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

YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 14

1Encroachment Application for 62 Livingstone Avenue Ward 28, York Eglinton

2Application for Exemption from Part-Lot Control185 Wright Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber

3Zoning By-law Amendment Application19 Kenora Crescent - Ward 27, York Humber

4Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision Shell Station, 1586 Bathurst Street - New Gas Bar and Sales Kiosk - Ward 28, York Eglinton

5Tree Removal By-law Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

6Snow Link Program for Seniors and the Disabled Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

7Application for Demolition Permit, West Park Hospital82 Buttonwood Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber

8Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 14

OF THE YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on November 12, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Bill Saundercook, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

1

Encroachment Application for 62 Livingstone Avenue

Ward 28, York Eglinton

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

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October9,1998) from the City Clerk:

Purpose:

To present comments from applicable departments concerning this encroachment application.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Encroachment application first made September 4, 1998.

Recommendations:

That the City Solicitor be instructed to prepare for presentation to Council, a by-law authorising the encroachment at 62 Livingstone Avenue or, if necessary, to prepare an Encroachment Agreement and By-law authorising the entering into of that agreement.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Bell Canada:

I have reviewed the application for encroachment at 62 Livingstone Avenue. I have no objections as shown.

Consumers Gas:

We have indicated on the attached print our existing and/or proposed underground plant.

We have no objection to the above proposal, provided our standard clearances of 0.3m minimum vertically and 0.6m minimum horizontally are maintained.

Hydro Commission:

The proposal would have no immediate impact on Toronto Hydro's facilities at this location. Although, if there is to be any future plant installed which would conflict with the customer's porch and stairs, the customer would bear the cost of the removal and installation of the porch and stairs.

Notwithstanding the above, we have no objection at this time.

Planning Department:

I have reviewed the plans and the request for an encroachment of the front porch and steps onto Livingstone Avenue. I have no objection to the application.

Building Department:

Please be advised that we have no objection to the proposed/existing encroachment at this location.

Operations Department:

Since the concrete steps and part of the concrete porch are existing, the Works and Emergency Services Department has no objection to this application.

Legal Department:

The By-law Enforcement and Property Standards Department has no active file in relation to the above mentioned property and therefore have no comments.

Conclusion:

That the encroachment application for 62 Livingstone Avenue be approved.

Contact Name:

Chi H. Ng

York Director of Professional Services

Tel:394-2648

Fax:394-2888

(A copy of the registered plan was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

2

Application for Exemption from Part-Lot Control

185 Wright Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber

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

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October26,1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To report on a request for exemption from Part-Lot Control for 16 semi-detached lots.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application for exemption from Part-Lot Control by Lexington Green Homes Ltd. for 16 semi-detached lots be approved;

(2)City Council enact a By-law to exempt certain lands from Part-Lot Control, in accordance with the draft By-law attached as Schedule 1 to this report and once enacted, the By-law be subsequently registered on title;

(3)prior to the Bill being introduced to City Council, the City be in receipt of an undertaking from the Owner, to advise the Director of Community Planning, West District, in writing forthwith of the sale of the last of the multiple residential lots comprising lands described in the By-law; and

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

Background:

On September 17, 1997, Council for the former City of York passed By-law Number 3578-97 to adopt Official Plan Amendment Number 149. It also passed site specific Zoning By-law Number3579-97 to implement the Official Plan Amendment. Both the O.P.A. and Zoning By-law are in full force and effect. The site specific By-law permits the construction of 119 detached and semi-detached dwellings on the lands municipally known as 185 Wright Avenue in the former City of York.

A Plan of Subdivision to create the semi-detached and single detached dwelling lots was subsequently approved and registered as Plan 66M-2326 on September 16, 1998, in the Land Registry Office. An executed Subdivision Agreement which provides for the construction of public roads, services and other works and facilities for the development of the site, amongst other matters, also has been registered on title.

On July 6, 1998, Site Plan Approval was granted by the Commissioner of Development Services for the former City of York.

The Owner currently has a number of semi-detached dwellings under construction for 16 lots, namely, Lots 1 to 12 inclusive and 95 to 98 inclusive. (See Appendix 1). While most of the sales of the semi-detached dwellings on these lots are scheduled to close at the end of the year or in the first half of 1999, some semi-detached dwellings have not been sold. Consequently, the Owner has requested an exemption to Part-Lot Control for at least a one year period to expire December31,1999 so as to permit the sale and conveyance of all the unsold houses.

The provisions for the removal of Part-Lot Control are set out in Section 50(7) of the Planning Act. They permit municipalities to authorize the conveyance of land by the passage of a By-law to suspend the operation of Part-Lot Control which normally applies to all land within registered plans of subdivision and which prevents land owners from further subdividing and conveying any part of their lots.

This method of land division is typically used in developments of semi-detached dwellings and townhouses where it is much easier to finalize the precise lot boundaries after the dwellings have been constructed. It is also a more expeditious method of land division than either Plan of Subdivision or Consent by Committee of Adjustment.

Given that the parcels of land to which the Part-Lot Control exemption By-law pertains is subject to site specific zoning under By-law No.3579-97 which restricts the use of these lots for semi-detached dwellings, the likelihood for abuse of the Part-Lot Control By-law is minimal. The Part-Lot Control exemption By-law will automatically be repealed on December 31, 1999, or alternatively, may be repealed after the sale of the last semi-detached dwelling on the identified lot. In this regard, it is recommended that prior to the Bill being introduced to City Council, the Owner provide an undertaking that the Owner will advise the Director of Community Planning, West District, in writing forthwith of the sale of the last of the multiple residential lots comprising lands described in the By-law.

Conclusion:

The approval of the application for exemption from Part-Lot Control as it applies to Lots 1 to 12, inclusive, and 95 to 98, inclusive is supportable. Council should consider enacting a Part-Lot Control Exemption By-law, in accordance with the draft By-law attached as Schedule 1 to this report.

Contact Name:

Mr. Lou Moretto, Manager, Community Planning - West District

York Civic Centre

Tel: 394-2607; Fax: 394-2782

CITY OF TORONTO

DRAFT BY-LAW NO.

To designate certain lands on a registered plan

not subject to Part-Lot Control

WHEREAS authority is given to Council by Subsection 50(7) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.13, as amended, to provide that Subsection 50(5) does not apply to such registered plans or part thereof as are designated in the by-law;

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

1.Subsection 50(5) of the Planning Act does not apply to the lands described in Schedule `A' attached hereto.

2Pursuant to Subsection 50 (7.3) of the Planning Act this By-law shall expire on December31, 1999, unless it shall have prior to that date been repealed or extended by the Council for the City of Toronto.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.

SCHEDULE "A"

Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 95, 96, 97 and 98 on Plan of Subdivision No. 66M-2326 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

3

Zoning By-law Amendment Application

19 Kenora Crescent - Ward 27, York Humber

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

The York Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report dated October 23, 1998 from the Director of Community Planning, West District, recommends that:

(1)a site specific Zoning By-law amendment be approved as set out in Option 3 in the following report (October 23, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District; viz:

To alter the height of the entire garage and change the flat roof to a full pitched roof design;

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to prepare the necessary by-law, to amend the former City of York Zoning By-law No. 1-83, to reflect the requirements related to Option 3;

(3)no further Public Meetings be held with respect to this rezoning application; and

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

The York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having held a statutory public meeting on November 12, 1998, 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 York Community Council submits the following report (October 23, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To consider a site specific Zoning By-law amendment application to legalize the height of a flat roof residential accessory building which has been constructed higher than the maximum height permitted by the Zoning By-law.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application revised as reflected in Option two set out in this report be approved subject to the holding of a Planning Act Public Meeting to obtain the views of the community and the conditions outlined in this report;

(2)York Zoning By-law No. 1-83 be amended in accordance with the draft Zoning By-law Amendment attached as Schedule 1 to this report.

