TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on December 16 and 17, 1998
EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 19
1Maintenance of Fence Fronting63 Oak Park Avenue and on the Newmarket Avenue Flankage (East
Toronto)
2Application for a Provincial Certificate of Approval, Waste Disposal Site (Transfer/Processing)- 25 Esandar
Drive
3Fence Height Exemption Request at 47 Don Valley Drive
4Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the former Borough of East York submitted by
Goodwill for the store located at 3003 Danforth Avenue
5Traffic Concerns on Burley Avenue
6Request for the Relocation of a Bus Stop on Cosburn Avenue and Roosevelt Road
7Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the former Borough of East York submitted by Steel
Art Signs, for the Burger King located at 3003 Danforth Avenue
8Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the former Borough of East York submitted by Jones
Neon Displays for the IGA Garden Market located at 1015 Broadview Avenue
9Request for a Variance from Sign by-law No. 64-87 of the former Borough of East York submitted by Kwality
Signs Inc. for the Dominion Store Located at 3003 Danforth Avenue
10Water Bill for 172 Floyd Avenue
11Other Items Considered by the Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 19
OF THE EAST YORK COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its Special Meeting on December 8, 1998 and its meeting on December 9, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Michael Prue, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on December 16 and 17, 1998
1
Maintenance of Fence Fronting
63 Oak Park Avenue and on the
Newmarket Avenue Flankage (East Toronto)
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends adoption of the recommendation of the Toronto Community
Council as embodied in Clause No. 40 of Report No. 12 headed "Maintenance of Fence Fronting 63 Oak Park
Avenue and on the Newmarket Avenue Flankage (East Toronto)",wherein it is recommended that the report
(October 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, be adopted:
The East York Community Council submits the following communication (November 12, 1998) from the City
Clerk:
"At its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, the Council of the City of Toronto gave consideration to Clause No.
40 contained in Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Maintenance of Fence Fronting 63 Oak Park
Avenue and on the Newmarket Avenue Flankage (East Toronto)".
Council struck out and referred this Clause to the East York Community Council for further consideration, with a request
that area residents in the former Borough of East York be so notified."
(Clause No. 40 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled
"Maintenance of Fence Fronting 63 Oak Park Avenue and on the
Newmarket Avenue Flankage (East Toronto)")
Purpose:
To report on the homeowner's request to maintain a 1.3 m high chain link fence within the City street allowance which
exceeds the maximum height permitted under Municipal Code Chapter 313, Street and Sidewalks, of the former City of
Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the maintenance of the 1.3 m high chain link fence within the City street allowance, fronting 63
Oak Park Avenue and on the Newmarket Avenue flankage, subject to the owner entering into an encroachment agreement
with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Comments:
Ms. Vincenza Gilberto, owner of 63 Oak Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4C 4M2, submitted an application requesting
permission to maintain a 1.3 m high chain link fence within the City street allowance, fronting 63 Oak Park Avenue and on
the Newmarket Avenue flankage.
Site inspection has confirmed that there are other similar fence structures in the immediate vicinity and that this fence
would be consistent with the streetscape.
Details of this fence are retained on file with this department.
Conclusions:
As the fence does not impact negatively on the public right-of-way and is consistent with the general streetscape, it should
be permitted to remain.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
2
Application for a Provincial Certificate
of Approval, Waste Disposal Site
(Transfer/Processing)- 25 Esandar Drive
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director, Environmental Services, Works and Emergency
Services, be adopted, subject to adding the following recommendation No. 2(iv):
"2(iv) that the applicant provide a solid screen 8 to 10 feet in height and gates constructed of steel";
(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to make available, as soon as possible, to the
Leaside Business Park Association a copy of the proposed site plan;
(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to submit a report to the next meeting of
this Community Council on January 20, 1998 on the adequacy of the Bond; and
(4)the following communication (November 27, 1998) from Mr. P. B. Beatt, President, Winpak Technologies Inc.,
East York, and Secretary, Leaside Business Park Association, East York, be received:
Purpose:
This report is to the December 9, 1998 Community Council. It responds to a request by the Ministry of the Environment
for comments on the captioned application.
Financial Implications:
N/A
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
- the City advise the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) that the land at 25 Esander Drive is zoned correctly for the
proposed use as a waste disposal site (transfer/processing); and
- the City inform the MOE that is has not found any reason to object to the approval of the subject application provided
the following are included as conditions of approval:
i.provision for dust control, should the need arise;
ii.the prohibition against open storage of any kind as per the requirement of Section 8.3.3 of the East York District's
Zoning By-law No. 1916; and
iii.provision of a satisfactory waste screening protocol to prevent the entry onto the site of any waste containing food
and/or hazardous substances, and waste which could emit offensive odours.
Background:
The Ministry of the Environment had submitted to the Clerk an application by Delta Disposal systems Ltd. for a
Provisional Certificate of Approval for a Waste Disposal Site (Transfer/Processing) to be located at 25 Esander Drive, and
had requested comments by the Works and Emergency Services Department (attached).
Discussion:
According to the applicant (Bonfa to Carpentier, September 10, 1998) the intent is to relocate his operations from the
current site at the rear of 33 Laird Drive to 25 Esander Drive. The applicant is licenced by the Ministry of the Environment
(MOE) to collect and transport solid waste (Licence No. A840330), and possesses Certificate of Approval No. AG80128
for a waste disposal site (processing).
The following are contained in the Application and the accompanying documents:
- The waste to be handled is non-hazardous solid waste, i.e. construction and demolition waste with the occasional
household and office clean-up;
- The daily volume of incoming waste will range from 0 to 360 cubic metres;
- A maximum volume of 600 cubic metres of waste in containers could be stored temporarily in the yard area
(outside);
- The site will be swept continuously and cleaned of any residue left as a result of the waste separating process; and
- Operating hours are from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday.
The foregoing items, except c, are acceptable. Outside storage of any kind is prohibited under the East York District's
Zoning By-law No. 1916.
Issues of concern not contained in the submission, but need addressing are:
- dust control, if needed, because the waste may contain asbestos; and
- the potential entry of some hazardous waste, food waste and waste that could produce odours.
The applicant, Delta Disposal Systems Ltd. has been operating at 33 Laird Drive since 1985, and neither the MOE or the
District have received any complaints concerning its operations.
Conclusion:
It is concluded that Delta Disposal System Ltd. had been operating satisfactorily in East York for the past 13 years, and that
its relocation at 25 Esander Drive should not result in any negative impacts.
Contact Name:
Kim Choo-Ying, P.Eng., Environmental Engineer, East York Civic Centre
Tel. No.:(416) 778-2218
Fax. No.:(416) 466-9877
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (November 27, 1998) from Mr. P. B.
