including a mini-storage warehouse.

(m)Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - F-F Construction Limited and CharlesandPaulineSammut - By-law No. 136-1998.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(October 6, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, regarding the final disposition of an OMB appeal involving Zoning By-law No. 136-1998, relating to 1386-1392 Islington Avenue, and advising that the subject properties will be developed in accordance with a new plan of subdivision prepared as a result of a settlement proposal.

(n)Naming of Bridge over the Mimico Creek.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communications (i) and (ii):

(i)(Undated) from Ms. W. Gamble, President, New Toronto Historical Society, requesting the support of the Etobicoke Community Council in the Society's nomination of the name "The Bill Bonar Bridge" for the new walking bridge over the Mimico Creek; and

(ii)(October 22, 1998) from the Director, Policy and Development, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, addressed to the New Toronto Historical Society, advising that the nomination is premature and inviting a further submission when the bridge construction is finalized.

(o)Minutes of Boards and Committees.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following minutes (i), (ii) and (iii):

(i)Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Multicultural and Race Relations Committee held on September 8, 1998;

(ii)Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission held on September 9, 1998; and

(iii)Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC held on September24, 1998.

(p)Contempt Order - Mr. S. Whitty, 167 Jeffcoat Drive.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(October 29, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, advising that a motion brought about by Mr. S. Whitty, requesting an extension of time to appeal a Contempt Order, has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

(q)Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws Regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee from its meeting on November 2, 1998, in response to a report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommending Official Plan Policies, Council guidelines and by-laws that will enable the City to actively preserve the existing rental housing stock by restricting the conversion and demolition of rental housing.

(r)Zanini Developments Inc. - Rezoning Application - 112 Evans Avenue.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communication and directed that a public meeting be scheduled on December 9, 1998, prior to the tabling of a staff report, with respect to an application for rezoning to permit 133 townhouses at 112 Evans Avenue:

(November 6, 1998) from Zanini Developments Inc., requesting that a public meeting be scheduled at the December meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council to avoid an undue delay in the processing of a rezoning application to permit the development of 133 residential townhouses.

(s)Variances to the Etobicoke Sign By-Law.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 3, 1998) from the Secretary, Sign Variance Advisory Committee, advising of the decisions of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee with respect to the following applications for variance:

(i)Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, 855 Kipling Avenue;

(ii)401 Mini-Indy Limited, 37 Stoffel Road;

(iii)Noco Fuels and Lubricants, 2 Bradpen Road; and

(iv)Queensway Cathedral, 1536 The Queensway.

(t)Cycling Ambassador Program.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received a presentation by the Urban Planning & Development Services Department and the Toronto Cycling Committee to acquaint Community Council with the Cycling Ambassador Program, and its mandate to increase responsible use of the roads and other well-travelled areas.

_____

The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council to promote the goals of the 1999 Road Safety Ambassador Team: to reduce the number and severity of injuries and fatalities on Toronto roads; to foster cooperation between drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and in-line skaters; to increase compliance with traffic laws by all road users; and to improve the environment through promotion of non-motorized means of transportation:

-Ms. B. Wentworth, Bicycle Safety Coordinator, Urban Planning & Development Services Department; and

-Mr. S. Whaldrake, Toronto Cycling Committee.

(u)Harmonizing Recreation User Fees.

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:

(1)advised the User Fee Committee that it endorses Option 2: No user fees for children and youth Drop-In Programs and Subscriber Programs for children 6-12 and Youth. Charge user fees for all other recreation programs for all ages; and

(2)received the following report:

(October 29, 1998) from the City Clerk, submitting the recommendations of the User Fee Committee from its meeting of October 27, 1998, with respect to the development of recommendations regarding the harmonization of recreation user fees.

A motion to endorse the recommendations of the User Fee Committee (Option 5) lost on the following recorded vote:

Yeas:I. Jones, B. Kinahan - 2

Nays:E. Brown, M. Giansante, D. Holyday, D. O'Brien, B. Sinclair - 5

Not Present: G. Lindsay Luby

A motion to endorse Option 2 carried on the following recorded vote:

Yeas:E. Brown, M. Giansante, D. Holyday, D. O'Brien, B. Sinclair - 5

Nays:I. Jones, B. Kinahan - 2

Not Present: G. Lindsay Luby

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following communications with respect to the foregoing matter:

-(November 4, 1998) from Ms. S. Giovanella, President, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers' & Residents' Association, in favour of modest fees for recreations programs, no resulting increase in taxes, and harmonization across the City;

-(undated) from Ms. M. Watson, Co-Chair, Canadian Pensioners Concerned, Inc., Metro Chapter, regarding the impact of user fees on the number of seniors living on fixed incomes, many at or below the poverty line, and their ability to participate in community programs;

-(November 12, 1998) from Members of the Highfield Community Voices Committee, expressing concern about the high cost of participation in Parks and Recreation Programs, and the negative impact on low-income families;

_____

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

-Mr. C. Howes, St. James United Church;

-Mr. T. Reardon, Etobicoke Federation of Residents' and Ratepayers' Association;

-Ms. K. Savage, Equally Healthy Kids;

-Mr. B. Worrell, L.A.M.P, Etobicoke;

-Ms. A. McKelvey, Equally Health Kids;

-Ms. A. Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79;

-Mr. L. Cadore, Rexdale Youth Action Committee;

-Ms. L. Hunter, Albion Community Information Centre;

-Mr. K. King, Rexdale Youth Council;

-Mr. A. Ranachan, Toronto-York Region Labour Council;

-Mr. R. Summers, Etobicoke;

-Ms. L. Hammond, Etobicoke Takes a Stand;

-Ms. R. Weir, Etobicoke Takes a Stand;

-Mrs. M. Cuipa, Etobicoke;

-Mr. P. Schafft, Metropolitan Toronto Housing Company; and

-Mr. D. Hum, Children's Aid Society.

(Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, at the meeting of City Council on November 25, 26, and 27, 1998, declared his interest in Item (c), entitled "OMB Decision - Park Lawn Cemetery, 2801 Bloor Street West", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns a plot in the cemetery.)

Respectfully submitted,

ELIZABETH BROWN,

Chair

Toronto, November 12, 1998

(Report No. 12 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, without amendment, by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.)