Background:

Proposal:

William J. Dolan Planning Consultants Ltd., the applicant and agent for the owner, is requesting an amendment to York Zoning By-law Number 1-83 to retain the 3.96 metre (13 feet) height of the existing detached garage located at the rear of a two storey single detached dwelling at 19 Kenora Crescent. (See Appendix 2: Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevation Plans)

The garage was constructed in compliance with the By-law at its present location abutting the rear lot line by the previous owner in the early 1980's as a pitched roof garage within a height to the roof peak of 3.7 metres (12 feet). Due to the deterioration of the roof and the desire to provide more storage space, the present owners reconstructed the roof as a flat roof to a height of 3.96 metres (13 feet) in 1996 without a building permit. City Building Department staff were made aware of the building activity and an Order to Comply was issued. A letter submitted with the application provides background information on the events that lead to the filing of this application. (See Appendix 3: Letter from William. J. Dolan Planning Consultants Ltd.)

Committee of Adjustment:

On November 12, 1996, the Committee of Adjustment refused a minor variance application to retain and use the existing garage at a height of 3.96 metres (13 feet) and to grant relief from the minimum lot frontage provisions of the By-law to confirm the existing lot frontage of 7.6 metres (25 feet) for the property. Planning staff had no objection to the application and commented to the Committee that it should give consideration to alternate building material finishes for the remaining three sides of the garage that are constructed with concrete block.

The owner appealed the Committee of Adjustment decision and an Ontario Municipal Board hearing was subsequently held in April 1997. On August 12, 1997, the Ontario Municipal Board refused the requested building height variance and dismissed the associated appeal. However, it granted an amended variance as to lot frontage to permit a technical lot frontage of 7.31 metres (24 feet) as a result of evidence presented at the Board

Site and Surrounding Area:

The subject site is located on the south side of Kenora Crescent west of Blackthorn Avenue and is in a residential area characterized by single detached one and two storey dwellings. (See Appendix 1- Site Location Map). The site contains a two storey single detached dwelling at the front of the property and a one storey garage which is accessed by driveway running along the side of the house, at the rear of the property.

Comments:

Official Plan:

The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan which permits detached dwellings and detached residential accessory buildings such as garages in rear yards.

Zoning By-law:

The subject property is zoned R2 Residential Zone (R2) which permits garages as accessory uses to dwellings. Section 3.4.11 (Accessory Buildings in R Zones ) of York Zoning By-Law No.1-83 allows private garages to be erected in the side or rear yard in any residential zone provided that the gross floor area does not exceed 46 square metres (495 square feet) and the maximum height of flat-roofed accessory buildings does not exceed 3.1 metres (10 feet). Pitched roof accessory buildings are permitted a maximum height of 3.7 metres (12.3 feet).

Section 2(59)of the Zoning By-law defines "Height of Building" as follows:

the vertical height from the finished grade of the centre of the front of the building to the highest point of the roof joists in the case of a flat roof, or the average height half way up in the case of pitched roofs¼"

This zoning amendment is therefore requested as a result of the refusal by the Committee of Adjustment and the Ontario Municipal Board to grant relief from the 3.1 metre (10 feet) maximum height limit for a flat-roofed garage to allow the existing 3.96 metre (13 feet) height.

Agency Comments:

The Fire Department, Toronto Hydro West District and the Urban Design Division have no comments on this proposal. Comments have not been received from the Health Department, Works Department and Municipal Standards Division, but we have confirmed that no comments will be forwarded.

The Building Division has advised that a professional engineer's report is to be submitted to confirm stability of the masonry walls and roof structure. They are currently reviewing a recently submitted survey to confirm that the location of the garage complies with zoning provisions and that it does not encroach on abutting properties.

The survey indicates a minimum setback of 0.33 metres (1.1 feet) from the rear property line, a minimum setback of 0.2 metres (0.72 feet) from the west side lot line, and a minimum setback of 0.1metres (0.33 feet) from the east property line. It would appear that the garage does comply with setback provisions.

Evaluation:

(a)Building Height Impact

Careful regard has been given to the Ontario Municipal Board decision to refuse relief from the maximum height regulation of the By-law to permit the existing garage height of 3.96 metres (13feet). The Board has indicated that because the additional resulting mass associated with an increased height of three feet is constant across the footprint of the building combined with the location of the garage very near to the rear property line, it makes the garage appear too bulky and overpowering to be acceptable.

The Board made numerous references to the impact of the garage on the property at 25 Kenora Crescent. It stated that the adverse impact of the garage amounted "...to a sense of enclosure leading to the loss of enjoyment ..."of the property at 25 Kenora Crescent by its occupants and that "cosmetic changes will not substantially, if at all, alleviate this impact."

The Board concluded that in view of the adverse impact on the property at 25 Kenora Crescent created by the additional height and mass of the garage on the application site, the minor variance cannot be considered minor nor is it appropriate development or use of the property.

These issues, as stated by the Board , relating to the minor variance application, apply as equally to this application for an amendment to the Zoning By-law to allow the existing height. This application is in effect a request for approval of the same variance that was not granted by the Board.

(b)Options to Alleviate Building Height Impact

The additional building height and mass appears to pose the greatest adverse impact to the property at 25 Kenora Crescent notwithstanding that the garage's location on the lot conforms with By-law set back regulations. It is noted that the actual height of the rear wall of the garage is approximately 4.6 metres (15 feet) as opposed to 3.96 metres (13 feet). This difference is due to the grade at the rear of the garage being approximately 0.6 metres (2 feet) lower than the grade at the front of the building where the height is normally measured for By-law compliance purposes.

Three options are available to address the Board's concern with respect to the height and mass in relation to properties that are adversely affected. (See Appendix 4: Garage Roof and Height Alteration Options)

Option 1 -Retain garage height and alter facade to create a mansard roof appearance

This will involve constructing a slightly tapered wood frame and shingle "skirt' onto the upper approximately 1.5 metre ( 5 feet) portion of the garage within the property limits on the south and west side where setbacks permit. This alteration would create the appearance of a lower roof line and will reduce the appearance of the building wall mass to improve the scale and appearance of the garage.

Option 2 - Alter garage height at the rear by changing the flat roof to a sloping or pitched roof

This will involve lowering the rear wall height by approximately 1.5 metres (5 feet) to approximately 3.1 metres (10 feet) and reconstructing the rear one third depth (approximately 2.2 metres (7 feet) of the garage with a sloping roof. This alteration will lower the rear roof line to the height of the original pitched roof garage roof line, reduce the mass of the rear wall and the rear portions of the side walls, and will improve the scale and relationship of the garage to the abutting properties at the rear.