Beatt, President, Winpak Technologies Inc., East York, and Secretary, Leaside Business Park Association, East
York:
"As you are all to aware there have been several recycling companies who have established business in the Leaside
Business Park. Some of these companies came in, set up shop and left for various reasons. I do not want to dwell on the
past problems that we have all experienced with the fly by night recycling companies but would rather focus our collective
attentions on the future. The past is only good to force us to learn from our mistakes and to make us be somewhat cautious
when moving forward.
The LBPA fully understands that this area is zoned to allow recycling. The members support the need to recycle but:
Has anyone asked at what cost?
The Leaside Business Park is situated near the very center of this great city and yet we have difficulty keeping and
attracting new businesses and;
Has anyone asked the question why?
There are many sound, logical, business reasons for leaving or not locating in the area. There are also very valid reason
based on first impressions. The question we have to ask is:
Would you operate a business next to a recycling depot that could potentially become a dumpsite or even worse an
environmental disaster?
The LBPA believes that we should learn from the past and look to the future. The request that you consider our
recommendation to immediately stop any new recycling firms from entering the area until such time as a proper study is
completed that addresses the potential negative impact and estimated cost that recycling will have on this area. As the
elected representatives for this area and members of the Community Council I respectfully request on behalf of the LBPA
that we be given the opportunity to express our concerns on this matter at the Community Council meeting on December 9,
1998. As stated our recommendation will be that you seriously consider the following request:
To immediately put a stop on any new recycling firms entering the area until such time as the City can asses the potential
negative impact that allowing recycling to operate has on the future of this prime industrial park in the heart of the great
City of Toronto."
--------
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing:
-Mr. Paul Beatt, East York, representing the Leaside Business Park Association;
-Mr. Stanley Clapp, Solicitor on behalf of Delta Disposal, Toronto;
-Mr. Joseph Bonfa, President, Delta Disposal, Toronto;
-Mr. Leonard Linton, East York; and
-Mr. Paul Martin, East York.
3
Fence Height Exemption Request
at 47 Don Valley Drive
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the request for a fence height exemption at 47 Don Valley Drive, be approved;
(2)the appropriate By-law Amendment be forwarded to City Council;
(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto;
and
(4)the communication (November 4, 1998) from Ms. Tessie Leung, East York, be received:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to outline a fence height exemption request received from the owner of 47 Don Valley Drive.
Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The application has no financial implications or impact on the City. The applicant has submitted the non-refundable fee of
$200.00 for the exemption request to be heard, as required by the by-law.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be provided for information purposes and that, should the Community Council approve
the request, staff be instructed to bring forward the appropriate by-law amendments to City Council.
Background:
On October 19, 1998, a complaint was received by the Division indicating that a fence was being constructed in the front
yard of premises municipally known as 47 Don Valley Drive. A subsequent inspection revealed that a fence/screen had
been constructed in the front yard primarily on private property and partially on the municipal road allowance.
Applicable by-laws restrict the height of fences in front yards to a maximum of 0.9 metres (3 feet).
The fence in question consists of a length of approximately 9.14 metres (30 feet) of fence running along the east property
line. The height of the fence varies from 1.78 metres to 1.96 metres (5'10"-6' 5"). The fence is located 2.9 metres (9' 6")
back from the curb of the roadway. There is no public sidewalk abutting this property. The property is located in the middle
of the block of this dead-end portion of Don Valley Drive.
Comments:
The applicant's reasons for seeking the fence height exemption are detailed in her letter of application. It is understood that
the fence was erected in conjunction with the re-landscaping of the front yard area.
Staff have inspected the site and reviewed the application. Based on their observations, there are no apparent obstructions
of vision which might impede safety for the neighbour using the abutting driveway. As such, staff have no objections to the
request for exemption.
Conclusions:
A fence/screen which exceeds the permitted height for fences in front yards has been erected at 47 Don Valley Drive. Staff
have no objection to allowing the fence, as it is now constructed, to remain.
Contact Name:
Michael Vince, Manager of By-law Enforcement, Tel. No. 778-2220
The East York Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication
(November 4, 1998) from Ms. Tessie Leung, East York, requesting an exemption to the By-law.
--------
Ms. Tessie Leung, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
4
Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the
former Borough of East York submitted by Goodwill for the store
located at 3003 Danforth Avenue
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that:
(1)City Council approve the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a facial sign
for Goodwill with an overall height of 3.65 metres (12 feet) at 3003 Danforth Avenue, on the north wall of the
building facing Danforth Avenue;
(2)the appropriate Sign By-law Amendment be forwarded to City Council;
(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto;
and
(4)the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Manager, Field Office, East York, be
received:
Purpose:
The applicant proposes to install a facial sign with an overall height exceeding the height permitted by the Sign By-law of
the Community of East York. The sign is proposed to be installed on the north wall of the building, facing Danforth
Avenue.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council deny the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of a facial sign for Goodwill
with an overall height of 3.65 metres (12 feet) at 3003 Danforth Avenue, on the north wall of the building facing Danforth
Avenue;
(2)If Council wishes to permit the facial sign, to do so by way of a site specific Sign By-law amendment for 3003
Danforth Avenue; and
(3)The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act
also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-law where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would
maintain the general intent of the by-law.
Comments:
The Sign By-law allows signs for buildings in accordance with the zoning designation of the area where the buildings are
located and in accordance with the type of the occupancy of the buildings.
The Goodwill store is located in the Shoppers World Plaza in an area designated as Commercial zone. The Sign By-law for
the Community of East York allows, for commercial plazas or shopping centres, one facial sign for each occupant,
provided the sign does not exceed 1.2 metres (4 feet) in height.
The applicant is proposing to install a facial sign, the Goodwill logo, on the north wall of the building, facing Danforth
Avenue, with an overall height of 3.65 metres (12 feet ), which is 2.45 metres (8 feet) or 200 percent higher than what is
permitted by the by-law.
Conclusion:
Staff is of the opinion that the request for variance to install an oversized facial sign for Goodwill, at 3003 Danforth
Avenue, be denied. The overall height of the proposed sign is two times larger than what is permitted by the Sign By-law
and as such is beyond the parameters for minor variances from the Sign By-law requirements. If Council wishes to allow
the variance, it may do so by way of a Site Specific By-law amendment.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos
778-2239
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (October 1, 1998) from Ms. Connie
Stoynoff, Director of Sales and Salvage, Goodwill, Toronto:
"This letter represents a request for a Site Specific By-law Amendment to allow Goodwill to install the company sign at
3003 Danforth Shopper's World, East York. On behalf of Goodwill, I apologize for the ignorance demonstrated in our lack
of knowledge pertaining to the request for sign permit. We were under the impression that the Landlord would be applying
for the permit and that an amendment would follow. In response to your request, attached is a copy of the site plan,
building wall elevation, sign graphics and a cheque for $200.00 as requested. Please take note that the proposed sign is
actually three signs, two of which fall within the required specifications.