Option 3 - Alter height of entire garage and change flat roof to a full pitched roof design

This alteration will require lowering the height of both the rear concrete block wall and the front brick wall approximately to the height of the walls as they existed prior to the flat roof construction (approximately 2.4 metres (8 feet) front wall, and 3.1 metres (10 feet) rear wall) and then reconstructing the roof as a pitched roof. This will result in a roof peak that is marginally higher than 3.96 m (13 feet) but with a garage height that would comply with the maximum Zoning By-law height provision of 3.7 m ( 12.1 feet)

(c)Supportable Option

Option one, amounts to a cosmetic change. Although the alteration may establish the look of a garage with a visible proportionate roof and wall area, the mansard roof design simply covers up an otherwise exposed wall area and does not alleviate the massive look of the rear part of the garage.

Both options two and three effectively lower the roof line and reduce the mass of the rear wall as it relates to the properties at 21 and 25 Kenora Crescent approximately to that which previously existed and therefore are more suitable solutions than Option one. Option three, however, also will result in an alteration of the front elevation and roof line of the garage which provides no benefit in reducing the adverse visual impact of the rear of the garage on the abutting property at 25 Kenora Crescent (the property most adversely affected) since effect of the front alteration would not be readily visible from the every part of the rear yard on the south side.

It would appear from discussions with the owner at 21 Kenora Crescent that height and mass is not a concern as it is for 25 Kenora Crescent. Therefore, option two is the most suitable and reasonable option to reduce building height impact for the affected property. We have discussed this option with the applicant who is giving it consideration.

Conclusions:

This zoning amendment application to retain the height of the existing flat roof garage will not address the issue of building height impact on the abutting properties, particularly the property at 25Kenora Crescent as identified by the Ontario Municipal Board. An alteration of the rear portion of the flat roof by lowering rear the wall height and constructing a sloping roof is a suitable and supportable option for addressing the adverse impact principally on the abutting dwelling and rear yard of the property at 25 Kenora Crescent, but also on the dwelling at 21 Kenora Crescent. A draft Zoning By-law Amendment is recommended which provides for a combined flat roof and pitched roof design with a maximum 3.96 metres (13 feet) height for the flat roof portion and a maximum lower roof line height of approximately 3.1 metres (10 feet ) at the rear of the garage. (See Schedule1: Draft Zoning By-law)

Conditions to Approval

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

(i)receipt by the Building Division of a professional engineer's report to confirm stability of the masonry walls and roof structure.

Contact Name:

Lou Moretto

Manager, Community Planning, West District

Tel: 394-2617 Fax: 394-2782

The York Community Council reports having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (November 9, 1998) from Engineering Services, CN, advising that there were no objections to the subject application.

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

-Mr. Beppi Crosariol, on behalf of his father, Tony Crosariol, and also submitted a brief in regard thereto indicating objections to the subject proposal;

-Mr. Sylvio Minichio, Toronto - expressed objection to the proposal.

-Mr. William Dolan, Planning Consultant, on behalf of the owner of 19 Kenora Crescent - requested that the Community Council approve the application;

-Mr. Carlo Trotto; and

-Mr. Manuel Barradas.

(Copies of Appendix 1:Site Location Map; Appendix 2: Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevation Plans; Appendix 3: Letter From Wm. J. Dolan, Planning Consultants; Appendix 4: Garage Roof and Height Alteration Options; and Schedule 1: Draft Zoning By-law referred to in the foregoing communication, were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

-(November 20, 1998) from Mr. Beppi Crosariol, Kenora Residents for Law and Order, respecting the zoning by-law amendment application for 19 Kenora Crescent; and

-(November 17, 1998) from Mr. Wm. J. Dolan, President, Wm. J. Dolan Planning Consultants Ltd., pertaining to a site specific zoning amendment for 19Kenora Crescent.)

4

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision

Shell Station, 1586 Bathurst Street - New Gas Bar

and Sales Kiosk - Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated November 24, 1998, from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, entitled 'Shell Station - 1586 Bathurst Street - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal, Retention of Outside Planning Consultant', embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that the cost to retain a planning consultant to a maximum of $10,000.00 with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board appeal on 1586 Bathurst Street be provided from the Legal program's approved 1999 Operating Budget.' ")

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to:

(a)attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the residents' appeal of the above application;

(b)retain external Planners to represent the appellants at the OMB hearing; and

(2)the Treasurer be requested to report directly to Council identifying an appropriate account to which the costs associated with this appeal can be charged.

The York Community Council submits the following report (October 26, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District:

Purpose:

To provide information on appeals of Committee of Adjustment decisions which have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and to recommend whether or not legal and staff representation is warranted.

Financial Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There will be no financial costs associated with the appeal.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeal regarding application No. CA-98-212, 1586 Bathurst Street.

Comment:

The application and appeal is summarized as follows:

(i) Address: 1586 Bathurst Street (Ward 28: York Eglinton)

Applicant:Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited

(Robert A. Dragicevic)

Appellants:Howard Katz, 625 Lonsdale Road

Frank R. Fischer, 629A Lonsdale Road

Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB

Application:CA-98-212. The applicant proposes to construct a new Gas Bar and Sales Kiosk with an area of 131 m² (1410 sq. ft.) (See Appendix A and B attached).

Requested variances are:

Existing By-lawProposed Plans

maximum gross floor area45 m² (484. sq. ft.)131 m² (1410. sq. ft.)

minimum front yard setback24 m (79. ft.)20.7 m (68 ft.)

maximum height3.7 m (12. ft.)4.15 m (14 ft.)

illumination on canopyno illuminationcanopy illuminated

on west face, west half

of north face, and west

3/4 of south face

location of garbage storage room:rear of kiosksouthwest corner of kiosk

Committee of Adjustment Decision:(Sept. 28, 1998) Granted with conditions requiring:

(i) hours of operation be restricted as follows:

Gas bar: 24 hour service seven days per or less

Retail Store:5.30 a.m. to midnight, seven days per week or less

Pay-Window for retail store items: midnight to 5:30 a.m.

(ii)no food preparation undertaken on the premises;

(iii)no commercial kitchen located on the site;

(iv)no customer seating installed or available; and

(v)applicant to enter into a Site Plan Agreement to satisfaction of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Staff Comment:The Planning Department had no objections and recommended conditions (ii), (iii), and (iv) noted above and also that the applicant apply for Site Plan Approval to address lighting and landscaping.

Conclusions:

The subject appeal was reviewed by staff who did not object to the application. Legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board are therefore not warranted for this appeal.

Notwithstanding the staff recommendation, it is noted that Community Council considered a memorandum from Councillor Mihevc sent to the Committee of Adjustment which requested that the application be deferred to allow area Councillors to meet with local residents and Shell Officials, to examine legal means to regulate hours of operation, and to examine the by-laws related to signage and lighting. Community Council deferred the matter to its next meeting on November 12, 1998.

Contact Name:

Lou Moretto,

Manager, Community Planning - West District

York Civic Centre

Tel: 394-2607; Fax: 394-2782

The York Community Council reports also having before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:

(i)(November 4, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc advising that the local residents are objecting to the subject application; and requesting the Community Council's support to send outside planners to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing to oppose the application and to request a more appropriate development for the site;

(ii)(September 21, 1998)from Councillors Mihevc on behalf of Councillors Adams, Bossons and Davis, petitioning the Committee of Adjustment to defer this application to allow an opportunity to:

-meet with the local area residents and with Shell officials;

-specifically examine the legal means by which the City can regulate the hours of operation of the Shell Station and Kiosk; and

-examine by-laws related to signage and lighting.

(Copies of the aforementioned Appendix A: Location Map for 1586 Bathurst Street, and Appendix B: Site Plan for 1586 Bathurst Street were forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998 and copies thereof are on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer:

Purpose:

To identify a funding source for the retention of an outside planning consultant with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board appeal on 1586 Bathurst Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost for the retention of an outside planning consultant to a maximum of $10,000.00 be provided from the Legal program's approved 1999 operating budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the cost to retain a planning consultant to a maximum of $10,000.00 with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board appeal on 1586 Bathurst Street be provided from the Legal program's approved 1999 operating budget.

Council Reference/Background/History:

City Council will be considering Clause No. 4 of Report No. 14 from the York Community Council with respect to the Ontario Municipal Board appeal at 1586 Bathurst Street. York Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the residents' appeal of the above application and retain external Planners to represent the appelants at the OMB hearing. It is also recommended that the Treasurer be requested to report directly to Council identifying an appropriate account to which the costs associated with this appeal can be charged. The program has been estimating $10,000.00 as an upset limit for a one day Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

At its meeting on October 1 and 2, 1998, City Council considered Clause No 5 embodied in Report No. 11 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Ontario Municipal Board Hearings". The purpose of this report was to review the practices of the former municipalities and to standardize the City Solicitor's instructions to attend Ontario Municipal Board hearings in support of Council's position with respect to planning applications.

In consideration of this clause, City Council also considered the joint report dated September 30, 1998 from the Commissioner of Corporate Services and the City Solicitor, entitled "Retention of Planning Experts". City Council adopted the joint report dated September 30, 1998 recommending that this report be referred to the Budget Committee for review.

At its meeting on November 18, 1998, Budget Committee stipulated that in the event that Council directs the hiring of an outside planner, the necessary funding be taken from the Department's contingency.

Conclusion:

In the event that outside planning consultants are required to provide evidence at Ontario Municipal Board hearings in support of City Council's position, funding should be provided from the Legal program's approved operating budget.

Contact Name:

Shekhar Prasad, Director of Budget Services, 392-8095

E-mail: sprasad@mta1.metrodesk.metrotor.on.ca.)

5

Tree Removal By-law

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

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

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October20,1998) from the York Parks & Recreation Department:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request Council to direct the Legal Services Division to prepare a by-law to approve the removal of City-owned trees. The properties and reasons for removal are described in this report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

Removal and planting costs are approved in the 1998 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

That Council direct the Legal Services Division to prepare a by-law for the removal of City-owned trees, and that forestry staff begin removal and planting.

Comments:

In accordance with York Policy, attached is a list of locations where trees located on City property have either been removed or are in need of removal and the reason for the request.

It should be noted that in each case, where a tree has been removed, the resident has agreed to permit the City to plant a replacement tree.

Conclusion:

Upon approval by Council, City forces will begin removal and planting of replacement trees.

Contact Name

W. N. Kevin Bowser

York Director of Parks

Tel: 394-2487

Fax: 394-2707

(A copy of the list referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

6

Snow Link Program for Seniors and the Disabled

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause, by amending the recommendations of the York Community Council to read as follows:

"The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the current method of snow removal for seniors and the disabled through its Snow Link Program be endorsed for the 1998/1999 winter season;

(2)the current Snow Link Program be endorsed as the preferred additional method for providing winter maintenance services for seniors and the disabled for future winter seasons;

(3)the Snow Link Program continue to be administered by the York Fairbank Centre for Seniors, the York Community Services and the George S. Syme Seniors' Centre for York for 1998/1999; and

(4)consideration be given to expanding the snow removal program for the former City of Toronto and Borough of East York areas of the new City of Toronto.")

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the current method of snow removal for seniors and the disabled through its Snow Link Program be endorsed for the 1998/1999 winter season, as stated in recommendation (1) in the following Clause No. 6 of Report No. 10 which was adopted without amendment by Council on October 1 and 2, 1998:

(2)the current Snow Link Program be endorsed as the preferred method for providing winter maintenance services for seniors and the disabled for future winter seasons, and that Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton, be exempted from the City's proposed 1999/2000 Winter Maintenance program;

(3)the Snow Link Program continue to be administered by the York Fairbank Centre for Seniors, the York Community Services and the George S. Syme Seniors' Centre for York and that their 1998/1999 and future funding levels be maintained; and

(4)the current rate of financial assistance of $10.00 per storm to a limit of $65.00 for the winter season be eliminated, and that the eligible recipients be provided this service at no charge commencing with the 1998/1999 winter season.

The York Community Council submits for information, the following Clause No. 6 of ReportNo.10, which was adopted without amendment by Council on October 1 and 2, 1998:

(1998-1999 Snow Link Program

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton)

The York Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (August 14, 1998) from the Director of Professional Services, Works and Emergency Services, York District, be adopted; and

(2)the one-page promotional/information advertisement also be placed in the Bloor West Villager newspaper.

Purpose:

To obtain approval for the 1998-1999 Snow Link Program within the York District.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Status:

Funds of $50,000.00 are available in account number 397-467 for this Program.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Snow Link Program for the 1998-99 winter season be continued;

(2)the rebate level and administration of the Program remain unchanged; and

(3)a one-page promotional/information advertisement be placed in the York Guardian Newspaper for a minimum period of two weeks.

Council Reference/Background History:

The former City of York has offered its senior and disabled residents a Snow Link Program since 1983. Under this program private leadwalks, driveways and public sidewalks abutting the residents' property are cleared of snow.

Under the rebate program, eligible registered senior/disabled residents, have been refunded up to 100percent of their cost for sidewalk snow removal, to a maximum of $10.00 per storm and a maximum of $65.00 per season.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

In 1997-1998, the cost to operate the Snow Link Program was $54,261.00 with 820 residents registering in the program but only 430 actually submitted a rebate claim.

The total amount rebated under the program for 1997-1998 was $14,953.00. The balance of the budget in the amount of $36,954.00 went towards administration costs of the three Community Centres, promotion materials and distribution, registration and claim forms.

The following options have been examined for this program:

(a)maintain the "status quo";

(b)discontinue the Snow Link Program entirely; and

(c)move from individually delivered promotional/information flyers, at an approximate cost of $4,000.00 to a full page promotional/information ad in the York Guardian Newspaper, at an approximate cost of $1,070.00 per week (total cost $2,140.00).

The "link" program for the coming winter season 1998-1999 is again proposed to be administered through three separate community centres: York Fairbank Centre for Seniors, York Community Services, and George S. Syme Seniors' Centre of York. The York District will provide the necessary funds to hire a co-ordinator at each of the community centres and to underwrite the cost associated with administering the program.

Conclusions:

Having examined the above options, for the benefit of our seniors, we recommend the continuance of the Program for the 1998-1999 winter season. Due to budget constraints, the Program will be advertised in the York Guardian Newspaper.

Contact Name:

Chi H. Ng

York Director of Professional Services

Tel: 394-2648, Fax: 394-2888

The York Community Council also submits the following memorandum (August 24, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc:

Please put this item on the agenda for the new York Community Council to be held on September16, 1998.