As you are aware, Goodwill is not for profit organization whose mission is to train people with employment barriers and
help to move them back into the workforce. Our training programs are funded largely by our retail stores, which depend
solely on the donations we receive from the public. Our stores not only serve as a retail environment but also as a donation
centre for those who wish to donate used clothing and furnishings. With the competition continuously riding on the coat
tails of the phrase "Goodwill," the use of our logo, which is recognized by the vast majority, plays an even more significant
role in our ability to identify ourselves. There are numerous for profit organizations coining themselves as Goodwell, Good
Will for the Good of the Community, Good Well for the Good in a Community and the list goes on. As you can see, it is
imperative that we be allowed to clearly identify ourselves within the community, not only to gain their support but also to
protect them and our organization.
We trust that you will amend the by-law and look forward to hearing from you. Should you have any other questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 416-362-4711 ext. 2267."
--------
Mr. Chris Thornton, Goodwill, Toronto, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing.
5
Traffic Concerns on Burley Avenue
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (November 30, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, District One, be
adopted; and
(2)the following communication (December 7, 1998) from Mr. Mark Karam, East York, be received:
Purpose:
To report to the December 9, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council regarding a petition received from
residents of Burley Avenue with respect to traffic concerns on Burley Avenue, between Westwood Avenue and Bater
Avenue.
Financial Implications:
The proposed work can be accommodated in the Current Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)a "Stop" sign be installed for westbound traffic on Floyd Avenue at Burley Avenue, and;
(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The Works and Emergency Services Department received a petition from the residents of Burley Avenue, between
Westwood Avenue and Bater Avenue, requesting the installation of a "Stop" sign at the corner of Floyd and Burley
Avenues and speed bumps on Burley Avenue to regulate a perceived speeding concern.
Comments:
Burley Avenue and Floyd Avenue are local residential streets that are regulated by the unsigned 50 km/h speed limit.
Burley Avenue is presently regulated by "Stop" control at its intersection with Bater Avenue to the north. There is currently
no right-of-way control at the T-intersection of Burley Avenue and Floyd Avenue. Appendix 'A' illustrates the study area.
Works and Emergency Services staff studied the feasibility of implementing all-way stop control at the intersection of
Burley Avenue and Floyd Avenue. Based on current traffic volumes, all-way stop control was only 19.6 percent warranted
at this location. Furthermore, there have been no reported collisions at this intersection for the period from July 1, 1997 to
July 31, 1998, that were susceptible to correction by all-way stop control. Therefore, all-way stop control is not warranted
at this location.
Staff also conducted a speed radar study at this location on a typical weekday during the morning peak and off-peak
periods to quantify the speeding concern of residents. During both periods, very low traffic volumes were observed. In both
the morning peak and off-peak periods, the 85th percentile speed (the speed at which 85 percent of traffic is travelling at or
below) was 44 km/h. Since Burley Avenue is regulated by the unposted 50 km/h speed limit, our study indicates that the
vast majority of motorists adhere to the speed limit. Therefore, no further action is recommended at this time.
Given the low traffic volume, historical collision statistics and speed limit compliance, our Department does not
recommend the introduction of any mitigating measures, including speed bumps, on Burley Avenue at this time.
Conclusion:
The intersection of Burley Avenue and Floyd Avenue is not warranted for all-way stop control. However, it is
recommended that a "Stop" sign be implemented on Floyd Avenue at Burley Avenue to indicate the right-of-way to
approaching motorists.
A speed radar study conducted by staff on a typical weekday on Burley Avenue during the morning peak and off-peak
periods revealed that the vast majority of motorists adhere to the 50 km/h speed limit. Therefore, no further action is
recommended at this time.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Bryan Muir, Transportation Technologist
778-2227
bmuir@borough.eastyork.on.ca
Attached to the foregoing was a petition in connection with the placement of stop sign on corner of Floyd Avenue and
Burley Avenue and speed bumps on Burley Avenue.
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (December 7, 1998) from Mr. Mark
Karam, East York:
"My wife Andrea Daly and myself reside at 4 Burley Avenue, Toronto. We understand that several of our neighbours put
forward a petition requesting the placement of a stop sign at the corner of Floyd and Burley Avenues as well as speed
bumps along Burley Avenue.
Although we are not parties to the petition, we support our neighbours with respect to the placement of a stop sign at the
corner of Floyd Avenue on the westbound approach to Burley Avenue. However, we would strongly oppose the placement
of any speed bumps on Burley Avenue. The placement of traffic calming devices, such as speed bumps, on through roads
in other areas of the City has proven to be an unmitigated disaster. They create more problems than the solve. In our case,
this would be especially true in the winter, when Burley is often let unplowed for prolonged periods and icy and snowy
conditions are allowed to build up.
Consequently, we support the November 30, 1998 report prepared by the Transportation Services Department.
All of which is respectfully submitted."
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Proposed "Stop" installation
6
Request for the Relocation of a Bus Stop on
Cosburn Avenue and Roosevelt Road
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One, be adopted;
and
(3)the following report (November 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District One, be
received.
Purpose:
To report to the East York Community Council on the history of requests to relocate the eastbound bus stop on Cosburn
Avenue at Roosevelt Road further east to a point in front of the Lawn Bowling Club.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications with respect to the recommendations of this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Background:
East York Community Council, at its November 12, 1998 meeting, deferred consideration of Item 12, Report No. 18 which
recommended the relocation of an existing bus stop on the south side of Cosburn Avenue, 23.4 metres west of Roosevelt
Road, to a point 30.5 metres east of Roosevelt Road, pending a further report on the history of requests for the relocation of
this bus stop.
Comments:
The issue of the relocation of the bus stop on the south side of Cosburn Avenue was the subject of reports to former
Borough of East York Council in 1986, 1987 and 1992. At that time, Council concurred with staff and Toronto Transit
Commission (T.T.C.) recommendations that the eastbound bus stop on Cosburn Avenue not be relocated further east. The
T.T.C. did not support its relocation at that time because it could have created a request for a new bus stop in the vicinity of
Bayfield Avenue or McKayfield Road, located to the west of the existing bus stop, which would also be in front of
residential homes. A copy of the 1992 Committee report is attached to this report.
In 1993, the School Crossing immediately east of Roosevelt Road was replaced with a pedestrian crossover (PXO). The
T.T.C. have indicated that, to maximize use of the pedestrian crossover, it would be preferable to relocate the bus stop to
the far side of the intersection. Furthermore, they indicate that bus stops are currently relocated to the far side of new PXO
installations throughout Toronto. The potential improvements in pedestrian use of the PXO override any concerns the
T.T.C. have with future requests for additional bus stops in this area.
Conclusions:
The relocation of the eastbound bus stop located on the south side of Cosburn Avenue, east of Roosevelt Road, was studied
a number of times between 1986 and 1992. Each time the Toronto Transit Commission recommended against its relocation
further east because they felt it would create new requests for a bus stop in the vicinity of Bayfield Avenue and McKayfield
Road which would be in front of residential homes. In response to a recent request for another review of the feasibility of
relocating the bus stop further east, the T.T.C., along with Transportation Services staff studied the feasibility of relocating
the bus stop to in front of the Lawn Bowling Club, approximately 30.5 metres east of Cosburn Avenue and on the far side
of the existing PXO. The T.T.C. state that bus stops located on the far side of PXO's improve the use of the PXO. They
indicate that the benefits of relocating the bus stop override any future potential requests for additional bus stops in the
area.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Peter Bartos, P.Eng.
Manager, Traffic Operations, District 1
Transportation Services
397-4486
The East York Community Council also submits the following report (November 30, 1998) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District One:
Purpose:
To report to the November 12, 1998, meeting of the East York Community Council on the proposed relocation of a bus
stop on Cosburn Avenue at Roosevelt Road.
Financial Implications:
The costs associated with the recommendations of this report can be accommodated within the 1998 Current Operating
Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Toronto Transit Commission be requested to relocate an existing bus stop on the south side of Cosburn Avenue,
23.4 metres west of Roosevelt Road, to a point 30.5 metres east of Roosevelt Road, and;
(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto."
Background:
Councillor Prue received a request from a local resident dated October 19, 1998, requesting that the Toronto Transit
Commission bus stop on the south side of Cosburn, west of Roosevelt Road be relocated closer to Roosevelt Road. The
resident was concerned that children accessing/egressing the bus at this stop cross the west leg of Cosburn Avenue instead
of proceeding to the pedestrian crossover at the east leg of Cosburn, causing a potential safety hazard. The resident feels
that if the bus stop is moved closer to the pedestrian crossover, school children will be more inclined to use it.
Comments:
The existing bus stop for eastbound Toronto Transit Commission buses is located 23.4 metres (76.7 feet) west of Roosevelt
Road. A pedestrian crossover is located 9.8 metres (32.1 feet) east of Roosevelt Road. Although it is possible to relocate
this bus stop 14.4 metres (47.2 feet) further east towards the intersection of Roosevelt Road, children may continue to cross
Cosburn Avenue on the west side of the intersection instead of proceeding across Roosevelt Road to the pedestrian
crossover first.
Staff conducted a site inspection at this location and recommend that the bus stop be relocated to a point 21.0 metres (68.9
feet) east of the pedestrian crossover. At this location, children would be accessing/egressing the bus on the same side of
the intersection as the pedestrian crossover, making usage of the pedestrian crossover more likely. Appendix 'A' illustrates
the existing and proposed bus stop locations.
The Toronto Transit Commission has been consulted with respect to relocating this bus stop. They are prepared to relocate
the bus stop to a point east of the pedestrian crossover. They also stated that a concrete pad will have to be installed at this
location prior to the relocation of the bus stop, since it is presently a grass boulevard. The costs of installing the concrete
pad can be accommodated in the current operating budget.
Conclusion:
A request was received by a local resident to relocate the eastbound Toronto Transit Commission bus stop on Cosburn
Avenue at Roosevelt Road closer to the intersection in an effort to have children cross Cosburn Avenue at the pedestrian
crossover on the east side of the intersection instead of the west side of the intersection. The resident is concerned that the
children crossing the street at an unprotected crossing constitutes a safety hazard.
Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated the concern and recommend that the bus stop be relocated to a
point 21.0 metres (68.9 feet) east of the pedestrian crossover. Since this location would be on the same side of the
intersection as the pedestrian crossover, children may be more inclined to use it. Toronto Transit Commission staff concur
with our recommendation, and advised that a concrete pad will have to be installed before the bus stop can be moved.
Costs to install this concrete pad can be accommodated in the current operating budget.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Bryan Muir, Transportation Technologist, 778-2227
bmuir@borough.eastyork.on.ca
--------
Mr. Andrew Payne, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
7
Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the former
Borough of East York submitted by Steel Art Signs, for the
Burger King located at 3003 Danforth Avenue
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends:
(1)approval of a variance from the former Borough of East York Sign By-law No. 64-87 to permit the installation
of the following:
(a)two (2) square signs, having sides of 0.9 metres (3'-0") identified as sign No. 2 on the wall elevation drawing;
(b)one (1) sign having an overall length of 4.57 metres (15'-0") and a height of 0.68 metres (2'-3"), identified as
sign No. 4 on the wall elevation drawing;
(c)one (1) second sign, over the entrance to the restaurant, having on overall length of 3.65 metres (12'-0") and a
height of 1.5 metres (5'-0"), identified as sign No. 5 on the wall elevation drawing;
(d)one (1) canopy, with no wording, over the pick-up window, having an overall length of 3.6 metres (12'-0") and
a height of 1.5 metres (5'-0"), identified as sign No. 7 on the wall elevation drawing;
(e)one (1) pre-menu board sign, having an overall height of 1.39 metres (4'-7") and an aggregate area of 0.63
square metres (6.78 square feet) identified as sign No. 8 on the site plan;
(f)one (1) menu board sign, having an overall height of 2.10 metres (6'-11") and an aggregate area of 2.38 square
metres (25.64 square feet), identified as sign No. 9 on the site plan; and
(g)three (3) directional signs: one (1) at the parking area nearest to the Burger King restaurant; one (1) at the
drive thru-entrance; and one (1) at the drive-thru exit, identified as sign No. 10 on the site plan;
(2)that the appropriate Sign By-law Amendment be forwarded to City Council; and
(3)that the appropriate City Official be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto:
Purpose:
The applicant proposes to install facial signs, projecting signs, menu board signs and directional signs, which are not in
compliance with the Sign By-law of the Community of East York. The proposed signs are for the new Burger King
restaurant on Danforth Avenue at Victoria Park Avenue.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council deny the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of five (5) facial signs, two (2)
projecting signs, two (2) menu board signs and four (4) directional signs, which are not permitted, or are in excess of what
is permitted in the Sign By-law, for Burger King at 3003 Danforth Avenue;
(2)If Council wishes to permit the proposed signs, to do so by way of adopting a Site Specific Sign By-law amendment
for Burger King restaurant at 3003 Danforth Avenue; and
(3)The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act
also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-law where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would
maintain the general intent of the by-law.
Comments:
The Sign By-law allows signs for buildings in accordance with the zoning designation of the area where the buildings are
located and in accordance with the type of the occupancy of the buildings.