Snow Link has served as a vital service to seniors during the winter months. I am hereby requesting that the York Community Council allocate funds for the 1998-1999 Snow Link Program. As in 1997, I would ask that $50,000.00 should be allocated to this program.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

The York Community Council also submits the following communication from Ms. Alana Butcher, Acting Executive Director, The George Syme Seniors' Centre of York to Councillor Frances Nunziata:

Further to a discussion we had with Gary Welsh, Director of Transportation Services, District No.4

and our conversation yesterday regarding the model used for the Snow Link Program, here is an outline of the issues we discussed:

SNOW LINK MODEL

Provides removal of snow from private property (front/back steps, pathways and driveways), as well as public property snow removal (sidewalk) within a guaranteed 24-hour period, 7 days a week, for seniors and the disabled.

1. It provides private property snow removal allowing seniors/disabled access to and from their front door to the sidewalk, 7 days per week. In most cases, the snow is shoveled within 2 to 3 hours after a snowfall.

2. Personal contact and follow-up (from our agency staff) to the seniors to assure them that the service will be and has been provided.

3. Provides employment for youth (school students) as well as for unemployed adults. We use the adults to clear snow for seniors needing immediate access from their homes to go to medical appointments, etc. The students shovel either before school and/or after school and are available depending on the need.

4. It establishes an intergenerational link between seniors and the students in the community. Very often, it leads to extended services/help to the seniors (i.e. yard cleanup in the fall, grass cutting, odd jobs, etc.)

5. It eliminates the vulnerability of seniors to people in the community who offer snow removal services at prices beyond the economic range of seniors.

6. It allows seniors to live independently in their homes and relieves the stress for family members knowing that this service will be provided to their parents. (i.e. family members who live out-of-town.)

7. Cost effective - snow shovellers are paid $7.50 per hour directly by the senior. The agency utilizes the funds provided by the City on a cost-recovery basis only (i.e. coordinator hired to administer the program.) A rebate (maximum $65.00) can be applied for by the senior.

As you know, this model of snow removal provides a valuable service not only to the seniors and disabled, but also to the community as a whole. Your interest and understanding of our concerns regarding proposed changes in the delivery of snow removal services to seniors is very much appreciated and we would like your assistance in raising these issues at the November Toronto Council meeting.

Thanks for your help, we value your support of our Centre and the commitment to members in the community.

________

-Ms. Wendy Caceres of the George Syme Seniors' Centre appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter, and submitted a brief in respect thereto.

7

Application for Demolition Permit, West Park Hospital

82 Buttonwood Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber

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

The York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October30,1998) from the Director of Buildings and Deputy Chief Building Official, WestDistrict:

Purpose:

Under the City of York Act 1994 (Bill PR147), Council of the former City of York enacted special demolition control legislation for the purpose of securing beautification measures on the lands and abutting municipal boulevard as a condition of the issuance of demolition permits. Bylaw Number3102-95 was subsequently passed designating the entire City (York) as an area of demolition control pursuant to the City of York Act, 1994.

The owner has applied for a demolition permit to remove the building located on the subject lands. Community Council approval for the release of the permit is being sought.

Funding Sources, Financial implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the application to demolish the Prittie Building on the West Park Hospital site at 82Buttonwood Avenue be approved pursuant to By-law No. 3102-95 with no conditions of approval related to beautification; and

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

Background:

The property owner, West Park Hospital, through their agent Susan Ainley, has applied to the City for a demolition permit. The owner wishes to demolish the unoccupied health care building known as the Prittie Building located on the hospital lands at 82 Buttonwood Avenue and to complete the environmental remediation of the site. The location of the building to be demolished on the hospital lands is shown on the map attached as Appendix 1 to this report.

The property is designated Institutional in the Official Plan and is zoned R2 Residential District. Site specific zoning under the provisions of Section 16(197) of Zoning By-law No.1-83 also apply to the lands to permit the lands to be used for hospital and nursing home purposes.

Discussion:

Further to circulation of this application, the following are the responses from various departments:

Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission has no concerns with respect to hydro supply and advises that if isolation is required at the customer's transformer station, the customer should call to arrange for an outage.

Operations Services has no concerns with the proposal.

Health Unit has advised that a review of the site plan indicates no Public Health concerns at this time.

Community Services has indicated no conflict with city owned trees at the subject location.

Fire Department has advised that they have no objection to the demolition, however, they request that a report be provided by the hospital outlining the continuation of emergency systems, during and after demolition, for the remainder of the buildings on site.

Community Planning Division, West District, has advised that the property is designated Institutional in the Official Plan and is zoned R2 Residential District. Site specific zoning under the provisions of Section 16(197) of Zoning By-law Number 1-83 also applies to the lands to permit the lands to be used for hospital and nursing home purposes. The building was previously used for health care purposes but is now vacant. West Park Hospital has advised that an application has been made to the Ministry of Health for approval of an allocation for long term care beds for the hospital site. If approved the hospital would initiate applications for approval of a long term care facility and this demolition site would be the preferred location for the facility.

In light of the potential future development application, the Division has no objection to the approval of the demolition permit application and requires no conditions of approval relating to beautification. In the event that development does not proceed on the site as anticipated, it is expected that West Park Hospital will improve the appearance to compliment the rest of its landscaped grounds.

The Community Planning Division suggests that the applicant be advised that Site Plan Control will apply to the development of the site, subject to the provisions of the City of York Site Plan Control By-law.

Local Historical Committees have been notified regarding the demolition permit application.

City Wide Issues:

None.

Conclusions:

The owner wishes to proceed with the redevelopment of the property, and in particular the lands on which the subject building sits. In order to proceed in a timely manner, it is necessary to obtain a demolition permit for the building. Approval of the application will allow this department to release the demolition permit. This will enable the preparation of the site for the potential development of a long term care facility following an allocation of long term care beds from the Ministry of Health which is anticipated in the near future . No conditions relating to beautification are recommended.

Contact Name:

Bruce Ashton

Director of Buildings and Deputy Chief Building Official,

West District

Tel: 394-8006

Fax:394-8209

________

-Mr. Barry Monaghan, President and Chief Executive Officer, West Park Hospital, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the aforementioned Appendix 1: Location Map for 82 Buttonwood Avenue was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the York Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the Clerk's Department, York Civic Centre.)

8

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received this Clause for information, subject to striking out and referring Item (b), entitled "Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing", embodied in this Clause, back to the York Community Council for further consideration.)

(a)Review of York Residential Zoning By-law No. 3623-97.

The York Community Council reports having approved the following resolution by Councillor Joe Mihevc:

(November 4, 1998)

WHEREAS the former City of York on October 1, 1997 enacted By-law No. 3623-97, being a by-law to amend the City of York General Zoning By-law No. 1-83; and

WHEREAS By-law No. 3623-97 provides for amendments to Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16 and 18 of said By-law No. 1-83 with respect to residential zoning regulations and development standards; and

WHEREAS the residents in the area of Caesar Avenue, Deakin Avenue and Rockcliffe Boulevard, in Ward 27, York Humber, have expressed concerns regarding the provisions of By-law No.3623-97 with respect to the permitted uses in R zones relative to height and density, which impacts negatively on the existing homes in the area;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that in consideration of the concerns of the residents, that the Director of Community Planning, West District, be requested to:

(1)undertake a review of By-law No. 3623-97 as to its appropriateness in terms of its ability to promote compatible development within residential neighbourhoods; and

(2)submit a report directly to Council on this matter.

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

-Mr. Robert Truman, Toronto;

-Mr. John Poli, Toronto;

-Ms. Anita Bartlett, Toronto; and

-Mr. Rob Mannovich, Toronto.

(b)Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding the

Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing.

The York Community Council reports having considered the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998, as stated in the following communication (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, and having:

(1)endorsed Recommendation No. 2(a), Section 3.2.3 Conversion and Demolition of Rental Housing, with its amendments to paragraphs 135.1, 135.3, 135.4 and 135.5;

(2)amended paragraph 135.2 by:

-deleting the words "including" and substituting the words "exclusive of" in lieu thereof;

-deleting the words "containing six or more rented residential units" and by substituting the words "where 33 percent or more of the units are tenanted" in lieu thereof;

so that Recommendation No. (2)(a), paragraph 135.2 shall now read as follows:

135.2to restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, or any related group of buildings, exclusive of equity co-operatives, where 33 percent or more of the units are tenanted, as it would be premature and not in the public interest, unless the vacancy rate in the City of Toronto, as reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for private rental apartments and townhouses, respectively, has been at or above 2.5 percent for the preceding two-year reporting period;

(3)endorsed the addition of the following new Recommendations (12) and (13):

"(12)notification of applications involving the demolition of rental units be extended to all tenants, and the application fees be adjusted to cover the costs thereof; and

(13)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of establishing a provision that no building permit be issued and no planning application be considered for properties which have outstanding City work orders against them."; and

(4)received the following communication (November 12, 1998) from Goldlist Properties Inc.:

(i)(November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 2, 1998 considered the report (October15,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and:

(A)endorsed Recommendation No. (9), embodied in the attached report (October15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, viz:

"(9)that a copy of this report and the Committee's action be forwarded to the Community Councils for review at their meetings scheduled to be held on November 12, 1998, with a request that their comments be made available for the Urban Environment and Development Committee's consideration at its November 30, 1998 public meeting;".;

(B)referred the following motion to the Community Councils and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for review and comment thereon to the November 30, 1998 meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee:

Moved by Councillor Moscoe:

'That the Urban Environment and Development Committee recommend to Council that:

(1)Recommendation No. (2)(a), embodied in the report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended as follows:

135.1-(i)delete the words "where appropriate"; and

(ii)strike out the word "discouraging" and insert in lieu thereof the word"prohibiting";

135.3-add the word "only" after the words "rented residential units";

135.4-delete the words "whenever possible" and "wherever appropriate";

135.5-strike out (a) and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(a)to prohibit redevelopment applications which involve the demolition of rental units without replacement of those rental units with an equivalent number of rental units of a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability in the new development, or the equivalent number of such units which, in the opinion of City Council, is consistent with the intent of this policy; and";

so that Recommendation No. (2)(a) shall now read as follows:

"(2)Council adopt new official plan policies to regulate the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing by:

(a)adding the following new sections to the Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan:

Section 3.2.3Conversion and Demolition of Rental Housing:

It is the policy of Council:

135.1to preserve, maintain and replenish the supply of residential buildings, and particularly rental buildings, across the City of Toronto by restricting the demolition of residential property and the conversion of rental units to condominium, and byprohibiting the conversion of rental units to equity co-operative;

135.2to restrict the conversion to condominium of any building, or any related group of buildings, including equity co-operatives, containing six or more rented residential units as it would be premature and not in the public interest, unless the vacancy rate in the City of Toronto, as reported by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, for private rental apartments and townhouses, respectively, has been at or above 2.5percent for the preceding two-year reporting period;

135.3despite Policy 135.2, to consider allowing the conversion of buildings containing six or more rented residential units only where the rents that were charged for each unit in the building or related group of buildings one year prior to the application, were at or above the average high-end rent level by unit type as prescribed by Council from time to time, and based on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports;

135.4to seek the retention of rented residential units, and to consider acquiring or leasing the property where such units are at risk of being demolished;

135.5(a)to prohibit redevelopment applications which involve the demolition of rental units without replacement of those rental units with an equivalent number of rental units of a similar number, type, size, and level of affordability in the new development, or the equivalent number of such units which, in the opinion of City Council, is consistent with the intent of this policy; and

(b)when considering such applications in the context of an increase in height and/or density, to secure such replacement units and/or alternative arrangements through an appropriate legal agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act.";

(2)the following new Recommendations (12) and (13) be added thereto:

"(12)notification of applications involving the demolition of rental units be extended to all tenants, and the application fees be adjusted to cover the costs thereof; and

(13)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of establishing a provision that no building permit be issued and no planning application be considered for properties which have outstanding City work orders against them;"'.

(ii)(November 12, 1998) from Mr. Richard Kuchynski, Director of Planning and Development, Goldlist Properties, Toronto, advising of their concerns regarding the issue of affordable rental housing; that Goldlist has a solid record of working cooperatively with all stakeholders to address important issues; that application has been made to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 1-83 of the former City of York, to permit the construction of two new 25-storey condominium buildings of 125 units each, and 36 townhouses for a total of 286 units; the development would entail the demolition of two existing high rise rental buildings containing a total of 148 rental units and 98 hotel suites; that the Urban Planning and Development Services Department has recommended that Council adopt new official plan polices to regulate the conversion to condominium and demolition of rental housing in response to the recent repeal of previous restrictions on conversion and demolition by the Province's new Tenant Protection Act; that the recommendations tabled by City staff are counterproductive and will not lead to enhancements in the quality or supply of Toronto's rental housing stock; urging the Community Council to reject staff's recommendations; and that in order to stimulate the development of more rental housing in Toronto, additional tools and initiatives are needed, and recommending that the City of Toronto:

(1)Establish an administrative structure to actively encourage partnerships to combine affordable (often municipally owned) real estate with investment capital to produce private sector market units.

(2)Pass resolutions and implement an action plan to press the provincial and federal governments to acknowledge the rental housing problem and contribute to a solution by allowing PST and GST exemptions on building materials and other development expenses (especially services) that are dedicated to production of rental units.

(3)Establish a task force to initiate dialogue with industry representatives about municipal assurances and incentives that will encourage them to build new units.

(4)Provide exemptions in any relevant municipal policy respecting buildings that require structural repairs and improvements that are not economically feasible; and

(5)Take action that will capitalize on low interest rates and the development of a new regulatory climate that has returned Ontario's rental housing industry to the brink of viability.

(c)Harmonizing Recreation User Fees.

The York Community Council reports having approved the following resolution by Councillor Nunziata; and having directed that it be forwarded to the User Fee Committee for consideration:

(November 12, 1998)

WHEREAS recreational services in the City of Toronto are a key component in providing a healthy City and contributing to the quality of life in communities across Toronto; and

WHEREAS the City of Toronto should be committed to providing its residents equal access to these services, regardless of income, age or geographic location; and

WHEREAS the York Community Council having heard from several deputants at its public meeting, and having noted that all the comments did not support user fees;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the User Fee Committee, after having now completed the public consultation process, recommend the harmonization of all user fees for recreational services in the City of Toronto, effecting January 1, 1999; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the York Community Council recommends Option 5, the elimination of all user fees for drop-in programs, subscriber programs and basic instructional programs.