The Burger King restaurant is located in the Shoppers World Plaza in an area designated as Commercial zone. The Sign
By-law for the Community of East York allows, for commercial plazas or shopping centres, the following signs:
1.One (1) facial sign for each occupant, except that a maximum of two (2) facial signs are allowed where a unit has more
than one facades exposed to and abutting a street or parking area in a front or side yard, provided the height of each facial
sign does not exceed 1.2 metres.
2.One (1) pylon or ground sign for the property located in the front or side yard.
3.One (1) non-illuminated facial sign for each occupant on the rear wall provided the sign does not exceed 0.3 square
metres.
4.Directional signs in parking areas and driveways provided that the signs are not closer than 0.46 metres to a street line,
does not exceed 2 metres in height and has a maximum total sign area of 0.3 square metres.
The applicant is proposing to install the following signs, which are not in compliance with the requirements of the Sign
By-law. The nature and extent of non-compliance is stated after each of the proposed signs.
- Facial Signs:
On the North Elevation, facing Danforth Avenue, in addition to a permitted facial sign, for which a permit was issued
October 22, 1998:
a)One (1) square sign, a Burger King logo, having sides of 0.9 metres (3'-0"), identified as sign # 1 on the attached wall
elevation drawing. This sign will increase the number of facial signs on the wall to more than one, which is not allowed, as
stated in Comments, item 1 above; and
b)four (4) square signs, of same size as the sign in item (a) above, arranged in two groups of two signs each, in a "V"
shape and identified as sign # 2 and sign # 3 on the attached wall elevation drawing. The signs will be installed on the
canopy of the building and will project about 0.76 metres (2'-6") from the face of the canopy.
This type of sign is not included as a permitted sign in the Sign By-law, as stated in Comments, items 1 to 4, above.
On the South Elevation (facing the parking lot):
- One (1) sign having an overall length of 4.57 metres (15'-0") and a height of 0.68 metres (2'-3"), identified as sign
# 4 on the attached wall elevation drawing. This type of sign is not included as a permitted sign in the Sign
By-law, as stated in Comments, item 1 and item 3 above; and
- one (1) second sign, over the entrance to the restaurant, having an overall length of 3.65 metres (12'-0") and a
height of 1.5 metres (5'-0"), identified as sign # 5 on the attached wall elevation drawing. This type of sign is not
included as a permitted sign in the Sign By-law, as stated in Comments, item 1 and item 3 above.
On the East Elevation, facing Victoria Park Avenue, in addition to a permitted facial sign, for which a permit was issued
October 22, 1998:
- One (1) square sign, a Burger King logo, having sides of 1.8 metres (6'-0"), identified as sign # 6 on the attached
wall elevation drawing. This sign will increase the number of facial signs on the wall to more than one, which is
not allowed, as stated in Comments, item 1 above; and
b)one (1) sign, over the pick-up window, having an overall length of 3.6 metres (12'-0") and a height of 1.5 metres
(5'-0"), identified as sign # 7 on the attached wall elevation drawing. This sign will increase the number of facial signs on
the wall to more than one, which is not allowed, as stated in Comments, item 1 above.
2.Other signs:
- One (1) pre-menu-board sign, having an overall height of 1.39 metres (4'-7") and an aggregate area of 0.63 square
metres ( 6.78 square feet), identified as sign # 8 on the attached site plan. This type of sign is not included as a
permitted sign in the Sign By-law, as stated in Comments, item 2 above;
b)one (1) menu board sign, having an overall height of 2.10 metres (6'-11") and an aggregate area of 2.38 square metres
(25.64 square feet), identified as sign # 9 on the attached site plan. This type of sign is not included as a permitted sign in
the Sign By-law, as stated in Comments, item 2 above; and
c)four(4) directional signs: One at the Victoria Park Avenue entrance to the parking lot; one at the parking area nearest to
the Burger King restaurant; one at the drive thru entrance; and one at drive thru exit, identified as sign # 10 on the attached
site plan. These signs have an overall height of 1.67 metres (5'-6") and an aggregate area of 0.84 square metres (9.0 square
feet). Directional signs are permitted in the Sign By-law, but these signs will have an aggregate area 1.8 times or 180%
larger than what is permitted in the Sign By-law, as stated in Comments, item 4 above.
Conclusion:
Staff is of the opinion that the request for variance to install the signs described above for Burger King restaurant at 3003
Danforth Avenue, be denied. The type and number of the signs are over and above of what is permitted by the Sign By-law
and are beyond the parameters for minor variances from the Sign By-law requirements. If Council wishes to allow these
variances, it may do so by way of a Site Specific Sign By-law amendment.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos
967-4482
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (November 10, 1998) from Mr. Ryan
Gaul, Steel Art Signs, Markham:
"The following letter, is a request for relief from the East York By-law, for the above location. The proposed signage does
not comply with your By-law. Here are a number reasons why our request for relief, should be supported.
According to your By-law, a commercial building, in this case a Burger King restaurant, is only allowed one fascia sign per
elevation that is facing a street. We are proposing more than one sign on elevations that face both Victoria Park and
Danforth Ave. This Burger King restaurant is located exactly at the intersection of Victoria Park and Danforth in the new
Shoppers World commercial plaza parking lot. We feel that the signs on the elevation that face the plaza's parking lot are
important because they are meant to catch the eye of the shoppers.
Another important reason why Burger King requests additional signage is because East York had refused them in having
there own pylon sign. As everyone knows a pylon sign is very important for people to see the business from a distance
away. People who are south on Victoria Park from the intersection cannot identify the restaurant if the signs on the
elevations that face the parking lot were not there. That is why we are proposing as well two V-shaped Burger King logos
on the Danforth elevation to help identify the restaurant for people who are west on Danforth Avenue from the intersection.
These V-shaped signs protrude slightly to make up for the disallowed pylon sign.
It is standard for a Burger King restaurant to have a drive-thru. A drive-thru area includes two directional signs (enter and
exit), a ore-menu board and the main menu board with speaker. The pre-menu board is as important as the main menu
board because it helps the customer decide what he or she would like to order before arriving at the main menu board with
speaker and this helps cutdown the traffic by keeping the cars moving.
We are proposing four 3'-0"x1'-6"x5'-6" high directional signage. These directional signs are a Burger King national
standard and wish not be revised. And as small as they are, the sign heads are over sized, according to East York's By-law.
It is quite important to have directional signage especially in this case, where the restaurant is located in a commercial
plaza parking lot and the traffic can be heavy at times.
Once again, I am requesting for your support to our proposals at your future council committee meeting. Please notify is we
need to provide delegatio. If you have any questions please ask and keep me informed of the progress.
--------
Mr. Jeff Weinman, Steel Art Signs, Markham, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the
foregoing.