The Community Council further reports having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:

(i)(October 27, 1998) presentation material from Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to the User Fee Committee regarding Harmonizing Recreation User Fees; and

(ii)(October 29, 1998) from the User Fee Committee to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, advising the Committee received the overview presentation by Mr. John Macintyre, Director, Parks and Recreation Central Services; and adopted recommendations to be included in the presentation by staff at the Community Councils on November 12, 1998.

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

-Mr. Loren Grebanier, Coordinator, For Youth Project;

-Mr. John MacLennan, Toronto and York Region Labour Council;

-Ms. Diana Andrews, Unit Officer, CUPE Local 79; and also submitted a brief from Ms. Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79;

-Ms. Dorothy MacKinnon, West Enders Chapter of Canadian Pensioners Concerned;

-Ms. Stacy Miller, Black Students Association;

-Tricia Edwards, Black Students Association;

-Mr. Henry Cerda, York Hispanic Centre;

-Ms. Mandisa Keya, Weston student;

-Mr. Keddone Dias, Syme-Woolner Neighbourhood and Family Centre; and

-Representative on behalf of the residents in Metro Housing.

(d)Environmental Initiatives - Reserve Account,

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Works and Utilities Committee to include in the notification process for the Downspout Disconnection Program (City-wide), an enquiry of residents as to their interest in environmental initiatives such as tree planting, composters and blue/grey boxes; and

(2)directed that the Budget Committee be advised of this action.

(October 19, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc requesting that the Parks staff report on the feasibility of hiring two students per York Wards, using the $10,000.00 in the reserve account to poll residents on the following environmental initiatives:

(1)having their downspout disconnected;

(2)having a tree planted on their property; and

(3)using a composter and blue/grey box.

(e)Garbage, Waste and Recycling Material being placed on

Arterial Roads on Non-Collection Days.

The York Community Council reports that with a view to harmonizing solid waste collection services in mixed use areas on arterial roadways, that would include a common educational and enforcement component to ensure uniform service, having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Works and Emergency Services on:

(a)current procedures and practices for the collection of solid waste in mixed use areas (commercial/residential) throughout the City of Toronto, focusing on the following issues,

(b)identifying and detailing the number of mixed use areas on arterial roadways where collection is occurring at curbside versus laneways;

(c)the frequency of such collection;

(d)the educational and notification programs which are presently available and being utilized;

(e)the number of staff persons, hours involved and overall costs in order to maintain current standards;

(f)the existing penalties and fines; and

(2)received the following communication from Councillor Nunziata:

(October 27, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata requesting that the York Community Council indicate to the Works and Utilities Committee and the Urban Environment and Development Committee, that it supports the drafting of a by-law that would prohibit garbage, waste, and recycling material from being put out on arterial roads for collection on non-collection days, and that the municipality be empowered to fine those property owners and businesses who fail to comply with this by-law.

(f)Services to the Film Industry,

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having approved the following resolution by Councillor Bill Saundercook:

(November 6, 1998)

WHEREAS the film industry is a billion dollar industry in the City of Toronto; and

WHEREAS local economic benefits from filming can range into thousands of dollars per day; and

WHEREAS numerous successful recent initiatives have increased the film industry activity in what was formerly the City of York; and

WHEREAS the York Community Council should work towards making Ward 27, YorkHumber and Ward 28, York Eglinton, desirable locations for the film industry;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, be requested to:

(1)meet with staff of CANDO at the York Civic Centre, to develop a plan for constructing a fee for service for sewer hookups for film trailers in the Wards27 and 28; and

(2)explore other options that could assist the film industry in Wards 27 and 28.

(g) For Youth Project.

The York Community Council reports having received the following communication and deputations:

(Undated) Information sheet providing a summary of the Youth Assembly held on October13, 1998 entitled "Whose City Is It Anyway?" hosted by the For Youth Project, along with the Youth Committee of the Toronto's Children and Youth Action Committee.

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

-Mr. Loren Grebanier, For Youth Project; and

-Mr. Jelani Nias, moderator of the Youth Assembly.

(h)The Learning Enrichment Foundation.

The York Community Council reports having received the following communication and deputation:

(November 12, 1998) from Ms. Eunice Grayson, Executive Director, The Learning Enrichment Foundation, advising that the Foundation provides services such as daycare centres; it is also a training organization, a Microsoft Solution Provider, an Internet Service Provider, providing services such as English as a second language; employment to social assistance recipients through the Ontario Works program; and thanking members of Council for their support.

-Ms. Eunice Grayson, Executive Director, The Learning Enrichment Foundation, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(i)Redistribution of Community Service Grants.

The York Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(October 1, 1998) from Mr. Martin Zichy, Toronto, requesting that York Community Council take a strong position against the idea of redistribution of Community Service Grants for the sake of all those who are in need of the services and for the needed city building for which Councillors are responsible if there is obsoletely no extra resources in the budget to support the growing demand for services; that this is not to deny that the needs in the suburbs are no less significant then they are in the inner city.

(j)Request for Removal of Tree at 8 Louvain Street,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having approved the recommendation in the following report:

(October 1, 1998) from the York Commissioner of Parks and Recreation, advising that the owner of 8 Louvain Street is requesting that the City-owned Flowering Crab fruit bearing tree on the boulevard be removed as the fruit falls on to the sidewalk creating a safety hazard for pedestrians; that there is a high maintenance involved with this tree species; it is a popular tree in the York area with four others located on Louvain; that if this tree is removed there may be other requests for tree removals and this would reduce the tree inventory; and recommending that the tree not be removed as it does not qualify in terms of the tree by-law.

(k)Parks Procedure - 1999 Operating Year,

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(October 19, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc requesting that Parks staff report on the schedule and procedure of the York Parks Department for the 1999 budget year and on a comparison with all other former City parks departments.

(l)Notification to Residents of Temporary Traffic Changes

during Construction - Ward 27, York Humber and

Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to take appropriate action regarding the following communication:

(October 20, 1998) from Councillor Joe Mihevc requesting that in future local residents and community schools be notified of temporary traffic changes so that children can be made aware of them; that the signs state temporary change rather than a new change; and advising of the numerous complaints from residents on Winnett Avenue who were not notified of plans to change Winnett Avenue temporarily from a one way to a two way street while construction took place in October.

(m)Smythe Park Tennis Courts - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to direct the York Manager of Parks, to report on maintaining the Smythe Park tennis courts at its present location, or alternatively, give consideration to relocating the courts possibly on the flat tablelands on the east side of Jane Street.

(October 27, 1998) from Councillor Bill Saundercook advising that the Smythe Park tennis courts are in poor condition; and requesting that Parks staff report on a plan of action for the rehabilitation of these tennis courts.

(n)Traffic Concerns on Aileen Avenue between Keele Street

and Silverthorn Avenue - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager, Traffic/Parking, to report on the following communication, including the concerns expressed by the residents:

(October 22, 1998) requesting that staff report on the traffic situation on Aileen Avenue; and advising that a number of vehicles are using Aileen Avenue to bypass making the left at the signalized intersection at Rogers Road, just south of Aileen Avenue; that vehicles turning left from Keele Street to Aileen Avenue are having trouble making the turn without mounting the curb due to the rate of speed travelling southbound on Keele Street; that the postal box located on the south of Aileen Avenue has been hit and thrown by vehicles on four(4) separate occasions, and the concern about the speed of the cars travelling on Aileen Avenue.