8
Request for a Variance from Sign By-law No. 64-87 of the former
Borough of East York submitted by Jones Neon Displays for the
IGA Garden Market located at 1015 Broadview Avenue
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 27, 1998) from the
Manager, Field Office, Urban Planning and Development Services, East York:
Purpose:
The applicant proposes to install two facial signs with an overall height exceeding the height permitted by the Sign By-law
of the Community of East York. The signs are proposed to be installed on the north and south walls at the main entrance of
the building.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that Council approve the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of two
(2) facial signs for IGA Garden Market store with an overall height of 8 feet (2.4 metres) at 1015 Broadview Avenue, on
the north and south walls at the main entrance of the building.
Background:
The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act
also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-law where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would
maintain the general intent of the by-law.
Comments:
The Sign By-law allows signs for buildings in accordance with the zoning designation of the area where the buildings are
located and in accordance with the type of the occupancy of the buildings.
The IGA Garden Market store is located in an area designated as Commercial zone. The Sign By-law for the Community
of East York allows, for free standing commercial establishments , one facial sign for each face of wall abutting a street,
parking area or a permanent open space in a front or side yard, provided the signs do not exceed 1.2 metres (4 feet) in
height.
The applicant is proposing to install one (1) facial sign, on the west wall having an overall height of 2.0 metres (6'-8") and
one (1) facial sign on the south wall having an overall height of 1.8 metres (6'-0"). The height of both signs is in excess of
what is permitted by the Sign By-law.
Conclusion:
Staff is of the opinion that the request for variance to install facial signs for IGA Garden Market store, at 1015 Broadview
Avenue, with overall heights greater than what is permitted, be approved. The aggregate area of the proposed facial signs
in comparison to the sign area that could have been installed in compliance with the Sign By-law, is small. Council, in
addition, has granted similar variances in the past for the same property. Larger facial signs have been install without
creating any adverse effects on the neighbours and on the street scape in general.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos
397-4482
The East York Community Council also submitted the following communication (November 16, 1998) from Mr.
Dan Bovair, Sales Manager, Jones Neon Displays, Burlington:
"We have been advised by your building department that a variance to the sign by-law will be required for the new exterior
signs being proposed for the above said location.
According to your by-law a fascia sign cannot exceed 1.2 meters in height for a free standing commercial establishment.
The signs being proposed exceed this height restriction and therefore do not meet your by-law standards.
I would therefore request that a variance to your by-law be granted due to our inability to alter Agora Food Merchants new
national sign layout criteria for Garden Market IGA's. Please note that the signs that were previously erected at this
location also exceed your by-laws height restriction and permits were issued for same.
If you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me."
9
Request for a Variance from Sign by-law No. 64-87 of the former
Borough of East York submitted by Kwality Signs Inc. for the
Dominion Store Located at 3003 Danforth Avenue
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that:
(1)the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of three (3) oversized facial signs and
the installation of more than one facial sign on the same wall elevation, for the Dominion Store at 3003 Danforth
Avenue, be approved;
(2)City Council adopt a Site Specific Sign By-law Amendment for the Dominion Store at 3003 Danforth Avenue;
and
(3)the following report (November 30, 1998) from the Manager, Field Office, East York, be received:
Purpose:
The applicant proposes to install oversized facial signs, not in compliance with the Sign By-law of the Community of East
York. The proposed signs are for the new Dominion Store at Shoppers World Plaza, 3003 Danforth Avenue at Victoria
Park Avenue.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council deny the variance from the Sign By-law requirements to permit the installation of three (3) oversized facial
signs and the installation of more than one facial sign on the same wall elevation, for the Dominion Store at 3003 Danforth
Avenue;
(2)if Council wishes to permit the proposed signs, to do so by way of adopting a Site Specific Sign By-law amendment
for the Dominion Store at 3003 Danforth Avenue; and
(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
The Municipal Act authorizes Council to pass by-laws for prohibiting or regulating signs and advertising devices. The Act
also authorizes Council to grant minor variances from the by-law where such variances, in the opinion of Council, would
maintain the general intent of the by-law.
Comments:
The Sign By-law allows signs for buildings in accordance with the zoning designation of the area where the buildings are
located and in accordance with the type of the occupancy of the buildings.
The Dominion Store is located in the Shoppers World Plaza in an area designated as Commercial zone. The Sign By-law
for the Community of East York allows, for commercial plazas or shopping centres, the following signs:
1.One (1) facial or canopy sign for each occupant, except that where a unit has more than one facades exposed to and
abutting a street or parking area in a front or side yard, one (1) facial or canopy sign for each wall thus exposed may be
erected, to a maximum of two (2) signs per establishment, provided the height of each facial or canopy sign does not
exceed 1.2 metres.
2.Notwithstanding the above requirement, in a plaza which is separated from the street by a parking area, the height of
the facial or canopy signs may be a maximum of 1.5 metres.
The applicant is proposing to install the following signs, which are not in compliance with the requirements of the Sign
By-law. The nature and extent of non-compliance is stated after each of the proposed signs.
- Facial Sign # 1 on the North Elevation, facing Danforth Avenue:
This facial sign displays the Dominion Store Logo, has an overall height of 3.96 metres (13'-0" and an overall width of
3.65 metres (12'-0"). Below this sign there is another facial sign with a height of 0.81 metres (2'-8") and a length of 13.72
metres (45'-0") for other sub-tenants within the Dominion Store, such as Ultra Drug, Bank of Montreal, Western Union,
Spotless Dry Cleaning. The combined height of the two facial signs above is more than 4.87 metres (16'-0"), which is
greatly in excess of the height allowed by the Sign By-law.
- Facial Sign # 2 on the North Elevation, facing Danforth Avenue:
This facial sign displays the name "Dominion" and the name "Ultra Mart", has a height of 2.13 metres (7'-0") and a length
of 14.0 metres (46'-0"). This sign, Notwithstanding its size, increases the number of signs on the same wall elevation to
more than one, not allowed by the Sign By-law.
- Facial Sign # 3 on the East Elevation, facing Victoria Park Avenue:
This facial sign displays the name "Dominion" at the top of the sign and the names of other sub-tenants within the
Dominion Store at the bottom of the sign. The overall height of the above facial signs is more than 3.71 metres (12'-2"),
greatly in excess of the height allowed by the Sign By-law.
Conclusion:
Staff is of the opinion that the request for variance to install the signs described above for the Dominion Store at 3003
Danforth Avenue, be denied. The height and number of signs are over and above of what is permitted in the Sign By-law
and are beyond the parameters for minor variances from the Sign By-law requirements. If Council wishes to allow these
variances, it may do so by way of a Site Specific Sign By-law amendment.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Iraklis (Eric) Tsotsos, 967-4482
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (November 24, 1998) from Mr.
Javeid Akhtar, Kwality Signs Inc., Mississauga:
"We submit an application on behalf of our client The Great A & P Company of Canada for the installation of various
signs on the above premises. Our client is opening up a food store of 53,000 sq. ft. This store will also include some other
small businesses. This store will serve the community for 24 hours a day.