(o)Traffic Concerns on Keele Street at Lonborough Avenue,

Ward 27 - York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager, Traffic/Parking, to report on the following communication, including action that can be taken to improve the safety at this location, and a compliance study of the No Left Turn restriction from Keele Street on to Lonborough Avenue.

(October 26, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata requesting staff report on what action can be taken to improve safety at this location, including in that report a compliance study of the no left turn regulation from Keele Street and Lonborough Avenue; advising that prior to the beginning of this school year, a child was struck crossing Keele Street at that location; that cars are illegally parked on both sides of Irving Road at Keele Street, where parents load and unload their children rather than using the school's parking lot located on Clearview Heights; that vehicles travelling southbound on Keele Street are making illegal left-hand turns onto Lonborough Avenue, contrary to the posted "No Left Turns" from 7:00 to 9:00a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., except Sundays and Public Holidays, regulation, when they can legally make left-hand turns at Beechborough Avenue; and that her office has (1) requested Parking Enforcement West monitor the illegal parking on Irving Avenue; and (2) requested the Toronto Police Department, 12 Division, enforce the no left turn regulation at Keele and Lonborough Avenue.

(p)Concerns in Florence Gell Park - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to direct the York Manager of Parks to report on the installation of a wading pool or appropriate shrubbery near the center of the park, to replace the walkway presently being used by cyclists; and

(2)received the following communication.

(October 26, 1998) advising that the Warren Park Ratepayers' Association is requesting lighting in Florence Gell Park because the back corner of the park near the climbing apparatus has become a "hang out" for teens approximately fourteen to twenty years of age; that the teens use the apparatus as a "recreation" room where they smoke and drink beer; and that consideration also be given to installing a wading pool near the centre of the park to replace the walkway that is being used as a raceway for bicyclists.

(q)Petition from Residents on Greenbrook Drive regarding

Traffic Calming Measures - Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(October 29, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata requesting that petitions regarding traffic calming devices be placed on the agenda to become part of the public record.

The following petitions were submitted and are on file in the Clerk's Department:

(i)from the children of Greenbrook Drive indicating disagreement with the removal of the speed bumps;

(ii)from the children of Greenbrook Drive advising that they are in agreement with the installation of the four additional speed bumps;

(iii)from the residents of Greenbrook Drive stating their agreement with the installation of the four remaining traffic calming devices, to complete the project on that street.

(r)New Development Applications Received -

Ward 27, York Humber and Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having received the following report:

(October 27, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West District, recommending that the report be received; and advising that two applications for Site Plan Approval had been received:

(1)424 Gilbert Avenue for six semi-detached dwellings following from a rezoning application for same; and

(2)1956 Weston Road for the alteration of existing commercial building into four commercial freehold units each on its own lot with equal share ownership of parking area; and

that two applications for Part Lot Control Exemption:

(1)1575 Weston Road to amend Part Lot Control exemption By-law Number 3499-97 to extend the Part Lot exemption expiration date; and

(2)285 Wright Avenue to subdivide semi-detached lots within a plan of subdivision for conveyance of semi-detached housing.

(s)Petition requesting that the Two-Way Traffic on Atlas Avenue

between Eglinton Avenue West and the Beth Shalom Synagogue

be Reverted to One-Way Northbound - Ward 28, York Eglinton.

The York Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager, Traffic/Parking, to report on the concerns expressed in the following petition, to recommend alternative solutions, and to invite the deputant to the meeting when the report is being considered; and

(2)received the following communications; and the deputation.

(October 7, 1998) Petition submitted by Mr. David Jourard, signed by the residents of the northern most block of Atlas Avenue which intersects with Eglinton Avenue West; advising that the traffic flow on Atlas Avenue from Eglinton Avenue West to the south end of the Beth Shalom synagogue parking lot is two-way, and then changes to one-way northbound to the next block; that motorists are reversing at high speeds and creating a safety hazard to the children and residents in the area; and requesting that Atlas Avenue be restored to its former one-way northbound up to Eglinton Avenue West.

(October 27, 1998) from Councillor Mihevc advising that his office has received a petition from the residents on Atlas Avenue requesting that the two-way section of that street be reverted to one-way; and requesting that staff investigate and report with options for consideration.

-Mr. David Jourard, Toronto, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(t)Request for Lighting on Wilby Crescent,

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission to install appropriate lighting on Wilby Crescent at the entrance to the ravine, across from the Vehicle Registration Office, in view of the concerns expressed in the following communication:

(November 2, 1998) from Councillor Nunziata advising that the residents on Wilby Crescent are pleased with the outcome of the joint resident/City staff effort to clean and clear the ravine area; that residents use the walkway to access their homes and are requesting that lighting be installed on the existing hydro pole for safety reasons.

(u)Request for Permit Parking on Sykes Avenue -

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager, Traffic/Parking, to report on the following communication:

(November 5, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, advising that a request has been received from a resident of Sykes Avenue; that there are three homes on this street without on-site parking and the residents are receiving parking tickets every night; and requesting that staff report on the feasibility of introducing on-street permit parking, or alternatively, recommend a possible solution to the situation.

(v)Request for Traffic Calming Measures on Watt Avenue

between Kersdale Avenue and Rogers Road -

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager, Traffic/Parking, to report to the Working Group comprised of the two local Councillors for Ward 27, on the concerns outlined in the following communication:

(November 4, 1998) from Councillor Nunziata, submitting a petition received from area residents regarding the speed of traffic on Watt Avenue; advising of parking violations by customers to the Nova Era Bakery; that the Community Council approved an outdoor eating area for the bakery subject to certain conditions being met with respect to parking; that the Manager of Traffic/Parking was requested to report back on the issues; that the residents are requesting the introduction of traffic calming measures which should be included in the staff report; and that this petition was also submitted to the Works and Emergency Services Department.

(w)Request for Permit Parking on Romanway Crescent -

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager, Traffic/Parking, to report on the following communication:

(November 9, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata advising that a petition has been received by her office signed by residents on Romanway Crescent who are requesting permit parking; and requesting that a staff report and poll be undertaken for this proposal.

(x)Request for Traffic Calming Measures on Bicknell Avenue

between Eglinton Avenue West and Rogers Road -

Ward 27, York Humber.

The York Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to direct the York Manager, Traffic/Parking, to report on the following communication:

(November 12, 1998) from Councillor Frances Nunziata forwarding a communication dated November 9, 1998 from the York Manager, Traffic/Parking, to Mr. M. Marino, responding to a request to introduce morning and evening rush hour right turn prohibitions at the above locations and advising that this proposal would have a negative impact on the total community; that further studies have revealed that a high percentage of vehicular traffic exceeded the legal speed limit and as an interim measure would be requesting the Toronto Police to monitor this street; and suggesting that as a long term measure, that traffic calming measures be introduced on Bicknell Avenue between Eglinton Avenue West and Rogers Road, to improve safety in view of the two schools on Bicknell Avenue.

Respectfully submitted,

B. SAUNDERCOOK,

Chair

Toronto, November 12, 1998

(Report No. 14 of The York Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.)