The other businesses are:
1.Western Union Money Transfer
2.Bank of Montreal
3. Ultra Drug
4.Spotless Dry Cleaners
The north elevation of the proposed freestanding building is facing Danforth Avenue and is set back about 1,500'. The
North elevation signs to have a total area of 563 sq. ft. which is only 113 sq. ft. per business. The allowable height is 1.2 m
and most of the signs are within these criteria with the exception of the Dominion Logo "D" and the sign for Ultra Drug.
The east elevation of building faces Victoria Park Avenue. The east elevation signs to have a total area of 329 sq. ft. which
is only 66 sq. ft per business. The allowable height is 1.2 m and most of the signs are within these criteria with the
exception of the Dominion "D".
We request the council to approve the amendment to the by-law, so that our client can have the proposed signs."
Mr. Douglas G. Stephen, The Great Atlantic and Pacific of Canada Limited, Toronto, appeared before the East York
Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
10
Water Bill for 172 Floyd Avenue
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The East York Community Council recommends that:
(1)a credit in the amount of $110.00 be made to the property owner of 172 Floyd Avenue having regard that no
reason can be found to explain why the water bill is so high; and further, that the Supervisor, Revenue Services,
East York Office, and the property owner be requested to monitor the meter readings for the next 12 months;
(2)the following report (December 7, 1998) from the Supervisor, Revenue Service, Regional Customer Service,
East York, be received; and
(3)the following communication (November 27, 1998) from Ms. Marie Weichel, East York be received:
Purpose:
To investigate the unusually high water consumption at the above property.
Financial Implications:
The average annual cost of water for the property at 172 Floyd Ave. is $185.00. The bill in question is $197.49 for a four
month period, or approximately $110.00 more than the average bill.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Background:
According to East York Water By-law 11-90, paragraph S(viii) "All water passing through the water meter will be charged
for, whether used or wasted. If a meter becomes out of order or fails to register, the consumer will be charged at the
average consumption as shown by the meter when in order."
Comments:
The normal water consumption at the property works out to an average of .49 cubic metres per day. During the period in
question the average consumption is 1.56 cubic metres per day, more than triple. The water usage at the property has been
very consistent up until the bill in question. Even the summer consumption is not substantially higher than the normal
water bills.
Conclusion:
The water inspector attended the property and found no leaks which would explain such a large variance in the water
consumption. At the time of this visit he obtained a meter reading which indicates that the average daily consumption is
back in line (.45 cubic metres per day). We know of no reason why the bill in question is so high. Normally the inspector
notices a toilet or tap leaking, however, none could be found at the time of the inspection.
We have in the past suggested that the meter be tested at a cost of $60.00 to the property owner which would be refunded if
the test came back stating that the meter was faulty. Should the test conclude that the meter was registering within
standards, the bill would stand and the property owner would be responsible for the $60.00. Since, in this case, the meter
readings appear to be back in line, I don't believe that testing the meter is necessary.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Jim Blair
397-4878
The East York Community Council also submits the following communication (November 27, 1998) from Ms.
Marie Weichel, East York:
"Can you help? I am having a problem with the attached water bill I received in the amount of $197.49. There is obviously
something wrong when you compare previous bills as noted below.
Sept.26/27 - Feb. 9/98$65.9064 - Consumption
Feb. 9/98 - May 29/98$59.8359 - Consumption
May 29/98 - Sept. 29/98$197.49192 - Consumption
In the 7-8 years I have owned this house I have always paid approx. $60.00 for water. I have spoken with Jim at East York
Water Dept. several times regarding this latest bill and we tried a couple of ways of checking for leaks, he also sent
someone from the Water Dept. to check the meter and leaks, but there are no leaks.
I have done nothing major inside nor outside the house nor have I had any water problems which could create this much
consumption. 192 units within a 4 month period is more water than I would use in a year. I believe Jim at the Water Dept.
knows I did not use all that water, but he says there is nothing he can do, because they have no way of explaining it to their
auditors, but Michael they have no way of explaining it to me either. I don't think they can just bill the consumer for three
times the normal consumption (which they can't explain) and tell me I have to pay it.
I would appreciate your assistance."
--------
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing:
-Ms. Marie Weichel, East York; and
-Mr. John Papadakis, East York.
11
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
(a)City of Toronto 1999-2003
Capital Works Program.
The East York Community Council reports having recommended to the Budget Committee that:
Library Services:
(1)given the seriousness of the problem at the Leaside Library, the age of the building, the tremendous use it
receives, the Budget Committee give due consideration to providing the additional funds required for the
renovations, even if the provision of such funds impacts on other recommended projects within this envelope;
Economic Development:
(2)funds be provided for streetscaping the Leaside Business Park Area and the O'Connor Drive Business Area;
(3)the Industrial Area Revitalization project be increased by $60,000.00 in each of the years 1999 through 2003
for the community of East York; and
Parks and Recreation:
(4)funds in the amount of $50,000.00 be allocated to repair the filtration system and maintain the Kiwanis Pool
located in the Stan Wadlow Park.
The East York Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having:
(1)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to submit a report to the Budget
Committee for its meeting to be held on December 11, 1998, on what additional funds are required to be included in the
1999 Capital Budget for the restoration of the machinery at the Don Valley Brickworks;
(2)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to submit the following reports to the
East York Community Council:
(a)on a plan to raise funds for the improvement of the Donlands Avenue Commercial Area and the O'Connor Drive
Commercial Area from St. Clair Avenue to Northridge Avenue, such report to include comment on the feasibility of
applying to the Federal Government for a Millennium Grant;
(b)with respect to the Goulding Estate, such report to:
(i)provide an estimate of funds required to bring the Estate back into the public realm;
(ii)comment on what the Goulding Estate could be used for;
(iii)a completion date for bringing the Estate back into the public realm;
(c)identifying what portion of the East District Pathway Lighting Upgrades scheduled for the year 2000 will be
apportioned to the East York Community Council;
(d)a cost benefit analysis be conducted immediately on the Maryland Parkette and tennis facility, in particular the
building, and to include in such report comment on: whether it is more appropriate to repair the structure or to build a new
facility; and to including funds for such project in the year 2000 Capital Budget; and
(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit a report to the Community Council
providing a list of the local roads in East York and the rating applied to those roads prior to amalgamation.
The Community Council also had before it the following reports:
-(November 9, 1998) from the Chief Administrative Officer respecting the 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program;
providing an overview of the capital budget process; summarizing the various issues and challenges currently faced by the
City; and recommending that the Community Councils provide the necessary input to the Budget Committee's capital
budget review meetings scheduled for December 11, 1998;
-(November 11, 1998) from the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer proposing a preliminary capital financing plan for
the 1999 - 2003 capital program;
-(undated) 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program Supplementary Information by Community Council;
-(November 19, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy, respecting Transportation Services
1999 Capital Works Program - Listing of Projects; and
-(undated) 1999 Capital Budget, East York - District 1, Works and Emergency Services Department, Water and
Wastewater Division.
Mr. Shekhar Prasad, Chief Administrative Officer's Office, gave an overhead presentation of the 1999-2003 Capital
Budget as it pertains to East York.
--------
Councillor Prue declared a potential interest in that portion of the Capital Works Program pertaining to Waterfront and
Valley Erosion Control in that his principle residence is situated in the subject area.
The following Members of the Budget Committee were present: Councillor Tom Jakobek, Chair; Councillor Bas
Balkissoon; and Councillor David Shiner.
--------
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing:
-Mr. John Carter, Chair, LACAC, East York;
-Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York; and
-Mr. Paul Beatt, Secretary, Leaside Business Park Association, East York.
(b)The Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils in the Context of the Council-Committee Structure.
The East York Community Council reports having received the following communication (November 6, 1998) from
the City Clerk:
(November 6, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding for information, Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 12 of the
Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team which was adopted, as amended, by City
Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998.
(c)Safety Concerns at 55 Eldon Avenue
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to provide a status report on the
safety concerns at the garage located at 55 Eldon Avenue to the next meeting of the East York Community Council
to be held on January 20, 1999; and
(2)received the deputation and communication (December 4, 1998) from Ms. Maureen Lindsay, East York:
(December 4, 1998) from Ms. Maureen Lindsay, East York, requesting assistance from the East York Community Council
with respect to safety concerns regarding the garage located at 55 Eldon Avenue.
--------
Ms. Maureen Lindsay, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
(d)Options for Ward Boundary Changes.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1)recommended to City Council, for consideration with Clause No. 1 of Report No. 14 of the Urban Environment
and Development Committee, that an additional public meeting be held in the community of East York to obtain
further public input on the division of this community into three (3) separate wards; and
(2)received the communication from Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York;
A request from Councillor Prue to the East York Community Council to provide further comments to the Urban
Environment and Development Committee with respect to Options for Ward Boundary Changes after receiving further
public consultation. (See recommendation No. 1(h) contained in Clause 1(a) of Report No. 17 of the East York
Community Council).
(Undated) from Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York, expressing concern in connection with the proposed Ward Boundary
Changes.
--------
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing:
-Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York;
-Mr. Justin Van Dette, East York;
-Mr. Gord Martineau, on behalf of the Executive for the Governor's Bridge Ratepayers Association, East York;
-Mr. John Papadakis, East York;
-Ms. Donna -Lynn McCallum, East York; and
-Ms. Maureen Lindsay, East York.
(e)New Garbage Receptacles - OMG Advertising.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1)advised the Works and Utilities Committee that it wishes to participate in such project and, further, it
recommends that a Request for Proposals (RFP) may be the best way for the City to proceed; and
(2) received the following communication (December 3, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, Ward 21:
(December 3, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero requesting the East York Community Council to provide comments to
the Works and Utilities Committee with respect to advertising on new garbage receptacles.
--------
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing:
-Mr. John Steidl, Manager, Operations Support; and
-Mr. John Papadakis, East York.
(f)By-law Relating to Six Wheeled Trucks.
The East York Community Council reports having received the oral deputation of Mr. Roger Hart, East York:
--------
Mr. Roger Hart, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
(g)Fence By-law Definition.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1)referred the matter of the fence at 1028 Greenwood Avenue to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services to be resolved to the satisfaction of Mr. Roger Hart, East York; and
(2)in the event that this matter cannot be resolved, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services be requested to report to the January 20, 1999 meeting of the East York Community Council:
--------
Mr. Roger Hart, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
(h)Disfunctional Parking Meters.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1)referred the comments from Mr. John Papadakis, East York, with respect to disfunctional parking meters to
the Police Services Board for their consideration; and
(2)received the oral deputation of Mr. John Papadakis, East York:
--------
Mr. John Papadakis, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
(i)Pape/Cosburn Community.
The East York Community Council reports having received the oral deputation of Mr. John Papadakis, East York:
--------
Mr. John Papadakis, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
(j)Former Borough of East York Wooden Crest/Coat of Arms.
The East York Community Council reports having:
(1)requested permission of the East York Foundation to mount the former Borough of East York wooden
crest/coat of arms in a prominent location in the East York Civic Service Centre; and
(2)received the oral deputation of Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York:
--------
Ms. Margaret Simpson, East York, appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
(k)Tree Lighting at the East York Civic Service Centre.
The East York Community Council reports having requested the City Clerk to extend its thanks and appreciation
to Mr. Bob Currie, former East York Hydro Commissioner, now Toronto Hydro Commissioner, for his efforts in
raising the necessary funds to obtain Christmas lights for the tree on the front lawn of the East York Civic Service
Centre:
Councillor Case Ootes brought the aforementioned matter to the attention of the East York Community Council.
(l)Installation of Traffic Control Signs at
O'Connor Drive at Northridge Avenue;
O'Connor Drive at Glenwood Crescent;
and O'Connor Drive at Four Oaks Gate.
(November 6, 1998) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, advising the East York Community Council that the
installation of traffic control signals at O'Connor Drive and Northridge Avenue; and O'Connor Drive and Four Oaks Gate
are not justified at this time and advising that the area of O'Connor Drive from Woodbine Avenue to Pape Avenue will be
tested as a Community Safety Zone.
(September 18, 1998) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, advising the East York Community Council of the
results of investigations regarding various safety-related issues on O'Connor Drive.
(June 6, 1997) from the Acting Manager, East Traffic Region, advising the East York Community Council of the results of
investigations regarding the installation of traffic control signals at O'Connor Drive and Northridge Avenue; and at
O'Connor Drive and Glenwood Crescent.
(December 8, 1998) from Mr. Raymond White and Mrs. Mary Floro-White, East York, opposing the installation of traffic
control signals at O'Connor Drive and Northridge Avenue.
The following persons appeared before the East York Community Council in connection with the foregoing:
-Mr. Paul Newton, East York;
-Ms. Sherry Aiken, East York;
-Mr. Christopher Stavrou, East York;
-Mr. Brian Barron, President, Ward 2 Property Owners Association of East York, East York;
-Mr. A. Baxevanidis, East York;
-Mr. Peter Krakus, East York;
-Mr. Dino Giardetti, East York;
-Mr. David Wright, East York;
-Mr. Allan Graham, East York;
-Mrs. May Achermann, East York;
-Mr. Gary Prentice, East York;
-Mr. Robert Lee, East York;
-Ms. Joyce Nelson, East York; and
-Mr. Anthony Labile, East York.
